Tag Archives: Donald Trump

The Biden Decline Chronology.

Posted on by
Reply

            In January 2024, President Joe Biden began the new year with a job approval rating in the area of 40 percent.  That is where it had been hanging for some time. 

            In February 2024 Special Counsel Robert Hur argued that his chance of winning a post-presidential case against Biden for “willfully retaining” secret documents would be unlikely to succeed: Biden would present as a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”  Democrats heaped abuse on Hur as a Republican partisan who strayed from his brief. 

            In March 2024, Donald Trump led Biden in opinion polls by 1-2 percent. 

            In June 2024, Biden gave a disastrous performance in his first scheduled debate with Trump.  The “cognitive decline” on display seemed much worse than what Robert Hur had described.  Democratic support for Biden immediately collapsed. 

            In July 2024, Biden withdrew from the race under massive pressure from leading Democratic politicians orchestrated by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Biden immediately endorsed his failed Vice President Kamala Harris as his replacement.  This short-circuited the possibility of a mini-primary selection process favored by the people who had forced out Biden.[1] 

            In August 2024, Harris chose Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her Vice President candidate.  A bump in opinion polls more than reversed Trump’s 1-2 point lead over Biden to a 2-3 point lead for Harris.  Joy spread everywhere among Democrats. 

            In September 2024, Harris clearly won her debate with Trump.  The Joy Juggernaut gathered speed.  From this point onward, President Biden was really Former President Biden. 

            In October 2024, opinion polls showed that the Harris rebound had ebbed.  Trump and Harris were tied.  This shift occurred in spite of “mis-steps” by the Trump campaign.[2]  As the election drew nigh, the mood in the Harris campaign was described as “nauseously optimistic.” 

            In early November 2024, Trump defeated Harris 49.9 percent to 48.4 percent of the vote. 

            In December 2024, the Former President Biden riff gathered speed.  He embarked on a series of exhausting foreign trips far from the ugly realities at home.  President-Elect Trump was courted by foreign leaders even before he takes office.  Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden for anything he did or may have done since 2014.[3]  Later, he pardoned almost everyone on the Federal “Death Row.”  This included Kaboni Savage.[4]  Will he pre-emptively pardon Luigi Mangioni for any Federal crimes? 

            In a particularly awful irony, the sitting Vice President, Kamala Harris, will have to preside over the Senate when it certifies the results of the November 2024 presidential election.  Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) takes over if Harris understandably skips out.    

[1] Before he named Harris as his Vice President, a photographer caught a picture of Biden carrying a note that said of Harris “Do not hold grudges.”  Biden’s notes on display: ‘Do not hold grudges’ against Sen. Kamala Harris  Apparently, he has to be reminded. 

[2] Trump’s speeches became much longer and more wandery-aroundy, and it was noted that people attending them began to leave after a while.  However, Trump did about twice as many campaign events as did Biden and Harris.  It looks like he was becoming exhausted, while his opponents were, frankly, indolent either through age or basic nature. 

[3] I’d a done the same thing.  For my sons, not for Hunter.  But putting Hunter, a recovering drug addict, in prison as punishment for some non-violent crimes wouldn’t do the kid—or society at large–any good.  He’s still got a chance to make a decent life. 

[4] See: Kaboni Savage – Wikipedia 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 10.

Posted on by
Reply

The Agenda: deporting the illegals and others. 

Broadly, immigrants vulnerable to President-Elect Donald Trump’s promised “mass deportations” fall into three categories.[1]  First, there are the illegal immigrants, whom Democrats long preferred to call “undocumented immigrants,” as if there had been some kind of bureaucratic snafu.  Second, there are those seeking asylum in the United States on the grounds that they face grave danger in their own home county.[2]  Third, there are those in the United States who have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS).[3] 

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.  One careful estimate for the period February 2021 through October 2023 suggested that 4.2 million people had found entry into the United States.  Of these, about 2.5-2.6 million had been released into the country, while 1.6 million were estimated to have evaded all contact with the Border Patrol.  A further 2.8 million were expelled immediately back to Mexico.[4] 

Who goes first?  Thomas Homan, Trump’s nominated ICE commissioner, says that illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in the United States in addition to having entered the country illegally, will head the list.  Homan also has said that Texas provides a good model for national policy.  Texas governor Greg Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star” has called out the National Guard and put physical barriers along and in the Rio Grande.  Texas has also sent about 120,000 illegal immigrants to Democrat-led cities in the North. 

For a good while now, some Democrat-led cities have declared themselves “sanctuary” cities where local authorities will not co-operate with ICE.  These same cities often receive federal funding for various programs.  The Trump administration could try to compel co-operation by holding back these funds. 

One question is “Can this policy succeed?”  A second question is “What will it cost?”   The latter question has two sides to it.  On the one hand, there is a monetary expense to the government.  One estimate is that deporting a million people a year would cost $88 billion a year.  On the other hand, the illegals work in great numbers in construction, farming, restaurants, and hospitality.  Who will take those jobs if the illegals are deported?  American teenagers and college kids?  The homeless?  Folks for whom coding “boot camp” didn’t work out?  Another cost will come in fewer houses built, less fruits and vegetables in the grocery stores, slower service in restaurants, and longer turn-around times for hotel rooms.  All of it at a higher price. 

So why do it?  One answer is “Democracy, that’s why.”  According to an Ipsos poll,[5] fifty percent of Americans favor shutting down the U.S.-Mexican border.  Citizens live under the laws of their country.  To see the laws openly flaunted may be infuriating.  To see the spike in demand on various kinds of humanitarian support services in places where the illegal immigrants first arrive may be infuriating.  The pay-off through their eventual contributions to the country may be hard to discern in the current moment.  It’s a tough parlay to make. 

[1] “Immigration: Preparing for the crackdown,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 17. 

[2] In 2023, about 750,000 people applied for asylum.  Outmatched: The U.S. Asylum System Faces Record Demands p. 3.  Many of the illegals released from custody are asylum-seekers. 

[3] There were 1.2 million people with TPS in March 2024.  How TPS has expanded under the Biden administration | Pew Research Center 

[4] Lori Robertson, Breaking Down the Immigration Figures – FactCheck.org  27 February 2024.  Old-timers may wonder if the “gotaway” estimates resemble the Vietnam War “body counts” of our youth. 

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 17. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 9.

Posted on by
Reply

            Is it emblematic of American politics and the media that we are talking so much about individual people, rather than about the deep problems facing America that the people have been nominated to address?  For example, Donald Trump has nominated Peter Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.[1]  It seems beyond doubt that Hegseth is utterly unqualified for the job.[2]  Yet it took Hegseth’s nomination to elicit a warning that “Head-spinning technological changes are revolutionizing combat” and China is “expanding its nuclear forces and space capabilities.”  Not much of a pressing topic in coverage of the Biden administration, but now cited as a justification for rejecting Hegseth.[3] 

Is the Federal Bureau of Investigation in need of sweeping change and reform?  Well, it was excoriated in the Report of the 9-11 Commission.  Some thought was then given to removing the FBI’s counter-intelligence division and creating an entirely new agency.  The FBI promised to do better, so it managed to hold on to this responsibility.  Now, though, one observer claimed that the intelligence agencies “are in desperate need of reform.”  If the FBI does need reform, then what sort of person is best suited to head the FBI?  Do we want “a rabid critic of the very institution he’s being asked to lead”?  As opposed to what, a senior career FBI official who believes that things are pretty much OK the way they are? 

Donald Trump believes that the FBI does need “reform.” The basis for his belief is “Crossfire Hurricane,” which conducted a prolonged investigation of an accusation that Trump knew—not “believed,” but knew—to be false.  That investigation badly disrupted his first term as President.  The investigations by Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, and John Durham, a Special Prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr, documented the origins of the allegations of “collusion” in a dirty trick carried out by the Hillary Clinton campaign.  It was facilitated and prolonged by inexplicable “errors” committed by members of the investigation team. 

President-Elect Trump nominated Kash Patel to replace FBI Director Christopher Wray, although Wray still has three years to run in his ten-year term.  Other than Republican Senators, almost everyone from the left to the right thought this a terrible idea.  William Kristol, for example, warned that Patel would “use the FBI to carry out Trump’s professed agenda of political retribution.”  Worse, it would put a Trump loyalist in charge of the FBI, the national police force.  If Patel gets the job, wrote David Frum, “the seizure of power [Trump] unsuccessfully attempted in 2021 could be underway in 2025.”  Unfortunately, Republican Senators are the only people with opinions that matter. 

In addition to escaping two impeachments unscathed and unrepentant, Trump has also escaped Special Counsel Jack Smith.[4]  Smith closed down his inquiries because of the Justice Department ban on prosecuting a sitting president.  A judge dismissed the charges “without prejudice.”  He can be prosecuted again in 2029, once he’s an elderly man with a poor memory. 

[1] “Trump taps ‘Deep State” critic Patel to lead FBI,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p.4. 

[2] Not only unqualified, but unqualified in multiple ways.  People seem confident that if he managed to not mess up in one way, then he would mess up in another. 

[3] See: “The System Is Blinking Red” 2. | waroftheworldblog 

[4] “Trump: Beyond the reach of the law,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 17. 

“It’s pretty bad.”

Posted on by
5

            President Joe Biden has pardoned his son Hunter Biden. After promising on national television not to pardon him. 

I’d a done the same.  For my sons of course, not for Hunter Biden.  I understand why Joe Biden did it.[1]  I don’t hold it against him.  Fathers among the “commentariat” are either going to skip the chance to be interviewed or say what I just said. 

That said, “it’s pretty bad.”[2] 

For one thing, there are a lot of people who are in prison now or who have been in prison for some other equivalent crime.  What relief do they get?  None.  Apparently, according to a person being interviewed on the PBS “News Hour” last night, President Joe Biden has an unusually thin record on granting pardons.  He’s not a naturally empathetic or merciful guy.  So the pardon for Hunter seems to me to be an even greater injustice than it appears at first blush. 

Then, there’s the nature of the pardon.  A while ago, Hunter had a plea deal with the Feds go south at the last minute.[3]  There were a couple of reasons for that.  One of them was the scope of what was covered by the plea deal.  Hunter’s lawyers claimed that the plea deal covered anything that he had ever done.  The Feds claimed that it covered only the gun and tax charges. 

Hunter Biden’s lawyers may have had the rights of it.  However, a firestorm had blown up because two Internal Revenue Service investigators swore under oath that there had been Department of Justice meddling with their investigation.  Republicans and the media jumped on these allegations with varying degrees of ferocity.  So, the Feds may have crawfished at the last moment.  No blanket plea deal for Hunter Biden. 

Now, in the lees of his Presidency,[4] Joe Biden has granted Hunter Biden a blanket pardon for anything he did or may have done in the last ten years.  Same as the plea deal he didn’t get before.  The sweeping nature of the pardon makes me wonder if there are serious things as yet unknown to the public.  If so, were they known to, but not investigated by, the Department of Justice under the Trump and Biden administrations? 

In any case, there is likely to be a rat hunt under the direction of whoever ends up as Attorney General in the Trump administration.  Just because they can’t prosecute Hunter Biden doesn’t mean that they can’t investigate.  And compel testimony.  And prosecute for perjury if it can be proved.  Trump is no more empathetic or merciful than is Joe Biden. 

[1] I got called to participate in an intervention.  Drugs.  We do the intervention and the person agrees to go into a treatment center; the person does a bunk along the way; we spend a lot of time looking for him/her/they before he/she/they finally surfaces.  Along the way, I call the police, asking if I can nark on the person, get him/her/they off the street.  The cop says, “If he/she/they have a problem with drugs, jail is the last place you want him/her/them: easier to get drugs there than on the street.”  NB: Language adapted to modern times. 

[2] One of my sons, who has not needed a pardon. 

[3] For a quick overview, see: Weiss special counsel investigation – Wikipedia 

[4] It must be a sad and bitter time for him.  Finally elected to the office for which he had always hungered, his policies inflicted hardship on low-income people; he suffered a humiliating defeat on national television in the debate with Doanld Trump; then got tossed overboard by a mutiny among the colleagues with whom he had spent his working life; then saw his hand-picked Vice President and hand-picked successor candidate go down in flames; then saw himself blamed by many Democrats for having caused the defeat.  In these circumstances, he may well have felt that he was owed SOMETHING by this rotten system. 

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.” 

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.