Needless to say, the mainstream press is going gaga over the presidential debate last night, mostly because sexual issues have entered the presidential race. Sex sells, which is no doubt why the CNN debate commentators decided to spend the first half-hour of the debate on sex-related issues, before finally delving into substantive issues.
Why have sexual issues become a defining point in the campaign? For the reason I have been pointing out from the beginning: When it comes to substantive issues, there isn’t any difference between Trump and Clinton and, for that matter, between Republicans and Democrats. They have the same mindsets. They have the same overall political and economic philosophy. They share a commitment to the same programs. They believe in the same welfare-warfare departments and agencies of the federal government.
What Clinton and Trump are fighting over is this: Which one of them will make a better manager of the America’s welfare-warfare state? Which one of them will distribute the welfare largess to their friends in the best, most efficient manner? Which one of them will drop more bombs and assassinate more people? Which will get to spend and borrow more taxpayer money? Which of them will be taxing and regulating for the benefit of their business cronies? Which of them will jail more people, especially as part of the wars on drugs or the war on immigrants, to which both of them are committed?
Since there’s isn’t any difference in principle between the candidates on the substantive issues, Clinton and her mainstream press supporters are relegated to saying, “Don’t vote for Trump because he abuses women” while Trump responds, “Don’t vote for Hillary because she enables her husband Bill to abuse women.”
Now, I’m sure that Clinton and Trump, their respective supporters, and the debate panelists honestly believe that there is a big difference between Clinton and Trump on the substantive issues. That’s just because they’re so mired in statism that they can’t see that the only differences between the candidates relate to reform, not substance.
Consider healthcare. Trump correctly points to the horrors that have come with Obamacare, with insurance companies fleeing the marketplace, leaving millions of people without medical insurance.
Trump’s solution: Abolish Obamacare.
And then what? Trump says he will come up with a plan where everyone has health insurance, only he doesn’t specify what the plan is or how it will work. He’s just sure he can do it.
Clinton acknowledges that Obamacare is a disaster but opposes repeal because that will eliminate the mandatory coverage that the law provides. So she wants Obamacare to remain.
And then what? Clinton says she’ll make it work, only she doesn’t specify how she’s going to do that. She’s just sure she can do it.
Notice something important: Despite their disagreement on Obamacare, both candidates — and most Republicans and Democrats — favor Medicare and Medicaid, which are the root cause of America’s healthcare crisis. Before Medicare and Medicaid, there was no healthcare crisis.
Even if Obamacare were to be abolished, there would still be a severe, ongoing healthcare crisis because Medicare and Medicaid would still be existence. That’s why Obamacare was enacted in the first place — because there was healthcare crisis, brought on by Medicare and Medicaid. That crisis would continue to exist on the day that Obamacare was abolished.
So, here you have Trump and Clinton saying, “Elect me because I have a plan to fix the healthcare crisis,” while, at the same time, they both exclaim, “Elect me and I’ll make certain to preserve Medicare and Medicaid.”
Those two candidates can debate until they are blue in the face but one thing is for certain: As long as Medicare and Medicaid remain in existence, there will be a severe healthcare crisis. Neither Trump nor Clinton will be able to do anything to fix it. That’s because socialism is inherently defective. Nobody can make it work.
Consider Iraq and the Middle East and the war on terrorism. Trump points out that Clinton supported the U.S. interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria and then says, “Elect me and I’ll protect you from the terrorists and Muslims by smashing ISIS with more bombs, missiles, and assassinations.”
Clinton says, “I acknowledge it was a mistake to support the U.S. war on Iraq. Elect me and I’ll keep you safe by continuing President Bush’s and President Obama’s killing, bombing, torture, and assassination campaign in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere.”
Notice the common denominator between these two presidential candidates and, for that matter, between Republicans and Democrats: continued interventionism, meddling, and interloping.
Notice something else important about statists, including those in the mainstream press: They can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that U.S. interventionism is the root cause of the anti-American terrorism. Instead, they use the threat of terrorism as the excuse to “keep us safe” through the national-security establishment, the branch of the federal government that is does intervening that produces the terrorism.
Notice that none of them — Clinton, Trump, and mainstream commentators alike — advocates the only real solution to all this: Simply bring the troops home and limit the Department of Defense to defending our country.
The entire presidential race, including the mainstream press’s analysis of it, has become an exercise in ridiculousness. That the election is now likely to turn on sex-related issues highlights and magnifies how ridiculous it really is.