Trump and the war hawks. Or war sluts. Or war pigs. I thought about all three of these. Then I thought: Why insult hawks, sluts, or pigs?
Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, seeing enemies everywhere while wearing their red power ties
Donald Trump is forming his cabinet by rounding up the usual warmongers. In 2016, he gathered the generals, men like James Mattis and John Kelly. This time around, he’s tapping people like Marco Rubio. “Little Marco” as Secretary of State, a man who’s rarely met a war he didn’t like. For Secretary of Defense he’s nominated Pete Hegseth, whose main concern seems to be waging a war on “woke” generals. One thing is certain: Rubio and Hegseth won’t challenge the military-industrial complex. They will feed it … and feed it again.
Other nominations include Elise Stefanik, a rabid Zionist, as UN ambassador, along with Mike Huckabee, a pro-Israel evangelical who believes in the “end times,” as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Trump may trump Biden as being more slavishly pro-Israel. “Bombs for Bibi to kill babies” should be their motto.
Kristi Noem, who shot and killed her own dog because she couldn’t train it, will run Homeland Security. (If you work for DHS, it might be a good idea to watch your back, or at least to avoid being alone with Noem at a gravel pit.) Mike Waltz will be the National Security Advisor; here’s how Caitlin Johnstone describes him:
Waltz is a warmongering freak. Journalist Michael Tracey has been filling up his Twitter page since the announcement with examples of Waltz’s insane hawkishness, including his support for letting Ukraine use US weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, criticizing Biden for not escalating aggressively enoughin Ukraine, advocating bombing Iran, opposing the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and naming Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and Venezuela as “on the march” against the United States toward global conflict. The mainstream press are calling Waltz a “China hawk”, but from the look of things he’s a war-horny hawk toward all the official enemies of the United States.
Once again, Trump isn’t draining the swamp. He’s filling it with warmongers and Zionists who are even more extreme than the warmongers and Zionists of the Biden administration.
Of course, the fundamental problem is that Republicans want to boost military spending even higher than Biden and Harris have. Republicans are “all in” on revamping the nuclear triad, for example, which is likely to cost $2 trillion factoring in the usual cost overruns.
It’s possible Trump/Vance will be more likely to pursue diplomacy with Russia; perhaps the war in Ukraine will finally stumble to an end. But the imperial vision remains, aggravated perhaps by a war within to expel “illegal” immigrants, together with a coup within the military against “woke” officers.
That sounds pessimistic. If I’m being optimistic, perhaps Trump can have a “Nixon goes to China” moment. Trump can sell virtually anything to his followers. He is also driven by ego. Maybe there’s a way to drive him toward peace, dangling the carrot of a Nobel Peace Prize for him. Trump loves accolades, and if he could be influenced to stop throwing all of America’s chips into the Pentagon, that would be a good thing.
But, if personnel is policy, America had better prepare for more war, catastrophically so, even as more bombs are sent to Bibi to kill babies. There’s certainly nothing “woke” about that.
I woke to the news that Donald Trump is the projected winner of the 2024 presidential election. What that means for the country and the world remains to be seen. Why he won, and why Kamala Harris lost, will surely be analyzed deeply.
It didn’t end well …
Readers here know my take. I didn’t think Harris was the best candidate for Democrats to run for several reasons:
She was selected by the DNC rather than going through the normal primary process. In 2020, her campaign for the presidency flamed out quickly without her winning a single vote or delegate. She needed time to hone her message and develop her political chops, but she didn’t have that time.
Her total support of Israel and her embrace of the Cheneys and Republican dissenters from Trump estranged her from progressives within her own party. If people want a Republican, they’re most likely to vote Trump, not a Cheney-endorsed Democrat.
Harris had a muddled, “soft sell” message. It was unclear what she truly stood for. Words like “forward” and phrases like “We’re not going back” were vague to the point of meaninglessness.
Harris was perhaps most closely associated with women’s rights, especially reproductive rights, but it’s hard for me to discern other issues that she well and truly believed in, issues she was willing to push for.
She gained a reputation as a flip-flopper on issues like fracking and medicare for all, and her time as the immigration “czarina” connected her to a highly complex failure.
She was far too closely linked to the doddering efforts of the Biden administration, and indeed she said she couldn’t think how she’d be different from Biden except for her pledge to put a Republican in her Cabinet. Again, if people want Republicans, they can vote for them.
Too much of Harris’ message was focused on how she’s not Trump. We didn’t get a clear sense of what she stood for, what she was going to champion, how she was going to make America a better place. In the end, Harris didn’t communicate her message well enough to persuade enough voters to cast their ballots for her.
That’s my quick and dirty take. Before I’ve had my coffee! Readers, what do you think?
P.S. Apparently the Republicans have won the House and Senate as well. A rather stunning repudiation of Democrats and their shenanigans.
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 …
It’s “Take America Back” Versus “We’re Not Going Back”
This year’s presidential election is as grim as can be, and that grimness is reflected in the campaign slogans. Trump wants to “Take America back,” the implication being that bad people, I suppose the Democrats, have captured America and ruined it, and that only Trump can fix it. Harris says “We’re not going back,” meaning Trump can’t win again because he’d take America back to a hateful and brutal past.
Not a positive election, is it? How do you like your future, very bad or even worse?
It’s reflected in a story I saw in The Boston Globe this AM. Here’s an excerpt from a report on the swing state of Wisconsin:
Here in this key swing county of a key swing state [Wisconsin] that may well decide the presidency, voters across the political spectrum are gripped by fear over who will win the upcoming election.
Instead of expressing excitement about supporting their candidate — or simply relief that the election will soon be over — more than 50 voters interviewed here three weeks before Election Day repeatedly used words like “anxious,” “apprehensive,” “scared,” “worried,” and “terrified” to describe their feelings about the other party’s candidate winning.
Voters supporting former president Donald Trump said they fear that if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, inflation, crime, and illegal immigration will rise, leading to a fundamental change in American life. And Harris supporters say another four years of Trump would increase division and undermine the country’s democratic institutions.
Two memorable quotes about fear occur to me. One is from Master Po from “Kung Fu” who said, Fear is the only darkness. And then Frank Herbert from “Dune”: Fear is the mind-killer. And of course FDR who told us at the height of the Great Depression that the only thing we had to fear is fear itself.
It’s an incredible disservice to the American people for both candidates to be stoking fear. What cowardice by both the Blue and Red Teams!
That’s yet another reason why I like third parties and why Jill Stein and the Green Party appeal to me. Stein presents a positive vision of the future, a more peaceful one, one in which Americans come together to tackle common problems like climate change, health care, infrastructure, and the like.
I refuse to vote for parties and candidates that stoke fear, that promote darkness and that seek to kill my mind.
Trump supporters at a rally in Wisconsin (Scott Olson/Getty)
Sorry, Democrats and Republicans: I’m not going “back” to you and your fear.
It’s been a welcome relief not to write much about Donald Trump since he left office with so much dignity and so little controversy in January 2021. (Just kidding!) Back in March of 2016, I wrote a BV article on how and why Donald Trump had disqualified himself for the presidency. During a debate, Trump had boasted, in his usual ignorant way, that U.S. military members would follow his orders whether they were legal or not. Basically, it was the Richard M. Nixon defense of “If the President does it (or orders it), that means it’s not illegal.” Trump, I concluded back then, was constitutionally unsuited for the presidency. It didn’t matter. Hillary Clinton ran a horrible campaign and Trump won a surprising victory.
Put charitably, his four years as president were a very mixed bag. If you’re a glutton for punishment, you can consult the Bracing Views archive and all the articles I wrote about Trump and his deeds (and misdeeds). His biggest accomplishment was a big tax cut for the already wealthy in America. He seriously bungled the COVID crisis, projecting cluelessness instead of steadiness. He blamed his generals for a botched raid on Yemen, then shamelessly trotted out before Congress the widow of a service member who’d died there. He surrendered to his generals and prolonged the Afghan War and almost started a war with Iran by killing a senior general in a risky drone strike. He pandered to Israel (he still is pandering, by the way). He boosted Pentagon spending. He angled for a big military parade in Washington, D.C., just because that’s what democracies do. (The parade at least never came to pass.) He posed with a Bible to advocate law and order. And that’s only a few items off the top of my head.
Trump is now older but judging by his speeches none the wiser. His rallies have gotten longer and his speeches more chaotic. His vilification of immigrants is especially inflammatory. His claim that student protesters of genocide in Gaza should be deported was yet another example of his fundamental misunderstanding of Constitutional guarantees to freedom of speech and assembly. He continues to be more of a divider than a uniter even as he lacks a vision for a better American future. His slogan is “Take America Back.” From whom, or to what era? Many of his claims about his opponent, Kamala Harris, are simply lies. (No, Kamala doesn’t “hate” Israel, quite the reverse; no, Kamala isn’t a “Marxist,” she’s a self-avowed capitalist.)
Speaking of Trump’s age, I worry about his health. He’s 78, overweight, but still displays admirable energy (so far). Yet we’ve just witnessed a president, Joe Biden, also elected at age 78 who’s been in obvious physical and mental decline. Is Trump ready for the rigors and strains of another four years in office, which would see him as America’s leader until age 82? I have my doubts.
Since I live in a blue state and also used to be a registered Democrat, I’ve been spared being inundated by Trump mailers. My friend M. Davout who lives in a swing state hasn’t been so lucky. Here’s his description of being mail-bombed by the Trump campaign this fall:
I have probably received over 50 pro-Trump mailers over the last month and a half. Friends of mine (also liberals) report the same torrent of ugly campaign dreck. [These mailers] appeal to the lowest negative human motives, fear and hate … Listen to the lies and racist claims Trump and Vance articulate daily–immigrants are murderers and rapists, Haitians are eating pets, Mexican gangs are taking over American cities, they are poisoning the blood of America, Harris is an idiot, she is a DEI candidate … What kind of person do you imagine they are trying to reach and mobilize with this rhetoric?
Davout has a point. Trump’s campaign rhetoric is often angry, vengeful, hateful. It’s consistent with previous Trump imagery of American carnage, of America being disrespected, of America needing to strike back at … someone. Somewhere. Immigrants at home. Iranians abroad. This is not unique to the Trump campaign, of course. Many Democrats despise Trump. Too many Democrats are pro-war. But no one would describe Trump as running a campaign based on unity and joy. A politics of harshness, of recrimination, of grievance, of score-settling, largely defines the Trump campaign.
Readers, Trump’s vision is not my vision of America. Nor was it my father’s. Eight years ago, in October 2016, I wrote an article: “Dump Chump Trump.” I’ll paste it below. I highly doubt any Trump supporters will be turned away from their man merely by my words, but perhaps they may serve to rekindle a few concerns about what kind of man Trump is. My conclusion remains the same: Trump is not the answer.
*****
Dump Chump Trump
Donald Trump is a chump. I’d call him a chimp, except it would be an insult to chimpanzees everywhere.
Oct 1, 2016, 09:29 AM EDT
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump holds a rally with supporters at the Suburban Collection Showplace in Novi, Michigan, U.S. September 30, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
What kind of a presidential candidate tweets in the middle of the night about alleged sex tapes involving a former Miss Universe winner? Indeed, what kind of a man does this?
Donald Trump is a chump. I’d call him a chimp, except it would be an insult to chimpanzees everywhere. The man has no discipline, no sense of decorum, and no compassion for others (let’s not forget his signature line, “You’re fired”). Indeed, he seems to revel in humiliating others. This was mildly amusing when he was taking on equals on the stage during the Republican primaries, but it’s disturbing in the extreme to see him bullying the little guys and gals for whom he’s supposedly a champion.
So many sane people and major newspapers have gone on record as being against Trump that there’s little I can add. Sadly, Trump’s followers seem unperturbed and undisturbed no matter his insults and tyrannical behavior.
All I can say is this: Trump is not the kind of man my father taught me to be. My dad, who fought forest fires in Oregon in the CCC, a veteran of an armored division in World War II, a city firefighter for more than 30 years until his retirement, treated people fairly and squarely. He was humble about himself and considerate to others. I can’t recall him insulting others, certainly not in the intentional and hurtful way that Trump directs at others. Trump is especially fond of attacking women or minorities or anyone he sees as vulnerable, the very opposite of my dad’s code of behavior.
Don’t get me wrong: my dad wasn’t perfect. He had his faults. But his faults were not directed at others; he didn’t try to demean or diminish other people, as Trump so obviously enjoys doing. Unlike Trump, my dad wasn’t boastful; indeed, three favorite sayings of his were: “Still waters run deep,” “Don’t toot your own horn,” and “The empty barrel makes the most noise.”
You were right, Dad. The rushing nonsense from Trump exhibits his shallowness; the man is constantly tweeting his own horn; and, like the empty vessel that he is, he makes an awful amount of noise.
Trump: Not the kind of man my father would respect; not the kind of man our country needs.
Dump chump Trump.
Standard Disclaimer (10/2024): Criticizing Trump doesn’t mean I love Kamala Harris. Instead, I’m going to demonstrate my misogyny and anti-Semitism by voting for Jill Stein—you know, a Jewish woman who’s actually for peace and against genocide.
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.
America is one warbird with two right wings. That’s my expression, though of course I’m borrowing from Gore Vidal, who put it this way:
There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.
Gore Vidal (R) from the movie, “Gattaca”
Speaking of bipartisanship, the 2024 presidential election is a fascinating exercise in the mechanics of (impossible) flight, as the two right wings flap vigorously as America spirals downwards.
Let’s look at Trump. Two of his leading surrogates, Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are former Democrats. Tulsi left the party as she was smeared by Hillary Clinton and NBC as a Putin puppet, and RFK Jr. learned the hard way that Democrats were not about to allow any serious challenge to Biden/Harris. They are helping Trump in part because they were betrayed by establishment Democrats.
Let’s look at Harris. She’s embraced Dick and Liz Cheney and their endorsement of her, along with another letter of endorsement signed by more than 100 Republicans associated with national security. Harris has also vowed to put at least one Republican in her Cabinet if she’s elected. The Republicans who’ve supported Harris tend to be those who’ve been sidelined by Trump and MAGA.
Both “wings,” Republican and Democrat, fully support Israel in its genocide against Gaza. Both support more war, though Republicans tend to stress China as the primary threat instead of Democrats, who are fixated on Putin and Russia. Both support trillion dollar Pentagon budgets, though Republicans are more vocal in boosting military spending to even higher levels.
Of course, there are differences on certain domestic issues like abortion, for example. Yet, when it comes to war, foreign policy, and world crises, America the warbird flaps its bipartisan right wings with almost equal vigor, caught in a death spiral of its own making.
Any mention of the vaguest so-called left wing policies, such as reductions in military spending and the pursuit of diplomacy instead of war, is instantly denounced as impractical, foolish, unwise, even as un-American.
And so the warbird flaps on, the best scenario being that it goes nowhere, the worst being a crippling fall from the sky.
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?
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have something in common. They both embrace colossal Pentagon budgets and both celebrate the “lethality” of the U.S. military, which, they agree, must be the strongest, bestest, in the world. They also agree on giving a blank check to Israel and its leaders to do whatever they want in Gaza to the Palestinians and will continue to provide whatever weapons Israel desires to kill massive numbers of Palestinians while flattening and destroying the Gaza Strip.
With respect to Iran, Harris appears to be even more hawkish than Trump, and indeed criticized him for not being aggressive enough with Iran’s leaders. Harris is also a strong supporter of Ukraine, seeing war as its best option to defeat Russia, whereas Trump is more skeptical of war and more open to diplomacy with Putin and Russia.
This isn’t surprising. Mainstream Democrats in DC are basically warmongering neo-conservatives on foreign policy, so a vote for Harris/Walz is a vote, as the “liberal” New York Times reported, for “muscular patriotism” (or, to paraphrase my wife, febrile and unapologetic nationalism). This is Washington Beltway conformity at its finest, as organs such as the National Interest write unironic articles about cheerleading the wonders of the military-industrial complex (MIC).
Ike got it all wrong. Embrace the MIC! Cheer for it!
See, President Dwight D. Eisenhower got it all wrong. We shouldn’t be wary of the MIC; we shouldn’t worry that its unchecked power threatens democracy and our very freedoms. No, we should embrace the MIC, celebrate it, enrich it with even more of our taxpayer dollars.
At Responsible Statecraft, Bill Hartung wrote a thoughtful response to the recent National interest piece. To me, it all depends on what vision of America you want to advance. If you want to advance America as the world’s hegemon, the empire of global reach, power, and dominance, the empire of constant warfare, then, heck, three cheers for the MIC.
But, if you want to advance America as a republic that leads “by the power of its example,” one that focuses on national defense and defense alone, then “three cheers for the MIC” guarantees the death of that republic and the corruption of its moral authority as an exemplar of democracy.
Of course, whether you choose to support Harris or Trump, we are witnessing exactly that latter fate. When you embrace the MIC, war, and empire, you set in motion the death of Democracy.
Whether America’s politicians put an “R” after their names or a “D,” it doesn’t alter the fundamental reality that the power of America’s example is very much driven and determined by examples of its military power. That is not about to change whether Harris or Trump prevails.
Bracing Views 