Can you imagine having to stare at and listen to Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz on television for the next four years? I’m not sure where you stand politically, but there is a 100% chance that I won’t be voting for either of them in November.
I know that Ted Cruz has been endorsed by Steve King, but there is just something utterly slimy and untrustworthy about him. I’ve never liked the guy. I can’t get past his corny nasal voice, his phony religious shtick, or his constant grandstanding in the Senate. That was true years before Donald Trump came around. I’ve never considered voting for him simply because I can’t stand the thought of having to endure a Cruz presidency.
I feel the exact same way about Hillary Clinton. I personally don’t like the woman. I don’t trust her. I can’t stand listening to her canned, calculated, poll-tested, uninspiring speeches. Every time she opens her mouth it sounds like nails on a chalkboard. It is not even the content of her speeches or her policies that grates on me. Aside from Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton is probably the most inauthentic, ambitious politician in America.
That’s where I stand on Clinton and Cruz before even taking into consideration the fact that both are nothing more than puppets of Goldman Sachs. Robert Rubin, who spent 26 years at Goldman Sachs and led the deregulation of Wall Street, was Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. Hank Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, was George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary. Ted Cruz, whose wife works for Goldman Sachs, financed his Senate bid with Goldman Sachs loans he failed to disclose. Hillary Clinton has made millions giving uninspiring boilerplate speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Cruz wants to “make the sand glow in the dark” in Syria. Hillary’s most notable accomplishment as Secretary of State was wrecking Libya and destabilizing the Middle East. Both Cruz and Clinton stand for maintaining and asserting “America’s world leadership” and would preserve the US Empire with more foreign wars. Both Cruz and Clinton want to “take on” Putin over Russia’s intervention in Syria and Ukraine.
Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton have something else in common too: both have recently flip flopped on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Undoubtedly, this was due not to any real conviction or “principles” on the issue, but to the strong opposition that both expected to face in the primaries from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA and the WTO. Ted Cruz is married to a woman who endorses “Building a North American Community” through anschluss with Mexico. Less than a year ago, Cruz published a joint Op-Ed with Paul Ryan in the Wall Street Journal in which he called Trade Promotion Authority “a fair deal for the American worker.”
As a populist and nationalist, I am tired of always getting shafted by two parties who are united in support of open borders, free-trade, endless foreign wars, political correctness, and big donors who corrupt elections. I’m not going to pretend to be a “conservative” which is, fundamentally, someone who ideologically believes in the superiority of neo-liberal economics. Frankly, I cringe whenever I hear Ted Cruz talking about how he wants to resurrect the gold standard, abolish the IRS, raise the retirement age, etc.
As I have pointed out here in the past, the original Populists were for the income tax, immigration restriction, government regulation or ownership of the railroads, the eight hour day, infrastructure projects, busting the trusts, etc. They were opposed to the gold standard. They strongly believed that their government was in the pocket of the “Money Power.” Generally speaking, the Populists supported government intervention in the “free-market” economy in order to promote a broader distribution of wealth that would raise the standard of living of the impoverished farmer and laborer.
Aside from Donald Trump, the only candidate who is talking about some of these critical issues is Bernie Sanders, who attacks them from a different angle. Bernie, too, opposes the job destroying free-trade agreements which have hammered the White working class. He rails against the “billionaire class” which has corrupted our elections. He voted against the disastrous Iraq War. He also opposed unshackling Wall Street.
Quite honestly, the only other candidate who says anything that resonates with me is Bernie Sanders, especially on the issue of student loan debt. Last fall, I was deeply disappointed when Trump adopted that stupid tax plan which would have made Jack Kemp proud. In an ideal world, Trump would meet Sanders halfway on a number of these issues – taxes, education, healthcare – and win the general election.
Unfortunately, it might not come to that after tonight. Those of us who are supporting Trump might be faced with a choice. Do we support someone like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio in the general election? Do we return to our normal default of political indifference? Do we support Sanders if he wins the Democratic nomination? Personally, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in “conservative populism,” which is essentially the last twenty years of listening to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.
I think Sanders genuinely believes in his class based agenda and would be far less consumed by bizarre racial and gender-based identity politics than Obama or Clinton. At the same time, Sanders is unacceptable to a lot of Trump voters because of his toxic positions on a number of cultural issues, and vice versa. Instead of a “liberal populism” or a “conservative populism,” I wish Trump and Sanders would go “full populist” on those issues where both parties can find substantial common ground.
Make this election a referendum on populism vs. globalism. That’s how we win.