On Twitter/X, I stumbled across this useful image that visually captures the U.S. political scene:
The modification I’d make to this illustration is with the caption. It’s not only Republicans who turn everything rightwards—Democrats help too. Consider Kamala Harris’ embrace of Dick and Liz Cheney during her campaign of ill-fortune. Or her embrace of military lethality and her celebration of Israel’s “right” to “defend” itself as it wages genocide in Gaza.
It’s Republicans and Democrats who are turning this country rightwards even as Democrats block any appreciable movement in progressive or “leftist” directions.
Mainstream Democrats will always say they need to do this as allegedly it’s the only way they can win, which is pure BS, as Harris’ defeat recently shows. It’s the old “fake left, run right” tactic, and corporate-friendly Democrats keep using it, if only to keep the money flowing.
No matter. Liberal magazines like The Nation are telling me that Harris lost because of “bigotry,” not because she embraced the Cheneys and left workers behind. I guess President Obama won two terms because of bigotry?
Given this “ratchet effect,” America desperately needs a political revolution, as Bernie Sanders in 2016 was wont to say, as rightist Hillary Clinton ran against Trumpist Donald Trump. (Trump makes populist noises, but his guiding light is self-aggrandizement.)
As Democrats offer rightist candidates like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, Republicans give us a plutocratic “man of the people” (never mind the contradiction here) like Trump. Facing that grim “choice,” sensing that Clinton and Harris and Democrats like them are not what they say are, many Americans opt for the scrutable plutocrat and his friends. Elon Musk, anyone?
And thus America’s problems are ratcheted up.
P.S. A hearty “Happy New Years!” to all my readers wherever you are!
Private health insurers make money denying care–not providing it
Luigi Mangione, the young man who shot and killed a senior health insurance executive, is emerging as a folk hero of sorts in America. This requires some explanation for people outside of America.
Luigi Mangione
Most peer countries to the United States have national health care systems. Countries like Britain, Germany, France, Japan, New Zealand, and the like. These national health care systems, run by the government, are not perfect, but overall they are cheaper and produce better results for patients than the American system, where health care is basically wealth care for the rich and privileged.
America primarily has a privatized health care system where profit is the prime directive. (Programs like Medicare* and Medicaid are a public-private partnership and are government-funded; the former focuses on people 65 and older, the latter on the poorest of Americans.) Most Americans get their private health insurance with their job, else they’re required to buy private health insurance on their own nickel. These health insurance plans are expensive and often come with high deductibles and co-pays.
So, for example, when you visit a doctor for a routine appointment, your co-pay is likely between $50 and $100 per visit. If you get seriously sick, break a bone, etc., your health insurance provider may not start paying your bills until a certain yearly deductible is met, which may sit between $5000 and $10,000. Not surprisingly with these deductibles, co-pays, and the like, Americans often declare bankruptcy due to medical bills even when they have health insurance and are in theory “covered.”
A quick Google search reveals that an unsubsidized private health care plan for a family of four in America cost an average of $24,000 a year in 2023. Other figures suggest a cost of roughly $18,000 a year, but it depends on what state you live in as well as your age. The various plans that you can buy are quite complicated and include the aforementioned deductibles, co-pays, and other complexities. Employer-based plans cost less; perhaps in the neighborhood of $6000 to $8000 per year.
Again, health insurers’ #1 priority isn’t to provide health care. It’s to make money for shareholders—and for the senior executives in the industry. So their profit-driven approach to claims is the now infamous “deny, delay, depose (or defend)” strategy. As often as possible, they seek to deny claims outright, forcing sick and desperate people to fight an incomprehensible bureaucracy shrouded in fine-print legalese. Or they seek to delay payment on claims. Or they take Americans to court (“defend and depose”), forcing people to hire lawyers (quite expensive) while aiming for the quickest and cheapest settlement.
For the insurers, this strategy makes all the sense in the world. They are in this business to maximize profits and earnings, not to provide generous health care benefits.
Efforts to create a fairer and more just system for Americans have failed due to political corruption at the highest levels as well as propaganda (remember those rumored “death panels” if the government ran health care). The idea of a national non-profit healthcare system is nothing new; the Truman administration advocated for it after World War II, and various other proposals were floated by LBJ in the 1960s, the Clintons in the 1990s, and even tepidly by the ultimate sellout Barack Obama with his Affordable Care Act, which is unaffordable for many and less than generous with its care. These and similar efforts have failed as Big Pharma, the AMA, health insurers, and other forces have combined to exert tremendous pressure so as to prevent meaningful reforms that would cut into their profits, salaries, and market share.
Basically, the U.S. health wealth care system costs roughly double that of comparable countries with worse outcomes for patients. Again, this isn’t a surprising result, since the health and well-being of patients isn’t the guiding priority. It never has been. The U.S. system is all about producing the highest possible salaries and profits for Big Pharma, for health insurers, for privileged doctors (specialists often make yearly salaries in the high six-figures), and for all the other stakeholders (and shareholders) in the current system.
Here in America, the Hippocratic oath of “first do no harm” in medicine doesn’t apply. Our oath is the Gordon Gekko one of “Greed is good.” It doesn’t matter if people go bankrupt or die as a result. It’s wealth care, not health care, silly!
It’s unlikely the Trump administration will do anything to change this. Its top priority seems to be the expulsion of immigrants. Members of Congress are completely in the pocket of Big Pharma, the health insurers, and powerful medical lobbies, so don’t look for meaningful change there.
That’s why so many Americans, deeply frustrated with an exploitative system of healthwealth care, where costs rise year by year as benefits shrink, sympathize with Luigi Mangione, even if they disagree with his murderous method of expressing his anger and disgust.
Put bleakly, America’s health wealth care system is another way of enriching the few while impoverishing the rest. It is also a form of social control. (Act out, protest—lose your job, your health care, maybe your life.) Only the most revolutionary acts are likely to change this system. That is exactly why the government, the mainstream media, and corporate elites are acting to suppress sympathy for Mangione.
Consider this article by Ken Klippenstein about a mom who, frustrated with her health insurer, repeated “deny-delay-depose” while saying “you people are next” on the phone; she quickly apologized, but not before the police and FBI were called in and charged her with threatening “an act of terrorism.”
Know your place, Americans. Stay supine and obedient or they’ll take away your health insurance. Better yet, they’ll finally give you affordable health care—in prison.
Most people think Medicare is a government program. That’s only partly true. While Congress created Medicare, and continues to develop Medicare coverage and appeal rules, decisions to pay claims are actually made by private companies. The government does not make those decisions. This was one of the compromises made in order to pass Medicare in 1965 – and the public-private partnership continues to date.
Indeed, the entities granting or denying coverage, and those deciding whether or not to pay claims, are mostly private insurance companies. For example, Anthem is the parent company of “National Government Services,” one of the major Medicare claims administrators. Another Medicare administrative contractor, “MAXIMUS,” is a for-profit company that helps state, federal and foreign governments administer programs.
In addition, about 30% of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in private “Medicare Advantage” plans. These plans are also run by private companies, mostly within the insurance industry, and they make Medicare initial coverage decisions for their enrollees.
We know that when Medicare is working right and covering necessary care, everyone is content. But, if coverage is denied unfairly… don’t blame the government. It’s probably not “Medicare” that made the decision; it’s most likely a private insurance company that’s paid by Medicare to make coverage decisions.
Thanks to a reader, Sally Moore, for pointing out the public-private nature of Medicare. It’s more complicated than I thought—I should have known better.
Update: A classic cartoon from Tom Tomorrow seems appropriate here:
Liberals at The Nation Applaud Joe Biden for Lying
At The Nation, Elie Mystal has an article, “Of Course Joe Biden Was Right to Pardon His Son.” Mystal’s argument, such as it is, asserts that Republicans are worse than Democrats when it comes to hypocrisy and persecuting their rivals, so Joe Biden was right to shield his son from their partisan efforts to persecute him. In a nutshell, the argument is that Trump’s done worse, plus Biden is a “loving father,” so that makes the pardon justifiable.
He loves his son, Trump is worse, and that’s all you need to know.
It’s a mind-boggling “argument,” which got me to write this short note to the editor:
That Joe Biden was right to pardon Hunter isn’t as questionable as the nature of the pardon given. The pardon is sweeping, covering 11 years, and open-ended, covering just about every conceivable federal crime. It’s likely no accident it begins in 2014, when Hunter started on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, where he “earned” $1 million a year. The sweeping nature of the pardon suggests that much is being swept under the rug here, especially Hunter’s dealings with Ukraine and China.
More than this, however, is President Biden’s integrity. Time and time again, Joe Biden said he wouldn’t pardon his son under any circumstances. That he trusted the justice system and jury trials. Those assertions now stand revealed as lies.
In his article, Elie Mystal says it’s all about power here. Perhaps he should think about justice and integrity as well.
I can see Joe Biden pardoning Hunter for specific crimes (like firearm charges) that he believes are overdrawn, but an eleven-year blanket pardon that coincides with Hunter’s highly questionable actions in regards to Ukraine? After Biden had sworn, again and again, he was not going to pardon Hunter for anything?
That Elie Mystal, the Nation’s justice expert (!), can applaud Joe Biden here is truly sad. Come on. Claiming that “Trump worse” or that Biden’s a “loving father” is no excuse for anything.
The Democratic Party is returning to what they do best: blaming the voters for their defeat.
Why did Kamala lose? Racism and sexism. Duh. And white women. And Hispanics. And Black men. They just didn’t do what they were supposed to do, which was to vote for Kamala. After all, she was the candidate handpicked for you by the DNC elite. Geez, what more do you want? Look at the joy below!
You expected them to dazzle? Shame on you!
Remember Michelle Obama wagged her finger and scolded you not to expect Kamala to “dazzle”? Remember her husband berated Black men for not having Kamala’s back? I’m amazed that didn’t convince you to vote for Kamalove and Kamalot. Haters, all of you.
Of course, I channeled my hatred of women and Jews by voting for Jill Stein. But as a cis white male, nothing better was expected of me; I was always a lost cause. And by voting for Jill Stein, a Jewish woman dedicated to peace and against genocide in Gaza, I was obviously really voting not for Stein but for Trump. Duh.
I’m deplorable. I’m garbage. I’m a bad person. The only good people are those who voted for Kamala. End of story.
One thing is certain: It can’t be the candidate. It’s not her fault that she couldn’t inspire more voters to cast their ballots for her. It’s not her fault that she embraced the Cheneys. It’s not her fault she touted the “lethal” U.S. military and supported Israel and its genocide in Gaza. It’s not her fault that her track record in 2020 for winning support at the national level was abysmal. It’s not her fault she lost all seven battleground states despite more than a billion dollars spent on her campaign. It’s not her fault—it’s your fault. She didn’t deserve to be repudiated by voters—and you’re going to deserve your fate under Trump since you rejected her.
Some of you still want a populist like Bernie Sanders, don’t you? Sorry, that’s never going to happen. We the DNC would rather lose with a Cheney-endorsed neocon genocide-enabler like Harris than win with a principled populist like Sanders. Not just in 2016, not just in 2024, but in 2028 and all future elections.
Either you vote for the DNC Republican we give you or you get the RNC Republican we all deplore. Got a problem with that? Have you thought about leaving the country?
Addendum: If Democrats truly believe democracy dies in darkness under Trump, was a mediocre vice president with less-than-stellar political and speaking skills the best person to challenge him? If Trump=fascism, was anointing Kamala as the candidate without primaries the best way to demonstrate Democrats’ commitment to a fair process open to everyone within the party? Are voters really to blame when you give them no choice, no say, and no real power?
It’s Election Day in America and I really hope you get out and vote—or that you’ve voted already.
Sure, most of us wish the candidates were different, as in better. But don’t surrender to apathy and despair. Fill out a ballot. Let your vote be counted.
Often there are important state issues/referendums on the ballot and local offices up for grabs. Even though Trump versus Harris consumes most of the oxygen, these state issues and local offices deserve your attention as well.
The so-called experts keep warning us about the death of democracy and the rise of fascism. Deny them by voting. And then deny them further by doing even more, after the election.
I always feel better after voting. I hope you do too.
So, on this day especially I don’t care if you’re Red, Blue, Green, or some other color. I care that you’re engaged. That you’re willing to go on the record. That you’re ready to take a stand, express an opinion, if only on your ballot. It’s a start.
I know some people say voting only encourages the bastards within a thoroughly corrupt and corrupting system. I don’t believe that. Voting gives you a chance to send a message. You may think your one vote won’t matter, but it’s certain no vote by you won’t matter. It’s time for you to matter.
Be a citizen, not a subject. Exercise a citizen’s right to vote. Vote for me! Well, not literally *for* me, but for our mutual belief in having our voices heard. You have my thanks.
Remember, women couldn’t even vote for president until the 1920 election
It’s “Take America Back” Versus “We’re Not Going Back”
This year’s presidential election is as grim as can be, and that grimness is reflected in the campaign slogans. Trump wants to “Take America back,” the implication being that bad people, I suppose the Democrats, have captured America and ruined it, and that only Trump can fix it. Harris says “We’re not going back,” meaning Trump can’t win again because he’d take America back to a hateful and brutal past.
Not a positive election, is it? How do you like your future, very bad or even worse?
It’s reflected in a story I saw in The Boston Globe this AM. Here’s an excerpt from a report on the swing state of Wisconsin:
Here in this key swing county of a key swing state [Wisconsin] that may well decide the presidency, voters across the political spectrum are gripped by fear over who will win the upcoming election.
Instead of expressing excitement about supporting their candidate — or simply relief that the election will soon be over — more than 50 voters interviewed here three weeks before Election Day repeatedly used words like “anxious,” “apprehensive,” “scared,” “worried,” and “terrified” to describe their feelings about the other party’s candidate winning.
Voters supporting former president Donald Trump said they fear that if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, inflation, crime, and illegal immigration will rise, leading to a fundamental change in American life. And Harris supporters say another four years of Trump would increase division and undermine the country’s democratic institutions.
Two memorable quotes about fear occur to me. One is from Master Po from “Kung Fu” who said, Fear is the only darkness. And then Frank Herbert from “Dune”: Fear is the mind-killer. And of course FDR who told us at the height of the Great Depression that the only thing we had to fear is fear itself.
It’s an incredible disservice to the American people for both candidates to be stoking fear. What cowardice by both the Blue and Red Teams!
That’s yet another reason why I like third parties and why Jill Stein and the Green Party appeal to me. Stein presents a positive vision of the future, a more peaceful one, one in which Americans come together to tackle common problems like climate change, health care, infrastructure, and the like.
I refuse to vote for parties and candidates that stoke fear, that promote darkness and that seek to kill my mind.
Trump supporters at a rally in Wisconsin (Scott Olson/Getty)
Sorry, Democrats and Republicans: I’m not going “back” to you and your fear.
It’s been a welcome relief not to write much about Donald Trump since he left office with so much dignity and so little controversy in January 2021. (Just kidding!) Back in March of 2016, I wrote a BV article on how and why Donald Trump had disqualified himself for the presidency. During a debate, Trump had boasted, in his usual ignorant way, that U.S. military members would follow his orders whether they were legal or not. Basically, it was the Richard M. Nixon defense of “If the President does it (or orders it), that means it’s not illegal.” Trump, I concluded back then, was constitutionally unsuited for the presidency. It didn’t matter. Hillary Clinton ran a horrible campaign and Trump won a surprising victory.
Put charitably, his four years as president were a very mixed bag. If you’re a glutton for punishment, you can consult the Bracing Views archive and all the articles I wrote about Trump and his deeds (and misdeeds). His biggest accomplishment was a big tax cut for the already wealthy in America. He seriously bungled the COVID crisis, projecting cluelessness instead of steadiness. He blamed his generals for a botched raid on Yemen, then shamelessly trotted out before Congress the widow of a service member who’d died there. He surrendered to his generals and prolonged the Afghan War and almost started a war with Iran by killing a senior general in a risky drone strike. He pandered to Israel (he still is pandering, by the way). He boosted Pentagon spending. He angled for a big military parade in Washington, D.C., just because that’s what democracies do. (The parade at least never came to pass.) He posed with a Bible to advocate law and order. And that’s only a few items off the top of my head.
Trump is now older but judging by his speeches none the wiser. His rallies have gotten longer and his speeches more chaotic. His vilification of immigrants is especially inflammatory. His claim that student protesters of genocide in Gaza should be deported was yet another example of his fundamental misunderstanding of Constitutional guarantees to freedom of speech and assembly. He continues to be more of a divider than a uniter even as he lacks a vision for a better American future. His slogan is “Take America Back.” From whom, or to what era? Many of his claims about his opponent, Kamala Harris, are simply lies. (No, Kamala doesn’t “hate” Israel, quite the reverse; no, Kamala isn’t a “Marxist,” she’s a self-avowed capitalist.)
Speaking of Trump’s age, I worry about his health. He’s 78, overweight, but still displays admirable energy (so far). Yet we’ve just witnessed a president, Joe Biden, also elected at age 78 who’s been in obvious physical and mental decline. Is Trump ready for the rigors and strains of another four years in office, which would see him as America’s leader until age 82? I have my doubts.
Since I live in a blue state and also used to be a registered Democrat, I’ve been spared being inundated by Trump mailers. My friend M. Davout who lives in a swing state hasn’t been so lucky. Here’s his description of being mail-bombed by the Trump campaign this fall:
I have probably received over 50 pro-Trump mailers over the last month and a half. Friends of mine (also liberals) report the same torrent of ugly campaign dreck. [These mailers] appeal to the lowest negative human motives, fear and hate … Listen to the lies and racist claims Trump and Vance articulate daily–immigrants are murderers and rapists, Haitians are eating pets, Mexican gangs are taking over American cities, they are poisoning the blood of America, Harris is an idiot, she is a DEI candidate … What kind of person do you imagine they are trying to reach and mobilize with this rhetoric?
Davout has a point. Trump’s campaign rhetoric is often angry, vengeful, hateful. It’s consistent with previous Trump imagery of American carnage, of America being disrespected, of America needing to strike back at … someone. Somewhere. Immigrants at home. Iranians abroad. This is not unique to the Trump campaign, of course. Many Democrats despise Trump. Too many Democrats are pro-war. But no one would describe Trump as running a campaign based on unity and joy. A politics of harshness, of recrimination, of grievance, of score-settling, largely defines the Trump campaign.
Readers, Trump’s vision is not my vision of America. Nor was it my father’s. Eight years ago, in October 2016, I wrote an article: “Dump Chump Trump.” I’ll paste it below. I highly doubt any Trump supporters will be turned away from their man merely by my words, but perhaps they may serve to rekindle a few concerns about what kind of man Trump is. My conclusion remains the same: Trump is not the answer.
*****
Dump Chump Trump
Donald Trump is a chump. I’d call him a chimp, except it would be an insult to chimpanzees everywhere.
Oct 1, 2016, 09:29 AM EDT
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump holds a rally with supporters at the Suburban Collection Showplace in Novi, Michigan, U.S. September 30, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
What kind of a presidential candidate tweets in the middle of the night about alleged sex tapes involving a former Miss Universe winner? Indeed, what kind of a man does this?
Donald Trump is a chump. I’d call him a chimp, except it would be an insult to chimpanzees everywhere. The man has no discipline, no sense of decorum, and no compassion for others (let’s not forget his signature line, “You’re fired”). Indeed, he seems to revel in humiliating others. This was mildly amusing when he was taking on equals on the stage during the Republican primaries, but it’s disturbing in the extreme to see him bullying the little guys and gals for whom he’s supposedly a champion.
So many sane people and major newspapers have gone on record as being against Trump that there’s little I can add. Sadly, Trump’s followers seem unperturbed and undisturbed no matter his insults and tyrannical behavior.
All I can say is this: Trump is not the kind of man my father taught me to be. My dad, who fought forest fires in Oregon in the CCC, a veteran of an armored division in World War II, a city firefighter for more than 30 years until his retirement, treated people fairly and squarely. He was humble about himself and considerate to others. I can’t recall him insulting others, certainly not in the intentional and hurtful way that Trump directs at others. Trump is especially fond of attacking women or minorities or anyone he sees as vulnerable, the very opposite of my dad’s code of behavior.
Don’t get me wrong: my dad wasn’t perfect. He had his faults. But his faults were not directed at others; he didn’t try to demean or diminish other people, as Trump so obviously enjoys doing. Unlike Trump, my dad wasn’t boastful; indeed, three favorite sayings of his were: “Still waters run deep,” “Don’t toot your own horn,” and “The empty barrel makes the most noise.”
You were right, Dad. The rushing nonsense from Trump exhibits his shallowness; the man is constantly tweeting his own horn; and, like the empty vessel that he is, he makes an awful amount of noise.
Trump: Not the kind of man my father would respect; not the kind of man our country needs.
Dump chump Trump.
Standard Disclaimer (10/2024): Criticizing Trump doesn’t mean I love Kamala Harris. Instead, I’m going to demonstrate my misogyny and anti-Semitism by voting for Jill Stein—you know, a Jewish woman who’s actually for peace and against genocide.
Recently, a reader contacted me to end his subscription. He said I’m mimicking Sean Hannity and that my readership is increasingly toxic. My blog is “useless” too. So of course I honored his request without acrimony.
In refusing to take sides in the Harris-Trump election, I’ve been accused of being both pro- and anti-Trump, pro- and anti-Harris. Sorry: I try to be pro-truth, pro-justice, and pro-peace. On those terms, I can’t support Harris or Trump for the presidency.
When I say this, Trump and Harris supporters accuse me of false equivalency. Harris isn’t as bad as Trump! Trump is Hitler! Trump isn’t as bad as Harris! She’s a woke monster! And on and on …
This divisiveness, this acrimony, this animosity, is precisely what the powers that be want us to focus on. Personality politics. Red versus Blue. Hating the other side and expending all your energy against “Demoncrats” or “Rethuglicans” or whatever childish insult is currently in vogue. Libtards and Deplorables, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Meanwhile, while we stay divided, the rich get richer, growing ever more powerful, as the middle and working classes are hollowed out.
Issues are important to me. Policies and positions that favor the working and middle classes while promoting peace and eliminating militarism. That’s why I’m voting for Jill Stein.
That said, I respect my readers’ choices. Some of you will vote for Harris, some for Trump, some for Stein, and some of you, fed up, may not vote at all. I respect your decisions. And I hope my blog isn’t “useless” in your deliberations and in your wider lives.
As a song from my youth goes (which just popped into my head): “I beg your pardon—I never promised you a rose garden.” If you blog about politics, religion, war, and the like, you’re going to get pushback from readers. Readers will be offended no matter what you write, and a few are even looking to give offense, just for the fun of it (the trolls). Occasionally, I’ll even get down in the mud and wrestle a bit myself. Trolls and pigs shouldn’t have all the fun, right?
Bracing Views will continue to be a site that welcomes Harris supporters, Trump supporters, and those who think both candidates and parties are disasters. It will continue to welcome people of all faiths or no faith. We need sites where we can discuss the most vexing and perplexing issues freely.
Find a peaceful place to sit down and relax. (Author’s photo)
I tell people it’s OK to disagree. Just don’t be disagreeable. Don’t be a jerk about it. Don’t be insulting. Don’t be a troll. Most of the time, it works.
So, I don’t think I’ve turned into Sean Hannity—or Rachel Maddow. (Speaking of Maddow, no one is paying me $30 million yearly to support Harris; Hannity only makes $25 million, the poor bugger.) I don’t think the comment section here is “toxic.” I do think you’ll find people arguing their positions thoughtfully, and forcefully, most of the time, and even when people seem “unhinged” to you, rather than getting angry, I suggest you ask why it is that they believe what they say they believe (unless they’re just being jerks; I get a few of those).
I will continue to look at the American political scene while doing my best to avoid partisanship and acrimony, but it’s sure getting stormy out there, America.
My friends alternately ask me whether I want Democrats to lose the 2024 election or Republicans because I criticize both parties at this site. In tribal America, you must pick a side. You must vote blue no matter who, or you must embrace MAGA and Trump.
Here’s what I wrote recently to a friend who, based on my articles here, told me I obviously wanted Democrats to lose:
I don’t want Democrats to lose. I want Democrats to earn the win by pursuing more progressive and more moral policies. I want Democrats to stop aiding Israel in its genocide, I want Democrats to be more aggressive in helping the working classes, I want Democrats to cut the Pentagon budget in a major way, I want Democrats to be against fracking, I want Democrats to pursue immigration policies that don’t involve more money for walls, etc.
I used to be a registered Democrat, so perhaps I write more critical articles about Democrats because I expect more from them (and because Democrats are currently in power). I have a good idea what I’m getting with Donald Trump and the MAGA crowd (remember Trump’s first term?), and it’s not something I want. I expect Democrats to offer something more than “We’re not quite as bad as Trump,” and so far I’ve been disappointed. Certainly, the positions taken by the Harris/Walz campaign have been contrary to many of my priorities.
What I said of the Democrats to my friend I’d say to any Republican as well. I want Republicans to earn the win by pursuing more enlightened and more moral policies. I want Republicans to stop aiding Israel in its genocide, I want Republicans to be more aggressive in helping the working classes, I want Republicans to cut the Pentagon budget in a major way, I want Republicans to be against fracking, I want Republicans to pursue immigration policies that don’t involve more money for walls, etc.
And I’m not seeing much of that from Trump, MAGA, and Project 2025.
That said, I’d also like to see inspired, visionary, leadership. I’d like to hear the unscripted voices of Harris and Trump to gauge their intellect, their ability to think on their feet, their empathy, their ability to answer the most difficult questions frankly and cogently while also displaying sensitivity to nuance. I’ve heard Trump unscripted enough to know that he’s often an undisciplined, divisive, even insulting speaker. Harris is largely being kept from unscripted events, but the recent CNN interview she gave didn’t inspire confidence and trust.
Of course, one can be a skilled public speaker (Barack Obama) and a major disappointment as president. But motivational and communication skills remain something that I look for in a leader. Can she or he inspire people? Motivate them? Bring them together for the greater good? For the highest political office in the land, Harris and Trump, to my mind, are less than adequate as inspiring and visionary leaders.
Jill Stein this year (Wiki)
People then ask me: Well, who are you going to vote for, if not Harris or Trump? Because I know I’m offending both tribes by not backing their preferred candidate. And I give an honest answer: I’m not sure yet. I may vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. At least she’s against genocide in Gaza, as well as supporting a range of progressive positions that I generally sympathize with. And then I’m told a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump (interestingly, I haven’t been told a vote for Stein is a vote for Harris, which is logically the same) . Or I’m told I’m wasting my vote since she can’t win.
If you’re looking to change my mind because I won’t vote for your tribal team leader, it’s not a persuasive strategy to tell me I’m stupid and wasting my vote or that by voting for Stein I’m really voting for MAGA. You’re just insulting me for refusing to vote for your gal or guy.
I urge all my readers to vote for the candidate who best represents your positions and priorities. And which leader you’d trust the most in a crisis to make wise decisions. I pass no judgment on which candidate you choose. I think this is a sound practice for all of us to follow.
An example: I was talking to a neighbor and she said she’s still voting for RFK Jr. even though he’s pulled out of the race and endorsed Trump. I didn’t vote-shame her by telling her she’s wasting her vote or that she’s voting for Trump (or Harris) by not voting blue (or red). I just nodded my head and moved on. She was an early supporter of RFK Jr., and she still wants to show her support this November, and I respect her choice.
Democracy (along with comity) isn’t advanced by hating on each other for the votes we intend to cast. Am I wrong about this?
It’s convention week for the Democrats, which brings me to concerns expressed by a couple of loyal readers. They tell me I’m being too hard on Kamala Harris and the Democrats. They say I’m missing a much bigger picture when I criticize them. That bigger picture is the threat of another Donald Trump victory, which very well could end elections in America, or at the very least produce a much more conservative and reactionary judiciary than the one we already have. They point to Project 2025 and challenge me to write about it and denounce it.
Together with this is one reader’s optimism for a Harris presidency. She may not be the best choice, this reader admits, but she’s shown some progressive chops. And strong support for her within the party has grown organically as she’s raised over $200 million from mostly smaller donors, money that could help her to move away from corporate agendas and in progressive directions.
And that’s all OK with me. I’m willing to hear criticism of my positions and priorities. Indeed, that’s a big reason why I started Bracing Views, not only to air my thoughts but to hear responses from others.
As I thought about this feedback, I saw this headline and story at the New York Timesthis morning:
Harris’s Muscular Patriotism: At her first rally with Tim Walz, Kamala Harris delivered a riff about their quintessentially American backgrounds. She grew up in Oakland, Calif., raised by a working mother, while he grew up on the Nebraska plains, she explained. They were “two middle-class kids,” she said, now trying to make it to the White House together.
“Only in America,” Harris said, as the Philadelphia crowd burst into a chant of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”
This sort of unabashed patriotism doesn’t always come naturally to today’s Democratic Party. But it has been central to Harris’s presidential campaign. In her ads and speeches, she portrays herself as a tough, populist, progressive patriot.
Source: New York Times/Siena College poll, Sept. 2022 | By The New York Times
Given all this, it’s not surprising that most voters consider the Republican Party to be the more patriotic one:
Source: YouGov April 2024 poll | By The New York Times
The far left plays a role here. Parts of it — think of Noam Chomsky— can be disdainful of the U.S., describing it as a fundamentally oppressive country. Liberals, not conservatives, tend to argue that immigrants are forced to move here because of the consequences of American imperialism. Liberals are more likely to have qualms about national institutions like Thanksgiving, the military or the flag.
The most prominent left-wing movement of the past year — the Gaza protests — is a case study. The movement has not merely called attention to the high civilian death toll in Gaza; it sometimes portrays the war as an extension of U.S. immorality. Protesters have pulled down American flags and defaced a statue of George Washington with the word “genocidal.”
The America-skeptical left isn’t the Democratic Party, of course. But the left does exacerbate many swing voters’ concerns about the party — namely, that it isn’t cleareyed about a dangerous world. These same swing voters generally don’t like Trump, but they do appreciate his apparent toughness on trade, immigration, crime and more.
Harris combines patriotism with muscular promises to defend the interests of ordinary Americans. “Being president is about who you fight for, and she’s fighting for people like you,” the narrator in a campaign ad says. Her ads explain that as a prosecutor, she took on murderers, child abusers, drug cartels, big banks and big drug companies.
Harris’s flip-flop on immigration embodies both the toughness and patriotism themes. As a presidential candidate in 2019 — when the left was more influential in the Democratic Party — she favored decriminalizing border crossings. Today, she promises to protect Americans from gangs and fentanyl flowing across the border, and she criticizes Trump for blocking a border-security bill.
The image that accompanied this story showed a person wearing a Kamala Harris t-shirt in which she’s depicted as Captain America.
Given this article and many others like it, I don’t think my two readers have to worry about Kamala Harris being treated unfairly by the corporate-owned news (the CON)!
According to the New York Times, Harris is going to outmuscle Trump for who can be tougher on crime, drugs, and illegal immigrants. As Captain America, she’s going to be even more muscularly patriotic (or blindly nationalistic, my wife quipped) than Trump. The only concern is killjoys on the “far left,” who think mass destruction and genocide in Gaza is wrong. They don’t think America is the greatest, goodest, bestest country in the world. But Kamala does!
Sadly, Bracing Views doesn’t have quite the same market penetration as the New York Times, so my critique of Harris and the Democrats will hardly make a dent in all the partying and enthusiasm for Kamala this week. It does seem to me, however, that the tactics being used here are yet another case of the Democrats faking left and running right.
Anyhow, here’s a reply I sent to a loyal reader and friend about my approach to Kamala and the Democrats:
I’m not anti-Harris per se. She has such a thin record that who knows how she’d make decisions.
I am against how Harris is being shoved down our throats as an almost savior-like figure. I am against the Democratic party, which is why I left it and am now an independent.
I am also against Trump and the MAGA crowd. I wrote article after article denouncing them from 2016 to 2021. Do I have to repeat all that again so that I can be “fair and balanced”?
I get that you see Trump and MAGA as major threats, much more so than the Democrats. I see a different threat, I suppose, a uniparty that embraces empire, militarism, colossal spending on wars and weapons, and a foreign policy agenda that may yet produce World War III, whether the figurehead at the top is Trump or Harris.
I was hoping the Democrats would offer a REAL alternative to Trump with respect to the issues I cited above, but Harris is a lightweight in foreign policy whose description of the Russia-Ukraine War should really scare you for its ignorance and vapidness. She, like Trump, will spend $2 trillion on new nukes. She, like Trump, will brag that the U.S. military is the finest in the world, thus the Pentagon budget will continue to soar toward $1 trillion as the Pentagon continues to flunk audit after audit. She, like Trump, will keep the weapons flowing to Israel so that Gaza can be made Palestinian-free, giving more living space to Israel and Bibi.
Will Harris be more populist at home? I guess. Will she be friendlier to LGBTQ+ and pro-choice movements? Definitely. Is that enough to vote for her? That’s up to the voters to decide.
Harris is basically trying to play from the Obama book, “Yes, we Kam,” supported by big-money donors who expect a big return on their “investments.” Again, maybe she won’t be as bad as Trump domestically, but, as they say, the lesser of two evils is still evil. How long must we wait for a non-evil candidate?
If we don’t push the Democratic party to offer something other than corporate tools, we’ll keep getting corporate tools like I believe Harris to be.
I stand by that response. For many Americans, the Kamala/Walz ticket is attractive, but I will continue to criticize it, as I will Trump and the MAGA crowd. For I think neither party, and certainly neither candidate, is the last best hope of America.
Readers, what do you think? Should we be enthused by the Harris/Walz ticket? Is it time to embrace the politics of joy? Should we not criticize the Democrats because the MAGA Republicans are worse? Should I write more articles that are critical of Trump, because there are not enough of those already in the CON? Fire away!
Bracing Views 