Donald Trump & Wexford Teddyboys

Anyone care to speculate on who might end up Democratic candidate in 2020?

That race seems not unlike the Aintree Grand National – it’s long and winding, with lots of steep fences and plenty of time for every participant to fall or self-destruct.

Bear in mind too that front-runner Joe Biden tossed in the towel in 1987 when caught lifting a few lines from British Labour leader, Neil Kinnock. 

Good man though he is, will Joltin’ Joe have the stamina to survive the intense primary season ahead, let alone withstand the mountain of sludge headed his way should he gain the nomination?

On the Left, Bernie and Elizabeth will ultimately have to duke it out, a shame since both are principled and have done much good for the country.

Beto and Mayor Pete will ultimately go mano a mano for the cute young white guy title, while either Kamala or Cory are likely to meet their Waterloo early on in South Carolina, or three days later on Super Tuesday when the field will be reduced to the few left standing with sufficient money and buzz.

Senator Harris in particular has much going for her with early primaries in South Carolina and her home state of California, and could be a formidable November foe for President Trump.

Still, my only prediction is for the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee. Should Senator Harris not make top of the ticket, either she, Senator Klobuchar, or Sherrod Brown of Ohio will get the nod.

Which leaves me still pondering something the Democrats have ignored these last two and half years – why was Hillary Clinton such an awful candidate back in 2016?

Water under the bridge, you might haughtily declare, or “we wuz robbed!” I beg to differ and until the party takes the time to figure this out they might as well be doing you know what into the wind.

You can be sure Donald Trump spends his tweetless hours ruminating on this. Because he knows he’d be currently living on Fifth Avenue if he’d been running in 2016 against Bernie Sanders who would have beaten him handily in the Rust Belt.

On paper Secretary Clinton looked invincible, she was eminently qualified, the first viable woman presidential candidate, she had a huge war chest, and yet it all came to naught over 77,744 votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

That she didn’t even campaign in Wisconsin is a black mark, but hey, we all make mistakes.

Many women of my acquaintance feel that misogyny was the issue, and I’m sure it played a significant part.

I used to feel it was because of over-familiarity with the Clintons and their fondness for big fee speeches, but Donald Trump has made a career of flashing his money around like a Wexford Teddyboy on a Saturday night booze-up.

Still, you have to hand it to the man from Fifth Avenue, for he persuaded the white working class to vote against their best interests. 

Sure, he made them false promises about returning well-paying factory jobs from overseas, and that he would provide first-class health care insurance at reasonable prices, and so on.

But his stunning victory may have more to do with the perception that he cared more for the regular person than Mrs. Clinton. Given his history and public persona that’s pretty astounding.

I thought he was dead in the water until late October when I began to hear back from wherever I inquired, “Yeah, Hillary has it sown up but everyone around here is voting Trump.”

I also experienced a “eureka” moment myself when a very smart union leader confided that while he and other officials were voting Hillary, the membership was all behind the Donald.

It’s a long way to Nov. 2020, and there’ll be many the slip twixt between the cup and lip, but if the economy stays strong, the market remains high, and the creek don’t rise, then it’s won’t matter if the Republicans haven’t a clue how to provide decent health care insurance, or return manufacturing jobs to the US.

Donald Trump, the king of compassion and guardian of the American working class, will romp home in a canter.

"Famine" Irish and Fundamental Decency

It was a tough life on the streets of New York for the “Famine Irish” who poured into the city from 1845 onwards. Few had any idea of urban living and many did not speak English.

Most had sold anything they had of value to pay for the fare over, while others were packed like beasts on to coffin ships by “sympathetic” landlords, eager to be rid of them in order to lessen the hated poor tax.

As long as their names were on the list of ship’s passengers presented to immigration officials - and in reasonable health - they were accepted into the United States. Indeed, immigration was almost unrestricted until the first federal laws regulating entry were passed in 1875.

The Famine Irish were despised for their Catholic religion, their perceived ignorance and lack of hygiene, and the widespread belief that they carried disease and would add to the growing crime rate.

In a boom and bust economy poor immigrant women were sometimes forced to resort to prostitution and broken men often found solace in shebeens where rotgut rum was cheap.

They lived in fear of uptown social reformers who considered them morally unfit to raise families.

Vagrancy was a crime and many poor Irish children were swept up and sent to foster homes in rural America where they were expected to change their religion and labor from dawn to dusk for their meager keep. 

Some escaped and made their way back to New York, while many just simply vanished into the vastness of America.

I can’t help but think that there are similarities and parallels with the migrant children separated from their asylum-seeking parents on our southern border.

Amazingly, no one knows for certain but it’s estimated that between 1500 and 5000 migrant children recently taken from their families by government agencies are now unaccounted for. It is feared that some children may never be reunited with their parents.

Most of these asylum seekers are fleeing repressive regimes and gang violence in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Are they really that different from the million or more Irish who fled oppression and official negligence during the Great Hunger? They too sought – and gained - a new life in the United States?

Even with his bellicose pronouncements and policies, the problem predates Mr. Trump’s presidency.

 For many years there’s been a general unwillingness to come up with a sane system for immigration into the US.

This has as much to do with xenophobia, prejudice, and racism as good old economic suicide.

For with an aging population the country needs immigrant workers of all abilities and education levels, if nothing else to bolster the Social Security Fund.  Not surprisingly, there’s a particular need for those who will take unwanted jobs in the low paying agricultural and hospitality sectors.

No matter what “base” you’re playing to, Mr. President, the country is not “full”. Take a look around the decaying rust belt cities and the dying small towns in the rural heartland.

All of these areas could do with an infusion of new immigrants who would eventually add to the local tax base.

When the Famine Irish arrived they worked at anything to get their start; they were also willing to live in any part of the country, even when unwelcome. So too would these new refugees and asylum seekers. 

It’s high time Democrats and Republicans came together and devised an immigration policy that suits the country’s current needs – rather than looking back nostalgically at an America that never was.

In the meantime, the missing migrant children are a blight on our country’s good name. As Sen. Portman (R-OH) said, "I don't care what you think about immigration policy, this is wrong.”

For President Trump to suggest that the policy of separating children from their  asylum-seeking parents may be reinstated makes you wonder what type of country we have become.

Perhaps it’s time to ask the question once put to Senator Joseph McCarthy by Joseph Welch, chief counsel to the US Army – “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

We’re not a country that “loses” children, migrant or otherwise. It’s not just a matter of law - it’s one of fundamental decency.