Category Archives: Uncategorized

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 7.

Posted on by
Reply

            President-elect Donald Trump continued to stock his cabinet like a trout stream.[1]  His picks elicited complaints that his cabinet lacks ideological coherence.  Or, alternatively, they’re all of one “authoritarian” mind, just like Trump himself.[2] 

For Attorney-General2.0, he nominated Pam Bondi, a former Attorney-General of Florida.  Bondi is already disdained by some for having derided Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. 

            Having nominated the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Trump then nominated Dr. Janette Nesheiwat to be Surgeon General; Dr. Martin Makary to head the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and Dave Weldon to head the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). 

            Most of these nominations set off alarm bells among Democrats, although not so much as had Matt Gaetz.[3]  All the health nominees were decried as holding “ideas that are outside the medical mainstream.”  Doctors and scientists fear “the injection of politics into realms once reserved for academics.”  For her part, Attorney-General nominee Bondi was guilty of “rabid partisanship” while she was Florida’s Attorney-General.  Now Bondi will be the “most dangerous” Attorney-General the country has ever had.[4] 

            Trump has promised to shut down the Department of Education (DOE) and return responsibility entirely to the states.[5]  What does the DOE do?  It directs federal tax (or borrowing) dollars to low-income school districts filled with low-income (and often low-performing) students; and it manages university student loan programs.  Republicans think American public schools perform badly.  Republicans think bureaucratized school systems and unaccountable teachers are the source of the problem.  Republicans think that the solution to these problems are education vouchers, charter schools, and eliminating the DOE. Trump nominated Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education.  McMahon knows a lot about entertainment (specifically pro wrestling), but not much about education.  Maybe Trump anticipates a cage fight with people with Education degrees.    

            Republicans also think that American universities are messed-up.  In their view, the liberal arts and humanities faculties are leftists propagandizing young people.[6]  So the many leftists in the liberal arts and humanities are alarmed at the government using money and accreditation to get them in a Full-Nelson.  The reality is that the vast majority of undergraduates are pursuing degrees in business or other professions.  Liberal arts “core” requirements are much reduced compared to earlier times.  And you have to be listening to get propagandized.  The hyper-ventilating on both sides is uncalled for. 

            Probably will make people pine for the “chaos” of the first Addams administration. 

[1] “Trump fills out his Cabinet with loyalists and billionaires,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 4. 

[2] Writing this stuff so soon after the election must be like eating sand. 

[3] What could? 

[4] This would make her more dangerous that Roger Taney, Roger B. Taney – Wikipedia; or A. Mitchell Palmer A. Mitchell Palmer – Wikipedia  Big shoes to fill. 

[5] “McMahon: Will she dismantle DOE?” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 16.  So, like control of abortion. 

[6] Nothing really tops George Wallace’s denunciation of “pointy-headed intellectuals who can’t even park their bicycles straight on the campus.” 

ChiMerica 5.

Posted on by
Reply

            For decades after the death of Mao Zedong, China’s national policies were set by Deng Xiaoping and his like-minded successors.  China opened itself to the world, carried out major reforms, and pursued rapid economic growth.  An enhanced international power would surely come as a result of these policies.  Yet, it seemed to many foreign observers, that China would progressively integrate itself into a larger world system.  These hopes have been abridged.

How should we understand Xi Jinping, leader-for-life of contemporary China?  A recent book on Xi’s political thought as revealed in his speeches and writings cast some light on the issue.[1]  Xi possesses—or is possessed by—vast ambition for China.  He aims at the “rejuvenation” of his country by a Leninist dictatorship.  He wants to return China to its one-time status as the greatest nation in the world.  On the one hand, Xi’s aims mean asserting the power of the Communist Party as the guide of the nation in all political and economic matters.  He found the Chinese Communist Party demoralized by a loss of purpose.  He found it riddled with corruption.  Xi’s anti-corruption campaigns began by purging many of his enemies or rivals, but they seem not to have stopped there.  Xi’s reassertion of party primacy gives him a powerful lever to guide and to mobilize the Chinese people.   

On the other hand, Xi’s aims require displacing the United States from its long role as guardian of what might be called “American Asia”: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam.  As one of the means to this end, China has carried out a massive military build-up.  China has been asserting its claim to the South China Sea as a kind of Chinese lake, rather than an open international waterway. 

            Xi’s ambition is bad for the United States and bad for the states of “American Asia.”  Among these states, Japan serves as the linch-pin of the American position and it is a natural bete-noire for Xi.  Japan’s brutal behavior in Asia during the Second World War gives Xi’s propaganda a lot to work with in mobilizing Chinese opinion.  China’s battering of the fishing fleets and coast guards of the peripheral states around the South China Sea aims at controlling one of Japan’s main lines of trade. 

            Xi has been at this for a dozen years.  He has set his target date for the completion of China’s rejuvenation as 2050.  The end date is well after Xi will have shuffled off the scene.  He has been working hard to instill “Xi Jinping Thought” as the guiding ideology for his country. 

            The United States has been struggling to respond to the new China.  The presidential transition from the Democrat Joe Biden to the Republican Donald Trump requires a review of the essential questions.  How widely understood is the seriousness of China’s challenge?  Can anyone craft a plan for a successful response to China’s challenge?  Is it possible for the United States to mobilize the military and diplomatic resources needed to meet the challenge?   

            Countries close to China seem to profess the most confidence in the American alliance.  Perhaps they have no choice but to believe it.  Countries farther away in Southeast Asia are more skeptical.  One theory is that the evident inadequate level of American military power gives them pause.  So, is America bluffing when it claims that it will support its allies?  If so, then Asian countries will spot that like a leopard spots a limp. 

[1] Steve Tsang and Olivia Cheung, The Political Thought of Xi Jinping (2025), brought to my attention by Walter Russell Mead, “Does Biden Take China’s Threat Seriously?” WSJ, 9 April 2024. 

In a Bunch.

Posted on by
Reply

            Elon Musk is the owner of SpaceX, Tesla, X (called Twitter), “and, oh, some other stuff.”  He is the current “world’s wealthiest person.”  When NASA and Boeing couldn’t find a way to safely retrieve two astronauts from the space station, they asked Musk.  He obliged. 

            During the first Trump administration, Musk became exercised over what he saw as Progressives’ censorship of speech that they disliked.[1]  He bought Twitter, then used it as a platform to support Trump’s run for a second term.  He also spent $190 million in support of Trump during the months before the November 2024 election.  Now he is a court “favorite.”[2] 

Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have been instructed to create an extra-governmental “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE).  Their mission, should they decide to accept it, is to identify “trillions [as in $2 trillion] in possible budget cuts.”  More than that, they will “slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federl Agencies.”[3]

This development stirred up the hornets.  Normally, government officials and politicians spend a lifetime in public employment.  Their wealth is in the stock market and real estate investment.  If necessary, it can be placed in blind trusts.  This creates a reassuring sense of propriety among the public.  Not Elon Musk.  Like Donald Trump, he’s going to continue operating his big and important firms even while looking for places to cut spending (i.e. jobs).  “Look, and by the way,” he’s a Libertarian with a lot of government contracts.  So not fair! 

Democrats warn that Musk “could reap a windfall from deregulatory moves” if he has some kind of leverage on government agencies that regulate his business empire.  That’s a more than fair point, so it is fair to ask how much leverage he would have.  The “DOGE” would be a non-governmental advisory committee, not a real government department.[4]  The “DOGE” could recommend changes, but they would need Congressional action to take effect. 

Then there is Musk’s record on overhauling his own companies.  After he bought Twitter, he fired 80 percent of the employees.  That definitely got expenses down.  Will he recommend the same thing to the federal government?  Cutting the Departments of Education seems like a no-brainer, while foreclosing on the Housing and Urban Development would free up office space.  It would be necessary to cut 85 percent of government’s non-entitlements, non-defense, and non-interest payments to get $2 trillion out of the budget. 

If it can’t all be got that way, then sacred cows are going to “Bovine University.”[5]  Some people believe that Trump and Musk are “planning to cut Social Security and Medicare.”  Perhaps all of the chopping by Musk and Ramaswamy in the rest of the government is intended to show that the national finances cannot be repaired without “changes” (either cuts or efficiencies) to these two programs.  All this—mindlessly—leaves higher taxes off the table. 

[1] “Payback: The United States of Elon Musk,” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 34. 

[2] See: Favourite – Wikipedia  It’s actually kind of reassuring. 

[3] “Trump’s MAGA administration takes shape,” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 4. 

[4] Without wanting to stretch the point too far, during the Cold War the U.S. government had a group of “wise men” to consult on international crises.  See: Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made (2013).  Curiously, Isaacson now is at work on a biography of Musk.  Similarly, the “9-11 Commission” made important suggestions about improving government action against foreign terrorism.  It isn’t clear how these recommendations have been followed. 

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR_4h5A5z_A 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 6.

Posted on by
Reply

            Filling the President’s Cabinet dominated the news this past week. Almost all the nominees called forth groans and denunciations.  Some nominees brought more than that.  The nomination of clownish Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General set off a firestorm.[1]  He was the subject of an on-going Ethics Committee investigation.[2]  Gaetz quickly resigned from Congress, allowing the Ethics Committee to not release the report if it chose.[3]  However, Gaetz’s nomination as Attorney General made a lot of Senators hungry to see the report.  Some of these Senators were Republicans.  Conservative media joined in.  Gaetz was labeled as totally unqualified because he has never run anything or prosecuted a case, so how is he supposed to run the Department of Justice?  Trump expressed his unconditional support for Gaetz and had been talking about finagling the use of “recess appointments” to get his choices in office without Senate hearings or a vote.  The latter proposal also encountered a fierce attack from Republicans.  Then, suddenly and almost quietly, Gaetz withdrew his name from consideration for Attorney General.  He didn’t want to be a “distraction.”[4] 

            Then there’s Peter Hegseth, nominated as Secretary of Defense.[5]  Like Gaetz, Hegseth has no formal qualifications to run a gigantic organization, let alone the one charged with national defense.  He’s a former National Guard officer and long-time Fox News personality.  To make matters worse, he is suspected of being some kind of Christiaan nationalist,[6] and news leaked of a settlement with a woman who had accused him of sexual assault.[7] 

            Is Hegseth the wrong man for the wrong task or the wrong man for the right task?  In the eyes of many Progressives, it is the former.  They dread the American military being put to enforcing President Trump’s domestic policies: mass deportations of illegal immigrants, reversing the use of the military as a D.I.E. lab, or even suppressing domestic political opposition.  For many Trump supporters and even some of his opponents, the mission is putting a stop to the pointless, badly-run “forever wars.”[8] 

            Something like the same thing is true of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., nominated as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.[9]  He’s an anti-vaxxer and has a number of other odd ideas, to put it mildly.  Then there’s the whole thing with dead animals of various kinds.  OTOH, Kennedy’s been outspoken on a real childhood health crisis, and is a critic of Big Food with all its homogenization, additives, and advertising.  The latter hardly off-set the former. 

            So, a string of bad nominees, but some good ideas behind the nominations.  Is it possible to keep the good while getting rid of the bad?  Or do “good” people accept “the way things are”?

[1] “Trump doubles down on Gaetz nomination,” The Week, 29 November 2024, p. 4. 

[2] He had been accused of sex trafficking; having sex with a 17 year-old; using illegal drugs; and misusing campaign funds. 

[3] The Committee has a history of not releasing reports on accused Members who do the right thing by resigning.

[4] Will Ron DeSantis appoint him to Marco Rubio’s Senate seat if Rubio becomes Secretary of State? 

[5] “Trump’s plans for military purge take shape,” The Week, 29 November 2024, p. 5. 

[6] Cross of Jerusalem tattoo on his chest; “Deus le veult” tattoo on one arm.  Both of which make him sound non-Muslim and perhaps anti-Muslim. 

[7] So far, the truth of the allegations is contested. 

[8] Staying in Afghanistan for any purpose other than getting their hands on Osama bin Laden’s bullet-riddled corpse; the whole of the Iraq mishagosh; overthrowing Ghadaffi in Libya, then walking away as the place burns down. 

[9] “RFK Jr.: Is he a threat to public health?” The Week, 29 November 2024, p. 6. 

Decisions.

Posted on by
Reply

            “War is pure Hell.  You cannot refine it.”—William Tecumseh Sherman.  Peace in the Russo-Ukraine war is desirable.  Under the right terms. 

Under what terms is “peace” with Russia desirable for Ukraine?  Should Ukraine give up the territory that Russia already holds in exchange for peace?[1]  Should they try to keep fighting with whatever aid the European Union can provide, even if the United States does a bunk?  Should they try to extract commitments for the West in exchange for ceding territory to Russia and halting the fighting?  Such commitments might involve reconstruction aid, modern arms for a post-war Ukrainian military, and membership in the European Union and NATO.  What if Russia’s terms include demands for Ukraine’s “neutralization” and disarmament so as not to “threaten” Russia in the future? 

Under what terms is peace desirable for Russia?  It would take extreme pressure to make Russia give up its territorial gains.  Vladimir Putin’s long-term goal appears to be the reassembly of the Soviet Union.  Any peace that leaves Ukraine functionally independent marks a defeat.  In terms of manpower, Russia has a big edge.  At the moment, it profits from an alliance of convenience with China, North Korea, and Iran.  Putin may calculate that he can keep the pressure on Ukraine until the front lines cave in.  If that happens, Russia could be in a position to take much more than anyone else is contemplating at this moment. 

Under what conditions is peace desirable for the United States?  This question involves asking other questions.  First, where does Ukraine figure in America’s global strategy?  The United States faces multiple dangers simultaneously.  The Far East is the most important of these challenges.  Then there is the Middle East.  The key concerns here are the oil, Iran’s forward policy, and Israel.  Then there’s Europe.  Putin’s ambitions pose an eventual danger to the former “satellite states” and to the Baltic countries.  How soon would it become an actual danger?  Russia’s attack on Ukraine has prompted a revival and expansion of NATO.  Putin’s “allies” all have a strong interest in keeping the eyes of the world focused on Ukraine (and Gaza).[2]  At the same time, a consciousness of danger is poking the Europeans to look to their own defenses.  This will take time to develop. 

Second, to what extent can the United States make good its global commitments?  It operates from a weakened position compared to the past.  The United States military’s command structure has ossified, the defense industrial base has eroded for decades, and the human manpower base is in poor shape.[3]  It is by no means guaranteed that the United States can fight and win multiple simultaneous wars.  Rearmament is going to take time and cost money even IF the political will exists to rearm. 

            What’s best for Ukraine?  Only they can decide. 

            What’s best for the United States?  Only they can decide. 

            What’s best for Russia?  Only Putin can decide. 

            Where, if at all, do those decisions overlap? 

[1] See: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – Russo-Ukrainian War – Wikipedia 

[2] Someone once observed that Bismarck was the kind of guy who would set fire to your barn so that he could sleep through the night. 

[3] The country has a high rate of obesity, with attendant illnesses.  Wegovy in boot camp? 

The Knives Are Out.

Posted on by
Reply

            Donald Trump hammered Kamala Harris in the presidential elections.  Now the Democrats have organized a circular firing squad. 

            According to one theory. Joe Biden is to blame.[1]  The dotard made himself very unpopular with voters because of the bad stuff—chiefly inflation and immigration–that happened during his administration.  Perhaps lusting for power and office, he decided to run for re-election back in 2022.  Then the June debate with Trump revealed the great and terrible Oz to the public.  Still Biden clung to the nomination for another month.  Had he announced that he would not seek re-election in 2022, or had he even bailed immediately after the debate, the Democrats could have had some time to find a strong candidate. 

            According to one theory, Kamala Harris was a “stiff,” and not in the Celine Dion “stiff person syndrome” sense of the term.  She gave speeches and ticked-off sanitized talking points, while Trump was free-associating on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”  An un-inspiring candidate failed to draw the votes that the dynamic and charismatic Joe Biden had excited in 2020.  (Wait, what?)  “Democrats sat out the election,” said one writer.[2] 

            According to one theory, the problem for Democrats was not with “Populism,” but with “Populists.”  Democrats who won where Kamala Harris lost “ran to the left on economic issues.”[3]  They attacked “corporate greed” and high prices.[4]  The key here is “economic issues,” not “cultural issues” or D.I.E. initiatives.  Confederate bathrooms and transgender monuments played no role in the campaigns of the Democratic victors in these cases.  “Kamala’s for They/Them” jammed their own pronoun-posturing into the guts of the Democrats and twisted it.  “Defund the police” came back to haunt Democrats, no matter how hard they later leaned into John Kerry-esque “I voted for it before I voted against it” dodging around.  The Democrats had indulged in an orgy of “condescension and cancellation,” so it’s no wonder they lost the last shreds of their base in the “blue collar/working class/real America” vote.[5] 

            According to one theory, it’s the fault of the voters.[6]  The people who put Trump in the White House are “the most badly informed electorate in modern American history.”  About 57 percent of voters had less than a bachelor degree; while 24 percent had a bachelor degree and 19 percent had a graduate degree of some sort.  Of voters with less than a bachelor degree, an average of 41 percent voted for Harris, and an average of 57 percent voted for Trump.  Of these latter two groups, 53 percent of those with bachelor degrees voted for Harris and 43 percent voted for Trump; while 59 percent of those with graduate degrees voted for Harris and 38 percent voted for Trump.  So, if low educational attainment correlated with Trump voters and high educational attainment, why were so many of those without bachelor degrees Harris voters and why were so many with bachelors and graduate degrees Trump voters?  Apparently, educational level doesn’t have much to do with being “informed.” 

            What does affect being “informed”?  How about lived experience?  According to exit polls, 46 percent of voters said that their family’s financial situation was worse than four years before.  Of these people, 81 percent voted for Trump and 17 percent for Harris.  Conversely, 24 percent of voters said that their family’s financial situation was actually better than four years previously.  Of these voters, 82 percent voted for Harris and 14 percent for Trump.  When asked about the inflation in the past year, 75 percent replied that it had caused moderate or severe hardship.  On average, 62 percent of these respondents voted for Trump.  Of those who said that inflation caused no hardship, 77 percent voted for Harris.[7]  Put crudely, Trump voters were inflation-victims and Harris voters were inflation-profiteers.  I don’t think that’s what Franklin D. Roosevelt or Harry S. Truman had in mind for the Democratic Party. 

[1] “This is all Biden’s fault”—Josh Barro in the NYT, quoted in “Election 2024: How Trump won,” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 16. 

[2] Patrick Murray, Monmouth University, quoted in “Election 2024: How Trump won,” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 16.  Actually, about 950,000 of them voted for Trump and another 72 million voted for Harris.  About 8.5 million did sit out the election.  Probably busy filling out the immigration papers for Canada. 

[3] David Leonhardt of the NYT, quoted in “Democrats: Where does the party go from here?” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 6. 

[4] Final story is not yet written for Casey versus McCormick in Pennsylvania Senate race. 

[5] Maureen Dowd of the NYT, quoted in “Democrats: Where does the party go from here?” The Week, 22 November 2024, p. 6; “Democrats: Why Harris lost so badly,” The Week, 15 November 2024, p. 6.

[6] See: Jim Bouton (and Neil Offen), I Managed Good, But Boy Did They Play Bad (1973).  Good book to know if you like baseball. 

[7] 2024 United States presidential election – Wikipedia 

Abortion in the Election.

Posted on by
Reply

            Pre-election polling revealed that 54 percent of women voters favored Harris versus 42 percent who did not.[1]  In a neck-and-neck race, 54 percent of half the total voters might not be enough to get the job done.  This was particularly true in a contest in which men favored Trump over Harris. 

Late in the race, Kamala Harris sought to “galvanize women voters” by emphasizing the abortion issue.  Trump had said that he would veto a law creating a national ban on abortion, something many people in the “Right to Life” movement desired.  Democrats sought to cast doubt on this pledge, arguing that a President Trump could have the FDA ban the abortifacient mifepristone or have the Justice Department ban its shipment through the mails under the Comstock Act.  Beyond those steps, they argued, a Trump administration could end any federal money used to support contraception and could attempt to create or expand “conscience” exemptions for medical service providers.  Harris’s surrogate Michelle Obama urged men to defend the interests of the women in their lives. 

On Election Day, seven states passed ballot referendums that increased protections for women.[2]  The list would have been longer if Florida didn’t require a 60 percent super-majority for amendments to the state constitution.  In Florida a clear majority of 57 percent of voters endorsed replacing the current 6 weeks time limit with a “fetal viability” limit.  The “fetal viability standard” of about 24 weeks seems to be the new goal, trashing “Right to Life” absolute bans and 15 weeks limits.  In two states (South Dakota and Nebraska), voters rejected proposed abortion projections. 

Her effort to link support for abortion to her own candidacy seems to have done Harris some good, but not enough good, come Election Day.  Exit polling estimates suggested that Harris had won 53 percent of the women’s vote versus 45 percent for Trump.[3]  Moreover, the women’s vote constituted 53 percent of all votes versus 47 percent by men.  So, 53 percent of 53 percent equals 28.09 percent of the total.  Exit polls suggested that Harris won 61 percent of women aged 18-29, and 59 percent of unmarried women.[4]  She won an average of 52 percent of women 30 years and older and 48 percent of married women.  In other measures, Harris won 45 percent of White women, 60 percent of Hispanic women, and 91 percent of Black women.  Among white suburban women, Harris pulled 46 percent to Trump’s 53 percent.  Gender solidarity did not prevail among women any more than it did among men. 

When asked what issues mattered most, Abortion ranked first for 14 percent of voters.  Of these voters, 74 percent went for Harris and 25 percent for Trump.  Democracy ranked first for 34 percent of voters, the Economy ranked first for 32 percent of voters, and Immigration ranked first for 11 percent of voters. 

Some polling had suggested that women could favor both abortion rights and Republican candidates.  Women voters could split their tickets in the referendum states or de-prioritize abortion elsewhere.  As one writer put it, “there is more to me than my uterus.” 

[1] “Abortion: A winning issue for Harris?” The Week, 8 November 2024, p. 16. 

[2] “Abortion: Pro-choice victories in seven states,” The Week, 15 November 2024, p. 14. 

[3] 2024 United States presidential election – Wikipedia 

[4] Apparently the pollsters did not ask about cat ownership. 

“God is on the side of the big battalions”–Voltaire.

Posted on by
Reply

            Russia and Ukraine have been “at war” since 2014.  Russia seized the Crimean peninsula and supported “rebellion” in two majority Russian “oblasts” in eastern Ukraine.  Then, in February 2024, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.  They missed their punch.  Since then, the Russians and Ukrainians have been engaged in a prolonged war of attrition.  Recently, a Ukrainian offensive ground to a halt without reaching its ambitious goals.  Since then, the Russians have mostly been grinding away on the Ukrainian lines in the Donbas.  Western observers predicted that the Ukrainian defense would hold as Russian bodies piled up in “No Man’s Land.”  Moreover, the Ukrainians launched their own minor counter-offensive in the Kursk region.  The intent was to seize Russian territory and force the Russians to shift soldiers from the Donbas, blunting the Russian offensive. 

The West has provided Ukraine with far more “lethal” aid since February 2022 than it did before then.  That aid has come with restrictions however.  In particular, Western governments seem to have wanted Ukraine to bleed Russia white until Vladimir Putin would agree to negotiate a reasonable settlement.  On the other hand, they didn’t want Ukraine risking an expansion of the war toward a threshold where Putin might use nuclear weapons.  So long-range weapons that could reach deep into Russia have been off the table.  Ukrainian President Zelensky has kept asking all the same. 

The trouble is that there are more Russians than Ukrainians.  Specifically, there are 143 million Russians and 38 million Ukrainians.  The Russians have suffered between 400,000 and 600,000 military casualties dead and wounded since the invasion began almost three years ago; Ukraine has lost perhaps as many as 80,000 dead and 400,000 wounded.[1]  However, the Russians have managed to dredge up 25,000-30,000 replacements per month.  Now they have managed to recruit 8,000 North Korean soldiers.  (There may be more to come.)  In contrast, Ukraine is just running out of soldiers.  It is the one being “bled white.” 

As a result, Russians managed to contain the incursion near Kursk while still attacking in the Donbas.  Now the Russians are moving forward against the Ukrainian defenses in both the Donbas and Kursk.  On the Ukrainian side, the fighting men are becoming exhausted and “morale is eroding.” 

People sympathetic to Ukraine ask “Why must Ukraine keep fighting with one hand tied behind its back?”[2]  Because NATO countries do not want to go to war with Russia directly.  Hemingway has one of his characters explain how he went broke: “Gradually and then suddenly.”[3]  The same thing is true for Ukraine now.  Ukraine is going to have to make a deal with Russia.  Shrewd, realistic thinking says that Ukraine will have to accept the loss of the territory that the Russians have conquered.[4]  Ukraine will have to settle for some guarantee of its future security, coupled with financial aid for reconstruction.  Membership in NATO, or just fair words and promises from Putin, may be that guarantee.

[1] See: Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War – Wikipedia 

[2] The Observer, quoted in “Ukraine: A grim reality sets in,” The Week, 15 November 2024, p. 15.

[3] Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises (1926).  And Jackson Browne counsels “don’t think it won’t happen just because it hasn’t happened yet.”  The Road and the Sky (Remastered) 

[4] Richard Haas, quoted in “Ukraine: A grim reality sets in,” The Week, 15 November 2024, p. 15. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration.

Posted on by
Reply

            In 2024, Trump pulled 75,142,617 votes versus 71,881,183 for Harris. 

            In 2020, Trump pulled 74,223,975 votes versus 81,283,501 for Biden. 

            In 2024, Harris pulled 9,402,318 fewer votes than Biden did in 2020. 

            In 2024, Trump pulled 918,642 more votes than he did in 2020. 

            If it is assumed that Trump’s additional votes came from people who had voted for Biden, then 918,642 of Harris’s lost votes represent these vote-switchers. 

            So, more than 900,000 voters switched from Biden/Harris to Trump.  Had those votes stayed with Harris, then Trump would have pulled “only” 74,223,975 votes.  Harris would have pulled 72,799,825 votes.  Trump still would have won the popular votes by 1,424,150 votes.  (That still leaves the Electoral College.)   

Then, some 8,483,676 people who voted for Biden in 2020, just stayed home in 2024 rather than voting for either candidate.[1] 

Throughout the Biden administration, Democratic politicians and many in the media labeled Donald Trump an “Authoritarian” and a “Fascist.”  During the Biden phase of the 2024 Presidential election and in the final bit of the Harris-phase of the election, “Donald Trump is a threat to Democracy” played a central role in Democratic messaging. 

What is “Fascism”?  Fascism is a term for right-radical political movements in the first half of the Twentieth Century.  Commonly, they were anti-liberal (in the sense of the 19th Century political ideology); Chauvinistic nationalist; focused on a strong “Leader”; hostile toward minority groups inside and to non-whites outside the Nation; and supporters of traditional values. 

Maybe 84.5 million voters WANT “Authoritarianism” and “Fascism.”  I don’t know why this would be.  Perhaps the terms “Authoritarianism” and “Fascism” aren’t frightening to 84.5 million Americans?  Perhaps the meaning for many people is different from what the terms’ users intend?  Perhaps Trump’s opponents failed to flesh-out the meaning sufficiently?[2]  Deporting illegal immigrants or letting each state decide the abortion question or avoiding foreign entanglements may not sound Hitlerian. 

Maybe 84.5 million voters don’t believe that Trump is an “Authoritarian” or “Fascist.”  In 1944, George Orwell wrote that “fascist” was a term of abusee used on the left for anyone they didn’t like.  Similarly, he said, “socialist” or “communist” were terms of abuse used on the right for anyone they didn’t like.[3]  Older voters will recall that “Fascist,” as in “cops are Fascist pigs,” once provided a common epithet on the Left.  Wasn’t true then; maybe it isn’t true now? 

Perhaps many people think that the current “democratic” political system is broken?  The parties have been failing to deal with disruptive change for decades now.  Scholars have divided American political history into six “party systems.”  Parties exhaust their agenda.  Then systems change after a “realigning election” wrecks one or more of the parties.[4] 

[1] Unless one accepts the logic of pre-election Democratics that “not voting or voting for a third candidate is a vote for Trump.”  That would put Trump’s vote at 83,626,293 to Harris’s 71,881,183.  Nearly a 12 million vote edge. 

[2] Certainly, 6 January 2021 gave them plenty to work with.  A huge audience watched the broadcast of the riot. 

[3] “What is Fascism?” https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc 

[4] For an introduction, see Political eras of the United States – Wikipedia  Bibliography is weak. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 4.

Posted on by
Reply

            Donald Trump did a lot to dirty himself up before the November 2024 presidential election.  In 2020, after losing the election, he asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger to find him around 12,000 votes to help his effort to over-turn the election.  Then he sat around in the White House watching television broadcasts of some of his supporters attacking the Capitol building and he didn’t do anything about it for a long time.[1]  He defamed E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of sexual abuse.  He stormed off to Mar-a-Lago with a big stash of classified documents, then resisted returning them to their rightful owner. 

            Not content with Trump shooting himself in the foot (or head) with these acts, the Democrats piled on.  Having run for office on a promise to sue or prosecute (or turn him into a hissing and a byword in the village) Donald Trump, Attorney General of the State of New York Laetitia James sued him for fraud.  She won her case.  Having run for office on a promise to prosecute Donald Trump, New York County district attorney Alvin Bragg prosecuted him for filing false business records, then turned these misdemeanors into felonies by claiming that they were done in support of another criminal act.[2]  Then Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump with election interference.  Then U.S. Department of Justice Special Prosecutor Jack Smith charged Trump in a federal election interference case and the government documents case.[3]  All these efforts may have been counter-productive. 

            Once again, during his campaign Trump dirtied himself up.  He lied about violent illegal immigrants taking over towns; he seemed to promise to put the anti-vaxxer and animal prankster Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in charge of public health, he called the Democrats “the enemy within,” and engaged in various vulgarities and menaces. 

            The “Fascist Trump” and “Authoritarian Trump” had been a common accusation before and during Trump’s first term.  During the Joe Biden-phase of the 2024 campaign, it became a staple once again.  Later, in the Kamala Harris-phase of the campaign, she turned to a more optimistic message about all the good things that would come from a Democratic victory.  In the last sprint toward election day, with this message not opening much of a lead in the polls, Harris turned back to the “It Can Happen Here” theme.  All sorts of eminent people who had served in the first Trump administration now testified to his “Authoritarian” and “Fascist” tendencies.  

            None of this moved the needle.  At least it didn’t move the needle against Trump.  On 5 November 2024, voters gave him a decisive victory.  Trump won the popular vote 75,142,617 versus 71,881,183 for Harris.  In percentage terms, Trump won 50.3 percent of the vote; Harris won 48.1 percent.  In the Electoral College, these numbers translated into 312 votes for Trump and 226 votes for Harris.[4]  So, yes, Decisive, but not a Landslide. 

[1] There’s a lot to be learned about all this and more from The Report of the January 6th Committee.  On-line: Read the Jan. 6 committee report in full : NPR  In print: The January 6th Report: Findings from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol: The January 6 Select Committee, Schiff, Adam: 9780593597279: Amazon.com: Books 

[2] I wonder if either one of these convictions will hold up, in part or in full, if they ever get to an appeals court. 

[3] All three got gummed up from a combination of Trump’s legitimate “Delay, Delay, Delay” strategy and missteps by prosecutors that do not seem to me to bear on the essential validity of the prosecutions.  OTOH, I’m no lawyer. 

[4] In 2020 Joe Biden won the popular vote 81,283,501 to Trump’s 74,223,975.