Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 4.

Posted on November 12, 2024 by jsh54

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 6^th 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 November 11, 2024 by jsh54

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 November 8, 2024 by jsh54

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 November 7, 2024 by jsh54

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 November 6, 2024 by jsh54

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 November 5, 2024 by jsh54

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”?

From the river to the sea, Zion will be free. Alas.

Posted on November 5, 2024 by jsh54

The surprise attack of 7 October 2023 on Israel by Hamas continues to send out shock waves. However, those psychological and social shock waves strike a restricted area of world opinion. First and foremost, there is the quarrelling within Israel. Roughly, one might divide opinion into the “rally ‘round the government” party and the “hunt for guilty men” party.

For the “rally” group, the most important issue right now is the defeat of Israel’s enemies. First, this means Hamas, then it means Hezbollah in Lebanon, and ultimately Iran. In the eyes of this group, the multiple blows rained down on Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran restore faith in Israel’s ability to defend itself. It seems not to matter how long this mission will take or what collateral damage it inflicts. It is a war unlike any other.

For the “guilty men” group, Israel’s resilience as a nation rests upon Israeli “faith in the decency of our society…and trust in the integrity of our leaders.” These elements matter at least as much as does armed force. How is that faith and trust possible when the current leaders bear the responsibility for the security failures that made the attacks possible and who are now escalating the war? Moreover, they are alarmed by the duration and savagery of the war. Israeli journalist Amir Tibon has written that, in the wake of the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas, he would have expected the government to produce a radically better situation in short order.[1] This better situation would have involved a swift recovery of the 200-plus hostages seized by Hamas and the creation of a new government for Gaza comprised of moderate Palestinians. Instead, the war grinds on in Gaza, it has begun to extend into Lebanon, and many of the hostages are still in the hands of Hamas—or dead. Most of all, the government has no “clear strategic endgame.”[2]

Second, there is the quarrelling within the United States.[3] Elite Young Boobs (EYBs) at some leading American universities immediately sided with Hamas and the Palestinians.[4] In September 2024, an F.B.I. report on Hate Crimes declared that more than two-thirds of reported religion-based hate crimes were anti-Semitic and the total number of such incidents were greater than any previous level. Universities that accommodated such actions suddenly found themselves assailed by alumni, donors, and politicians. Still, “let kids be kids.”[5] More importantly for American politics, the attack on Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) aroused Arab Americans against Israel and against the Biden Administration which has backed Israel’s war effort. In 2016, Joe Biden won the “battleground” state of Michigan by 154,000 votes. The state’s 200,000 Arab-American voters are believed to have voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat. Now, many of them are threatening to vote against Kamala Harris. Common sense will surely reassert itself. Putting Donald Trump into the White House will not produce a more humanitarian Gaza policy. Trump is an admirer of Israel’s prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

Lost in all these quarrels is any recognition that Hamas could have stopped Israel’s attack by surrendering, possibly even to the International Criminal Court. Why blame only the Jews?

[1] “Israel: A sense of security forever shattered,” The Week, 18 October 2024, p. 15.

[2] Oh, but it does if you would but see it. Force out the people of Gaza, then turn to the West Bank.

[3] “Oct. 7: How Hamas’ massacre changed the world,” The Week, 18 October 2024.

[4] Although those are not necessarily the same thing. Probably they should read Thucydides.

[5] The phrase turns up all the time on my “Nextdoor” feed after adults complain about acts of petty vandalism or harassment by minor or near-minors.

Prologue to a Possible Second Addams Administration 1.

Posted on November 4, 2024 by jsh54

In early October 2024, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris each could smell victory.[1] A New York Times/Siena College poll had Harris leading Trump nationally 49 to 46 percent. More importantly, an average of polls in the seven “battleground” states that will decide the election in the Electoral College showed the rivals within 1-2 points of each other. Each was ahead in three states and they were tied in Pennsylvania.[2]

Remarkably, nothing has seemed to shift the basic balance of forces for the last several months. It appears that Americans have largely decided for which candidate they will vote if Election Day ever gets here. Faced with the need to just grind it out for another month, the candidates distilled their campaign messages for the final kick.

For Trump it boiled down to Courage and Anger. He returned to Butler, Pennsylvania, where he had narrowly survived an assassination attempt in July. Then, as the Secret Service agents had belatedly tried to drag him to safety,[3] he had instinctively yelled to the crowd “Fight! Fight! Fight!” Many in his audience now sported T-shirts bearing the same words.[4] In Butler, he warned of the “enemy from within.” Two days later, in Wisconsin, he warned that a victory by Kamala Harris would mean that “The country won’t be the U.S. any longer.”

For Harris, it boiled down to Fear and Promises. She arranged a series of appearances with friendly interviewers that allowed her to speak directly to her target audiences.[5] In one appearance, Harris said that she wanted to extend Medicare to pay for long-term home care for senior citizens, but stated that “there is not a thing” that she would have done differently from President Biden over the last four years. She also agreed to an interview on “Sixty Minutes.” In the “Sixty Minutes” interview Harris skipped past Russia and China to name Iran as the “greatest adversary” of the United States, and judged that Vladimir Putin “would be sitting in Kyiv right now” if Donald Trump had been president instead of Joe Biden.

Neither the media nor the campaign staffs felt much joy from these approaches. They roundly denounced the former president’s refusal to stay on a conventional political message (inflation, illegal immigration) while avoiding incitements to violence and personal denigration of his opponents. They roundly denounced the Vice President’s penchant for soft-ball media appearances and her relatively thin schedule of public appearances. Too many voters say that they don’t really know her. To be fair, too many voters say they know Trump all too well.

[1] “Harris, Trump neck and neck in race’s final month,” The Week, 18 October 2024, p. 4.

[2] Which explains why I’m being bombarded with text messages and phone calls while I’m trying to watch the evening news. Note to Self: This is NOT the place for a tirade about “The David Muir Cartoon Show.”

[3] Department of Justice Inspector General investigated the FISA warrants issued to allow communication intercepts of one of Donald Trump’s campaign advisors in 2016. He found no “documentary or testimonial evidence” of wrong-doing. All he found were a series of inexplicable “errors” made by very experienced investigative personnel that all tended in one direction. The same appears to be the case with the apses made by the Secret Service detail assigned to protect Trump. OTOH, there’s a legitimate case that the existing Secret Service is inadequately funded and staffed to meet its responsibilities. Many complain that they are over-worked and under-paid. As a result, nearly 20 percent of Secret Service employees left in fiscal 2022 and 2023. For a quick, well-informed take on systemic problems of the Secret Service, see: In ‘Zero Fail,’ Carol Leonnig Says Secret Service Is Underfunded And Overworked : NPR

[4] Comically, many of the shirts are manufactured by the Chinese consumer goods giant Temu. Pattern – Temu

[5] Stephen Colbert, Howard Stern, “The View,” and “Call Her Daddy.”

At the Start of Something.

Posted on October 7, 2024 by jsh54

Over the years, Iran has armed and helped organize “proxy” forces on the borders of Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthies in Yemen all are clients of Iran. The Iranian term for these groups is the “Axis of Resistance.” They are sometimes described in the Western media as Iran’s forward line of defense against Israel. In truth they are the “Axis of Aggression” and Iran’s forward line of attack against Israel.

On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel.[1] Israel began a long, grinding conquest of Gaza. Soon after Hamas launched its attack, Hezbollah (“Party of God”) in Lebanon (and eventually the Houthies in Yemen) began supporting Hamas by their own missile attacks on northern Israel and shipping in the Red Sea. Sixty thousand people fled northern Israel in search of a place of greater safety. Israel did little in response to these attacks as it concentrated its effort on Gaza.

The Israeli are, apparently, masters of Sequence: first one thing, then the next thing. Suddenly, Israeli pummeled Hezbollah. (This may be a sign that the government regards matters as being well in hand in Gaza.) First, pagers previously distributed by Hezbollah to many of its members exploded. These had been chosen as a more secure communication device than cell phones, calls on which might easily be intercepted by Israel. The next day, walkie-talkies distributed as a back-up system to the pagers exploded. Israel’s intelligence service had compromised Hezbollah’s communications logistics.

Then Israel began bombing in a precise (but bloody) fashion. On the one hand, they hit many in the upper ranks of Hezbollah’s leadership. Apparently, they knew how to locate them. Among the dead were Hassan Nasrallah, the long-time leader of Hezbollah; Nabil Kaouk, a deputy of Nasrallah; and Ibrahim Akil, head of Hezbollah’s equivalent of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. These all come on top of earlier assassinations.[2]

On the other hand, Israeli jets pounded storage sites of Hezbollah’s missiles and rockets. American and Israeli sources claim that perhaps half of Hezbollah’s huge stockpile has been destroyed.[3] Then Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invaded southern Lebanon. The government of Israel claims that this is a “limited” operation meant to clear southern Lebanon of Hezbollah troops and weapons. Only time will tell if this operation really is “limited” or if it portends something larger.

In response to the battering of Hezbollah, it’s patron-state Iran launched a large strike of 181 missiles at targets in Israel. Backed up by fire from U.S. Navy destroyers, Israel’s air defense system shot down most of the incoming missiles.

Is Hezbollah irreparably damaged or destroyed? Much of the discussion seems to report a consensus view that Hezbollah SHOULD be destroyed or, at least, forced out of its powerful position in Lebanon’s politics. It doesn’t really address the question of whether Hezbollah CAN be destroyed. Certainly, the huge damage done to its upper leadership will weaken and disorganize Hezbollah for some time. That weakness and disorganization will open more gaps for Israel to attack. Furthermore, in light of the history of other revolutionary movements, there is likely to be a great “rat hunt” inside Hezbollah for the Israeli agent or agents. In light of the history of other “rat hunts,” the person in charge of the hunt will almost certainly be an Israeli agent.[4] In light of the history of other organizations, such hunts tend to wreak havoc with the organization engaged in the “rat hunt.”[5] Deep distrust may lead to fragmentation, at least for a time.

However, Hezbollah is supposed to have around 100,000 fighting men that it can call up. That is a substantial base from which to recruit a new leadership hierarchy. Not to draw too close a parallel, but consider the American “War on Drugs.” For half a century now, we’ve devoted great resources to battling the “drug cartels.”[6] Huge loads of illegal drugs and the cash from their sale have been captured; many cartel members have been captured; many others have died in the fratricidal battles of the drug trade. In 2022, the United States suffered 73,838 deaths attributed to fentanyl.[7] People in the drug trade are like “dragon’s teeth.” Is it the same for Hezbollah?

[1] “Israel vows retaliation after Iranian attack,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 4.

[2] For lists of Hezbollah leaders believed to have been killed as of 30 September 2024, see: The Hezbollah leaders killed by Israel – who they were and the key players that remain | CNN and List of Hezbollah’s high-ranking figures killed by Israel | Al Bawaba. Among the others killed was Fateh al-Sharif, who led Hamas fighters in Lebanon and acted as co-ordinator of Hamas with Hezbollah. When not busy with those activities he worked as a school principal for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and as head of the teachers’ union. The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 9. During the Second World War, the British and the Czechs assassinated Reinhard Heydrich, while the Americans ambushed the plane they knew to be carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who had planned the Pearl Harbor attack.

[3] Either that’s a wild guess and they’re just blowing smoke or they’re right on the money because they knew the location and exact contents of the dumps. Given the evidence from Israel’s other attacks, it seems that Hezbollah has been riddled by Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad. See: The GWOT if Israel was in charge. | waroftheworldblog

[4] See: Peter Hart, The IRA and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923 (1988).

[5] David Wise, Molehunt: The Secret Search for Traitors That Shattered the C.I.A. (1992).

[6] Mark Bowden, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw (2001).

[7] See: Fentanyl overdose deaths U.S. 1999-2022 | Statista

“The System Is Blinking Red” 2.

Posted on September 24, 2024 by jsh54

The Armed Services Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate created a “Commission on the National Defense Strategy.” Eight people were appointed to the Commission by both parties in both committees. The Commission examined both the current and foreseeable threat environment facing the United States and the military preparedness of the United States to address that environment. The study makes grim reading.[1]

First, the threat environment is familiar. In first place is China; in second place is Russia; and in third and fourth places are Iran and North Korea. All are aggressive tyrannies. All devote a much larger share of their national resources to the military than does the United States. All have grown closer to each other—formal or informal allies—over the last few years. All are deeply aggrieved with the “rules-based order” fostered by the United States after the Cold War. “The good old rule sufficeth them, the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, and they should keep who can.”[2] One is already fully at war, one is using its proxies in war, and the others are using military power in an attempt to intimidate their neighbors, who are American allies. In short, “the United States faces the most challenging and most dangerous international security environment since World War II. It faces peer and near-peer competitors for the first time since the end of the Cold War.” Once upon a time, such actions would have met a powerful American response as a matter of policy.[3]

Now, “[the] consequences of an all-out war with a peer or near peer would be devastating. Such a war would not only yield massive personnel and military costs but would also likely feature cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and a global economic recession from disruptions to supply chains, manufacturing, and trade.”

Why is this? The Commission finds American power much reduced and hobbled, all by our own doing. First, “The Commission finds that DoD’s business practices, byzantine research and development (R&D) and procurement systems, reliance on decades-old military hardware, and culture of risk avoidance reflect an era of uncontested military dominance.” As a result, “the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat.”

Second, “the U.S. defense industrial base (DIB) is unable to meet the equipment, technology, and munitions needs of the United States and its allies and partners. A protracted conflict, especially in multiple theaters, would require much greater capacity to produce, maintain, and replenish weapons and munitions.”

Third, “today’s [DoD workforce and all-volunteer force ] is the smallest force in generations. It is stressed to maintain readiness today and is not sufficient to meet the needs of strategic global competition and multi-theater war.” “Recent recruitment shortfalls [for the all-volunteer force] have decreased the size of the Army, Air Force, and Navy.”

Fourth, we aren’t spending on–or raising money for–defense the way we used to when we were conscious of danger. On the one hand, defense spending as a share of GDP has roller-coastered: in 1965, 6.9 percent; in 1967, 8.6 percent; in 1979, 4.9 percent; in 1983, 6.8 percent; in 1999, 2.9 percent; in 2010, 4.7 percent; and in 2025 it is projected that the US will spend 3 percent. On the other hand, “Defense spending in the Cold War relied on top marginal income tax rates above 70 percent and corporate tax rates averaging 50 percent.”

The Commission concludes that “The lack of preparedness to meet the challenges to U.S. national security is the result of many years of failure to recognize the changing threats and to transform the U.S. national security structure and has been exacerbated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, repeated continuing resolutions, and inflexible government systems. The United States is still failing to act with the urgency required, across administrations and without regard to governing party.”

It offers a series of urgent recommendations that are well worth considering. But not for too long. Our enemies can see all these things. They may not wait.

[1] See: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/nds_commission_final_report.pdf The Report was brought to my attention by Walter Russell Mead, “U.S. Shrugs as World War II Approaches,” WSJ, 17 September 2024.

[2] William Wordsworth, “Rob Roy’s Grave.”

[3] Bing Videos

waroftheworldblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Tag Archives: politics