Our mission is unchanged

I don’t know why, but I hardly ever talk about politics of any sort on this blog. Time was, a large percentage of my most-viewed posts were about politics, US politics in particular. It’s not that I stopped caring, and I certainly never ran out of topics, it’s just that I wasn’t in to it, for a lot of reasons. I suppose. Maybe it’s time I changed that a bit.

Today, the bigger picture has grabbed my attention.

I should say, first, that I admire and respect President Joe Biden for his decision to wityhdraw from the race. It can’t have been an easy thing to do, but he was definitely putting the country first. All of which is something I cannot imagine the Republican nominee ever doing.

Amid all the breathless news stories today, though, what strikes me is the one thing that political pundits and journalists have never been able to grasp: For most Americans in both 2020 and 2024, the issue was never who the Democratic nominee for president was, even if they supported them all along. Instead, it was only ever about who the other party’s nominee was. To be clear, President Biden had firm supporters in 2020 and 2024, and Vice President Kamala Harris will this year, too, but after the disaster of 2016, American voters understand one thing clearly: In November, the person who wins the presidential election will be either the Democrat or the Republican, and the choice this year could not possibly be more stark, serious, or consequential.

I will absolutely vote for the Democratic nominee—guaranteed—and there was never any doubt about that: I’ve never voted for a Republican nominee for president, and there was no way in this universe or any other that I would’ve voted for this year’s Republican nominee, either. Absolutely NOTHING has changed except the name at the top of the ticket. I fully expect Democrats to rally around Vice President Harris, and I’ll absolutely vote for her.

As so many others have pointed out, elections aren’t a marriage, they’re a bus. I’m not looking for “The One”, I’m looking for how to get closest to where I want to go, and then board the bus that will do that. If the bus isn’t going close enough, I don’t just hmph and stomp off into the driving rain and hail, I do what I must: I take the bus that will get us all closest to the destination—and then keep pushing for better bus service.

This year in particular I will make absolutely sure my vote for the Democratic presidential nominee, whoever that ends up being, is counted, and even if it ends up being that the only reason I do so is to help keep the Republican candidate out of the White House. Democracy, the US Constitution, personal freedom, and liberty, are all on the ballot this year, and the only way to preserve, protect, and defend them is vote Democratic in numbers too big to rig, and too real to steal. Let’s win this!

This began life as a post I made on my personal Facebook earlier this afternoon—which is kind of ironic, since I talk about politics there far, FAR less than I do here. I guess I had to start some place. This version is somewhat revised from the original.

Ask Arthur 2023, Part 3: US political stuff

Politics has always been a part of this series, and this year is no different. This makes sense: Time was I wrote about politics a lot, but now I hardly ever say anything. Things have changed in so very many ways.

Nevertheless, I still have my lifelong interest in politics, even if I don’t say much about it. After studying it formally in university, and informally ever since, and with hands-on experience in two countries, it’s fair to say that I have some opinions about political stuff.

Today’s post is about a series of related questions from Roger Green, and I’ve numbered my answers to make them easier to follow. Here are the questions:

Here are a few softballs for you about the US 2024 election cycle:
1. Who will be the Republican presidential candidate? Who should be?
2. Who will be the Democratic presidential candidate? Who should be?
3. Will djt have a lock on the GOP nom after Super Tuesday in early March?
4. Will there be a viable third-party candidate, and will Joe Manchin be on the ticket?
5. While we're at it, who will win the House and Senate?
6. Finally, if djt is elected, are we doomed?

1. “Who will be the Republican presidential candidate? Who should be?” I don’t see any Republican capable of preventing the party’s Dear Leader from winning the nomination, much as sane people would hope there could be. He has a stranglehold on the his base, and every Republican candidate is a distant also-ran because they’re trying to be just like their Dear Leader, which raises two questions: If they’re so busy praising him, why are they even running? And second, why on earth would cultists choose an imitation when they can stick with the real thing? The only candidate not running with his lips pressed to the orange posterior is Chris Christie, which is precisely why he’ll just be a footnote in the history of the 2024 campaign.

Who “should” the nominee? Who cares? All Republican politicians are now vassals of their Dear Leader, or hypocritical cowards too frightened to be honest about the existential threat their Dear Leader truly is to the USA. The party as a whole is fast sliding downhill into full-blown fascism, so does it really matter who they nominate? Nobody else could possibly win the nomination.

2. “Who will be the Democratic presidential candidate? Who should be?” The Democratic candidate will be President Joe Biden. I have no opinion about who “should” be the party’s nominee, mostly because it’s academic: The decision is made. Also, without credible opposition in the primaries, no candidates are being vetted, so there’s no realistic way to evaluate and compare non-existent rivals. It’s worth nothing that Joe wasn’t my first choice, and he probably wouldn’t be right now, were he not president, and that doesn’t matter: He wasn’t my first choice, but he’s my only choice.

3. “Will djt have a lock on the GOP nom after Super Tuesday in early March?” I haven’t looked at the Republican nomination process for 2024—mostly because the end result is all but over before it begins—however, it’s certain that the party’s Dear Leader will have the nomination locked up very early on. Having said that, I’m sceptical it’ll be officially over by March. It’s entirely possible, though unlikely, that Haley could gain enough votes in early states to drag the process out a bit more.

4. “Will there be a viable third-party candidate, and will Joe Manchin be on the ticket?” The first part is easy: No, there won’t be any viable third-party candidates. That’s because the system is set-up to ensure only a Republican or Democrat can possibly win enough Electoral College votes. If “viable” is used to mean syphoning off enough votes to deny either the Republican or Democratic candidate enough votes to have an Electoral College majority, then, sure, that could happen.

There’s an important point here: A third-party candidate who’s viable in this sense is most likely to take votes from the Republican nominee because the people who have the most desperate need for a third party candidate are Republicans who cannot bring themselves to vote for any Democrat, but don’t want to vote for their party’s nominee. Also, most of the expected third-party candidates so far skew Right, at least in some important ways. Disaffected Democrats, on the other hand, skew Left, and if they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for President Biden, they’d be most likely to stay home or throw their vote away as a protest vote for the Green candidate. However, I don’t see that happening.

Democrats outperformed expectations in 2018, 2020, and 2022, precisely because the same voters the newsmedia claims are disaffected now voted Democratic to stop the fascistic tendencies and agenda of the Republican Party and its Dear Leader. Those voters aren’t stupid, and they know the huge uphill battle that still remains to preserve US democracy and the Constitution, and they’re not going to throw up their hands because of Republican propaganda or shallow and lazy newsmedia commentary.

5. “While we're at it, who will win the House and Senate?” Democrats will re-take the US House, and will retain the US Senate. The reason for the House is that Republicans' gerrymandered maps are being thrown out all over the country, and 2024 will have a much fairer district boundaries, and fair maps always help Democrats—and democracy itself, for that matter. The Senate will be because of the same over-performance by Democrats that we saw in 2018, 2020, and 2022. The stakes are too high, and voters understand that Republicans persistently refuse to stand up for democracy and the rule of law, and the few policy ideas they promote—like a total nationwide ban on all abortions—are opposed by a massive majority of voters. And, of course, Senate races can’t be gerrymandered like House races, all of which which puts Republicans at a disadvantage.

6. “Finally, if djt is elected, are we doomed?” Absolutely. 100%. No doubt whatsoever. He has taken off his mask (hood?) and shown everyone the actual fascist beneath it, and the Republican Party that is now his personality cult is absolutely okay with him becoming a dictator. People often say, “the Supreme Court will stop him.” Yeah, right. It’s not just that the Court is itself under far-right Republican control, it’s that he’s made clear he plans to act unilaterally and outside the Constitution. If the Court rules against him, he’ll just ignore it and do what he wants: The Supreme Court has absolutely no means to enforce its rulings and depends entirely on the Executive Branch for enforcement. With the Executive Branch controlled by a fascistic dictator, there’ll be no one to enforce their orders. Congress could impeach him again and this time convict him—and he’d ignore it. Who would stop him? Who could stop him? Secession and civil war could then be a possibility, but his ego would probably have him nuke Los Angeles or some other major city run by Democrats.

That’s the nightmare scenario, obviously, but I think it’s also the unlikely outcome. As I’ve said, it’s more likely than not that he loses yet again, and he’d be left to spend the rest of his life, or at least until his dementia gets even worse, railing about—well, everything he’s been railing about for the past three years.

Rather than ending this post with such a dark subject, here’s one more question from Roger that’s—well, not lighter, exactly, but far less dire:

Suppose you are an American university president testifying before Congress, answering questions about antisemitism. How would you answer the committee's questions?

Perhaps by definition, university presidents are terrible at anything but marketing. They spend so much time selling their university to big donors and corporate sponsors that they don’t really know how to give a straight answer to any question. Having said that, Republicans in Congress almost never ask a question in good faith: They intend every question as an attack and an opportunity for a gotcha. The university presidents should have had some coaching before their appearance to prepare them to deal with the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the Republicans pretending to question them.

That said, how hard could it be to answer directly, rather than talking about violations of university policy? There’s no conflict between condemning hate speech, or speech veering close to it, and upholding people’s right to say offensive things. I have no idea how I’d answer the questions because I didn’t watch them being delivered, but that’s pretty much the point I’d try to make. I have no illusions that there’d be anything whatsoever that anyone could say that would satisfy the grandstanding Republican politicians—who miraculously!—only just started caring about anti-semitism when they saw an opportunity to attack others. Sure, they might have wanted to first look at some of the anti-Semitic things their own party caucus mates have said, were they honest in their outrage. It also might have been entertaining to see a university president point that hypocrisy out to them, but it would’ve made the politicians’ already frenzied performative outrage rise to an even higher level of intensity—and stupidity.

The bottom line, though, is that whole charade was nothing but political theatre, and there was absolutely no answer the presidents could’ve given that would have stopped the Republican attack, no matter how good and on point their response was. But those folks clearly really needed coaching.

Thanks to Roger for today’s questions! Next time, something completely different, though Roger will return later in the series.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-23”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

”Let the annual inquisition begin” – The first post in this year’s series.
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 1: Get here from there”
”Ask Arthur 2023, Part 2: Measuring and measured”

President Biden: ‘Let's Finish the Job’

President Joe Biden has officially announced that he’s running for re-election as president (video above). There will be an onslaught of often vile attacks from the Right—and probably some from the Left, too—but one thought occurred to me: If the USA’s politics now mostly seems to be populated by a bunch of six-year-olds, maybe a real grandfather is exactly what the country needs, if only to buy a little more time for the nation to grow the f**k up.

I absolutely hate US politics: Calm dialogue between supporters of the two parties is often utterly impossible, but Red Hat Cult members can’t even tolerate the rational members of their own party, attacking them as “enemies”. For the USA, and increasingly in English-speaking democracies around the world, politics is a zero-sum game in which one’s opponents must not only be defeated, they must be utterly destroyed—and some of them mean that quite literally. Increasingly, it’s not a contest of ideas and ideals, it’s how outraged the Right can be at any given moment.

I mention all that because my views of US politics are no longer subtle or patient. I’m sick of the extremes dictating how we all much think and behave, but I’m especially hostile to the far right because of that whole wanting to take away my human rights and criminalise my life thing. Yeah, they can just FO.

That out of the way, I have a mostly practical, utilitarian view of the announcement.

First, there’re the obvious, the refrains, that Biden is too old, and that he’s unpopular, however, both are also true of the presumed Republican nominee, the party’s failed 2020 nominee. In fact, the Republican candidate is in far worse shape because FAR more people hate him (usually literally) than literally hate President Biden. People may not exactly love Biden, but the other guy—well, let’s just say that for normal people, he’s about as popular as an overflowing sewer after an outbreak of norovirus.

We’ve seen this reality played out in every federal election beginning in 2018—especially among younger and women voters—delivering Democrats completely “unexpected” victories, and, most notably, even in years Republicans should’ve cleaned up, like in the 2022 Midterms. We’ve also seen voters in Deep Red Kansas reject outlawing abortions, we saw a Democratic Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate win a landslide election, all of which shows an unmistakable message: Voters don’t like the likely Republican nominee, nor his avowed policies, nor his closely aligned candidates. This means that they’re unlikely to think any more positively about a certain state governor with a fetish for banning books, attacking the vulnerable, and picking petty fights with a major corporation in his state. In sum, the USA has already endured a toxic, extremist, narcissistic wannabe authoritarian dictator, and that wasn’t exactly a positive experience for the majority of US voters.

Seeing all that, plenty of people sigh, “yeah, but are those two really the best candidates that the USA can find?!” For the Democrats, probably not, for the Republicans, it makes no difference: Their politicians are all playing christofascists on TV, regardless of whatever it is they actually think or believe (and express in private). Are they the best possible candidates? No. But of the two parties, only the Democrats will actually have a candidate that the majority of voters don’t hate.

I think that Biden has actually done a good job, and not just because he’s not a narcissistic grifter and con man like his predecessor. I feel much safer with Biden dealing with Russian aggression after the disaster the former guy had proven himself to be (and who would’ve made things even worse if his coup attempt had succeeded in installing him in the office he’d lost). Steady, sane, hands are needed to steer the ship of state through perilous international waters, and that’s something that the self-dealing con-man former guy could never, ever, be.

When Democrats controlled Congress, they enacted laws and programmes that actually helped the American people, things they overwhelmingly supported. Since the loons, goons, and cartoons took over the US House, it’s been nothing but idiotic partisan stunts, grandstanding, and self-fellating in order to get their few seconds of coverage on Fox “News”. If Democrats can regain control of the US Congress in 2024, then the USA can start moving forward again, just as it did 2020-22.

As for me, I would prefer a younger, more left-leaning Democrat. I think that 50-ish probably ought to be the upper limit for any presidential candidate of any party, but the reality is that both parties will have candidates who are quite old. Between the two, there’s only one rational choice, and that’s voting to re-elect President Biden.

There are plenty of valid criticisms of President Biden, and they’d often offered by both the Left and the Right, but, in my opinion, that doesn’t change one essential truth: The presumptive Republican nominee should never be allowed anywhere near Washington, DC, let alone the White House. Joe Biden is far from perfect, but he is what he is, and he’s one thing more: The polar opposite of the narcissistic con-man and grifter the Republicans will nominate for a third time. Biden has often said we shouldn’t compare him to “the almighty”, but to the alternative. President Biden is far, far better than the alternative.

Ask Arthur 2022, Part 2: Indepen-dunce

Today’s question is out of the sequence I’d planned—it’s the latest arrival, in fact—because it seems more closely related to Part 1 than the question I’d planned for this week. Because this will (still) be a short series this year, I planned one post per week to conclude before Christmas. I’ll now post the final part in this series the last week of the year (and, where has the year gone?!). This means there’s extra time to ask a question (details below).

At any rate, today’s question is from my pal Roger Green, who asked:

How, if at all, does Sinema becoming an independent change the Senate operations? How does it affect her running for reelection in 2024? Will Manchin follow suit?

The first question is the easiest: It won’t necessarily change anything because under the very, very best circumstances, her vote for Democratic bills was always unreliable, and her demands many. Her being an independent won’t change her behaviour at all.

It’s also true that there were already two independents in the US Senate who caucus with the Democrats: Bernie Sanders of Vermont and also Angus King of Maine. Sanders might be considered an “Independent Democrat” mainly because he’s sought the Democratic Party’s nomination for US President. Like Sinema, he’s often criticised Democrats’ policies, priorities, etc., though for reasons opposite hers. That means that there’s a precedent for Sinema caucusing with Democrats while also criticising Democrats.

It seems probable to me that the entire reason Sinema declared herself an independent is Arizona’s 2024 US Senate election. She’s too far to the Right for the Democratic Party that selected her—on a supposedly progressive platform, no less—and she’s too far Left for the Republican Party (although, to be fair, the vast majority of Americans would be called “far leftist” by many Republicans…). Her political problem arose because she betrayed the Democratic voters of Arizona who nominated her, and all the voters of Arizona who sent her to the US Senate believing her when she campaigned as a progressive.

Her treachery means that she was absolutely certain to have been primaried in the 2024 elections, and it’s highly likely that she would have lost re-nomination as a Democrat. However, she could never win nomination as a Republican, so that left only one option: Become an independent. It’s just her typical self-centred, “it’s ALL about me!” vanity. It’s also a sensible move—though crass and somewhat egomaniacal.

The fact is, she has—yet again—betrayed Democrats by blocking their options through giving them the poison pill of letting her win to prevent Republicans winning the seat. This is because Arizona still has a large and powerful rightwing in the state, despite trending “Blue”. She’s betting that Republicans might nominate an at least “not absolutely horrible” candidate, and if Democrats don’t nominate a strong candidate (or one at all), then she can get re-elected by slipping between the two parties.

She may well think that Democrats would prefer to nominate a weak candidate—or none at all—to avoid the possibility of losing the seat to the Republicans (again, assuming Republicans don’t nominate a whack-job). That’s because 2024 could well be a difficult year for Democrats to hold the Senate (and in general, actually…): The party risks losing seats in the Senate. Sinema thinks that Democrats will see letting her win as making it a bit less likely they’ll lose control of the Senate in 2024—and she’s probably right. It’s actually brilliant, in an “evil genius” and “Machiavellian” sort of way.

However, none of this applies to Joe Manchin. No one could credibly call him a “liberal”, and absolutely not a “leftist”. However, with the Republican Party as extremist as it now is, there’s no room for a conservative Democrat to join them because he’s definitely not conservative enough for the Republican Party. If he were to become an Independent, he’d probably lose re-election: West Virginia is hard-right, and were he an independent conservatives would probably vote for the “real” conservative, the Republican.

In West Virginia’s 2018 Senate election, Manchin won with only 49.57% of the vote (the Republican and the Libertarian split the rest of the vote). If a Democrat—even a weak candidate—was in the race with a Republican and an independent Manchin, the Republican would be almost certain to win. There's currently no reason to think that West Virginia voters would be keen to elect an independent Senator if Democrats sat out the election. On balance, if re-election is something he cares about—and he’s said it isn’t—he’d be better off becoming a Republican, but that would be an even bigger betrayal of voters than Sinema’s. On the other hand, Manchin will be 77 in 2024 and may choose to retire, which would make all of this moot—and an almost certain pick-up for Republicans.

So, Sinema becoming an independent won’t change much of anything about the way the Senate operates under Democratic control, nor will it change her behaviour as a Senator. The only thing it may change is the political calculations relating to who might win that Arizona Senate seat in 2024, and so, who does win it. None of that applies to Manchin. He stands to gain almost nothing from becoming an independent, and it could make it harder for him to win re-election, should he choose that.

Thanks to Roger for today’s topic!

It’s not too late to ask a question: Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom de question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. To avoid being public there, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Facebook Page..

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-21”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

A decade-long inquisition
Ask Arthur 2022, Part 1: Speaking in the House