Will That Anti-Establishment Candidate Who Never Got to Run for President Rise Again?
With the Inauguration of Donald Trump creeping up on us, we'll soon find out exactly where the new President will focus his attention and whether that focus will spur the American economy - and eventually the markets - onward and upward, as is the hope of many. But let's not forget Bernie Sanders, the "anti-establishment" candidate who never got to run for President. He and his ilk may yet get a chance to impact markets and the economy. While Trump won on what might be described as an anti-establishment campaign, so did Sanders. We should remember too that both of these guys campaigned for nominations of parties whose leadership basically rejected them from the get-go. Trump, of course, succeeded, while Sanders did not.
Looking back, the election might have been rather interesting had Sanders faced Trump. Indeed, both candidates were considered "anti-establishment." Further, their positions centered on looking out for the interests of the little guy vs. the elites, or oligarchs. If they faced each other in the election it might have isolated the relevant economic issues more cleanly and isolated the competing proposed solutions to those issues: full-blooded socialism (Sanders) vs. "sort-of" free market capitalism (Trump). There would likely have been enough contrast to ferret out how those disenfranchised folks would choose if given a choice. Would they opt for socialism based on a belief that it provided some short-term relief, despite the eventual disaster that socialism would have brought to the table?
But back to Sanders: He appears to want to stay in the game for the time being:
As for Trump, he'll get his chance to demonstrate that more freedom - economic and otherwise - will serve "the people" better than the overweening Leviathan that has run our lives really without our consent in recent decades. If he succeeds in promoting policies that improve, or show prospects of improving, the lives of those who voted for him, the socialists won't disappear, but there won't be much reason to pay attention to them - unless, of course, you yourself are a doctrinaire socialist.
So far, Trump's appointments (e.g., Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, etc.) appear a mixed bag. Some praise a practical bent in the appointments; others wonder and worry that rather than "draining the swamp" as he put it during his campaign, his appointments assure more of the same crony capitalism that has thoroughly infected our society and our economy. The jury's out at this point.
As for the future direction of markets, we should hope that Trump's strategy springs from a businessman's practical judgments of who's the best person to get the job done, rather than caving in to the "establishment." Maybe an erstwhile crony capitalist or two slip in simply because they possess skills that will turn out economy around and free up that famous American entrepreneurial spirit that has served us rather well, compared to other parts of the world. If that's so, the new administration may pave the way for both the economy and the markets to settle into a more permanently positive direction - at least eventually. And that certainly does seem more desirable than the current trend of adoption of more and more socialism - Mr. Sanders bailiwick - a trend that has been in place for far too long.
Looking back, the election might have been rather interesting had Sanders faced Trump. Indeed, both candidates were considered "anti-establishment." Further, their positions centered on looking out for the interests of the little guy vs. the elites, or oligarchs. If they faced each other in the election it might have isolated the relevant economic issues more cleanly and isolated the competing proposed solutions to those issues: full-blooded socialism (Sanders) vs. "sort-of" free market capitalism (Trump). There would likely have been enough contrast to ferret out how those disenfranchised folks would choose if given a choice. Would they opt for socialism based on a belief that it provided some short-term relief, despite the eventual disaster that socialism would have brought to the table?
But back to Sanders: He appears to want to stay in the game for the time being:
“The real action to transform America won’t take place on Capitol Hill, it will be in the grassroots America among millions struggling economically and young people,” Sanders said.Maybe we'll get that choice between opposing views on how to create a more equatable and fair economic system, assuming either Bernie keeps his juices flowing, or others step up to take his leadership position.
“I initially understand my role to be to get those people into the political process to demand the U.S. congress and government and president, represent all of the people and not just those on top. I’m excited about it, but how we go about it I don’t know,” he added.
“Why is it that tens of millions of poor people, young people and working people don’t get involved in the political process? One of the goals is to bring people into politics and make them aware it’s not just Election Day, but the other 364 days of the year are also important.”
As for Trump, he'll get his chance to demonstrate that more freedom - economic and otherwise - will serve "the people" better than the overweening Leviathan that has run our lives really without our consent in recent decades. If he succeeds in promoting policies that improve, or show prospects of improving, the lives of those who voted for him, the socialists won't disappear, but there won't be much reason to pay attention to them - unless, of course, you yourself are a doctrinaire socialist.
So far, Trump's appointments (e.g., Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, etc.) appear a mixed bag. Some praise a practical bent in the appointments; others wonder and worry that rather than "draining the swamp" as he put it during his campaign, his appointments assure more of the same crony capitalism that has thoroughly infected our society and our economy. The jury's out at this point.
As for the future direction of markets, we should hope that Trump's strategy springs from a businessman's practical judgments of who's the best person to get the job done, rather than caving in to the "establishment." Maybe an erstwhile crony capitalist or two slip in simply because they possess skills that will turn out economy around and free up that famous American entrepreneurial spirit that has served us rather well, compared to other parts of the world. If that's so, the new administration may pave the way for both the economy and the markets to settle into a more permanently positive direction - at least eventually. And that certainly does seem more desirable than the current trend of adoption of more and more socialism - Mr. Sanders bailiwick - a trend that has been in place for far too long.
Comments