Tag Archives: news

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. 

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. 

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.