By all accounts, the police responded to the alarm in Dayton remarkably quickly. And yet, a man with a semi-automatic weapon managed to kill nine people in about thirty seconds.
Think about that the next time someone tells you that the only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
The concept: Bring back the Obama coalition! Increase the number of young and minority voters relative to 2016, while holding on to enough white workers to beat Trump.
The challenge: One of them has to eliminate the other and then inherit Biden’s realo voters after the latter is annihilated during the debates.
The prognosis: This concept worked in 2008 and 2012. In very different ways, I think both of them can appeal to enough white workers to win a general election. Can they get past Biden first? They will probably need some unwitting assistance from Warren for that to happen. Chance of success: 20 percent.
Gun rights are naturally associated with the GOP, but it’s a little more complicated than that; only the CLs and the Reactionaries (of course!) are passionate gun supporters. Guns have no appeal whatsoever for CDs, and they’re irrelevant to the PBP agenda.
Lots of PBPs are suburban women who have reason to fear uncontrolled gun ownership. Massacres with automatic weapons don’t exactly help sell them on the GOP brand. Is there an opening here for the Democrats?
Yes, if done properly. If your objective is to bring about the “revolution” by converting large numbers of reactionary white male workers, you would be wise to try to reconcile the Democrats’ agenda with gun ownership instead of attacking guns head on. But if your plan is merely to win the election by peeling off potential swing voters in the suburbs, you would be wise to hit this issue really, really hard in 2020.
Guns don’t kill people; video games kill people. Or so says the GOP.
Then why do video games only kill people in this country?
George W. Bush sent troops to Iraq to impose liberal democratic values and create a model state for the Middle East. Thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, lost their lives as a result. Iraq predictably wound up as a ramshackle democracy and an Iranian client state. It was a disaster.
When Qaddafi threatened to exterminate Libyan rebels, our European allies persuaded a somewhat reluctant Barack Obama to assist the insurgents with air power. The campaign was a military success, and the government was toppled, but no one had a viable plan for what came next. The country is still engulfed in a civil war. It was a disaster.
When the Arab Spring came to Damascus, neither Obama nor Trump was willing to provide any meaningful military assistance to the rebels. Assad, with lots of foreign help, turned his country into a pile of rubble. Hundreds of thousands died, and millions left, destabilizing the area and European politics, to boot. It was a disaster.
Both Obama and Trump, albeit for slightly different reasons, have supported the Saudi war in Yemen. It has created a humanitarian disaster for minimal geopolitical gain.
What is the message from this? Your first response is probably to stay out of the Middle East altogether, and there is something to that. The real lesson, however, is to stick to our core mission of preventing terrorism and keeping the oil flowing, and to avoid any big military or political projects. That is a reasonably limited goal, and is achievable.
The NRA makes a great scapegoat for the Democrats, just like Wall Street, drug companies, and fossil fuel industries, but the real cause here goes much deeper than that. As I’ve noted many times before, to a reactionary, guns aren’t objects; they’re icons representing strength, independence, masculinity, Christianity, and the rejection of a government that they view as being hostile to all of those values. The NRA is just the most prominent mouthpiece for those views.
As long as reactionaries continue to feel this way and comprise a substantial part of the electorate, there will be little or no progress on gun violence. Appalling as these events and that statement may be, that’s just the way it is.
The concept: Clintonism without Clinton’s baggage and unpopularity. Hold on to Clinton’s voters, appeal to white male workers through identity politics and a degree of economic populism, win the Never Trumpers with reasonably moderate policy proposals, and take advantage of Trump’s unpopularity with millennials, women, and minorities.
The challenge: Surviving numerous debates with Elizabeth Warren, who will be looking to take him apart. It could happen.
The prognosis: The concept is sound; the candidate’s personal frailties are the issue. Chance of success: 40 percent.
Based on history and culture, every nation is exceptional. What makes American exceptionalism unique is its focus on politics and the belief that it can and will work everywhere in the world. Historically, Americans have argued that what some call bourgeois freedoms are universal rights, and that any country that observes them will thrive. This belief in universal rights, and America’s obligation to enforce them, has led us into a number of quagmires, but it has also resulted in greater freedom and prosperity in most of the world.
National conservatives don’t believe in that version of American exceptionalism. To them, American exceptionalism revolves around history and culture; in that sense, it is the same as Russian or Chinese or Israeli exceptionalism. The rest of the “America First” agenda follows naturally from that premise. Why would America fight for universal rights if they aren’t universal, but arise from a specific set of historical circumstances that aren’t present in most of the world?
It’s October, 2021. The financial crisis is in full swing. It’s 2008 all over again. Everyone is looking to Washington for answers. What will President Sanders do?
Bernie really, really hates bank bailouts. He thinks Obama blew it by not exacting tons of flesh–pounds wouldn’t be nearly enough–in exchange for saving Wall Street. He fears that the big banks will wind up bigger and more powerful than ever if Congress passes another TARP. And so, he does nothing, and lets the vampire squid take the medicine they so richly deserve.
The problem is, the rest of us go down, too. The Great Recession of 2008 is replaced by something more akin to 1929. Unemployment reaches levels not seen in 90 years.
Isn’t that, in and of itself, enough reason not to vote for Sanders?
Brexit under Theresa May was a stopped-up mess. The government kept holding votes on the same plan, to no effect. She couldn’t go forward, and she couldn’t go back. Parliament’s attempts to take control of the process were equally ineffectual. The system was at an impasse.
To use a medical metaphor, the body politic was constipated.
Enter Boris Johnson, who is determined to deliver Brexit, come what may. It may be unconstitutional, and it’s certainly going to be ugly, but it’s going to happen.
To extend the metaphor, guess what’s about to hit the fan!
It’s July, 2020. The stock market is crashing as the result of Trump’s latest gambit in the trade war. Normally, investors would be looking to the president for reassurance, but in this case, Trump is responsible for the instability, and no one believes a word he says, anyway.
Enter Jerome Powell, who promises to do anything necessary to avoid a financial meltdown. The markets regain confidence, and a crisis is averted.
And so, a man who is the target of endless baseless complaints from President Trump manages to save his presidency. It could happen. If it does, don’t expect any gratitude.
On the Democrat front runner Joe.
He and Kamala went to-and-fro.
And Cory jumped in.
So who got the win?
The pundits say no one, you know.
Donald Trump constantly complains that CNN is “fake news.” Today, he must think they’re his best friends.
Debates always tend to turn into purity tests. This favors outsider candidates with skimpy records over establishment figures with much lengthier resumes. The CNN moderators made this worse by deliberately asking questions that were intended to maximize conflict. I suppose it made for more interesting TV, but I don’t think it really helped anyone identify the person who is best positioned to beat Trump and run the country, which is the ultimate point of the exercise from the Democrats’ point of view.
The format and the questioning also leave the casual viewer with the impression that the candidates disagree with each other to a greater extent than they actually do. Immigration is a perfect example. Whether illegal entry is a civil or a criminal offense is, as far as I can tell, a very minor matter in a much larger picture, but the fringe candidates and the moderators emphasized it because it gave them an opportunity to preen and feel important.
As to the performances, Booker probably won just by looking competent and taking the least amount of fire from the others. Harris is clearly more comfortable dealing with identity issues than policy specifics. Biden was better, but some of his attacks on Harris and Booker were pretty inept, and he still looked older and less forceful than some of the others. Tulsi Gabbard probably scored more points than anyone. The question is, in the long run (or even next week), who cares? You don’t govern with zingers.
The one is a conviction politician who doesn’t seem to realize that the UK has changed quite a bit since 1945. The other is a rogue with impressive political gifts and almost no convictions. Yes, Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson are polar opposites. Who will get the better of the other?
Corbyn would do serious damage to his party regardless of the quality of the opposition. Boris will give him the final shove, and then Labour will spend years picking up the pieces.
Night #1 of Debate #2 featured a pretty intense battle between two also-ran realos and the two fundis–Sanders and Warren. The realos held their own this time. That was encouraging.
I expected a pillow fight between Sanders and Warren, but got even less than that. For the purposes of last night, the two were substantive and rhetorical twins. Warren was even shouting angrily and scapegoating big (fill in the blank) just the way Bernie does. There was absolutely no distance between the two, except that Warren did a little better job of generating positive sound bites.
Warren likes to portray herself as a reformer trying to save capitalists from themselves, but last night, she looked more like someone who actually despises businessmen. Her misguided and heavy-handed proposal to use trade deals and access to our markets to club our allies into adopting left-wing policies sounds like something Jeremy Corbyn could love. It would be fair to call that approach to trade left-wing Trumpism. If you’re a Warren fan, you should be concerned; demonizing the goose that lays the golden egg is not a good way to campaign or govern.