I confess I didn’t watch President Trump’s address last night nor the response from the Democrats. I’ve heard enough of Trump bloviating and I’ve had my fill of Democrats and their “resistance.”
Checking my news feed this AM, I see that the Democratic response was given by a “moderate,” Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan. She’s an ex-CIA agent, so I guess that means we can trust her? And she served alongside troops in the disastrous Iraq War, so I guess she’s patriotic and smart?
Senator Slotkin tackled Trump not by citing progressive ideas and Democratic worthies like FDR and George McGovern but by applauding a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. President George W. Bush also got a positive mention.
Her main complaint was the “chaos” unleashed by Trump/Musk. She made a big deal about protecting the “homeland” along with immigration reform. She dropped a lot of buzzwords. She stressed that Trump apparently doesn’t think that America is theexceptional nation. And that he’s too cozy with Russia and Putin. The usual charges.
What was missing was vision, especially moral commitments to peace and justice. I heard nothing concrete about enlarging unions, boosting wages, affordable health care for all, serious student loan debt relief, or putting a stop to genocide in Gaza.
We’re still exceptional. Apple pie!
Slotkin’s speech was a perfect product of the corporate Democrats, or, more accurately, the uniparty and the national security state. She’s for “responsible” change. She’s for the middle class. Even apple pie got a mention!
Apparently, the Democratic plan to win back the presidency in 2028 is to reanimate the body of Ronald Reagan with apple pie as his running mate. How’s that for “resistance,” America?
Bonus Lesson: Slotkin said America’s “superpower” is that we’re a nation of “strivers” and “risk-takers” who are “never satisfied.” I guess other nations and peoples don’t have innovators with ambition, or maybe they’re too easily satisfied, unlike Americans?
Will Tulsi Gabbard “shrink the bloated bureaucracy” in DC?
Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is America’s Director of National Intelligence. Here’s a part of the ceremony, with President Trump’s introduction:
What struck me in watching the short ceremony was Trump’s words about “the threat of a warmongering military-industrial complex.” Bold words indeed, as well as his call for Tulsi Gabbard to “shrink the bloated bureaucracy” in DC.
In her brief remarks, Tulsi mentioned an almost forbidden word in DC: peace. She mentioned war as an absolute last resort rather than the first action selected by the “warmongering” (Trump’s word) military-industrial complex. I find that remarkable as well as encouraging.
There are many reasons why I like Tulsi as DNI, but the biggest one is this: She has President Trump’s respect. He likes her. Meaning he’ll listen to her when she briefs him on a daily basis about the threats facing America and the options he has to address those threats.
In his first term as president, Trump was notorious for not caring much about his daily intelligence briefing. Tulsi will change that—and that and her commitment to military action as a last resort is again highly encouraging.
Recently, a friend wrote to challenge me to “write a great article about Trump’s introduction of ‘lightning war’ into politics,” citing Nazi Germany’s use of Blitzkrieg in the opening campaigns of World War II. My friend sympathizes with Trump, so his political Blitzkrieg comparison wasn’t meant pejoratively.
Image of Blitzkrieg from the Imperial War Museum. It wasn’t my idea for Trump…
Whether you call it Blitzkrieg or a “flood the zone” strategy, there’s little doubt Trump’s rapid-fire orders and actions have put those who oppose him on the defensive. Democrats are throwing up their hands in surrender-like motions. Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries plaintively asked: “What leverage do we have?” Then he added: “They [the Republicans] control the House, the Senate, and the presidency. It’s their government.”
The Democratic battle flag is a white cross on a field of white. They claim they can do nothing to stop Trump and his rampaging billionaire sidekick, Elon Musk.
It’s funny: When the Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and presidency, I often recall them complaining they couldn’t get much done due to obstruction by Republicans. How come Republicans can obstruct but not Democrats?
Leaving that aside, what about my friend’s praise of Trump as having launched Blitzkrieg politics? Reversing Clausewitz, is politics simply a continuation of war by other means?
America, so I’ve been taught, was founded as a republic with a Constitution. We claim to be a nation of laws. We like to think we’re a representative democracy. The House and Senate are supposed to be deliberative bodies where laws are made and money is spent in accordance with the will of the people.
I know: nice fantasy, right?
The U.S. government has become corrupted by money and special interests. We know our representatives rarely represent us. They represent their owners and donors. That breeds cynicism and a certain level of affection among some for Trump as a disruptor.
But smashing government isn’t the smartest and most effective way of reforming or even of rebuilding it. Empowering autocrats and plutocrats like Trump and Musk isn’t going to produce democracy and a government that serves the people. A Trump “political Blitzkrieg” will likely echo the Nazi Blitzkrieg of 1939-41, featuring widespread destruction and subjugation of “enemies.” It’s not a method conducive to greater justice and a more perfect union.
So, to my friend’s challenge, I say this: Political Blitzkrieg may provide an illusion of victory, but “victory” for whom, and for what? Wars, whether real shooting ones or political ones, are corrosive to liberty, freedom, and equality. In war, it’s typically the workers and poor who suffer most, the rich who profit most, as power congeals at the top.
Trump’s so-called Blitzkrieg, combined with a Democratic attitude of surrender, is producing a government by and for men like Elon Musk, even more so than it already is. If you truly desire plutocracy and one-party rule, Trump/Musk is your dynamic duo.
I still prefer democracy, however imperfect, and a system that doesn’t elevate and empower the richest among us as dictators.
Will anything good come from Trump-Musk DOGE chaos?
Despite our rebel reputations, Americans are often more than deferential to authority. Consider those who say: If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide. As if authority figures were completely trustworthy; as if ordinary Americans didn’t have a Constitutional right to privacy.
Indeed, that saying needs to be turned around: If the government’s done nothing wrong, it has nothing to hide. The government, after all, is supposed to be transparent to the people. It is supposed to serve us. We pay for it as taxpayers; we elect its representatives; we should be able to hold it accountable when it goes wrong and does wrong.
Sadly, the few revelatory truths about “our” government usually come from whistleblowers, who are then persecuted and often prosecuted. Consider Daniel Ellsberg. Edward Snowden. Daniel Hale. Chelsea Manning. John Kiriakou.
The problem, of course, is that “our” government has done, and keeps doing, many things wrong, and many wrong things, meaning it has plenty to hide. Which is one big reason why President Trump and his billionaire sidekick Elon Musk are taking plenty of flak from the powers that be as they go after agencies like USAID, DOE, perhaps even the DoD (in which case they, or their efforts, may soon be DOA).
The wrecking balls are swinging (Reuters/Carlos Barria)
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t support Trump and Musk. Their methods and motives are less than noble. Or just plain ignoble. Put differently, their methods are akin to taking sledgehammers and wrecking balls to a house that has termite damage. Sure, as they demolish the house, some termite damage will be exposed, but shouldn’t the point be to fix the damage rather than destroying the house?
That said, can something good come from their “Hulk smash!” attacks on the federal government?
A slightly different question: Why has it taken so long for a little light to be shed on highly dubious government spending? Isn’t there another way, other than Trump/Musk engineered chaos, for citizens to gain insight into how our money is being spent? Why can’t we call to account powerful government agencies and agents for their budgets and their decisions? It’s our money, right?
Congress, of course, holds the purse strings. Our representatives are supposed to be providing oversight with respect to spending, ensuring a modicum of integrity and competence. Yet complicity (and personal enrichment) rather than oversight seems to be the default mode of operation adopted by most members of Congress.
Congress, instead of opposing Trump, should get ahead of him. Throw open the windows of the federal budget! Air out the dirty musty bloody laundry! Do your jobs! And by that I mean do the people’s work, rather than the work of the owners and donors who’ve bought you with their campaign donations, their promises of future high-paying positions, their threats to remove you from power by throwing their support to yet another politician with no moral spine.
Congress, instead of blocking Trump/Musk, should render them redundant by doing the people’s work. Make government accountable to the people again, and the people won’t feel that they need to vote for chaos agents like Trump.
If Congress was doing its job, a DOGE would be worse than useless. Who needs duplication of effort? It’s so inefficient!
In my morning news feed from the New York Times came this article on Tulsi Gabbard:
How Tulsi Gabbard Became a Favorite of Russia’s State Media
President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick to be the director of national intelligence has raised alarms among national security officials.
Here’s the key paragraph from the article, which, of course, is delayed until the sixth paragraph:
No evidence has emerged that she has ever collaborated in any way with Russia’s intelligence agencies. Instead, according to analysts and former officials, Ms. Gabbard seems to simply share the Kremlin’s geopolitical views, especially when it comes to the exercise of American military power. [Emphasis added]
Did you get that? NO EVIDENCE. Tulsi has never collaborated with Russia in any way. The problem is that she’s a critic of unnecessary and disastrous wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. She’s a critic of massive U.S. military aid to Ukraine. And since those criticisms are vaguely useful to Russia, she must therefore be a “Russian asset,” a dupe of Putin, according to Hillary Clinton and now the New York Times.
Within the so-called intelligence community (IC), you are allowed to be a cheerleader, a booster, even a selective critic in the sense that you may call for more money for the IC because of certain limitations or oversights, but you are not allowed to question America’s disastrously wasteful imperial foreign policy.
No matter how poorly the IC performs (consider the colossal failure of 9/11, or the total obliviousness about the impending collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, or recent disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya), no one is ever held accountable, even as the IC gets more money and authority.
Tulsi Gabbard with President-elect Trump. (Jim Vondruska for the NYT)
Tulsi Gabbard promises to be a game-changer. Skeptical of the blatant misuse of American military power, she’s been an articulate critic of forever wars. She is especially sensitive to deploying U.S. troops in harm’s way for purposes other than the defense of the United States.
The “liberal” New York Times is having none of that. Consider this remarkable paragraph:
“Nominating Gabbard for director of national intelligence is the way to Putin’s heart, and it tells the world that America under Trump will be the Kremlin’s ally rather than an adversary,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history at New York University and the author of “Strongmen,” a 2020 book about authoritarian leaders, wrote on Friday. “And so we would have a national security official who would potentially compromise our national security.” [Emphasis added]
Who knew that “Putin’s heart” could be won so easily? And note the weasel wording that Tulsi could “potentially compromise” U.S. national security. Again, no evidence is presented.
Well, we certainly don’t want the U.S. to have a rapprochement with Putin. He must always be our adversary, am I right? How dare that Trump and Gabbard might, just might, pursue a policy that is less antagonistic toward the Kremlin? Don’t you enjoy teetering on the brink of a world-ending nuclear exchange? I much prefer that to listening and negotiation.
In making enemies of Hillary Clinton and now the New York Times, Tulsi Gabbard has demonstrated she has what it takes to serve as director of national intelligence.
Former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has been nominated as Director of National Intelligence by President-elect Donald Trump. The so-called intelligence community is up in arms about this. That is a very good thing.
Tulsi Gabbard (Reuters, Jeenah Moon photo)
Here’s what Reuters has to say:
WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) – President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard as U.S. intelligence chief has sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, adding to concerns that the sprawling intelligence community will become increasingly politicized.
Trump’s nomination of Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who lacks deep intelligence experience and is seen as soft on Russia and Syria, is among several high-level picks that suggest he may be prioritizing personal allegiance over competence as he assembles his second-term team.
Among the risks, say current and former intelligence officials and independent experts, are that top advisers could feed the incoming Republican president a distorted view of global threats based on what they believe will please him and that foreign allies may be reluctant to share vital information.
Randal Phillips, a former CIA operations directorate official who worked as the agency’s top representative in China, said that with Trump loyalists in top government posts, “this could become the avenue of choice for some really questionable actions” by the leadership of the intelligence community. [Emphasis added.]
As if the intelligence “community” isn’t already politicized! And who sees Gabbard as allegedly “soft” on Russia and Syria? Hillary Clinton? The “queen of warmongers,” as Gabbard memorably described her?
Wow. We might get “some really questionable actions” by the IC (intelligence community). I’m glad we’ve never had any of those before.
Tulsi has a wealth of experience in the military (she remains a lieutenant colonel), she’s a former Congresswoman who’s served on important committees dealing with national security, and she’s tough as nails, having survived ruthless attacks on her character by the neocon Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. She is an excellent choice as Director.
What Tulsi has is integrity. Honesty. Poise. Perhaps even more importantly, she has Trump’s ear and his respect. As Director, she will oversee the preparation of Trump’s daily intelligence briefs. Trump was notorious in his first term in office for not paying much attention to those briefs. He should do better with Tulsi, somebody he trusts, preparing them.
Tulsi won my respect in 2016 when she supported Bernie Sanders and revealed how the Democratic presidential primary process was being fixed for Hillary Clinton. Tulsi has paid a high price for her principled stance, being smeared by Clinton and mainstream media outlets like NBC as a “Russian asset,” maybe even a stooge for Vladimir Putin. Politics is a rough game, but accusing a serving U.S. military officer and Congresswoman of being a “Putin puppet” is truly reckless and defamatory. Good for Tulsi for punching back.
The establishment Democratic party hates Tulsi because she refused to play their game. She refused to bow to the Clintons. Tulsi has also questioned America’s constant warmongering and knows a thing or two about the horrendous costs of war. She even has a normal life as a surfer. She has a connection to nature that I respect.
Her poise, her toughness, her integrity, makes her a superb choice as DNI. The more the intelligence “community” complains about her, the louder certain Democrats scream, the more certain I am that Trump has made a smart decision here.
Recall when Kamala Harris vowed to put a Republican in her cabinet? Well, Trump has made Gabbard his DNI and RFK Jr. will lead Health and Human Services. He’s picked two (former) Democrats for important posts and the Democrats can’t stand it.
On this occasion, with these appointments, I applaud Trump. You go, Tulsi. Ride the wave. Continue to serve our country as you always have.
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.
Bracing Views 