I have this friend, Oscar, who is quite the dude. Oscar is one of those rare birds who lives in two entirely different worlds, one he calls the “optimistic world”, the other he calls the “real world”. Oscar cannot be in both worlds at the same time, and although he says that he is happier in his optimistic environment, he still likes spending time in the real world whenever he can. Oscar says when he lives in his optimistic environment, he wants what he is and what he is he wants.

Although Oscar might be somewhat of an oddball, he remains  the only man I ever wished that I could be.  I have learned over time to listen to what Oscar has to say, knowing full well he is speaking from a veteran’s perspective with a Yankee Doodle Doo attitude.

Regardless, to make a long story shorter, I thought that I would share with you a conversation I had with Oscar the other day. I still enjoy talking with Oscar and getting his read on things from time to time, and I thought you might be interested in Oscar’s take on recent events, which I am sharing with you now herewith. I had asked Oscar what he thought about recent events and here is what he said.

“You know, Jim, that’s a good question”, pausing a moment, seeming to gather his thoughts.

“Oh, I see things turning out just fine. You have to realize, however, that I have just returned from my sabbatical to the optimistic world and I am still carrying over a little bit of that high, so my current view might be a little tainted,  But even so, I see things turning out the way they should.

“When you look at the current situation, you need to start by viewing the two-party situation like it was before 'new leader' was put in charge. The two parties in the two-party system, prior to new leader, had their differences, but in all truth, they were more alike than different in the most important and general terms. Prior to new leader, neither party had an advantage over the other party when it came to issues relating to such things as ethics, morality, national pride, sexism, birth rights, national responsibility, and national security. Both parties shared these responsibilities equally on these matters. Since new leader, however, the strategic advantage on these most strategic of matters has shifted over to the Democratic party.

“I will explain myself, right now.

“It all started a few years back, when some character who was viewed as an “outcast” by both parties, found a way to sell himself as a new kind of leader for one of the parties. In conceding to new leader, the Republican party gained power, but tragically, in the process it lost its soul. And when I talk soul, here is what I am talking about:

• Racism.
• Corruption, family and associate-wide
• Sexism, Crudeness, Extra-marital and other liaisons.
• Lack of any “historical” concept of the United States of America and what it has stood for these past 250 years.
• Depletion of the trust from our allies, even to the point of embarrassment.
• Climate issues.
• Immigration.

“I could go on and on, but that’s the kind of soul that the republican party has lost. It is almost embarrassing to have to listen to the republican party speak on these issues today.

“The trouble is with all these stupid so-called, “self-equivalent” arguments.  There is no such a thing as a “self-equivalent” argument, it does not even make sense mathematically.  One answer will always be more right than another—that just makes common sense.  If they were the same, there would be no argument.  Give some mathematical and philosophical thought to that some time. 

“So clear your head of all these “self-equivalent” arguments and instead, find something like “national value” to talk about instead.  Or in other words, RAISE the level of dialogue.  America can be anything it wants to be on the world stage, so it is time to define what that means. Come up with a term , like “national value” as a measuring stick, which could steer us away from all those pitiful self-equivalent arguments that we have been having.  It’s a new millennium, America.  Where do you want to guide us from here?   

“Knowing full well that wherever America goes, it must do it in a way that respects all others.  After all, leadership is earned, but it can be lost.  And every leadership position needs others to lead.  Without others there can be no leadership.  It is simply mathematically, impossible.  America can be prideful for the respect it receives from others, but that respect needs to be met with humility in each and every case.  New leader misuses and humiliates the earned pride that our ancestors handed us—day after day after every miserable day--and before he destroys all of that pride that we have in America, we need to get him out of office.  Many of the current self-equivalent arguments would fall by the wayside if we truly raised the level of argument.

“The question to raise in the current dialogue is this: “Who do you want to be and what do you want to do, America”.  It’s your choice now, and you can do anything you choose.

“Hell, I have a Wharton degree, a masters at that.  I knew what most people thought about new leader as far back as the 1990’s.  He was viewed as a “con man”, someone who would screw his workers, while trying to gain from the publicity of his failures.  Why do you think “new leader” wants to keep his finances such a secret?  It is because his finances would prove to the world that he has always been a “con man” and explains why the business world rightfully treated him like an “outsider” or “outcast”.

“Knowing the full time, that if I am seeing these things other people were seeing them, too—including an equal number of people in both parties. The issues at hand are so fundamental and important to us as a nation that you know people are paying attention. Because our feelings on these subjects somewhat define what the U.S. stands for—what it really is--people are paying attention.

“And starting from that point, here is where my optimism steps in,

“The democratic party has already made their decision, and that is, “to impeach’

“That leaves the republic party with three unique and separate options, which can be viewed this way:

• Not guilty.
• Not impeach, but with a very, very strong condemnation; and
• Impeach

“Now, when you investigate each of the above options, separately, you will come to see that there is only one true option available from an optimistic world’s perspective, regardless of which party you were in,  And that option is to Impeach.

“Let us look at each option separately. Option 1, not guilty, means new leader is not guilty, which in turn would mostly likely be viewed as an endorsement of new leader and maybe even enough to give the new leader another four-year term.

“That kind of risk is just too great, there is no way either party could or should want this option”

“Endorsing new leader would be like endorsing RACISM, CORRUPTION, CLIMATE STAGNATION, SEXISM, LOSS OF U.S. PRIDE, ETCETERA. Think back on all those issues I mentioned before, including the U.S.’s position in the world. Endorsing new leader would be like covering your eyes while the most relevant issues relating to the future are smacking you right in the face. Issues like environmental, peaceful, economical, scientific, or explorative in nature. A republican endorsement would be in effect, moving away from the future, and strapping a lot of bad issues onto the back of the republican party—some of which, would likely destroy the party, itself.

“How would you like to be a party strapped with all of the things new leader has done? If new leader gets another four-year term, the republican party will have to explain why they are moving away from a direction that measured true national worth.

“Thus, I say, option one, not guilty, is really not an option for either party. There is just too much risk for either party to take with option one.

“Now let us look at option 2, not impeach but with a very strong smack in the face.’

What is important here is to understand that there is risk with option two, too. Option two still leaves open the possibility of new leader getting another four-year term. And even if that risk could be projected as being obscure, the republican party still must consider that risk in the same terms that I mentioned discussing option one. Even if minimized, those risks are too great to bare.

“It is only in option three, where there is no risk.

“And let me tell you what that means from my Wharton financial background. It means option three is the “optimum” (not optimistic) decision that can be made. It is the only option available without taking on otherwise, unbearable risk. Every option must account for the risk and cost associated with another four-year term for new leader.

“And neither party can accept that risk, whether it be small or large.”

“So, if you believe in recognized theory, be it financial or otherwise, the only option open for the smart decision maker is to impeach.”

“Now that is how I see things turning out, but regardless of what really happens, I have this to say.

“We’ll figure something out regardless of the way the future bends, we have no other choice. We will be dealt the hand we have to play, and we will play that hand accordingly with a positive outlook, working towards a world where global cooperation and U.S. leadership is viewed as a natural state of being.

“Remember, however, I am an optimist by nature.  Regardless of my sabbaticals to the optimistic world, I always try to look for the positive side of things, I could be wrong, but I do not see any options available to the republicans at this time, other than “impeachment”

“I believe we have seen one pebble begin to break away from new leader’s foundation. I think we are likely to see a few more coming up shortly. I never trusted the foundation of new leader. And if there is one thing you learn doing construction work; it is to build a strong foundation. Cracks in the foundation means it is time to fix the foundation. If the cracks get too wide, you must replace the foundation.

“In the current situation, I feel the cracks are very, very wide—and again, I see no other option available for a member of either party. It is time to replace the current foundation.

“You should not forget what brought Nixon down—tampering, or seemingly so, with our sacred election system. Nixon would have been impeached and thrown out of office if he had not resigned his position before it got to that point.”

“What new leader did, and what he is still trying to do to this day, is to tamper with the same sacred election system that Nixon did. But in degrees of magnitude that go way far beyond those that Nixon ever pulled. And that gives the old republican party the one chance they are going to get to save their soul, before it is completely lost.

“And that is my Optimism 2020 lesson for today.”

And those were the last words Oscar had to say on the subject.