ON MATTERS OF DUBIOUS INTEREST
President Claudia Sheinbaum says she has a plan to retaliate if our idiot president really goes ahead with his threatened 25% tariffs and won’t negotiate. A few days ago she sent him a “fiery letter” demonstrating that she is not to be trifled with though she can take a light tone. You remember that she countered the “Gulf of America” idea with calling the U.S. “Mexican America.” Yet Google and others immediately changed their maps! Continue reading “Don’t Take No Crap from Him, Claudia”
Some of us remember that great movie, Dr. Strangelove (1964), in which Peter Sellers can’t restrain his impulse to give the Nazi salute. It looked like Elon was overtaken by the same urge, and he even turned around and gave it twice. Continue reading “Elon Appeared Sixty Years Ago”
“Good morning, Mr. Secretary.”
“Good morning, Melinda. What weak-kneed idiots do I have to see this morning?”
“General Flipper is coming to talk about the new Abrams tank budget. Then at 1500 hours Admiral Flopper from D-Ring has some thoughts about the USS Zumwalt and its littoral capabilities he wants to share with you.” Continue reading “Hegseth at the Pentagon”
Well, I’m giving you another reprise of my stuff, this one from 2017. It demonstrates how little has changed for the Democrats over these 7-plus years. Today these very same issues are being debated after a withering election. The years have brought us myopia, hibernation, and head in the sand denial of political realities. Sadly, the Dems are still fumbling with their insularity. What’s now emerging are the compromisers.
I should say it used to be my party. The Democrats lost me even before the [2017] election: I thought both Sanders and Clinton were bad candidates and said so here, among other places.
Elections in America are built on fraud in its various forms. People accept that they have to buy in because as both parties are structured voters have no truly democratic choices. Or a Hobson’s choice as in 2016 for the Democrats. With Clinton they have a candidate who has been on the wrong side (by my standards) of many issues. But her political life was enabled by the transformation of the Democratic party to one that cultivates money and elitism in its many forms. The party abandoned the working classes, its real constituency, many years ago—yes, even before Bill Clinton, who put the cap on it.
Bernie’s ideals would seem to be at great variance with those of the neoliberal Democrats. Yet he is now one of them. That in itself is a kind of hypocrisy. His calls for a revolution are ridiculous: this guy is no Che Guevara. If he truly wants a revolution, let him start speaking out to black people, the immigrants, and the white working (i.e., nonworking) classes who have been sold out of the action for years.
I spent years working for the party at the local, state and national level. In Washington I did a stint at the DNC working on the Clinton healthcare campaign in ’93-’94, producing a series of videoconferences for Hillary. You can read about that here. It was important, hard work even if we lost the battle.
Now we are getting a slew of articles with nostrums and correctives about the chaos in the Democratic party, and here am I adding to the clutter. Donna Brazile, who caused some of the problems, chimes in, telling how the DNC was in the tank for Hillary all along. Which was pretty obvious from the start.
The issues for advocacy facing the Democrats are both social and economic in the broad perspective of electoral politics. Yet they seem to prefer debating issues of ideal politics and identity politics. They still don’t understand how to deal with the kind of economic populism that got Trump elected. Nancy Pelosi and the old guard have not yet proposed any kind of message that might conceivably attract voters of all stripes. It would be trite but true to say that the party needs to rebrand. But so far the best message they have come up with is “A Better Deal”—like something you’d get from Walmart.
Practical (not ideal) politics is about winning elections, and the Democrats need younger candidates who focus on issues that are real and vital to a majority of people. A number of fresh-faced challengers, like Kelly Mazeski in Chicago, are in the field but they need a driving message and the backing that only the national party can provide. Healthcare, which affects everybody, is the obvious issue for the party in 2018—that is, a fiscally sound universal program perhaps like the German system, not the unaffordable Medicare for All that has been proposed.
In other words, the best hope for Democrats is to speak intelligently to a real and comprehensive need.
The only path to success for the Dems is to offer up a vision of the future that will include, well, everybody—as Pope Francis said in his recent TED talk. There are two proposals that have been in the air for years that would be key not to just winning the next election but to serving the wants and needs of all the people. (Which in fact should be the key to winning elections—the reverse of identity politics.)
One idea is to develop a viable scheme to provide universal basic income (UBI) and make it available to everyone who votes. The other is universal health care. Before you laugh me out of the room, consider that the major controversy over both these ideas is not over whether they are needed but how to implement them.
The party has also failed to explain just what and whom it stands for. And they have called for litmus tests on things like abortion, opening up an old wound. There are too many whiners and not enough killers, according to David Krone, Harry Reid’s ex chief of staff. The Dems have few trained attack dogs or counter-punchers. . . .
Short-term memory loss can be a horrendous pain in the ass that most of us, young and old, have endured. It gets worse as you age. I’ve written about this before, but it’s usually been in a partial, piecemeal way. I’ll give it another shot, while using some of my more brilliant former insights into how memory works―or breaks down for old people, as it did for Joe Biden. Continue reading “The Trials and Tricks of Memory”
moment of silence for 9/11 victims
Despite the furor about his recent appointments, Trump hasn’t changed all that much. He still executes the same performance at rallies, peddling the same bullshit but more so. He feels invincible, I think, but many of us feel outrage fatigue. We are tired of his unpredictability and bored with his schtick.
It’s going to be neurotic and tense for gringo transplants. We probably have much the same reactions here as our U.S. counterparts, at least so far. The difference is that we have a partial refuge from the madness here. And most of us here are older, which may give us a different perspective. Continue reading “Living in Mexico under Trump”
Nobody likes to eat crow. So here’s David Rothkopf, another public intellectual who refuses to do so: “In my view, not only is Donald Trump a terrible choice to be our president, but that Kamala Harris would have been an exceptionally good leader for America.” Well, David, I endorsed her too, but it’s over and she was partly responsible for blowing it. So let us move on and hear how other prominent liberal critics expiated their guilt.
Well, why not? They are bombarded with constant negative scrutiny: that the race is too close to call, that the Harris campaign has screwed up royally, that the pollsters are all over the lot, that the choice of Tim Walz was a disaster.
Zak Cheney-Rice, a sharp writer for New York Magazine, tells us some of the things that have made for this “autumn chill” on the campaign. The joyous liberal response after the demise of Biden has given way to anxiety and jitters. I think the biggest problem is that Harris looks unsettled and has pivoted to the center. Per Zak, she “has betrayed [the campaign’s] original promise of unbridled possibility, the consequences of which will reverberate beyond November 5 regardless of who wins.”
Walz successfully went after Vance before their debate, then played nice during their encounter. Worse, from my point of view, is Harris’s failure to move off the Biden stance on Gaza and Israel. Young voters are particularly turned off by this. Zak says:
Israel’s brinkmanship is an issue in which Harris has failed to create meaningful daylight not only between herself and Trump but between herself and the unpopular Biden. The result will be her co-ownership of atrocities against Gazan civilians as well as further confirmation that, for all the history-making potential of her candidacy, we have seen these politics before.
Harris wants voters to embrace change but she is not giving them a real roadmap of how to get there. For many, I believe, it looks like more of the same, and they have clearly repudiated Biden. Trump will wave his magic wand and all will be well. In his rallies, he pledges to end the war in Ukraine “in twenty-four hours.”
Under my plan, incomes will skyrocket, inflation will vanish completely, jobs will come roaring back, and the middle class will prosper like never, ever before.
Maybe MAGA means “Magic AGAin.” When these people have lost power over things they value, magical thinking gives them a sense of control. Obviously, this notion is fundamental to Trump’s appeal. For such voters, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. From that point of view, as many have pointed out, Harris is really the unknown quantity. She is offering them what they perceive as more of the same policies that have made their lives dismal.
We news junkies seem to be vastly dependent on polling in this most fraught of elections. That’s a big mistake. As has been many times demonstrated, the polls often conflict and are thus wrong. The “why so?” is complicated, as Robert Kuttner explained in The American Prospect. He cites Michael Podhorzer,
who astutely points out that all polling is “opinion journalism.” Why? Because pollsters make assumptions about who is a likely voter and how to weigh or overweigh different demographic groups. “The ‘opinions’ are not about issues or ideology, but about methodological approaches.”
There is a long history of presidential polls being wrong, some of which is explained here. The pattern has remained unchanged for about a hundred years. The polls now predict no better than they did then. Even so, the polling practice has proliferated. It’s a business, after all, and following polls can be addictive.
Last month, Pew came out with a study, “Key things to know about U.S. election polling in 2024.” It’s a little more positive than I’ve suggested, maybe because Pew is a major pollster. A big problem, they say, is predicting who will actually vote.
Roughly a third of eligible Americans do not vote in presidential elections, despite the enormous attention paid to these contests. Determining who will abstain is difficult because people can’t perfectly predict their future behavior – and because many people feel social pressure to say they’ll vote even if it’s unlikely.
Nate Cohn in a recent NY Times post says, “The newer opt-in [online] pollsters haven’t fared any better,” and newer ones keep popping up. So Why are they doing no better than traditional polls? The problem is, as always, “how to find a representative sample without the benefit of random sampling, in which everyone has an equal chance of being selected for a poll.”
Instead, the internet has made things messier and more difficult. So many problems in verifying the data, and so few solutions. I found another fascinating study that illustrates a difficulty other than what the critics have been talking about. Axios summarized it this way: There are stark gaps between what Americans say they think and what they really think about hot-button political issues.
I think the findings from that new study are amazing. To wit, how the general public [61% of all Americans] misrepresents its views:
You can check out more of these results here (scroll to Key Findings). If indeed valid, what these outcomes plainly mean is that nearly all public opinion polling sampling may be invalid. Can pollsters ever really discover how people are going to vote?
Since I wrote this piece in 2018 the situation hasn’t really changed. The major mania for the Trump camp is still immigration and exclusion. Now it’s the Hatians who have displaced Latinos at the bottom of the immigrant barrel.
My great-grandfathers on both sides were German immigrants who came to America in the mid-late 19th century. You can be sure they were not as reviled as the Irish and Italians who came a bit later. Yet Trump and his father long denied their German ancestry, buying into the tradition of hate and exclusion that now extends to Latinos, the new vassals for the GOP.
Prejudice to me is the flip side of identity politics. And drawing immigration lines in the sand is like pulling up the drawbridge after the last good guys are inside. I’ve generally been thought of as one of the good guys (despite being Jewish) because of family, social class, education, and skin color. See Jive-Colored Glasses.
But you soon come to understand if you’re at all aware that the deck is unfairly stacked—even though (to mix the metaphor) you paid to sit in first class. Looking at the lives of the poor and the excluded, it’s hard to feel real empathy unless you have been there yourself. Sympathy is easier and more socially acceptable. Ultimately, I don’t aim to feel either: I want to change the politics of exclusion to one of inclusion.
Trump of course was the perfect GOP candidate to exploit fears of immigration, just as Stephen Miller became the perfect guy to push the policy of zero tolerance. Now Miller and his cohorts want to reduce the “refugee cap” to as low as 15,000 in 2019.
The recent separation of parents and children, and the chaos it caused, is in my view the most inhumane (if not the most politically stupid) thing that Trump has done. Now the administration compounds its culpability by telling the ACLU it should be the responsible agency for finding the separated and deported parents. One might call this wagging the dog or, better, weaseling out.
The White House thinks its stance will play well with the base because they will stick with anything. It will not play well with Hispanics, suburban women, resettlement groups, and the two-thirds of the country that opposes Trump’s immigration policy.
Separating kids from their parents is what the Nazis did. The consequence is trauma and severe long-term consequences for the kids. And what is to be done for those 463 parents already deported without their children? This sick series of government-provoked horrors ought to be the number-one focus for Democrats in November.
But immigration is surely the knottiest issue—politically and policy-wise—of all. Trump’s approach does violence to everyone. And so far, Democrats are all over the map on the issue. The one thing I can think of is to increase the number of judges so that the asylum seekers can be processed with some fairness and dispatch. This is more than a crisis in border security; it’s an ongoing political crisis.