11-09-2017, 12:39 PM
(11-09-2017, 12:32 PM)Benton Wrote: The UniParty idea came up quite a bit prior to the GOP primaries, specifically with some folks saying Trump was the anti-Uniparty. I think that was one of the many things that helped carry him forward, even for those unfamiliar with the term. It fits into that mindset that political parties, the economy, life in general, it's all rigged by a few people with a lot of authority.
Personally, I think it's just another way of trying to redefine the problem of special interests. With both parties — and Trump — you've got a few people influencing policy making. Think of Big Pharma. They bribe candidates indiscriminately. Pfizer and the like don't care what party you are, as long as you'll take their money and vote in their favor by opposing negotiations, price controls, out-of-country buying, expanding generics, etc.
Trump isn't anti-UniParty. Very few candidates are. Obama was probably the closest we've come since Jimmy Carter, but I don't think it was intentional; he just wasn't as influenced because he didn't have the same ties to those people. The Bush and Clinton families are good examples of that, with each having long established ties to a number of special interests. And it showed in their administrations. Much more so than it would if the POTUS had been a middle class guy from Arizona.
Your confusing 2008 campaign obama with President obama. Once he got into power he got in line. All he really did was jack up 20% of our economy with Obamacare, give Iran a path to nukes, and defend Islamic terrorism.
Raegan was the closest thing to anti uniparty. Before that the last non uniparty was Calvin Coolidge. And we only got him by death.
