Tag Archives: Trump

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 2.

Posted on by
1

            Between 20 January and 1 February 2025, President Donald Trump issues 45 Executive Orders (Eos) that imposed sweeping changes in government policies.[1]  President Joe Biden had issued only 26 EOs ordering sweeping changes in the same period following his inauguration and didn’t hit the 45 mark until 14 May 2021.[2] 

            Some of these EOs struck a nerve with Democrats.  Among many other things, Trump withdrew–more accurately re-withdrew–the United States from the Paris Climate executive agreement[3]; ordered the immediate dismantling of any and all government programs promoting diversity, inclusion, and equity; ordered any federal workers employed on such programs to be placed on paid leave; reversed a Biden EO permitting transgender troops to serve in the military; changed the name of the tallest mountain in the United States from “Denali” back to “McKinley”[4]; ordered that the “Gulf of Mexico” be renamed the “Gulf of America”; and reversed an EO originally issued by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 which allowed government to lean on private contractors to take “affirmative action” in hiring.[5]  In short, a bunch of sacred cows went to Bovine University. 

            More substantively, Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization, (W.H.O.); said that the United States would “take back” the Panama Canal; reduced restrictions on oil and gas production that had been imposed by the Biden administration; created a “Department of Government Efficiency” (D.O.G.E.) to be led by Elon Musk; and ordered an end to “birthright citizenship.”[6] 

            More orders followed hard on the heels of the first few days.  He issued, then quickly rescinded, an order temporarily halting the payment of federal grants, loans, and other forms of assistance to a wide range of groups outside the federal government.  “The order sparked chaos at universities, charities, local government, and other bodies reliant on federal funding,…”[7]  Not satisfied with shaking hearts and minds with such dramatic action, the administration also issued a warning to federal employees that there were going to be big job cuts.  The e-mail message offered many of them the choice between retiring immediately and being paid for eight months or risking being laid off when Musk got around to them.  “Which will you have?”[8] 

            To top off the disruption, Trump fulfilled his pledge to pardon the 1,600 convicted rioters from 6 January 2021.  Or, in the words of the WSJ, “Cop Beaters.”  He’s good for his word, alas. 

[1] List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump – Wikipedia 

[2] List of executive actions by Joe Biden – Wikipedia  Biden issued his final EO, his 162nd, on 19 January 2025. 

[3] Like the Iran agreement, President Barack Obama had known that he couldn’t get a treaty through the Senate because the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of approval for any treaty.  So, in both cases, he settled for executive agreements whose durability depended upon retaining control of the White House.

[4] Still, if you go to a GMC dealer, you won’t be offered a test drive in the “exciting new McKinley.” 

[5] Commonly believed to mean quotas. 

[6] He did not exactly end “birthright citizenship.”  He restricted it to exclude children born of parents who were illegal immigrants, and to exclude children born to a foreign national mother in the United States on any kind of short-term or temporary visa and whose father was also not a citizen.  Furthermore, the change was not retroactive and applies to children born after 19 February 2025.  The 14th Amendment had been adopted long before there had been any idea of illegal immigration. 

[7] “Trump orders cause whiplash in Washington,” The Week, 7 February 2025, p. 4.  See also: “Trump returns with a barrage of orders, pardons,” The Week, 31 January 2025, p. 4. 

[8] True Grit (2010) “Fill Your Hands!” 

Tragedy and Policy.

Posted on by
Reply

            Venezuelan despots Hugo Chavez, then Nicholas Maduro sparked a gigantic flood of refugees from their country.[1]  By October 2022, an estimated 7 million people had fled the country, more than 20 percent of the population.  The emigration began with the country’s elites, then ate down into other layers of society as political oppression led to economic catastrophe.[2]  The Biden administration gestured at expelling some of the illegal immigrants under Covid-era “Title 42” provisions.  For the rest, it adopted a “remain in Texas” policy which infuriated both the people of border areas and Texas governor Greg Abbott.  In April 2022, the Biden administration ended “Title 42” expulsions.  Governor Abbott began bussing illegal immigrants from Texas to various self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities” in loudly Progressive areas.  New York City became the chief destination of both “Operation Lone Star” busees and the greater number who made their own way.[3]  Soon, New York City and many other places had migrant crises of their own.[4]  New York City began taking control of disused or under-used hotels to house the migrants.  For example, the city took over the Roosevelt Hotel as one of these facilities.[5]

            In September 2022 a Venezuelan named Jose Antonio Ibarra illegally entered the United States near El Paso, Texas.  Probably, he hoped to connect with a brother who had entered the United States illegally at an earlier date.[6]  ICE officers detained him soon afterward and then released him.  Like many other Venezuelan migrants, Ibarra traveled to New York City. where he stayed in the Roosevelt Hotel migrant shelter.  In September 2023, he was arrested for “acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17.”  Released on bond before ICE could issue a detainer order,[7] he blew town for Athens, Georgia, where his brother lived.  No sooner did the two get together than they went to stealing.  In October 2023, the brothers were arrested in possession of goods stolen from a local Walmart.  They were released.  Then Jose Antonio Ibarra was arrested for shoplifting.  He was released, but failed to appear for a court hearing in December 2023.  The judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest.   Athens, Georgia, police failed to locate Ibarra over the next two months.  On 22 February 2024, Ibarra murdered a 22 year-old nursing student named Laken Riley.  Arrested and tried, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. 

            The case received a lot of media attention.  In March 2024, just after Ibarra’s arrest, the House of Representatives passed the “Laken Riley Act.”  The law required the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal immigrants who “[are] charged with, [are] arrested for, [are] convicted of, [admit to] having committed, or [admit to] committing” theft-related crimes.  The vote was 251–170, with 37 Democrats and all Republicans voting in favor.  It went to the Senate, where it just sat.  Progressives argued that the law would allow the “indefinite detention, without bail, of any undocumented immigrant—including minors, asylum seekers, or “Dreamers” brought here as children—who is merely arrested for, not convicted of, nonviolent crimes like theft.”[8]  Democrats had control of the Senate at that point, so cooler heads (or colder hearts) prevailed. 

Put simply, the Laken Riley case asked the question: how many American citizens have to die in the pursuit of “a blinkered delusion with purchase on only the progressive fringes of American politics”?[9]  In November 2024, Democrats lost the Senate as well as the White House.  Anger over illegal immigration provided one big driver in the election.  In January 2025, the new Senate immediately passed the bill while adding “assaulting a police officer, or a crime that results in death or serious bodily injury like drunk driving” to the list of offenses.  In addition, the law allows states to sue the Department of Homeland Security if they believe that the law is not being enforced.[10]  This time, many Democrats scrambled to support the bill: 48 in the House and 32 in the Senate voted in favor.  The House approved the revised bill and President Donald Trump signed it into law. 

            A long and winding road from the rise of a Venezuelan Marxist dictator to the death of an American nursing student to a backlash bill over a neglected problem. 

[1] Probably not the sort of thing that gets your image on the currency a hundred years later. 

[2] A basic introduction is Venezuelan refugee crisis – Wikipedia  There is a good deal of journalism on the story, but—so far—no really good book to recommend. 

[3] GEORGE BENSON On Broadway Album Version 

[4] See: New York City migrant housing crisis – Wikipedia  See also: Nelson – ha ha 

[5] The Roosevelt Hotel had been built during a happier and more optimistic time in America.  See: Roosevelt Hotel (Manhattan) – Wikipedia and Terminal City (Manhattan) – Wikipedia  More evidence, if any is needed, that we are not the country we once were.  Could we be once more? 

[6] The brother is believed to be a member of the Tren de Aragua crime organization.  See: Tren de Aragua – Wikipedia  Both the violence and pervasiveness of the gang in the United States seems over-stated, notably by President Trump.

[7] “[T]he defining characteristic of a sanctuary city in the US” is prohibiting “the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration enforcement.” 

[8] “Immigration: the Laken Riley bill advances,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 17. 

[9] Senator John Fetterman  (D-Pennsylvania) quoted in ibid.   

[10] Laken Riley Act – Wikipedia 

Redeemable.

Posted on by
Reply

            Experts are gravely concerned about the state of the Defense Department and of America’s military forces.[1]  In a nutshell, it is doubted that the United States could win a conventional war with a great power opponent, by which is meant China.  We need an honest and probing discussion of these issues.[2]  Instead, Peter Hegseth’s nomination for Secretary of Defense unleashed a cloudburst of moral indignation about his philandering,[3] possible sexual assault, drinking, opposition to women serving in combat arms, and proven inability to organize even a two-car parade.[4]  Hegseth himself talked about restoring a warrior culture and “lethality” to American forces, in part by dismantling D.I.E. initiatives.[5]  Much less senatorial and press attention was devoted to his views on issues of budgeting, recruitment,[6] threat assessments, and strategy.  Then there was the charge that Hegseth “has also defended soldiers convicted of war crimes and urged their pardon, which puts our military’s honor at risk.”[7]  Indeed, he did.[8]  Again, the politics of personalities took pride of place.  (Lots of ‘literation let loose.)  Initially, many Republican senators found the allegations “very disturbing.”  Many people thought that he would go the way of the failed nominee for Attorney, Matt Gaetz.[9]  In response, Hegseth confessed that “I have failed in things in my life, and thankfully I’m redeemed by my Lord and Savior Jesus.”  However, President Trump dug in behind Hegseth.  After an intense lobbying effort,[10] Hegseth won confirmation by the narrowest margin possible.  If he fails as Secretary of Defense,[11] we’re all liable to be redeemed by his Lord and Savior. 

[1] For an alarming report, see: “The System Is Blinking Red” 2. | waroftheworldblog  For well-informed discussions of some specific issues, see: Ep 169: Dmitry Filipoff on Naval Warfare in 2025 | Nebulous; Ep 165: Shyam Sankar on a Defense Reformation | Nebulous; Ep 161: Mackenzie Eaglen on China’s Military Spending and Ours | Nebulous  I am grateful to my son, Evan Hill, for alerting me to Aaron Maclean and his  podcast “School of War.” 

[2] See the testimony to Congress of Secretary of Defense General Lloyd Austin (ret.).  Bing Videos 

[3] In one sense, this preoccupation is justified, rather than (OK, as well as) purely salacious.  Adultery is barred by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Hegseth would be the civilian chief of an organization whose military personnel are required to live under a moral code he has had great difficulty acknowledging.  See: UCMJ Adultery: Punishment For Cheating In The Military

[4] “Senators grill Hegseth, other Trump nominees,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 5. 

[5] See the column by Bret Stephens, “D.E.I. Will Not Be Missed,” NYT, 29 January 2025. 

[6] Male recruitment has fallen by about 22 percent since 2015.  Female recruitment has not surged enough to make up the difference.  In any case, too many volunteers cannot meet the threshold qualifications for physical fitness and health (physical fitness).  They are rejected before they can flunk out of Basic Training.  “Noted,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 16 

[7] Editorial in WSJ, quoted in “Senators grill Hegseth, other Trump nominees,” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 5.

[8] At the same time, it is uncomfortable at the least to observe the posturing on this matter by journalists and politicians.  One chief subject of Hegseth’s lobbying was Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher.  Gallagher was charged with—among other crimes—the murder of a wounded ISIS prisoner in Iraq.  Gallagher was on his eighth deployment.  The Defense Department doesn’t send SEALs (or Army Rangers) to guard convoys or the perimeter of airfields.  They send them into high-stress situations.  They do it repeatedly.  Someone is bound to crack.  Then they get court-martialed.  What about the civilian and military command structure that sent them?  In any event, see Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) – Wikipedia 

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

[10] Some of which targeted Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), herself an Army National Guard veteran who served in Kuwait during the Iraq War.  Reportedly, some the pressure got ugly and went beyond normal jawboning or horse-trading.  “GOP senators fall in line behind Trump’s pick,” The Week, 20 December 2024, p. 5. 

[11] What am I saying, “If”?  He isn’t Bob Gates. 

Diary of the Second Addams Administration 1.

Posted on by
Reply

            President Donald Trump has been inaugurated.  I didn’t watch the inauguration, but I don’t watch any political speeches.  They’re all just flannel.  Well, truth be told, I did see a little bit of it.  Thing ran over into the news slot as if it was something important like a football game.  Trump was signing Executive Orders with a Sharpie.  Here we have a lesson.  If you ever see a president signing laws or Executive Orders, he’s doing it at his desk in the West Wing; then he hands the pens to the well-dressed (but not too well because we wouldn’t want to lose the common touch) politicians and dignitaries who have been invited into the presidential sanctum.  Trump diverged from traditional practice.[1]  He signed on the little stage in the Capitol, in front of an audience of his supporters.  Then he tossed the collection of pens into the crowd one by one.  Ordinary Americans (well, OK, “Trump supporters”), not a bunch of inside-the-Beltway lifers, got the souvenir pens.  Symbolic. 

            President Joe Biden went off into a dignified retirement after attending the inauguration.  Examining the entrails of the Democrats’ November 2024 disaster, some reporters tried an early assessment of the 46th President.  He ran in 2020 and again in 2024 to prevent Donald Trump from having a second term.  Succeeded the first time, then failed the second time said one.  He committed one long series of unforced errors, said another.  There was the retreat from Afghanistan; there was the border crisis; and there was the decision to run for re-election.  That list isn’t long enough, claimed two others.  Biden promised, and then failed, to govern as a centrist and healer of a divided nation.  In office, he veered hard left with inflationary financing of an expansive legislative program, an open border, sponsorship of D.I.E. policies, and characterizing Republicans as “semi-fascist.”[2] 

            Others sprang to Biden’s defense.  According to one, Biden made Covid vaccination widely available; he gave Ukraine enough arms and aid to “fight invading Russian troops to a stalemate”; and he spent $1.9 billion of new money on his favored projects.  He just had a messaging problem, said another.  Voter will be sorry they voted for Trump predicted a third.[3] 

            Biden’s reputation will be harmed by revelations of how his confidants managed his decline to deceive the public.[4]   Right at the moment, ordinary Americans take a dim view of Biden.  A recent Gallup poll reported that more than half (54 percent) of respondents think that Biden will go down in history as a below-average or poor president; 26 percent see him as average; 19 percent believe that he will be seen as above average or outstanding.[5] 

            So, “Let the Games of the Forty-Seventh Presidency Begin.” 

[1] Doubtless once again bursting through “the guardrails of our democracy.”  The NYT is a HOA, as well as other, more admirable things.  Dwight Manfredi vs. HOA 🫣 Tulsa King (Season 2) 

[2] The writers are Matt Lewis in The Hill, Anthony Zurcher in BBC News, Bret Stephens in the NYT, and Ruy Texeira in The Free Press.  All cited in “President Biden: How will history judge his legacy?” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 6. 

[3] Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post; Peter Coy in NYT; and Doyle McManus in Los Angeles Times.  All cited in “President Biden: How will history judge his legacy?” The Week, 24 January 2025, p. 6.

[4] See: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge – WSJ; How Biden’s Inner Circle Worked to Keep Signs of Aging Under Wraps – WSJ

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 17. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 15.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Agenda: Iran.[1] 

            The Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah (1979) spread chaos in the country.  Saddam Hussein, the dictator of neighboring Iraq, sought to exploit the situation by attacking Iran.  The subsequent war[2] (1980-1988) caused all sorts of troubles.  In its aftermath, during the 1990s, the Iranian Republic launched a program to develop nuclear weapons.  The program’s physical component—as opposed to intellectual and technological components–began with the construction of a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy-water plant at Arak. 

            In 2002, Iranian dissidents obtained and published secret documents on the nuclear program for all the world to see.  In 2003, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei published a “fatwa” banning the possession or use of nuclear weapons.  No one believed him.[3]  Eventually, in 2006, the United Nations plastered Iran with economic sanctions.  In 2015, the Obama administration, busy with other quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, led the negotiation of a deal with Iran.  Iran would limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent and send 97 percent of its already-enriched uranium to Russia for safe-keeping.[4]  The agreement would run for 15 years.  It hardly made it out the gate. 

            In 2018, President Donald Trump abandoned the agreement so far as the United States was concerned.  In Trump’s view, the agreement did nothing to address Iran’s non-nuclear aggressive behavior in the region.  Specifically, Iran was arming-up and coordinating allied forces in the region.[5]  Trump seems to have hoped that renewed economic sanctions would force the Iranian regime to cut a new and better deal.  To emphasize his point, in 2020 Trump ordered the killing of General Qassem Soleimani, a leading figure in the Revolutionary Guards. 

Next, in 2021, President Joe Biden[6] tried to revive the agreement, but the Iranians had moved on.  At about the same time that Biden entered the White House, Iran began enriching uranium to 20 percent, and then to 60 percent.  Enrichment to 90 percent creates “weapons grade material.”  All the while, economic sanctions and mismanagement have battered Iran’s domestic economy.[7]  

The last year or so has altered the situation.  First, Israel has inflicted immense damage on Iran’s clients through its wars in Gaza and Lebanon.  Turkey sponsored a rebel offensive in Syria that overthrew Iran’ ally Assad.  When Israel killed a Hamas leader in Tehran, Iran responded with a missile barrage; and, in October 2024; Israel answered with air strikes that wrecked key elements of Iran’s air defense system, among other things.  This leaves Iran open to follow-on strikes against nuclear facilities (and the Iranian leadership cadres) if Tehran doesn’t change its tune. 

Second, Donald Trump’s return to the White House has seemed possible (if not certain) since the beginning of 2024.  Tehran has been intensifying its drive to enrich uranium to 60 percent.  That is, apparently, a hop, skip, and a jump from 90 percent or weapons-grade uranium.[8]  I don’t know how much time that hop, skip, and jump would take.  Expert opinion holds that a basic sort of bomb could be manufactured six months after a sufficient quantity of weapons-grade uranium has been accumulated.  Another year after that and they could have a warhead for a ballistic missile.  One that could easily hit Israel. 

NOTHING in the history of Israel’s military and national security policy suggests that Israel will let Iran get anywhere near that point.  They will not allow Iran to get even one nuclear weapon.  Never mind the ballistic missiles.  “Just put it on a freighter bound for Haifa.”  The time-line for preventive action by Israel (and/or the United States) is very short.  Maybe a year at the outside?  There will be heavy pressure on the prime minister of Israel[9] to act soon. 

The time-line for Iran to decide what course it will choose is very short.  Will the rulers of Iran try to rush ahead and break-out to possession of nuclear weapons?[10]  If they do achieve a nuclear weapon, will they feel compelled to “use it or lose it”?   

Or will the leaders of Iran repent their disdain for Biden’s offer to revive the 2015 agreement?  The country’s alliance network is in shambles and its own defense vulnerabilities have been exposed.  Russia could divert no forces from the Ukraine war to save Assad, so it isn’t likely to do much for Iran.  Would the Iranian leaders—belatedly—seek to engage with the United States?  If so, how stiff-necked would they be about concessions? 

The stakes are high.  In theory, Israel would need the assistance of the United States to attack the key Iranian facilities.  A prime target would be an enrichment facility near the city of Qom.  It is tunneled into a mountain.  So is another site near Isfahan.  The American “Massive Ordnance Penetrator,” dropped by a B-2 bomber would be the only conventional weapon that could destroy the targets.[11]  In reality, Israel has its own nuclear weapons that might do the job.  That’s an awful thing to ponder.[12] 

Finally, there is a loose alliance between Iran, Russia, and China.  How would the Russians and the Chinese respond to either an Israel-America joint attack on Iran or to an Israel-alone attack (albeit with American blessing)? 

Can of worms.  Or, as the French say, “a basket of crabs.” 

[1] “Briefing: A looming nuclear crisis,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 11. 

[2] See: Iran–Iraq War – Wikipedia  If you want to explore in depth, see: Williamson Murray and Kevin M. Woods The Iran–Iraq War. A Military and Strategic History (2014).  Murray is deeply knowledgeable and hard-headed.   

[3] Iran is predominantly Shi’ite Muslim.  As a long-persecuted minority within Islam, Shi’ite theologians determined that Shi’ites could dissemble about their real religious beliefs.  Over the centuries, other people have come to believe that Iranian culture has generalized this originally purely religious easement on veracity. 

[4] So, as part of their recent mutual sliming-up to each other, has Russia secretly returned the enriched uranium to Iran?  I haven’t noticed reporting on this question.  My bad.  What does Mossad say? 

[5] Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Assad regime in Syria. 

[6] More recent developments cause me to wonder if it wasn’t the policy of President-for-Foreign-Policy Antony Blinken.  Who would have been President-for-Domestic-Policy?  Can’t have been Janet Yellen.  We wouldn’t have had the inflation mess.  I understand that this is a nasty remark.  But see “Biden: How to hide a president’s decline” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 16.  Reports on a WSJ story on “how Biden’s aides and family hid his apparent cognitive decline from almost day one of his presidency.”  On which side of “day one” did the hiding begin? 

[7] Pakistan’s prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once said that “Even if we have to eat grass, we will make a nuclear bomb.”  You couldn’t force that in a democracy, but neither Pakistan nor Iran are real democracies. 

[8] Obviously, I haven’t tried it myself.  Nor would I try.  Don’t want to get hauled into a black Escalade while I’m walking my dog. 

[9] Probably Benjamin Netanyahu, but it doesn’t matter.  The leaders of the IDF and Mossad seem likely to be on the same page. 

[10] The ever-shrewd Eliot A. Cohen raised this possibility in the Atlantic in December 2024.  For a sample of Cohen’s Atlantic pieces, see: Eliot A. Cohen, The Atlantic 

[11] It has been reported that the Pentagon has briefed President Biden on plans for American attacks on Iranian nuclear resources.  “Briefing: A looming nuclear crisis,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 11. 

[12] Many people outside of Israel already are appalled by pictures from Gaza. 

Think about this.

Posted on by
Reply

            “In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit [to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in 2018, burial place of many American dead from the First World War], Trump said, ‘Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.’ In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as ‘suckers’ for getting killed.”[1] 

            Soon thereafter, “one unnamed senior official with the U.S. Department of Defense and one senior U.S. Marine Corps officer confirmed the 2018 cemetery remarks from the above report in interviews with The Associated Press (AP). According to the AP, the official had firsthand knowledge of Trump’s remarks, and the officer had been told about them.”[2] 

            Donald Trump, National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo all denied that Trump had said these things.  Bolton was not then and has never become a Trump loyalist. 

            In “a separate incident of Trump visiting the grave of [General John] Kelly’s son who was killed in action in Afghanistan, ….. Trump allegedly asked of military personnel who volunteered to join the service, ‘What was in it for them?’” 

            In an October 2023 speech, President Joe Biden referred explicitly to the reported remarks.  Immediately afterward, General John Kelly, who had been serving as Trump’s chief of staff, endorsed the original report. 

            The Snopes evaluation concluded: “In sum, the claim stemmed from a story by The Atlantic, which relied on anonymous, second-hand reports of Trump’s alleged words; there was no independent footage or documented proof to substantiate the in-question comments; and Trump vehemently denies that he once called service members “losers” and “suckers.” While it was certainly possible that he said those things, Snopes was unable to independently verify the claim.”  Nevertheless, those stories were widely reported by media outlets.[3] 

Personally, I believe them.  So, what to make of the following? 

First, the military faces a recruitment “crisis.”[4]

Second, based on November 2024 exit-polls for presidential candidates.[5] 

                                    Trump             Biden/Harris  Percent of the overall vote. 

Veterans                      65%                 34%                 13% 

Non-Veterans              48%                 50%                 87%    

            In the wake of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and related anti-Islamist raiding elsewhere, do veterans now think that Trump got it right?  Do they think that they have been betrayed by the country they volunteered to defend?  Did they put Trump in the White House?   

[1] Jeffrey Goldberg, “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’,” The Atlantic, 3 September 2020.  The accusations and denials are examined in Did Trump Call Fallen Soldiers ‘Suckers’ and ‘Losers’? | Snopes.com

[2] Report: Trump disparaged US war dead as ‘losers,’ ‘suckers’ | AP News 

[3] For example, see: Trump disparaged U.S. military casualties as ‘losers,’ ‘suckers,’ report says | PBS News; Did Trump call US war dead “losers” and “suckers”? | Vox. 

[4] The Military Recruiting Outlook Is Grim Indeed. Loss of Public Confidence, Political Attacks and the Economy Are All Taking a Toll. | Military.com makes interesting reading. 

[5] 2024 United States presidential election – Wikipedia 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 14.

Posted on by
2

            On 6 January 2021, a mob of between 2,000 and 4,000 people attacked the Capitol building.  Their goal was to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as President.[1] 

            The numbers are more than a little wonky.  First, how many people attended the Trump rally?  “The House Select Committee that investigated the events of Jan. 6 estimated that Trump’s speech drew 53,000 supporters.”[2]  Second, how many people marched from the rally to the Capitol?  “Federal officials estimate that about ten thousand rioters entered the Capitol grounds,…”  The “grounds proper consist mostly of lawns, walkways, streets, drives, and planting areas” surrounding the actual Capitol building.[3]  Third, how many people actually attacked the police lines and then broke into the Capitol building?  “[T]he Secret Service and FBI have estimated that from 2,000 to 2,500 ultimately entered the building.”[4] 

So, the crowd funneled down from 50,000 at the rally to 10,000 who gathered around the Capitol to 2,500 people who actually entered the Capitol.  It seems unlikely to me that someone would attack the police lines, advance to the outside of the building, and then not enter.  So, did about 2,500 of the 53,000 at the rally take violent action? 

The attack on the Capitol made for a harrowing television spectacle.  Thereafter, Democratic political leaders called Trump a “fascist” and a “genuine threat to democracy.” 

These charges seem not to have resonated with many voters.  Why 6 January 2021 didn’t permanently sink Trump’s political fortunes presents something of a puzzle.  The mainstream news coverage, both in print and on the Devil Box, made the basic things pretty clear.  Despite its bitterly partisan make-up, the January 6 Committee did an excellent job of bringing forward a huge mass of evidence. 

And yet…  A recent YouGov poll reported that 29 percent of respondents “believe the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol was legitimate political discourse.”  Almost half (46 percent) “describe it as a violent insurrection.”[5]  Unless there is a big overlap between the two groups, then 25 percent of respondents either didn’t know what to think or thought that the events fell somewhere between legitimate political speech and a violent insurrection.  The favored explanation in the WSJ is that subsequent Democratic “lawfare” pushed people to rally around Trump.  The Democratic explanation might be summarized as “They’re a bunch of idiots who shouldn’t have the right to vote.”  Until many of their own voters jumped ship in November 2024.  Another explanation might be that many people have a pretty good idea of who Trump is as a person.  Maybe they went “Got that out of your system, Don?  Feel better now?” 

On 6 January 2025, Congress certified the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States.  Defeated Presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris presided gracefully over the ceremony. 

The story would be hard to believe if we hadn’t lived through it.    

[1] “Congress certifies Trump win on Jan. 6 anniversary,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 4. 

[2] Jonathan Limehouse, “Trump compare Jan. 6 crowd size to MLK march,” USAToday, 9 August 2024. 

[3] On the Capitol grounds, see: United States Capitol – Wikipedia 

[4] See: January 6 United States Capitol attack – Wikipedia and Alan Feuer, “Capital Attack Prosecutions Have Ensnared Over 1,380 People,” NYT, 16 April 2024. 

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 17. 

Ruthless.

Posted on by
2

            Here’s the rot at the heart of the Republic: American voters of both parties have come to love “free stuff.”[1]  In a Democracy, politicians and political parties see the road to their own success running through giving voters what they want.  For Democrats, it means Tax-Spend-Elect; for Republicans it means Tax Cut-Spend-Elect. 

            As a result, in 2023, federal spending hit $6.75 trillion, with the federal deficit (not debt, just one year’s worth of spending above revenue) hitting $1.8 trillion.[2]  That deficit is 6.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  That isn’t a record.  It has been surpassed before.  However, those other peaks occurred during some kind of emergency: wars, recessions, etc.  Those conditions don’t apply at the moment. 

“Goo-goos” hate this trait.[3]  In the present day, all sorts of experts and commissions offer warnings of coming catastrophe and plans to avoid same.  The trouble is that this is like trying to talk a drunk into giving sobriety a spin.  It isn’t going to happen until they “hit bottom” or have a “moment of clarity.”[4]  What might bring on such a change? 

            Can you cut federal spending by shrinking the federal government?  YES!  And this idea is supported by a majority of Americans.[5]  Can you cut a LOT of federal spending simply by shrinking the number of civil service employees?  NO! 

First, the cost of salaries for all civil servants runs in the area of $200-$250 billion a year.  You will recall (from just above) that this year’s deficit is $1.8 trillion.  So, $200-$250 billion is about one-eighth of the deficit. 

Second, there’s interest on the debt at $882 billion.  An actual default, not just cuts to existing spending, may be coming.  We’re not there yet and we may be able to fend it off. 

Then there’s “discretionary” spending.  This includes the defense budget and everything else.  This comes in at around $2 trillion.  You can cut the defense budget a bunch.  You just have to believe that we are entering an era of peace and tranquility in which no other country will seek to challenge American interests. 

            Third, there’s the elephant in the room: “mandatory” spending on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and related programs.  This amounts to $4.1 trillion, more than double “discretionary” spending.  “So taming mandatory spending means reining in benefits.”  Ouch! 

            It seems impossible for either Congress or the American people in their present state of desiring “free stuff” from the government to address this issue.  Nor will they raise taxes. 

However, there is scope for executive action.  For example, one “Goo-goo” estimate suggests that as much as $1.4 trillion could be saved by reversing Biden administration executive actions.  All we need is a ruthless lame-duck president who doesn’t care about established traditions or Beltway verities or even what he may have promised to get elected. 

[1] This has become a cultural force.  How and why this has happened is worth exploring. 

[2] Greg Ip, “Cutting Deficits Is Easy—Just Unpopular,” WSJ, 27 December 2024. 

[3] See: Goo-goos – Wikipedia 

[4] You might think that the recent unpleasantness with inflation fueled by deficits would have awakened ordinary Americans to this issue.  It doesn’t seem to have done the trick.  Or perhaps the pre-existing interest groups and political habits were just too strong for a not-yet-crystalized change of attitude.   

[5] According to an Ipsos poll, 57 percent of Americans favor downsizing the federal government.  “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 December 2024, p. 17. 

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 12.

Posted on by
Reply

The Agenda: The Middle East. 

Syria’s fifty-year-long government-by-massacre suddenly collapsed under a surprise assault by Turkish-sponsored Arabs.[1]  Bashar al-Assad fled (with his millions) to Russia. 

The lead group among the victorious rebels, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), began establishing a government.  While people are more or less glad to be shed of Assad, HTS could be problematic.  On the one hand, the group is an off-shoot of al Qaeda; they’re Islamists; and they’ve be labeled as terrorists by Western governments.  On the other hand, HTS and the “Syrian National Army” are Turkish puppets.[2] 

Other countries began adapting to the new situation.  The Russians began cutting their losses by pulling out their men and material.  Israel has every reason to suspect Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of harboring anti-Israel sentiments.  He may want to create an Islamist-governed “ally” on Israel’s door-step.  Of late, there has been much celebration of the whole series of blows dealt to Iran’s allies and proxies (Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria).  Erdogan won’t have missed the lesson.  He may use his proxies to exert pressure on Israel.  Israel exploited the opportunity by bombing Syrian bases and arms stockpiles to reduce the weaponry available to the HTS that had toppled Assad (just in case). 

Both Syria and the members of the European Union (EU) began nudging Syrian refugees to go home.  About 3 million Syrian refugees remain in Syria.  Erdogan would like them to go home.  About 1.5 million Syrians fled the civil war that began in 2011 for Europe.  Their arrival contributed greatly to an anti-foreign, anti-liberal reaction in many European countries.  European politics shifted right in an alarming fashion.  Many Europeans are saying “Go.” 

The United States and its European allies began talking to the people who are the de facto rulers of Syria.  They would like the rebels-turned-government to say the right things.  It’s a sticky situation.  It seemed brilliant to overthrow Libya’s Ghaddafi, but the follow-on effects—civil war, gangs, a migrant surge toward Europe—continues to trouble the region.  What if this turns out to be the same basic story? 

            Most immediately, there is the “problem” of the Kurds.  “Kurdistan” sprawls over Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.  The Kurds have been a dangerous thorn in the side of Turkey for decades.  They form the largest minority population within Turkey and they have long harbored nationalist ambitions.  The successive American wars against Iraq made that problem much worse by creating, then enlarging, a Kurdish proto-state in northern Iraq.  Moreover, the Kurds have been a loyal—and better yet, effective–ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS.  Indeed, the chief check on ISIS has been the Kurds.  In north-eastern Syria, Kurds braced for a likely attack from Turkey or its Syrian proxies.  If Turkey or its minions do attack the Kurds, that isn’t likely to be Turkey’s last move. 

President-elect Donald Trump has said “Syria is not America’s problem.”  He may mean it, more than did predecessors who hoped to “pivot to Asia.”  Is Israel also “not an American problem”?  What about Turkey, nominally a NATO member, but bound on its own course?  Whether he can sustain that resolve to disengage will be an early test. 

[1] “Turkey prepares attack on U.S. allies in Syria,” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 5. 

[2] “Syria: From Iranian client to Turkish puppet?” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 16.