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.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promises to press on with Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon dashed hopes that the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwarmight help end more than a year of escalating conflict in the Middle East.
Is anyone surprised at this? Netanyahu gains power from war. He evades prosecution and accountability through war. He achieves his vision of a one-state solution through war. It was never just about Sinwar or Hamas or even vengeance. It’s all about adding Gaza and the West Bank to a “greater” Israel while killing, starving, and displacing more than two million Palestinians in a second Nakba or catastrophe for them.
America’s role is simple: Help and obey Israel in its genocidal activities. And American politicians are more than willing to do this. Look at Congress rapturously applauding Netanyahu. Look at President Joe Biden describing himself as a Zionist. Look at all the money U.S. politicians willingly take from Israeli-American lobbyists. Look at the fear in U.S. politicians’ eyes when AIPAC threatens them.
Over to you, Bibi!
Kamala Harris says Israel has a right to defend itself and that she’ll never approve an arms embargo. Donald Trump is 100% for Israel and accuses Harris of hating Jews and Israel (Harris’ husband, of course, is Jewish, even as Harris herself wholeheartedly defends Israel). Trump’s advice to Israel is to “finish the job”: Trump even accused Biden of being a Palestinian! It’s a strange Palestinian who hugs and defers to Bibi, who proclaims himself to be a Zionist, and who has taken more than $5 million from AIPAC over the course of his career.
And so Trump competes with Biden/Harris over who can be more loyal and subservient to the far right in Israel while ordinary Americans suffer and the Palestinians burn. Politics in America is a sick joke.
Vote Blue No Matter Who; Vote Red Until Your Dead; Why?
I don’t meet many people who are happy with the choice of Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump. Kamala, an undistinguished vice president, was anointed by Democratic Party elites. Trump, former president and festering sore loser, remains a profoundly polarizing figure given to deploring “the enemy within.” It’s not an inspiring “choice,” is it?
Fortunately, my state ballot arrived for the November 5th election, giving me four other choices other than Blue versus Red.
The first alternate choice is Green: Jill Stein. I voted for her once before in 2016. She’s a gutsy and principled woman and I agree with most of her platform. She’s got my vote.
The second choice is Libertarian: Chase Oliver. I’ve watched a couple of videos of him. I’m not a Libertarian but I do appreciate and support the party platform and its position on war. To wit:
“As the major parties become more and more war-hungry, libertarians have been sounding the alarm about the unsustainable military empire since its inception. As president, I WILL end wars and bring the troops home”
For too long, our nation has been entangled in endless wars, leaving scars on our veterans and their families. It’s time to pivot to a foreign policy focused on peace. We need to end drone strikes and military interventions, and instead champion free trade and international goodwill. Let’s reclaim our role as the ‘leader of the free world’ by pursuing peace and serving as a beacon of hope.
I just might vote for the Democrats if they had such a clear statement (and true commitment) for peace and against war.
The third choice is Socialism and Liberation: Claudia De la Cruz. To be honest, I’ve heard of her but don’t know much of anything about her. Here’s a quick description from her website:
Claudia De la Cruz and Karina Garcia are running for President and Vice-President as the candidates of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Claudia De la Cruz is a mother, popular educator and theologian born in the South Bronx who has spent her life organizing for justice for working people at home and to end U.S. empire abroad. Karina Garcia is a Chicana organizer, popular educator and mother who has spent her entire adult life fighting for the rights of immigrant workers, women and the whole working class.
Claudia De la Cruz and her VP candidate, Karina Garcia. These two Latina look more mature and “real” to me than Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Contrast this image with Kamala’s “Vogue” photo shoot.
I like their focus on workers’ rights and also ending U.S. imperialism. I’d love to see these two Latina duking it out with a corrupt Congress on workers’ rights while advancing an anti-imperial agenda. Wouldn’t that be something? The possibility of real hope and change in DC. A man can dream …
The fourth and final alternate choice on my ballot is Independent: Shiva Ayyadurai. I’d never heard of him. He was born in India of Indian parents; as he’s not a natural-born citizen of the U.S., he’s constitutionally unqualified to become POTUS.
So, leaving aside Ayyadurai, my state gives me three additional choices to Blue and Red. That’s what a healthy democracy should offer: choice. True choice. Not just a thoroughly corrupted duopoly that ignores the needs of the 99% in its pursuit of money and power.
Before you say it, I know many people believe that voting outside of the Blue and Red hammerlock on power is a waste. Don’t vote for Jill Stein, or Chase Oliver, or Claudia De la Cruz. Don’t you know they can’t win?
Well, they definitely can’t win if no one votes for them. Candidates from alternate parties can only gain power and, maybe, just maybe, eventually “win” (in the year 2525?) if we give them our support and our votes.
Some people seem to think your vote is “wasted” unless you vote for the eventual winner. Or, your vote is “wasted” if you don’t accept that voting for the lesser evil (most often, Kamala) is morally sound and wise because you’re stopping the greater evil (most often, Trump).
But what if I don’t want to vote for lesser or greater evil?
Democracies should offer genuine choice. I realize third-party candidates in 2024 are unlikely in the extreme to win, but the only way to break the duopoly is to step outside of it and vote for candidates like Stein, Oliver, and De la Cruz who offer alternative visions. As more people do this, the duopoly might actually become more responsive to voters like us. Again, a man can dream …
I sincerely believe that no vote is wasted. What is a waste is being so disillusioned as to not vote at all, or to vote unthinkingly or out of fear for someone that you don’t believe in.
Vote for what you believe, America, and let the chips fall where they may.
Addendum: Viggo Mortensen on voting your conscience.
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.
Of Word Salads, Lack of Honesty, and Deceptive Editing
Vice President Kamala Harris recently sat down for an interview with “60 Minutes.” I wanted to highlight one of the questions and her answer:
Bill Whitaker [Interviewer]: They say that the reason so many voters don’t know you is that you have changed your position on so many things. You were against fracking, now you’re for it. You supported looser immigration policies, now you’re tightening them up. You were for Medicare for all, now you’re not. So many that people don’t truly know what you believe or what you stand for. And I know you’ve heard that.
Vice President Kamala Harris: In the last four years I have been vice president of the United States. And I have been traveling our country. And I have been listening to folks and seeking what is possible in terms of common ground. I believe in building consensus. We are a diverse people. Geographically, regionally, in terms of where we are in our backgrounds. And what the American people do want is that we have leaders who can build consensus. Where we can figure out compromise and understand it’s not a bad thing, as long as you don’t compromise your values, to find common-sense solutions. And that has been my approach.
Harris gave a non-answer, replete with stock words and phrases like “common ground,” “consensus,” diversity, “compromise,” “common-sense solutions,” and the like.
Bill Whitaker interview Kamala Harris for “60 Minutes”
Now, let’s imagine if Harris simply decided to be more frank and clear. It would look something like this:
When I ran for the Democratic nomination as president in 2020, I adopted progressive positions such as being against fracking, being generally pro-immigration, and being for Medicare for all. When I became President Biden’s running mate, I trimmed my sails to support his policies. Biden favored fracking and said he’d veto Medicare for all if it ever reached his desk as president. As his junior partner, I adopted his policies. On immigration, we were more lax than former President Trump, but we worked with Congress on a bipartisan bill for comprehensive immigration reform that Trump told his fellow Republicans to sabotage. America’s problems with immigration won’t be solved until Republicans stop sabotaging bipartisan efforts toward substantive reforms.
Of course, a truly frank answer might sound something like this:
In the 2020 presidential primaries, I decided to pose as a progressive to win the support of the Democratic base. It didn’t go well. When Biden chose me as his VP, I abandoned those positions. In 2024, I know I must be pro-fracking else I’ll lose Pennsylvania. I need the support of the usual lobbyists and special interests, so I’m against single-payer health care. And I know being tougher on immigration is also popular now, so that’s my new position.
Look, I’m a politician. I change positions like you change your underwear. What I stand for is winning the election. Period.
Again, I don’t expect that level of honesty, but it would be refreshing. It’s certainly better than word salads like this spoof sentence: “I want to build consensus using common-sense solutions incorporating diversity and compromise, thereby reaching common ground.” See: I can play that game too!
A word about that “60 Minutes” interview: Apparently, CBS edited/changed at least one of Harris’ answers to a question involving Israel. The edit was egregious: you can watch it here. Harris has said she had no input on CBS’ decision to edit her interview.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country faces war on seven fronts and called them the “enemies of civilization.” Heavy Israeli airstrikes pounded southern Beirut overnight, with the military saying it was targeting Hezbollah.
Wow. And I thought a two-front war was bad.
Netanyahu is a war criminal. And whether it’s Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, U.S. leaders bow before him, giving him all the weapons, military cover, and diplomatic cover he needs to wage his so-called seven-front war.
Let’s not forget the rapturous applause Netanyahu received on his recent appearance before Congress. Half the Congress allegedly hates the other half, but they sure came together to profess their love of Netanyahu and Israel.
Maybe Netanyahu and Israel are the “enemies of civilization”? Perish the thought.
Israel is at pains to portray its neighbors as uncivilized even as Israeli bombing produces scenes like this one:
Civilized Israeli bombing of Beirut, Lebanon (Hussein Malla/AP)
That scooter just might be Hezbollah. Maybe Israel can rig it with explosives and remotely detonate it in another one of their “precision” attacks, like all those pagers exploding in “precise” ways.
CNN, of course, always reports the Israeli perspective. Rarely if ever do you hear the Arab perspective, the Persian perspective, the Palestinian perspective. Why listen to the “uncivilized,” right?
The 2024 election in America, which has witnessed total support by Democrats and Republicans of whatever Israel does no matter how heinous, shows the utter bankruptcy of U.S. government rhetoric and the moral bankruptcy of its leaders.
Why do we continue to listen to these people? Why do we contemplate voting for them?
Coda: Netanyahu is going to keep waging war and committing crimes against humanity because that’s what’s keeping him in power. As long as the U.S. keeps arming him and blessing him, mass death will follow. How pathetic is it that our leaders clap to this man like so many trained seals?
Whether they like it or not (and they seem very much to like it), the Democratic Party has become America’s war party.
The U.S./Ukrainian Flag on Biden’s lapel says it all. Zelenskyy, as a former actor, has his role down pat
This is especially true with respect to Ukraine. Zelenskyy has won another $7.9 billion in its war with Russia, prompting this “thank you” from him:
I am grateful to Joe Biden, US Congress and its both parties, Republicans and Democrats, as well as the entire American people for today’s announcement of major US defence assistance for Ukraine totalling $7.9bn and sanctions against Russia.
On behalf of the Ukrainian people and our brave warriors on the frontlines, I thank our closest ally, the United States, for finding a way to allocate the remaining security assistance to Ukraine and ensure that the Presidential authority is not expired by the end of the US financial year.
We will use this assistance in the most efficient and transparent manner to achieve our major common goal: victory for Ukraine, just and lasting peace, and transatlantic security.
I am grateful to the United States for providing the items that are most critical to protecting our people. An additional Patriot air defence battery, other air defence capabilities and interceptors, drones, long-range missiles, and air-to-ground munitions, as well as funds to strengthen Ukraine’s defence industrial base.
I also appreciate the decision to expand programs to train more of our pilots to fly F-16s, as well as the strong sanctions measures imposed to further limit Russia’s ability to fund its aggression against Ukraine.
Kamala Harris is committed to supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” meaning, I guess, some sort of “victory” over Russia, however unlikely that is. So look for a lot more dead and wounded Ukrainians and Russians and a world still hovering on the brink of nuclear war.
Over to Israel. Kamala Harris has pledged her undying and eternal support for Israel’s right to defend itself, meaning any action Israel is prepared to take, including genocide in Gaza. She has ruled out any curtailment of weapons shipments to Israel. According to the BBC, stemming the flow of weapons to Israel is a “left” position. Any sensible moderate and conservative is totally for genocide, I gather.
None of this is surprising, of course. When it comes to war, America is a uniparty of Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris. There is no difference among them, which is why Cheney endorsed Harris, and why more than 700 senior national security officials gushed about her.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, seeks to end the Russia-Ukraine War. Does that make him a “leftist”?
Of course not. Trump, like Harris, is totally behind Israel, and totally in bed with the military-industrial complex. Yet he’s skeptical of NATO and has an aversion to war and death in Russia and Ukraine, which for me is his strongest suit.
If you’re truly antiwar and seek a candidate who’s against massive military spending and imperial dominance, your best bet is Jill Stein and the Green Party. You know—the “crazy” or “fringe” people, according to the mainstream media.
In what passes for Democracy in America, the electoral vote determines the president, not the popular vote, meaning there are certain “battleground states” that are far more important than those that are reliably “blue” or “red.” Pennsylvania is one of them. It may all come down to the PA vote, according to The Nation, so both parties are doing their best to pander to PA voters.
That’s the main reason Kamala Harris flip-flopped on fracking: to win more votes in Pennsylvania. She was bluntly against fracking; now she says she’s all for it; rank opportunism is all it is, which makes her typical of most politicians.
The suits sign artillery shells—the closest they’ll get to war
Even worse than the flip-flop on fracking was Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s recent visit to Scranton, PA, where he signed artillery shells intended to kill Russians in Ukraine. Zelenskyy also gave an interview in which he criticized the Trump/Vance ticket and its understanding of and approach to the Russia-Ukraine War. Doesn’t this count as foreign interference in America’s elections?
There’s something incredibly unseemly about this. A foreign leader comes to America and signs artillery shells meant to kill other human beings, with our taxpayer funds paying for the shells as well as his trip (he flew on a U.S. Air Force plane). And he tacitly endorses Kamala Harris over her opponent.
I don’t want my taxpayer funds going to shells that kill Russians. I certainly don’t want to celebrate it. Of course, I don’t want my taxpayer funds going to kill Palestinians in Gaza either, but my voice doesn’t matter.
We’re likely to hear more about alleged foreign interference in U.S. elections, but which leader/country has more influence on U.S. politics: Putin/Russia, Zelenskyy/Ukraine, or Netanyahu/Israel?
Hint: Who came to Congress and had its members jumping out of their seats to applaud him rapturously as if his appearance constituted the Second Coming?
The Resolute Desk (White House Historical Association)
At a recent campaign event with Oprah Winfrey, Vice President Kamala Harris was given a chance at the end to appeal to undecided voters. This is what she said:
We love our country. I love our country. I know we all do. That’s why everybody is here right now. We love our country. We — we take pride in the privilege of being American.
And this is a moment where we can and must come together as Americans, understanding we have so much more in common than what separates us. Let’s come together with the — the character that we are so proud of about who we are, which is we are an optimistic people. We are an optimistic people.
Americans, by character, are people who have dreams and ambitions and aspirations. We believe in what is possible. We believe in what can be. And we believe in fighting for that.
That’s how — that’s how we came into being, because the people before us understood that one of the greatest expressions for the love of our country, one of the greatest expressions of patriotism, is to fight for the ideals of who we are, which includes freedom to make decisions about your own body; freedom to be safe from gun violence; freedom to have access to the ballot box; freedom to be who you are and just be, to love who you love openly and with pride; freedom to just be. And that’s who we are. We believe in all that.
And so, this is a moment where we stand, knowing what we are fighting for. We’re not fighting against. It’s what we’re fighting for.
Now, Harris has had plenty of practice as a public speaker. She knows, as a former prosecutor, how to put together an effective closing statement. This wasn’t it.
Let me see if I can decipher her meaning here. An undecided voter should choose Kamala because:
+ We all love America.
+ United by optimism, we must come together as Americans.
+ Americans are dreamers and we fight for those dreams.
+ We believe in freedom of choice for our own bodies; freedom to be safe from gun violence; freedom to vote; and freedom to love whom we want to love, and be who we want to be.
+ We need to fight for all that.
Ah, the glittering generalities! I hope they convince you fence-straddlers out there that Kamala is THE ONE.
You can (sort of) discern a message here. Kamala is saying vote for me because I’m pro-choice. Because I believe in tighter restrictions on guns. Because I’m against Republican efforts to make voting more difficult. And because I believe in and support the LGBTQ+ community. But she muddies her message with empty words and platitudes.
I can hear my friend telling me that Kamala is doing this deliberately. It’s the strategy of saying almost nothing with as many words as possible. In short, baffle them with BS, don’t try to dazzle them with brilliance. And keep the BS warm and fuzzy. Most people will just hear “love,” “optimism,” “dreams,” “freedom,” and the like. Don’t worry if it sounds vapid or vacuous. Avoid saying anything that critics can seize upon and exploit.
My mother-in-law taught me a great Polish expression that means “Don’t say nothing,” the double-negative being permissible in Polish for emphasis. That really should be Kamala’s campaign slogan, rather than “We’re not going back [to Trump].”
I took “debate & discussion” in high school and also used to grade my students on their oral presentations. If Kamala were my student, I’d mark her down for failing to speak clearly and concisely and for her tendency to avoid answering questions.
Part of being president—and an effective leader—is being a skilled speaker. Presidents, of course, speak to all of us, uniting America for the greater good (at least in theory; work with me here). Kamala Harris has a lot to learn here, unless she is following a “don’t say nothing” strategy by choice, which I find even more objectionable than weak and incoherent speaking.
Being a great speaker doesn’t mean you’ll be a great president. Just look at Barack Obama: fine speaker, mediocre president. But being a weak speaker, a confusing one, is a handicap when you’re trying to persuade Americans to do a difficult thing.
The Resolute Desk of the President is not the place for confused blather and irresolute words.
Coda on Donald Trump: As a speaker, Trump also has serious liabilities, e.g. lying, hyperbole, imprecision, a tendency to resort to insults when he believes himself aggrieved, a strong tendency to focus on himself and his own accomplishments, real or imagined. Trump is occasionally effective by stating blunt truths that most DC types would never risk saying: his strong denunciation of the Iraq War, his confession that America has plenty of killers on the world stage, that U.S. forces remain in Syria for the oil.
As a speaker, Trump lacks core principles. He further lacks humility and wit. The well for him to tap as a speaker is a shallow one that often runs dry when it’s most needed.
Trump’s speaking style in a single word is angry. It resonates with people who are fed up with the system. Harris’ speaking style is, well, it’s hard to sum up in one word. Perhaps vague, or vaguely hopeful. It resonates with people who are largely content with the system.
Will malcontents rule in 2025 (Trump) or the mostly contented (Harris)? Readers, what are your thoughts here?
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.
Bracing Views 