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.
Ninety-nine American healthcare workers who volunteered to work in Gaza and who’ve witnessed the effects of the Israeli onslaught there suggest that nearly 120,000 Palestinians are already dead.
That huge number doesn’t surprise me. When you look at the photos from Gaza and the Stalingrad-like devastation, I’d guessed that the “official” death toll of roughly 42,000 was a serious undercount. That number comes from morgue and hospital statistics; it doesn’t account for people buried under the rubble, for missing people, and of course for people who’ve died of “natural” causes due to the disruption of hospital care, of potable water supplies, and so on.
More details are provided in this article at Antiwar.com. Also, you can read the letter written by these 99 healthcare workers, imploring the Biden/Harris administration to stop providing the bombs, missiles, shells, bullets, and other munitions Israel has been using to shred the bodies of so many innocent people in Gaza.
“Never again” was supposed to be the message we learned from the horrific Holocaust against the Jews perpetrated by the Nazis and their fellow travelers. “Never again” applies to the people of Gaza. It applies to people everywhere who are slaughtered simply because of who they are and because another people wants to be rid of them.
This is the leading reason why I can’t support Biden/Harris, now Harris/Walz. I can’t support Trump/Vance. The U.S. political establishment is completely spineless and immoral in its total support of Israel as it applies its own final solution to the Palestinian question. Whether it’s Harris or Trump, the message is “Support Israel” no matter what. And I refuse to sanction that. I refuse to vote for that.
Gaza, much like Stalingrad in World War II, is a desolate and increasingly unlivable moonscape of craters and destruction
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.
The Real Winner in November Won’t Be Harris or Trump
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern coined the term MICIMATT to describe America’s sprawling national (in)security state. It’s an expanded version of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s military-industrial-congressional complex, which Ike warned America about in 1961. (Ike originally included Congress in his warning, but in the speech he gave he left it out so as not to offend the DC elites.)
MICIMATT includes the military, industry (the weapons makers), Congress, the intelligence “community,” media, academia, and various think tanks funded by weapons makers and seeded with “thinkers” beholden to the donors. The acronym’s awkwardness is more than compensated by its acuity and scope. In fact, even MICIMATT isn’t quite sprawling enough. You’d also have to add Hollywood (all those movies and TV shows that glorify the military and war) and the sporting world to the mix. MICIMATTHS, perhaps? And I’m sure we could think of another letter or two to add, perhaps another “S” for the State Department, which has become a tiny branch of the Pentagon.
At every Boston Red Sox game this year, I’ve been reminded that America needs to build more nuclear submarines. Imagine an ad along each baseline that read: “PromotePeace”
Given the sweep as well as the power of the MICIMATT over our lives in America, especially our mindset, our culture, our way of thinking and doing, the real president that America is electing this November isn’t personages like Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. The real POTUS is the MICIMATT, a colossus that rules much of our lives and which dominates and largely determines U.S. foreign policy.
To tackle that colossus, you’ve got to cut its funding in a major way: 25% immediately, and perhaps 50% over the next five years. You’ve also got to change our culture. End threat inflation, end fear-mongering, end the worship of all things military. And I don’t see this happening whether the POTUS is Harris or Trump.
*****
On a related subject, I heard once again from my friend who believes I am too critical of Biden/Harris and insufficiently critical of Trump. For what it’s worth, here’s my reply:
Friend, as I’ve written time and time again, I’m against both Trump and Biden/Harris.
Lately, I’ve written more about Biden/Harris since the Dems are the party in power. Though I hope Trump doesn’t win, you’ll see plenty of articles criticizing him if he takes office again.
Also, there’s no shortage of anti-Trump articles in the mainstream media. I’m not about to repeat those. It’s not what my site is about. Why read BV if I just echo MSNBC?
I’m not confident that a Trump victory will produce a result that is more congenial to me with respect to the MICC and perpetual war. Even with Tulsi and RFK Jr. in the mix. Sorry, I can’t “own” that.
In my view, the worst outcome is another Trump victory. Close behind that is a Harris victory for reasons you already know, e.g. genocide in Gaza, more wars, tight embrace of Pentagon lethality, praise for the Cheneys and other Republcian neocons, etc.
In contributing to Harris and voting for her with some enthusiasm, are you prepared to “own” her tacit support of genocide in Gaza as well as her celebration of U.S. military lethality and her embrace of Republican neocons as true patriots?
A Vote for Harris Is a Vote for Cheney (It makes as much sense as a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump)
+ As if the world wasn’t hazardous enough, we now have to deal with exploding pagers, walkie-talkies, even solar power systems, apparently. Thank you, Israel.
+ Yet another article suggests that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump—and Russia. Maybe a vote for Stein is just a vote for Stein?
+ Yet another letter from more than 100 senior Republicans associated with the national (in)security state is telling me to vote for Kamala Harris for President. Maybe a vote for Harris is really a vote for Republicans and a neocon foreign policy?
+ Strangely, I’ve been accused of “hating” Trump because I dare to criticize him. No, I don’t “hate” Trump. I simply believe he’s not the right person to be president.
+ I got my usual fundraiser letters from Biden and Harris. There’s no vision or platform in these letters. It’s all about saving America from Trump and the end of democracy. There’s also vague talk about a better future. And that’s it. How inspiring!
+ Jill Stein got into trouble recently for being reluctant to dismiss Putin as a “war criminal.” What is a war criminal? Without consulting a legal definition, I’d describe a “war criminal” as someone who pursues aggressive war. Of course, most leaders claim whatever war they’re pursuing is “defensive.” They even avoid the term “war,” e.g. Obama’s “overseas contingency operations,” Putin’s “special military operation.”
So, “war criminal” is a bit like pornography, not always easy to define, but you know it when you see it. So, sure, Putin is a war criminal, but so too were LBJ, Nixon, Bush/Cheney, Obama, and Biden. Just look at Biden’s ongoing and fulsome support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Seriously, what the U.S. did in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were war crimes on a massive scale. The Iraq invasion in 2003 under the false pretense of WMD was a war crime. Meanwhile, the people who get punished for war crimes are usually low-level corporals and LTs. It’s never generals and most certainly never presidents.
+ Trump, or TDS if you prefer, has enabled the rehabilitation of war criminals like Bush and Cheney, with establishment Democrats eagerly embracing both these men.
Now beloved by Democrats everywhere
+ A vote for Harris is a vote for Dick Cheney makes more logical sense than a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. Meanwhile, if you vote for Trump, you’re likely to get Dick Cheney as well, because I don’t believe Trump has the ability to resist the Pompeos, the Boltons, the generals, and the usual suspects he’ll surround himself with.
+ If Harris loses the election in November, it won’t be because of Jill Stein. Or Russia. Or even Bracing Views. It will be because not enough people believed in her. But if Harris does lose, I expect the DNC will blame the voters for racism and sexism, Putin for election interference, and Jill Stein for stealing votes from Harris. Naturally, Harris and the DNC will not be to blame. Now, if they win, all credit will flow to Harris and the DNC. It’s nice to be able to run for office where even if you lose, it’s not your fault.
Readers, what’s on your mind this Thursday?
Bonus thought: I feel like political criticism has become a bizarre zero-sum game in America. If I criticize Trump, that means I’m helping Harris. If I criticize Harris, that means I’m helping Trump.
Can’t I criticize both of them? Because I want neither of them to win. That may be unrealistic, I realize, but neither candidate speaks to my principles, beliefs, priorities, and goals.
So then I’m told: It’s the American system. Take it or leave it. And I suppose I’d like to leave it, meaning I’ll vote Green. And then I’m told that’s a vote for Trump! Or I’m told that’s a wasted vote.
So the only “valid” vote is for Harris–or Trump. But each side pretty much hates the other, so how is a vote for either “valid”?
Because both parties take unaccountable dark money, both are corrupted, both don’t answer to the people, both are tools of the plutocrats.
If I want to embrace and defend democracy, why would I vote for either of these parties?
And the usual answer is: Because Harris (or Trump) is the lesser evil. But does voting for evil ever make sense? Shouldn’t Americans be able to vote for the greater good?
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?
Last night was Obama night at the DNC as both Barack and Michelle Obama spoke to endorse Kamala Harris while denouncing Donald Trump. Perusing my various media streams this AM suggests they did a bang up job of it. Perhaps a few sobering reminders are in order:
Obama promised in 2007 he’d codify Roe v. Wade into law as his top priority. Once he won the election, he did nothing; in fact, he said it wasn’t among his top priorities.
Obama himself admitted that his administration, politically speaking, could best be described as moderate Republican. Here he was honest, for Obama was pro-corporate, pro-banks, pro-war, pro-Big Pharma, and pro-Wall Street.
Obama gave us a corporate-friendly health care plan without a single payer option. Thus, Americans continue to pay more than double what people in countries like Germany and France pay for their health care.
Obama “surged” in Afghanistan with military forces, prolonging a lost war in that country.
Obama, with Hillary Clinton by his side, overthrew Libya, leaving that a country a wreck. Open slave markets, anyone?
Obama, by his own admission, became very good at killing people, especially via drone assassinations.
Obama, after winning a Nobel Peace Prize for not being George W. Bush, promised a muscular U.S. foreign policy supported by military operations to protect vital U.S. (corporate) interests.
Obama bailed out the banks while allowing them to foreclose on millions of homeowners.
Obama admitted “We tortured some folks” and then held no one accountable except for the brave whistleblower, John Kiriakou, who helped to expose the torture regimen (and regime).
Obama said we had to look forward, not backward, so no one was held accountable for the disastrous Iraq War.
That’s just ten reminders, off the top of my head, so I wouldn’t get too excited by soaring rhetoric from the Obamas about saving democracy.
The main point here isn’t to bash the Democrats or to rain on their parade. It’s to realize where the corporate-aligned Democratic Party really stands on issues like war and economic fairness, to take that knowledge in fully, and then to use it to change the Party.
And the time to do that is now, when Harris/Walz need your vote. It’s too late to wait until after the election, which Harris just may win (a big reason why, I think, is Trump fatigue, as Americans ponder what another four years of the Trump circus may be like).
A Sign You Didn’t See Inside the Convention Hall
Democrats tell me not to attack or criticize Harris because when I do I’m helping Trump. But not to criticize politicians, not to make demands of them, is tantamount to surrendering to authoritarianism even before it’s taken hold. No one is helped in America by surrendering to a politics of joy or for that matter the MAGA crowd.
For I guarantee you, the corporate Democrats will tell you the time is NEVER right to challenge their power and agendas. The time is wrong now because of Trump. The time will be wrong in 2025 because Harris/Walz deserve a honeymoon. The time will be wrong in 2026 because of Congressional midterms. The time will be wrong in 2027-28 because of the threat of a “new” Trump (Ron DeSantis? Tom Cotton?).
One example from the Obama years. My friend and colleague, Matt Hoh, resigned from the State Department to protest the Afghan War surge. He came to Congress and spoke to Democrats. He persuaded many to take action. And then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood up. Literally. She said Democrats had to support Obama’s expansion of the war because of a bigger fight, Obama’s fight for the Affordable Care Act.
That’s right: the time was wrong to save American and Afghan lives in a lost war because Pelosi said Obama couldn’t afford dissension within the ranks as he “fought” for the corporate-friendly ACA, most commonly known as Obamacare.
The corporate Democrats will persist in telling you the TIME IS ALWAYS WRONG to challenge them because of Trump, new Trump, some legislative priority, perhaps a foreign leader like Putin, etc. It’s total BS. The best and only time you can push them is when you have real leverage, and that’s now, before you give them your money and votes.
After all, if you don’t speak up, it’s guaranteed no one will hear you. Dare to speak up, Democrats, for what you believe in. For that is what Democracy truly is about.
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 