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.

Populo-phobia and Progresso-Normativity.

Posted on by
Reply

            Historians often read stuff from the many-days-ago.  While looking for something else, I came across a curious article.[1]  The article is an exercise in dystopic futurism.  It defines some terms; then extrapolates from events in the first half of the Twentieth Century. 

“Populo-phobia” is the hostility and disdain felt toward “the People” collectively asserting themselves against “the Elites.”[2]  Populism is often attacked as a collection of “anti” movements.  It is anti-elite, anti-intellectual, anti-complexity, anti-foreign, anti-change in some ways, and anti-system in the sense of believing that “working within the system” leads nowhere.     

“Progresso-normativity,” sprang from this “Populo-phobia.”  It is the concept that Progressivism is the “normal” political orientation.  It assumes a partisan binary in which Progressivism is empirically and morally correct and Populism is empirically and morally incorrect.[3] 

            Honey draws his evidence from the impact of the Depression and the Second World War.  First, the era witnessed a vibrant rhetorical faith in “democracy” combined with a suspicion of “the people.”  By the middle of the Twentieth Century, many examples could be offered of the ability of charismatic leaders to mobilize mass enthusiasm for destructive purposes.[4]

Second, there had been a huge expansion of government’s role.  On the one hand, this meant managing the economic environment to create material prosperity.  In this effort, independent central banks and, in some places, national planning authorities played an important role.  Government’s expanded role led to a great and continuing increase in bureaucracy.  This began to shift the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of government.  On the other hand, the acceptance of social change through “social evolution” gave way to change promoted by public authorities.  This meant a turn to laws and courts (hence lawyers and judges), and regulations (hence experts and bureaucrats).  All these were seen as too complex for the ordinary understanding. 

Fourth, Honey applied the ideas of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci to the modern elites.[5]  Gramsci argued that, through their control of media and education, the dominant minority sold its own values and culture to the mass of people.  The People’s acceptance of this culture made them conform, rather than resist.[6]  In this effort, education and the media are vital. 

Fifth, Honey conjectured that both the post-Second World War “G.I. Bill” and the foundation of the Educational Testing Service (1947) might create an enlarged and different “Elite.”  On the one hand, it could create a “Confucian” America where social advancement depended upon standardized examination testing.  On the other hand, Honey feared a compartmentalization of American society.  This might leave Progressive-Americans cut off from the lives of “ordinary” people. 

The effects of societal “Progresso-normativity” on Conservatives, Independents, and Populists has been labeled “Progressive privilege.”[7] 

[1] Theodore Honey, “Populo-phobia and Progresso-normativity,” Journal of Relatively Advanced Concepts, August 1948.

[2] This extends to individuals who self-identify or are read as being Populists. 

[3] To be fair, Honey also argues that Progressives view Conservatism as substantially unjustified. 

[4] That is, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. 

[5] On Gramsci, see Joseph Buttigieg, Gramsci’s Political Thought (1992). 

[6] To offer one example drawn from a later period, watch a few episodes of “All in the Family” (1971-83). 

[7] “Progressive privilege” is a sub-set of the larger concept of “Societal privilege.”  “Societal privilege” describes the advantages or benefits received by members of some groups which are denied to other groups.  These benefits, it is theorized, are received as a function of a person’s membership in such a group, rather than as a function of individual merit or action.  “Privilege” often runs hand-in-hand with various types of power: social, cultural, economic, and political.  However, people with some “privilege” tend to not understand that they are “privileged.”  They see themselves and the members of their group as “normal.”  “Privileged” people often deny the existence of an entrenched institutional “privilege.”  Those without “privilege” are seen as deviant.  That deviance may be either willful or the accidental result of misinformation. 

Questions of Purely Historical Interest.

Posted on by
Reply

            Was Joe Biden at least semi-senile when he ran for President in 2020?  Did he take advantage of the Covid emergency to campaign from the basement of his house in order to avoid too many public appearances? 

Did leading figures[1] in the Democratic Party know this at the time.  Did those leading figures choose to support Biden as a plausible alternative to Bernie Sanders not because they feared that Sanders could not win but because they feared that Sanders could win?  First Trump, then Sanders: that would really upset the apple cart. 

            Did Joe Biden’s senility advance, perhaps rapidly, during his term as President.[2]  Did he play an ever-smaller role in his Presidency?  He continued to be adequate when reading from a Tele-Prompter.  He had never been an electrifying public speaker, so he had a low bar to clear there.  He avoided press conferences and extended interviews.  Did key Administration officials– Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Janet Yellin, Lloyd Austin, the Director of National Intelligence officers doing the daily intelligence briefing[3]–see this decline?[4]  Was there a group in the White House that assumed many of the functions of the Presidency to lighten the load for a beloved person? 

            Did leading figures in the Democratic Party (and possibly in the Republican Party as well) perceive the cognitive decline of President Biden? 

Between 2020 and 2022, many ordinary observers had assumed that Biden would serve one term, then hand off to a younger generation.  He had much younger leaders-in-waiting in his Cabinet: Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Gina Raimondo.  There were ambitious governors: Gavin Newsome, Gretchen Whitmer.  Why not let them duke it out in a primary campaign, while Biden minded the store?  Why was this not a good alternative?    

            Between 2022 and 2024, did Nancy Pelosi and others contemplate forcing Biden to bow out after he said that he would run for a second term?  Was his decline not yet evident to them?  Did they view it as a professional courtesy extended to a fellow gerontocrat?  Did they fear that exposing the President would cast a shadow over the administration’s work during the first term?  Did they fear that a knives-out primary fought against the backdrop of massive illegal immigration and rising prices would only produce harmful effects?[5] 

            Where they willing to “manage” a deficient President during a second term?  While President Biden sought re-election, did they contemplate the possibility of his removal during his second term?  That would have made Kamala Harris the first female President. 

[1] I have great respect for Nancy Pelosi’s intelligence, realism, deep understanding of the American political system, self-control, ability to read other people, and ruthlessness.  She closely resembles Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, and Georgia Meloni.  Had she been born a generation later, the United States already would have had its first woman President.  Aside from party affiliation, she has nothing in common with Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, and nothing at all in common with Nikki Haley.  Obviously, the bar is lower for men.  Can’t explain presidents like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama otherwise.   

[2] The alternative would be to believe that Biden’s previously alleged “sharp as a tack” cognitive abilities suddenly collapsed during the week before his one debate with Donald Trump.  I find that hard to credit.  You? 

[3] Would the DNI briefers report to their superiors any signs of mental decline? 

[4] Certainly could explain why poor Karine Jean-Pierre, the Press Secretary, got frozen out of the policy discussions.  She isn’t an old-time Biden person, so she might let something slip. 

[5] When driving on an icy road, you should neither swerve nor bang the brakes hard. 

American Public Opinion in October 2024.

Posted on by
Reply

            NBC/Telemundo polls[1] revealed a shift in the political preference among Latino voters. 

            In 2016, 69 percent of Latino voters supported Hillary Clinton; 19 percent favored Donald Trump. 

            In 2020, 63 percent of Latino voters chose Joe Biden; 27 percent voted for Donald Trump. 

            In 2024, just before the election, 54 percent of Latino voters favored Kamala Harris; 40 percent favored Donald Trump. 

            That is an almost 22 percent drop for the Democratic candidate in eight years, with 60 percent of it coming in the last four years.  Why the decline? 

When she ran—briefly—in the Democratic presidential primary in 2019, Harris favored decriminalizing illegal border crossings.[2]  Subsequently, under the Biden-Harris administration, President Biden ordered an end to President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy for those seeking asylum.  Illegal immigration tripled.  Then the failure of the Biden-Harris administration’s “Remain in Texas” policy brought home to many northern Democratic cities the realities of such huge, unregulated immigration.  Immigration control became a powerful Republican issue. 

That explains the careening U-turn taken by Kamala Harris.  She began walloping Trump for having squelched a bipartisan border bill for political reasons when Democrats had only adopted the policy recently for political reasons. 

It doesn’t automatically explain why the Latino vote shifted.  That shift may or may not be related to the immigration question.  There are 50.4 million Latinos in states on the border with Mexico.  They would have seen all the same things that drove many Anglos wild. 

Perhaps some are angry about inflation, which hits lower-income people harder than it does higher-income people.[3]  Perhaps some are running small businesses and perceive Democrats as anti-Business, and not merely anti-Big Business.  Perhaps some are socially conservative and are repelled by the Democrat embrace of non-binarity. 

Whatever the cause, it is an important chunk of the Democratic coalition to cast away. 

            In October 2024, an Economist/YouGov poll assessed the state of American opinion on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.[4] 

            Overall, 33 percent sympathized more with Israel, 19 percent more with the Palestinians, and 24 percent with both sides equally.  (Which totals 76 percent.  What about the other 24 percent?  “Don’t Know” or “A plague on both their houses”?)  Under that umbrella huddle different groups.  Only 14 percent of Democrats sympathize more with Israelis, while 33 percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.  (That’s 47 percent.  So the other 53 percent sympathize with both sides equally or Don’t Care?)  In contrast, 63 percent of Republicans express more sympathy for Israelis than for Palestinians, while a mere 5 percent sympathize more with Palestinians.  (Again, that’s 68 percent. Do the other 32 percent sympathize equally or just don’t care?)  On the issue of supplying military aid[5] to Israel, 38 percent say that it should be reduced; 18 percent support increasing it; and 25 percent say that it’s fine where it is.  (Again, the figures total 81 percent, so 19 percent probably fall into “Don’t Know.”)  Support for military assistance at or above the current level totals 43 percent, while support for cutting it is at 38 percent.  That’s close to a tipping point. 

            So, 63 percent of Republicans and 14 percent of Democrats sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians.  At the same time, support for maintaining military aid at the current level or for raising it totals only 43 percent.  That is a lot lower level than the totals for feeling sympathy for Israel.  Even among their most committed American supporters, the Israelis are encountering doubts about their wars in Gaza and Lebanon.  Probably these doubts are rooted less in the necessity of war than in the manner of its conduct. 

Do Israeli care any longer if they alienate the Americans?  I haven’t seen polling on that. 

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 17. 

[2] “Harris: A sharp turn on immigration,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 16. 

[3] Donald Trump is said to appeal to “low-information” voters.  The disparate impact of inflation among income groups could leave the better-educated and better-off Democrats as the “low information voters” when it comes to economic hardship.  To turn around Governor Tim Walz’s jab at the ever-obnoxious Elon Musk, “He’s a fat guy with a government job; what does he know about hardship?” 

[4] Poll Watch,” The Week, 18 October 2024

[5] You know, stuff that goes “BOOM!” and then buildings fall down. 

Prologue to a Possible Second Term of the Addams Administration 3.

Posted on by
Reply

            NB: I’m writing this as if I don’t know how yesterday’s election turned out. 

            As 5 November 2024 loomed, nothing seemed to shift the balance of voters.  A Wall Street Journal poll reported that Donald Trump led Kamala Harris 51 to 47 percent nation-wide; a New York Times poll showed them even in the seven “battleground” states.  This wasn’t a simple difference of opinion.  Another poll reported that 87 percent of respondents believed that “America will suffer permanent damage if their candidate loses.” 

In light of the themes of speeches used by the two candidates and their parties in this election season, it isn’t hard to see why so many people are worried.  In the sprint to the finish, neither candidate did anything to lessen voter fears.  Kamala Harris said that Donald Trump is a “petty tyrant”; that he is “unstable, consumed with grievance, obsessed with revenge, and out for unchecked power”; and that electing him President will produce an America “ruled by chaos and division.”[1]  For his part, Trump lambasted the Democratic Party as “a crooked, malicious, leftist machine” and “the most sinister and corrupt forces on Earth.” 

Whichever one of them wins, the judiciary is going to be re-made.  Asked straight-out about expanding the Supreme Court to outvote the current conservative majority, Harris refused to disavow such a plan.  If Trump wins, any vacancies in the next four years will be filled with Federalist Society-vetted people like Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch. 

            Much will depend on the outcome of races further down the ballot, especially the Senate.  If one party gains both the White House and the Senate, it will grasp Executive and Judicial appointments for at least two years.  In Senate races (where one-third of the Senate stands for election every two years), Republicans have the easier path to control.  Flipping one seat, would give them a tie.  The Vice President would be the deciding vote on some legislation, but the filibuster would block most legislation.[2]  If the Republicans win two or more seats, then they would have the majority and could either block all Democratic legislation (if Harris wins) or push through some legislation if Trump wins.  (The American system is murkier and more contingent than are European parliamentary systems.)  Republicans appeared confident that they could win seats in West Virginia and Montana; they hoped to win seats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  Pollsters agreed that these hopes were reasonable.  Control of the House of Representatives appeared up for grabs.[3] 

            Fear haunted the Democrats.  Democrats warn that an election that gives Republicans control of both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, combined with a Republican super-majority on the Supreme Court, will allow the Republicans to launch a sweeping remodeling of American government.  Then, many Democrats have given voice to their fear of violence from Trump’s supporters if he loses.  Stoked by four years of accusations of a stolen election, it might be much worse than on 6 January 2021.  What if he wins?  What if he wins both the popular vote and in the Electoral College?  How will Democrats absorb such a stinging rejection of all their warnings? 

[1] “Harris warns of ‘petty tyrant’ Trump in closing pitch,” The Week, 8 November 2024, p. 4.  Harris also proclaimed that “We have to stop pointing fingers and start locking arms.” 

[2] Harris has already called for an end to the filibuster in the Senate. 

[3] “Republicans hold edge in race to control Congress,” The Week, 8 November 2024, p. 5. 

Prologue to a Possible Second Addams Administration 2.

Posted on by
Reply

            In mid-October 2024, polls showed Kamala Harris and Donald Trump each drawing 48 percent of the nation-wide poll’s respondents; they were neck and neck in the “swing states” which will decide the victor in the Electoral College. 

Donald Trump sat for an interview with Fox News.[1]  Asked about how to deal with election interference by foreign agitators,[2] he took the question in an entirely different direction.  He warned that domestic opponents, whom he called “the enemy within,” posed a much more serious threat.  If the police were not up to the task, then the National Guard or even the Army, could be deployed.[3] 

Perhaps Trump had in mind the civil unrest attending some of the social justice protests that had followed the murder of George Floyd.  Such an interpretation is hard to maintain in light of Trump’s talk about his political opponents.  He has called them “radical left lunatics,” and “Marxists and communists and fascists.  They’re so sick and they’re so evil.” 

            Trump’s grim discourse prompted Kamala Harris to adjourn her joy campaign in favor of a return to the Biden campaign’s denunciation of Trump as a danger to democracy.  She claimed that Trump is “out for unchecked power” and that he is “increasingly unstable and unhinged.”  Soon, “Unstable, Unhinged, and Unchecked” became a staple of Harris ads.  She told one interviewer that trump’s program “is about fascism.”  General Mark Miley, the former Chairman of of the Joint Chiefs, joined in the assessment.  Trump, he said, is “fascist to the core.” 

            Journalists have been quick to see Trump’s actions as drawn from the non-existent “authoritarian playbook.”[4]  The week’s news gave them a lot to work with.  Rather than evidence of vulgar Madness, his violent talk is evidence of clever Badness said one columnist.  Republican “normies” will vote for him no matter what to avoid a Harris presidency.  (Many of these voters this that his threats are just more Trump blather.)  He is actually seeking to mobilize the low-information patriotic voters.  Even if he does lose the election, he will not accept the outcome.  He didn’t in 2020.  He’s been spewing charges of massive voter fraud ever since. 

            What if the Cassandras are right?  Trump could come to power with half or almost half of American voters behind him.  What is the next line of defense if the ballot box “fails” from an excess of democracy?  If people sincerely believe that Trump is a “fascist” bent on overthrowing Democracy, then he poses a grave danger whether or not he wins the election.  If elected, he will use his office to ram through policies that the other half of the population oppose.[5] 

What are his opponents planning to do?  Sue?  Hold vigils?  Rally at the Capitol?  Enjoy cutting sarcasm on late-night TV?  Or hasn’t anyone at all given this thought?  That’s hard to believe.  So, who has done the thinking and what have they come up with? 

[1] “Trump ramps up threats against political ‘enemies’,” The Week, 25 October 2024, p. 4. 

[2] The F.B.I. has been reporting to the public about on-line interventions by Russia, China, and Iran. 

[3] The planning and decision-making for the use of National Guard troops from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia on 6 January 2020 is outlined here: https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC 

[4] Well, OK, there is a book with that title.  However, it is a product of Trump’s opponents.  See: The Authoritarian Playbook for 2025 : Protect Democracy : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[5] Wait, is that how we define “fascism”?