Political Influence:  The Dirty Hippies Versus the Reagan Democrats

 

Did the Dirty Hippies of the 1970’s extend their political “influence” into today’s “taxic” environment, and yes,  I suggest “taxic” for the Super Wealthy’s determination to achieve a non-existing tax structure beneficial just to themselves. Or did the Reagan Democrats outlast the Dirty Hippies when its came to the requisite “influence” necessary to achieve the ‘demands’ from the Super Wealthy by way of any tax structure truly beneficial to this over-arching Community of the Super Wealthy?

Of course, I am of the opinion that the Reagan Democrats were far more effective political players when the votes were counted.  And I’ve come to this view by way of the national debt.  Take, for example, Carter’s national debt was less than $400 billion, and when Obama leaves the Oval Office, our national debt will exceed $27 trillion.  Consequently, my view is the following:

  1. Reagan was a conservative.
  2. Bush was a conservative.
  3. Clintonwas a conservative.
  4. Bush was a conservative.
  5. Obama was a conservative.

Moreover, the “challenge” currently before me, will be found in how I address white America and more precisely, the Reagan Democrats for their continued support of the AUMF, with Dempsey’s letter relative to Syria and for Syria being the latest incarnation.  Consequently, how do I craft the requisite political activism necessary to rescind the AUMF, either prior to the Mid-Term Elections or prior to the next Presidential Cycle?

 

And now, are there any “suggestions” as how to “craft’ an erstwhile political coalition that achieves this success?

 Jaango