Monday, November 18, 2024

Trump DefSec pick Pete Hegseth (Hint: He's not a nice guy. Nor competent for that office)

The Popular Information team of Judd Legum, Rebecca Crosby, and Noel Sims have provided the following list of 13 helpful bullet points about Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. (1) And they provide additional details on each of them in their post. Including the tattoo photo shown below.

  1. Hegseth says women should not be in combat roles
  2. Hegseth paid a woman who accused him of rape to sign an NDA
  3. Hegseth published a column in college that claimed having sex with an unconscious woman is not rape
  4. Hegseth is a serial philanderer, making him a target for blackmail
  5. Hegseth criticized injured veterans who receive government assistance
  6. Hegseth praised [the torture technique of] “waterboarding," blasted the Geneva Conventions
  7. Hegseth dismissed moral concerns about the use of nuclear weapons
  8. Hegseth pushed Trump to pardon service members convicted of war crimes
  9. Hegseth said the United Nations should be shut down
  10. Hegseth has a tattoo associated with white nationalists
  11. Hegseth is a member of a Christian supremacist church
  12. Hegseth said rising Muslim birth rates were causing "a slow motion 9/11"
  13. Hegseth promoted editorial comparing same-sex marriage to bestiality 
Hegseth's tattoo:



One of his quirky positions is to rename the Defence Department:
He has ... reportedly called for the Defence Department to be renamed the War Department and for a 10-year ban on generals working as defence contractors after leaving the military.

Those views have earned Hegseth many conservative fans, particularly those close to the president-elect. But some also question whether he is capable of running an agency that is considered one of the world's largest bureaucracies, with a budget of nearly $900bn (£708bn). (2)
Actually, the idea of banning former generals from working as lobbyists or defense contractors within 10 years of leaving their general’s post is not a bad idea. I very much doubt he’s serious about it though. This is the kind of extra slogans conservatives like to toss out when they want to sound a bit populist. Most of them never mean it. And it’s hard to imagine Hegseth does, either.

Also, from 1789 to 1949, that Department was named the War Department. “Defense Department” sounds a bit nobler. Whether its truth-in-advertising value was enhanced by the name change is another question.

His position on Ukraine sounds a bit mugwumpy. But nobody knows what Trump’s actual policy on Ukraine is, probably Trump himself least of all. Whatever Trump does on the Russia-Ukraine War would require some very complicated diplomacy tobe effective. A dogmatic rightwinger like Hegseth with zero experience in either senior management of a large organization or any “diplomacy” beyond repeating rightwing slogans isn’t likely to add much to such a messy diplomatic undertaking.

Notes:

(1) 13 things everyone should know about Pete Hegseth. Popular Information (Substack) 11/18/2024. <https://popular.info/p/13-things-everyone-should-know-about> (Accessed: 2024-18-1024. The bullet-points displayed are exact quotes.

(2) McCausland, Phil & Halpert, Madeline (2024): Trump's 'anti-woke' defence pick surprises Washington - here's why. BBC News 11/13/2024. <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c04lvv6ee3lo> (Accessed: 2024-18-1024).

(3) Borger, Julian (2024): Pentagon stunned after Trump picks Pete Hegseth for defence secretary. The Guardian 11/13/2024 <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/13/pentagon-stunned-after-trump-picks-pete-hegseth-for-defence-secretary> (Accessed: 2024-18-1024).

(4) Samuels, Ben (2024): Only Netanyahu Could Have Chosen a Cushier Trump Foreign Policy Team. Haaretz 11/13/2024. <https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-11-13/ty-article/.premium/only-netanyahu-could-have-chosen-a-cushier-trump-foreign-policy-team/00000193-25c9-d76b-afd7-a7d9336d0001?gift=57e086ba810440aa858c649c6f9e84ea> (Accessed: 2024-18-1024).

(5) Butler, Kiera (2024): Trump’s Defense Secretary Pick Hopes for a Christian Crusade. Mother Jones 11/15/2024. <https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/11/trump-peter-hegseth-defense-secretary-pick-theobros-hopes-for-a-christian-crusade/> (Accessed: 2024-18-1024).

Sunday, November 17, 2024

Those Amsterdam Anti-Semitism Reports and the Serious Need for Professional and Accurate Journalism

A free press and good-quality press is a necessity for democratic government to function well. This means that liberal democracies need legal structures to prevent excessive control of the news by governments and ruling parties and economic oligarchies.

Viktor Orbán’s Hungary is a model case of how a liberal democracy has failed in that essential elements of democratic governance. But every situation has its particular aspects, as well. But oligarchic ownership is also a factor in the US, e.g., Jeff Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post. Amazon, the company Bezos founded and for which he is still the executive chairperson, has large contracts with the US government.From 2022:
Not only is Amazon a preferred vendor for agencies across the federal government, but just in the past week the National Security Agency re-awarded a $10 billion contract to Amazon Web Services for cloud computing. The brother of Biden’s top aide Steve Ricchetti is a lobbyist with a contract to work for Amazon.

That contract comes on top of 26 other federal cloud computing contracts with the U.S. Army and Air Force; the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Interior; the U.S. Census Bureau; and numerous other agencies. …

… [Sen. Bernie] Sanders has been trying to block another $10 billion NASA contract for a new moon landing, presumed to be earmarked for Blue Origin, the space company owned by Amazon founder and former CEO Bezos. (1)
But journalistic professionalism, a commitment to responsible reporting, providing adequate context are also important. The reporting on violence in Amsterdam following a recent soccer match provides a dramatic example of why that is important: (2)


Owen Jones has published several reports on the controversy, including this one: (3)


Mehdi Hasan also reports on it for his Zeteo channel: (4)


Antisemitism is a serious problem and needs to be reported accurately.

It’s not hard to believe that some of the reactions to the Israeli soccer hooligans included anti-Semitism. But the provocations also were not something that popped up after the soccer match:
Tensions began in Amsterdam when thousands of Israeli fans, some of them soldiers or reservists in the Israeli army, arrived for the Maccabi Tel Aviv vs. Ajax match on Thursday evening, 7 November. They are not your typical sports fan, as they are exclusively male and divided into fascist groups such as the Maccabi Fanatics, as evidenced by their chants, slogans and posters. Since the middle of the week, they have been harassing peaceful demonstrations showing solidarity with Palestine across Amsterdam and have begun threatening Dutch taxi drivers of Arab and Muslim backgrounds. The Israeli fans have been clearly aggressive, threatening passersby and those filming their violent behaviour with iron bars, and there have been reports of provocations and attacks, particularly against taxi drivers. Palestinian flags hanging from some windows in the city were the target of their vandalism, and video clips showed some of them climbing walls in an unexpected manner in Amsterdam, tearing down the flags and ripping them.

The Maccabi Fanatics group organised provocative gatherings and fascist marches during their presence in Amsterdam, especially on Wednesday and Thursday (6 and 7 November), such as in the central Dam Square, during which signs were raised glorifying the Israeli occupation army and supporting the war it has been waging for a year on the Gaza Strip. Maccabi fans stuck a huge number of posters bearing fascist symbols in the name of their various groups on poles and walls in the heart of the Dutch city, and insulted those who objected to their expressions, as documented by video footage.

The city’s roads and means of transportation were crowded with Israeli fans who continued to chant slogans praising the Israeli army, supporting the ongoing brutal war, and openly celebrating the killing of children in the Gaza Strip, in addition to the disgusting racist chants against the Palestinian people and Arabs, in general. These themes were repeated relentlessly in the lyrics of the Maccabi Fanatics fan anthem, a fascist anthem filled with very aggressive and offensive words, the lyrics of which are published in Hebrew on the group’s websites. The fact that this anthem was sung on the streets, in the subway stations and even in the stadium, is shocking by all standards, and this was done before the eyes of UEFA officials and delegates and Dutch police officers, of course. Due to the lyrics of the fascist anthem being in Hebrew, the fans sometimes made sure to say parts of it in English as well, sometimes using it as offensive insults. (5)
Middle East Eye reported:
Israeli far-right ultras are notorious for anti-Palestinian verbal and physical violence.

In March, travelling Maccabi Tel Aviv fans brutally beat a man who was carrying a Palestinian flag in Athens ahead of their team's match against Greek team Olympiacos.

Earlier this year, rights group FairSquare had written to Uefa President Aleksander Ceferin and criticised the European footballing body of “double standards” for excluding Russian teams from its competitions since February 2022 but refusing to rule out making a similar move against Israel.

Nicholas McGeehan, who is a founder of FairSquare, highlighted the track record of racist chanting by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and criticised how Dutch authorities painted them as "innocent victims of antisemitism."

“Israel’s most senior leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly courted far-right football supporters in Israel and have received their violent support in return. The well-documented racism and violence exhibited by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam mirrors the thuggery of the Israeli government in Gaza and Lebanon,” McGeehan told MEE. (6)
Em Hilton points to a significant risk in carelessly portraying such events as “pogroms”:
Social media [after the Amsterdam incidents] was awash with the crassest parallels imaginable — including memes of Anne Frank wearing a Maccabi Tel Aviv shirt — taking the debasement of the memory of Jews’ persecution at the hands of the Nazis and their allies to new levels. How darkly ironic that these events overshadowed the actual anniversary of the Kristallnacht, at a time when the consequences of racist, state-backed violence feel so relevant.

In the wake of October 7, scholars of antisemitism, genocide, and Jewish history have warned of the ways that particularly traumatic episodes in Jewish history have been evoked to justify Israel’s onslaught on Gaza and crack down on those who criticize it. As antisemitism scholar Brendan McGeever articulated clearly, despite being brutal and disturbing, the incident in Amsterdam was no pogrom — the term for an attack on an oppressed group with the backing of the authorities. The proliferation of this term and others like it in the aftermath of the violence only served to obfuscate the reality of those events through creating mass hysteria. ...

There are myriad cases from the past year in which European nationalism has been invoked to align the fight against antisemitism with a xenophobic, anti-immigrant agenda. In France, for example, the inaugural “March Against Antisemitism and for the Republic” was spearheaded by National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, who was subsequently successful in pushing the current French government to pass draconian anti-immigration legislation that specifically targets people of color. Once persecuted as enemies of the state, Jews have now been transformed into a model minority in whose name France is excluding and attacking Muslim communities.

From [Israel’s] Netanyahu and [the Netherlands’s Geert] Wilders to [the UK’s Tommy] Robinson and [France’s Marine] Le Pen, it is in the interest of far-right leaders everywhere to enlist Jews as foot soldiers in their war on those they most despise. As they increasingly work to blur the line between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, we must resist this conflation while also standing with Jewish communities against the very real threat that unchecked antisemitism poses. [my emphasis] (7)
Gideon Levy, a longtime critic of the Israeli occupation and now of Israel’s current war(s), looks at how the Amsterdam events were integrated by some Israeli commentators and politicians into an Israeli rightwing narrative and the toxic distortions it produces:
That's how it is when you live in the warm, cozy bubble, completely disconnected from reality, in complete denial, that the Israeli media builds for us: We are always the victims and the only victims; there was a massacre only on October 7; all of Gaza is to blame; all of the Arabs are bloodthirsty; all of Europe is antisemitic. Do you have any doubt? See Kristallnacht in Amsterdam.

And now for the facts: In Amsterdam, some of the Israeli fans rampaged in the streets even before the pogrom: disgusting, shouted chants of "We'll screw the Arabs" (in Hebrew) and the removal of a Palestinian flag legitimately hanging from the balcony of a building were almost never shown in the Israeli media, which could spoil the image of antisemitism. No one asked the first question that the sight of the violence and hatred in Amsterdam should have raised: Why do they hate us so much? No, it's not because we are Jews.

Not that there isn't antisemitism: Of course there is, and it must be fought, but the attempt to pin everything on it is ridiculous and mendacious. An anti-Israeli wind blew in Amsterdam Thursday, and that's what ignited the [so-called] pogrom. The North African immigrants, the Arabs and the Dutch people who rioted saw the horrors in Gaza over the past year. They are not willing to remain silent about them. (8)
Notes:

(1) Facundo, Jarod (2022): Bernie Sanders Puts Amazon’s Billions in Federal Contracts at Risk. The American Prospect 05/06/2022. <https://prospect.org/power/bernie-sanders-puts-amazons-billions-in-federal-contracts-at-risk/> (Accessed: 2024-16-11).

(2) International media accused of skewing and lying in coverage of Amsterdam riots. FRANCE 24 YouTube channel 11/15/2024. <https://youtu.be/z8E9gPM-pkY?si=eQKW3d4JaZJ4m_n2> (Accessed: 2024-16-11).

(3) Witness To Israeli Hooligan Rampage Exposes How Media LIED About Her Footage. Owen Jones YouTube channel 11/12/2024. <https://youtu.be/2HFM_V1rnPA?si=1oybpWTR7-Q-MeLm> (Accessed: 2024-16-11).

(4) Israeli Soccer Attacks: Amsterdam Photographer on What Really Happened. Zeteo YouTube Channel 11/13/2024. <https://youtu.be/ZjoQkPXA_us?si=Sw7NphZXISi4ea2C> (Accessed: 2024-16-11).

(5) Shaker, Hossam (2024): Why should Europe be concerned about the events in Amsterdam? Middle East Monitor 11/11/2024. <https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241111-why-should-europe-be-concerned-about-the-events-in-amsterdam/> (Accessed: 2024-16-11). Juan Cole’s Informed Comment site states, “Middle East Monitor is a not-for-profit press monitoring organization... The editorial line straddles the British left and the British Muslim religious Right.”

(6) Fayyad, Huthifa & Ullah, Areeb (2024): Israeli hooligans provoke clashes in Amsterdam after chanting anti-Palestinian slogans. Middle East Eye 11/08/20204. <https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israeli-hooligans-provoke-clashes-amsterdam-after-chanting-anti-palestinian-slogans> (Accessed: 2024-16-11).

(7) Hilton, Em (2024): Weaponizing Jewish fear, from Tel Aviv to Amsterdam. +972 Magazine 11/15/2024. <https://www.972mag.com/amsterdam-maccabi-tel-aviv-antisemitism/> (Accessed: 2024-16-11).

(8) Levy, Gideon (2024): The Amsterdam Attack Shows Israelis' Denial of the Reality They Created. Haaretz 11/10/2024. <https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-11-10/ty-article-opinion/.premium/from-amsterdam-to-the-hawara-pogroms-are-wrong/00000193-128f-d304-a3db-16ff60fb0000?gift=dce43da2993b4f89a1fd52e53ea21b79> (Accessed: 2024-16-11).

Thursday, November 14, 2024

Incoming President Trump and the Russia-Ukraine War

"If Trump wins, there will be an early push for a peace settlement. He will not meet all Russia's demands, but Russia may still provisionally accept, in the hope that Ukraine (and Poland) will reject them, and Trump will then abandon Ukraine,” says Anatol Lieven, head of the Quincy Institute’s Eurasia program.

“We will then have to see whether Trump and his administration have the skill and stamina to conduct a complicated and fraught negotiating process.” [my emphasis] (1)
When it comes to evaluating the Trump II Administration’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine War, my first reference point is the old saying, “It’s easier to get into a war than to get out of one.”

Ironically, Lyndon Johnson was very much aware of that fact. But he wound up blundering into the Vietnam War that destroyed his Presidency and put Richard Nixon in the White House anyway. But he understood that wars are incredibly messy. Unlike the neocon fantasists in the 2000s who were babbling about how a regime-change war in Iraq would be a “cakewalk,” LBJ knew that wars were devilishly complicated. In a call with McGeorge Bundy on May 27, 1964 he said:
I will tell you the more, I just stayed awake last night thinking of this thing, and the more that I think of it I don’t know what in the hell, it looks like to me that we’re getting into another Korea. It just worries the hell out of me. I don’t see what we can ever hope to get out of there with once we’re committed. I believe the Chinese Communists are coming into it. I don’t think that we can fight them 10,000 miles away from home and ever get anywhere in that area. I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I don’t think we can get out. And it’s just the biggest damn mess that I ever saw.

Bundy: It is an awful mess.

Johnson: And we just got to think about it. Iʼm looking at this Sergeant of mine this morning and heʼs got 6 little old kids over there, and heʼs getting out my things, and bringing me in my night reading, and all that kind of stuff, and I just thought about ordering all those kids in there. And what in the hell am I ordering them out there for? What in the hell is Vietnam worth to me? What is Laos worth to me? What is it worth to this country? We've got a treaty but hell, everybody else has got a treaty out there, and they're not doing a thing about it. (2)
That last line is also particularly memorable. (Hail, boy, ever’body has a treaty!)

This was a couple of months before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which prompted Johnson to make the fatal plunge into a much larger direct US involvement.

But despite his awareness of the risks, he wound up plunging ahead anyway.

In February of 2024, Matthew Burrows assessed the situation in the Ukraine War this way:
The Russo-Ukrainian War risks following the usual pattern of other interstate conflicts since 1946: absent the end of fighting during the first year, conventional wars last over a decade on average. [A truly grim observation!] The most likely endings are a frozen conflict or cease-fire potentially sooner than a decade, and perhaps, over time, a negotiated armistice. Peace treaties have become rare for all interstate wars since 1950. The worst case would be if the Russo-Ukrainian conflict turns into a dress rehearsal for a broader East-West war involving the U.S. and China. Although that outcome is currently far less likely than a frozen conflict or cease-fire, it cannot be ruled out in a world where the major powers are increasingly divided. …

Achieving a successful armistice to stop the Ukraine War would take many months if not years. At the moment, Russia and Ukraine are far from seriously considering an end to the fighting. [This certainly appears to be true in November of 2024, as well.] Putin is feeling confident; the Russian economy is doing well despite sanctions; and Ukraine’s poor counteroffensive might suggest to Putin that Russia could be successful in conquering more territory in the four oblasts — Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia — that the Kremlin has formally annexed. Putin has recently called on the U.S. to begin peace talks that would “cede” Ukrainian territory to Russia — a demand that might be accepted by a Trump presidency but would most likely be rejected by Ukraine and most NATO members. [my emphasis] (3)
The triumphalist Western advocates of unlimited aid to Ukraine don’t want to hear how complicated it is for the US and the EU countries to arrange some kind of end to the war. Because many of them imagine this to be a new version of “Afghanistan,” i.e., the idea that supporting a years-long guerilla war against the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan by Islamic jihadist – pardon me, by “brave Mujahadeen freedom fighters” - brought down the Soviet Union. In this fantasy of the past, the USSR becoming a petrostate with all the complications that brought, the expense of maintaining the “Eastern bloc” countries, and the challenge of modernizing the economy while attempting a democratizing political transformation had little or nothing to do with it. Nah, those were just incidental factoids. The US financing a war for Afghans to die fighting against the Rooskies – that was the trick!

Competing real-world interests

Ukraine itself, of course, has very immediate and pressing national interests at stake. They need to stop the war. Large portions of their national territory is under Russian control, some of it formally annexed by Russia. (Annexations not recognized in international law.) The war is basically in a stalemate in a standoff depending on artillery battles. Russia has more artillery shells and the domestic capacity to produce lots more. Meanwhile, the US and Europe are running low on artillery shells due to how much they have delivered to Ukraine.

And Russia has far more personnel resources than Ukraine, also a critical factor in what is essentially a war of attrition. By available measures, the war is very popular in Russia. Aside from the bizarre Wagner Group rebellion led by the since-deceased Yevgeny Prigozhin in 2023, there are no significant political opposition evident, although there has been evidence of a significant amount of draft evasion.

Russia claims to see Ukraine as critical to its national security. In particular, it claims to view Ukraine’s membership in NATO as a major security threat, something about which Vladimir Putin has been publicly and explicitly clear since 2007. Ukraine is a sovereign country. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the much bigger one of 2022 are clear violations of international law.

But from the debates over the first post-1989 eastward expansion of NATO beyond the newly-unified Germany, international-relations “realists” included George Kennan warned that as a very practical matter, Russian governments of any composition would see this as a security threat. The more so the closer the NATO boundaries came to Russia. Kaarel Piirimäe has recently observed, “Curiously, long after the man’s passing, the question about the fallacy or rightness of ‘Kennanism’ seems to be as pertinent today as it was more than sixty years ago.” (4)
Kennan expected that NATO expansion would give rise to undemocratic and anti-Western forces in Russia and would lead to another Cold War, but was certain that official Washington would persist. He was right: it proved easy for Clinton to ignore not only Kennan, ... but, more remarkably, the majority of the U.S. foreign policy and scholarly establishments.
There are always roads not taken. Some of them more consequential than others.

Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer even advised Ukraine at the time of its post-Soviet independence that giving up the nuclear weapons stationed on their territory was a risky security move. But US policymakers in particular were convinced that the End of History had arrived, and we didn’t need to pay such close attention to the tacky pragmatic considerations that the grumpy realists warned about.

What would a real diplomatic solution look like?

One (theoretical) possibility is that Russia would agree to withdraw from all of Ukraine’s territory and fund the reconstruction of Ukraine. This is unlikely to happen in this dimension. At least not for a long time and only with major changes inside Russia. Short version: This ain’t happening.

Another plausible solution might be, for instance, some kind of permanent ceasefire with Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia (except for Crimea) being somehow demilitarized under international supervision and the status of Crimea being kicked down the road to some future round of negotiations. Russia wouldn’t pay reparations but would undertake comprehensive de-landmining operations in the areas it occupied. And all Ukrainian refugees in Russia including those taken as children would have the option to return to Ukraine. This would be an incredibly complicated diplomatic negotiation to reach such a solution. It is unimaginable based on Donald Trump’s track record that his Administration could ever negotiate such a solution.

Given the right combination of political pressure internally and externally, and also of bribes of some kind to Trump or his family businesses by interested players – this is basically what people mean when they say politely that Trump is “transactional” in his approach to foreign policy – the following is at least conceivable: a Korean-style indefinite military armistice which leaves Ukraine as a rump state with the currently Russian-occupied territories being run by Russia indefinitely. And rump-Ukraine not as a member of NATO, not even as a de facto one.

But even the latter would be a very complex solution with massive diplomatic implications worldwide. And that would require the Russians to be confident they could rely on the unpredictable Trump to hold up his end of whatever bargain was made.

John Feffer in 2023 looked at the “Korean” option for Ukraine:
[T]he [Korean] armistice ended three years of terrible bloodletting. It created an international mechanism to keep the two warring sides from violating the terms of the agreement. And it has proven quite durable, having lasted for seven decades.

But the armistice also didn’t officially end the Korean War. It marked what was supposed to be a temporary truce. Both sides hoped for the reunification of the peninsula, though they obviously had different visions of what that reunification would look like. Nor has the armistice given way to a more durable peace.

The armistice redrew a line through the Korean peninsula that U.S. military officials initially established at the Potsdam conference in 1945 as World War II was coming to an end. That line runs not only through Korean territory but also through Korean families, Korean culture, Korean language, and one way or another the souls of every Korean person wherever they might live.

Until the 1970s, the armistice divided two relatively similar countries. ... But then South Korea struck off in a different direction and became a much more prosperous country, with democratic institutions and a culture open to the world. Reunification seemed structurally feasible 50 years ago, despite the obvious difference in ruling ideologies. Today, the DMZ created by the armistice separates two vastly different worlds.

The armistice saved lives. But it has also institutionalized a deeply hurtful division. [my emphasis] (5)
The very fact that the armistice was based on a line established among the Second World War allies at Potsdam – just like the demarcation lines between West and East Germany - gave that solution an international political and legal credibility that any such settlement for Ukraine reached by a Trump Administration is ever likely to have. At least not on this plane of existence.

John Lough at Chatham House outlines Putin’s conditions for a settlement as including the following: (1) demilitarization of Ukraine; (2) Ukraine must be a neutral country; (3) acceptance of Russian annexation of Crimea and the two eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk; (4) an end to Western sanctions against Russia. (6) And he observes:
Trump might readily agree to these terms. But to do so without evidence of reciprocal flexibility by Putin will expose him to accusations of naivety and weakness as a negotiator.

Trump could easily brush aside claims that he was outsmarted by Putin. But a charge that he was a weak negotiator would offend his vanity and damage his image in the view of Chinese policymakers – who will be watching closely.

It is fair to assume that Trump will want to avoid this perception since he has worked hard to create the impression that China, Iran and others should continue to fear him in his second term.
Sveto Yefimenko explains the limits on the the prospect for Trump making a Ukraine peace settlement in light of the NATO countries’ unwillingness to back away from their foolish formal declaration in 2008 that both Ukraine and Georgia would someday become NATO members. Ukraine’s government itself, of course, would have to be part of a peace settlement.
Trump’s new administration has yet to reckon with a timeworn international relations concept: the dreaded commitment problem.

The problem goes like this: when negotiating, say, the terms of a peace treaty, states have a difficult time making credible promises not to use force in the future because the state whose power is ascendant will have a powerful incentive to renege on the treaty and grab more land later on. Consider the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine agreed to give up the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the United States, and the UK. A weak post-Soviet Russia, swept up in the friendly mood of the 1990s, gave security assurances to Ukraine.

Two decades later, a resurgent Russia annexed the strategically valuable Crimean peninsula. Eight years later, it launched a full-scale attack on a country whose sovereignty and territorial integrity it had once promised to respect.

The lesson for Ukraine is bitterly clear: Russian security guarantees cannot be trusted. This time around, it is not clear who would guarantee Kyiv’s security following a possible peace deal, especially if Moscow continues to find NATO troops on Ukrainian soil to be unacceptable. [my emphasis] (7)
We’ll see what Trump can deliver. Hint: Don’t hold your breath for a peace settlement.

From Deutsche Welle English: (8)


Notes:

(1) Vlahos, Kelley Beaucar (2024): Ukraine War well beyond Trump-Harris election. Responsible Statecraft 11/05/2024. <https://responsiblestatecraft.org/harris-trump-election-ukraine/> (Accessed: 2024-14-11).

(2) Telephone Conversation Between President Johnson and the Presidentʼs Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy). State Department Office of the Historian. <https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v27/d53> (Accessed: 2024-14-11). In a call of this nature, one should not that this was a focused, non-public interchange between the President and a key advisor. Johnson was sounding out Bundy’s reactions to his formulations, not composing the text for a policy statement or a historical essay.

(3) Burrows, Mathew (2024): Ending the War in Ukraine: Harder Than It Seems. Stimson Center 02/22/2024. <https://www.stimson.org/2024/ending-the-war-in-ukraine-harder-than-it-seems/> (Accessed: 2024-14-11).

(4) Piirimäe, Kaarel (2024): ‘Geopolitics of Sympathy’: George F. Kennan and NATO Enlargement. Diplomacy & Statecraft 35:1, 182-205. <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/09592296.2024.2303860?needAccess=true> (Accessed: 2024-14-11).

(5) Feffer, John (2023): Korean Armistice, Ukrainian Ceasefire. Foreign Policy in Focus 08/16/2023. <https://fpif.org/korean-armistice-ukrainian-ceasefire/> (Accessed: 2024-14-11).

(6) Lough, John (2024): Can Trump do a deal with Putin on Ukraine? Chatham House 11/12/2024. <https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/11/can-trump-do-deal-putin-ukraine> (Accessed: 2024-14-11).

(7) Yefimenko, Sveto (2024) What Trump’s Reelection Means for Russia. Foreign Policy in Focus 08/16/2023. <https://fpif.org/what-trumps-reelection-means-for-russia/> (Accessed: 2024-14-11).

(8) How Trump's personnel choices could affect the war in Ukraine. DW News YouTube channel 11/12/2024. <https://youtu.be/r0vdqmfGFHE?si=xxYThQmz7FGjt9cx> (Accessed: 2024-14-11).

Wednesday, November 13, 2024

The “Generals’ Plan” for Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza

The massive displacement of people we’re currently seeing in northern Gaza is part of an explicit plan for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in that area, known as the “Generals’ Plan.” Although that label shouldn’t hide the reality that Benjamin Netanyahu’s civilian government is carrying it out with the full support of the Biden Administration.

There is currently no sign that the incoming Trump Administration will be any less enthusiastic in providing full support for even the most blatantly genocidal actions Netanyahu’s government undertakes.

Idan Landau has summarized the Generals’ Plan this way:
The “Generals’ Plan,” published in early September, has a very simple goal: to empty the northern Gaza Strip of its Palestinian population. The plan itself estimated that about 300,000 people were still living north of the Netzarim Corridor — the Israeli-occupied zone that bisects Gaza — although the UN put the number closer to 400,000.

During the first phase of the plan, the Israeli army would inform all of those people that they have a week to evacuate to the south through two “humanitarian corridors.” In the second phase, at the end of that week, the army would declare the whole area a closed military zone. Anyone who remained would be considered an enemy combatant, and be killed if they didn’t surrender. A complete siege would be imposed on the territory, intensifying the hunger and health crisis - creating, as Prof. Uzi Rabi, a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University, put it, “a process of starvation or extermination.”

According to the plan, providing the civilian population advance warning to evacuate guarantees compliance with the requirements of international humanitarian law. This is a lie. The first protocol of the Geneva Conventions clearly states that warning civilians to flee does not negate the protected status of those who remain, and therefore does not permit military forces to harm them; nor does a military siege negate the army’s obligation to allow the passage of humanitarian aid to civilians. [my emphasis] (1)
Deutsche Welle English reports: (2)


Dahlia Scheindlin looks at what the outgoing Biden Administration could do to end the war, or at least move significantly in that direction:
The putative common aim of ending the war is misleading, though, since there are actually two paths to do so: One is by limiting Israel's capacity to wage it; the other is by giving in to Israel's most maximalist goals, in what has long since transformed from a defensive military response to a war of conquest.

The Trump administration could well take the latter path: Trump's former ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, has published his plan to crush Palestinian self-determination forever. Friedman could also play a key role in the next Trump administration. ...

If Biden wants to assert a coherent Democratic alternative, he needs to admit that bear hugs and bribery have not worked. What's left is to constrain Israel's capacity. A Democratic policy should anchor a cease-fire in Gaza to a long-term end of the occupation as a whole – this is not a punishment, but a service to Palestinians and Israelis alike. [my emphasis] (3)
The chances of that happening are vanishingly small, of course. But the Biden Administration is still in control of foreign policy until Trump’s Inauguration in January. So it’s worthwhile to point out what the real options are. It’s still possible to save some lives in the Gaza War. Whether Biden’s Administration has any real intention to do so is another question.

Scheindlin asks a pertinent (and obvious) question: “After Israel has breached so many administration ‘red lines,’ how low can U.S. credibility go? What power can America ever have if it can't enforce its own ultimatum with an ally, let alone opponents?”

She closes by noting why its worth shouting into the abyss:
Perhaps the biggest caveat of all [is]: If President Biden had been truly committed to either stopping the war or advancing conflict resolution – he could have taken the steps [I’ve recommended] already. The State Department's decision on Tuesday to drop the threat of military export sanctions seems like a sure sign that he won't start now.

But never let it be said that "ein ma l'asot" – there's nothing to be done. If not this list, fine – but Joe Biden must do something.
Notes:

(1) Landau, Idan (2024): Exterminate, expel, resettle: Israel’s endgame in northern Gaza. +972 Magazine 11/01/2024. <https://www.972mag.com/exterminate-expel-resettle-israel-northern-gaza/> (Accessed: 2024-13-11).

(2) Israel's Gaza siege fuels speculation about so-called 'Generals' plan''. DW News YouTube channel 10/28/2024. <https://youtu.be/ZO38GHKW8zo?si=9HxD2TG1gk9PZdm0> (Accessed: 2024-13-11).

(3) Scheindlin, Dahlia (2024): What 'Lame Duck' Biden Can Do to Stop the Gaza War. Haaretz 11/13/2024. <https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-11-13/ty-article-magazine/.premium/what-lame-duck-biden-can-do-to-stop-the-gaza-war/00000193-24db-db8b-addf-7cdb5d200000> (Accessed: 2024-13-11).

Tuesday, November 12, 2024

Adjusting to Trump II - Xenophobia edition

Rick Perlstein is a historian who is an expert on the Republican Party and the US Radical Right – to the extent there’s any meaningful difference between those two groups at all anymore.

He posted this Tuesday (11/12) on Facebook:
Trump and his team are sending signals that they want to begin immediately with mass deportations. Trump and his white supremacist advisers know that ethnonationalist xenophobia is a strong drug. So if you are intent are undermining the rule of law in a big way, this would be an excellent way to generate enthusiasm for it. It will also be an incitement/inspiration for their far-right counterparts in Europe and elsewhere as well. (1)


AP News reports:
Speaking last month at his Madison Square Garden rally in New York, Trump said: “On Day 1, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out. I will rescue every city and town that has been invaded and conquered, and we will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail, then kick them the hell out of our country as fast as possible.”

In one of his first personnel announcements, Trump announced via social media late Sunday that he would put Tom Homan, his former acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement director, “in charge of all Deportation of Illegal Aliens back to their Country of Origin,” a central part of his agenda.

Trump can direct his administration to begin the effort the minute he arrives in office, but it’s much more complicated to actually deport the nearly 11 million people who are believed to be in the United States illegally. That would require a huge, trained law enforcement force, massive detention facilities, airplanes to move people and nations willing to accept them.

Trump has said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act. That rarely used 1798 law allows the president to deport anyone who is not an American citizen and is from a country with which there is a “declared war” or a threatened or attempted “invasion or predatory incursion.” (2)
Technically, a mass deportation could be done legally. But that’s not what the Trumpistas care about or even want. A lynch mob, a pogrom, an ethnic cleansing is more the vibe they will want to invoke. Getting their followers accustomed to the idea that the government itself can act illegally on behalf of the Great White Father is part of the authoritarian schtick.

If they actually undertake such a thing, it won’t be nearly as easy as fanatical fools like Stephen Miller imagine. Latino communities will mobilize to protect their neighbors. It won’t be in the form of MS-13 toughs gunning down cops. But helping people avoid police raids is something with which many Latino neighborhoods have some experience. States like California with sanctuary laws can also put up practical inhibitions to such mass roundups. (3)

The old saying “fools rush in where angels fear to tread” could turn out to be very relevant here. The agricultural sector in the US, from farms to meat-processing plants, is heavily dependent – completely dependent for all practical purposes – on undocumented (aka, “illegal”) immigrant labor. This is not a secret. Even loyal rank-and-file Republicans know it. And when confronted with the fact, the most they are likely to push back to mutter something about how we should have Real Amurcans doing those jobs. (Not a reality-based idea, BTW.)

The US has the largest economy in the world. (Or second-largely depending on the method used to compare with China.) How will it fare when the entire agricultural sector collapses? Which is what will happen if Trump regime actually pushes for a sudden and massive deportation. I hope that we don’t get a real-world test of whether I’m exaggerating about the results. But I’m not.

And, no, farms and meat-packing plants aren’t going to be able to find native-born replacements anytime soon. Maybe if other states follow the lead of Republican-led Arkansas in legalize labor for minors as farm workers and meat packers that will speed up the long process of trying to reconstitute a functioning agricultural system.

The construction industry, restaurants and hotels, home services like gardening and house cleaning, are also heavily dependent of undocumented labor. Trump notoriously used such labor resources in his projects. It’s not a joke. This is where “reality bites,” as the saying goes.

It is a scandal against decency, human rights and labor rights that such a system is so much a part of the US economic reality. And has been for, well, longer than the lifetimes of most Americans alive today. It’s shameless exploitation, even beyond the legal “legitimate” levels of exploitation.

It’s astonishingly cynical that such a system has existed for so long. It’s worth recalling that Ronald Reagan as President proposed and got enacted the last federal revision of the immigration laws, one that created a path to citizenship for longtime residents. There are volumes filled with Reagan’s misdeeds. That was not one of them. No matter how proud Biden and the Democrats may be of the dumb, failed political stunt this year to show that they are tougher on them thar Messican invaders than Trump and the Republicans are.

And, as much as it pains me to give any kind of credit to the Cheney-Bush Administration, they also proposed a decent immigration-reform law that the Republicans rejected. The Obama-Biden Administration did provide a program to help the “dreamers,” foreign nationals brought as small children to the US. But they also postured just like the Biden-Harris Administration did to show how tough they were on The Border.

This is not the way to fight xenophobia. Unless it is the goal of right-center and left-center parties to boost support for the far right. Which, for the Joe Manchins of the world (in the US and elsewhere), is actually their goal.

The defenders of democracy and the rule of law have to confront the xenophobes by not only debunking their lies and hate-mongering but also pursuing reality-based immigration and visa policies. Or they can surrender. That leads to nowhere good.

*****************

To prepare for Inauguration Day:

Project 2025 American Prospect https://prospect.org/api/search.html?q=project+2025&sa=

Project 2025 Brennan Center page: https://www.brennancenter.org/series/project-2025

Project 2025 Britannica (yes, it has a Britannica listing) https://www.britannica.com/topic/Project-2025

Project 2025 Center for American Progress https://www.americanprogress.org/article/frequently-asked-questions-about-project-2025/

Project 2025 Guardian page: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/project-2025

Project 2025 Official Heritage Foundation site: https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025

Notes:

(1) Tom Homan on what mass deportation immigration plans may look like. CBS News YouTube channel 11/11/2024. <https://youtu.be/NKsgpNm63-I?si=dMcCG1NYZUEd6N-A> (Accessed 2024-12-11).

(2) Long, Colleen & Merica, Dan (2024): Trump on Day 1: Begin deportation push, pardon Jan. 6 rioters and make his criminal cases vanish. AP News 11/11/2024. <https://apnews.com/article/trump-day-1-priorities-deportations-drilling-ukraine-6747c6e64b0440978f59450b928f61d1> (Accessed 2024-12-11).

(3) "Sanctuary" Policies: What Are the Decisions Facing State and Local Governments? Albany Law 03/19/2019. <https://www.albanylaw.edu/government-law-center/sanctuary-jurisdictions> (Accessed 2024-12-11).

Monday, November 11, 2024

International networking for the AI economy

Even the latest whizbang technology isn’t immune from the grubby realities of international power politics. Jared Cohen describes how AI is very much a part of the global economy and is very much intertwined with international cooperation and rivalries:
The AI industry also depends on a network of global commercial partners, including not only U.S. and Chinese technologies, but also Taiwan’s semiconductor fabrication plants, extreme ultraviolet lithography machines made in the Netherlands, and other critical supply chain inputs. Competition over AI has so far been dominated by debates about leading-edge semiconductors, but the next phase is also about geography and power. Specifically, where can the data centers that power AI workloads be built? And who has the capital, energy, and infrastructure needed to power the data centers where AI workloads run? [my emphasis] (1)
As has often been the case, the cutting-edge technology of the day is very much driven by military research and government funding of one sort or the other. Silicon Valley became the symbol of the tech industry and also of libertarian-billionaire ideologies like those of J.D. Vance’s patron Peter Theil. But to a large extent it was government funding both through military contracts and a world-class system of universities that made it possible. The same could be said of southern California’s aerospace industry. Prior to the Second World War, California was much more of an agricultural state, albeit an agricultural powerhouse because of its size and abundance of fertile agricultural land.

Cohen’s analysis focuses in particular on data centers:
Data centers are the factories of AI, turning energy and data into intelligence. Industry leaders estimate that a few major U.S. technology companies alone are expected to invest more than $600 billion in AI infrastructure, particularly in data centers, between 2023 and 2026. The countries that work with companies to host data centers running AI workloads gain economic, political, and technological advantages and leverage. But data centers also present national security sensitivities, given that they often house high-end, export-controlled semiconductors and governments, businesses, and everyday users send some of their most sensitive information through them. And while the United States is ahead of China in many aspects of AI, especially in software and chip design, America faces significant bottlenecks with data centers.
Bottlenecks also very much related to public infrastructure and government spending priorities:
Data centers are critical for the digital economy and AI. But the data center buildout is hitting a wall. The United States is home to the plurality of the world’s data centers, numbering in the thousands. Yet America’s aging energy grid, which powers those data centers, is under enormous strain from a complex set of factors, including rising electricity demand, delayed infrastructure upgrades, extreme weather events, and the complex transition to renewable energy. Meanwhile, surging data center demands driven by rapidly increasing AI workloads are exacerbating the grid’s vulnerabilities. [my emphasis]
Noting that the supply of data center space in the US is getting tight, he explains that this means current and future US supply chains supporting AI capabilities include China, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, Canada, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden), India, and Vietnam.

Cohen concludes his analysis with this boilerplate US foreign policy platitude: “If the United States is successful [in accessing the needed data center capacity], it is more likely that the future world, in which machines play a greater role in daily life, will also be one with greater human prosperity and freedom.”

He mentions a number of tech industry talking points, like how AI is “contributing to the green-energy transition,” as pretty much every other company and industry claim to be doing. But a key factor in AI development is that AI functions require a tremendous amount of energy. For all the fantasies about androids, the neural networks in AI production require a tremendous amount of energy. Regular mammal brains including humans perform far more complex calculations than AI devices while using a fraction of the energy AI requires for the same process.

That could change. Just as fusion nuclear power production could become workable. Someday. But we’re still working on that one, too. In the early years of the atomic power age, Peaceful Nuclear Energy was going to soon provide abundant, cheap, and safe energy beyond our wildest dreams.

In the meantime, we’re still cooking the planet with carbon-based fuels. Climate activists like Bill McKibben (2) regularly reminds us of the available alternatives to CO2 fuels: batteries, wind turbines and solar panels.

Notes:

(1) Cohen, Jared (2024): The Next AI Debate Is About Geopolitics. Foreign Policy 10/28/2024. <https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/10/28/ai-geopolitics-data-center-buildout-infrastructure> (Accessed: 01-11-2024).

(2) McKibben, Bill (2024): Good News and Nothing But: One Day Only--Happy Earth Day. Bill McKibben Substack 04/22/2024. <https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/good-news-and-nothing-but> (Accessed: 01-11-2024).

Sunday, November 10, 2024

Do facts care about Trumpistas’ feelings?

Politics doesn’t have to be reality-based. But politics and policies that disregard reality eventually become disastrous. And the fantasies that fuel the campaigns of the Trumpistas of the world are often far removed from reality.

Ironically, the taunt “facts don’t care about your feelings” became a slogan of the Republican right to sneer at concerns about race or gender discrimination. It was a way of saying, we’re the serious grownups, you’re just a bunch of crybabies and sissies with no idea how the real world works.

Historian Peter Gordon suggests that we take the results of this year’s Presidential election as a major reminder of the precariousness of democracy in a more general sense:
Trump’s reelection points toward a tragedy from which we may never recover. Every critic will offer a different postmortem. Some will—convincingly—cast blame on the elitism and inertia of the Democratic party, which cleaved to its habits of liberal centrism and dismissed the grievances of the working class. Others will blame the Democrats for prioritizing issues of sexual or racial identity over the universalism of economic justice; still others will blame the brute misogyny and racism of the American public. Others will blame those groups who, moved by justified anger over the U.S. support for the devastation of Gaza, cast their lot with fringe candidates such as Jill Stein, motivated by a moralist’s belief that “sending a message” was more important than voting for somebody who might actually have won. All of these critics capture at least some share of the truth; social reality is infinitely complex, and our explanatory instruments always shed only a partial light on what we do. But we would be well advised to consider the most obvious fact: that the tragic ascent of Trump is not an anomaly to democracy but its fatal flaw. [my emphasis] (1)
He refers back to Napoleon III, aka, Louis Bonaparte (1808-1873), who is regarded as a kind of prototype of an authoritarian populist politician who exploited democratic sentiments to come to power and establish what we now call an “illiberal democracy.” Citing a famous pamphlet by Karl Marx on Louis Bonaparte, Gordon writes, “What in France was called the Party of Order had triumphed over the Party of Movement. The institution of democratic suffrage, a novelty at the time, seems to have come into being only to annul democracy itself.” (my emphasis)

He summarizes the lesson, “there is always a powerful countercurrent in history that can sweep away like Noah’s flood whatever political gains may seem to have been made.”

In other words, democracy doesn’t run on autopilot. If enough people are determined to undermine it, and enough people are indifferent enough that they don’t actively support it, even the best institutional arrangements can’t hold off the next Louis Bonaparte or Mussolini or demented orange narcissist. Or, as Gordon puts it:
[T]he most painful truth of a democratic regime: that by the logic of universal suffrage, a democracy is only as enlightened as its citizens, who, in exercising their right to popular sovereignty, may just as easily opt for prejudice in place of progress and for charismatic authority in place of enlightenment.
Faith in Trumpism requires a significant decoupling from reality

A big element of the Trump movement has been the willingness by many people to ignore evidence plainly visible to all and instead embrace preposterous claims. One example that is particularly striking was what he said at an appearance before the far-right Moms for Liberty group: “The transgender thing is incredible. Think of it. Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child.” (2) In a later version, he reduced it to what sounds like a one-day version: “you know, they take your kid — there are some places, your boy leaves for school, comes back a girl.” (3)

This is a remarkably cultish claim for him to make. For one, it’s blatantly untrue. No state in the US (or anywhere else in the world I’ve ever heard of) allows public schools to authorize sex changes operation or any other kind of non-emergency medical intervention on minors without their parents’ knowledge. Plus, anyone who knows anything about sex-change operations knows very well it not remotely close to a one-day, one-step process.

So why would Trump declare a blatant lie like this, one that most of his listeners would know was a blatant lie, and the rest could very quickly find fact-checks of it? At one level, it’s him saying to his followers: I don’t have the slightest respect for you. I think you’re all a bunch of suckers.

But in the cultish vein, it’s him telling his followers: this is a blatant lie. You and I both know it’s a blatant lie. But to be loyal to me you have to repeat it and act like you believe it.

In other words, there is a significant element of denying reality in Trump’s appeal, one which loyalty to Trump requires his followers to embrace. And in this case as well as others, this is not some broad ideological assumption that makes a questionable interpretation of politics or society. It’s just a cheap, sleazy lie. Decoupling political choice from the real, material world is definitely a factor in this.

Reality’s unpleasant habit of intruding itself

Sigmund Freud was famously pessimistic about the state of humanity generally. Especially his experience of the First World War and then near the end of his life the outbreak of the Second World War. Which was preceded by his having to flee Vienna for Britain after the German takeover of Austria in 1938.

In his short book The Future of An Illusion (1927), Freud described his Enlightenment view that gave him basis for cautious Big Picture optimism, despite everything:
We may insist as often as we like that man's [sic] intellect is powerless in comparison with his instinctual life, and we may be right in this. Nevertheless, there is something peculiar about this weakness. The voice of the intellect is a soft one, but it does not rest till it has gained a hearing. Finally, after a countless succession of rebuffs, it succeeds. This is one of the few points on which one may be optimistic about the future of mankind, but it is in itself a point of no small importance. (4)
That quote came to mind in reflecting on what we seem to have experienced in politics in 2024, not only in the US but even around the world, which could very plausibly be very much related to psychological aftershocks of the COVID-19 epidemic.
2024 was the largest year of elections in global history; more people voted this year than ever before. And across the world, voters told the party in power — regardless of their ideology or history — that it was time for a change.

We saw this anti-incumbent wave in elections in the United Kingdom and Botswana; in India and North Macedonia; and in South Korea and South Africa. It continued a global trend begun in the previous year, when voters in Poland and Argentina opted to move on from current leadership. The handful of 2024 exceptions to this general rule look like true outliers: The incumbent party’s victory in Mexico, for example, came after 20 straight defeats for incumbents across Latin America. (5)
Politics has never been a purely rational process, an observation that will surprise basically no one. But public policies that are based on faulty premises about what is going on in the real world can cause more harm than good.

Of course, it takes much more than soft voices to defeat Trumpism and its political cousins in other parts of the world.

But Freud’s quote was a way of saying that reality has a way of imposing itself. There is almost certainly apocryphal store that when Galileo was convicted by a Vatican tribunal of heresy over his contention that the earth orbits around the sun, he muttered to the inquisitors, “And yet it moves.” (“Eppur si muove.”)

It's a favorite anecdote for skeptical-minded authors and historians of science, especially emphasizing the conflict between science and religion (and the Catholic Church in particular). (Atheist-minded skeptics are often tempted to exaggerate that conflict, but that’s another story.) Astrophysicist Mario Livio, who argues that quote is very likely apocryphal, is still fond of the story:
Even if Galileo never spoke those words, they have some relevance for our current troubled times, when even provable facts are under attack by science deniers. Galileo’s legendary intellectual defiance – “in spite of what you believe, these are the facts” - becomes more important than ever. (6)
American fantasies and Trumpism

Kurt Anderson wrote (pre-COVID-19) in 2017:
I first noticed our national lurch toward fantasy in 2004, after President George W. Bush’s political mastermind, Karl Rove, came up with the remarkable phrase reality-based community. People in “the reality-based community,” he told a reporter, “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality … That’s not the way the world really works anymore.”

A year later, The Colbert Report went on the air. In the first few minutes of the first episode, Stephen Colbert, playing his right-wing-populist commentator character, performed a feature called “The Word.” His first selection: truthiness.

“Now, I’m sure some of the ‘word police,’ the ‘wordinistas’ over at Webster’s, are gonna say, ‘Hey, that’s not a word!’ Well, anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They’re elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn’t true. Or what did or didn’t happen.

Who’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I wanna say it happened in 1941, that’s my right. I don’t trust books—they’re all fact, no heart … Face it, folks, we are a divided nation … divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart … Because that’s where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen - the gut.” [my emphasis] (7)
Anderson’s unhappy judgment: “We have passed through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole. America has mutated into Fantasyland.” In the essay, he looks over recent decades at major trends in reality-testing in the US public sphere.

Anderson does indulge in some “skeptical” rhetoric that is a bit superficial. For instance, he writes, “More than half [of Americans] say they’re absolutely certain heaven exists, and just as many are sure of the existence of a personal God—not a vague force or universal spirit or higher power, but some guy.” He doesn’t cite the particular source. But, given the history of religiosity in the US, it’s notable that this means half of the country does not believe in a “personal God.” Also, I’m sure if such a survey had more detailed questions about what those respondents thought “personal God” means, their concepts would be all over the map with far from all of them being able to give a passable theological definition of what that is.

It's true that more conservative, conventional religiosity is associated with more conservative and also Trumpista politics. But even people who go to church regularly on Sunday and are confident (or very optimistic) about a vaguely-defined afterlife still mostly want their children and grandchildren to be vaccinated against measles and smallpox. And most of them are unlikely to believe in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy headed by George Soros to use Islamic terrorists and immigrants to wipe all white Gentiles. Nor in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s “Jewish space lasers” that control the weather.

Chris Hedges on the Christian fascist element of Trumpism

Chris Hedges in August discussed how Trump himself, about as far from a conventionally pious person as one could imagine, nevertheless was able to harness Christian nationalist religiosity for his very non-divine purposes. One kind of faith-based denial of reality can make people susceptible to scamsters and demagogues promoting other versions.

Hedges, author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (2007), explains:
Because I'm biblically literate and I understand the church I'm acutely aware of how the Christian fascists or the Christian nationalists have distorted the Christian religion to sacralize the worst elements of American imperialism, white supremacy, and capitalism. And they're heretics. … Jesus did not come to make us rich Jesus would not have blessed the dropping of iron fragmentation Bombs all over Iraq or anywhere else.

So, it's a complete sacrilege modeled very much on the so-called German Christian Church which was pro-Nazi and these [American] megachurches - … I spent two years on this book so I would go I was everywhere, pro-life weekends and evangelism explosion seminars and creationist classes I spent a lot of time reporting off the ground because it's the only way you can understand it.

But I would go to these decayed former industrial centers and places like Ohio and the only building that was new and had any kind of vitality to it were these megachurches and inevitably you would have quote-unquote “Christian” pastors - almost always white men, of course - and you would have a cult following around them.

They were in touch with God. And so when Trump first ran, … many people asked, how can the Christian Right Embrace Trump. And my answer was, no, no, the megapastors are exactly the same as Trump. They prey on the despair in the same way that Trump prayed on the despair of people in his casinos or a sham University.

They prey, and the irony is that because so many of these Mega pastors endorsed Trump that he took that cult-like power that they had onto himself. They disempowered themselves by essentially backing Trump uh I used to say the only difference between Trump. And the megapastors that I could see anecdotally is that the megapastors’ sexual proclivities are usually kinkier than Trump's.

But the same people exactly the same people and remember these megapastors are worth millions they the ones who are very successful they fly in private jets and [they flaunt their wealth in a similar] way that Trump flaunts his wealth. They [flaunt their wealth] as a gift from God. So, Trump who has no ideology other than an outsize narcissism - but he used the ideology of the Christian Right in his first Administration to fill that ideological void, his own ideological void, and that's how you got [Mike] Pence as vice president. That's how you got William Barr [as] Attorney General. That's how you got running education.

These people all come out of the Christian fascist movement. Now, a second Trump presidency will be different from the first. It'll be far, far more vindictive, especially at the Establishment institutions that sought to bring Trump down. that would be the courts, the press, and the Democratic Party.

People like me are an afterthought. They'll get to us later. But that will be the primary target. And they will distort the system every way possible to do it. And you will see a much more virent and a much more pronounced Christian nationalism in a second Trump Administration. And it will bring us very, very close to, if not finally complete this move towards the kind of Christian fascism that I wrote about in my book. [my emphasis] (8)
The trail of reality-denial in the US conservative movement

After his fretting over conventional religiosity, Kurt Anderson’s concern about “truthiness” and faith in the unreal veers for a while into tired, stock conservative moaning and groaning about those terrible Sixties.

He gives a genealogy of the trends responsible for the loosely-tethered-to-reality beliefs and passions he blames for the situation in 2017. There were the California hippies and their LSD and yoga and things like that. The Sixties in general were about all those Boomer young’uns deciding, “Reason and rationality were over.” Instead, there was meditating and pot-smoking and sex-drugs-and-rock-n-roll. And annoying egghead perfessers who wrote with less-than-total-disapproval about all this hippie, peace, dope, and free love stuff that was suddenly all over the place. Including that Foucault fellow and the postmodernism stuff.

He eventually he starts snapping out of that mode and discusses some of the more explicit pseudo-science by Erich von Däniken and his ancient astronauts, which actually did contribute to Trumpist-style conspiracist thinking. The UFO narratives were full of dark conspiracies by what the Trumpists now call the Deep State. And he also mentions the Satanic panics of the 1980s started mainstreaming Marjorie Taylor Greene type thinking into the respectable Republican mainstream:
Many Americans announced that they’d experienced fantastic horrors and adventures, abuse by Satanists, and abduction by extraterrestrials, and their claims began to be taken seriously. Parts of the establishment—psychology and psychiatry, academia, religion, law enforcement—encouraged people to believe that all sorts of imaginary traumas were real.
And, to his credit, he discusses the remarkable rightwing fabulations the emerging rightwing media ecosystem symbolized by Rush Limbaugh and that eventually produced FOX News.
Fox News brought the Limbaughvian talk-radio version of the world to national TV, offering viewers an unending and immersive propaganda experience of a kind that had never existed before. For Americans, this was a new condition. Over the course of the century, electronic mass media had come to serve an important democratic function: presenting Americans with a single shared set of facts. Now TV and radio were enabling a reversion to the narrower, factional, partisan discourse that had been normal in America’s earlier centuries.

And there was also the internet, which eventually would have mooted the Fairness Doctrine anyhow. In 1994, the first modern spam message was sent, visible to everyone on Usenet: GLOBAL ALERT FOR ALL. JESUS IS COMING SOON: Over the next year or two, the masses learned of the World Wide Web. The tinder had been gathered and stacked since the ’60s, and now the match was lit and thrown. After the ’60s and ’70s happened as they happened, the internet may have broken America’s dynamic balance between rational thinking and magical thinking for good.

Before the web, cockamamy ideas and outright falsehoods could not spread nearly as fast or as widely, so it was much easier for reason and reasonableness to prevail. Before the web, institutionalizing any one alternate reality required the long, hard work of hundreds of full-time militants. In the digital age, however, every tribe and fiefdom and principality and region of Fantasyland—every screwball with a computer and an internet connection—suddenly had an unprecedented way to instruct and rile up and mobilize believers, and to recruit more. False beliefs were rendered both more real-seeming and more contagious, creating a kind of fantasy cascade in which millions of bedoozled Americans surfed and swam. [my emphasis]
These changes in the information environment haven’t stopped. One of the political realities now in the US and Europe and much of the rest of the world is that the media environment has become more fragmented, both in the number of sources and in their commitment to a shared standard of accuracy and integrity.

As Andersen summarizes the problem, “Reason remains free to combat unreason, but the internet entitles and equips all the proponents of unreason and error to a previously unimaginable degree.” That means that the voice of reality-based thought that Freud wrote about nearly a century ago has more work to do than ever before. And, on the bright side, more tools for doing it.

The challenge is that the famous observation (often if dubiously attributed to Mark Twain) has, in an important sense, become truer than ever: “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts on its shoes.” At least these days, when the liar stops to put on his shoes the refutations can also literally travel around the world before he picks up his mobile phone again. That is, if the algorithms on the platforms owned by TechBro billionaires allow them to!

Notes:

(1) Gordon, Peter (2024): The Eighteenth Brumaire of Donald J. Trump. Boston Review 11/08/2024. <https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-eighteenth-brumaire-of-donald-j-trump/> (Accessed: 2024-09-11).

(2) Dale, Daniel (2024): Fact check: Trump falsely claims schools are secretly sending children for gender-affirming surgeries. CNN Politics 09/04/2024. <https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/04/politics/donald-trump-fact-check-children-gender-affirming-surgery/index.html> (Accessed: 2024-09-11).

(3) Dale, Daniel (2024): Fact check: Trump revives his lie that schools are secretly sending children for gender-affirming surgeries. CNN Politics 09/04/2024. <https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/26/politics/fact-check-trump-rogan-children-gender-affirming-surgeries/index.html> (Accessed: 2024-09-11).

(5) Freud, Sigmund (1927): The Future of an Illusion. In: Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 21 (1963), 53.

German version: Sigmund Freud Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 14 (1948 [1955]), 377.

(6) Livio, Mario (2020): Did Galileo Truly Say, ‘And Yet It Moves’? A Modern Detective Story. Scientific American Blog 11/06/2024. <https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/did-galileo-truly-say-and-yet-it-moves-a-modern-detective-story/> (Accessed: 2024-09-11).

(7) Andersen, Kurt (2017): How America Lost Its Mind. The Atlantic Sept 2017 issue (updated 12/28/20217): <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/> (Accessed: 2020-24-05). Paragraph breaks added.

(8) Is this the end of the American Empire? Chris Hedges - Real Talk. Middle East Eye YouTube channel 08/05/2024 (after 49:00). <https://youtu.be/eGPa_omV9WI?si=NntAWR0-byNi-V-q> (Accessed: 2024-09-11).

Saturday, November 9, 2024

US Presidential election aftershocks

Richard Nixon won the 1972 Presidential election in a landslide against Democratic nominee George McGovern, who we could describe today as a 68er, pro-peace candidate. Nixon’s popular vote margin of victory was 62% to McGovern’s 38%.

Eight months later, a certain level of buyer’s remorse had set in:

President Nixon's margin of victory over Senator George McGovern in the 1972 Presidential election would have been “far smaller” if the contest had been held in late June this year, a Gallup Poll released yesterday indicates.

Fifty‐three per cent of 1,451 adults interviewed from June 22 to 25 [1973] said they would now vote for Mr. Nixon and 47 per cent said they would support Senator McGovern. …

The “possibility exists,” the Gallup organization said, that Mr. Nixon's popularity, mired in the Watergate affair, might have been lower at the time of the survey had it not been for the American visit by the Soviet Communist party leader, Leonid I. Brezhnev. Such meetings typically have raised … a President's popularity. (1)

Yes, a Russian leader was giving a Republican President a popularity boost then, too. In that case, it was because Nixon was pursuing a policy of détente to improve relations with the Soviet Union, including having approved a major nuclear-arms control treaty. But Nixon, for all his faults, was capable of pursuing a pragmatic and complicated foreign policy. The same cannot be said for President Biden’s elected successor.

Trump the celebrity was able to win two Presidential elections now by adapting a political “professional wrestling” act into national political success.

To borrow a favorite conservative phrase to blame everyone who’s not a billionaire for their own problems, part of democracy is that people are free to make “bad choices.” And this one is potentially Mussolini 1922 or Hitler 1933 bad. It’s likely there will be some buyer’s remorse from Trump voters. It’s happened before.

The Rev. William Barber looks at the significance of this particular instance of a bad choice: (2)


I actually think Harris ran a good campaign. And pulling together her own campaign while basically having to rely on Biden’s campaign organization was an impressive feat in itself. Tim Walz was an inspired choice for the VP nomination. The gamble of making Liz Cheney a campaign mascot to attract Republican crossover voters doesn’t seem to have worked, although deep dives into the numbers may show some benefit down-ballot. But the Democrats seriously need to expunge the word “bipartisanship” from their vocabulary and political strategy.

Mass delusion is A Thing, and there’s no magic cure for it. Trump was the beneficiary this time.

In retrospect, it would have been better for Biden to forego a re-election campaign early on so that the Democrats could have had a real primary. Kamala would probably have been the winner. The “name recognition” factor turned out to be important, strange as that may seem to us political-junkie types. Biden kept Harris in a notably low profile, among other things defending Biden’s Republican-lite border policy which only reinforced the Republicans’ nativist narrative on that issue.

The Democrats seriously, seriously need to confront the anti-immigrant demagoguery with a reality-based pushback. As the experience of the last decade have in EU countries including Britain, France, and Italy have shown, trying to pander to xenophobic rhetoric is a losing strategy for parties who seriously want to defend democracy and the rule of law.

Inflation has a psychological effect on people that not everyone filters through “real income” framing. The macroeconomic trends on employment, inflation, and real income in the last two years were remarkably solid for the US, thanks to Biden’s surprising embrace of evidence-based Keynesian economics. Inflation in home prices have been particularly notable, in large part because hedge funds and private-equity funds have been allowed to buy up large tracts of residential housing. Add that to the high mortgage rates, and it contributes to a throw-the-bums-out mentality. Even when the alternative is an orange, deranged catastrophe-in-motion.

Emma Vigeland and Mehdi Hasan also had a worthwhile discussion on the results: (3)


The effects of the Ukraine War and of Israel’s war against ever-expanding portions of the Middle East will be hard to measure. But, aside from the initial rally-round-the-flag effect at the start of one, most people just don’t like wars. Americans are used to paying attention to Israel’s wars. And this current one has been far and away the longest period of sustained combat in which Israel has ever engaged with no end in sight. The spectacle of Biden repeatedly issuing demands for restrain on Israel and Netanyahu flipping him off every time and getting away with it surely didn’t help.

This election also provided more evidence for the “authoritarian personality” theory that modern societies produce a non-trivial number of people who want to identify with a Strong Leader.

I once read an autobiographical essay in what is known as the Abel Collection (4) from the 1930 by a Nazi Brownshirt who described being in the Army during World War I and thinking it was great. After the war he became a cop. Later he gave up the police to become a street-fighting Communist. Then he switched to be a street-fighting Nazi. Not a typical biographical path for Nazis. But this guy wanted be in a structure where he would be told what to do and also be able to tell other people what to do. And beat them up if they didn’t comply.

Obviously, a Führer like Trump is just the kind an authoritarian like that guy would be likely to support.

Notes:

(1) Gallup Finds More Would Now Back Bid by McGovern. New York Times 07/05/1973. <https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/05/archives/gallup-finds-more-would-now-backbid-by-mcgovern.html> (Accessed: 2024-08-11).

Democrats Deserted Working Poor: Bishop William Barber on Healthcare, Living Wages, Voting Rights. Democracy Now! 11/08/2024. <https://youtu.be/zd1gISMmPFU?si=ypNgI9vPIh-EYn3J> (Accessed: 2024-08-11).

(3) Harris/Walz Autopsy; Biden’s Role In Trump’s Win; What Do Americans Want? w/ Mehdi Hasan. The Majority Report YouTube channel 11/08/2024. <https://www.youtube.com/live/11wDJE7RTpI?si=CAYgbaJccXBG3Jve> (Accessed: 2024-08-11).

(4) Theodore Fred Abel papers. Hoover Institution <https://digitalcollections.hoover.org/objects/58225/theodore-fred-abel-papers> (Accessed: 2024-08-11).

Thursday, November 7, 2024

The US Presidential election, two days later

We’ll be seeing lots of analysis of the surprising outcome of the US Presidential election. Even with his all-too-visible mental and emotional deterioration, with all his out-and-out Hitlerian rhetoric, his extreme racism, xenophobia, his incitements to violence – Donald Trump not only won the Electoral College vote but the popular vote, as well.

I don’t have any fresh take on the numbers. For now, just some more-or-less random thoughts about the tragedy. I was interviewed on an Austrian podcast on election evening along with some other Americans, (1) but it hasn’t been posted for replay yet. The result wasn’t yet known then. And fortunately none of us predicted a certain win for Harris!

Harris did face prejudice as a Black woman and the Republicans promoted that. But there are plenty of women and Black candidates who get elected in the US, For Democrats to promote a just-the-way-it-is cynicism about nominating minorities or women for senior offices including the Presidency would be ridiculous.

Of course, racism really is A Thing in American politics. And will be for a long time to come. But the only pro-democracy position is to oppose it.

Biden was problematic as the Democratic candidate. If he had announced in late 2023 or 2024 that he would not be standing for nomination again, that would have allowed an active Democratic primary process that would have generated interest and enthusiasm.

One of the questions I was asked on the podcast is whether it was a good idea to replace Biden with Harris. My answer was yes, definitely. In first debate with Trump this year, Biden not only appeared frail but was at times downright incoherent. It was obvious that he was not in condition to run an extremely competitive general election campaign against a bloviating cult leader like Trump.

Given how quickly she had to gear up her Presidential campaign, and the fact that she basically had to take over Biden’s campaign team, Harris’ campaign seems to have functioned well. (Given the rivalries and inevitable disorganization in campaigns, “functioned well” is a relative term in this context.)

Tim Walz was an inspired VP choice. And his emphasis on pointing out the “weird” in the Republican ticket’s antics was a good way to make more specific the Democrats’ fighting-for-freedom-and-democracy theme. Because it had the effect of encouraging people to stop and think for a second or two when the Republican candidates said something odd. Like, “they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats.”

But they pivoted away from that too quickly. Part of the result was that Walz in his debate with J.D. Vance didn’t get to jam Vance on his more crackpot views. Which was probably a lost chance. Though Vice Presidential politics rarely have a notable effect on the outcome of the campaign.

The switch to a Harris version of the “bipartisanship” temptation into which the Democrats way too often fall was almost certainly a mistake. Given Trump’s margin of victory, it hardly seems to have attracted any significant number of Trump-leaning voters. Campaigning with Liz Cheney was a bad idea. Republican voters consider here a renegade. And Democratic voters cringe at the name “Cheney” and were left with the slightly nauseous feeling of, “Oh, no, here we go again with the Bipartisanship nonsense.”

Harris made good use of the abortion-rights issue and didn’t pull any punches on it. The popularity of state initiatives guaranteeing abortion rights showed, along with the polling results on the issue, that the Republicans’ abortion-ban position is very unpopular. But it doesn’t seem to have attracted the kind of numbers to Harris one might have thought and hoped.

I shudder at the developments to come in the immediate future in foreign policy. But the influence of the Russia-Ukraine War and Israel’s war with Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran on the election’s outcome is hard to see. I won’t be surprised if Biden’s unconditional support for Netanyahu‘s genocidal war cost Harris important votes in Michigan and Pennsylvania. And, in general, ordinary people don’t like wars. Even though US direct involvement in both conflicts is limited, the nightmarish images out of Ukraine, Gaza, the West Bank, and now Lebanon are unlikely to have given American voters a warm and fuzzy feeling about our current foreign policy.

The xenophobia problem

On the other hand, ethnonationalism and xenophobia are currently the political weapon of choice for authoritarians (fascists/Orbánists) in the US and Europe used to undermine the voters’ confidence in and support for the rule of law, which is an essential part of democratic governance. By hyping immigrants and refugees as a deadly danger, the authoritarian parties justify illegal action against them, and accustom the public to think that rule by law (and force) rather the rule of law is what is needed. Politics in the EU have provided numerous recent examples - particularly Britain, France, and Italy – that when centrist pro-democracy parties try to pander to xenophobic voters, it winds up strengthening the far-right parties and weakening the moderates. That’s how in this year’s parliamentary elections, the ancient Tory Party (Conservative) came in third behind a previously-minor nationalist party.

Biden’s hardline rhetoric on immigration that Harris also adopted, fell into the same trap. Democratic parties and group who want to defend liberal democracy including the rule of law have to be willing to push back directly on all the misrepresentation, phony anecdotes and xenophobic bigotry that the far right uses on that issue. Like most of what Donald Trump says, his position on immigration (and that of most of his foreign counterparts) is based on lies and hysteria, not reality. Pro-democracy parties can push back against that successfully with actual reality-based policies. But the Biden-Harris tough-on-the-border schtick just tried to “Me Too” the Republicans’ positions’. That was bad policy and bad politics.

The long story of Democratic neoliberal policies

One of the real surprises of this election is that general economic trends under the Biden Administration have been good. Very good, even. The results serve as a validation of the kind of Keynesian and pro-labor policies Biden embraced, which were a real and important departure from the Reagan-Thatcher/neoliberal/TINA (There Is No Alternative) policies that have done so much damage to Western economies and politics over the last several decades.

Paul Krugman posted this graph just before Election Day: (2)



Krugman, bless his heart, puts faith in actual facts. And he’s basically right on his point as far as it goes. I’ve also been astonished that the numbers on job and income growth and moderating inflation didn’t produce more obvious support for Democrats. Because it’s still a commonplace in US politics to assume that good economic performance benefits the incumbent Presidential party. The full-employment numbers recently have been particularly impressive.

However, there high-level statistics don’t capture everything. The price of housing in the US has been rising sharply across the board the last several years, in no small part because legislators permitted hedge-funds and private-equity funds to buy up large amounts of residential housing and convert them to rentals. This created a shortage of units to buy, which drove the price up. (Which in turn increases the book value of the rental hosing the funds own.) Homeowners are happy to see the value of their property increase. But the kind of price rises we’ve been seeing recently in the US also raise the prices for homeowners wanting to trade up to larger units. But even homeowners happy to see their housing equity grow also see the problems their kids and grandkids are experiencing getting into the housing market. And the rising housing prices have also led to a serious increase in homelessness with way too many politicians use a topic for law-and-order demagoguery.

Political analysts, even including academics, are often tempted to fall back on vague concepts like malaise, alienation, discontent, uncertainty to try to explain long-run political trends. But seeing how those vague concepts relate to longer-term political trends is complicated. The neoliberal economic doctrine – from which Biden very much to his credit backed away in a real way in favor of Keynesian stimulus and industrial policy, as well as support for organized labor – has definitely resulted in a general reduction of opportunities for the working-class majority in the US. The famous postwar suburbs (especially white suburbs) from the 1940s to the 1970s still present American voters with images of economic conditions and opportunities once were and that could be and should be available again.

In the current situation of the US, the COVID epidemic created a lot of vague uncertainty and real loss of life. And also gave an unfortunate boost to conspiracy theories and low-quality alternative media sites. But the support policies that were put in place to ameliorate the effects of COVID also had an effect when they went away. The expanded child tax credits that were temporarily in place largely eliminated child poverty as it’s measured in the US for a time.

Branko Marcetic points out: (3)



It’s almost unthinkable that a Trump II Administration will provide a better economic performance or more long-term improvements than Biden’s did. But few people vote on their reading of economic statistics alone. Economic issues are mostly processed as general impressions and feelings, for better or worse. And political rallies are not conducive to nuanced education on economic policy.

This is Bernie Sanders’ bottom-line take on the situation: (4)



The Austrian political analyst Natascha Strobl retweeted Bernie'S note on Nov. 6 with comment: "The one important Democratic politician who understood it early on and still gets it. He was right. The whole time."

Notes:

(1) US-Wahlnacht 2024. DorfTV 11/5-6/2024. <https://dorftv.at/blog/45286>

(2) Krugman, Paul (2024): X/Twitter 11/04/2024. <https://x.com/paulkrugman/status/1853434778642419921> (Accessed: 2024-07-11).

(3) Marcetic, Branko (2024): X/Twitter 11/06/2024. <https://x.com/BMarchetich/status/1854184234228867346> (Accessed: 2024-07-11).

(4) Sanders, Bernie (2024): X/Twitter 11/06/2024. <https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1854271157135941698> (Accessed: 2024-07-11).

Pecorin, Allison & Deliso, Masredith (2024): Bernie Sanders blasts Democratic Party following Kamala Harris loss. ABC News 11/07/2024. <https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-response-presidential-election/story?id=115582079> (Accessed: 2024-07-11).