King Donald

  Evidence is building that the incoming president of the United States plans to expand his powers over government agencies so he can control all their actions.
   He has named his choices leaders of those agencies only those who are fully loyal to him, and not to the principles of the agencies they would lead. That includes loyalty to the traditions and principles of America.
   Rather, their loyalty should be to their leader, the incoming president, and not to American principles.
   All of this assumes that their nominations are approved by the U.S. Senate.
   But to bypass that dangerous assumption, the incoming president is encouraging the Senate to take a recess, so he can appoint his favorites directly, and without their input, much less their approval.
   Whether the senators take a hike -- even briefly -- remains to be seen.

Questions

    I dislike posing questions when writing about politics and current events. It's better to describe a situation and list potential solutions, leaving it up to readers to decide which is best.
   There comes a time, however, when asking questions is the primary, if not the only, way to list what could or should be done to improve the political and social life of a nation.
   Part of that list is to describe similar situations in other nations, and what happened there and then. And in doing so, the question comes up as to what to do here and now.
   In the United States of America currently, people are making comparisons to what happened in Germany in the 1930s, when the National Socialist Party (NAZI) came to power and acted on its list of what to do to return the nation to prosperity and power. At the time, many felt their proposed way was the best, if not the only, way to recover from the damage suffered from the First World War and the punishment inflicted on the nation by the victorious powers.
   Some say the worst of was the demand from the military winners that Germany pay for the damage inflicted on other nations. The reality that Germany itself did not have the economic ability to support itself, much less rebuild other nations, did not enter into the winners' planning.
   (At the time, the U.S. did not have the influence on other nations that it developed in later years.)
   The purpose of the "peace treaty" was to force the losers to pay for the damage inflicted on other nations.
   The reality that the losing nation suffered as much if not more than the winners did not enter into the thinking. Eventually, this resentment led to Germany abandoned its forced debt to the winning nations and used its own funds, few as they were, to rebuild itself.
   Within 20 years, this led to a Second World War.
   It turns out that America learned a lesson from this calamity, and did not force Japan to pay for the damage inflicted during the war. Result: The Japanese nation became friends.
   Sadly, the Chinese nation did not, but that's another story.
   Meanwhile, American conservatives have acquired the political power to insist that their way the best and only way to maintain prosperity, and compromise is out of the question. Therefore, the thinking goes, the nation must impose tariffs (import taxes) high enough to keep out products from other nations to ensure prosperity for us alone and only us.
   Reality check: Every time a nation in past years has done this, competing nations have retaliated by raising their own tariffs, this increasing customer costs on both sides.
   So who loses?
   There's that closing question again. Oh, well.

Lost Party

    The time will come when American Democrats find a way to reflect the views of many voters without modifying them to fit what they perceive is what they really mean.
   Maybe they mean just what they say.
   Then again, maybe not.
   Therein lies the problem. Perception is not always reality. And that applies to many voters' views of Trumpian politics.
   But to be safe and sure, it's important to remember that many voters feel they have to believe just what a politician says.
   The problem comes when politicians lie.
   What a concept. A politician who neglects to speak truth.
   It's also important to remember that many politicians are in league with each other and all plan to tell the same lie.
   When that happens, society has a problem.
   An even bigger problem is some groups of politicians believe what they say, even when it's clear to listeners that such comments or claims cannot possibly be true.
   Then it's impossible to persuade such true believers that what they claim cannot be true.
   An even bigger and more dangerous problem is that many voters believe whatever their political admirees say.
   Who's to know the difference and how do opponents express their disagreements without being labeled traitors? Or worse.

Danger Signs

    Opposition is building in Congress toward some of Donald Trump's choices for Cabinet posts. In turn, he is looking for ways to bypass Congressional approval for his choices.
   Meanwhile, his new partner, the exec with the most money of any individual in the world, is participating in contacts with other world leaders even though he has no official government position in the U.S.
   All told, the signals are that the incoming president wants a unitarian government, with everything controlled by the White House and his nominees.
   So much for a balanced three-part government.
   He has already named his favorites to SCOTUS, which he accomplished during his first term in office, and now he is filling Cabinet posts with his most obedient subordinates.
   Will Congress act to keep its Constitutional independence?

Right Shift

    The U.S. national government is taking a hard right turn, as the incoming president names his chief staffers who will take office with him as his term begins on Jan. 20, 2025.

   Oddly, some have very little experience in government, or their primary qualification is personal loyalty to their new boss. But that seems to be the crucial test for the incoming president's decision.

   Not experience, but loyalty.

   Therein lies the danger to America and its way of life. Not that you may do as you wish, but to do as you're told.

   The longer and greater danger is that when his new term expires in the coming four years, he will find some excuse to suspend the Constitution and continue his time in office, past the two-term limit, until and unless he alone decides to pass the Oval Office to one of his devoted colleagues.

   Or perhaps to a member of his family.

Future Calls

   Donald Trump will become the next president of the United States when the transfer happens come January. In addition, he will have support from the GOP dominated Senate and most likely the House of Representatives as well, although the latter has not yet been affirmed.
   So as the new year begins, America will have a federal government dominated by members of the Republican Party.
   What does that mean for the future of status of American citizenry? Forecasting is not on the agenda of this commentary column.
   But given the comments and preferences of the upcoming president, especially that of economic protection for American business, that can be a major problem.
   History tells us that boosting import taxes to protect U.S.-based firms quickly backfires as other nations do the same. Result: Higher prices for consumers.
   And as prices rise but income does not, there comes a problem that families in the middle and low income brackets cannot handle.
   The consequence can easily be similar to what happened nearly 100 years ago, which quickly led to the Great Depression and subsequently to World War II. Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Presidential Count

    TV networks are saying that if Donald Trump wins today, he will be the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.
   Not so.
   Grover Cleveland served as both the 22d and the 24th president (1885-89, 1893-97), having been elected in 1884 but defeated four years later by Benjamin Harrison, even though his popular vote was larger. (Source: The World Almanac, 2011 edition.)
   So winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote is not new. The key to taking a White House post is winning the electoral vote, which is a total of the number of House and Senate representatives from each state. That combined number totals 535.
   This is how George Walker Bush took the presidency in 2001, through a court challenge of a single state's vote so he could gather its electoral vote despite having lost the popular vote.
   That's also why Donald Trump put so much effort into persuading a single state to change its electoral count. The reality is that he lost the popular vote but succeeded isn manipulating the electoral vote in order to take offce. Four years later, he lost both counts. Nevertheless, he remains in denial that he lost re-election.
   So who will be the next president of the United States? We will not really know for several weeks, while the votes are being counted and gathered. And officially, we won't know until Congress accepts the vote of the electoral college in January.