Tags: Trump Administration | Politics | Polarization | Financial Markets | donald trump

Politics of Polarization Threaten Financial Markets

Image: Politics of Polarization Threaten Financial Markets

(DPC)

By
Sunday, 22 Jan 2017 08:08 PM Current | Bio | Archive

The Democrats lost the election big-time.

For eight years they were led by one of the most popular presidents in modern times.

He leaves as his legacy the destruction of the Democratic Party.

The individual congressional Democrats who survived the stinging national defeat are not letting up on their dreadful strategy of the Politics of Polarization.

Sitting out the inauguration of the president is a significant political statement.

There are many aspects of this that are bewildering to me.

Congressman John Lewis, the consensus Icon of Civil Rights, earned his stripes facing down the violent forces of segregation. He was badly beaten along with so many other marchers for civil rights.

The forces of oppression were the segregationists in government who were all Southern Democrats. Even the Klu Klux Clan was Democrat.

So why is Congressman Lewis, and the rest of the Black Caucus, members of the Democratic Party?

As Democrats, what good have they done for African-Americans with their decades of being in political power?

African-Americans represent about 13% of the population with an increasing poverty rate requiring governmental financial support. But, it is vitally important to the success of the U.S. economy and the financial markets to have more people contributing to the economy and fewer depleting it.

To do this, governmental welfare policies in force since the 1960s must change to enable those in lower socio-economic groups to break the intergenerational cycle of pregnancy and poverty.

President Trump made it a cornerstone of his campaign promising to rebuild the inner cities and eliminate the ravages of crime so African-Americans, and others ensnared in poverty, can have the opportunities that have been unattainable up to now.

Does anyone question that the Black Caucus derives its power by controlling the vote of the poverty stricken inner cities?

It seems to me that the Democrats oppose President Trump since his appeal threatens their control over the voting base of marginalized minorities stuck in poverty.

Then again, I may be seeing this all wrong. There could be good reasons why Congressman Lewis and the others of the Black Caucus joined the political party that, so to speak, beat the crap out of them.

I am also bewildered by the feminist marching on Washington.

(Let me say here I am of the belief that a fetus until born viable is not a constitutional human being. Also, I think that there is a constitutional right to die.)

It is a good thing for people to let their government know that certain issues are hot buttons when it comes to voting. I’m all for peaceful protesting the government.

I don’t quite understand why the pro-choice movement marched on Washington, D.C. expecting the new president to do something which Bill Clinton and Barack Obama refused to do.

Why aren’t they marching on Sacramento or Albany?

The Supreme Court recognized the underlying constitutional right. It also has recognized that the states can put limitations on that right. Every state has some restriction on abortion.

Wouldn’t it be far more effective to march on the state legislatures and demand there be no limitation on abortion?

It sure would be a different political formulation if 500,000 voters showed up at the doorstep of the governor and legislator’s office.

But then again, this might be effective in guaranteeing the woman’s right to choose in any state.

When it comes to politics, for those states that are less responsive, then maybe the Super Bowl wouldn’t take place in that state.

What could be the consequences from that?

If abortion was taken out of the equation for electing the president, then economic and security issues would be at the top of the list for a vast number of additional voters.

I can see why the Democrats would hate that. If they didn’t have an abortion they would lose a lot of their voter and campaign contribution base.

The Politics of Polarization doesn’t work well if few issues divide people emotionally.

Clearly, the financial markets are reacting favorably to the possibility that the Politics of Unity as espoused by President Trump will prevail across America.

Denis Kleinfeld is known as a strategic tax and wealth protection lawyer, widely published author and creative teacher. 
 

© 2017 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Kleinfeld
The Democrats lost the election big-time. For eight years they were led by one of the most popular presidents in modern times.
Politics, Polarization, Financial Markets, donald trump
701
2017-08-22
Sunday, 22 Jan 2017 08:08 PM
Newsmax Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
MONEYNEWS.COM
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved