RUTHFULLY YOURS

The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is only days away. What can we hope for? A revealing gaffe, a zinger that hits home, a flash of true spontaneity or a glimpse of the real character of the candidates—these seem to be the most anyone is hoping for, and more than we are likely to get.

Debates, at their very best, are the diamonds of democratic politics—crystal clear in argument, sparkling with wit, free from the discolorations of petty self-interest and shaped to focus light on the great issues of the day. But diamonds are rare, and no one is expecting a jewel on Monday night. The problem isn’t only that our candidates are lackluster, tempting as that explanation may be. Nor does the fault lie mainly in the quality of the questions or the skill of the moderator. The forum itself is flawed. How many ways are there to say, “Vote for me”? That line will always be more advertisement than argument.

The first televised presidential debate, starring John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, aired 56 years ago on Sept. 26, 1960. People who listened on the radio thought Nixon won, but those who watched on TV thought Kennedy won, and the election was so close that the TV factor might have made a difference. But should it have? Did viewers learn something from the grainy, flickering black and white images on their tiny TVs that was really relevant to the question of which policy or person was best for the country?

The Kennedy-Nixon debate garnered mixed reviews, including severe criticism from establishment figures. The journalist Edward R. Murrow called it “a puny contribution, capsuled, homogenized, perhaps dangerous in its future implication.” The historian Henry Steele Commager responded with an essay entitled, “Washington Would Have Lost a TV Debate.” “The present formula of TV debate,” he remarked, “is designed to corrupt the public judgment and, eventually, the whole political process. The American Presidency is too great an office to be subjected to the indignity of this technique.” Though the televised debates returned and eventually became a regular part of the campaign, it is hard to think of even one that stands out as a model of informed and informative discourse.

During most campaign cycles, someone will write an essay comparing the disappointing pettiness of modern debates to the great Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, a series of daylong exchanges in various towns around Illinois during the contest between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas for a Senate seat. (Lincoln lost.) Whereas in modern televised debates, a candidate often has just 90 seconds for an answer, those debates gave each speaker 90 minutes for a single response. Audiences stood all day in the late summer sun to listen to intricate arguments about matters of national importance, such as the extension of slavery into the western territories. Our attention spans on the couch at home don’t compare very well.

Hillary Clinton says she wants the votes of Republicans who are troubled by Donald Trump, but you wouldn’t know it from her continued left turns on the economy. On Thursday she decided that her proposal to raise the death tax to 45% from 40% isn’t enough and endorsed even higher levies that would apply to thousands of estates.

Though she defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary, she is adopting the socialist’s death-tax rate structure. She’d tax all estates over $10 million at 50%, apply a 55% rate on estates over $50 million, and go to 65% on assets above $500 million. The 65% rate would be the highest since 1981 and is another example of how she is repudiating the more moderate policies of her husband and the Democrats of the 1990s.

The left claims only the super-wealthy will pay high rates, but the Sanders plan that Mrs. Clinton is copying did not index exemption levels for inflation. One reason a bipartisan movement emerged to reform the death tax in the 1990s was because the then 55% rate engulfed ever more taxpayers over time. Mrs. Clinton would also end the “step-up in basis” on stock valuations for many filers, triggering big capital gains taxes for a much broader population.

She also knows most of her rich friends will set up foundations, as she and Bill Clinton have, to shelter most of their riches from the estate tax. As Americans have learned, these supposed charities can be terrific vehicles for employing political operatives while they wait for Chelsea to run for the Senate.

The author is absolutely right…..by naming the Saudis best American friend as vice president, Ronald Reagan paved the way for George Bush (1) and his buddy James Baker to destroy the real Reagan/Goldwater legacy…..even as they took spurious credit for “ending the cold war” as son Jeb stated…..rsk

Ronald Reagan’s worst mistake was named George H.W. Bush. Bush was the price that Reagan paid for the support of fake conservatives.

And the price ended up being his legacy.

Reagan had never felt good about naming Bush as his second, worrying about “turning the country over to him.” And he was right to worry. Once in office, Bush disavowed Reagan’s economic policies, which he had always hated, got deep into bed with the Saudis with disastrous results, and lost a winnable election to Bill Clinton. Reagan had handed Bush victory and Bush had brought Republicans utter defeat.

Bush was the ultimate political insider, with shaky popular appeal, but impeccable political connections. Loyal to party, rather than principles, he was trusted by the establishment in sensitive positions. His final task was to undermine the Reagan Revolution. It’s unsurprising to hear that he will vote for Hillary.

George H.W. Bush ran against Reagan as a left-leaning Republican. In Congress he had backed a plethora of destructive leftist programs. On his way to the White House, he was for abortion and the ERA and the FHA. Described by his wife as a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, he failed to live up to even that low bar in the White House.

Past party labels, George H.W. Bush has a great deal in common with Hillary Clinton. Both of them emphasize social welfare in domestic policy and Muslim appeasement in foreign policy. They both view the role of government as that of patron rather than representative. They see political leaders as wiser than the people they serve. They despise “religious fundamentalism” of the non-Islamic kind, hate Israel, cheer Planned Parenthood and want to fight as many wars for the Saudis as they can manage.

Bush is not unique in that regard. The latest Bush incarnation, Jeb, ran on that same noblesse oblige of an unwanted elite lecturing taxpayers on their obligations to the Democratic Party’s voter base. Bush I had no interest in what the people in his district thought of his social welfare votes at their expense. But this philanthropic contempt runs through much of the fake conservative class which incessantly lectures conservatives on the virtues of illegal immigration, freeing drug dealers and social welfare.