Tag: Democrats

Blame

W.J. Astore

When candidates lose an election, they are primarily responsible 

If Kamala Harris loses this election, can we please not blame Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon, Vladimir Putin, the usual suspects?

If Donald Trump loses this election, can we please not blame immigrants, voting machines, and various alleged forms of ballot- and ballot box tampering? And god knows what else Team Trump comes up with?

When candidates lose elections, they and their campaigns are primarily responsible. Sure, there’s always the possibility of bad breaks, bad luck, even occasional attempts at cheating. (Find me some votes in Georgia!) But usually one candidate and one campaign simply ran a better, smarter, more dynamic race.

For all you Kamala Harris and Donald Trump supporters out there, you should be prepared for your candidate to lose, and, if so, you should want them to lose with grace. No one likes a sore loser.

So, for example, Harris may win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. If that happens, it will be likely due to her tepid campaign messaging and her total support of Israel, which is costing her votes in critical swing states.

If Trump loses, a critical factor will be Republican messaging on “women’s issues,” the biggest one being abortion. Trump’s own inconsistencies and inconstancy will also be a factor. Sure, MAGA loves Trump, but many other Americans see Trump as divisive, bombastic, and unreliable. Trump’s rallies, where he’ll say virtually anything, convinces more than a few Americans that he’s the very opposite of a “very stable genius.”

An excerpt from the New York Times (see below) yesterday explains why Harris may yet lose. Again, it’s not because Stein will steal “her” votes or Putin will brainwash his American comrades; rather, Harris has run a careful, often shallow campaign that simply may not generate enough voter enthusiasm on Nov. 5th.

Hopefully, we’ll know by Wednesday who won, and we’ll also witness the loser bow out with some grace and dignity. A man can dream …

The famous Rudyard Kipling quote featured at Wimbledon

The New York Times on the Harris campaign and its weakness:

Harris has run a strikingly cautious campaign. Game theorists would describe it as a low-variance strategy. She and her aides avoided moves that might have gone very well — and might have gone very poorly.

Can you name her campaign’s central theme, for example? Many of her main messages are vague (“when we fight, we win”), Trump-focused (“in it for himself”) or both (“turn the page”). Asked on television how her presidency would differ from Biden’s, Harris said, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

She could have taken a different approach. She could have run on the populist, anti-corporate message that is helping Democratic Senate candidates — or gone in the opposite direction and portrayed herself as a business-friendly centrist. She could have picked an issue, like housing, and signaled that it would be her No. 1 priority, much as health care was for Barack Obama. Instead of offering a bold, thematic message, Harris has announced a series of modest policies.

Her low-variance strategy is also evident in her decision not to explain why she reversed her stances on immigration and fracking. Many voters say they want to know more about Harris — who became a candidate only three months ago — and she hasn’t always filled in the blanks.

The strategy is evident with the Middle East, too. She didn’t pick as her running mate the popular Jewish governor of Pennsylvania partly because many Israel critics opposed him. Her campaign also didn’t invite any Palestinians to speak at the Democratic convention, which may hurt her in Michigan. When possible, Harris has avoided conflict.

All these decisions have benefits, to be clear. Making the Middle East more salient is rarely smart in American politics. Explaining why she changed her mind about the border could have made her look weak. Doing more town halls and interviews to explain her views could have exposed one of Harris’s weaknesses: Although she is an excellent debater, she can struggle in less structured settings.

But if Harris loses, her caution will look problematic. 

According to the Times, the basic weakness (and strength) of the Trump campaign is Trump himself. Are enough Americans ready for another four years of MAGA? We’ll know soon enough …

Thursday Thoughts

W.J. Astore

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?

I Want Democrats or Republicans to Earn My Vote

W.J. Astore

That’s What I Want

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?

Raining on the Democrats’ Parade

W.J. Astore

A Few Sobering Reminders

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Obama “surged” in Afghanistan with military forces, prolonging a lost war in that country.
  5. Obama, with Hillary Clinton by his side, overthrew Libya, leaving that a country a wreck. Open slave markets, anyone?
  6. Obama, by his own admission, became very good at killing people, especially via drone assassinations.
  7. 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.
  8. Obama bailed out the banks while allowing them to foreclose on millions of homeowners.
  9. 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).
  10. 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.

Kamala Harris and the Democrats

W.J. Astore

The Last Best Hope of America?

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.

Chart shows how Americans describe the country, by partisan and educational groupings.

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:

Chart shows how Americans see parties in terms of patriotism. 25% see the Republican Party as “very patriotic” while 18% see the Democratic Party as such.

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!

“I don’t even know what that is, but I like it”

W.J. Astore

Kamala Harris Secures the Democratic Nomination

Kamala Harris is officially the Democratic nominee for the presidency. As Lee Fang has noted, it’s not wise to underestimate her, as she’s savvy at “messaging” and positioning herself among party elites. In this interview between Fang and Glenn Greenwald, it’s almost conclusively shown that Kamala doesn’t have a progressive bone in her body. What she is most of all, perhaps, is an opportunist.

It’s interesting to see how my local paper, The Boston Globe, announced her nomination:

Vice President Kamala Harris, a daughter of immigrants who rose through the California political and law enforcement ranks to become the first female vice president in US history, formally secured the Democratic presidential nomination on Monday — becoming the first woman of color to lead a major party ticket.

A lot of boxes are being checked there. She’s “a daughter of immigrants.” She rose through the ranks, with an emphasis on law enforcement. She’s the first female VP and now the first “woman of color to lead a major party ticket.”

Her positions on most of the leading policies and topics of the day, however, are largely unknown. Meanwhile, rank-and-file Democrats didn’t have a chance to vote for her or against her in the primaries. She’s been selected by party insiders, not elected by party voters.

All this brings to mind a snippet of conversation I overheard at a coffee shop this weekend. Three young women were ahead of me in line, talking about some offerings at the shop, and one said: “I don’t even know what that is, but I like it.”

You could say something similar of Kamala: “I don’t even know who she is or what she believes, but I like her.” It’s the ultimate triumph of image over substance.

So, for example, you might ask Kamala why the Biden/Harris administration is complicit in genocide in Gaza, and the answer might be: “She’s a daughter of immigrants!”

Or you might ask her to support single-payer health care and a higher federal minimum wage, and the answer might be: “She’s BIPOC!”

Kamala isn’t going to cut off the flow of weapons and money to Israel no matter how atrociously the Israeli government acts. She isn’t going to fight for affordable single-payer health care or for a higher federal minimum wage. She’s savvy, i.e. a cynical instrument of power, and she knows what to do and what to say to raise money and secure the support of the powerful.

Kamala wouldn’t have been selected (again, she wasn’t elected) by powerful corporate interests if she wasn’t sympathetic and obedient to them. In fact, the DNC has shown how it treats true progressives like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. Kamala is on top because she’s willing to afflict the powerless for the powerful, and that’s not a formula that promises any change in a progressive direction.

Whether you believe the corporate-owned Democratic Party is less bad than the Trump-dominated Republican Party is a separate question, but let’s not kid ourselves about what Kamala represents.

Update: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is Kamala’s VP choice! I thought Walter Kirn’s description of Walz was telling. Kirn, talking to Matt Taibbi, described Walz as a “county fair huckster,” a sort of “white hick” who balances the urban BIPOC Harris. Kirn and Taibbi speculated that Democrats are trying to outflank the Republicans and their choice of J.D. Vance, i.e. Walz is even more of a flannel-wearing Midwesterner, and he has more military experience to boot.

VP choices often don’t matter that much, until they do. Just look at Kamala. She basically didn’t matter until she did.

As Walter Kirn also noted, Democrats are now spectators in their own party. You don’t get to choose your president or VP candidates; you have no say; yet you’re expected to cheer those candidates selected for you by the DNC and big donors.

Hooray, Harris/Walz! We didn’t get to vote for you, we had no say in your nomination, but we love you anyway!

Did Biden Drop Out or Was He Dropkicked Out?

W.J. Astore

A Palace Coup in DC

Amazingly, it remains unclear whether Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race on his own initiative, or whether he was dropkicked out by various DNC and DC swamp creatures.

When LBJ said he wouldn’t run for the presidency again in 1968, he gave a speech to that effect to the American people. Biden (apparently) tweeted a letter that wasn’t on White House stationery. Even the signature on the letter looks a bit dodgy.

As late as Sunday morning, members of the Biden team were insisting he was staying in the race. Biden campaign events were being planned for this week. Then, apparently, a sudden change of heart by Biden, captured in the aforementioned letter. Meanwhile, Biden remains in seclusion (or isolation), recovering, it is said, from COVID.

Fading into the background

I happen to think Biden reached the right decision, but that’s assuming it was really his decision. I can see where he may have dug in his heels, refusing to drop out, hence a palace coup. I’m guessing (and I stress here that this is a guess) that if you put Biden before a camera right now, he might say he’s still running in 2024.

Replying to a comment I made on Chris Hedges’s site, one reader put it well:

He was absolutely kicked out, delusional right up to the very last minute on Sunday morning. The last straw was the donors refusing him more money.

Another savvy reader replied that:

[This is] A message to anyone still foolish enough to think the D party can be reformed or do anything contrary to the wishes of its donors and the DNC ruling elite. Bad enough what was done to Bernie, but he was an outsider to them. This is explicitly about who rules; even conformist figureheads aren’t exempt. The Democratic party ceased to be democratic decades ago.

Remember how Democrats kept repeating “democracy is on the ballot” this fall? The hasty coronation of Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate for POTUS, after the rigged primary anointment of Joe Biden as that candidate, is decidedly undemocratic.

I wonder what the DNC will force Joe Biden to read from the teleprompter when he finally returns from Delaware. Perhaps a deal was struck for Biden to remain president for the rest of his term, which would allow him to pardon his son, Hunter. Somewhere, Jill Biden is unleashing primal screams.

Say what you will of the Republicans and Trump, but they managed to hold a contested primary where Trump beat a serious challenger, Nikki Haley, followed by a national convention that was “normal” for what passes as our democratic political process.

Interestingly, some commentators have suggested Kamala Harris won’t be the Democratic candidate, that someone else will emerge from whatever sham convention the DNC manages to throw together. But I think Harris has a hammerlock on the campaign funds, plus she’s pliable and therefore easily manipulable by the powerbrokers who surround her.

If Democrats are fated to lose this fall, why not with Kamala, who will be sold, of course, as the first Black and South Asian woman to run as president. Her loss can always be blamed on voter racism and misogyny, and, if that proves unconvincing, there’s always Putin.

Joe Biden Drops Out, Endorses Kamala Harris

W.J. Astore

I just saw that President Joe Biden has dropped out of the presidential campaign for 2024. He has endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris.

Biden made the only sensible decision.

In dropping out, Biden has done the right thing. Given the clear signs of his physical and mental decline, there was no way he could serve in office as POTUS from 2025 to early 2029. I’m not entirely certain he should be POTUS for what remains of his current term.

What I’m left with is lies. All the lies told by the corporate media and the yes men and yes women surrounding Biden that he was perfectly OK, indeed never better. That he was absolutely fit as a fiddle and both ready and able to serve until his 86th birthday.

Attention will now turn to Kamala Harris. Like most VPs (Dick Cheney being a notable exception), Harris has largely been sidelined. Now she’s front and center, with a chance to shine—or to fade into the background.

I haven’t been impressed by Harris’s political instincts. Her record is undistinguished. Her speaking ability is average at best. But perhaps she will show a capacity for growth. It’s not encouraging, however, that’s she’s basically a Hillary Clinton protégé.

Kamala Harris is an establishment figure at a time when Americans are unhappy with the establishment. She has a tough road ahead of her with many treacherous obstacles. They will severely test her mettle.

Readers, what say you about this news?

“Peace” Seems to Be the Hardest Word

W.J. Astore

Bipartisan Support in America for More War

With apologies to Elton John and Bernie Taupin, “peace” seems to be the hardest word, for both Democrats and Republicans.

This is hardly surprising. The National Security State is the unofficial fourth branch of government and arguably the most powerful. Presidents and Congress serve it, and the SCOTUS carves out special exceptions for it. Back in the days of a bit more honesty, it was called the Department of War. And so it remains.

Let’s say you’re like me and you see war as humanity’s greatest failing. We kill and maim each other, we scorch and kill every living thing in the path of our weapons, we destroy the environment, we even have the capacity to destroy life on earth via nuclear weapons. War—it really is good for absolutely nothin’, unless, of course, you profit from it.

Gaza after an Israeli bombing attack. Anyone want more war?

So, who are you going to vote for in America who sees the awfulness of war and who’s willing to pursue diplomacy and peace instead? Democrats? Republicans?

Generally speaking, Democrats are fixated on war with Russia. They support massive aid to Ukraine and are against negotiations. They also support massive aid to Israel in its ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. And they fully support the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) and soaring spending on weapons and war, including “investing” in new nuclear weapons.

Republicans are much the same, except they tend to see China rather than Russia as the main threat, e.g. Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are willing to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine War. But, in the main, Republicans fervently support Israel in its genocide, are outspoken critics of Iran (Got to punch them hard, Vance recently said), are willing enablers of the MICC, and also vote for massive spending on weaponry and war, including nuclear weapons.

Neither major U.S. political party, the red or blue teams, is pro-peace. Both are pro-aggression and pro-empire. They just occasionally choose different targets for their ire, even as they accuse the other team of “weakness,” of being “Putin puppets” or “Manchurian candidates.” 

As I’ve said before, the only word or sentiment apparently forbidden among the red and blue teams is “peace.” If you want an antiwar candidate in America, you have to go outside the two main parties to the Greens or similar fringe parties.

In America, “antiwar” is defined by America’s propaganda machine, otherwise known as the corporate media, as weak and unAmerican, because “the health of the state” is war.  Every election, whether the red or blue team prevails, the National Security State, the old War Department, wins. And humanity loses. 

The last mainstream candidate for the presidency who spoke consistently of peace was George McGovern in 1972. Unless we the people demand peace, we will continue to get war. In fact, in a bizarrely Orwellian way, colossal military spending and incessant wars are sold to us as keeping America safe. “War is peace” is quite literally the message of the National Security State and its Ministry of Truth, the corporate-owned media.

What is the solution? Here’s one possible approach: Whenever America deploys troops overseas, those troops most immediately in harm’s way must be drawn from the ranks of America’s most privileged and their children. So, corporate CEOs, Members of Congress, lawyers at White Shoe firms, private equity billionaires and millionaires and their progeny, Hollywood celebrities and America’s best-known sports stars: those Americans who prosper and profit the most from empire should be the first to serve it. And that service must be made mandatory, no exceptions, no way to buy your way out or plead that you have “higher” priorities.

Those who want war should serve in war, leaving the rest of us alone. This rule, more than any other, might just keep the chickenhawks from screeching for more war with Russia, or China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Syria, or somebody. A few minutes at the front, facing bullets and shells and cluster munitions while hearing the screams of the dying, might just cure these wannabe “warriors” of their fever.

Want a war? Go to war. And leave the rest of us in peace.

The Distraction of Joe Biden

W.J. Astore

What genocide? What war? What militarism?

Joe Biden has become a major distraction. Much like Donald Trump, he’s demanding far too much attention.

As genocide continues in Gaza, as war continues to rage in Ukraine, as America continues to pursue militarism both at home and abroad, all the press can talk about is whether Biden should stay or go.

The answer is obvious: he should go.

Sure, Biden remains capable of having a “good” day in the sense of doing OK at a rally while reading prepared remarks from a teleprompter. Yet it’s impossible to ignore brain glitches where he introduces Zelensky of Ukraine as President Putin and suggests his vice president’s name is Trump instead of Harris.

America faces serious issues, especially working- and middle-class Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Their stories are rarely told in the corporate-owned media as Biden’s flubs and stubbornness and Trump’s lies and showboating grab nearly all the attention.

A new (and desperate) ploy I’ve seen on Twitter/X is Biden supporters arguing that a failing older man is better than a lying one as president. That argument assumes Biden has a strong record as a truth-teller when it was gratuitous lies and flagrant plagiarism that ended his presidential campaign in 1988. Besides, is it really true that Biden, a man visibly in mental and physical decline, is the only choice Democrats can muster to defeat Trump in 2024?

Let’s look at one chart that shows Biden’s record. Since he became President, military spending has soared as social spending has dipped.

And this man, Democrats say in reverent tones, is the new FDR?

I suppose their counter would be: Trump will be worse! So, it’s the old “lesser of two evils” argument.

Biden and Harris continue to run a campaign devoid of any message other than vote for us because Trump will be worse. That empty message, and Biden’s visible decline, produce images like this:

Exactly. Which “job” is the Biden/Harris team so intent on finishing? No one knows since they’re not saying. Vague messaging and a confused candidate are almost certain to lead to a Trump victory in November.

And if that happens, those to blame will be clear, starting with Biden, the DNC, and all the scheming powerbrokers behind the scenes like the Obamas and the Clintons.