Every election cycle Americans watch as candidates talk about how they will make things better, one demographic at a time. It can seem as though candidates try to be all things to all people. Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton going as far as to meet with extremist groupBlack Lives Matter (BLM) earlier this election cycle. Her competition Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, famously promising free in-state tuition to appeal to college age voters, while demanding that the super-rich pay their fair share to avenge the middle class.
The black vote, the white vote, the Hispanic vote, across the Presidential field candidates describe how they will manipulate, and manage the machine to benefit each individual group. "I'm going to build a wall," becomes, 'I am going to use the machine to avenge the middle class who are losing jobs to illegal immigrants.'
John Nash, formerly of Princeton University, subject of the major motion picture "A Beautiful Mind," founded Nash's Equilibr
In a sense the United States Constitution as a rule of law, could be view as a Nash Equilibrium. If applied as intended by the Framers the Constitution puts it in the best interest of all Americans to respect and protect the liberties of one another. The only party within this equation that would prevent the rule of law, from being a true Nash equilibrium would be those who wish to gain power through government. In that case the United States becomes a tempting bounty to those who seek power for their own ends.
Obama, while touring Thomas Jefferson's Virginia home in February of 2014,famously jested "That's the good thing, as President I can do whatever I want." That line was dismissed by many as a joke at the time. However, as history has shown it was not. Is that why Presidential candidates make huge promises to each demographic? Is it simply a power grab? It would seem so.
Once in office progressives like Obama aim increase government role in the everyday lives of the people. The problem with the expansion of government is that it is expensive to the taxpayer. Take Obamacare as an example. In an attempt to ensure all Americans have access to healthcare Obama squeezes employers by levying a penalty against them if they didn't insure their employees.
So the issue becomes the motivations of a candidate. Virtually all of the candidates are promising to act as an Avenger-in-Chief to individual segments of the American population. With this practice so widespread throughout the American political landscape. Is there any real alternative?Is there any candidate who has realized that government is the problem?
Sen. Ted Cruz is the only candidate speaking about uniting America. Take the Hispanic vote for example. When Democratic candidates consider Hispanics both Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton bring up special considerations for, "undocumented immigrants” advocating to give them access to drivers licenses, and free college, both undermining America's sovereignty.
When asked what his message was to Hispanic voters in a town hall on Fox News' The Kelly File, Ted Cruz first acknowledged that Republicans need to do a much better job in the Hispanic community. He then offered this:
“The answer is not to pander,you don't embrace amnesty and open borders. In fact I think that a great many Hispanics legal immigrants and citizens don't favor open borders. It's their jobs that are often being taken away by people coming here illegally. I think that the way you earn votes is making the case that conservative principles work. If you look at what we believe in the Hispanic community faith, family, and patriotism." Cruz then went on to talk about the Hispanic work ethic and his father's own struggle washing dishes for 50 cents an hour.