California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

President Trump: Will You Shut Down the 750 US Military Bases on Foreign Soil?

by John Lawrence

The United States has around 750 military bases in at least 80 countries, but the Pentagon doesn't publish all data, so the actual number may be higher. According to multiple sources, maintaining the approximately 750 US military bases on foreign soil costs the American taxpayer around $55 billion per year. Now, Elon Musk, you can start there with your Department of Government Efficiency. Dismantling the American Empire could save taxpayers beau coup bucks. This totally fits with the MAGA plan. Make America Great Again by not wasting taxpayer money on a bunch of real estate assets which are of dubious value either militarily or financially. After all we have aircraft carriers which can be stationed all over the world and in particular in hot spots. In addition we have ICBMs which can hit any target world wide in a matter of seconds. Add to that our submarine fleet armed with nukes.

$55 billion - that ain't hay just to have an unneeded military presence on foreign soil. Besides the military personnel stationed at these bases are sitting ducks for terrorists.A recent incident where military personnel stationed at a base were injured involved a rocket attack on Al Asad airbase in western Iraq, where several US service members and contractors were injured by two rockets launched by militants. Three U.S. soldiers were killed January 28, 2024 in Jordan, while more than 40 other service members were injured following an uncrewed aerial system attack at a military base near the Syrian border. Two dozen American military personnel were wounded in October 2023 in a series of drone attacks at American bases in Iraq and Syria, Nineteen American service members stationed in Iraq and Syria have been diagnosed with traumatic brain injury after rocket and drone attacks from Iran-backed militants in this same attack.

Is it worth it? What kind of premium does the Department of Government Efficiency put on a human life? Making America Great Again requires that money not be wasted on fooolhardy ventures on foreign soil when sea and air borne military assets are fully capable of dealing with any military situation anywhere in the world. And by the way, when was the last time the Defense Department passed an audit? The Pentagon on November 15, 2024 failed its seventh audit in a row, with the nation’s largest government agency still unable to fully account for its more than $824 billion budget, though officials stress they are making good progress toward a clean audit in 2028. Elon should look into those toilet seats and hammers too. The New York Times reported: Over the past few months alone, the Defense Department has had to explain why it’s been paying $14,000 for individual 3-D printed toilet seat lids and purchasing cups for $1,280 each. These are just the latest examples on a long list of unacceptable purchases made by the department, including $436 for hammers in the 1980s, and $117 soap dish covers and $999 pliers in the 1990s. Elon is famous for telling his employees to run down to Home Depot to buy needed items for Space X rather than going through the government procurement process. Well, let's hop to it. Let's get real. The Pentagon is where the real waste in government is. There's plenty for Elon and Vivek to cut there. Will they do it?

Off the Top of My Head

Political Meritocracy vs Democracy

by John Lawrence

China's system of government can be characterized as political meritocracy what author Daniel Bell (The China Model. Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy) refers to as "democracy at the lower levels of government and political meritocracy at higher levels of government, with political experimentation in between." While China has a democracy at the local political levels, at the intermediate and higher levels of government those leaders are elected by the bureaucracy at the next lower level. In the US leaders at the highest level are elected by "the people." This has the danger that "an elected leader without any political experience (e.g., Donald Trump) could rise to the top (and make many beginner’s mistakes), an elected leader would have to spend valuable time raising funds and giving the same speech over and over again, instead of thinking about policy, and an elected leader would be more constrained by short-term electoral considerations at the expense of long-term planning for the good of the political community and the rest of the world."

It's clear that Donald Trump is not interested in " long-term planning for the good of the political community and the rest of the world." In fact in order to deal with climate change which Trump considers a hoax, long term planning would be required. Just as well, Trump is not concerned with "the rest of the world," only with the US. This liability of democracy at the highest level seems to make China's system at least more intriguing. It is based on a 2000 year history of Confucianism which required government leaders to be selected based on a civil service examination with only those with the highest results being given the highest levels in the bureaucracy. Men of the highest intellectual ability and moral character were to be chosen for the highest positions in the Chinese government. As Daniel Bell states:

... the ideal of political meritocracy has a long history in China. More than 2,500 years ago, Confucius defended the view that exemplary people[ junzi 君子] have superior ability and virtue (as opposed to the earlier view that junzi have aristocratic family backgrounds), and since then Chinese intellectuals have argued over which abilities and virtues matter for government, how to assess those abilities and virtues, and how to institutionalize a political system that aims to select and promote public officials with superior abilities and virtues. It is no exaggeration to say that the ideal of political meritocracy was taken for granted in most political debates in Chinese history. And China’s two-thousand-year experience with a complex bureaucratic system can be viewed as a constant effort to institutionalize the ideal of political meritocracy.

Political meritocracy in China has similar drawbacks to economic and political meritocracy in America. Those who aren't in the top echelons resent the fact that elitists have all the political power and in America the economic power as well. In fact in America it is said that IQ plus effort = outcomes in the system. In the US this has led to a backlash among non-elites with the result that people like Donald Trump are elected to the highest political positions. What is important in today's world is to assess the differences between the Chinese and American political systems realistically in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of each without rushing to judgement that one system is better than the other or that these two countries which represent different systems should automatically be enemies locked in unmitigated combat with each other over which system is superior.

Coexistence should be the name of the game. It's just possible that at some future date another country which combines the best features of both systems might come to be a world leader. In fact the most democratic way to elect a national assembly is sortition which is a completely random way of choosing a national body. In this way both elitists and non-elitists are elected in proportion to their levels in society at large. The other advantage is this could be done with absolutely no financial campaign expenditures because there would be no campaigns. Talk about taking the money out of politics; there is no better system. Of course I'm not suggesting that this would be the only national assembly. A bicameral system could have another House selected by a different means - maybe meritocratic.

Off the Top of My Head

Republicans Will Terminate the Filibuster

by John Lawrence

The filibuster is the only tool Democrats have left to impede Trump's absolute power. Therefore, they will end it which they can do by simple majority rule although the arcane rules of the Senate are debatable whether or not this can happen. I predict that the Republicans will find a way around these arcane rules and end the filibuster by majority rule. This gives Trump effectively the power of a dictator since he then will control all branches of government including the Supreme Court. He not only will be dictator on Day 1, but at least till the next election cycle in 2 years. The Congressional Research Service reports Eight Mechanisms to Enact Procedural Change in the U.S. Senate. Republicans will use some combinbation of these to end the filibuster at least for as long as they control all three branches of the government and the Supreme Court. If they are clever, which I suspect they are, they will do it in such a way that as soon as Democrats control the Senate, the filibuster will automatically come back into effect. Most of the mechanisms require two thirds or three fifths Senate approval. However one of them seemingly does not.

5. Establish a new precedent. Senate procedural actions are also regulated by parliamentary precedent. Rulings of the presiding officer on the application of chamber rules are generally subject to an appeal to the full Senate. In most procedural circumstances, appeals are debatable. This fact operates as a significant bar to creating new precedent by appeal. When appeals are made in procedural circumstances that render them nondebatable, however—for example, after cloture has been invoked or when the appeal is made in relation to a nondebatable motion—no supermajority to limit debate is needed, and a majority can overrule the chair and establish a new understanding of what a Senate rule means or how it is applied.

The above consists of so much gobbledygook that I'm sure that a determined majority of Republicans could suspend whatever the rules may be in order to get whatever Trump wanted passed passed. Democrats would unquestionably use the filibuster every chance they got unless the filibuster was rendered moot by a change in the Senate rules which are so arbitrary to begin with. I'm sure that majority rule in the Senate would come in handy when, for instance, Trump wanted to change the laws regarding asylum or abortion at the national level or even abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Education. As Elon Musk slashes and burns many jobs and even whole departments in the Federal government, Trump would have to have both Houses of Congress on his side. So it would be necessary to hamstring the Democrats by making the filibuster rule impotent.

The filibuster can be eliminated by a simple majority rule vote. Eliminating the filibuster is simple. All it takes to eliminate the filibuster is a simple majority vote in the Senate — and this can be done at any time. Senate Democrats can introduce a big package of democracy reforms, like DC statehood and expanding voting rights. Mitch McConnell, the self-proclaimed “grim reaper” of progressive legislation, then initiates a filibuster. Democrats can then hold a vote, and with just 50 votes eliminate the filibuster and prevent McConnell from vetoing the legislation.

Well, now McConnell is gone, but the issue remains the same. Republicans have already elimiinated the filibuster for issues they care about - mainly tax cuts. These can be done in such a way that Democrats can't filibuster them. Now since Republicans are the majority in both Houses of Congress, they can enact any legislation they want by simply eliminating the filibuster so that Democrats can't stop their proposed legislation. Democrats will have to wait until they control the Senate before they can do the same in order to get their legislation like gun control and other progressive legislation passed.

Many Trump voters say they voted for him because they voted for change. Now that they are about to get it, it remains to be seen how well they will like it. Stay tuned.

Off the Top of My Head

The Left-Right Political Spectrum is Irrelevant

by John Lawrence

The spectrum that is relevant is an Up-Down spectrum with Up representing rationality and down representing emotionalism. For instance, Trump voters were generally ignorant regarding the issues especially at a level deeper than sloganeering. To talk about policy points is something they're not interested in or knowledgeable about. Kamala's policy positions were ones that favored the working class. $25,000 down payments for first time home buyers. Tax breaks for 100 million people etc. $6000 child care allowance. She enumerated some specifics. Yet it has been reported that Trump was more popular with the working class. It doesn't make sense in terms of a left-right political spectrum. Trump's supporters were basically ignorant of what left or right positions were or if Kamala's specifics were more credible than Trump's vague assertions. They made their choice based on feelings. Now Democrats are wondering how they can appeal to the working class. Well, how the Republicans did it was like the Romans did it. Bread and Circuses only with Trump it was the promise of bread but actual circuses which were what his rallies were all about. No need to talk about actual policy positions like Kamala did. Trump just made blanket statements like whatever it is that ails you, I will fix it. Just a statement, not a policy position. No need to talk about how he would fix it.

The problem for Democrats is that they represent the Up side of the political spectrum. Republicans represent the down side. The Up side usually will not lie in representing their positions. The Down side has no problem with lying or engaging in conspiracy theories or any other mechanism in order to gain power. Democrats will not usually stoop to that level so that they are stuck when it comes to getting some of those working class voters back. It's a cultural thing. The down culture is about the down side of American culture which is violence, vulgarity and disingenuousness typified by Donald Trump and Hulk Hogan. It's hard to visualize that Democrats would have Hulk Hogan ripping off his shirt at their convention. So the Democrats are in general high minded, the Republicans low minded. So where are the majority of the American electorate? More aligned with Hulk Hogan than Kamala Harris. More aligned with whomever can entertain them the most than with whomever has their best interests at heart. Americans, at least a majority of them, got the President they deserved. To get some Republican voters back Democrats would have to descend to levels on the Up-Down spectrum that they would be uncomfortable with in ethical terms.

So people on the up side of the political spectrum have some sense of ethics, integrity and rationality. People on the down side would be averse to rationality, only concerned about feelings and susceptible to conspiracy theories and being conned and duped. They would vote against their interests as long as it "felt right." A democracy needs to have an informed, rational and concerned electorate. If the majority of voters are only concerned about how a politician makes them feel, they will elect politicians who not only are not the best for them personally but are not the best for the country or the world in general. When the electorate supports a culture of violence and vulgarity, it makes sense that they would elect vulgar and prone to violence politicians. Policy positions have no bearing whether they are left or right on the political spectrum. The only meaningful political spectrum at this point is up-down. When Trump says, "I will solve your problems," true believers believe it without Trump having to spell out an exact policy that would accomplish that goal. When Kamala spells out an exact policy, true believers say that they don't believe that that policy would work. It's the difference between believing something no matter how irrational and not believing something that is actually rational. American voters are not asking what they can do for their country but what can their country do for them, and then making the wrong choice.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Trump Won

by John Lawrence

Trump has campaigned non-stop for the last 4 years. There have been a series of hundreds that began in the summer of 2015. These rallies have emulated Hitler's rallies at Nuremberg in the 1930s in terms of their symbols - flags, hats, merchandise, patriotic music. The Nazi Party Rallies, held in Nuremberg from 1933 to 1938, served most of all to stage-manage the image of the regime and Adolf Hitler, and to theatricalize the racially rooted myth of the "community of the Volk" and the population's backing of the war. Nazi symbols such as the swastika and the formal symbol of the party, the Parteiadler, an eagle atop a swastika and many others are comparable to all the Trump flags, the Trump merchandise and the Trump symbols which seemed to be everywhere creating a festive atmosphere similar to that created by the Nazi party. At Trump rallies they hired huge cranes to hoist the American flag high above the rally. Trump's plane with his name emblazoned on the side stood at the ready for all to see. President Biden and Kamala Harris had nothing to compare with all the Trump flags, Trump symbols and Trump merchandise which for years dominated the mass media. Each rally was a show, an extravaganza which aimed to demonstrate the power and ubiquitousness of the Trump name. Each outrageous Trump utterance, especially the gaffes, dominated the news and the talk shows. Democrats had nothing that could compare in terms of showmanship, stage management and image.

Trump and the Nazis appealed to feelings, especially feelings of patriotism. The Democrats appealed to reason. The appeal to feelings won much as that kind of appeal won for the Nazi party. The appeal to feelings won out over the fact that Trump was a convicted felon who tried to overthrow the American Constitution much as Hitler won out despite the beer hall putsch which landed him in jail prior to his takeover of the Weimar Republic. Hitler took complete control of the German Republic in a drawn out process while Trump took complete control of all branches of government in a democratic election. Even the Supreme Court has given him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. He has pledged to be a dictator on Day One as well as to let Russia do "whatever the hell they want" in NATO countries including presumably Ukraine. So there are no guard rails on Trump just as there were none on Hitler once he took over the democratic Weimar Republic in Germany. The people that elected Trump were more persuaded by a show than they were by rationality just as the people of Germany yielded to symbols and showmanship.

Trump said, "Hitler did some good things," a statement that was much derided in the mainstream media despite the fact that it was absolutely true. Hitler brought Germany out of the Great Depression while the US and Britain were still mired in it. He repudiated the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles after World War One which included the payment of reparations which Hitler stopped. He remilitarized the Rhineland; he built the Luftwaffe. He annexed Austria. All these things were violations of the Treaty of Versailles, but they rebuilt the German economy. In terms of symbols and cultural values, Trump took it to the next level. The chief difference between Trump and Hitler, however, is that Hitler was a warmonger; Trump evidently is not. He has said he wants to end the wars that are raging today in Ukraine and the Middle East. As far as Ukraine is concerned, this might be a good thing. It is better that the killing stop than that national borders not be redrawn. That war is a proxy war between the US and Russia that never needed to be fought. And now US personnel are going into Ukraine for whatever supposed good reason. As soon as one of them is killed, the US will be in a direct confrontation with Russia. In 2014 Russia took over Crimea and there was never a peep out of the Obama administration or the European community that now says they are so threatened that Russia may take another piece of Ukraine. At least in that take over there was very little fighting and killing and there was no expenditure of billions of US dollars in a proxy war.

Another reason Trump won was that Merrick Garland didn't pursue the many criminal charges against Trump until it was too late. Why? Maybe he thought that things would die down first, that we were in a vulnerable period and he didn't want to incite more violence. It turned out to be a decision that enabled Trump to come back, reclaim the Presidency and have all charges against him dropped. No wonder he's out for retribution. Meanwhile, Trump was holding rallies, stage managing a comeback and eventually going all the way. Biden and Kamala were simply doing their job while Trump was putting on a show for the American people for four years! With the seriousness of the multiple charges against him, he wouldn't have been allowed to campaign again for the Presidency in any sane country. After Garland's delays, Trump's strategy of delay, delay, delay actually worked.

The notion that Democrats are only making an appeal to college educated voters is bogus. Her appeal was directly to the working class, despite the fact that only college educated voters, primarily, voted for her. There's a difference between who she was trying to help with her policies and who ended up voting for her. She didn't make an appeal to the college educated, but she ended up appealing to the college educated. That's not her fault. Finally, one needs to look at American culture (violent and vulgar) and the American electorate (violent and vulgar) to see that Trump is a perfect match with the American people, a majority of them. It IS who we are, and Trump is a perfect match! For a democracy to work a more sophisticated and educated electorate is necessary. One that is ignorantly persuaded by showmanship does not bode well for the future. In fact climate change will now, in Trump's words, do whatever the hell it wants.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Kamala Lost

by John Lawrence

She did not emphasize middle class tax cuts enough. They were certainly part of her program, and she would mention them in her stump speeches, but she needed to do a lot more than mention them. She needed to go on and on about them. She needed to compare them to the tax cuts given to the middle class by Trump, and not just say that Trump's cuts were mainly for the rich. To a large extent they were, but the middle class got at least something. She needed to emphasize how her middle class tax cuts compared favorably with the tax cuts Trump gave to the middle class, and not just say Trump's tax cuts were largely for the rich which of course they were.

Also Kamala and the Democrats were johhny-come-latelies to border security. They finally got on board with that, but saying that Trump defeated a plan in Congress that would have solved the problem was just not enough. Border security should have become a consensus issue between both parties long before it did. Democrats were late to the party. The idea that a couple could pay coyote fees of about $3000-4000 (data from the Mexican Migration Project) and crawl through a fence, request asylum and be given a court date 5 years hence during which time they could have 3 or 4 children who were legal US citizens is absolutely ridiculous. Then what are you going to do - deport the parents and leave their US citizen children here? It took Democrats far too long to get on top of this issue at least from a rhetorical perspective. The huge number that crossed during Biden's term doomed Kamala's potential term. The US has satellite technology that can spot a flea on a dog. Yet they can't use that technology to spot illegal entrants and immediately deport them. It doesn't make sense

I'm for increased legal immigration, but I'm also for strengthening the border to the point where any illegal immigration is next to impossible. The US spends a trillion dollars a year on its military and has military bases in almost every country in the world and yet cannot enforce a border so that people can only enter at legal ports of entry? Ridiculous! So now Trump gets to take credit for that solution, now that there IS a consensus about it. Democrats missed the ball and didn't articulate a coherent position successfully on this matter soon enough. As far as what to do about the illegals that are currently already here, that's a whole different matter. You can't really deport them if they have had legal US children citizens in the meantime. I guess they outsmarted the government, and in particular Joe Biden's government although to be fair Congress did nothing to help Biden solve that problem even after he was willing to do so. The mistake was to consider it a left-right issue. Left-right doesn't make sense any more. You don't have to position every issue on the left-right spectrum. Pragmatism should rule the day, and Kamala represented that, but it was too late.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala Harris is a Pragmatist, the Only True American Philosophy

by John Lawrence

Kamala wants to strengthen the border. That's supposedly a right wing issue. She wants to give the middle class a tax break. That's a right wing issue too. She wants to strengthen the safety net. That's supposedly a left wing issue. The division of the political spectrum into left wing and right wing issues doesn't make sense any more. No one seems to be interested in foreign policy as an issue in this election so left and right are moot in terms of foreign policy. I am so glad that Democrats have co-opted the tax issue. President Biden first caught on to this when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000. This makes so much sense. Tax the rich, but give the middle class a tax break. Why haven't Democrats thought of making this the issue till recently? The only people opposing Kamala's suggested increased safety net provisions such as giving first time home buyers $25,000 for a down payment or increasing Medicare to incorporate home care for elders are right wing Republicans who don't believe the government should help anyone especially if it raises their taxes by one cent. Increasing the safety net does not necessarily mean anyone's taxes need to be increased. During the 2008 Great Recession, the government spent billions to bail out the banks without raising anyone's taxes. The US dollar is a fiat currency which can just be printed to pay for anything. Thanks to Modern Monetary Theory for explaining that. However, the danger in printing too much money is inflation which the MMT theorists have pointed out. Inflation has come back down to normal so that that shouldn't be an issue going forward. Whether the problem was the dollar giveaways during the pandemic or other issues has not been conclusively determined. The point is that there is not necessarily a cause and effect situation between taxation or lack thereof and government spending.

So the difference between Republican proposed tax breaks and Democratic proposed tax breaks should be made clear. Republicans, Trump in particular, will give huge tax breaks to the rich and modest tax breaks to the middle class with the resulting deficit being added to the national debt. Kamala's tax breaks would only affect the middle class while increased taxes on the rich would pay for them. Thus would not add to the national debt. In fact taxes should be raised on the rich not only to use the money to benefit the middle class but just on principle, the principle being that economic inequality is at levels not seen since the era of kings, monarchs, emperors and czars, in other words not since feudalism. Extreme economic inequality bodes ill against a democracy which must have a strong middle class in order to stay a democracy. Otherwise, you have extremely rich guys like Elon Musk out there buying votes with his million dollar a day giveaways.

I predict this election will see women outvoting men so that Kamala will win. It won't be men electing the first woman President; it will be women doing it. Men will do their best to elect Trump. They all seem to be making excuses for him saying "he doesn't really mean that" to all his outrageous statements. There's no reason not to think that Trump is a dangerous guy who will transform the nature of America and estrange our allies by implementing a radical change in foreign policy. There needs to be a change from Biden's foreign policy in order to end the two wars, but it should be done in association with our allies, not by abruptly separating from our allies. The people out there who are apologists for Trump need to think twice before voting for him.The American economy is the envy of the world, not in the toilet as some of them would have you believe. We need continuity with the Biden government, not a radical change. Inflation is under control. The main economic issue is the high cost of real estate and rent. Kamala has proposed specific plans to deal with this; Trump has not. Trump's proposed tariffs would add to the financial burdens of the middle class. Any one who has a brain in their head will vote for Kamala. Unfortunately, there are many Americans that do not.

Off the Top of My Head

The Economist Says the US Economy is the Envy of the World: How Dumb Can Half of Americans Be Who Think Trump Would Do a Better Job on the Economy?

by John Lawrence

The October 19, 2024 edition of the Economist headlines that the US economy is the envy of the world. Yet Biden is given hardly any credit for a good economy. Why that is? The only explanation is that at least half of US citizens are terribly ill informed which is another way of saying they're ignorant. Probably because they listen to news sources totally biased against Joe Biden, the Democrats and everything they stand for. The dumbing down of American is exemplified by the fact that at the Republican convention the high point was when Hulk Hogan ripped off his shirt. Dumbing down? To the max. The cultural divide between red states and blues states may be mutating, but, as Fareed Zakaria has characterized it, it is still there. It's a divide between college educated and non-college educated people and it's a divide between men and women. One could even go so far as saying it's a divide between the well-informed and the ignorant or between the smart and the dumb. Trump's cult of personality has drug all of one side of this divide into his camp. Kamala and the Democrats represent the other side of this divide.

The left right political spectrum makes no sense any more. Unless, that is, it can be said that the left represents an intelligent approach to the problems of American society and the right represents a bunch of angry, hateful people. The right, as represented by Trump, seems to be only interested in creating an alternative universe in which facts don't matter and only an entertaining form of spite does. Half of America seems to be complicit in Trump's lies and bellicosity. Half of America seems to be entertained by Trump's antics. Half of America seems to look no farther than a bunch of symbols of patriotism characterized by Trump flags and even Trump God Bless the USA Bibles (made in China).

The American economy has now been characterized as having achieved a "soft landing." "I think we should declare a soft landing now," said James Bullard, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, in an interview with CNN earlier this month. 

American shoppers continued to fuel economic growth in the third quarter with their spending, according to the report. That marked the biggest contributor to GDP growth in the third quarter by far. Consumer spending accounts for about 70% of economic output. Spending accelerated sharply in the third quarter, driven by purchases of big-ticket items, while spending on services eased a bit.

So why are so many voters so concerned with the economy? Why is this the biggest issue for so many voters? The American economy is the envy of the world. However, just because "the economy" is doing so well doesn't mean that all those within it are doing well. We would have to look at the distribution of income and the distribution of wealth. Some well off people could be doing most of the spending while others have very little to spend. 31.3% of the households make less than $50,000 a year. 27.8% make between $50,000 and $100,000, and 40.9% make over $100,000. If a household is making less than $50,000 a year, they are certifiably poor. Those making $50,000 to $100,000 are probably lower middle class. They are those who probably cannot afford to buy a house, but are able to afford to pay rent. 40.9% are making over $100,000. Those making over $100,000 are probably the ones doing all the spending making the economy "the envy of the world". What about the distribution of wealth? The bottom 50% own 3% of the wealth. Obviously they don't own assets such as a house. They are renters and will remain so. Between 50% and 90% of the households own 31% of the wealth so 10% of households own approximately two thirds of the wealth. According to the latest Gallup poll, only about 54% of Americans own any stocks. Meanwhile, only about 63% of Americans own real estate according to the Census Bureau. So income and wealth are not evenly distributed over the American economy, and roughly the bottom 50% of American households have little wealth and meager incomes. The upper 50% are doing quite well, thank you.

Kamala Harris is a pragmatist. She's not ideologically driven. She combines both left and right pragmatically. But primarily she appeals or should appeal to the lower 50% in terms of income and wealth. The upper 50% traditionally vote Republican. However, Trump has attracted a cult following which includes a lot of lower income and lower wealth people. These people are voting against their self interest thinking that Trump is going to help them economically more than Kamala would. Then Kamala is attracting a lot of higher income people who want the US to remain a democracy governed by the rule of law and also want reproductive freedom. That's why traditional voting patterns are somewhat obsolete.

Off the Top of My Head

Rudy Giuliani Was Wrong and He Was Made a Fool Of

by John Lawrence

Why are half the people in the country, in which half the people consider Trump a fascist, still willing to vote for him? Rudy Giuliani said the following at Trump's January 6, 2020 rally:

“Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of, but if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail,” he told the crowd that day. “So, let’s have trial by combat.”

Well, Rudy was wrong, and he was made a fool of. Rudy Giuliani must give control of luxury items and his Manhattan apartment to the Georgia election workers he defamed, a judge has ruled. He must feel pretty foolish by now.

So why are so many people still supporting Trump? Because they are complicit in his lies, and, if he is made a fool of, they all collectively will be made fools of. This is why so many will vote for Trump. They think that by doing so, they will be vindicated and not made fools of. If Trump is elected, history about January 6 will be rewritten. He will free all the "hostages" currently serving jail time because of their role in the insurrection. They will be honored as heroes. All the lawsuits against Trump will magically disappear. All the Trump supporters complicit in his lies will be exonerated. However, if Trump is not elected and Kamala wins, he will face the consequences of several lawsuits and could go to jail. All his supporters collectively, in addition to Rudy Giuliani, will have been made fools of, and none of the January 6 rioters will get out of jail, much less will they be honored.

The 2024 US Presidential election in many ways will be a watershed moment. The whole nation in effect will have to live a lie if Trump is elected, and, if he's not, half the nation who believed in Trump will have been delivered a blow to their collective egos. If Trump is elected, the whole world will be changed. Instead of the US being the world's primary leading power, the one that the whole world looks up to, it will instead be only in it for itself making itself great again by withdrawing from the world community. The American empire with 750 military bases in 80 countries around the world would presumably be shut down and the resultant savings be allocated elsewhere presumably to make America great again.

The American Empire will probably come to an end if Trump is elected. Our European allies wouldn't trust us any more. Vladimir Putin would be vindicated and Ukraine partitioned. Russia would have a free hand in Ukraine. Netanyahu would have a free hand in the Middle East. Republican whip Tom Emmer said on CNN that "the American people are only interested in the economy" or words to that effect. That's all the German people were concerned about in the 1930s, and Hitler delivered on that. I doubt if Trump could be as clever. Trump's tariffs would destroy the American economy and possibly land the whole world in a Depression. The American experiment in democracy would be over. As Benjamin Franklin said, "It's a republic if you can keep it." In order to keep it, Kamala Harris must be elected. The alternative is fascism.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Is Trump Spewing Lies and Misinformation? Because It Works!

by John Lawrence

What does this say about the electorate? A portion of them are dumb as Hell. They don't want the truth. They want entertainment, and Trump gives it to them. Whether it's Haitians eating dogs and cats or whatever. The stupider and less true, the better. Why don't other Republicans speak up and point out the stupidity of Trump's assertions? Because, in their minds, it's a winning strategy. They don't care if they win by telling lies or telling the truth. They just want to win. They just want power. Truth be damned. Democracy cannot last if a large proportion of the voters are a bunch of stupid ninnies who will vote for the person who entertains them the most. Democracy is predicated on having an intelligent and educated electorate. It's no wonder that most Trump voters are not college educated and most Kamala voters are. That's the difference between those who have a brain in their head who mostly vote Democratic and those who don't who mostly vote Republican. Trump is the perfect candidate actually because he appeals to the large segment of the electorate who just want to be entertained and will go along with any bullshit he says without critically examining it to determine whether it's true or factual.

Critical thinking is something that supposedly is learned in college. Hence the split between non college educated voters who mostly vote for Trump and college educated voters who will mostly vote for Kamala. An uneducated electorate are like sheep being led to slaughter. They think the economy under Trump when he was President was better than it was under Biden. Really? Trump gave $7 trillion worth of tax cuts mostly to the rich and added that much to the national debt. Biden, in addition to bailing out people and businesses during the pandemic was responsible for the Inflation Reduction Act which was a huge investment in the American people in terms of jobs. Then there was the Chips and Science Act which not only created jobs, but kept critical infrastructure in the US rather than depending on foreign suppliers. I could go on ... $35 a month insulin for Medicare recipients and blah blah blah ... To boot inflation has returned to normal, and I believe Biden is still President, isn't he?

Then there is the border where illegal crossings are at the lowest level since Biden took office as President.. NPR reported: "President Biden issued executive actions severely restricting asylum claims at the border, and migrants who cross are more likely to be removed from the country expeditiously. ... Due to this rule and Mexico’s beefed-up enforcement, unauthorized crossings in June [2024] hit the lowest level since President Biden took office in 2021." Why isn't Kamala touting this? Inflation is down and illegal border crossings are down, and yet Trump is considered by many to be better for the economy and immigration. Really? It's not Trump but those members of the electorate who have their heads up their collective asses. Trump is just doing what he thinks is a smart, winning strategy. It doesn't have to do with the truth or anything else as long as he thinks he can trick the voters into voting for him. These Trump voters don't care about facts. They just want to be entertained, and Trump is doing a good job at that. Smart guy, that Trump. Let's give him his due. However, democracy is predicated on an educated electorate which is capable of actually knowing what is good for them and their fellow citizens and what's not. Trump voters, who may be responsible for choosing the next President, are neither educated, critical thinkers or capable of telling truth from fiction.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Doesn't Know the Difference Between Capitalism and Communism

by John Lawrence

The Trump campaign is saying that they will bring grocery and housing prices down. To address high prices, Trump said he would sign an executive order on his first day sworn in as president “directing every cabinet secretary and agency head to use every power we have to drive prices down, but we’re going to drive them down in a capitalist way, not in a communist way,” he said. Really? In a capitalist economic system, which the US certainly is, prices are set by the market, not by the government. Now Trump proposes to use government to interfere with the market to bring prices down. That's anti-capitalistic. So exactly how do you bring prices down in a capitalist way without interfering with the market? You can't. If you're a capitalist, you let the market set prices, whatever they turn out to be. So Trump, a purported capitalist, accuses Kamala for being a communist or a socialist while he turns out to be one himself. Kamala has proposed a Federal ban on price gouging. Exactly how that would work is unclear. So both Trump and Kamala are proposing to use government to interfere in the market to bring prices down.

So what could be done to bring prices down? Bringing down prices is not really the problem. Making sure that every American can afford groceries and housing is. There is precedent for government supported housing also know as public housing for people that can't afford a house in the market economy. Kamala's proposal to grant first time buyers $25,000 for a down payment is also a good idea. That doesn't interfere with the price setting mechanism of the capitalist economy. Government has also supplied food for poor people whether it be food stamps or SNAP. So the market still sets the price of housing and groceries for those who can afford to buy these things in the market economy. This amounts to socialism for the poor, capitalism for the rich in contrast to the situation that now exists which is socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Trump's $7 trillion tax cut amounted to socialism for the rich.

The US has a mixed economy. It is partly capitalist and partly socialist as are most eonomies of advanced industrial nations. If Trump were a pure capitalist he would say that the market should set prices for housing and groceries, and that he as President would have nothing to do with that. But since he like most Republicans are hypocrites who will say anything to gain political power, he is all concerned about prices. Kamala by contrast does not claim to be a pure capitalist so she sincerely wants to help people at the low end of the economic spectrum to be able to afford adequate housing and nutrition. Exactly what programs she wants to implement do not have to be spelled out at this point in the campaign. The point is that she sincerely wants to help people at the lower part of the economic spectrum. Trump could care less about them. He only wants to help his rich billionaire friends.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala: Just Ignore the Insults and Keep Smiling

by John Lawrence

Trump's MO is to say outrageous things, and then get pundits to mull them over and candidates to defend themselves. Instead, just ignore them, and they will fall with a thud. Don't get involved with Trump's lies and insults. Just don't respond. Same thing for Tim Walz. Ignore anything that's said about his teaching, coaching, military service etc. The comments by JD Vance and Trump aren't worth responding to. Just ignore them and power on. Put forth your hopes, your vision and your agenda. Better not to get down in the mud and wrestle. Just keep on keeping on. It's not worth engaging with the likes of Trump. You don't really have to.

All Kamala needs to do is what she thinks is most propitious to getting more people to vote for her. She doesn't have to do what the pundits want her to do. She doesn't have to do what Trump wants her to do. She just needs to do whatever she thinks will get her elected. Obviously, Kamala's constituency is different from Trump's constituency. She appeals to women more so than men. Men, especially white men, are Trump's constituency. This election is about a gender divide as well as a black white divide. So probably it is about whose constituency is more excited and more committed to actually voting. Will voters study the issues and then make an intelligent, informed decision? I doubt it for the most part. This election is about how many people on Kamala's share of the divide will actually get out and vote for her as compared with how many on Trump's share of the divide will get out and vote for him.

I have a feeling that Kamala's committed voters outnumber Trump's committed voters because women outnumber men, and women are more likely to actually vote than men. Also Kamala has a huge war chest - hundreds of millions of dollars. If she uses it wisely, she will have an advantage from that perspective. Trump is grasping at straws by bringing RFK Jr on board. That could actually dilute Trump's support.Trump is seemingly doubling down on the crazy. Kamala just needs to hold steady and affirm that she is the adult in the room. Her policy agenda so far is excellent. It's simple: a middle class tax break and affordable housing. Tax breaks are the only thing Trump has going for him but his are mainly for the rich. Kamala has successfully co-opted Trump's "no taxes on tips' pledge. She's out foxed him on taxes. What's left? Oh, the border. She has a good point about how Trump nixed a bipartisan border deal. However, she needs to be more forceful. Resources have to be spent on the border both in human and financial terms so that the border is impregnable and so that the only possible crossings are legal crossings. How about this as a slogan: reduce illegal crossings to zero while enhancing legal crossings so that the US gets the immigrant workers it needs. Those entering legally should be those that enhance the US' position in the world in terms of the economy and in terms of sheer humanity. Amnesty should be requested from the home country or a third country. Even if granted, it does not mean that they will wind up in the US. International law does not guarantee exactly which country a person granted amnesty will end up in. The important thing is that Kamala should co-opt Trump's position on the border while doing it in a humane way.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Isn't This Election About Climate Change?

by John Lawrence

Climate change is the overwhelming existential issue. Why is it hardly mentioned by Kamala or Trump. Not only does Trump not mention it, he denies it. Kamala like most Democrats takes it seriously, but her campaign hardly mentions it. Why? The American people care more about their individual economic situations than they do about the fate of the planet. There is no other explanation. We should have been doing ten times as much ten years ago to mitigate climate change. At this point the earth is facing a catastrophe in the very near future even though significant efforts are being made to mitigate it at the present time. However, it's not nearly enough. Furthermore, the American people are not even that interested in doing anything about it. If they were, Kamala, at least, would be talking about it and making it part of her campaign. Instead, she hardly mentions it. One can only conclude that, despite local catastrophes for relatively small numbers of people who have lost their homes in fires or floods, the great masses of Americans who have not really suffered have figured that climate change is no big deal as long as some catastrophe has not happened to them personally. This seems to me to be utter selfishnss, ignorance and lack of concern about the commons which is the earth itself. The prevailing attitude seems to be, as long as it doesn't happen to me, I'm not concerned about it. Instead, I will vote strictly on my own individual economic interests.

It is complete foolishness to place individual concerns above the fate of the planet. The implication is that selfish interests of those alive today trump the interests of the next generation and future generations. Americans have been taught to pursue their individual economic interests rather than to be concerned about the economic interest of the commons. We have been taught and it is part of American ideology that individual pursuits are more important than commpn pursuits. In fact common pursuits have been denigrated as socialism or communism. However, the earth and its systems are something that we all depend on. We depend on the fact that temperatures won't rise to 130 degrees F. If they do, individual pursuits will not matter any more except for those whose only interest is to profit off of others' misery. When every rain storm floods out towns and villages, will those not affected just continue to pursue personal profit? When large areas of the world become uninhabitable, will that simply drive up real estate values in the remaining regions? It's happening already. Insurance companies are raising rates in areas that are subject to flooding or fires. The handwriting is on the wall except the American people have blinders on. Some go as far as to insist on gas powered vehicles and complain bitterly if their right to own one were to be taken away.

American voters don't even list climate change as one of their main concerns. Does it even make the top ten? Not according to a Pew survey which rated climate change 18^th!! So are the American people not only completely selfish but also catastrophically ignorant? It would appear so. "There's no excuse for fiddling while the planet burns." So said Tom Steyer, an investor who has devoted his life to fighting climate change,. His book, Cheaper, Faster, Better is out now. What it boils down to is that, although catastrophic climate change is already baked in, we should do everything possible to electrify the planet so that at least some life survives at some level. That's better than throwing up our hands and saying, "Why bother? It's all over anyway."

Off the Top of My Head

Which Is Truer: The American People Are Hurting Because of the Cost of Eggs or The American People Are Well Off If They Can Spend Thousands on Taylor Swift Concerts and All the Airline Seats Are Filled

by John Lawrence

Apparently, there's a cutoff point above which Americans are all enjoying the good life and below which Americans are sweating their next rent payment. Kamala needs to get a graph which shows where this cutoff point is. Then she needs to appeal to the majority of voters not just a minority of Taylor Swift concert goers or those that can't pay their rent. According to the Fed's 2022 Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households survey ..., 37% of Americans lack enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense, up 5% from 32% in 2021 and back to 2019 levels. That means that 63% of Americans can cover a $400 emergency with no problems.Ticket prices to concerts and sports events are not cheap, and they sell out well in advance. Will the real American please stand up? Everyone complains about the cost of groceries, but does that include those filling airline seats, going to professional football games and paying big bucks filling seats at numerous events. Which is it? So, Kamala needs not to make a mistake by only appealing to 37% of Americans. She needs to appeal to the other 63% as well or at least a majority including both segments..

So what are the 63% of Americans concerned with? Reproductive freedom, for sure. It's very American to not want government telling you what you can and cannot do. They are also concerned about the border, and that includes Democrats as well as Republicans. Kamala should get out in front of Trump on this issue. Here's a policy for you: The goal should be not one illegal border crossing while increasing legal pathways for immigration. It's very simple. Forget all the ifs, ands, buts, whereases and other considerations. KISS: Keep it simple, stupid. That's the only thing Americans can understand. They don't read. They are only involved in politics to the extent that it is entertaining them, especially Trump voters. Kamala should go ahead and do what she did yesterday - make bold policy proposals without worrying about how we're going to pay for it. Leave it to the wonks to get down in the weeds about that. Most Americans don't care about the weeds. They just want to know what she will be trying to accomplish - where her head's at. It's all about getting elected. Did Trump ever get down in the weeds? He can't even make a coherent policy proposal. Kamala should outflank him.

It was a bold stroke to agree with Trump about not taxing tips. She neutralized that Trump initiative. Let Trump complain that it was his idea first. Who cares? Kamala is outsmarting Trump. It doesn't take much intelligence to do that. She should continue to out smart, finesse, outflank and do whatever it takes to get elected no matter how much Trump or the press or the pundits complain that she's not doing what they think she should do. It's not about doing what the pundits want you to do. It's about doing what will resonate with the American people and will get you elected. There is nothing that says you have to have a complete budget drawn up and every item accounted for before the election. Republicans have been relying on the fact that it's not illegal to lie yourself into a position of political power. They have been doing it for years. I don't advocate that Kamala should lie and for the most part Democrats have not lied, but they should not worry about accounting for every jot and tittle of the policy proposals. And she should do what she thinks she needs to do to get elected not what the pundits think she should do like give news conferences. If she thinks news conferences will advance her position, then she should do them. If not, then she shouldn't and the timing of everything is up to her. It's that simple.

Off the Top of My Head

Kamala Should Get Out in Front of Trump on Taxes

by John Lawrence

You know that Trump wants to make the Trump tax cuts permanent. These are the tax cuts that added $7 trillion to the national debt and primarily benefited the rich. Kamala should finesse this issue by taking it away from Trump. Here's how: make it part of her platform to keep the Trump tax cuts for the poor and middle class while sunsetting them for the rich. Even better use the money saved by sunsetting the tax cuts for the rich to give the poor and middle class an even bigger tax cut than the Trump tax cuts provided. The important thing is to get out in front of Trump on this issue. Let him respond to her. Trump will then be behind the eight ball on this and other issues. All Trump has to offer is personal attacks, and they seem to be falling flat with respect to Kamala. Her politics of joy seem to be winning, and the Democratic National Convention should add another boost to the Harris-Walz ticket.

CNBC has just reported: "[Harris'] policies include a ban on “corporate price-gouging” to lower the cost of groceries and prescription drugs, and they aim to expand affordable housing and cut taxes for the middle class." Of course nothing will happen unless Democrats also control both Houses of Congress. But that should not prevent Kamala or any other Presidential candidate from promising big things. The important words are "tax cuts for the middle class." Some of the other plans Kamala is espousing are "the first-ever federal ban on “corporate price-gouging” on food and groceries". Well, good luck with that. Good talking point though. Her other plans include encouraging builders to build starter homes and Federal help with down payments on a house. CNBC reported: "As the supply of entry-level homes expanded, the Harris plan would “provide working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners,” according to the fact sheet." $25,000 will not be much help for a down payment though. At 20% down, $25,000 would only provide a down payment on a $125,000 house. This might be possible in some parts of the country as real estate values vary a lot with region. However, in San Diego starter homes are around $1 million. It would be a non-starter.

Harris will also call for the U.S. to construct 3 million new housing units over the next four years. I don't think this would be very effective as long as those new houses are subject to the market. Market rate housing is the problem, not the solution. Preventing hedge funds from buying up houses and then renting them out would help the situation. Some mechanism must be found such that the average middle class family can afford to buy a house. The emphasis on affordable starter homes is a big deal. Democrats are also all about lowering the price of pharmaceuticals. We can thank Joe Biden for that. However, he won't get credit since that deal doesn't become effective for another year. The various other parts of Kamala's economic plan won't resonate all that well with the American public because they won't understand them. However, "tax cuts for the middle class" will resonate and will steal Trump's thunder. Let Trump complain, as he did with not taxing tips, that it was his idea first!

Off the Top of My Head

Character Assassination: That's What Donald Trump Does Best

by John Lawrence

It's not about what either candidate will put their energy into in order to make the lives of Americans better. It's all about destroying the character of the other party. Has Trump said one thing about what he will try to do to make the lives of average Americans better? Of course not. It's all about him, and he's all about ridiculing and attacking Kamala and Tim Walz. Trump is about stoking hate and fear. Oh, you better be afraid of Kamala and Tim because they are so radical. They're so left wing. They're socialists. So what do those labels actually mean? Nothing. According to Republicans, if you actually want to help people, you're a socialist.So according to them, the best thing for the country is NOT to try and help people. If anything you should give more trillions of dollars to the military and slash taxes for the rich, because, as we all know, it's only the rich that can make the US a better place. Meanwhile, the rest of the civilized world does not only try to make the lives of their people better, they actually care about doing something about climate change which will probably destroy the lives of the next generation if more isn't done about it.

So American democracy is about the candidates propitiating the wants of the least common denominators? Or about electing someone who has successfully assassinated their competitor's character? That's what democracy is all about? And God forbid that a candidate even mentions climate change or that Americans should have to give up their gas guzzling cars, their hamburgers or even their plastic straws. Meanwhile, climate change is already destroying the lives of millions of people and inconveniencing millions more. But "leaders" are still attributing weather disasters to "thousand year" floods. However, thousand year floods are occurring on a yearly basis. Democracy really doesn't work if you have to pander to the least common denominators and they are a bunch of ignoramuses whose only interests are self interest. But that's how Americans have been taught to be - self interested.

Meanwhile, one might think that American elections are all about raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

By law, major presidential candidates in France may not spend more than 22.5 million Euros (about $25 million) on their campaigns. We in the United States have no such limits.

Joe Biden spent $1.6 billion to win the 2020 presidential election. That is 70 times more than Macron spent on his bid, yet the U.S. population is just five times larger than France’s. There is no end in sight to the amount of money in American politics. Biden spent three times more than Hilary Clinton did in 2016. One could argue that the high stakes in the 2020 election justified big spending, but that argument applies equally to France in 2022 when there is a war raging on two NATO borders to its east. The only reason France spends orders of magnitude less than the United States in its elections is because the French have limits.

Not only that, but there are time limits for campaigning in major European countries. In France, the official election campaign usually lasts no more than 2 weeks. In countries which have parliamentary democracies, there is no voting for President. You only vote for members of parliament. This in itself would tend to decrease the division of the electorate into two opposing groups as has happened in the US where the country is divided into two warring camps. In the US all races not only for President but for members of Congress are winner take all. This also tends to divide the electorate into two warring camps. To further exacerbate American elections, we have the antiquated system of the electoral college so that the election for President hinges on the results in just a few battleground states. The Presidential election is not determined by the popular vote resulting in the fact that the US is a democracy only in the minimalist of terms.

Off the Top of My Head

Mud Slinging and Character Assassination: the Only Things Republicans Know How To Do

by John Lawrence

And then the pundits discuss the mud slinging by the hour. Calling people names. Making up stuff. What's this got to do with the future vision for the country? What I want to hear from Trump and Kamala is their vision for the future of our country. I could care less about what they seem to be all about - destroying their opponent. These are the ethics of a wrestling match - destroy your opponent. Kamala has to get specific about a few policies, namely, the border, taxation and abortion. She needs to co-opt Trump's issues. She needs to call for a tax cut for the middle class while raising taxes on the rich. On the border, she has to call for strengthening the border to the point that it is impregnable while calling for increased legal pathways for immigration and asylum. On the wars she has to demand a cease fire and hostage release in Gaza and a settlement in Ukraine that's basically a compromise instead of an all or nothing approach.

The overriding issue of our times is climate change. Nothing could be clearer than the differences between the two parties on this issue. The Democrats are very environmentally conscious. Republicans couldn't care less about the environment or climate change. All they care about is their plastic straws, gas guzzling vehicles, guns and meat. Don't ask them to change their way of life in order to save the planet for future generations. It's hard to imagine a worse ethical stance. They are against everything that is conducive to making the world a better place. It's the legacy of an ethic of selfishness as promulgated by Ronald Reagan, George W Bush and others including Ayn Rand who wrote The Virtue of Selfishness. The US has a very weak, to the point of nonexistence, communal ethic. Individualism and competition is the fabric of American character. There have been a few exceptions, namely, the Depression and World War II. Even in those cases there were many voices who called for not getting involved and just letting the chips fall where they may.

So Kamala, don't get caught up in the mudslinging, character assassination and name calling or responding to same. Express clearly where you are on the issues and where your policies will take America and the world. Vagueness is the enemy of clarity and decisiveness. Better to ignore Trump and his puerility. I want to see clarity about the border and clarity about taxation. As far as women's reproductive rights, Democrats own that issue. As for the rest, a continuation of Biden's policies in terms of infrastructure, the child tax credit, elder long term care and other aspects of Biden's Build Back Better program are important. Especially, the surge in mental awareness and acceptance of mutual responsibility for climate change and the environment is paramount regardless of Republican insistence on keeping their plastic straws, guns, meat and gas guzzlers. A change in the mentality of Americans has to occur or climate disasters will only get worse until many areas of the US, not to mention the world, will become uninhabitable in the very near future.

Off the Top of My Head

Tax Cuts for the Middlle Class; Tax Hikes on the Rich

by John Lawrence

The two issues Republicans have are tax cuts and border security. Don't cede these issues to Republicans. A majority of Americans want a secure border. This has nothing to do with LEGAL immigration or even with amnesty. Limiting amnesty to those applying for it legally does not require any changes in the law. What it does require is reinforcing the border so no one can get over it illegally. This would then require more resources devoted to reinforcing the border.   In terms of tax cuts, Democrats have to stress tax cuts for the middle class paid for by tax hikes on the rich. Kamala should go right after these issues. She needs to be extremely tough on both of them. Let's face it: Democrats are going to vote for her no matter what. However, at this point in time, most voters are independents. She needs to co-opt Trumplican issues. And don't be too worried about a plan. Does Trump have a plan? No, he just asserts, "I will do this. I will do that." Kamala should take a page out of Trump's book. Just say, "I will do this. I will do that." She doesn't need to spell out HOW she's going to do it in detail. For sure, Trump doesn't.

Now that Joe Biden has dropped out of the race, he doesn't have to do two jobs - being President and campaigning - while Trump just has one - campaigning. That's why Mike Johnson wants Biden to resign: so that Kamala will be saddled with the responsibilities of President instead of devoting full time to campaigning. Democrats know what the Democratic agenda is in terms of providing for and addressing the needs of the middle class and the poor. But she has to address the sweet spot - where the majority of voters are and what the majority of voters are concerned about. Of course the abortion issue resonates well for Democrats and all Americans.

This whole thing about a short campaign season for Kamala is ridiculous. Most countries don't let political campaigns last more than a couple of months by law. In France political campaigns just last a couple of weeks. In Canada the longest political campaign was 74 days. In Australia, the longest political campaign lasted 11 weeks. In Japan campaigning is allowed for 12 days. In countries where campaigns are limited by law, elections aren't controlled by big money interests as they are in the US. The longer the campaign season, the more big money controls elections and politics. In the US, if we don't want the very rich to control elections, not only the campaign period, but also the amount of money spent on political campaigns needs to be controlled.

The US is becoming a neo-medieval society in which the majority have no hope of home ownership, but are destined to work paycheck to paycheck and be renters for life. This means no asset accumulation while their rents increase even with low inflation or target inflation of 2%. 2% target inflation means at least 2% rent increases over the course of a renter's life. In addition to not having any asset accumulation those living paycheck to paycheck are vulnerable to credit card and car payment debt so that they are supporting the banking system with interest payments for their entire life.

Off the Top of My Head

Why Are Democrats Not Hammering on the Trump Tax Cuts Which Need to be Increased for Middle Class and Eliminated for the Rich

by John Lawrence

American voters love tax cuts. That's the main appeal of a Republican administration. Biden has said he won't raise taxes for anyone making less than $400,000. This is not a strong enough statement. He, or whoever eventually is the Democratic nominee, should say that they will lower taxes for anyone making less than $400,000. Most of the Trump tax cuts go to those making over $400,000. CNN reported: "The highest-income households would receive more than 45% of the benefits if the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are extended, according to an analysis released Monday by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center." Why can't the Democrats see this? The Republicans' only appeal to the middle class are the tax cuts which give them a paltry $1000 or 1.3% of their income off their taxes while the rich households making at least around $450,000 – roughly the top 5% - would see their after-tax income increase by 3.2%. Democrats need to take this issue away from Republicans. Right now their rhetoric around this issue is too weak.

For those in the top 1%, who make at least $1 million, they get a tax cut of about $70,000, on average, in 2027. The top 0.1%, who make at least $5 million, would pocket a tax cut of nearly $280,000, on average, or about 3% of their after-tax income. Also extending the Trump tax cuts would have a big impact on the national debt, raising it by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years – before interest costs are factored in, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Of course this will give power to Republican claims that the government can't support social security and Medicare any more. There will not be any more money available after supporting a one trillion dollar military budget and paying interest on the national debt.

What is wrong with the Democrats? There is already too much disparity between the very rich and the middle class. We are going back to a medieval society where the rich aristocracy run the political establishment and the middle class are nothing but modern day peasants. The peasants will not be able to build wealth because they won't be able to buy a house which is the main wealth builder for the middle class. They all will be renters for life living paycheck to paycheck. This is the reality for life in America today. People who have even one asset, a house, will get ahead by building wealth. People who are life long renters will only create wealth for their landlords. This is the way it was 500 years ago. Well, at least today, everyone has a cell phone.

Off the Top of My Head

Democrats Are Not Married to Joe Biden

by John Lawrence

Joe Biden engaged in an unremitting debacle last night. Debates are about more than just words and points. Joe Biden looked like death warmed over - a gray pallor. Donald Trump had color in his face and walked and talked like a normal human being. Joe Biden shuffles. That's for starters. Then Biden spoke in a monotone, rushing his words and then stumbled over them and then lost his trains of thought. Debates are about more than scoring verbal points. They are about eloquence and articulation. Joe Biden had nothing to offer in these areas. Then there were the repeated Biden cliches - "and by the way" which he repeated ad nauseum. His defensiveness - "The idea ...". And there were more. Biden's delivery was so poor and expressionless that Trump's demeanor triumphed by comparison. Trump had no problem finding his words albeit his words were filled with lies. Trump sounded normal and looked normal. He was animated whereas Biden looked stiff and frozen - death warmed over. Sorry to say it because I was a big Biden fan and think his accomplishments are in the class of the few greatest Presidents.

What's important now is to get someone else in there. Almost any youthful, normal Democrat could beat Donald Trump. Also any normal Democrat would continue Biden's policies. We don't need Joe Biden in order to continue Joe Biden's policies. The stakes are so big for this election in terms of the policies of any generic Democrat versus the policies of Donald Trump which would be disastrous for the nation and for the world. Just the fact that Trump would disable any climate change policies is enough to vote against him. The world is simultaneously burning up and being drowned in floods. Trump would guarantee that climate change would not only continue unabated, but would be accelerated.

My pick would be Gavin Newsom, a very impressive, well spoken and knowledgeable Democrat. Newsom could easily beat Trump in my opinion and would continue for the most part Biden's and Democrat's policies.This election should not be about Biden's ego. It's about the fate of America and the world. Biden's domestic policies have been excellent, but I have reservations about his foreign policy. The two wars in Ukraine and Israel have hurt him, and I don't agree with how Biden has handled them. He has too much of a Cold War mentality. Biden is at least somewhat responsible for setting up a new Cold War axis with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea on the other side. I think that some other President could possibly ameliorate this situation. We don't need another Cold War at this point in history.

The President of the United States is too important a position for a joker like Trump to be in it. I believe any normal Democrat could beat Trump. It's all about Trump's policies versus generic Democratic policies and which are better for America and the world. We don't need Joe Biden to continue Joe Biden's policies. He should step aside for the good of the country.

Off the Top of My Head

What Biden Has To Do To Win

by John Lawrence

The two biggest issues are the economy and the border. Biden has to address these two issues effectively if he hopes to win the election. The way to neutralize Trump's appeal on these issues is essentially to co-opt Trump's positions. On the economy, Biden must come out for tax breaks for the middles class. He has already been talking about taxing the rich. Good, but this does nothing for tax relief for the middle class unless he explicitly comes out and say so. Americans are at least subconsciously accustomed to the fact that, f they elect a Republican President, they will get a tax cut. Problem is Republican tax cuts go mainly to the rich as they did during Trump's administration when he added $7 trillion to the national debt with his tax cuts. The fact that Biden wants to tax the rich should enable him to responsibly give tax cuts to the middle class without adding to the debt. He needs to simplify his messaging to the bare essentials as Trump does without getting down into the policy weeds.

Secondly, on the border, Biden's position is not strong enough. This vaunted "bi-partisan legislation" that Trump doesn't want passed is not strong enough. The correct position is that the goal should be not one illegal entry over the US border. This is the position of most countries after all. The US is spending too much money on 750 military bases in 80 countries being the world's policeman yet it can't control its own border! This is the height of ridiculousness. I hasten to point out that with effective border control the laws regarding amnesty would not have to be changed. Immigrants could still apply for amnesty albeit through legal channels. The ridiculous situation that anyone who sets foot on American soil illegally can apply for amnesty will have been effectively curtailed. This presupposes that enormous resources in terms of infrastructure and manpower will have to be redirected to the border. Well, how about closing some of those foreign military bases and using that money to beef up the border? The goal should be not one illegal entry, rather than hiring more judges. The bill entails: "The bipartisan Senate bill would add more than 1,500 new Customs and Border Protection personnel. Asylum Officers and Asylum Reform: Similarly, Asylum Officer staffing has remained stagnant over the last four years and there is an insufficient number of asylum officers to do initial screenings." This bill presupposes that immigrants will continue to enter the US illegally. It's the wrong approach, it's too complicated, the American people will not understand it. Trump will make that clear. Trump will state his case simply and directly in a way that a 12 year old can understand which is about the mentality of a lot of the American people. Biden has to out Trump Trump on this issue, but do it in a responsible way. If the goal is "not one illegal entry," then that can be coupled with increasing LEGAL immigration.

Thirdly, Biden has to end the two wars: Ukraine and Gaza. He is letting Netanyahu run all over him making him look weak. He has to demand an end to that war and impose a two state solution if necessary. He dos not need to state a lot of ifs, buts, whereases and wherefores. Simply state his position and what he intends to accomplish with all the might of US prestige and power. Trump will state his positions as if they will be fait accomplis no matter how impractical or unlikely they actually are in reality. Biden has to get a lot tougher and use the withdrawal of US resources from Israel if necessary. He is treating Israel with kid gloves. He has to be more evenhanded in his support for Gaza and Palestine. In Ukraine, the handwriting is on the wall. Biden's cold war mentality set up this proxy war between the US and Russia. He has to demand a cease fire with the lines being drawn between the areas that Russia and Ukraine now control. To be specific Russia would control Crimea, which they've controlled since 2014 without a peep from the Obama administration, and the Donbas region while Ukraine controls the rest. A plebiscite could later determine the eventual fate of the boundaries between the two countries. If Biden doesn't do something about a cease fire in each of these  two wars, it could doom his Presidency for a second term. Americans are tired of these meaningless wars and the inability of the all powerful US, the world's policeman, to do anything about them.

In short Biden has to get tough. He needs to simplify his positions. It's not enough to criticize Trump as being too extreme. Obviously, the American people aren't buying it. He needs to finesse the main issues - economy, border and 2 wars - by saying that he will 1) give tax breaks to the middle class, 2) prevent even one illegal entry to the US and 3) end the 2 wars. If he does all three things, he will co-opt Trump on these issues and win the election. If he continues to advocate for the Senate border bill, let Netanyahu make a patsy out of him and call for taxing the rich without a concomitant tax break for the middle class, he will lose.

Off the Top of My Head

The World's Policeman Cannot Even Police Its Own Borders

by John Lawrence

The U.S. has about 750 military bases across 80 countries in the world and had deployed 173,000 troops in 159 different countries as of July 2021. Yet it can't patrol or defend its own borders. This is the height of ridiculousness. While Congress persons debate some Rube Goldberg solution to border security, the Biden administration should do this if it wants to neutralize Trump's stand on border security: the Democrat policy should be "not one illegal border crossing should be tolerated. We stand for increasing legal immigration while decreasing illegal immigration to ZERO." The US spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined, and yet is willing to tolerate people entering the country illegally. What a joke! If Biden wants to defeat Trump, he should take this issue away from him by declaring that his goal is: NOT ONE ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.

This means that, instead of spending money on 750 military bases in 80 countries all over the world, the US needs to spend money instead on policing its own border including, but not limited to, physical barriers. In addition there must be electronic barriers, satellite surveillance, and other sophisticated means of surveillance. Why not use AI, the supposed cure all for everything that ails us. Why not put 10 or 100 of those military bases circling the world right on the US border? To be clear I am not advocating withdrawing from being involved in world affairs, but that involvement which is manifested in being the world's policeman has got to change. It has been of very little value if you add it all up. The US can effectively patrol the whole world anyway from the sky, from space and from the sea. It doesn't need land based military bases. The US should be involved in the world by expanding its Peace Corp, building infrastructure like China is with its Belt and Road Initiative and mitigating climate change in vulnerable countries. In other words the US should be a force for good in the world not just a force for preserving US interests or the status quo.

Three U.S. soldiers were killed on January 28, 2024 in Jordan, while more than 40 other service members were injured following an uncrewed aerial system attack at a military base near the Syrian border. Then of course the US has to retaliate to avenge the deaths of those soldiers. Soldiers on many of these bases are sitting ducks and are provocative to those seeking to damage US interests.Yet the role of the US as the world's policeman is not even debated by politicians and probably won't be as the election season heats up. Instead the border debate is a big deal as it should be. Biden needs to assert that his goal is that not one person should enter the US illegally, but that legal immigration should be expanded. He should outTrump Trump on border security if he wants to be elected, and, while he is at it, he should demand that at least 25% of the bloated military budget which amounts to about a trillion dollars a year be redirected to border security. There is no reason why the US should not have the most sophisticated border security system in the world.

Off the Top of My Head

Theatre of the Absurd: Trump and the US Legal System

by John Lawrence

The judge in the hush money case, Juan Merchan, placed a gag order on Trump barring him from commenting publicly about witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and jurors. Only thing is he didn't bar Trump from commenting publicly about himself or his family. Of course Trump commenced to doing just that. Trump said, “Judge Juan Merchan is totally compromised, and should be removed from this TRUMP Non-Case immediately. His Daughter, Loren, is a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me, and yet he gagged me.” So now Trump's lawyers want to litigate the gag order which Trump, theoretically, did not violate since the judge did not include himself and his daughter in it. It doesn't get more absurd than this. First of all how stupid is the judge not to include himself and his family and everybody else in the gag order? Trump's lawyers say that the judge is violating Trump's First Amendment rights. So now let's litigate that. Let's litigate the gag order, and, if it isn't decided in Trump's favor, his lawyers will appeal it to a higher court. And if that higher court doesn't rule in Trump's favor, they will appeal it to an even higher court. This whole strategy is aimed at befuddling and delaying any action that would finally find Trump guilty of anything. Trump is making a fool of the judge and his family, and will probably never pay any price for it.

In this Theatre of the Absurd, one might humbly ask why did it take three years for any of these dozens of indictments to result in a trial? Now they're up against the next election cycle. It didn't have to be this way. Why weren't these trials expedited in the first place? Why does it take forever to get anything done in the US legal system? This makes it pretty easy for Trump to delay, delay and delay. Why are these guys so negligent with respect to time and so tardy to get anything done? This makes a mockery of the legal system if nothing can get brought to fruition as long as some wealthy guy can hire a bunch of lawyers to delay the whole process. Ionesco had nothing on the US legal system. Neither did Kafka. Kafka's literary endeavors typically featured isolated protagonists facing bizarre or surrealistic predicaments and incomprehensible socio-bureaucratic powers. Sound familiar?

Not only is Trump making a mockery of the whole legal system, he is making a mockery of US capitalism as well. While Trump is slipping the surly bonds of the US legal system, he is laughing all the way to the bank with the help of Wall Street. How is it possible that, while pundits are salivating over whether Trump can pay his legal bills, all of a sudden his social media mouthpiece, Truth Social, is going public which could net Trump billions of dollars. So he may not have his First Amendment rights, but who cares as long as Trump can make billions of dollars by his rights in the capitalist system to have Wall Street do an IPO for him and get investors, many of whom are probably rich Trump supporters, to gleefully invest in something which will probably make him and them billionaires? So there is money in misinformation and disinformation and hate speech. What else is new and why is the US legal and financial system supporting it? After all First Amendment rights combined with capitalism can be a toxic stew which the American legal and financial system is only too happy to condone or at least condone while some pundits wring their hands decrying it. That's their First Amendment rights - to complain while Trump escapes punishment and laughs all the way to the bank. And he might get to be President too! Only in America.

Off the Top of My Head

Will the Antiquated Electoral College Finally Bite Us in the Butt in 2024

by John Lawrence

Doesn't everybody agree that the President should be elected by popular vote? In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies, the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters. Thirty other democracies are classified as constitutional monarchies, and in the remaining 30, including the U.S., the head of state is indirectly elected. Shouldn't the American President also be elected by popular vote? But that's not the way we do it due to an antiquated, sclerotic and archaic electoral system that was implemented over 200 years ago before widespread, mass communications. In those days the fastest way that information could be communicated was by horse and buggy or just by horse. That system may be responsible for the upcoming worst disaster in American history in which the popular vote would have elected Joe Biden but in which the electoral vote elects Donald Trump. Every State is allocated a number of votes equal to the number of Senators and Representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its Senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its Congressional districts. Most States have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who wins the State's popular vote. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” So it comes down to an arbitrary game devised centuries ago which bears little if any resemblance to the result of a majority vote among American citizens. This is pretty bad for a country who champions democracy in the world.

The electoral college presages a race for President of the US which comes down to the outcomes in five battleground states. These states are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The rest of the states are reliably either Republican or Democratic. One of the pitfalls of the electoral college is that minorities of voters are not counted in most states. The majority of voters in these states determines who gets all the electoral votes from that state. This totally skews the vote for President. If a majority of voters in those battleground states vote for Trump, Trump will be elected no matter the results of the popular vote taking into account the votes of people in other states. Of course the minority vote of people in all states is discounted. This is democracy? Let's not kid ourselves. This is a foolish game. There have been five United States presidential elections in which the successful presidential candidate did not receive a plurality of the popular vote. In these cases, the successful candidate secured less of the national popular vote than another candidate who received more votes, either a majority, more than half the vote, or a plurality of the vote. The two most recent elections in which this was true were the 2000 election, Bush v. Gore, and the 2016 election, Clinton v. Trump. These arguably were the two most disastrous elections in human history because Bush led us into two disastrous wars and away from preoccupation with climate change, Gore's strong suit. Also the election of Trump gave us arguably the worst President in American history.

The problem is that Trump is poised to win again this year based on the electoral college while losing the popular vote to Biden. You have to give it to Republicans - they know how to manipulate what can only be called at this point a corrupt electoral system. The sclerosis of America is that it can never come to terms with something that is wrong when it is enshrined in the Constitution and then go ahead and fix it. They are committed to playing the same old game out of veneration for tradition and the past.This year it may be the final straw for democracy in the US if Trump is elected but loses the popular vote. It is unconscionable to many that a man who has dozens of indictments against him including one of trying to overthrow American democracy can even be allowed to run for President, but that in and of itself may be the downfall of American democracy. The outcome of the 2024 Presidential race comes down to an antidemocratic game in which Trump may well triumph.

Off the Top of My Head

What I Didn't Hear in Biden's State of the Union Speech

by John Lawrence

President Biden went on and on about taxing the rich, but he didn't make the concomitant declaration of "middle class tax cuts." Those are the words I didn't hear - TAX CUTS. These are the code words that Joe Six Pack wants to hear. Joe Six Pack could care less about "child tax credits." While those are probably the most responsible words and the most responsible way to handle tax benefits for the middle class and the poor, those are not the words that the majority of uncommitted voters want to hear. Those are the code words. Republicans always promise tax cuts period. Of course most of those tax cuts always go to the rich as the Trump tax cuts did, but the Joe Six Packs of the world do not make that distinction. All they care about is that they will get their tax cut no matter how paltry. That's why Biden should promise not only taxing the rich but tax cuts for the middle class. Trump will promise tax cuts for everyone. Biden should make the easily understood distinction of tax increases for the rich - as Biden has repeatedly said, those making more than $400,000 a year - and tax cuts for everyone else. Whether or not this makes economic sense or the best use of the saved money, this is politically the best way to neutralize the only economic policy Republicans have.

While taxing the rich makes good red meat rhetoric, it doesn't register on or resound with the naive, unsophisticated average voter's mind the way tax cuts does, and we must assume that the majority of voters are naive and unsophisticated based upon the fact that polls indicate that the majority of voters favor voting for Trump at this point. Any American citizen who has any understanding of what President Biden has accomplished would almost certainly think that he deserves a second term. Even if he doesn't finish it, his administration will give a push for the continuation of his policies which are far more in the interests of the average American than are Trump's. If it's up to Kamala Harris to finish Biden's second term, Biden's policies will almost certainly prevail through out that term.

The policy of tax cuts for the middle class will go a long way towards guaranteeing that Biden will be elected for a second term. Certainly some of the money gained from taxing the rich could be used for tax cuts for the not so rich in addition to child tax credits. The other policy that President Biden should espouse has to do with the border. It's not enough to blame Republicans for the fact that recent bipartisan legislation that would supposedly "fix" the border has not been passed. Biden should just come out and say he wants the border to be fixed in such a way that no one will be able to come across the border illegally. Certainly this is possible for a country that has 800 military bases around the world and a trillion dollar a year military budget. It's almost ridiculous that the world's most powerful nation that purports to be the policeman of the world cannot even police its own border. Taking a much stronger position on the border - in particular the illegal crossing of the border - will take that issue away from Trump who will promise that under his administration not one illegal entry will be permitted. Let's get beyond the trivial issue of whether those crossing the border are "illegals" or "undocumenteds." It's not about descriptive words; it's about policies. Use the words that most Americans use, not those that are politically correct. Take a page out of Trump's book. Biden's words should be much stronger on this issue. This is what the American people want, and Biden should take this issue away from Trump.

In summary, Biden needs to be much stronger on these two issues - tax cuts and illegal border crossings - taking these issues which are the only issues Trump has, away from him. Whether or not Biden or Trump can get anything passed in Congress on these two issues depends on whether or not either President ends up with a Congress, both Houses of which are composed of their own respective parties. No President has complete control of what gets passed by Congress. The average voter, however, thinks these issues are entirely in the President's hands. No one know this better than Joe Biden. However, when running for President, a person can promise anything and can fight for it if elected. Biden needs a second term if for no other reason than to deny Trump a second term which might presage the end of democracy in America.

Off the Top of My Head

Joe Biden Gave a Fiery State of the Union Speech

by John Lawrence

Right out of the gate Joe Biden's voice was clear and strong. Nothing mealy mouthed here. I'm sure he had been practicing his enunciation and articulation. It helped that the volume on the microphone had been turned up. That strong, loud voice reassured me and others that Joe Biden was not too old for the job. It helped too that he could overpower his hecklers. It made me a little nervous when he started to cough. Oh no, I thought, what if he has a coughing fit! But he held it together and his voice didn't waver towards the end as I might have feared.

Now as for the speech itself. Overall it was good, but one thing he and his speechwriters should have taken more seriously is that less is more. He tried to cram in too many details which probably went right over the heads of the people he most needs to persuade. For instance, the fact that Medicare can now negotiate for prescription drugs does save the taxpayers money, but it takes a real wonk to appreciate that point. All most Americans care about is does it save them money when they go to buy drugs at the pharmacy. Joe tried to rush through a lot of details that would have better left out of the speech. He was most effective when he slowed down and made a major point and an applause line.  I think it was lost on most viewers especially the non-wonks that Joe Biden needs to persuade that he wants to extend the fact that Medicare can now negotiate drug prices to the negotiation of drug prices for everyone including those who are not on Medicare. These are big points, but the average American probably did not appreciate them. Again less is more. The part about shinkflation and capping credit card late fees at $8. was right on. This is the stuff most Americans can relate to - their petty pocket book issues.

I was happy that he went on about taxing billionaires and the wealthy and about how much money this would bring into the Treasury, but I wanted him to go further and say that he would use some of this money to give the middle class a tax break. The Republicans and especially Trump's big selling point is that he will give everyone a tax break! His base thinks that's great even though most of those tax breaks will go - like they have in the past - to the wealthy. Trump's base doesn't care as long as they get a paltry by comparison tax break. Biden should have taken that issue away from Republicans by emphasizing that, while he would tax the rich, he would give tax breaks to the middle class. He lost that opportunity by emphasizing how rich the Treasury would get by his taxing the rich. Who cares?

Finally, Biden was on top of his hecklers, the leader of whom was Marjorie Taylor Green. Biden should thank her for the opportunity to show he could fight back and take it to her. The hecklers were a godsend for Biden. I'm sure he was prepared. Now some Republicans are saying that Biden didn't respect decorum enough. Phooey! How much decorum does Trump respect? Zero. He calls people names. He breaks every rule of decorum in the books. Politics today is not what it was 50 years ago, even 10 years ago thanks mainly to Trump who has broken every rule in the book. I'm so glad that Biden was up to the situation and gave as good as he got thereby defeating the purpose of Marjorie Taylor Green which was to bully him and show he was weak. Biden took it to her, thank God.

Off the Top of My Head

The Bipartisan Senate Border Legislation is Not Sufficient Even if Passed

by John Lawrence

Simply put it doesn't go far enough, and I'm a Democrat and a supporter of President Biden. I've written previously that Biden should go full Trump at the border. This vaunted Senate bill, that Trump doesn't want the House to take up and implement, is a step in the right direction. However, it doesn't address the fact that it doesn't really secure the border. It deals with what to do after people enter the country illegally and getting them processed more quickly. It has a provision that the border can be shut down after the number of illegal entries reaches 5000 people a week. Really? The goal should be zero illegal border crossings. In order to do that, security at the border needs to be stepped up. Although a border wall has become a political football, a wall in and of itself is necessary but not sufficient. There should be no place where someone can just walk across the border. There is already a wall along much of the border. It needs to be strengthened, but, more importantly, it needs to be augmented by electronic means including satellite surveillance. The national guard needs to be deployed because the border patrol does not have sufficient manpower to deal with the situation there. More manpower along the border is of utmost importance.

Here's an alternative. People seeking asylum should be required to apply with an app on their phone while remaining in Mexico or another country or to apply at a legal port of entry. People entering the country illegally should not be tolerated. Anyone entering illegally should be instructed to apply for asylum through the app or at a port of entry and immediately deported or at least denied entry onto American soil. They shouldn't be allowed to remain in the US until their case is heard. In fact their cases could be heard while they wait in a third country, not in the US. The point is that illegally entering the country and applying for asylum shouldn't be tolerated. The Senate bill allocates a lot of money for more judges and more ways to speed up asylum hearings so that cases can be decided in 6 months rather than 6 years as is the present case. This is an improvement over the present situation but not good enough. More money needs to be spent on securing the border itself rather than in processing people who have entered having crossed the border illegally. It's a question of how to best spend money to resolve the situation, Rather than spending more money processing people who have entered illegally, border security should be beefed up making it very difficult if not impossible for people to enter illegally in the first place.

Stepping up border security dos not prevent people from applying for asylum, and, therefore, does not violate the asylum law. It just channels potential asylum seekers to apply for asylum in a manner other than crossing the border illegally and then asking for asylum. Now Trump would just deport everyone crossing the border illegally and the hell with the asylum law. He just would give them no path to entry. However, when someone from abroad applies for asylum, they are not guaranteed that, even if they do qualify and are successful, they will necessarily wind up in the US. So right now what is important is border security in and of itself. All the other talk about a pathway to citizenship and all the other aspects of immigration and naturalization that Democrats want to throw into the mix, those things, while important, are not of paramount importance right now. Border security is. In that respect the Senate bill was apropos. On the other hand legal immigration is important. Most Americans are for legal immigration and so am I. However, it needs to be in an orderly process, not the chaotic situation of people crossing into the US because of a porous border. No other country would tolerate it and neither should the US.

Off the Top of My Head

Democracy and Fanaticism Cannot Coexist

by John Lawrence

Democracy presupposes that rational actors with different interests can peacefully resolve their differences by means of some rules based system which includes, for example, voting. The rule of law represents the congealed rationality of bygone days. However, when major actors in a political system are irrational and when their followers become fanatics, democracy is probably imperiled. Today we have one of the candidates for the highest office in the land who is irrational and his followers are fanatically devoted to him. It's hard to conceive why any rational society much less a democracy would let someone who arguably tried to overthrow that democracy run again for the highest office in the land. Take Richard Nixon for example. What if after he resigned he had decided to run for President in the next election cycle? Unthinkable, you say. Maybe so, but Richard Nixon's offenses were minuscule compared to Trump's. It seems that nothing in the American Constitution or rule of law is preventing someone who tried to overthrow that Constitution from taking power again. It should be cut and dried as the situation evidently was in Richard Nixon's case. Nixon was the only President who resigned from the Presidency, but nothing in the Constitution would have prevented him from running again. Why didn't he?

The leaders of autocratic societies are laughing up their sleeves at this American dilemma. Are Americans so tolerant of free speech that they entertain not only the speech but the candidacy of a person who tried to overthrow the Constitution of that society? Any society can be measured on a scale the end points of which are total freedom and total stability. Some societies, notably more autocratic ones, value stability more than freedom. Others value freedom more than stability. Obviously the US belongs to the latter variety. However, there is a point at which too much freedom threatens the viability of that society itself. Has the US gone beyond that point? Arguably, yes, when its allies cannot even rely on the President's word and policies involving war and peace. President Biden has committed himself to supporting the Ukrainians in their war with Russia. America's allies in Europe are all on the same page with this policy. Who's not? The American House of Representatives who must vote on the expenditure of money for this cause. Obviously, Biden looks weak if he cannot even deliver what he has promised as the leader of the Free World. European democracies are looking askance.

Other societies have no such problems. For example, the Chinese society values stability much more than they value freedom. It would be very unlikely that the Chinese would countermand a policy expounded by Xi Jinping. President Biden is in the position that a carefully thought out policy involving the preservation of democracy in Ukraine is being countermanded by a man who not only tried to overthrow democracy in the US, but is running for President again and is telling Congress not to vote the money for the continuance of Biden's policy in Ukraine. It's the tail wagging the dog. Despite 91 criminal indictments, the US system is so free that it cannot prevent this from happening. It goes to show that the American Presidency is weaker than the Presidencies of almost every European country. At least in Europe, for the most part, their societies are going along with supporting Ukraine financially. They also in the past looked up to the American President for leadership. Now they are finding that hard to do.

Trump has broke all the rules and created a followership of cult like fanatics who relish this fact. Trump and his followers are not rational actors willing to resolve their differences with the rest of the American population in a civilized manner following the traditional rule of law. Despite the fact that Biden has done more for the US than very few other Presidents, Trump is ahead in the polls to become the next President of the US. Rational actors and their followers should have favored a President in his reelection bid over a person who attempted to overthrow the American Constitution, but they're not. Hence, a good percentage of Americans are not rational actors to whom the rules of law of a 235 old Republic mean nothing. American politics has become a politics of fanaticism and American freedom is tolerating it. Too much freedom and too little stability in a political system does not bode well for the long range viability of that system. In addition the upcoming election for President will come down to very narrow margins in a handful of battleground states. Has the archaic American system finally hamstrung itself to the extent that the popular vote will mean nothing  ... again?

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Needs to Step Down But Not Because of His Age

by John Lawrence

In a nutshell his ego is too involved in the Ukraine war, and his stance on the Israel-Hamas war is ineffective and feckless. Trump is about to hand Biden a defeat, not at the ballot box, but by virtue of his control over the House of Representatives. The House will do what Trump tells them to do, and what he is telling Speaker Mike Johnson is to not hold a vote on military aid to Ukraine which is something Biden so desperately wants. So it's easy to see why Trump would use his influence over the House to hand Biden a major defeat here just like he handed Biden a defeat over solution of the border issue. So where would that leave Biden who has set this major US policy in motion? The flaw (or fly if you prefer) in Biden's ointment is that he has never given even lip service to a negotiated settlement of the war in Ukraine. A peaceful solution would be a loss to Biden since his ego is so entrenched in the idea of Ukraine winning that war with the help of US weaponry. Biden also has a deep vendetta against Vladimir Putin. It's personal with Biden although I at least have not seen any demonization aimed by Putin at Biden. So Biden has a dilemma. He cannot tolerate the idea that he will not be able to sell Ukraine weapons which just means a transfer of funds from US taxpayers to US weapon makers ^i.e. the US military-industrial complex, with Ukraine the beneficiary of the actual hardware. Some pundits have gone as far as to urge Americans to support the war on the grounds that it benefits American GDP!

As far as the Israel-Hamas war is concerned, Biden doesn't seem capable of tamping down Netanyahu's hawkish determination to do "whatever the hell he wants," to quote another actor, in Gaza. Netanyahu is playing Biden for a sucker. Biden's unmitigated support for Israel is falling on Netanyahu's deaf ears making him oblivious to Biden's entreaties to go slow in Gaza. In short Biden has no control over Netanyahu, and the IDF is certainly committing their share of atrocities there mainly on women and children. Revenge is no justification. Instead of one horrific and unjustified act, namely, the October 7 attack on Israel, we are treated to two horrific and and one partially justified act, namely Israel's war on Gaza. In his book, The End of Race Politics, Coleman Hughes writes, "[Ibram X.] Kendi explicitly endorses the logic of taking an eye for an eye. He supposes that the way to remedy a harm is by imposing an equal and opposite harm - that the way to remedy one kind of injustice is by replacing it with another kind of injustice. If I strike you, you strike me; if I steal from you, you steal from me; if I kill your child, you kill mine.

"Human history shows us how wrongheaded the neoracist [substitute war mongering] conception of justice is. It shows us that taking an eye for an eye doesn't stop injustice; it instead participates in it. It creates new injustices in a misguided effort to remedy the old ones. It then demands that those new injustices be remedied by yet newer injustices in the future. The neoracist [substitute war mongering] logic of retaliation will lead inevitably to a cycle of wrongful discrimination that never ends."

Netanyahi is strictly an "eye for an eye" kind of guy. Although Coleman Hughes is writing about racism, the same logic applies to war. Biden does not seem amenable to this logic. He is stuck in a wishy washy stance that says, yes Israel has a right to respond to the Hamas attack by devastating Gaza, but Israel should use restraint so that it doesn't do any more harm than is necessary [whatever that is]. Netanyahu makes no bones about the fact that he wants to wipe Hamas [and Gaza] off the map, and Biden seems incapable of restraining him all the time giving him more money. If I fight with my neighbor and say to my father, "Hey Dad, I need you to give me more money, so I can more effectively fight my neighbor," and my Dad says, "Well, here's the money son, but don't harm your neighbor too much," what is going on here? The son is controlling the father, not vice versa, and Netanyahu is controlling Biden. This is not a good position for the President of the United States to be in.

We need a fresh approach to the US' role in both of these wars. Biden is too entrenched in Old Thinking. His ego is too involved. Therefore, he should step down and allow other leadership to step forward who, hopefully, can have a more enlightened and creative approach to the solution of the problems created by these two wars. Both of these wars are stalemates in a sense. Both of them perpetuate the cycle of violence. Both of them do nothing to prevent an ongoing loss of innocent life as well as non innocent life as if there were such a thing. Where are the peacemakers? Blessed are the peacemakers. We are stuck in the Old Testament when what is needed is New Testament thinking. Biden should stop while he's ahead. Think of the example of Lyndon Johnson who was a President who did a lot of good before he was brought down by his quotidian involvement in war. Biden has done much good for the economy, but it is time to hang up his old thinking about war. We need new leadership; we need a new approach; we need new thinking. We need those who think, "How do we create peace, not how do we win this war."

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Should Run on Tax Cuts for Middle Class

by John Lawrence

There are only two issues Republicans have: the border and tax cuts. The American people are expecting a tax cut if a Republican is elected to the Oval Office. That's the reason they are complaining about the economy. The American people have gotten a lot of good economic stuff out of the Biden administration. Now they want their tax cuts. Every Republican administration in recent history has promised tax cuts. Biden should steal that thunder and run on tax cuts for the middle class and tax increases for the very wealthy. He started sounding this note during the last election cycle. He needs to reemphasize this medley. Biden needs to take these issues away from Republicans. I wrote previously about the fact that Biden should go full Trump on the border issue. It's ridiculous that the US has 750 military bases around the world, and seeks to control every other country's borders but can't control its own. A majority of these bases are equipped with modern military equipment and airfields. According to a report, the U.S. had about 750 military bases across 80 countries in the world and had deployed 173,000 troops in 159 different countries as of July 2021.

Let's review the Biden record on the economy which is truly epic. Biden has added 14 million jobs in less than three years, bringing the Black unemployment rate to a record low and reducing student loan debt by billions. That's for starters. The astoundingly strong labor market is arguably the White House’s biggest victory. In some ways, the bump was inevitable — Biden took office at a time when millions were still out of work because of the pandemic. Even so, the rapid job gains in recent years have blown past economists’ expectations and have fueled the economy’s blockbuster growth. To date, the White House has canceled some $132 billion in student loan debt for more than 3.6 million Americans. It has also increased federal Pell Grants to low- and middle-income students, allowing them to take on less debt. As a result, outstanding student loan balances have been falling for six months. 

The American Rescue Plan passed in March 2021, injected a $1.9 trillion stimulus into the U.S. economy. It included financial safety nets like payments of $1,400 to households earning up to $75,000, extended unemployment benefits, and an expansion to the child tax credit. Collectively that cut overall poverty by 44%, according to the Brookings Institution, and lifted Americans’ financial health to new heights. Biden’s $1 trillion Infrastructure and Jobs Act was the next major spending package to win congressional approval in November 2021. It fulfilled the president’s campaign-trail promise to refurbish the country’s roads and bridges, while expanding access to clean water and broadband internet. It will support an additional 600,000 new jobs by the end of next year and 800,000 jobs in 2025, according to Moody’s Analytics.

 

The passage of the so-called “Chips and Science” plan allowed Biden to cement an industrial-policy legacy and fulfill a bipartisan desire to rely less on China’s semiconductor industry. More than 460 companies have shown interest in its $53 billion of research and production subsidies, the Commerce Department said last month. And the relationship between public and private investment is something to brag about. Micron Technology’s (MU.O), opens new tab $100 billion outlay for a New York chip factory is expected to create nearly 50,000 jobs in the state. Intel’s (INTC.O), opens new tab $20 billion expansion in Arizona is expected to support 3,000 new jobs. The Inflation Reduction Act gave Biden a chance to revive progressive proposals before the 2022 midterm elections. Though the final plan was whittled down from $1.8 trillion to $430 billion of new spending, it still included Biden’s plans for clean energy tax credits and Medicare drug price negotiation. Bank of America estimates it has already spurred $132 billion of investment across more than 270 new clean energy projects.

 

So what is the American people's response to these clear economic gains that Biden has been responsible for? Now we want our tax cuts so we will elect Trump since that is what he provided after his election in 2016. This is an ominous predilection for the reelection of Joe Biden. He can neutralize this threat by out promising Trump on the issue of tax cuts for the American people. At the same time he can balance this by his previous promise of not increasing taxes on anyone making less than $400 million a year. This would make Biden's policy on tax cuts more fiscally responsible than Trump's. Trump's tax cuts added $7 trillion to the national debt, something Republicans weren't too concerned about. Biden should take the wind out of Trump's sails on tax cuts while also providing a more responsible policy regarding the national debt.

Off the Top of My Head

Biden Should Go Full Trump at the Border

by John Lawrence

There has been so much obfuscation about the situation at the border. Let's clarify one thing: the amnesty law gives anyone the right to ask for amnesty even if they set foot in the US illegally. This law needs to be changed. Any migrant that sets one foot in the US can ask for amnesty and then be assigned a case to be heard 4 or 5 years down the road. Meanwhile, they get to live and work in the US and probably disappear into the shadows never to be seen or heard from again. Even if this law were to be changed, people would still try to get into the country illegally and not be detected. That's why the border security needs to be ramped up both physically and using electronic and/or satellite surveillance. The goal should be to eliminate illegal immigration totally and completely so that the only alternative from the migrant's point of view is LEGAL immigration. This should be an orderly process and it should be made easier to migrate legally. In fact legal immigration should be increased.

The problem is that deporting any person who sets one foot in the US and asks for asylum is illegal according to the current asylum law. Of course Trump glosses over this fact. Biden should too. What's the worst that could happen? Biden would be sued for violating the asylum law. He should let it happen. It'll be tied up in court till after the election when, hopefully, Democrats will control all three branches of government and can then remedy the situation with the appropriate legislation. That legislation would change the asylum law so that people would have to apply for asylum and/or legal immigration in an orderly manner and not just set a foot in the US to do so. In fact anyone caught entering the US illegally would automatically be deported which is approximately Trump's position. Of course Trump wants to use this as his campaign Trump card so he tells his lackeys in Congress not to pass a new immigration law now. That's why Biden should just go ahead and act as if.

Biden should just do it. Automatically deport anyone entering the US illegally whether or not they are asking for asylum. Make it clear that there is an orderly process for asking for asylum and that entry to the US will not be allowed until that process has been completed. After all approximately 80% of those asking for asylum are denied it. The asylum law is being totally abused by migrants. The number one issue for Trump voters is the situation at the border, namely, illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are adding to the homeless crisis all over the country. We can't even adequately house all the American citizens who are homeless, yet we are supposed to house, feed and take care of thousands of illegal immigrants who ask for asylum. It's not right. It's ridiculous.

Biden needs to take the wind out of the sails of the number one campaign issue for Trump and/or Republican voters. Just go ahead and fix the borders with or without Congressional help. Let the Supreme Court object. Who cares? It'll be a moot issue anyway after the election, and it'll be tied up in court for years. Then Biden should take the number 2 issue away from the Republicans and that is tax cuts. Tax the rich and give tax breaks to the middle class. The right approach to these two issues should secure the election for Biden.

Off the Top of My Head

The Negativity of the Republican party Preceded Trump. He Just Came to Embody It.

by John Lawrence

The vitriol expressed towards Barack Obama by the Republican party existed before Trump even entered the race. The controversy regarding Obama's birth certificate is something that Trump just latched on to and capitalized on as his entree into national politics. He saw an opportunity and he acted on it. During Barack Obama's campaign for president in 2008, throughout his presidency and afterwards, there was extensive news coverage of Obama's religious preference, birthplace, and of the individuals questioning his religious belief and citizenship – efforts eventually known as the "birther movement", by which name it is widely referred to across media. Conspiracy theories proliferated during Obama's run for the Presidency. There were some that encouraged the electoral college not to certify Obama. Activists unsuccessfully lobbied Republican members of Congress to reject the 2008 Electoral College vote and block Obama's election when it came before Congress for certification on January 8, 2009. This set the stage for Trump's unsuccessful attempt to manipulate the electoral college after the 2020 election in which he lost to Joe Biden. Republican finagling with the voting system is nothing new. Neither is their promotion of conspiracy theories in order to defeat their opponents and gain power in the US government.

Donald Trump predicated his run for the Presidency in 2016 on lies and deception. That should have been enough to disqualify him right there. But it wasn't and lies and deception became a staple of Republican, and, therefore, US politics. Lies and deception were mainstreamed and normalized. The New York Times weighed in thusly:

[The fact that Obama was not born in the US] was not true in 2011, when Donald J. Trump mischievously began to question President Obama’s birthplace aloud in television interviews. “I’m starting to think that he was not born here,” he said at the time.

It was not true in 2012, when he took to Twitter to declare that “an ‘extremely credible source’” had called his office to inform him that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate was “a fraud.”

It was not true in 2014, when Mr. Trump invited hackers to “please hack Obama’s college records (destroyed?) and check ‘place of birth.’”

It was never true, any of it. Mr. Obama’s citizenship was never in question. No credible evidence ever suggested otherwise.

In fact, it took Mr. Trump much longer than that: Mr. Obama released his short-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2008. Most of the world moved on.

But not Mr. Trump.

He nurtured the conspiracy like a poisonous flower, watering and feeding it with an ardor that still baffles and embarrasses many around him.

Mr. Trump called up like-minded sowers of the same corrosive rumor, asking them for advice on how to take a falsehood and make it mainstream in 2011, as he weighed his own run for the White House.

And there you have the essence of corruption in American politics. The fact that anyone can base a political campaign on something that he or she knows to be a lie just because they can get a large portion of the electorate to believe in it is part and parcel of the American system. And now, despite the fact that there is plenty of evidence including 91 indictments that Trump perpetrated a hoax on the American public, still a large number of the American people still believes in him. He has created a personality cult around himself based on lies and deception yet the American system of government so far has not been able to prevent him from possibly attaining the office of President of the United States again! Surely, this is free speech run amok. The First Amendment should not entertain the possibility that lies and conspiracy theories should be left to fester and confuse the American public. Free speech should not allow that lies and deception are allowed into the political arena so that a politician can actually win office by convincing people to believe them. The cult centered around Trump has progressed or degenerated to the point that his believers have their own egos invested in the lies, and so are reluctant to disabuse themselves of them for fear of losing their self identity. It is easier to go on believing what they thought to be true, even though these beliefs have been thoroughly debunked, than it is to admit that they were fooled.

Rudy Giuliani said it best:

"Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent, and if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail. Let’s have trial by combat. I’m willing to stake my reputation, the President is willing to stake his reputation, on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there."

They were wrong and they have been made fools of. However, a large percentage of the American people are not willing to admit that they have been made fools of. Their collective egos will not entertain that possibility. In order not to think of oneself as a fool, one must go on believing in the lies and deception that Trump is still allowed to spew. His rallies are reminiscent of the rallies of another would be dictator who gained traction with the German people in the 1930s. And still there is no provision in the American constitution or the rule of law that would prevent the dictatorship of Donald Trump from taking place.

Off the Top of My Head

The Asylum Law Needs to be Changed

by John Lawrence

Right now anyone who can set foot in the US illegally can ask for asylum and have their day in court 4 or 5 years from now. So they get a free pass to live in America for at least 4 to 5 years. The asylum law was not set up to accommodate economic migrants which approximately 80% of them are. The result is that the border is overrun with desperate people seeking to set a foot on US soil. I am a proponent of legal immigration. However, there can be legal immigration without the border being overrun with essentially bogus asylum seekers. Even if the asylum law is changed, people will still attempt to get into the US illegally. For that reason the border needs to be strengthened whether by physical or electronic barriers. I hate to say it but Trump, despite his buffoonery about building a 30 foot wall and getting Mexico to pay for it, has a valid point, and I say that as a Democrat and one who thinks Biden is one of the greatest US Presidents. There is much confusion about legal immigration, illegal immigration, refugees, migrants and asylum seekers. Suffice it to say that the advantages of living in the US compared to any other country in the western hemisphere except Canada are such that people will risk their lives to get here, and that legal immigration pales in comparison with illegal immigration plus asking for asylum which legalizes getting across the border by any means necessary according to existing law.

Many plans have been put forward to stem the flow of illegal border crossers such as creating safe zones in other countries from which people could apply for asylum, setting up courts in other countries to separate out those who have valid claims of asylum and the approximately 80 per cent that don't. Also US aid to countries to create better conditions so that people don't seek to come to the US in the first place has been suggested. There is something to be said about processing people in Mexico or some other south or central American country to determine if they have a legitimate claim of asylum. However, it won't work as long as people can set foot in the US illegally and then ask for asylum which is how the law now stands. Immigration courts need to be streamlined. There shouldn't be 4 or 5 year back logs. Processing asylum seekers needs to be expedited. As it now exists, the system is ridiculous and people hoping to live in the US legally or illegally are exploiting the laws.

So the border needs to be strengthened in terms of both physical and electronic barriers - not necessarily Trump's 30 foot wall which can be fairly easily breached. Electronic barriers and increased manpower could be much more effective. Why isn't satellite imagery being used to detect border crossings? A situation needs to be created whereby it's not in anyone's interests to cross the border illegally because they will be caught and prevented from entering the US and also possibly because, after being caught, they will lose whatever rights they had for legal immigration or asylum seeking. At the same time legal immigration needs to be stepped up to augment the US work force which is badly in need of an increased number of workers in jobs that immigrants typically do. The situation at the border is representative of the dysfunction of American government in that a proper solution cannot be implemented due to the train wreck of American politics which makes it seemingly impossible to create an orderly border so that people and commerce can proceed in a legal manner.

Off the Top of My Head

These Two Things Do Not Compute: Shutting Down the American Government and Lecturing the World About the Virtues of American Democracy

by John Lawrence

The US power structure dominates the world in terms of its military bases. The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. The US also controls the world's financial transactions. The dollar’s role as the primary reserve currency for the global economy allows the United States to borrow money more easily and impose painful financial sanctions. With the US' dominant position in world affairs, you would think that it would be impossible for a handful of representatives in Congress to shut down the entire US government. But that is exactly the situation the US and the world is in. The US is the leader in world affairs. Yet the leader can't even keep the lights on. Other countries are looking at this. Nixon called the US a pitiful, helpless giant. He said, "If, when the chips are down, the worlds most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world." So what is the US when its government shuts down? Exactly that: a pitiful, helpless giant. Its military personnel on the 750 military bases won't get paid. How's that for demoralizing the military? Service members will continue to report for duty, though they will not get paid during a shutdown. And many of the hundreds of thousands of civilians who work for the Department of Defense will likely be furloughed, says White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby. Air traffic controllers will not get paid either although they will be required to report for work as well. Does that portend more close calls at airports?

The world is watching. American diplomats are fond of lecturing other world leaders about the pitfalls and shortcomings of their governments. However, their governments probably would not be caught in the pickle of a complete government shutdown. Nor would the governments of the civilized world, with the exception of the US, contemplate putting a person with 91 criminal indictments into the position of their President. The US is much in the need of updating. It is giving democracy a bad name in the sense that the national dialogue is turning into a clown show. Trump's rallies are providing entertainment for his base which is an audience that is more addicted to being entertained than it is to supporting a leader who is devoted to improving their lives. This reminds me of Hitler's rallies which were designed as pageantry for its entertainment value. It sure enthralled the German people. People are loyal to a leader who entertains them, who moves them, not one who will use the legitimate levers of government to improve their lives or to make the country and/or the world a better place. Joe Biden is the opposite. He has made the country and the world a better place despite not being very entertaining. That's why he's not leading Trump in the poles. Trump's base (cult) are excited by Trump. Biden's base, if you could call it a base, are ho hum. Oh well, I guess he's done some good, but I'm not excited. For Trump's base excitement is the sine qua non.

Getting back to the military NPR reports the following:

Separately, the Department of Defense says post and base services would be closed or limited, while elective surgeries and procedures in its medical and dental facilities would have to be postponed. Commissaries would remain open overseas but close in the U.S.

And certain Pentagon activities, like operational planning and military recruitment, will be paused.

Defense officials warned earlier this week that a shutdown would strategically "play into the hands of U.S. competitors" because it would cost time as well as money. Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh called it "the worst thing that could happen."

"The U.S. military's going to continue to do its job and protect our national security interests, and of our allies and partners as well," she said, adding that a shutdown would make those efforts harder. "When you don't have your full operating capacity to be able to help with the mission, to be able to conduct an exercise or training, of course, that gets to our national security and readiness."

Kirby agrees that a prolonged shutdown could harm national security, especially when it comes to delayed management of DOD contracts for things like maintenance, logistics and procurement.

So five Republican representatives can act collectively as dictators to threaten national security as well as domestic tranquillity, and there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about it. This is democracy in action? This is the vaunted "rule of law"? What exactly is this except a fly in the ointment of democracy or in any system that purports to be a democracy and what does this say about the world's military and financial leader? Other countries are watching this spectacle.

Off the Top of My Head

Should the President Be Popularly Elected by Direct Vote of the People?

by John Lawrence

In the US the President is popularly elected by the people after having been filtered through the archaic electoral college. In a parliamentary democracy the head of government equivalent to the US President is indirectly elected by the parliament not by a direct vote of the people. In China the president is also elected by a majority vote of the National People's Congress, the highest legislative body very similarly to how the heads of government are elected in parliamentary democracies. In Russia the President is nominally elected by a popular vote of the people similarly to the US although the system has been manipulated in such a way as to keep Putin in power. So what are the drawbacks of a popularly elected President by a vote of the people? The main drawback IMHO is that in the US an incompetent but popular boob like Donald Trump can be elected to the most powerful office in the land and arguably in the whole world. The election for President of the US is a popularity contest, and there is no requirement of experience or competency. In parliamentary democracies as well as China, supposedly the indirect election of President or its equivalent, "head of state," is an election by a meritocratic body of lawmakers. Therefore, it is more likely that a competent President or head of government will be elected.

In recent history in the US, the least competent but most popular person has been elected President based more on their personality and charisma than on their competency or knowledge of the job. It is more likely that a guy who "you would like to have a beer with" is elected President than someone who is more experienced and/or intelligent. Adlai Stevenson was branded as an "egghead" which effectively ended his political career. The leading Democratic figure of the 1950s, Stevenson was known for his wit, intellectual speeches, and liberal political convictions. For many Americans in the mid-twentieth century, he symbolized conscience in politics. Stevenson lost the Presidential election twice to Dwight Eisenhower, the World War II war hero. In 2000 Al Gore lost the election to George W Bush who promptly lied the US into war with Iraq. Gore, who was a staunch advocate for climate change mitigation, presumably would have employed government resources in that direction rather than fighting a fruitless war. Gore actually won the popular vote but was defeated by a combination of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court.

Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House that were then taken down by Ronald Reagan. So much for science taking precedence over popular ignorance and prejudice. Reagan also ran up the national debt substantially as did George W Bush and Donald Trump. Then when Democrats are elected President, Republicans cry bloody murder over the national debt while doing their best to prevent Democrats from spending any government money to actually help people. Fortunately, Joe Biden has been very successful in getting legislation passed to mitigate climate change among other accomplishments. But, his popularity as a candidate in 2024 in on the line as a majority of the American people don't want him to run again. Trump, despite 91 criminal indictments, is running neck and neck with Biden, one of the most accomplished Presidents in American history. One wonders whether the sclerotic American electoral system can withstand the challenges brought by popular but unscrupulous candidates for the Presidency by those you'd "like to have a beer with." Finally, the electoral College has all the disadvantages of indirect elections and none of the advantages.

No Labels, no fables, no third-party betrayals

All Americans who believe in democracy must unite behind Joe Biden.

Robert Reich

Sep 7, 2023

 

Good morning, friends,

I couldn’t sleep last night. I made the mistake of looking at a lot of voting data before bedtime and then reading some of the BS being put out by the third-party group “No Labels,” as well as by my old friend Cornel West, who’s now running for president as the Green Party candidate. It was a mistake. It’s now 2 a.m. where I am, and I’m loaded for bear.

Let me be absolutely clear. Third-party groups such as No Labels and the Green Party are in effect front groups for Trump in 2024, and should be treated as such.

No Labels has pledged to spend $70 million to support a third-party candidate in 2024 who could easily draw enough votes from President Biden to tip the presidential election to Trump.

 

No Labels has already qualified as a presidential party that can run candidates on the ballot in 10 states, including in both Arizona and Florida. Already, Joe Manchin is flirting with the idea of running as a third-party presidential candidate under the No Labels banner.

If you believe that No Labels exists in order to encourage bipartisanship, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

No Labels — which claims to be a centrist organization — will not reveal its donors, one of whom is reportedly the conservative megadonor Harlan Crow. Politico reports that No Labels has brought on a major Trump donor as an adviser in the pivotal battleground state of Florida.

But whatever it says it aims to be, No Labels will help Trump.

So will every other third party claiming to be in the “center” or on the “left” — including the Green Party, which is already on the ballot in the two key swing states of Michigan and Wisconsin and whose most likely candidate for president is Cornel West. And the People’s Party, especially if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. becomes its nominee.

The reason they’re all front groups for Donald Trump is that the upcoming 2024 election is likely to be nail-bitingly close even as a two-way race between Trump and Biden.

The good news is that Trump loyalists don’t represent a majority of the electorate — which is why Trump has lost the popular vote in both his presidential runs and did not top 47 percent in either.

So, as long as the anti-Trump vote is unified behind Biden, Trump cannot win, as Biden demonstrated in 2020.

But if a third-party candidate takes even a small part of the anti-Trump vote away from Biden, Trump is likely to be returned to the White House.

Consider the five states most likely to decide the 2024 election in the Electoral College — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump narrowly won each of them, giving him the presidency. In 2020, these five states narrowly tipped in the other direction, giving Biden the presidency.

Biden’s razor-thin margins in these five states in 2020 came from a massive anti-Trump vote.

In all of these states, at least 1 in 3 Biden voters said they voted mainly against Trump. In Wisconsin (where the Green Party has already secured a spot on the 2024 ballot), 38 percent of Biden voters said they voted mainly against Trump. In Arizona (where No Labels has already secured a spot on the 2024 ballot), 45 percent of Biden voters said they voted mainly against Trump.

Biden has no margin for error. Even a small drop-off from his 2020 anti-Trump vote would make him vulnerable.

Just 44,000 votes out of more than 10 million cast in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin — less than half of 1 percent — were the difference between the Biden presidency and a tie in the Electoral College that would have thrown the election to the House of Representatives, and hence to Trump.

 

If candidates from No Labels, the Green Party, and the People’s Party peel off just 15 percent of the anti-Trump vote from Biden, and Trump’s base stays with him, Trump would win all five swing states comfortably and return to the Oval Office.

These third parties are already putting out rubbish about “voting your conscience” and “giving the people a real choice.” It’s cynical propaganda designed to obscure the reality that any anti-Trump votes they pull away from Biden will only help ensure a Trump victory.

If No Labels were a legitimate third party rather than a Trump front, it would withdraw from all ballots for the 2024 election. If Cornel West and the Green Party had positive intentions, they would do the same. The rest of us must spread the word about the dangers of these third parties.

If Trump wins the GOP nomination for president, as seems highly likely despite (or because of) his coming trials, all Americans who believe in democracy must unite behind Joe Biden — to ensure that Trump, in the words of then-Rep. Liz Cheney, “never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office.”

Please spread the word. Now.

Share

Leave a comment

Why Have So Many Americans Succumbed to Trumpism?

Chapter 6 of The Common Good

Robert Reich

Sep 8, 2023

 

 

 

Friends,

Today, in the sixth essay about the loss of America’s sense of common good, I want to summarize where we’ve come by focusing on one of the worst consequences of the loss: The emergence of Trumpism, and of the despair that has led so many Americans to give up on democracy.

Starting next week, in the seventh essay of this series, I’ll talk about what I believe we can and should do to resurrect the common good.

 

It is easy for many of us to condemn fellow Americans who have succumbed to the lies and thuggery of Donald Trump. It’s convenient for us to assume they’re ignorant, or racist, or gullible fools.

But what if their willingness to believe and support Trump is understandable, given what has happened to them? I’m not suggesting it’s justifiable, only that it may be explicable.

As we have seen, many of the key political and economic institutions of our society have abandoned their commitments to the common good — and along the way, abandoned the bottom half of the adult population, especially those without college degrees.

The consequence has been a catastrophe, especially for the bottom half. The erosion began 40 years ago. By 2016, when Trump was elected president, the typical American household had a net worth 14 percent lower than the typical household in 1984, while the richest one-tenth of 1 percent owned more wealth than the bottom 90 percent put together.

Income has become almost as unequal as wealth: Between 1972 and Trump’s election in 2016, the pay of the typical American worker dropped 2 percent, adjusted for inflation, although the American economy nearly doubled in size.

Most of the income gains have gone to the top. The 2016 Wall Street bonus pool was larger than the annual year-round earnings of all 3.3 million Americans working full-time at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.

Whereas 90 percent of American adults born in the early 1940s were earning more than their parents by the time they reached their prime earning years, this proportion steadily declined. Only half of adults born in the mid-1980s are now earning more than their parents by their prime earning years.

Average weekly nonsupervisory wages, a measure of blue-collar earnings, were higher in 1969 (adjusted for inflation) than they are now.

Most Americans without college degrees are working longer hours than they worked decades ago and taking fewer sick days or vacations, and they have less economic security.

Nearly one out of every five American workers is in a part-time job. Two-thirds are living paycheck to paycheck. Along with pay, employment benefits have been shriveling. The gap in life expectancy between the nation’s most affluent and everyone else is widening, as well.

Increasing numbers of working Americans have been succumbing to opioids. Death rates have been rising for Americans with no more than high school degrees, due to suicides, chronic liver cirrhosis, and poisonings, including drug overdoses.

Off the Top of My Head

Does China Have Some Version of Democracy and Capitalism?

by John Lawrence

The Chinese Communist Party in reality is just the Chinese Party. It is communist in name only. Kishore Mahbuboni in the book, Has China Won, says "...is America making a fundamental error of perception when it views the CCP as a Chinese Communist Party? This would imply that the soul of the CCP is embedded in its communist roots. Yet, in the eyes of many objective Asian observers, the CCP actually functions as the Chinese Civilization Party. Its soul is not rooted in the foreign ideology of Marxism-Leninism but in the Chinese civilization." China has had a capitalist economic system ever since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping in 1978. China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty in about 40 years mainly due to the component of its system that represents private enterprise. It also has state owned enterprises but they have not been mainly responsible for China's rapid growth in GDP.

Xi Jinping has been President of the people's Republic of China since 2013. He is not popularly elected by the general public. Instead, he is elected by the National People's Congress (NPC), constitutionally China's highest state body, which also has the power to remove the president and other state officers from office. Elections and removals are decided by majority vote. This is not dissimilar to how the head of parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister is elected. The British head of government is not elected by a popular election of the people either. He is elected by members of Parliament similar to most other parliamentary democracies. The US also originally had a system in which the President and Senators were not elected by a popular election of the people. Passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment modified Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. Senators and the President. Prior to its passage, the President and Senators were chosen by state legislatures. The Chinese government has been based on a meritocratic bureaucracy for thousands of years. The popular vote elects the first representative body who elects the next higher body until the National People's Congress elects the President.

The cleavage between communism and capitalism is basically an historic artifact. Capitalism won. Almost all nations of the world have capitalistic economic systems including China. None of them have systems that are identical to the US. They all have some versions of capitalism and democracy. Prior to 1912 the US had a system similar to China's in that the President was not popularly elected but was elected by a vote of the states' senates. Today in order to maintain international tensions, US politicians keep up the dichotomy between the US and China by insisting that China's leaders are not elected democratically and that China has a communist economic system. The truth is that China has a version of democracy and a version of capitalism just as the US does. Vested interests in the US are responsible for maintaining the fiction that Chinese is communist and autocratic. In fact US democracy is vulnerable to being overthrown by a demagogue like Donald Trump which almost happened on January 6, 2020. The US is still vulnerable as a near majority of Americans prefer Trump to Joe Biden, a man who has passed landmark legislation like only a very few American Presidents have accomplished.

US democracy is also vulnerable in the sense that its first past the post voting system almost guarantees that third party candidates will be spoilers as happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader took votes away from Al Gore. Despite that Gore won the popular vote. If Nader had not been in the election, Gore would have overwhelmingly won the popular vote. However in the electoral college, which is an outdated feature of American democracy, it came down to who won the popular vote in Florida. The Supreme Court stopped the hand recount giving Bush the Presidency. There is still controversy over who would have won if that hadn't happened. In any case the Bush administration lied us into the disastrous Iraq war, something Gore probably would not have done. Also Bush was a fossil fuel guy while Gore was knowledgeable about global warming and would have pursued that agenda . History might have turned out differently, and more importantly the future history of planet Earth might turn out differently if Gore had won.

Chinese philosophy is based on Confucianism which emphasizes duty to family while the US is based on individualistic ethics emphasizing individual freedom. Keyu Jin writes in The New China Playbook, "According to the World Values Survey, which explores people's beliefs and values in more than 100 countries, 93% of Chinese participants value security over freedom, as compared to only 28 % of Americans. Such differences can be fully understood only by taking culture and history into account. In China, an interventionist state is rooted in paternalism, a hallmark of government in China since Confucian times, more than 2500 years ago;..." Although China's private enterprise capitalism has resulted in the fact that 800 million people have been pulled out of poverty in 40 years, GDP growth is not the sine qua non of Chinese capitalism. Under Xi China is turning a corner and reining in certain aspects of unbridled growth in order to mitigate certain unsalutary aspects of unfettered enterprise while emphasizing producing economic benefits for the 13% of the Chinese population still in poverty. So China is much more apt to put its finger on the economic scale while the US has more of a hands off policy on private enterprise. The downside of this is the unregulated growth of toxic social media and potentially artificial intelligence in the US. The US could mitigate the spoiler effect of third party candidates for President by adopting a different voting system. The current first past the post voting system practically guarantees that there will be a 2 party system with third parties acting as spoilers, something which could result in a second Trump Presidency despite 91 criminal indictments. Replacing first past the post with a voting system such as approval voting would eliminate the spoiler effects of third parties. It could be implemented simply by a vote of Congress since it would not violate any aspect of the Constitution. However, in the sclerotic American Congress it is unlikely that there will be any major changes in the US Constitution which is well past its "use by" date.

From Nixon to Trump: The Decline of the Common Good in American Politics

Chapter 5 of The Common Good

Robert Reich

Aug 25, 2023

 

 

 

Friends,

America’s failure to hold Richard Nixon accountable for his attacks on democracy when he was president undermined the common good and paved the way for Donald Trump to mount even worse attacks.

The scandal that came to be known as “Watergate” and led to Nixon’s resignation from the presidency was a shock to the American political system. Afterward (analogous to putting locks on the doors after a town’s first robbery), Congress enacted many reforms, but all were eventually watered down or found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional.

The Watergate scandal began the modern era of “whatever-it-takes-to-win” politics — blatant disregard of any and all norms and laws that interfered with gaining or keeping power. Trump is the logical and inevitable consequence.

In 1974, in his last remarks about Watergate as a senator, 77-year-old Sam Ervin —who as chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee became widely revered for his fairness and deep respect for the Constitution — explained that President Nixon and his aides had “a lust for political power” that “blinded them to ethical considerations and legal requirements; to Aristotle’s aphorism that the good of man must be the end of politics.”

What was particularly chilling about Nixon’s behavior was his disdain for the common good and total obsession with himself.

On the tapes of his White House meetings, Nixon can be heard to talk incessantly about himself — his needs, his place in history, and his animosities — but he never once mentions the nation’s needs. For Richard M. Nixon, there was no common good. Only Richard Nixon.

 

The details of what occurred still shock.

In 1970, Nixon authorized break-ins or “black bag jobs” of people considered domestic security threats. An early goal was to destroy the reputation of Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked to the news media the Pentagon Papers, showing that the Johnson administration had lied to the American people about the Vietnam War.

Nixon’s burglars broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, seeking information that might smear Ellsberg and undermine his credibility in the antiwar movement. “You can’t drop it, Bob,” Nixon told his assistant H. R. Haldeman in June 1971, referring to Ellsberg. “You can’t let the Jew steal that stuff and get away with it. You understand?”

In early 1972, Nixon launched a plan for spying on and sabotaging Democrats in the upcoming presidential campaign, including wiretaps and burglaries.

His henchmen paid the chauffeur of Senator Ed Muskie, whom Nixon considered his most likely Democratic opponent, to photograph Muskie’s internal memos and strategy documents.

They paid others to dig up dirt on the sex life of Senator Ted Kennedy, a potential opponent in 1976. “I’d really like to get Kennedy taped,” Nixon told Haldeman. They inserted a retired Secret Service agent into the team protecting Kennedy who, Haldeman assured Nixon, would “do anything that I tell him.” Nixon replied, “We just might get lucky and catch this son of a bitch and ruin him for ’76,” adding, “That’s going to be fun.”

Nixon ordered another assistant, John Ehrlichman, to direct the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the tax returns of all likely Democratic presidential candidates, including Kennedy. “Are we going after their tax returns?” Nixon asked. “You know what I mean? There’s a lot of gold in them thar hills.”

Off the Top of My Head

How Trump and All His Co-defendants Will Win

by John Lawrence

In a nutshell: get one Trump voter on the juries. You need all 12 jurors to agree that someone is guilty. You need only one Trump voter on the jury to acquit. Who wins? The lawyers who will make millions. The media who will be transfixed with this legal circus. It'll end up being much ado about nothing. If Trump happens to be found guilty and actually faces jail time, he will probably leave the country. Why should a billionaire or semi-billionaire, who has assets in other countries and probably money stashed away off shore, willingly go to some sleazy jail or even some country club jail when he could live well in some other country? Trump is not exactly a loyal American citizen who adheres to the rule of law and playing fair. He can declare from abroad that he is some sort of President in Absentia and his loyal followers will still probably send him money. He will say he is prepared to come back to America as soon as his followers take political power and he can come in riding on a white horse.

Trump and his lawyers like constitutional scholar John Eastman who set up the fake electors scheme will work the system, and, if they can't convince one juror of their innocence, they will get themselves pardoned by the next elected Republican President which could be in 2024. American voters are nothing if not fickle. They have one of the best Presidents in American history who, despite great odds, accomplished more than anyone since Lyndon Johnson. Biden's popularity is in the tank despite his accomplishments. Why is this? Maybe because of his age. Maybe because he's not "charismatic" enough. Trump voters seem to be impressed by his charisma first and foremost. I guess charisma and popularity, not competence, is what gets you elected President in this country. Even as he faces 91 criminal indictments, on the TV it's all Trump, all the time. Just like the movie Trump is everywhere all the time all over the place.

Trump and his lawyers had a scheme for replacing electors, but it was not all that far fetched. Until 1913 state legislatures had control over electors. Passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment modified Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. senators. Prior to its passage, senators were chosen by state legislatures. So Eastman and others were just trying to argue that there was something unconstitutional about the 17th Amendment. The Supreme Court might have been convinced that he was right and the state legislatures should have the final say in which case Trump would have been elected, not Biden. Republicans have used the Supreme Court before to get George W Bush elected in 2000 despite the fact that, when all the votes were counted, Al Gore really won the election. Bush convinced the Supreme Court to stop counting the votes. The result was the disastrous George W Bush administration in which he lied us into the Iraq war.

Republicans have been using dirty tricks for years to get themselves elected including gerrymandering and doctoring voter rolls to eliminate black voters. Black politicians and activists say that Republican lawmakers have used racial gerrymandering and voter suppression to secure those majorities and are using their political might to further consolidate power among mostly White Republicans. Republicans have been busy removing black voters from registration lists. According to Mother Jones: Fifty-five percent of the registration notices were sent to municipalities where Hillary Clinton had defeated Donald Trump, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and nine of the 10 areas with the highest concentration of voters on the purge list were big cities and college towns that had voted for Clinton. Milwaukee and Madison, the state’s two Democratic strongholds, accounted for 14 percent of the state’s registered voters but 23 percent of the names on the removal list. Voters in predominantly Black neighborhoods or areas with large student populations were nearly twice as likely to be flagged for removal, The Guardian found.

Trump and his lawyers just took dirty tricks to a whole new level. Now they will win in court just by the process of jury selection. It only takes one to find any of the myriad of defendants not guilty.

Off the Top of My Head

Contrasting the Chinese, EU and American Economic Systems

by John Lawrence

Since 2001, China has pursued a “going-out” investment policy. At first, the PRC (People's Republic of China) mainly encouraged SOEs (state owned enterprises) to invest overseas but in recent years, China's overseas investments have diversified with both state and private enterprises investing in nearly all industries and economic sectors. After Deng Xiaoping came to power in the late 1970s, China opened up its economic policy with the result that approximately 800 million people were lifted out of poverty in about 40 years. This turned China into a capitalistic nation ruled by the Chinese Communist party although the word "communist" is largely an anachronism at this point. China developed a unique economic system comprised of state owned enterprises and private enterprise. It has been the private aspects of China's system that have mainly driven the huge increases in GDP to the point where China is likely to take over the US as the world's largest economy in terms of GDP in a few years.

There are 4 components of GDP: consumption, investment, government spending and profit from exports. Some of the reasons for China's becoming an economic powerhouse are that consumption is only 38% of GDP whereas US consumption is nearly 70% of GDP. While Americans consume, China produces, exports and invests. I would characterize the US as having a Taylor Swift economy, an economy based on consumption of entertainment and other disposable items with no lasting value. It has been reported that Taylor Swift and the Barbie movie have been at least somewhat responsible for keeping the American economy afloat. When you add in social media and professional athletics, much of American consumption is immediately disposed of as soon as the event is over. In the EU consumption is about 52% of GDP so somewhat larger than China's but much less than the US.

Chinese investment is 43% of GDP while The US' is about 16%. EU investment is about 25% of GDP so midway between the US and China. At 21.4% EU government spending is larger than either the US (17.6%) or China (16%). Like the American government the Chinese government doesn't spend a lot of money on welfare. Chinese families are basically savers and provide a lot of the same services to their own intergenerational extended families which are provided by EU governments. The American ethos is largely individualistic and so many family members who can't provide for themselves fall through the cracks. This is one reason for the homeless crisis in the US.

The Chinese economy is bolstered by the fact that it is a net exporter (2.5% of GDP) while the US (-2.7%) and the EU (-2.7%) are net importers which subtracts from their GDPs. China also exports capital and manpower in the form of the Belt and Road Initiative. Announced in 2013, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) aims to strengthen China’s connectivity with the world. It combines new and old projects, covers an expansive geographic scope, and includes efforts to strengthen hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, and cultural ties. As of October 2019, the plan touches 138 countries with a combined Gross Domestic Product of $29 trillion and some 4.6 billion people. Supporting a diverse array of initiatives that enhance connectivity throughout Eurasia and beyond could serve to strengthen China’s economic and security interests while bolstering overseas development. 

The Chinese political system, nominally communist, has the same elements of democracy that the early US political system had which is that locally elected bodies select the next higher political body with 3 successive iterations so that the National Assembly is chosen by the provincial assemblies at the next lower level. The original American Constitution had a similar feature in that the Senate was not chosen directly by the people but by state legislatures. State legislatures continued to elect senators until adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 which provided for popular election of senators. The Chinese system tends to meritocraticy with the best and brightest ascending to the top levels whereas the more democratic American system has within it the possibility of electing complete idiots like Donald Trump whose ascendancy served to prove how vulnerable the two party system really is. By contrast the Chinese emphasize harmony and stability which are attributes of their main philosophical inheritance: Confucianism.

Off the Top of My Head

American Democracy Teetering on the Brink

by John Lawrence

So what are the possible outcomes? Let's assume Trump is the Republican nominee. Option 1: Trump is convicted and goes to jail before the 2024 election. In this scenario, Trump will probably lose the election for President. Independents will be aghast. Trump's base will not be able to organize sufficiently to carry out another assault on the seat of American democracy. There will be sporadic outbursts. In jail Trump will not have the media exposure he has outside of jail. Option 2: Trump is indicted multiple times but not convicted before the 2024 election. Trump probably still loses the national election, but is in a position as a free man to organize another insurrection, this time on a much larger level than the one on January 6, 2021. This could amount to civil war. Option 3: Trump loses the election and subsequently goes to jail. This could also result in a dangerous situation because Trump still has access to an outsize megaphone and continue to rile up his base before he goes to jail and cause trouble leading again to a possible civil war.

As long as Trump is a free man, he can continue to foment a revolution. He can continue to advocate for violence towards his perceived enemies, even those that are a legitimate part of the judicial and legal system. He is already attacking Jack Smith, the special counsel, who is prosecuting him on multiple counts regarding January 6 and also the document handling fiasco. Trump continues to insist that the American legal system is not legitimate. He continues to undermine the legitimacy of the rule of law. His followers essentially consist of a cult who want Trump exonerated irrespective of his purported criminality. As long as Trump is free, he will continue to whip up his followers and lead them to the brink of civil war. Who knows if in addition to Trump's calls for revolution, there is also a parallel movement going on to organize for a response to Trump's being convicted and put in jail or if Trump loses the election regardless of whether he has been convicted or not. Trump's followers are bound and determined to put Trump back in the White House by any means necessary. They will do whatever Trump eggs them on to do.

The United States' continued existence as a democracy cannot be taken for granted at this point. The Republican controlled House can throw the US into chaos if they decide not to authorize the budget. That in and of itself could shut the country down. There is a good chance that they will not authorize the continuance of government spending. There are many other ways that they could partner with Trump to bring the country down. Are some elements of the military also in league with Trump? Who knows. It seems that they were on January 6 when they wouldn't send troops to protect the Capitol on a timely basis. Obviously, some people in the military establishment sympathize with Trump. The influence of Fox News and other conservative media continues to amplify Trump's messages. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech enhances Trump's ability to foment a possible civil war. Trump's base who have grievances going back to loss of the Civil War combined with Trump's perceived grievances reinforce each other. An aggrieved leader and his aggrieved followers represent a volatile mixture

Trump almost succeeded in overturning the American government on January 6. Only Mike Pence stood in his way. Notably, firearms were not a part of the insurrectionists' arsenal as they invaded the Capitol. Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that next time they would bring their fire arms. Could another mob do what they did on January 6, and also be successful at it? Or could they be successful at the State level? These are tenuous times during which a number of scenarios involving Trump trying to take over the American government could play out. His base will never accept the outcomes of any indictments or even convictions. How will they react when he is sentenced to jail for the rest of his life? Or will the prosecutors chicken out when it comes to conviction and putting Trump in jail. If Trump is successful in fomenting a civil war, an unlimited right of Free Speech will be largely to blame. Can Trump be sentenced to shutting his mouth?

Off the Top of My Head

Toxic Masculinity

by John Lawrence

Traditional masculine traits are dominance, aggression, emotional repression, violence. These traits have been historically mostly expressed in terms of the military. In the First World War, many of the participants were more than eager to cover themselves in glory by proving their manhood in combat. Instead many of them ended up dying miserable deaths in muddy trenches or hung from barbed wire. The persistence of war in the human experience can be laid squarely at the feet of men and their interpretation of what is manly in my opinion. In fact peace or even world peace is seen as a feminine idea. Most traditional men would not consider peace in the form of world wide understanding and compassion even possible because it would be based on feminine values. The only peace even possible in the traditional male mind is "peace through strength." Traditional male values prevent even an acknowledgment of what peace would really consist of because it would consist of emotional values that are traditionally feminine. The predominant attitude is that joining the military will "make a man out of you." A real man is only supposed to express a limited and actually stunted set of emotions and certainly is not supposed to express any vulnerabilities. Physical force or the threat of force is acceptable in a man's world. Understanding, cooperation and diplomacy are not.

Traditional male activities are beer drinking (a man can hold his liquor), fast car racing or pickup driving (showing dominance by means of a powerful machine), participation in or spectating at competitive sports, participation in or admiration of the military. Dominance, competitiveness, the use or threat of violence, pugnaciousness, toughness, looking down on men who don't conform to this stereotype - these are all traditional male traits. None of these traits are physically or mentally healthy. For instance, holding your liquor can lead to cirrhosis of the liver. Emotional repressiveness can lead to an inability to relate to women even though some women are attracted to the traditional male type. In fact it can be argued that Trump's popularity is a result of his expression of traditional male values. In an article in FiveThirtyEight entitled With His Version of Masculinity, we find this:

But the quest to seem masculine is particularly complicated in this year’s GOP primary because Trump has been so successful at projecting a macho image that Republican voters have responded to. This masculine identity isn’t about demonstrations of physical prowess — nobody talks about how far Trump can run or whether he can bench-press a certain weight. His version of manliness is fueled by other kinds of behavior — including his belittling of other candidates, aggression toward women, “tell it like it is and don’t apologize” affect — that are associated with traditional ideas about how a man should behave. The other GOP candidates largely aren’t trying to imitate those aspects of Trump’s macho identity — but experts told us that without Trump’s signature belligerence, his version of masculinity might not resonate as much. And that means his rivals may have an especially difficult time convincing the GOP primary electorate that they’re as strong a leader as Trump.

“In this view of masculinity, men are supposed to be dominant, powerful, aggressive,” said Theresa Vescio, a professor of psychology at Penn State University who studies masculinity. “And the more that people — both men and women — think that good men should be high in power, status, dominance and toughness, the more they say that’s what a man is, the more they support Trump.”

It might seem strange to some that a man who is not particularly physically fit or athletic, never served in the military and eats junk food is an exemplary manifestation of manhood. It seems ridiculous that Trump's penchant for belittling his opponents is seen by some as "manly." That his getting away with stiffing contractors, creditors and not paying taxes are manly traits. But somehow Trump's unwillingness to apologize about anything or ever admit he did anything wrong is seen by some Republicans as the counter to "liberal values" like having compassion and respect for people who disagree with you. Instead Trump calls his detractors and competitors names, assails them as weaklings and asserts his macho masculinity while he hides behind a bevy of lawyers and uses his money to shield himself from any negative consequences. His seeming ability to get away with stuff is seen as quintessentially masculine. The article continues:

These are the voters who are especially likely to find Trump’s version of masculinity appealing. Trump is particularly effective at drawing on his supporters’ fears about threats to traditional masculinity, while simultaneously building himself up as a paragon of that version of manliness, according to the experts we spoke with. His image as president was aggressively militant, threatening other world leaders and avoiding compromise. And his refusal to apologize for a well-documented track record of sexual harassment and assault makes him seem authentically masculine and powerful to some voters, according to Dan Cassino, a political scientist at Fairleigh Dickinson University who studies male gender identity. “It’s as much about tearing others down as it is about building others up,” Cassino says. “The insults, the misogynistic behavior — these are very negative masculine traits but he’s willing to assert them in a way others aren’t, and that means nobody thinks he’s lying about who he is.”

By projecting an image of himself as a powerful, strong, dominant man who’s willing to shrug away modern conventions around how men and women should behave, Trump has reached people who support traditional gender hierarchies. “There are a lot of conservatives — men but some women too — in this country who increasingly feel like they’re on the outside looking in, while liberals run things,” said Paul Elliott Johnson, a professor of communication at the University of Pittsburgh who studies gender and politics. “Trump invites those people to feel victimized and then says, ‘I will fix the problem.’”

As detrimental to society in general as these toxic traditional masculine values are, they will even probably contribute to the annihilation of the human race altogether either through war or the ignoring of climate change. There is not even any talk of world peace any more. It's not even on anyone's radar. The militarization of the American psyche is complete. The Peace Corps is never even mentioned in the media. Most people would not even know that it exists. The Peace Corps represents the feminine values of help and caring for those less fortunate. The traditional male simply looks upon them as losers in the game of life, probably because of their inferiority to white males. As traditional white males, they believe that they have simply outcompeted those who come from as Trump has termed them, "shithole countries."  Let people with feminine values agonize over them and their claims that rich white men should help them out with their situations due to climate change. Macho men would scoff at their suggestions that the rich nations should bear the cost of ameliorating the effects of global warming or as U.N. chief António Guterres declared, "global boiling." As Trump and other macho men might say, "suck it up." There will probably never be world peace until women run the world. And where would that leave the traditional man and his toxic values? Healthy manhood, in my humble opinion, should be nothing more nor less than loving, supporting and cherishing the girls and women in our lives whether they be girlfriends, lovers, wives, daughters, mothers or grandmothers. All the rest of the positive values a man can manifest are simply personhood values which can be exemplified by both sexes.

Competence isn’t enough. Biden must also confront America’s economic bullies.

“Bidenomics” and “competence versus craziness” won't hack it.

Robert Reich

Jul 5, 2023

 

Friends,

It seems likely that the two major contenders for president next year will be Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

What will be their messages?

Biden has framed that choice as competence or craziness. His new “Bidenomics” blueprint makes clear that America has done well under his quietly competent leadership — featuring significant public investment, taming of inflation, and rebirth of manufacturing.

Trump has framed the choice as strength or weakness.

 

I’d rather have someone in the White House who’s competent (even if weak) than someone who’s crazy (even if strong).

But I fear voters may choose strength over competence.

Strength is one of the central narratives of America. In the mythic telling, America was borne from grit, guts, and gumption.

You probably learned it in school: We fought for our independence. We “tamed” the frontier. We won the Revolution. We prevailed in World Wars I and II.

The story conveniently leaves out slavery and genocide, as well as the more recent tragedies of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Latin America. But it’s deeply engrained in the American mind — far more so than is competence.  

Besides his Big Lie, Trump’s most dangerous con has been that America needs a strongman, and he fits the bill.

For Trump, every issue boils down to strength or weakness. Trump admires strongmen. He seeks dominance. He despises vulnerability.

Although he has never mentioned “social Darwinism” (I doubt he even knows the term), it’s the snake oil Trump sells — survival of the fittest, success to the mightiest, victory to the strongest. Life is a competitive struggle. America will be great only if we reward the strong and punish the weak.

Trump’s base — along with millions of other working Americans — feel bullied by a system that has marginalized and diminished them.

Trump blames liberal Democrats, Marxists, socialists, “coastal elites,” the Deep State, the FBI, the Justice Department, the IRS, and the Mainstream Media, along with non-whites and immigrants.

This angry base includes men who feel they’ve lost ground to women’s growing economic and political power.

Trump’s base wants a strongman who will bully these bullies.

 

Trump acts the part of a heroic brawler who’s loathed by the establishment but loved by the masses. His vindictiveness toward cultural elites makes his followers feel vindicated. “I am your voice,” he said on July 21, 2016. Many believed him then and still do.

It’s all a show, of course. Trump is a billionaire grifter who as president gave away trillions in tax cuts to billionaires and continues to rake in money from his time in office. But the more indignant Trump makes the cultural establishment, the happier his base, because their indignation makes them feel vindicated.

Finally, you can bet that Trump and the Republicans will magnify every sign of Biden’s frailty — his occasional difficulties pronouncing words, his slow gait, his moments of confusion. And they will do whatever they can to project Trump’s vitality.

So, I fear “competence or craziness” won’t do it.

The best way for Biden and the Democrats to counteract Trump’s “strength or weakness” is by taking aim at the real bullies of America — the C-suite oligarchs, Wall Street plutocrats, billionaire monopolists who have been riding roughshod over the vast majority of Americans.

End their big-monied corruption of our democracy. Stop their monopolizing of the economy. Prevent them from using their economic power to raise prices. Call a halt to their firing workers without notice, shipping jobs abroad, and busting unions.

“Bidenomics” could create hundreds of thousands of good manufacturing jobs. That’s good, but not sufficient.

The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a rigged economic system.

To counter Trump’s fake battle with cultural elites whom he accuses of undermining America’s moral core, Biden should mount a real battle against economic elites who have shafted America’s middle and working classes.

What do you think?

Share

Leave a comment

Off the Top of My Head

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) Says Americans Need To Stop “Electing Idiots.”

by John Lawrence

Did the Founders design a Constitution that was idiot proof? Not according to Liz Cheney. Is this a flaw that is inherent to democracy? Not necessarily although it seems to be a flaw in the American system of democracy. There are other forms of democracy that may be more idiot proof. For instance, a democracy in which there are background requirements for political representatives such as education and experience. It is important to have a President who is educated and experienced in areas related to government. The Senate and House of Representatives also should have education and background requirements. Any corporation requires education and experience requirements for jobs. Why should the government be any different? The Hill reported:

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) suggested Monday that the problem with American politics is that “we’re electing idiots.”

“Look, I think that the country right now faces hugely challenging and fundamentally important issues,” Cheney said at an event with the cultural and community center, 92nd Street Y, New York. “What we’ve done in our politics is create a situation where we’re electing idiots.”

Cheney, who is a staunch opponent of former President Trump, offered the reflection in response to a question about whether she would run for president if polling showed that it would hurt Trump’s third White House run.

“I don’t look at it through the lens of, you know, is this what I should do or what I shouldn’t do,” the former congresswoman said. “I look at it through the lens of, how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can’t be partisan.”

Cheney, who is a staunch opponent of former President Trump, offered the reflection in response to a question about whether she would run for president if polling showed that it would hurt Trump’s third White House run.

“I don’t look at it through the lens of, you know, is this what I should do or what I shouldn’t do,” the former congresswoman said. “I look at it through the lens of, how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can’t be partisan.”

“I really believe, and I’ve never believed something as strongly as I know this, that the single most important thing for the country is that Donald Trump can’t be anywhere near the Oval Office again,” she said.

The question is how do you accomplish "not electing idiots" within the constraints of the American system? Or should the American system be redesigned to accomplish this goal? Perhaps the first item should be to educate the populace in such a way that the voting pubic contains as few idiots as possible. If the electorate is a bunch of idiots, then they will elect someone who looks like them - namely, an idiot. The second thing is that perhaps people running for office should be required to take a test, the results of which would show their knowledge of the position they aspire to whether it's the Presidency, the House or the Senate. Americans are subjected to testing all through their educational experience. Corporations that hire American workers are very interested in their test scores. They want to know whether or not the person they are hiring is an idiot. Why doesn't this apply to politicians as well? Otherwise, running for election comes down to a popularity contest and very often a blood sport. Is this the kind of person who should be running our government?

Off the Top of My Head

Why Didn't Democrats Raise the Debt Ceiling When They Controlled Both Houses of Congress?

by John Lawrence

What is clear is that Democrats can only get new legislation passed when they control all three branches of government. This legislation usually increases spending on social programs. Likewise, Republicans can only get their legislation composed - usually of tax cuts - when they control all three branches of government. Both cases usually require the government to deficit spend, the former because of increased government spending, the latter because of decreased government revenues from taxes. So whichever party controls Congress and the Presidency and passes a budget requiring increassed deficit spending should also at the same time raise the debt limit. Make sense? So now we're in this dystopian dilemma that, after Democrats passed Biden's budget requiring a huge amount of government spending, Republicans, who now control the House, effectively want to repeal Biden's budget or else they won't agree to raise the debt ceiling. What a conundrum! These problems would never come up if the party that deficit spent also raised the debt ceiling to accommodate the deficit spending.

Congress has raised the debt ceiling twice under Biden, by about $3 trillion. Republicans voted three times to raise the debt ceiling under President Donald Trump, who added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt. "Republicans in Congress raised the debt three times when Donald Trump was president and each time with Democrat support, but now they won’t raise it, even though they're responsible for more than $8 trillion in bills incurred in four years under the previous administration," Biden said. The 115th Congress (2017–2019) featured unified Republican control of the government with GOP majorities in the House and Senate, and Republican President Donald J. Trump in the White House. So Republicans had no problem with raising the debt ceiling during the Trump administration which added $7 trillion to the national debt. Please note that Democrats could have filibustered the debt ceiling increases during the Trump administration because Republicans did not have a filibuster proof Senate, but they didn't

Raising the debt limit is not about new spending; it is about paying for previous choices policymakers legislated. However, if the previous choice were made by a government controlled by the Democratic party in a two party system, there is every reason to get those choices reversed when the Republican party comes into power and vice versa although Democrats have never tried to bring the country to the brink of default, a game of chicken which Republicans have been all to eager to engage in. They were successful in doing this when Obama was President. Having seen that chaos and mess as vice Preesident, Biden is not willing to engage in negotiations this time around hoping that more sensible heads will prevail. It didn't used to be this way. Sometimes called the Gephardt Rule in honor of Representative Dick Gephardt who introduced its first version, the rule used to provide that when the House agrees to a budget resolution, the Clerk shall prepare a joint resolution suspending the debt limit for the fiscal year covered by the budget resolution. In other words the debt ceiling was automatically effectively raised to accommodate the budget. This all changed when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House. When Newt Gingrich took over the House in 1995, he nullified the ingenious “Gephardt rule” that deemed the debt limit to be increased whenever a budget passed. This eventually led to the 1995 and 1996 government shutdowns, when Republicans refused to increase the limit because the president was a Democrat. In 2011, a showdown over the debt ceiling during Barack Obama’s presidency led to the Budget Control Act and ten subsequent years of austerity budgets.

So the simple answer to the question posed by the title of this piece is that, although Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress during the first two years of the Biden administration, they did not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Therefore, they could get a budget passed under the budget reconciliation rule which prevents a filibuster, but they could not raise the debt ceiling because that is subject to the filibuster. Oh what tangled webs these politicians weave! Nothing makes clearer the need to end the filibuster than another round of hostage-taking of the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Add this to the mounting problems of American democracy. Congress has created an arcane jumble of chaotic rules which threatens government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Go figure.

Off the Top of My Head

The Failure to Pacify Korea

by John Lawrence

Compare the two situations. Vietnam is a unified country, and after a horrific war, is on good terms with the US. Korea is a divided country with the north being still at war with the United States. A peace treaty was never signed after the Korean war and the country was never pacified and unified with the result that North Korea is a major threat to the western world. To boot, there is an axis forming with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. It didn't have to be this way. One hint is that former President Trump, albeit in a publicity stunt, momentarily eased tensions by becoming friendly with Kim Jong Un. If this had been a sincere gesture and had been followed up on, North Korea could have been unified with the south and the situation there normalized much as it has been in Vietnam. CNN reported on October 24, 2019:

"Seoul, South Korea CNN  — 

"Kim Jong Un has praised his “special” relationship with US President Donald Trump, with one of North Korea’s most respected diplomats telling state media the two leaders maintain “trust in each other.”

"Kim Kye Gwan, a former nuclear negotiator who now serves as an adviser to the North Korean leader, said Kim Jong Un and Trump enjoy “close relations” – a statement that appeared to pin the future of diplomatic talks between Washington and Pyongyang on the two leaders’ unique connection.

“I sincerely hope that a motive force to overcome all the obstacles between the DPRK and the US and to advance the bilateral relations in the better direction will be provided on the basis of the close relationship,” the longtime diplomat said in a statement published in the country’s state-run news agency KCNA, using the acronym for North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea."

Then on June 12, 2020 NBC news reported:

"Never again will we provide the U.S. chief executive with another package to be used for achievements without receiving any returns," North Korea's Foreign Minister Ri Son Gwon said on state-run KCNA. Nothing is more hypocritical than an empty promise."

There was the possibility of movement toward normalization and peace in Korea, and this wasn't the first time. But does the US even know or care about achieving peace in Korea and officially ending the Korean war? I don't think so. But the Trump publicity stunt at least demonstrates that, in order to achieve peace, an effort must be made to achieve friendship between leaders of the concerned countries. In contrast current American leaders have gone out of their way to demonize and disrespect certain national leaders which makes it even less likely that peace will ever be achieved. Friendship, respect and diplomacy are the means by which to attain peace in the world. Otherwise, military standoffs and confrontation are likely to ensue, and they have. The US invests immense amounts of money in its military while investing paltry insignificant amounts in peace building efforts. The result is an alignment of western nations confronting an alignment of mostly everyone else.

Responsible Statecraft reported on February 6, 2023:

"A large majority of Americans support talks aimed at reducing tensions with North Korea and China, according to a survey released Friday by The Harris Poll. The results are at odds with the state of opinion in Washington, where policy elites continue to one-up each other over how to respond to an incident in which an apparent Chinese surveillance balloon flew over the U.S. in recent days.

"Two-thirds of respondents agreed that the U.S. should “engage in dialogue as much as possible to reduce tensions” with China, while 20 percent said Washington should “not restart official dialogue and instead spend more money on military build-up.” Support for talks focused on deescalation went up by five points since 2021, when Harris last asked the question.

"Meanwhile, 68 percent of Americans polled told Harris that President Joe Biden should offer to hold direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, and 58 percent said the United States should offer diplomatic or economic incentives “in exchange for steps toward denuclearization.” "

Wikipedia reported: "In 2017, a majority of the American public also had a positive view of Moon Jae-in, the South Korean President, who in 2018 supported a formal declaration to end the U.S.-North Korean war." So if leaders on both sides in Korea want the war ended and negotiations to proceed towards that end, why is the US not on board with that? Could it be that the US doesn't want to lose an "ally" in South Korea and also lose its military bases there? Does the US not want to lose influence in Asia by helping to create peace there?

Over the years there have been various attempts to bring about peace on the Korean peninsula:

"On May 24, 2015, International Women's Day for Disarmament, thirty women—including US feminist leader Gloria Steinem, two Nobel Peace laureates and retired U.S. Colonel Ann Wright—from 15 countries linked arms with 10,000 Korean women, stationing themselves on both sides of the DMZ to urge a formal end to the Korean War (1950-1953), the reunification of families divided during the war, and a peace building process with women in leadership positions to resolve decades of hostility.

"In the weeks leading up to crossing the DMZ, Steinem told the press, “It's hard to imagine any more physical symbol of the insanity of dividing human beings."

"On the day of the crossing, South Korea refused to give the women permission to walk through Panmunjom, a border town where the 1953 truce was signed, so the women had to eventually cross the border by bus. Nevertheless, Steinem labeled the crossing a success. "“We have accomplished what no one said can be done, which is to be a trip for peace, for reconciliation, for human rights and a trip to which both governments agreed.”

"U.S.–North Korea talks began in June 1993 but with lack of progress in developing and implementing an agreement, North Koreans unloaded the core of a major nuclear reactor, which could have provided enough raw material for several nuclear weapons. With tensions high, Kim Il Sung invited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter to act as an intermediary. Carter accepted the invitation, but could only act as a private citizen not a government representative. Carter managed to bring the two states to the negotiating table, with Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Robert Gallucci representing the United States and North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok-ju representing his country.

"The negotiators successfully reached the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework in October 1994:

• North Korea agreed to freeze its existing plutonium enrichment program, to be monitored by the IAEA;
• Both sides agreed to cooperate to replace North Korea's graphite-moderated reactors with light water reactor (LWR) power plants, to be financed and supplied by an international consortium (later identified as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or KEDO) by a target date of 2003;
• The United States and North Korea agreed to work together to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that does not involve reprocessing in North Korea;
• The United States agreed to provide shipments of heavy fuel oil to provide energy in the meantime;
• The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations;
• Both sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula; and
• Both sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement. Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement.

Looked at from an historical perspective, it's clear that, although attempts have been made to bring about peace by some well meaning Americans like Jimmy Carter, other Americans have thought it in the US' best interests to continue a state of war on the Korean peninsula. It has been a complete and catastrophic failure to create peace there. Sometimes risks have to be taken to create peace. You can't be 100% sure that the other side will adhere to an agreement. However, as they used to say, "Give peace a chance." You can go all out for peace while remaining vigilant and militarily strong at the same time.

What the media doesn’t understand about Trump’s third presidential campaign

He's indicted. What does this mean? What the media doesn’t understand about Trump’s third presidential campaign

He’s no longer running for president of the United States

Robert Reich

 

Mar 30, 2023

 

 

 

Donald J. Trump was indicted in Manhattan today for his role in paying hush money to a porn star. In coming days, prosecutors in the office of the Manhattan district will likely ask Trump to surrender and to face arraignment.

What’s the real significance of this? What will it mean?

Last Saturday, at the first rally of his presidential campaign, in Waco, Texas, Trump talked about the criminal cases being prepared against him as if they were being prepared against his supporters.

“They’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you,” he said, predicting that “you will be vindicated and proud.”

The wording was no accident. To Trump, there is no difference between himself and his supporters, and no difference between his supporters and the parts of the United States where they’re the majority. 

This is key. Trump views himself, his supporters (whom he calls “my people”), and their domains as one and the same. Anyone who opposes him is “them” — outside the universe of his identity, past the places that embrace him, beyond the borders of his pathological ego.

Trump’s fusion of himself with his supporters galvanizes those who project onto him the power and status they feel they’ve lost in America — people who are mostly white, rural, and without college degrees. 

But Trump is not engaging in this fusion as a means of being reelected president. In fact, even if it helps him win the Republican nomination, it will lose him the general election, because it will turn off all Republicans who are focused on real issues or who worry that he’s nuts, and it will cause independents to flee.

The dirty little secret of Trump’s third campaign for president — one that the media has so far ignored — is that he is not seeking to become president of the United States, at least not the United States as it is now organized. He is seeking to become president of a very different nation — overwhelmingly white, straight, Christian, and authoritarian.

The policies Trump promoted in his speech are designed to change America into that nation — featuring, for example, the “largest mass deportation in United States history,” along with efforts to reverse “declining fertility rates” (white-nationalist code for encouraging white couples to have more babies).

Trump will use today’s indictment to galvanize his supporters even further.

***

At his rally last Saturday, Trump claimed that the greatest threat to the United States was “not China or Russia” but the people in the “Department of ‘Injustice,’” and “high-level politicians that work in the U.S. government, like McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden.”

When he was president, Trump expressed admiration for Putin and Xi. Presumably, the reason he admires them is that both have fused their personal identities with the identities of their countries (and along the way eliminated all opposition). The greatest threats to Trump’s attempt to accomplish the same in the United States are his domestic opponents, along with Republicans (like Mitch McConnell) who fail to give him full-throttled support.

Similarly, when he spoke last Saturday of “demonic forces” trying to demolish America, he was referring to demonic forces trying to demolish him — and, by implication, his supporters and their America.

For Trump, every major challenge facing America is a major challenge to Trump, and vice versa.

Last Saturday, he called the “weaponization of our justice system” the “central issue of our time.” During last year’s midterms, he tried to make his lies about fraud in his 2020 election defeat the most pressing issue facing the nation.

In his mind, the two are linked. He is now recasting the January 6 attack on the Capitol as an act of patriotism by those who view the 2020 election as illegitimate. The Waco rally even featured singing by men who were imprisoned for their part in the attack. A massive screen flashed images of the January 6 attack while Trump recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

***

He still has not accepted the result of the 2020 election, because it was the product of people who voted against him, and Trump never considered himself president of people who reject him. Following the same sociopathic logic, he will not accept the result of the 2024 election if he is not elected. His mind is incapable of accepting it. The fusion of himself, his followers, and America renders such an outcome impossible, just as the 2020 outcome was impossible.

Yet in fact he will not be elected — unless the U.S. economy is by then in a deep recession, or Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has a serious health problem.

Brace yourselves. We have been here before. It culminated on January 6, 2021. The angry, xenophobic, misogynistic, racist, antisemitic, conspiratorial forces Trump unleashed then are still very much with us. And they are now more entrenched in Congress and state legislatures than they were then. By November 2024, they will be ready for a second attempted coup.

Trump wants and expects a civil war over himself, a final clash between Americans who love him and Americans who loathe him — between his egomaniacal views of good and evil. A civil war is unlikely, but the next year and a half is likely to be fraught — another stress test of American democracy.

Last Saturday was only Trump’s first campaign rally. It will not go up from here.

Off the Top of My Head

How Liz Cheney Can Defeat Trump in the 2024 Election

by John Lawrence

Run for President as a third party candidate. She will siphon off enough Republican votes to insure Trump's loss. She has the name recognition and chutzpah to run for President. She's already raising money with her super PAC - The Great Task. There are enough disaffected Republicans that will vote for her, and, even though she would probably come in third in a Presidential race, she could guarantee that Trump or a Trump-like candidate would lose. Therefore, a Democrat will win. Cheney obviously has no affection at this point for the Republican Party, a party that oversaw her defeat in a landslide for her incumbent Congressional seat in Wyoming. She is more interested in a win for America and the principles of the Constitution, and, as an American patriot, she is committed to Trump's losing the 2024 Presidential election.

The US has a history of third party candidates handing wins to the party that they are least aligned with. In 1992, Ross Perot ran unsuccessfully as an independent candidate for President of the United States. Perot was a Texas industrialist who had never served as a public official, but he had experience as the head of several successful corporations and had been involved in public affairs for the previous three decades. Although Perot received no votes in the Electoral College, he won several counties, placed second in two states, and ended up far ahead of any other non major party candidate finishing in third place overall, receiving close to 18.97 percent of the popular vote, the most won by a third-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. His presence in the race may have been enough to deny George H W Bush a second term.

Even more salient was the 2000 Presidential election. The 2000 presidential campaign of Ralph Nader, political activist, author, lecturer and attorney, began on February 21, 2000. He cited "a crisis of democracy" as motivation to run. He ran in the 2000 United States presidential election as the nominee of the Green Party. Nader siphoned off enough votes from Al Gore, who was the Democratic candidate, that George W Bush won the election despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote and despite the fact that, at Bush's request, the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida which would have nailed the state of Florida for Gore and the Presidential election itself.

Third party candidates can wreak havoc for the party that they're most closely aligned with. In 2000 Nader was more aligned with Democrats than Republicans. Yet he helped cinch the race for the Republican since he siphoned off Democratic votes. The same goes for Perot in the 1992 Presidential election in which he helped defeat the candidate of the party he was most closely aligned with - in this case the Republican party. Liz Cheney knows all this. She's no dummy. She knows she can guarantee a Trump defeat in 2024 if he should run by running for President herself as a third party candidate. No doubt Adam Kinzinger and other influential Republicans will join her in an effort to overthrow the Republican party which has become the party of Trump. Liz is well known enough that she does not suffer from any name recognition deficit. Polling shows that in the neighborhood of 30% of registered Republicans are disenchanted with Trump and Trumpism. They are appalled at the January 6 insurrection by devotees and sycophants of Trump. Liz Cheney can guarantee that the United States of America will be able to turn over a new leaf and start a new day with a new party dedicated to the principles of the rule of law and the American Constitution - sort of what the old Republican party used to be like. She is in a position to relegate Trump to the dustbin of history if he should somehow escape the grip of all the lawsuits he's now entangled with.

Off the Top of My Head

Bush V Gore Set Precedent for Trump v Biden

by John Lawrence

Remember when George W Bush took over the Presidency because the Supreme Court sided with him in his lawsuit to get the vote counting stopped? If it had continued Gore would have won the Presidency in 2000. If Gore had become the rightful President, there probably would not have been the disastrous and illegal Iraq wars. As is evident now Saudi Arabia was more to blame for 9/11 than Iraq or Afghanistan, but Bush wanted to be a war time President. The US government, during the George W Bush administration, kept documents secret that would have implicated Saudi Arabia as the sponsor of the 9/11 attack that killed 3000 Americans. Families of the 9/11 victims have had to retrieve documents from the British government that implicate Saudi Arabia whom they now blame for 9/11 and are suing for compensation.

In 2000 conservative justices on the Supreme Court voted to stop the counting of votes in Florida overruling the Florida Supreme Court. Wikipedia reported:

"Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida's counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately. On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay for Bush, with Scalia citing "irreparable harm" that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over Bush's legitimacy. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm.""

Media organizations later analyzed the ballots and found that, under specified criteria, the originally pursued recount of undervotes of several large counties would have confirmed a Bush victory, whereas a statewide recount would have revealed a Gore victory. So Gore actually won the 2000 election. There would have been no illegal invasion of Iraq, and the US would have been well on the road to combating climate change because that was Gore's primary issue. How history might have been changed, if only ... So Trump probably figured, among his other plans to overturn the Biden victory in 2020, that the Supreme Court would probably be on his side in overturning the election since he had appointed 3 conservative justices to the Supreme Court, and the Court had essentially overturned the 2000 election in favor of George W Bush. However, Trump never got to the point of approaching the Supreme Court as Bush had done because Pence went ahead after the insurrection and presided over the vote count which assured that Biden had won the election. If the insurrectionists had sufficiently interrupted the proceedings on January 6, Trump's lawyers might then have petitioned the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Trump especially since the Court was overwhelmingly conservative, three of the Justices having been appointed by Trump himself. We'll never know, but what is clear is that Trump attempted a coup on January 6. It just didn't come off quite as he had planned.