Conservative Evangelic Religious resurgence in American Presidential Campaign: What Reverend Huckabee 2016 launching bid means?

Keywords or terms: Reverend Huckabee; Jerry Farwell; City of Hope, Arkansas; Evangelical Religious Conservatives; Presidential Campaign;  Republican Party; Extremism; Religious Right; Stumbling blocks; Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender - LGBT; Caitlyn Jenner; Neo-Conservative Religious Groups; and, Alienating Voters.

Seldom in recent presidential campaigns has the attention of the public been drawn to the impact of Evangelical Religious Conservatives on American politics; or precisely, on the possible flag-bearer for a major political party? Not since the 1984 Jerry Farwell’s, founder of Liberty University, an Evangelical Southern Baptist televangelist conservative commentator, who vehemently denounced LGBT lifestyle, castigating it as a way to an apocalypse. Jerry Farwell, like Reverend Huckabee, hold very contrarian view of LGBT lifestyle to the extent that you come to believe it was and is, personal for both. How Reverend Jerry Farwell or Mike Huckabee would react to our new Ms. Caitlyn Jenner; or, is there no place for transgender in our present or future America? You come to realize rather quickly, that Reverend Huckabee’s candidacy for the 2016 White House race, launched about three weeks ago, is symptomatic of the 2004’s Farwell Moral Majority Coalition denouncement of anything that has to do with alternative lifestyles.

With the former Governor of Arkansas appealing in the “name of your children and grandchildren” for campaign contributions, the 44^th Governor of Arkansas anchored his bid for 2016 White House, on the need to break the cycle of poverty and fight the rise of alternative lifestyles. Saying: “America will never break the cycle of poverty by pushing people to their minimum wage, but by empowering them to reach their maximum wage.”  His declarations at the launching of his campaign, like his religious convictions, are closely reminiscent of a Social Cultural War. Interestingly, the campaign and launching were coming out of the City of Hope, same City where good old President Billy Clinton came out. Governor Huckabee’s pronouncements in his home state, put forefront, once again, evangelical religious conservative ethos, one that many Americans far from that culture or religion, very well feel is limiting or wholesomely unwelcoming. Could Governor Mike Huckabee pull this one off, this second time around?

Just as Jerry Farwell was the leading force behind the political rise of religious right in early 1980’s and 2004, FOX-TV News host Mike Huckabee and supporter of the Common Core Education Standard or curriculum, entered the 2016 Presidential Campaign race with the following denouncements: 1) any pressure from America on the State of Israel to cease building bedrooms for their families in Judea and Samaria, than Iranian’s pursuit of the nuclear bomb; 2) “unbalanced” trade deals that could shrink job prospects and the middle-class; 3) any attempt to erode Social Security and Medicare Benefits; 4) abandonment of Biblical principle of natural marriage; and, 5) dynasty presidency,  where it seems one family or couple rotate the presidency among or between themselves. Any of these denouncements could have stood in for whatever Reverend Jerry Farwell stood for - literary interpretations of the words of the Bible. Reverend Huckabee religious conservatism upset or shook up the array of 2008 Republican candidates seeking the White House oval office, just as the coming out of Caitlyn Jenner shook the Internet and News media yesterday; however, the question this time around is: Can Huckabee burnish a political legendary of a time past?

Like Jerry Farwell, Mike Huckabee is against abortion, evolution, alternative lifestyle, LGBT. However, unlike Farwell, the persona of Huckabee is hardly radiating of hatred and outright degradation of other people who are not Christians. The visceral hatred from conservative evangelists to any outsiders to their religion and culture, make us want to delve further on some of Reverend Huckabee’s messages at his launching; and, explore the subject of the separation of state and religion, once again. Further, with recent week’s gang violence, many of whom wore Christian Crosses and Emblems, and the outing of some neo-conservative groups regarding attacks on Islamic mosques, the question of separation of state and religion, is once again as important as it was for our forefathers. Can America survive if relevant religious groups and our persons continue to interject their beliefs into governance? Can America stay true to the provisions of her constitution if party stalwarts, power brokers and candidates seeking the highest office in the land, espouse beliefs and convictions, which relegate many to the outsider status?

Since it is unlikely that an American Presidential candidate - as history has shown, can amass enough votes in a general election to win the grand-prize of American politics, if s/he makes religion the central piece of her/his campaign message, it is a one-dimensional risk that may ground the purpose of any campaign. Nonetheless, this is exactly what it seems Reverend Mike Huckabee has done? The candidacy of FOX News host interjects issues considered as rather too divisive or controversial to a Presidential Campaign that is already very much confusing. The venerable Reverend and former governor of the state of Arkansas committed this political sin at his Hope City Presidential Campaign launching; and, only time will tell, if he would be able to get away with it on his ride to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For general debate sake, since the governor’s complete commitment to his religious and cultural ethics has not diminished his success in past executive position(s), why should he expect his very outlandish declaration for the 2016 Presidential Campaign bid, to handicap him as his party’s flag bearer, or deny him the ultimate prize of the 2016 contest? In fact, going by his personal declaration that his experience as a minister has afforded him special insights to executing executive functions, why must anyone feel or think contrarily that this same experience and current campaign message will not only win Huckabee the White House; but also, make America a more civil and religious society, where the faith and conviction of her seating President, transform the whole issues of poverty, income inequality, trade deficits, police brutality, and social injustices? How can the experience of a Governor who once commuted twice as many prisoners sentenced than three of his predecessor executives in Little rock, Arkansas, fail to accomplish and resolve all the mistrusts and suspicions of the judicial system, the negotiations for peace between Arabs and Jews, the declining productivity of the Euro-zone, the Canadian Oil Pipeline Project, and unresolved national immigration issues?

Governor Mike Huckabee, once wrote:  “My experience dealing every day with real people who were genuinely affected by policies created by government gave me a deep understanding of the fragility of the human spirit and vulnerability of so many families who struggled from week to week. I was in the ICU at 2 a.m. with families faced with the decision to disconnect a respirator on their loved one; I counseled fifteen-year-old pregnant girls who were afraid to tell their parents about their condition; I spent hours hearing the grief of women who had been physically and emotionally clobbered by an abusive husband; I saw the anguish in the faces of an elderly couple when their declining health forced them to sell their home, give up their independence, and move into a long-term-care facility; I listened to countless young couples pour out their souls as they struggled to get their marriages into survival mode when confronted with overextended debt.” This declaration appears so messianic, some gullible supporters of the venerable Reverend’s candidacy, May very well wonder, why other people do not see in him, what they have. The choice of conviction and declarations of some leaders are so encapsulating that a few people who are carried away by the lure or charisma of these leaders, may just fail to objectively understand a different universe, from where they exist. How about Ms. Caitlyn Jenny’s 9:17 AM – 1 June 2015 Twit: [I’m so happy after such a long struggle to be living my true self. Welcome to the world Caitlyn. Can't wait for you to get to know her/me?

Neon- conservative religious values have a place for some people; however, how about others who hardly cares? How about those who maintain that, whether you are atheist, Catholic or Protestant, LGBT, Feminist, Muslim, Jewish or any other religious denomination, you should be welcomed at the table of American Democracy? Some rather pertinent questions from the so-classified outsiders to neo conservative religious groups are: 1) is the 2016 Presidential aspirant, Mike Huckabee, going to force his neon-conservative religious, ethical and social values on all Americans? 2) Can non-religious or ethicist, stand a chance in the meting out of justice under and Huckabee Administration? 3) Will LGBT communities be protected under an avowed antagonist of their lifestyle? 4) Will evangelical religious conservatives prompt decisive geopolitical upheaval across the nation? 5) Given the fact that foreign policies cannot be operated on the basis of religious beliefs and convictions, what alternative strategies will be followed in an era of global religious anarchy and cultural chaos? These are issues that must be resolved by American voters, who may be considering voting for, or contributing to the campaigns of the Reverend Christian Brother from Hope, Arkansas.

Back to Separation of State and Religion. Our constitution mandates the separation of state and religion; the need for a secular state, asking that the social roles of the Church or any other place of religious worship, be distinctly separate, including funding and use of state funds. This definite distinctions, categorized by different groups and sometime nations as secularism, religious liberty or pluralism, is so much part of the foundation of modern day American Democracy, as the apple pie. But many neon-conservative religious groups and aspiring political candidates, national, state and local, are simply incapable of accepting this very distinction. This has important implication for a Presidential Candidacy, or any political office candidacies, built on religious and social conservative values.

Given the fact that a Presidency or its party membership cannot discriminate against a set of people on the basis of their religious affiliation or conviction, and some will like to take it as far as their sexuality, it is very challenging to see a situation where consensus can be built on the narrow interpretation of religion in the lives of all Americans. Further, given the fact that it may be rather difficult to harness enough fellowship or voters, when your presidential campaign message(s) is built on evangelical religious and conservative ethos, it follows that the only alternatives to a campaign like Reverend Mike Huckabee’s, are to depend only on the goodwill of the number of people or voters that share same premises. This could have an adverse impact on the campaign primary results in many states of the union, especially in many religious liberal states as well as conservative ones.  For those voters who are tuned to Governor Mike Huckabee’s political campaign messages on neon-conservative religious values, his oratory are God sent. For those in other religions, Jews and Gentiles, the message(s) could be as infuriating as an infringement on constitutionally protected rights.

These considerations, in turn, underline the relative reservation of many political candidates to build their campaign for a political office on the narrow definition of the place of religion in the lives of their constituencies. The narrowness of defining one’s presidential campaign message on an issue or issues that are collectively or disparately divisive is as risky as playing a lotto or bingo at my friend’s neighborhood casino. The disproportionate possibility of losing your chances are greater when your campaign message(s) points finger in the eyes of some indecisive voters, those whose goodwill, you are actively courting or seeking to win the ultimate prize.  In effect, the fact that Governor Huckabee has built his campaign on the narrow message of evangelical conservative religious values, puts his candidacy at a disadvantage or risk.

Admittedly, that also implies that he stands greatly to win a windfall from many voters who share his conviction and places their religious values, over and above, party affiliation and or national identity. American voters are independent thinkers and are able to make good choices in their own interest. It is gradually becoming evident than in years to come, the United States will become a more diverse, religious, ethnic, gender, and or sexual orientation society. For the contest of a high profile office as that of US Presidency,  aspirants would more or less, have to build a bigger tent, one as inclusive as including the preferences and choices of Ms. Caitlyn Jenner and more; my apologies to the Republican National Conference. The effective result of that accommodation, is the odd of having a better chance at winning the political trophy. The analogy that comes to mind is not that a candidate must not seek to differentiate his campaign messages, but rather, that those messages cannot be as alienating, as to prevent voters from considering their candidacy or creating revolts that could directly or indirectly, undermine the candidacy. Candidate must never forget, the goal is to win general election into the elected office, not make enemies along the way! 

Minority Republicans, Carlo Fiorina and Ben Carson, declaring candidacy for 2016 White House Race: where did the Republican majority failed to communicate the Mundane?

Keywords or terms: Carol Fiorina; Ben Carson;  Minority Republicans; State of Texas; Paranoia; Presidential Campaign;  Republican Party; Extremism; Racism and narrowed vision of the extreme right; White Anglo-Saxon Male Privileges and the Republican Party; National American Free Trade Agreement; Immigration Reform and Control Act; Stumbling blocks; and American Political Development

The instrument of collective authority and accountability are often essential to a thriving democracy. If residents of the State of Texas believe that routine military exercise and training are precursors to declaration of martial laws and takeover of the State of Texas by the Federal Government, then we need to redefine collective authority and accountability in the context of our democracy to all Americans, no matter where they reside in the union. Further, if the narrow vision of the extreme right have exposed more Americans to doubt the authenticity and purpose of routine military administrative actions or permeated to a consciousness level or psyche of paranoia in the State of Texas, it is time to revisit definition of powers at the federal, state and local government as they relate to governance in our democracy.  In addition, if the governor of the State of Texas is unable to shed more light on what the military communicated with his office regarding the on-going military exercise, then the misrepresentation of the ongoing exercise by anyone, for whatever reasons, must be a thing of concern for all Americans.

Could the current Republican propaganda on multiple far-right media outlet or platforms, be it on FOXNEWS or other far-right radio outlets, degenerating to intractable ignorance in the Texan populace; or, a case of misguided misinformation floating around the state as gospel truth? Could the structure of governance in Texas Assembly be meeting new challenges, including unfounded rumors mongering designed to cause disarray and misdirection during a time of relative peace in America? Is there an effort to weaken the credibility of the federal government, just because of unfounded grievances against the current occupant of the White House and President of the United States by a few anarchist or American Taliban?  Could Texas Governor Greg Abbot activation of Texas State Guard to monitor US Military exercise and Senator Cruz’s quick missive to Pentagon be construed as the height of ridiculousness or unconsciousness? These are rather pertinent questions that must be explored; however, for more juicy stuff, I’ll like you to reflect on the announcement this week, that two minority Republicans, minority in the context that their sexuality and race is inimical to their self-identified political association or ambition; they are Republicans. Who? What?

Yes, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Neurosurgeon Ben Carson, declared their candidacies for the 2016 White House race early this week. The first on ABC Good Morning show and the latter, on a local Ohio Television Station, WKRC-TV. The declarations of both candidates and their chances of ever being the Republican party flag bearer, is as remote as Texas succeeding from the Union and the Pope getting wedded to a beautiful convent nun, independently or simultaneously. Not that both events could not occur; however, the chances of either taking place is as remote as being stricken by a lightning thunder on an early frigid winter morning. You see, these two candidates are talking and campaigning to a base that, by choice, have already ruled minorities or females as incapable of holding the mantle of leadership in their party. Forget the lofty idea of diversity in the party, or bigger tent, metamorphosing around the Grand Old party. The truth is “it ain’t ganna happen!”

With a twitter announcement of New Possibilities and Real Leadership, the $21.4 million golden parachute former Hewlett-Packard CEO, sixty-year-old college dropout, with a ghost written book in her kitty, declared her candidacy, with some choice words for the former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.  If a former CEO, who laid off over 30,000 Americans from work because of her ambitious acquisition of a competitor, Compaq Computer;  a gross mistake, if not felonious executive decision, because she got paid off to get rid of her in the office, wants to become the President of the United States, then anything is possible in America. The tax dodgers, the fascist anarchists, the Cuban-American Ambassador of a tax dodger and the bare-knuckled bridge-gate godfather of New Jersey, all have a place here. Welcome to the America of all possibilities!

He is here, the “smartest” brown-skinned former neurosurgeon from Baltimore, Ben Carson. The candidate who wants to undo the glorious effort of President Barack Obama, the Affordable Care Act. With Carson, big government is going to be a thing of the past, a neophyte who acknowledges he is never going to be politically correct, never going to be politically expedient, wants to parlay his academic success and modern-day speaking evangelism for a ride to 1800 Pennsylvania Avenue. His ambition is as huge as the globe; however, the chances are as slim as the spec of a needle’s eye. The nationally acclaimed Republican with “preponderance” support from the tea party wing of the Republican Party, is set to get rid of social programs that create dependency. It isn’t that Dr. Ben Carson could not be a formidable candidate; it is his stars that is against him. “He ain’t just got the zing with the establishment Republican Party, the White Anglo-Saxon male voters that seem to hold the power in the Republican Party of today.”

While both CEO Carly Fiorina and Neurosurgeon Ben Carson are the first female and black to indicate interest in the 2016 contest for the White House, the perception that they both bring diversity to the Republican party fray of candidates, is rather mundane and essentially, a none starter. Let’s debate Racism and Sexism in the next few paragraphs and you’ll understand why the Diversity Candidacy of the CEO and Neurosurgeon are non-starters in current day Republican Party.

To explore these two hot topics, I will default to the subject of immigration, one of the pending issues that will come up in the presidential debates in the 2016 White House Race. The unattended consequence of the unresolved national immigration issue probably has its roots in racism; if not sexism. Regardless of what any Congressional Republican may say, the effort to resolve this problem at the national level, has been fraught with right wing hardliner’s perception of what a liberalized immigration system will mean. The fact that the current occupant of the White House, President Obama, had resorted to using executive powers to move the debate ahead, is one very important reason, why many White Anglo-Saxon, the rich base of the Republican Party, will fight tooth and nail, against a minority, female or male, occupying the White House oval office in 2016.

Advocates of national immigration reform, documented several instances of racist and discriminating undertones that the effort at reforming America’s immigration had taken, most recently. Defenders of minorities interests, Latinos and many under-represented groups, some undocumented and living amongst us, established one fact, it is not the dependence or perceived consequence of the 1993 National American Free Trade Agreement or the debacle of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act that are the stumbling blocks to resolution of this problem, it is the inherent belief among many in the Republican Party, that a new reform is unfeasible, because the potential beneficiaries of the reform are too dependent on social  welfare programs and crime.  Contrary to what national statistics say, the predominate movers and shakers in the Republican party, are not about to welcome new social welfare programs’ dependents’, when they are still working overtime and overdrive to win-off  dependent citizen minorities, including the poor and elderly, from these social welfare programs.

CEO Carly Fiorina and Neurosurgeon Ben Carson will have to go the length of signing an undertaker statement with the preponderance group in the Republican Party, the White Anglo-Saxon Male, vowing never to sign into law, congressional legislation that regularizes twelve million undocumented US immigrants, for them to get their vote. Organized struggle and activism by interest groups within a party, often have a sway, in who ultimately become the party’s flag bearer. No one is doubting the sincerity of the Republican Party to empower the minorities amongst them; however, the concept of diversity is relatively new to the party; and, it is going to take more time for the party to measure up to the big-tent philosophy that it has often longed for, since a realization of the majority-minority shift in population dynamics; and the likely trending, not certain as of date, that it is probably the burgeoning minority populations in America that are more likely to determine who ends up in the White House, in the near future. This very real but difficult fact to accept is probably, why a minority Republican candidate stands rather slim chance, ending up as the party’s flag bearer in general election.

In entirety, the notion that a minority will end up lording it over the White-Anglo Saxon male is so tormenting and excruciating, some of them will hardly acknowledge the present occupant of the White House, twice-elected in general elections, as the President of the United States. But alongside this, is the fear of dealing with a female power, the testosterone raising in the male specie and the religious puritan upbringing of many White Republican Anglo-Saxons, make it rather unsettling, to have a female in the helms of affairs of this nation. To accept a female Republican flag bearer, is to reduce somewhat in size the ego of the White-Anglo Saxon, that have dominated the flag bearer nominees; and hence, the President of the United States in the past two centuries. However, it is even more important to recognize that the establishment Republican, feels somewhat of a threat at this time, with the excellence in governance and successes of the forty-forth President of the United States, President Barack Hussein Obama.

In terms of overall chances, the scale of preference is still with the White Anglo-Saxon male wielding the power of office of the presidency. To say that this is not the preference of the establishment Republicans, is to ignore the strength of tradition – or accept a minority male as an award winning neurosurgeon or a female CEO becoming the President of the United States. To repeat, campaign teams of Fiorina or Carson, must come up with the ingenuity of crafting their message(s), that they re-assure the predominant Republican Anglo-Saxon White male, that he will not be losing his current privileges; and or, eroding his power any further in the party’s stratosphere and national political arrangement or discuss. If either is going to end up as the Republican Party flag bearer, a sense of present power to chart the future of the Republican Party must be negotiable; however, except one is living in illusion, the current White Anglo-Saxon male is hardly ready to subject himself to this perceived humiliation. One will like to believe that these apprehensions are not true, that all races and sexes within the Republican Party are treated equitable; however, the size of the sacrifice that the candidacy of Fiorina or Carson is calling the establishment Republican White Anglo-Saxon male to make or bear is probably too much at this time of America’s political development.

The Myth about Bernie Sanders’ Versus Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential Candidacies: Listening across Ideologies?

Keywords and Terms: Candidate Bernie Sanders; Candidate Hillary Clinton; Elizabeth Warren; Martin O’Malley; Presidential Campaigns; Leftist ideology; Progressive Values; Trans-Pacific Trade Pact; Overhauling Tax Rules and Regulations; Climate Change Issues; Social Security Expansion; Citizen United; Older population and working poor; party-level campaigns; Intra-Party Competition; Wage-Disparity; China; Mexico; and, America’s Economic Security

For those who likened Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ announcement of his 2016 run for the White House as a volcanic eruption within the Democratic Party or among progressives, it may be time to think again. For progressives, it is more like a call to listen across ideological lines regarding economic and social issues that continue to divide us. The issues of income inequality, racial opportunity inequality, climate change, over-burdening taxation regulations, expansive and expanding gaps in socio-economic indicators, that continue to befoul the dynamic and bluntly spoken Independent Senator from Vermont, are genuine; and for all intense and purposes, are reasons why Bernie Sander’s candidacy cannot be written-off; and, roars up against the establishment candidacy of Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Moreover, it is probably in the overall interest of all Americans that Sanders’ candidacy is calling for the woman in the mirror, the establishment candidate, to reflect once again. While Sanders’ Candidacy is perceived in some quarters as having the potential of drawing Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy towards the left, there are no direct correlation to this inclination; rather, it is an opportunity for Democrats to look at those issues that seem to be papered over among progressives, in the national discuss, as we progress towards the 2016 nomination. Many leftist believe, while Republicans do not have answers to many of these problems, or are refusing to acknowledge them, there is a vacuum, a paucity, in communication even among progressives regarding the urgency or attention these problems deserve on the national stage. To some leftists, there is hardly anything wrong with an insurgent democratic candidacy; and better yet, there is hardly anything unappreciated of a candidate who believes that social security must be expanded and taxation of the wealthy is in order, to ameliorate poverty among the working poor, women and elderly.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ candidacy for the 2016 Presidential Campaign, launched on Wednesday, April 29^th , in the Capitol, based on a populist income inequality platform, wants to thwart the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership, overhaul tax regulations and rules that allow American Companies to invest overseas, draw attention to Climate Change issues, and address the Citizen United Ruling from US Supreme Court. A self-described Democratic Socialist, who believes in standing up for the middle income earners in America, is tired of American Corporations shifting jobs overseas in order to dodge paying IRS taxes. Acknowledging that it may take close to a billion dollar to win a general election, a privilege that his candidacy cannot amass, Senator Sanders agrees that, it is probably an uphill battle and improbability to launch a credible national campaign to topple a candidate financed by the enormous wealth of donors as the Koch Brothers in the Republican Party. 

It is whimsical, if not awkward and cryptic, to assume that a candidacy like that of Sanders’ may win a general election in America of today; however, for a candidate who Associated Press reported as saying, he is ensuring that someone in the race is holding Clinton’s feet to the fire, on those issues that are important to the left, what are few banters or fights between two heavy weights in a family. Americans, progressives inclusive, must recognize that fierce interparty competitiveness would only enhance the chances of the party’s flag bearer come a national contest, not diminish it. For the candidate, who admonishes himself for running outside the two-party political system and prevailing over Democrats and Republicans in Vermont’s Senatorial races, no one must think his candidacy is inconsequential.

A reflection on how far an insurgency candidacy like Bernie Sander’s will last, can be garnered from the experience of Jack Kemp’s or Jean Kirkpatrick’s run for the Republican nomination in the 1984 White House race. Ronald Reagan was the assured establishment candidate for the Republican nomination, during the final balloting exercise however, candidates Jack Kemp and Jean Kirkpatrick still sustained one vote a piece, while Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush howled away two thousand two hundred and thirty one votes.  Establishment supporters of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for 2016 probably and tentatively constitute over ninety percent of Democratic delegates; however, there is room for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Martin O’Malley to wiggle one or two ballots at the end of the exercise. Yes, Hillary Clinton like Ronald Reagan, will still carry the day; however, they both wouldn't, without a fight from other promising and astute candidates. The party-level campaign for nomination, is often an opportunity to give a voice to the voiceless, an opportunity to have democracy at play, where candidates, who for any other reasons of handicap, are able to make their point and have their say, in an often cut-throat, winner takes all competition, that is characteristic of the party nomination process.

For example, the morning after the party nomination process, the looser often seeks comfort in the fact that he or she gave it his or her best. There is often some sense of accomplishment at that point, at least the flag bearer does not see himself or herself as winning the nomination on a platter of gold. Subtle rebellion within the party often subside after the nomination process and the flag bearer wins new converts, who may have wished alternative candidate to be the flag bearer. Imagine what this could do for pressure groups within the Democratic Party seeking support for women health initiatives like quality maternity care, preventive health services, birth control insurance coverage and an emergency rape kit in all hospitals. If Hillary Clinton is temperate in supporting these initiatives, so as not to be seen as deferring to women issues on a national platform, or if she chooses to be more centrist in order to win national votes, the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Martin O’Malley may force her to negotiate on what goes on the party’s national platform. This is what grassroots democracy is all about.

Insurgent candidacy forces the party nominee to respect the competition’s ideals, even if she or he despises the competition that leads to victory. She or he may not want to be bothered by the theatrics that involve running against other candidates that may share some of her inherent values within the party; however, the competition and associated press appearances, newspaper interviews, talk shows appearances and intra-party debates that are seen on the television at the individual party level, seem often to embolden the party’s eventual nominee, and prepare her or him for the national contest against the opposing national party’s candidate. The usual premonition that intra-party’s competition bloodies the eventual party nominee, while may be true for some candidates, it has often prepared others better to withstand the brutal and challenging inter-party competition on the general election day.

“Bernie-Sanderism’ then, is an act of defiance, a candidacy thumbing its nose at the establishment candidate, one billed on leftist principles, that the Brooklyn-born Senator from Vermont, can take home as a badge of honor. The seventy-three year-old, second term senator can pride himself, even if he loses to Secretary Clinton, and say, ‘You see, my candidacy was built on solid Social Democratic principles one that puts the American workers, women, the poor and elderly on center-stage to ask pertinent questions as: 1) Are you on the side of working families who suffer as a result of disastrous trade agreements that often off-shore American jobs to China or Mexico? 2) Is there still room for the middle class in this widening income disparity war? 3) How many labor and tax laws are still enforceable in America and is the party’s flag bearer ready to see that enforcement of labor and tax laws are essential to combating the growing income inequality in America? 4) Will evolving understanding of the impact of Citizen United Ruling from US Supreme Court help the public see where this is taking our Democracy? And, 5) are Conceptual uncertainties tarnishing the debate over America’s Economic Security?

If it is plausible to argue that Bernie-Sanders’ candidacy will lead to inexorable change in the platform of the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party, it is possible to advance the thesis that listening across ideological lines, is essential for addressing the mammoth issues or problems facing America today. Modest assumption that the United States Congress is expected to work more cooperatively, once the race issue is extricated from consideration of the occupant of the White House, may gain greater credulity, if one buys into the argument that the present day dysfunction in US Congress may be adduced to the race of the current occupant of the White House.  However, many progressives know that this is not true, America is a nation of complex incongruences that continue to evolve and often impacting attitudes and shaping the actual experience of resolving political, economic and social problems. That is why, it is important that each of the major political party has contestants vying for the status of the flag bearer, not just one, pre-ordained candidate, as is the case with the 2016 Democratic Party.

With the entry of Senator Bernie Sander into the Democratic Party nomination process, it is probably safe to conclude that the debate(s) for the party’s flag bearer position will take a turn for the better. Ideological and Philosophical issues will be trashed out at the party level, so also, will ideological-philosophical power-sharing, strengthen the eventual party’s nominee. Shaping and changing the party’s platform to accommodate plurality of all constituencies, will assist Democrats to better manage or fight back interruptions from Republican Party. Can party-level insurgency resolve the old-age question: giving everyone an equal chance of being heard and represented may ultimately control the influence of money in party politics?  Can constructive and effective engagement within party, strengthen the party’s chances in the general elections? These are important questions which the entry of the Independent Vermont Senator into the Democratic Party Presidential nomination race, is about to answer.

Branding and Rebranding a Presidential Candidate: the case of Hillary Rodham Clinton

Keywords or Terms: Branding; re-branding; Hillary Clinton; US Secretary of State; White House; Promoting existing awareness; Psyche of voters; Benghazi case; Nationalistic Argument; Executive Emails; Congressional Republicans; Domestic and Global Security; American Exceptionalism; Exercising Political Powers; Monday-morning quarterbacking; and, seven-steps of rebranding campaign message

Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton is running for the US presidency. This is all so good for the generation of baby boomers, especially the fifty and sixty- something females, who experienced the era of burn the bra; and, have fervently looked forward to a day when an American female will occupy the White House’s oval office. It is not that Hillary’s second try at the race will prove any more infallible than her first; however, her probable chance this time around, while so promising, may still depend on the outcome of voters' perception of  disturbing accusations from the Republican Party: 1) the Benghazi Fiasco; and 2) the use of personal emails for official duties when serving as US Secretary of State. Not that there has been a failure; rather, that unlike other promising candidates in the 2016 field, she seems to be the one to beat. It will be wrong and probably irritating to assume that since she is the front runner, she stands a better chance than the remainder in the field, Democrats or Republican. Here comes the need for Rebranding of her campaign message(s), consequent to her initial effort in 2008; and subsequent to her service to the nation, as a US Secretary of State.

More important than an announcement of a candidacy for the highest office in the land – the media blitz, fund raising, press releases, twitting, campaign tours, early state visitations and leg walk surrounding getting a campaign off the ground – is the need for branding and or rebranding of the candidate’s aspiration, messages, promises and hope. This task is as much important as raising campaign funds, getting the message surrounding the candidature broadcasted, and offering voters, glimpses of policy options or proposals, that the ascendancy to the office of either Mr. or Mrs. President, will offer. Branding or rebranding offers the candidate an opportunity to project an image or logo that the voters can easily identify with and relate to, until the voting day in 2016, and probably, after the swearing into office. Branding and Rebranding are concepts used in marketing to move a product, person or concept, that have surreptitiously moved to every facet or spheres of our lives. While branding involves the overall design and promotion of a product, person, service or concept, rebranding involves repackaging of the image of a service, person, product or person. Either of these efforts are so germane to modern day political campaigns as the legitimacy of a candidacy itself in the gilded age of information dissemination.

You probably saw the “H” and subscript “T” logo flying on your monitor screen or newspaper to launch or relaunch the former US Secretary of State effort to clinch the big prize of American politics. The logo gave the urgency of a change, it revives the dynamism of the proposed candidacy; and in case of Ms. Clinton, offers the chance of repackaging an image and message of re-running for the White House. It furthermore paves the way for a reentry of initial policy options or proposals of the 2008 campaign, that were either shelved, unmet by current administration, or still rather dear or important to the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the topmost political position in the land.

Rebranding therefore in the case of 2016 Presidential Campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton, promotes both the existing awareness of her campaign message(s); and if effectively and consistently done, the opportunity for voters to indoubtedly embrace her position on policy issues and political rhetoric. Rebranding of Ms. Clinton’s political campaign may lead her campaign towards a future in the next eighteen months, converting hearts, souls and mind of the voter, to a political power driven by a larger number of voters, hitherto unexperienced in US Presidential Campaigns, especially among the female members of American population. Hillary Clinton may leap into the White House oval office, despite the hounding of Republicans of what may or may not have happened in Benghazi, on that unfortunate night, if her brand or rebrand, persists in the psychic of the voters, who are ready to give a female an opportunity to hold that cherished veto power of a presidency. The driving forces here, are effectiveness and consistency of deliverance of her brand from the campaign team, that the mention of her candidacy effectively symbolizes a brand of excellence of achievement that voters can identify with, put their support behind, and are ready to give a trial in the oval office.

No matter Congressional Republican’s machination to invite back the former US Secretary of State to give testimony on the umpteenth time regarding whatever happened, or did not happen at Benghazi, Libya, Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton must neither capitulate or surrender the allure of her meritorious service to the nation. National service is enviable and problematic occasionally, especially when you have no control over all the possible events surrounding your duties, in an executive position. Beyond heroic chauvinism to the more humdrum of the duties of a Secretary of State, the legitimacy of the argument of the impossibility of being able to predict actions of others in far away land or places, is suffice argument in testimony, in this case. Congressional Republicans are inoculated from answering multiple questions, in multiple times, regarding all the bills that were passed, which many of them have truthfully acknowledged, they probably knew very little about, or failed to familiarize themselves, because of the weight of the responsibility of their position; and the human frailty to admonish all errors associated with an office. Benghazi case, is yesterday’s news, today’s, is to explore ways of preventing a repeat of the unfortunate incident or event. To a much more nationalistic argument in testimony before congress, is the recognition of the frailty of human error, painful as it may, and spurning it to the advantage of a Presidential candidacy’s message on a national stage: “It will never happen or repeat itself under a President Hillary Clinton’s watch!”, pronto.

Moreover, the current effort at US State Department is already reflective of the experience of that night; and, the current implemented changes in all US foreign embassies and posts, must stand out as an example of a reflective leader, who learned from probably a painful mistake, because of the splintered nature of all the American Embassies across the globe; and, who is ready to move ahead. In the context of executive leadership, to continue to revisit an old wound or give priority to a belated effort, is creating an unnecessary rebellion against the obvious. American exceptionalism – a strong case of leadership of an effective former US Secretary of State, is an antithesis of intensified hullabaloo from Congressional Republicans regarding actions taken during her tenure.

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has an urgent need to nip the Congressional Republicans’ rebellion in the bud regarding the use of personal emails for executive duties as a US Secretary of State; and or, the issue of the Benghazi, Libya fiasco. She must not cede her position to the new generation of Congressional Republican extremists, whose goal is to stir fear in the hearts of the American voters, that a Presidency of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is a recipe for disaster similar to Benghazi or hold ups, in an electronic emails. Many Congressional Republicans who feel the moral responsibility to question the audacity of the former US Secretary of State during her term in office, enjoy domestic security without having to dirty their hands or being in the fore-front of fighting global terrorism; a feat which Ms. Clinton, in collaboration with other Foreign World’s ministers have had to contend with. The brutal truth is that it is much easier to play Monday morning quarterback, than to actually play the game on the field.

Certainly, Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and former US Secretary of State has demonstrated in spirit the acknowledgment of possible errors in Benghazi, Libya. The extremists’ Congressional Republicans assume that Ms. Clinton, having demonstrated the ambition to seek the Office of the Presidency, ought to be hounded all over again. Having achieved merit and demonstrated leadership at US State Department, Republicans now view her run for the Presidency, as an affirmation of her positive credibility to dethrone any one of their impending flag bearer come 2016. While Ms. Clinton suffers the risk of a blow back for her Presidential Campaign if she doesn't fight back at any Congressional hearing, she also has the fortitude and likelihood of receiving tons of sympathy from Americans, if she is able to effectively communicate the risks of the new world order regarding global terrorism; and espouse her preparedness to take on any of the global terrorists, as she wields the power of a US presidency.

Similarly, Ms. Hillary Clinton’s effort in the State Department, has provided collective stability for both national defense and global security, considering the advice and support she provided current Obama’s administration to dethrone some depots in the Middle East during her era as US Secretary of State. Many European leaders, including the Russians, have explicitly acknowledged the brilliance of her service; and the messy aftermath of the Arab Spring, is a recognition that all was not well with some governments in the Middle East, that served with implicit support or corroboration of former America’s Presidential Administrations; and, there was an overdue need for change in leadership among some unrepentant despots of the region. Moreover, Ms. Hillary Clinton enjoy huge respect and recognition from many global leaders; and, would maintain many alliances that have bolstered global stability since her exit from the Office of US Secretary of State, if elected the first female President of the United States. While not over-zealously trying to impart a degree of precision of what is probable in a Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Presidency, it is safe to say that her experience as a Secretary of State will only serve the nation better, if she is the occupant of the oval office come 2016; at least better than what one can say for current slate of candidates aspiring for that office this time around.

Given that Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s candidacy for the US Presidency seems to be unwelcome by some radical Republicans in Congress, her campaign team must now remain in constant engagement with the American voters over the next eighteen months. The Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Manager’s task must include branding and re-branding of her campaign messages. With no exceptions, campaign messages fanned out must be engaging for her supporters; and, communication with them must be proactive. The undecided voters must be brought around, by complete interaction and immersion in the hope and promises of the first female President of the United States. Hiccups on the campaign trail must not be allowed to spun out of control; that is why, a very close knit shift and clamp down of any unauthorized message from the campaign, must be closely monitored. The unconfirmed or misguided campaign messages that have often torpedoed  other campaigns, must be closely scrutinized. The ‘haters’ or antagonists, those who are completely anti-Hillary Clinton’s candidacy may remain, but must not overtly be seen as lost causes. Thus, the practicality of adopting the seven stages of rebranding, to attempt to woo, even if only ten percent of this group of naysayers.

The precise architecture of the seven steps may take the following format: 1) Influence and shape Hillary Clinton’s campaign message with a series of practical policies and pragmatic programs that address the concerns of some in this group – ask for those characteristics and qualities in Hillary Clinton, that is a turn-off for these antagonists – ask if they may support some initiatives of the campaign and insist that they provide answers to what they want or expect of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential Candidate; 2) Obtain feedback from community contact groups that are doing leg walk on behalf of the campaign – phone calls, online surveys and email surveys of what the supporters are finding out during interactions with their neighbors and why some are holding back support for the Secretary’s candidacy, will be an eye-opener; 3) find out quickly what is not working with Candidate Clinton’s campaign messages – part of your effort is to connect to all voters, not necessarily your initially targeted group; change and reconfigure your message to connect to the emotions of the voters and brand your message to covet the favor of those hard to please; 4) Develop a story – let your campaign message tell a story about a female who has been close to power, asserted executive power and stood at the cross-road of history, when it was necessary to bring down one of America’s number one enemy – reflect not only on her work ethics, but also her motherly and grand motherly love; 5) explore and permeate the Hillary Clinton’s campaign message brand over multiple dissemination platforms, including word of mouth, emails, twitter account, social media, website, radio and television, 6) consistently pound your campaign message, advancing far-reaching initiative of bringing more supporters to carry over the promises of the Hillary Clinton brand; including adopting coherent campaign standard of wooing prospective supporters and building a bridge to the not so much supportive voters; and, 7) Be consistent and never second guess your efforts or the secretary’s intention, in offering some words in an impromptu interview, with some unknown media. Stay focused and determined to win the election.

Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton: “I’m running for President”

Keywords and Terms: Candidate Hillary Clinton; Presidential Campaigns; US Senate; Democratic Aspirant; Everyday American Champion; Senator Jim Webb; Governor Martin O’Malley; Senator Bernard Sanders; Champion for Everyday American; 36,000 retweet/half-hour; Iowa; New Hampshire; Nevada; South Carolina; Robby Mook; John D. Podesta; Male-Female Pay differential; Foreign Wars; Dodd-Franks; Dissembling Campaign Regime; Common Core Curriculum;

With those four words, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the only first lady ever elected to US Senate, announced this morning that she is running to become the next President of the United States. If any of the following possible Democratic contenders is listening, former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, and Senator Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont who could run as a Democrat, the die has been cast; and without an iota of doubt, we all know, Hillary is the candidate to beat in 2016. Forget the email scandal, ignore the alleged failure of Benghazi, Libya, and overlook the suspicion of foreign government or persons contribution to her family’s foundation, and you have an unbeatable front runner for Democratic Nomination as the party’s flag bearer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably running not against any man or woman, but to advance the objective of middle income earners, those who have played by the rule or book; but have been unable to make ends meet. To paraphrase the Yale-trained lawyer and former US Secretary of State, she wants to be: “that champion for everyday American.” In a competitive world of pay differentials between males and females for the same duties and obligations, Hillary is probably running to help close the pay gap between the sexes among many other things. The wife of the forty-second President of the United States knows there are antagonists out there who would like the world to know of many sinister things about the Clinton clan; however, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is brushing all those aside and throwing in her cap for a competition that some political pundits predict may cost close to two and a half billion dollars.

For a candidate who mustered close to half a million likes in fifteen minutes on her campaign Facebook page after the announcement of her ambition, this is a candidate of many firsts. She is the first lady to ever win a Grammy Award; first candidate to have her announcement re-tweeted over 36,000 in half-hour on her preferred method or platform of communication; and, she is going to be the president who may overcome the current tit-for-tat acrimony in US Congress. Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton may be that candidate who could bring hope and reconciliation in an unmistakably challenging world environment where journalists are beheaded by extreme religious hooligans parading the world’s stage as revolutionary Islamist.

A little over two years ago, Hillary was jetting up and down the world stage, attempting to burnish the image of the US, while softening tensions between opponents in the Middle East and Africa. Many females across the globe, who had the opportunity of meeting Ms. Clinton as US Secretary of State, are probably looking up to this icon of the feminist movement meeting another milestone in women suffrage, running seriously and hopefully, if only faith and promises of hard campaigning are going to allow in the following eighteen months, a better chance to be enthroned the President of the greatest democracy on earth. Among the six females who had ever aspired to this office, including Jill Stein (2012); Linda Jennes (1972); Shirley Chisholm (1972); Gracie Allen (1940); and Victoria Woodhull (1872); Hillary Rodham Clinton stands out as probably the best prepared and most favorable to win it all come 2016. While her announcement this morning is playing out in many media platforms, her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, was probably working overdrive on the phones, calling potential supporters and well-wishers and associates to donate to this new cause; and, join former US Secretary Clinton on the journey to 1800 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

Not sure of what probably lies ahead, her campaign manager is reported to be Robby Mook, a technological savvy and data driven campaign analytics, Secretary Clinton will have to make a good placing in the primary contests in the following early contest states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. The frantic disposition that characterize announcement of a presidential run often bears a lot of pressure on a candidate; and, the announcement today by Secretary Clinton probably took the monkey off her back, especially with the insistent press speculations surrounding her prospect for running for the White House oval office in 2016. From here on, the Presidential Candidate must make sure that the presence of her husband on her campaign trail is limited enough, not to label her campaign with the aura of some personal failings that characterized the term of the 42^nd President of the United State. If she is in it to win it all as she has announced, Secretary Clinton and her campaign team must reflect on the past conspiracy theories out there concerning the Clinton clan and machination, since those seem to be outstanding issues that may distract the message of the Secretary’s Presidential Campaign.

Back during the US Secretary of State term, the Clinton Foundation was construed as taking advantage of the secretary’s influence in raising fund overseas. This speculation, whether true or not, has the tendency of raising its ugly head during presidential road campaigns. As Secretary Clinton hits the road to earn American votes, opponents will unleash untrue campaign messages; the Clinton campaign team must not only work to protect her image, they must establish a connection with the middle class and expose them early to impending public policies under Hillary Clinton’s Administration, that will alleviate continued income inequality. She must answer the question, why the American voters should give her their votes. To sustain motion and momentum, the campaign team must expect universal attacks from Republicans and must work to sweat things out working actively to push back attacks from opponents that may draw back passion for her candidacy.

The foundation of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign for 2016 is somewhat Utopian, and there will be supporters drawn to its novelty – as long as there are some reasons to believe that the effort will lead to a woman rising and winning the office of the presidency– for that reason, the campaign team must work hard to make this group believe in the campaign messages and the candidate. Republican opponents may believe that these true believers may be dissuaded through misinformation or false campaign to undermine the Clinton’s Candidacy. There are realistic possibility of controlling information coming out of the campaign effort, especially, if the campaign manager is able to maintain a tight shift that will prevent leaks on the campaign’s strategy. The tight shift control of information leaks are essential to control loyalty and maintain momentum in how primaries are won, state by state, especially beginning with states with early primaries. What motivates a novelty as a female US Presidency or a utopian as some will say, is a burning desire by many Americans for a female occupant of the highest office in the land; the history of dearth of female in the office for the past two and half centuries has made some voters make an unbreakable bond with the announcement of Hillary Clinton for 2016. A reality for now, is that of all the prior female attempt to occupy the highest office in the land, Hillary Clinton stands out as probably the best chance, and for that reason, the rigor of controlling information leaks from her campaign, must be done with a vigor hitherto unknown in presidential campaigns; failure, may represent another fallacy which many female groups are no longer willing to live with.

The reliance on the facade that the Democratic presidential nomination for 2016 is at stark contrast from recent primaries, 2008 and 2004, must not hold back precautions on the part of Secretary Clinton’s campaign team. Careless information leaks have been known to undermine a few nominees that were considered front-runner status on the nomination path. It is good to hear the secretary say she is not taking anything for granted in her two-minute video released to announce her candidacy. Front runner status candidates who have succeeded in maintaining momentum behind their candidacy in the past cycles of the presidential nomination process, have often worked hard from releasing campaign snippet messages that are not polarizing or injurious to the chances of the candidate. All campaign messages must enrich the campaign experience for both the candidate and her supporters; the result invariably, is abundant donations to the campaign chest. Secretary Clinton’s campaign team must remain immutable.

Secretary Clinton’s campaign messages do not have to be excessively ideologically driven, as some Republican contenders are, or are going to be once interest groups decide to actualize their interest or flex their muzzles toward the nomination month, about a year from today. The hypocrisy of advancing the interest of self-interest groups seeking to ensure that the Party’s platform reflect their narrow view(s) has tendency to turn away potential and existing supporters. What these self-interest groups require, are recognition and a place on the table, not complete capitulation of the campaign team or message to their total interest. For that alone, diplomacy and care are essential and crucial in sustaining their support to the ultimate nomination day; and hopefully, the general election day. The sense and right to be heard are recognized for any group in the Democratic Party; however, not to the extent to which the Tea Party has hijacked the Republican Party’s establishment to set the tone of the party’s national agenda.

Precisely, because what we have seen of narrow ideological driven party campaign messages in recent years, the commanding doctrine of the first viable female presidential campaign in US history, do not necessarily have to be completely compatible with all the demands of the interest or pressure groups in the party; however, it must be aligned with the ultimate goal of why Secretary Clinton entered the presidential race in the first instance and hopefully, today. It is probably true that there are other reasons why the Secretary has entered the race, beyond what may be made public at this time; it is also true that, all the reasons for running for the office of the Presidency, is the desire to finish what she started in 2008. Doctrinal differences are bound to arise between a campaign team and the pressure or lobby groups within a party; however, while loyalty and respect are essential to the aspirations of the whole party and probable success at the general election, no campaign team must put itself in the position where an interest or lobby group, hijacks its main goal or the party’s national platform.

Certain realities are indisputable and Presidential Candidate Clinton must articulate these in her 2016 campaign messages. She must also find means of communicating her position on them without necessarily ruffling the features of too many, beginning with Democrats; and then, the total American voters:

1)      Commitment to alleviating pay differentials between males and females in the country, a challenge that has troubled many female groups in America, must not be abandoned. The political tenet or acceptance of income inequality between the sexes has been eroded among the American voters, and there must be a way to make it permanent in all sectors of American Economy. This goal is essentially pertinent to the rise of the first female President of the United States; and, is a message many groups in the nation, Democrats and Republicans, are ready to buy into if not already done. The observation is that this idea is one many have subscribed to for ages; however, opposition groups have been able to maintain the status-quo, because implementation of existing laws has been hap-hazard so far, in both the private and public sectors of the economy.

2)     Foreign wars will only be proclaimed with a higher threshold of justification, we must first determine who we are going to war with, what is our early exit plans, and for what purposes; and, we must never again go to war because of a mistake. We must never push or military men and families to the brink, a practice we have subconsciously pursued in the past four decades. The wars we have been in recently, Iraq and Afghanistan, have left the country divided, probably along party lines, Republicans versus Democrats; pro-war versus anti-war, and more.

3)     Impending changes in the financial sector, coupled with the implementation of Dodd-Franks, must not be negotiable, except if the change is to tighten the noose around the necks of culprits who brought the nation to its knees in 2008; and, are currently working hard to over-turn the controls that were put in place to put a check on the excesses of many banks and financial institutions, especially with those considered to be too big to fail.

4)     Dissembling of campaign regime through the Supreme Court ruling, striking down the limit on total amount of money wealthy donors can contribute and political committees’, which has been the norm since the post Nixon-Era, while considered inconsequential among some lobby groups and rich folks attempting to buy influence at the federal level, has become a huge dilemma for many Americans. American citizens are seeking clarification from Congress, or a much explicit legislation that bans this practice.

5)     The Common Core Curriculum, that has served as a fodder for argument, by those who are in support of standard and those opposed in K-12 education, needs a position paper from the Clinton’s campaign. The disarray across K-12 education in the nation because of imperfect or mis-information surrounding the Common Core Curriculum, has created a climate of paradox that has infused mistrust among many state education systems and the federal department of education.

Republican Contenders in 2016 White House Race: A strategy to win the hearts and souls of Voters!

Keywords or Terms: Republican Contenders; Rand Paul; John McCain; Jeb Bush; Marco Rubio; Scott Walker; Carly Fiorina; Rick Perry; Religious Freedom; Sexual Equality; Safety and Security of our Nation; Israel; Iran; Jordan; Saudi Arabia; Nuclear Weapons; Middle East; Hillary Clinton; and the New World Order

Yesterday, two Republican heavy weights declared their ambition to run for the White House or re-election to the US Senate. The strikingly heavy handed libertarian, Rand Paul, will like to become a US President and John McCain will like to be re-elected to a sixth term in US Senate. Both Republican candidates and a few more, are flawed for several reasons, among which is probably their role in signing a treacherous letter to Iranian leaders, enunciated by Tom Cotton, the senator holding brief for the State of Israel, if you ask, when it comes to stopping Iran from having nuclear capabilities. You've heard Jeb Bush, another Republican contender and probably the leading Republican in the race for the White House in 2016 saying, he cannot stand behind a flawed agreement. Rand Paul, John McCain, and Jeb Bush, like other Republican contenders, will now have to face Republican voters to make either of their dreams come through. Nothing can be taken for granted, not even the support for religious freedom against sexual equality; or, the unquestionable commitment to a disgruntled ally who often chooses to go her own way, outside reason on issues that affect, indirectly or directly, the safety and security of America.

Events of recent years tell us that Republican legislators have either boxed themselves to the corner with couple of missteps emanating from their “assumed” hatred for the 44^th President of the United States, for whatever reason; or, their inability to understand the President’s political brinkmanship. Republican party leaders have made it difficult for Americans to understand the Party's current philosophy with the activism and insurgencies of Tea Party members. The far right Republicans’ misguided effort to paint Democrats as a tax and spend party and their own party as strong on defense by committing the nation into insistence foreign wars while surreptitiously cutting taxes for the rich, have complicated even further the understanding of the new Republican Party on many national issues. Many American progressives will like to believe Republicans can be reformed; that they can be made to understand that if Israel can choose to have a nuclear bomb, any other country in the world, must be given the benefit of doubt, on self determination, no matter how hard we may argue against their choice; or, past utterances regarding the future of any state. Mind you, no one is advocating a nuclear arms race here; however, will America go to bat for Israel, if it decides to bomb Jordan, Iran or Saudi Arabia? If America will not accommodate police brutality against minority groups within its borders, why should it accommodate a foreign state with a population close to that of the State of Illinois, continuing to foster discrimination and apartheid toward “minority” Arab group(s) within its population and across its borders.

It is probably safe to now articulate that an ally as bosom as the State of Israel, also has some short comings, including past misinformation regarding whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that led to Iraq war and cost lives of innocent Americans; and or Iraqis. Importantly, it is about time that congressional leaders comprehend that domestic politics is different from foreign politics; and, anytime, either of the major political parties attempt to draw foreign politics into domestic politics, the way Congressional Republican leaders had done recently with the invitation of Prime Minister Natanyahu of Israel, there are are bound to be some unintended consequences; and probably, misinterpretation of their intentions on both national and international stages. Whichever way anyone looks at it, however, it hardly savors well for the overall interest of America.

Disconcerting concerns of some well meaning Americans regarding how Congressional Republican leaders have conducted themselves during the term of the 44^th President of the United States is now raising the issue of the volatility of the Republican Party brand among American voters. Some will like the party to swing back to its old mantra, full family values, limited government and unqualified fiscal responsibility. Others have sought a need for the party to change with the times, putting up and driving a national party’s platform that truly widens the tent, offering inclusiveness to some social causes that have remained barren on the national platform of the Republican Party and showing more latitudes in recognition of diversity, within and without America. Unceremoniously at the party level, many rank and file Republicans will like the field of 2016 White House contenders to quickly shape up or shrink, so the party can wholesomely work with a viable contender to the Democrat’s Hillary Rodham Clinton, or whoever the Democratic Party ends up choosing to carry its flag. For full disclosures, I am a die-hard Democrat who believes that a good competition between the two major political parties’ candidates brings out the best on a national stage; and, offers voters opportunity to choose a versatile and dynamic occupier of the White House's oval office.

The office of the President of the United States is not only important to the veracity of the interest of the multitudes constituting America; but also, has greater meaning or interpretations for the whole world, considering that the nation is the only super power left standing on the global stage. No longer can Americans see the choice of who to occupy the Presidency as limited to the interests of only 320 million Americans; many people across the globe now see the nation as a beacon of hope and her general elections' outcomes, an issue of international interest. That is why comments from Republican contenders regarding Iranian Nuclear Negotiations have become issues of concern for many in the international community who watch closely American general elections, especially the Presidential race, including: 1) “Obama’s dangerous deal with Iran rewards an enemy, undermines our allies and threatens our safety.” – Scott Walker; 2) “This attempt to spin diplomatic failure as a success is just the latest example of this administration’s farcical approach to Iran.” - Marco Rubio; 3) “Americans and our allies are right to be wary of a nuclear deal with Iran that is riddled with concessions by the Obama administration.” – Rick Perry; 4) “Iran’s behavior is not one of a potential ally or partner, we cannot trust them” - Carly Fiorina; and, 5) “These negotiations began, by President Obama’s own admission, as an effort to deny Iran nuclear capabilities, but instead will only legitimize those activities”- Jeb Bush. These are sampled comments regarding an outline of understanding to limit Iran’s ability to attain nuclear weapons, from Republicans aspiring to rise into the office of the President of the United States. It is not yet a comprehensive agreement as of date, and comments as these are flying all over the press. You wonder why these contenders have not shown restraint on an issue of negotiations, still ongoing. Do these contenders have the discipline to hold their judgement until an ultimate agreement? Are they actually for peace in the Middle-East; or, are they sold only to tentative understanding, already castigated by the leader of an eight million people Middle-Eastern nation, that constantly continues to insult America while at the same time begging for help to be protected against discrimination at the United Nations, while her leaders continue to promote an apartheid system within its boundary, as we speak.

The Office of the President of the United States today, isn't the same as what we had during the cold war. Times are changing and our leaders, or the choice of who to occupy the White House’s oval office, must change too. Without being charged of over-characterization or dramatization, the President of the United States today, is more like the President of the whole world; because every nation looks up to this nation to do the right thing in close to virtually everything across the globe. The World expects America to lead and it always does, except with few handicaps. Forget what many envious leaders across the globe may be saying about American Colonization fervor, despite the fact the nation, on record, has shown very little inclination when compared with other countries across the globe. Whenever things go aerie or afire across the globe, America is the nation that is called for help. This means a lot, far more than many can comprehend when it comes to addressing foreign or international issues and diplomacy as against domestic issues.

America today, needs not only an intelligent, diplomatic and seasoned leader, her voters must put in place a global leader, one who understands the intricacy of America’s interest vis-à-vis other nation’s, and at the same time, able to reconcile differences of opinions when it comes to fostering global stability and international peace. This is a herculean task; one that has not been chosen by America but by default has fallen on her laps; and must not be underestimated, while choosing our leader, or President of the United States. The rise of the Internet has opened the eyes, ears and probably nose of the world; and, many people across the globe probably know what is going on in everyone’s or country’s backyard. It is going and getting to become very difficult to cover up mis-deeds, misbehavior and tyranny in governance from poleteriate, either in a Presidency or Prime Minister's office. America has to take on the added responsibility that all nations and peoples of the world, are given a fair shake when it comes to diplomacy or understanding the political, economic and sociological variables defining all of us, and the globe. This is the task ahead of us, not a monologue or tweets from political aspirants or Republican office contenders that carry no relevance to the aspirations of Americans and peoples of the world.

For Republican contenders, no longer can you succumb to the experience of the 1920’s, where keywords as “rationalize,” “efficiency”, or “technocrat” that spoke to the heartlessness and cold-minded concerns that failed the industrialization of America; nor, the “Northern vs Southern presence” on the presidential ticket as shown fifty years latter, with the Mondale’s Campaign for the White House; neither can Republicans explore the “Gipper Strategy” of early 1980’s, accusing his opponent as holding a rally at the birthplace of the KKK, in Alabama, when in reality this never happened. Neither can Republicans default solely to using the “outside strategy – the Rudy Giuliani method;” or accusing Hillary Clinton as a member of President Obama’s team who got entangled in the Benghazi fiasco. All these strategies come with a pitfall and consequences best left to your imagination. America's presidential election has now become a world's presidential election, no matter how pundits refrain from seeing it likewise. If in doubt, talk to a seasoned diplomat at the US State Department and you'll get a better perspective of the argument here.

Further, criticizing the use of executive order by President Obama will not work either, since President Obama is no longer on the national ticket; and Hillary Clinton can easily convince any living American in the past six years that President Obama had his hands tied because of the recalcitrance of Congressional Republicans and their inability to appreciate diversity in America. Neither can Republicans rely on advancing a case as Lindsay Graham puts it: “Next President should pick up negotiations with Iran from where President Obama left off, because Iranians do not respect him.” George W. Bush’s Administration was darkened by the failures of mortgage derivatives, complete meltdown of the financial sector, extensive tax cuts for the rich, and the burden of unpaid foreign wars. Republican Party’s platform must shy away from keywords as “anti-Abortion,” “anti-feminism,” “anti-immigration,” “anti-sexual equality,” “tax-cuts and unregulated financial sector,” “gutting social security and medicare,” or, “anti-Obama-care”. References to these will only bemoan the people and create a wider gap between the Republican Party and the American voters. The horrors of the recent experience for Americans is still vivid, and any attempt to sell Americans snake oil will only backfire. Establishment Republicans and Party leadership must implore their prospective candidates to speak in private as if someone out there is recording with a cell phone or camera for a live audience. YouTube is full of many misguided private statements of Republican politicians that have been made public; it behooves the politicians to be circumspect of their utterances, no matter how minuscule.

An effective social media campaign impacting psychology of voters’ social behavior must become the blue-print of winning in an Information Age; just as your imaginary enemy, President Barack Obama, has proven in the last two cycles of elections. The new lingo is participatory democracy, where the power of technology in social media and internet are harnessed for the good of political messages. Instangram, Facebook, Twitter, Tumbler among other social media must be engineered into political message and campaigns. The nature of things to come, are only determined by the imaginative Party and a resourceful leader. The American voter is now a world’s voter. Change is here; and, politicians must change; for change is the only thing that is permanent.