(05-20-2016, 10:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Do we need another 2008-style (or worse, 1929-style) economic meltdown to further discredit the economic Right? Do we need another diplomatic or military debacle because the President wants a war and Congress is willing to give it to him? History repeats at its worst when people fail to learn the lessons.
Seeing how Republicans have retaken the House and Senate and Trump is within a few points of Clinton in the polls, it would seem that the economic right have not been discredited. So if this is to happen, something discrediting needs to happen.
IMO another financial crisis is a possibility in the next few years. Whoever wins the election this fall should have no impact on its probability. IMO how economic policymakers will respond will have an impact on the severity of the economic impact of a crisis, should it appear. The Fed will do its own thing regardless of who is president. Any fiscal response will be up to Paul Ryan and the Republican house, who are typically unwilling to do stimulus unless there is a president of whom they approve.
The the Ryan-led Republican House most certainly does not approve of Hillary Clinton and if she is president the outcome from a crisis (should one happen) would be more severe than what we saw under Obama. If the president were an establishment Republican, I see a generous stimulus being approved, although they would call it something else. But the only alternative is Trump. I do not see Ryan spending much of his political capital quieting the Tea Party Caucus on the behalf of Donald Trump, so I don't see Congress acting to blunt the impact of a crisis (should it happen) with either potential president.
So if a crisis happened I see a very serious recession, possibly even a depression regardless of who is elected president. Here is where the 4T climax comes into play. There will be a war between the White House and the Congress over who will get the blame for destroying the American economy. If Congress wins, the outcome will be Republican political dominance a decades or two. Again this is regardless of who is president.
However if the president wins then it gets interesting. If the president is Clinton it means Democratic dominance for the next couple of decades. If the president is Trump it means the destruction of the current Republican party, but Trump will remain. He will probably get a Democratic Congress. If he can strike a deal with them and get the policy needed to restore some semblance of prosperity, he will get a fair chunk of the credit. The Republican brand will be toxic, but the Trump brand will not. Trump could then be the nucleus about which a new Republican party could form, perhaps named after him--he would certainly go for that.
