Patterns

Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times or more is a pattern.

   Speculation is rampant as to why American voters turned out a Democrat administration and instead chose the Republican nominee this year. Media mavens are tearing their hair in frustration for having been so wrong in the prediction that Hillary Clinton had a 90 percent chance of winning the election and Donald Trump would be the ultimate loser.
   That turned out not to be so, and the stunned prognosticators are struggling to figure out why that happened.
   The answer could be as simple as this: After eight years, it's time to give the other side a chance.
   With one exception, that has been the pattern since the Roosevelt-Truman era when the Great Depression-World War II years gave way to peace and prosperity. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, elected in 1952, served two terms and was succeeded by Democrat John F. Kennedy in 1960. Three years into his term, JFK was assassinated, and Lyndon B. Johnson moved into the Oval Office. He was elected in his own right in 1964, but in 1968, Americans elected Richard M. Nixon, who was re-elected but resigned, to be replaced by Gerald R. Ford. After eight years of Republicans, voters selected Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976.
   Here is where the pattern is interrupted. Carter served just one four-year term, voters switched to Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980, and re-elected him in 1984. The Republican White House was extended to a third term as Vice President George H.W. Bush moved up to the presidency in 1988.
   After that, the pattern resumed. Democrat Bill Clinton served two terms, to be succeeded by Republican George W. Bush for two terms, when voters switched allegiance again, electing Democrat Barack Obama for two terms beginning in 2008.
   Now, eight years later, the pattern held, as Americans gave up on a Democrat and elected Republican Donald Trump.

   Can it really be that simple? Probably not. But add into that pattern another pattern of economic recovery and recession and one must ask whether there is a correlation of political control and prosperity, and whether that prosperity applies to the many or to the few.
   The Reagan-Bush years led to immense budget deficits and a ballooning national debt, both of which were reduced during the Clinton Administration. The economic cycle turned down again during the G.W. Bush years when the Great Recession hit.
   Then, during the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama, the economy recovered.
   Nevertheless, candidate Trump railed about economic disaster and job losses, which helped carry him to victory. Supporters are calling the victory a mandate, but while Trump won the electoral tally, he lagged in the popular vote.
   One wonders whether he still thinks the system is rigged. 
   In any case, with his own pattern of aversion to rules and regulations, coupled with traditional conservative Republican emphasis on minimal government involvement, Trump will likely work to reduce federal oversight of business and the economy and return to the trickle-down, supply-side economic theories prevalent during the Reagan years.
   If those two patterns hold, America may well face an economic downturn within a year of the Trump presidency. In addition, there is the likelihood that the Federal Reserve Board will kick up interest rates as it has been hoping to do for several months. That could happen as early as next month, even before Trump takes office. Result: Downward pressure on the national economy.

   Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has put President-elect Donald Trump on notice that if, when he gets to the White House, he tries to implement some of the campaign proposals he made, he will face the full opposition of the national rights group.