Tag: Politics

Reading John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”

W.J. Astore

And reflecting on notes I made in the margins forty years ago

In college, I majored in mechanical engineering but also took courses in U.S. history and philosophy. I kept most of my college textbooks for a couple of decades, books on statics, dynamics, strength of materials, fluid mechanics and dynamics, thermodynamics, heat transfer, vibrations, along with calculus, physics, chemistry, and the like. But there came a time when these books seemed not only obsolete but a burden of sorts, so I brought them to various used bookstores for trade.

One book I didn’t trade in was a slim volume: John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty.” It cost me the princely sum of $5.75 in 1983, and I read it for a course in political philosophy. The theme of liberty seemed timeless to me, always pertinent and worth pondering, so I kept the book.

Yesterday, I was shifting some books around and spied my copy among my small collection on philosophy. I opened it and came across a long passage I wrote in the margins back when I first read it in college in 1983. This “marginalia” struck me as a somewhat interesting window into America in 1983 and what I was thinking about as I tried to apply Mill’s insights to American culture.

My college copy of Mill’s “On Liberty” with my marginalia

My marginal comment came as Mill discussed liberty and when people are warranted “in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number.” Self-protection, Mill wrote, was the only purpose sufficiently compelling here to exercise power to abridge liberty. Preventing harm. It’s insufficient and wrong, Mill added, to act to abridge someone’s liberty because you think it would be better for them, wiser for them, as well as being better for society at large. If the person isn’t harming others, if their actions aren’t “calculated to produce evil to someone else,” those actions shouldn’t be interfered with.

Now, here’s the example that popped into my head back in 1983, which I wrote in the margin:

Note [the] case of homosexuals wanting to go to the prom. Mill says they should have the liberty to do this. One can advise them not to [go], i.e. they will be chastised, outcast, uncomfortable. But one cannot prevent them from going, since they are not harming others.

Back in 1983, before LGBTQ+, in the era of the Reagan revolution in which real men didn’t eat quiche, the idea of homosexuals taking same-sex (or non-binary) dates to the high school prom was more than controversial. It must have been “in the news” for that example to have popped into my head.

It’s interesting how times have changed in forty years. Personal liberty for the LGBTQ+ communities is, I think, far less restricted by the “tyranny of the majority” than it used to be. We have Pride month, Pride celebrations, rainbow flags, and the like. I assume it’s now unremarkable when LGBTQ+ members attend proms with same-sex (or non-binary) dates. And that reflects greater diversity and tolerance within our society along with more liberty, which John Stuart Mill would applaud.

Mill’s message is a good one. We should strive as a society and culture to maximize personal liberty. We should be very careful indeed in exercising power to abridge liberty, especially in the cause of “helping” the other person. As Mill writes, quite powerfully, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

Which, to put it in non-gendered language: Over themselves, over their own bodies and minds, individuals are sovereign.

Sometimes, old college textbooks are worth keeping around.

Readers, is there an old high school or college textbook you’ve never parted with, and why?

A Largely Issueless Campaign Season?

W.J. Astore

Kamalove versus MAGA

Are you feeling “Kamalove” for Kamala Harris? Are you gaga for MAGA and Donald Trump? Or maybe you’re angry J.D. Vance once made a comment about “childless cat ladies.” This is the preferred narrative being pushed by the great CON, the corporate-owned news.* 

It wasn’t that long ago that, thanks to Bernie Sanders, among others, Americans were talking about real issues. Affordable health care for all. A $15 federal minimum wage. Sweeping student loan debt relief. Tax reforms that would favor the working classes rather than the richest among us. Campaign finance reform that would get “big money” out of politics.

This is the madness of war. (Mourners from the Druze minority carry the coffins of some of the 12 children and teenagers killed in the rocket strike in the village of Majdal Shams. Photograph: Léo Corrêa/AP)

Another vital issue, of course, is America’s seemingly permanent state of war and its slavish support of Israel in its ongoing demolition of Gaza. As expected, that genocidal act is beginning to spin out of control as it appears Israel is preparing to strike Hezbollah in Lebanon in the aftermath of a deadly missile strike on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.

When will the madness of war in the Middle East end? And is it the intent of the U.S. government to continue to provide all the weapons Israel needs to continue its campaign of mass killing? (Always done in the name of “defense” and “security,” naturally.)

In his recent address to America, President Biden declared that under him U.S. troops weren’t at war for the first time this century. His exact words were: “I’m the first president in this century to report to the American people that the United States is not at war anywhere in the world.” This boast came as U.S. forces were bombing Yemen in support of Israel’s operations in Gaza. Meanwhile, America leads the world in selling weapons and spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined, most of those being U.S. allies.

When does the U.S. get to become a normal country in normal times, rather than a nation permanently at war and forever preparing for it, even for nuclear Armageddon? Why are we spending possibly as much as $2 trillion on “modernizing” a nuclear triad that, if used, could easily destroy life on earth as well as several other earth-sized planets? When are we going to end this insanity?

We need to challenge Democrats and Republicans as well as the media to cover real issues, issues of life and death, rather than writing puff pieces about Kamalove and MAGA.

*Thanks to John R. Moffett for the CON acronym.

Lies

W.J. Astore

They’re Everywhere in America

Soon after Joe Biden took office as president in 2021, I remember hearing that his VP, Kamala Harris, was put in charge of immigration, informally known as the “border czar.” Yesterday, the House passed a resolution condemning Harris for her handling of the border crisis. Yet I’ve also been hearing from Democrats and the media that Harris never was the border czar, even as there’s plenty of video evidence of networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC referring to her using that term.

Denying that Harris was the border czar is a fairly small lie immersed in much larger sea of lies, and of course it’s a bipartisan effort. Donald Trump exaggerates and lies just to stay in shape. Democrats love to attack Trump for lying even as they lie themselves. Truly, it’s hard to run a government and a country when lies confuse every issue.

Another lie being told about Kamala Harris is that her candidacy is the result of democracy in action. She’s the people’s choice! Except almost nobody voted for her as a presidential candidate. She’s been elevated and selected by the DNC and the donor class. She is a packaged product of the so-called elites within the party, the very opposite of a candidate chosen by the people. And yet I’m told this packaged product is going to “save democracy” from Trump, who was actually selected as a candidate in a more democratic process.

Of course, there are far bigger and more serious lies than whether Harris was the border czar or whether she’s the people’s choice as the savior of democracy. U.S. troops’ deadliest enemies, I’d argue, are most often the lies told by the U.S. government, abetted and amplified by senior officers in the military. Think here of Iraq and Afghanistan, or go back further to Vietnam.

Daniel Ellsberg, truth-teller about the Vietnam War and so many other things

Knowing (or sensing/feeling) you killed for lies, or knowing your friends died for lies, is surely a contributing cause to a rash of suicides in the U.S. military today. The sacrifices and horrors of war may be eased by a “just” war, like World War II, but they are aggravated by unjust wars.  And they are further aggravated when you try to get help through the VA only to be turned away or stonewalled.

All this is prologue to a note I received from a regular reader of Bracing Views about lies in America. I’ve decided to retain the profanity because it’s more than appropriate:

I don’t know about you, but I find it quite amazing that, despite decades of bold-faced lying about US wars, all of it proven and even reported in the NYT and other mainstream media, the narrative of the each subsequent war is always accepted as true, until it too is exposed as being nothing but lies.

Let’s look at the recent record:

1) Vietnam–exposed as nothing but lies by the Pentagon Papers.

2) Iraq–exposed as lies when the infamous WMD were never found and there was nothing found to back up the claim of links to Al Qaeda.

3) Afghanistan–exposed as pure fiction as revealed by the Washington Post “Afghanistan Papers” which said that “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.”

Add to the above list the fact that the Mueller report investigating the Russiagate hoax came up with nothing, ZERO.

Currently, there are a couple of new false narratives duly reported by the mainstream media and, for the most part, swallowed by most people. First is the false narrative about the US war in Ukraine, that NATO expansion has nothing to do with it but rather was caused by naked Russian aggression and Putin’s plans to re-create the Soviet Union and take over the rest of Eastern Europe. Second, the false narrative that Israel is just defending itself against Palestinian terrorism rather than committing grotesque war crimes, completely ignoring the fact that the Israelis have been keeping the Palestinians under illegal occupation for over 50 years, since June 1967. 

Lie after lie after lie after lie. And yet none of it matters. It is all sent down the memory hole as if it never happened. And then it is on to the next war, when the official narrative spewed out by the DC blob will once again be swallowed hook, line and sinker. It appears to be never ending. No matter how much lying is exposed, it simply does not matter.

I think it is pretty fucking amazing. What will it take to get people to come out of their coma and realize what the fuck is going on?

And keep in mind…..it has nothing to do with party affiliation. The lying is endemic, it’s in the DNA of the National Security State. Presidents come and go, but the lying for war-making never stops. And no one is ever held accountable either. 

It’s pretty fucking impressive, when you think about it.

Keep this is in mind……one would think that, after this abhorrent track record, the appropriate response would be to assume that the narrative justifying the new war of the moment was not true and nothing but more of the same lying. But that NEVER happens. NEVER.

How is that possible? Is it just a serious form of denial? Is it due to mental illness? Is it just some perverted form of patriotism? In what other realm is it possible to lie non-stop and never be held accountable? Even worse, to continue to have credibility despite a track record of pathological lying? 

A friend of mine pointed out that, in the old USSR, people knew that the official news on their TV every night was nothing but lies. 

So, this begs the question: Which system is more pernicious and has more effectively brainwashed its people? The one where people are controlled but they are aware that they are being fed nothing but lies, or the one that is constantly lied to but the people still believe they are being told the truth?

To those keen insights, I made this reply:

Our [American] system of lying is better! We have state/corporate media too, it’s just more subtle and advertised as “free.” We have our own “Pravda” except it rarely tells the truth, unless that “truth” is in the interests of the powerful.

To which our BV keen reader replied:

Exactly. But to suggest that we have our own version of “Pravda,” only worse because it has the cover of supposedly being “free,” is tantamount to treason, you realize.

This is the reason why Julian Assange/Wikileaks was such a threat…for actually challenging the right of the National Security State to lie non-stop about its war making and never be exposed for its lying or held accountable.

Of course, that is exactly why Assange was locked away in prison for so long and tortured, not because he was spreading lies but because he was revealing truths.

And we can’t have that in America!

*My hearty thanks to this Bracing Views keen reader for allowing me to cite this. I always say I learn so much from my readers, and I mean it.

Netanyahu and Biden Speak

W.J. Astore

A Grim Day in Washington, DC, and Across the World

I was wrong about Congress and its subservience to Bibi Netanyahu. I had set the over/under at 50 for the number of ovations he would receive, and 25 as the number of standing ovations. Apparently, he received 58 standing ovations in his address to Congress yesterday. Though not every member of Congress joined the orgy.

With respect to what Netanyahu said, Caitlin Johnstone covers it well. I’m less interested in what he said than what the orgy of applause says about America. Stormy applause for a foreign leader engaged in a genocide in Gaza: you can draw your own conclusions here. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the power of AIPAC and similar Zionist lobbies.

At 8:00PM EST, my wife and I tuned in to President Biden’s first speech since his surprise withdrawal by tweet from the 2024 campaign. I sure wish politicians could speak simply, clearly, and sincerely. How about a short speech like this?

My fellow Americans, thank you for your confidence in me, thank you for allowing me to serve for more than fifty years, and thank you for your patience as I recovered from COVID. After much reflection, I’ve decided I’m simply too old, too compromised, to be president after my current term ends in January 2025. In my stead, I heartily endorse my vice president and running mate, Kamala Harris. I have complete confidence in her. With that said, I want to thank everyone watching, here and around the world, for the best wishes you’ve shared with me. I will continue to work tirelessly for peace and for the betterment of the human condition everywhere, not forgetting the health of our environment as well. Thank you all again, and good night.

A person can dream, right?

Instead, Biden plodded through a speech that lasted about fifteen minutes but which seemed much longer. I was a bit surprised at how long it took him to mention Kamala Harris by name. There were the usual blessings extended to America and the troops, and the usual rhetoric that nothing is impossible to America and Americans, though I’m not sure of that. High-speed rail seems impossible, to cite one example.

All in all, the Congressional orgy for Bibi together with Biden’s sad withdrawal speech made for a very grim day in Washington, D.C. and indeed across the globe. For what happens here in America doesn’t stay here. It ripples to places like Gaza, Russia, China, powerfully and unpredictably.

As I said, yesterday was grim, and the prospect of a Trump/Harris race makes the future even grimmer for meaningful change toward a less militaristic and more peaceful world.

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?

Don’t Embarrass Joe Biden

W.J. Astore

And the Upcoming Visit by Bibi Netanyahu

A couple of snippets from Reuters captures the weirdness of this American moment. The first involves President Joe Biden and his status as a candidate for 2024:

Some officials think it’s only a matter of time before Joe Biden takes himself out of the race, though nobody can say how the party’s presidential-nomination process will unfold if he drops out. Reports say he’s taking seriously calls within the party to quit because of concerns about his cognitive ability, his age and his health. Fundraisers are on hold and July donations plummeted, sources say.

That last part is likely to be fatal. It’s money that talks in American politics, and if Biden can’t raise any, and he’s hurting the bottom line at the DNC, they’ll find a way to get rid of him.

Remarkably, I keep reading articles about how Democrats shouldn’t do anything to embarrass Biden. As if personal embarrassment is the leading issue here. The leading issue is whether Biden is physically and mentally fit to be president this very moment. Is anyone confident that Biden could handle a crisis akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962? Does he have the physical stamina and mental acumen to make critical decisions under extreme pressure? It doesn’t appear so. Isn’t this issue a lot more important than Biden’s feelings?

The second snippet involves Israel’s destruction of Gaza, a topic which has become far less salient lately in U.S. corporate media. Here’s the update from Reuters:

Israel’s aerial and tank shelling of central Gaza intensified while fighting raged in Rafah. Israel’s military is set to issue call-up notices to 1,000 members of the ultra-Orthodox community after the Supreme Court ended their longstanding exemption for Jewish seminary students from service. Netanyahu will address the U.S. Congress next week and might meet President Biden.

I’d set the over/under on Congressional ovations for Bibi Netanyahu at 50; standing ovations at 25.

There are few things more appalling than inviting Netanyahu to address Congress while Israel prosecutes a genocide in Gaza with American-made weaponry. It tells you everything you need to know about the “rules-based order” promoted by U.S. leaders.

Harris has been deployed to calm “jittery” donors. Good luck with that.

With Biden in free-fall and Kamala Harris still not ready for primetime, perhaps the Democrats can draft Bibi Netanyahu to run against Donald Trump.* No man seems to unite Congress in rapturous applause like Bibi. Bibi would certainly revive DNC fundraising as well. Stranger things have happened …

*Yes, I know Bibi can’t run to be POTUS. Why should he bother, when he’s already dictating U.S. policy in the Middle East?

“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.

Trump Thoughts

W.J. Astore

A Quintessentially American Figure

Today, I thought I’d write about someone who’s uncontroversial: Donald Trump.

My reflections are impressionistic and random. Regular readers of Bracing Views know I won’t be voting for Trump (or Biden for that matter), so my comments here are not meant as an endorsement. With that said, let’s dive in:

When Trump was trying to get rid of Obamacare, he naturally had no replacement plan in mind. At the time, I read that Trump allegedly turned to his advisers and said, Why don’t we simply give everyone Medicare? It sounds like Trump: a simple solution to a problem he wants to put behind him. Of course, it was also the goal of Bernie Sanders and progressives. Trump’s advisers quickly told him he couldn’t do Medicare for All, and Trump dropped the matter. (I’m not sure this story is true, but it sounds true.)

As a businessman, Trump has a knack for discerning bad deals, so it’s not surprising he hit on NATO as a “bad” one. Why was America spending so much, allegedly to defend Europe, when Europeans themselves were spending far less for their own defense? Does America even need NATO? Once again, Trump’s advisers intervened, keeping the U.S. in NATO even as Trump did win commitments from some European countries to spend more on their militaries.

Trump ran in 2016 on the idea of draining the swamp, after which he surrounded himself with advisers drawn from the swamp, especially retired military generals. They were allegedly the “adults in the room” who were meant to control Trump’s worst impulses. What they ensured was that nothing fundamentally changed in the Trump administration, especially for the military-industrial-congressional complex and similar power complexes.

I’ve read, and I think it’s probably true, that Trump expected to lose in 2016. He ran because the Republican competition was so weak, and it gave him a platform to rebuild his popularity, which he apparently wanted to parlay into another lucrative TV deal. That November, Trump was as surprised as most Americans were when he won. He should have listened to his wife, Melania, who predicted he would win if he ran.

I’ve called Trump a con man, and I stand by that. And he’s a good one! He is absolutely shameless and will slap and stamp his name on anything to make a few bucks, whether it’s Bibles, towers, vodka, steak, sneakers, a university, you name it. This doesn’t make him a “bad” person. It makes him a shameless and therefore highly effective grifter.

Trump recognized in 2015 that the Republican candidates arrayed against him were nowhere near as skilled as he was at attracting attention and selling illusions. That’s how he was able to dispatch JV competitors like Low Energy Jeb, Little Marco, and Lyin’ Ted so quickly. In this, he was aided by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats’ “pied piper” strategy of encouraging Trump. Be careful what you wish for, Hillary.

Trump, unlike so many U.S. politicians, occasionally blurts out a big truth. The Iraq War was a disaster. The U.S. is in decline and is no longer the “greatest” nation. NATO is obsolete. Far too many people are dying in the needless and awful Russia-Ukraine War. We’re in Syria to steal its oil. We want Venezuela’s oil too. If you think Russia has killers, so does the United States. And so on. It’s not Trump’s cons that piss off the establishment. It’s those rare truths that Trump lets slip that they despise.

Yes, Trump is a con man, but he’s a genuine con man. He is exactly what he appears to be. In this sense, Trump is more genuine—more real—than most politicians, Republican and Democrat, who pose as public servants even as they practice their own grifts.

“War Paint” was the first idea that popped into my head when I saw this image

Trump, whatever else you can say about the man, often has superb political instincts. His raised fist and cry of “fight, fight, fight” after the assassination attempt made for stunning theater. The blood smeared on his face looked like war paint.

Trump, in sum, is a complex man, talented and flawed, perceptive and undisciplined, intuitive and uninformed, determined and manipulable. What he is not, in my opinion, is a public servant. What he is likely to become is our next president.

If so, one can only wish he shows a capacity for growth and a spirit of true public service. Whatever else he is or becomes, he is a quintessentially American figure.

Donald Trump Survives Assassination Attempt

W.J. Astore

An Update

Last night, Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt at a political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was killed. He was apparently a registered Republican. He was armed with an AR-15 and fired eight times. He was 20 years old.

It’s unclear whether Trump’s ear was bloodied by a bullet or from shrapnel.

The shooting produced an indelible image of Trump bloodied yet standing defiant with his fist raised.

Reactions reflect the polarization of our times. With no evidence, people suggested the event was staged, basically a photo op for Trump. Tell that to the one bystander who was killed and another two who were critically wounded.

The usual cry of “violence has no place in America” was nonsensical, given America’s violent history and its ongoing facilitation of violence across the globe.

Some commentators have opined that Trump, in his defiant stance, won the 2024 election last night. Though I wouldn’t go that far, Trump’s supporters will certainly be even more highly motivated to vote for him in November, whereas motivation within the Democratic Party is on the wane.

“We’re off our rockers,” my wife said this morning, and as usual she’s right.

Here’s hoping that this will be the last violent event of this highly polarized election season.