The Daily 202: Hillary Clinton’s agenda would flounder in Congress. Here are seven reasons why.

Hillary Clinton is trying to win a mandate to enact an ambitious economic agenda. During a rally in Des Moines yesterday afternoon, the Democratic nominee said she could create 10.4 million new jobs as president. “In the first hundred days of my administration, we will make the biggest investment in new jobs, good-paying jobs, since World War II,” she said at a high school. “How are we going to do that? Well, we’re going to invest in infrastructure – our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our ports, our airports. … We are going to do water systems. We’re going to do sewer systems. We are also going to build a modern electric grid.”

Jonathan Rauch argues that Trump didn’t cause the chaos, but the chaos caused Trump. “Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around,” he writes. “Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system’s capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries’ influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself.”

He believes demonizing and disempowering political professionals and parties is like spending decades abusing and attacking your own immune system. “Eventually, you will get sick,” Rauch writes. “Because that problem is mental, not mechanical, it really is hard to remedy.”

The author's basic premise is completely flawed. Hillary Clinton doesn't have any "agenda" to speak of. Anything she says is missing details, and she has no game plan to follow through on anything.

There's a reason for this. For a candidate like Hillary Clinton, the only purpose of an "agenda" is to pretend she actually has a plan that will resonate with the voters whose support she needs. The reality is that this "agenda" is meaningless because she has no interest in them. Hillary Clinton is the Goldman Sachs candidate in this election, which means her "agenda" is whatever they want her to do ... and the Republicans in Congress won't stand in her way because most of them are supported by the same contributors who support Hillary Clinton.

The only "agenda" she will have is to use U.S. intelligence and military assets to support the big-government globalist agenda that has been the dominant theme inside the Beltway since 1990.

We will see another 4-8 years of Republicans being sweet-talked or arm twisted in backroom deals to vote with the Dems

No persuasion of any kind is necessary, since the Republicans and the Democrats agree on all fundamentals.

The ruling coalition is united around several things that the people are against. They are skilled at setting up phony issues (or issues that don’t concern the Federal government) to break up the formation of any possible other coalition.

Republicans and Democrats agree that the purpose of the State is redistribution. How much, and to whom, and under what circumstances, there are disagreements. But no elected officials of either Party believe that it is wrong to take from you and give to another of their own choosing, for reasons that make sense to them.

Republicans and Democrats agree that you have “rights” - lots of them. They also agree that any question ABOUT your “rights”, or whether or not something IS a “right”, should not be decided by a political process because that is “divisive”. So, they both agree that the voice of “the People” as contemplated in Articles IX and X can only be voiced by nine unelected life tenure judges, and that five of them, at any time or for any reason, can give new “rights” and take away old ones, particularly if those old ones arise out of majority voting.

Republicans and Democrats all believe in “diversity”. They, ignoring completely the results of all social science research on this subject, and contrary to millennia of human experience and wisdom, believe that the more “diverse” our country, its institutions, and any private entities within her become, the more cohesive and productive we will become.

Republicans and Democrats almost all believe in “free trade” and “immigration”. These things are good for various constituencies of both parties while they wreck the economy and the nation.

Many of the People, perhaps a majority, do not believe in any of these things.

Something’s gonna blow.

The only “agenda” she will have is to use U.S. intelligence and military assets to support the big-government globalist agenda that has been the dominant theme inside the Beltway since 1990.

BINGO!

It’s so obvious.

It really kicked in under Bush 41.

Simple Definition of founder

: to experience failure : to be unsuccessful
of a boat or ship : to fill with water and sink

To flounder is to struggle, but to founder is to sink like a stone and fail. Both are fun as nouns, not so fun as verbs.

So, in the context of the article either could work. But you're probably right that 'flounder' would work better.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.