On the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial Nomination: PPS

I know, I know; for a guy who rarely discusses Wisconsin policy or politics and admits that he doesn’t know much about it, I admit that I’m kinda like a dog – an old dog 😊 — with a bone on this one.  My defense:  when ya see a train wreck comin’, ya just can’t help it. 😉

As this is typed, polls indicate that WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong, Asian American, a self-described member of the Democratic Socialists of America (the “DSA”), is the clear leader for the Democrats’ Wisconsin Gubernatorial nomination, to face off against the putative Republican Gubernatorial nominee, MAGA U.S. WI Rep. Tom Tiffany, who has embraced and been endorsed by President Donald Trump.  Early voting to secure the parties’ respective nominations has already commenced.  Election Day is August 11, a week from today.  I urge all Wisconsin citizens who read these notes to vote whether or not you agree with the sentiments expressed below.

As all who care are aware, on a Fox News show on July 26, Megan Romer, the Co-Chair of the DSA, indicated that her party held the positions set forth below.  I watched the tape; there was no trap or trickery.  The Fox News host simply put the various positions before Ms. Romer; she jumped into the pool with both feet, all on her own.

According to Ms. Romer, the DSA supports:

  • Eliminating the United States Senate (which, because of the filibuster, is the only part of the Article I branch that is currently putting any limitation upon Mr. Trump’s excesses);
  • Replacing the presidency and the U.S. Supreme Court as we now know them (we need a strong executive — just not a monarchial, maniacal and moronic one; and while the Court needs to be looked at, “replacing” it is both terrible policy and a political loser);
  • Abolishing ICE (reforming ICE is necessary; abolishing ICE is both terrible policy and a political loser);
  • Abolishing U.S. borders and providing amnesty to anybody here illegally (abolishing borders is egregiously terrible policy and a political loser; providing amnesty to those here illegally is a nuanced issue but in the current environment, a political loser);
  • Defunding the Pentagon (egregiously terrible policy and a political loser);
  • Abolishing prisons, at least in large part (egregiously terrible policy and a political loser); and
  • Government or public ownership of most large corporations (egregiously terrible policy and a political loser; why don’t they just scream, “Call us Communists!”).

Normally, when approaching such outrageous assertions such as these, at least sometimes I try to be a little more tactful, and will make a comment such as, “It’s enough to make one blink,” or “This seems misguided,” or some such.  Here, I’ll state it straight out:  the positions that Ms. Romer has indicated that the DSA supports are not only politically suicidal; they are the dumbest substantive policy positions (as contrasted with the even-worse anti-democratic policy positions espoused by MAGAs explicitly or impliedly) I have ever heard advocated for by a party which aspires to be a major influence on America.

In the recent debate among candidates for the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial nomination, Ms. Hong indicated that she does “not support the full platform of the national DSA,” but was not more specific.  I viewed her failure to affirmatively be more specific – she had to know the question was coming – a “tell,” as they say in the poker world.  Given her membership in the DSA, her general disavowal of “the full platform of the national DSA” wasn’t good enough to reassure moderates who think that the DSA is crazy – although to be fair, I’m not sure what she could have said that would have been good enough. 

Mr. Tiffany is going to plaster her with it.

After my last post on Wisconsin Democrats’ current seemingly woefully misbegotten Gubernatorial nomination quest, in which I indicated that I was supporting Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley because I assumed that WI Gov. Tony Evers had endorsed Mr. Crowley, an African American, as the most likely Democratic candidate to defeat Mr. Tiffany, a good friend and Wisconsin resident commented:

“This moderate [referring to himself], a Republican voter for 30 years, only began voting for the Democratic candidates in opposition to anything Trump, is NOT a Democratic voter. I will not vote for whoever the Democrats put up for governor because that person is a Democrat. Hong? Nope. [Former WI Lt. Gov. Mandela] Barnes [who has since dropped out]? Nope.  Crowley? Convince me. Tiffany? Nope.

That means I may not vote for governor. I’m not picking the “lesser of two evils”. They are, after all, evil. Give me more Evers or [former four-time WI Gov.] Tommy Thompson.”

In that same past post, I also noted, “Republicans are already running ads against Ms. Hong as “too liberal for Wisconsin” – which some Democrats claim is their attempt to boost her profile and support.  [Some Emphasis Added].”  The true significance of that observation only resonated with me later.  If what I had heard some Democrats suspected was accurate — that some Republicans are actually seeking to boost Ms. Hong’s campaign — that means that the Republicans think that their odds of victory – in Wisconsin – are better against a Democratic Socialist than they are against a black man from the city. 

Think about that.  

An aside:  I watched virtually all of the recent Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate debate, focusing primarily on the responses of Ms. Hong and Mr. Crowley.  I was surprised by the performance of both.  Usually, progressive populists are firebrands; I found Ms. Hong’s screen presence to “lack pizazz,” in the words of a close friend who is more sympathetic to Ms. Hong than I am.  On the other hand, I thought Mr. Crowley presented pretty well.  It nonetheless seems at this point that his candidacy may be a matter of too little, too late.  I’ve seen that a Wisconsin news outlet recently quoted a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Professor, “Finally, the party is coordinating around a single alternative to Hong [Mr. Crowley], but it’s happening, in my view, far too late for it to seriously threaten her frontrunner position.”

No one who has read any of these notes can doubt my opposition to Mr. Trump or anybody endorsed by Mr. Trump.  If Ms. Hong does win the Democratic nomination, I will, unlike our friend, vote for her against Mr. Tiffany because it’ll make one more vote that Mr. Tiffany will have to get to win the Governorship, and I am even more concerned about what an entirely-Republican-controlled Wisconsin state government will do to rig the state’s results in the 2028 presidential election than I am about the substantive damage such a MAGA state government will do to Wisconsin.  That said, and as I’ve indicated here previously, as avid progressives stray further left from the political center, they are either oblivious to or don’t care that they risk losing the moderate support that is the difference between victory and defeat in closely divided political districts.  I would suggest that the only theme that unites all of those who oppose Mr. Trump and MAGA anti-democratic efforts is “NO KINGS.” 

I fear that if Ms. Hong wins the Democratic nomination, Mr. Tiffany is going to give her a whuppin’ that even The Greatest, Muhammad Ali, would admire.  At a time in which very few voters spilt their tickets, Ms. Hong’s presence atop the Democratic ballot might not only be enough to enable Republicans to maintain their control of the Wisconsin legislature; it may be enough to enable Wisconsin Republican U.S. House candidates such as U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who’s won his last three races in Wisconsin’s Third Congressional District by an average of about 3 points and whose campaign should otherwise be on life support in this decidedly anti-Trump environment, to squeak through.  I have similar fears about Michigan Democrats’ U.S. House candidates’ fates in any “purple” Michigan districts if Abdul El-Sayed (leading in the polls) defeats U.S. MI Rep. Haley Stevens in their race for Democrats’ U.S. Senate nomination, to be decided today.  Current polls show the Republican candidate beating Mr. El-Sayed – who, as contrasted with Ms. Hong, is at least dynamic — in November, but losing to Ms. Stevens. 

Democrats’ taking control of the United States House of Representatives, long considered a “sure thing” by political pundits, isn’t looking like such a sure thing to me any longer, given some of the seemingly-counterproductive results the more zealous members of the party are driving.

Since a large segment of Wisconsin Democrats reportedly still remain undecided, I still hope – although I’m not exactly bullish – that Mr. Crowley can eke out a victory over Ms. Hong to give those of us who oppose the institution of an American Apartheid at least some hope of victory in November.  If my dour assessment of Ms. Hong’s prospects of winning the Wisconsin Governorship this November proves wrong – i.e., if she does secure the Democratic nomination and does defeat Mr. Tiffany in November — I hereby pledge that I will joyfully point out my glaring error in these pages.

One bright spot:  no matter how the current primary contest turns out next week, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the Noise will – finally – drop this bone and move on.  😉 

We’ll see what happens.

On Iran

I’ll first repeat what I have offered in earlier notes:  first, that the only objective that reasonably supported President Donald Trump’s order to initiate hostilities against Iran was to effect regime change from the Ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (collectively hereafter, the “Iranians,” to be distinguished from Iranian civilian citizens unless the context indicates otherwise) to a government more philosophically aligned with the other Middle East nations (any lesser outcome, even if it seemed to make the Middle East temporarily marginally more stable, was but a bandage); and second, that the President’s calculation that if he initiated hostilities, events would coalesce to bring about the fall of the regime, was not entirely unfounded.

But didn’t work. 

As this is typed, the Strait of Hormuz (the “Strait”) is again effectively closed although the two sides are refraining from active exchanges of fire.  The price of oil is going up and financial markets that have been inexplicably sucking up Mr. Trump’s joy juice over the last five months may – I can’t give them greater credit than that — be slowly waking up to the fact that Mr. Trump seemingly has no way out.  The Iranians are crowing Iran “has taken America’s best shot” and the regime is still standing.  (Now, the Iranian-allied Houthis are trying – so far unsuccessfully — to shut down the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to block the export of Saudi Arabian oil through the Red Sea, which, if effective, will really bollix things up.)  Mr. Trump has again threatened to launch a “massive attack” on Iran.  If this “massive attack” simply amounts to more bombing, I think one can reasonably presume that this assault will be as futile at subduing the Iranians as the preceding gazillion attacks have been.

Let’s look at the situation first substantively and then psychologically/politically (the factors making up the latter perspective intertwined). 

Substantively, the notion that Iran has withstood America’s best shot is probably hogwash.  Put aside nuclear weaponry; if the President was willing to launch a full-scale ground invasion of Iran, deploying the appropriate number and type of American troops accompanied by air power and naval strikes, I would venture that Mr. Trump would, ultimately, effect regime change and the Strait would be open.  (My “probably” qualifier arises from some reports that given Mr. Trump’s past spasm of attacks, America is actually now running low on available munitions; a recent report indicates that the Trump Administration agreed to the current pause in hostilities in part because key elements of its stockpile are dwindling.)  That said, such an initiative would obviously involve heavy American casualties and, based upon our experiences in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the government we installed would have a life span of exactly as long as we maintained ground troops to sustain it.  Inasmuch as there is overwhelming American consensus that Mr. Trump chose to start this conflict, the American dead and wounded that would result from such an invasion would be considered his fault and mean the de facto end of his presidency.  Even as of July 23, the PBS News Hour reported, “Nearly 1 in 5 self-identified MAGA voters believes the U.S. should end the war with Iran, regardless of the costs.”  I would pose that at least half of the President’s MAGA base would desert him as American casualties mounted.  (While I’m pretty confident that Mr. Trump is refraining from an invasion because he fears for his own political standing, I’m thankful that he is forbearing because we have already lost enough lives to this narcissistic, delusional charlatan’s grandstanding.)

There have also been suggestions that a prolonged American blockade of the Strait would ultimately cause Iran to buckle to American demands.  In May, I saw former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and retired four-star Navy Admiral James Stavridis opine, “[The U.S. can blockade Iran] with air and naval forces and you continue to strangle the Iranian economy.”  He thought such a strategy would take “… months, but not years [to be successful].”  While noting that an impasse in the Strait would have greater immediate effect on the American economy and American electoral sentiment than on the Iranians, he observed, “There is a limit for [the Iranians].  …. I don’t think we’re in a quagmire yet – but I can see one from here.”

I include the Admiral’s comments because I place great store by his military assessments.  That said, for reasons outlined below, I have the temerity to suggest that I’m not sure that I agree that an American blockade against Iran would work, even if did bring about the collapse of the Iranian economy and even if Mr. Trump had the patience and willingness to accept the attendant political and economic pain, which he doesn’t. 

I do think there’s consensus that if we weren’t in a quagmire in May, we certainly are now.

So much for substance.  With due apologies to the accomplished psychologists whom I am honored occasionally read these pages … let’s move on to psychology. 

As all who care will recall, when the Trump team signed its Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Iran in mid-June, the MOU was lambasted – even in some quarters of the alt-right media – as being wildly tilted in Iran’s favor, since it included no restrictions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities while eventually providing Iran hundreds of billions of dollars in reconstruction costs.  It is seemingly beyond dispute that the MOU would have provided the Iranians colossally more than any deal that the Obama Administration, in the face of withering Republican criticism, ever made with Iran.  The projected influx of funds to Iran would over time have arguably made it an even more dominant force in the Middle East.  It didn’t take much acumen to surmise that the prospect terrified the other nations in the region, and would certainly not be in America’s interest.    

At one point, MSNOW’s Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough called the arrangement a “bribe” by the Trump Administration to Iran.  Mr. Trump was obviously willing to essentially capitulate to get the Strait open before the global economy seized up and to avoid torpedoing whatever electoral prospects Republicans retain for November’s midterm elections. 

Even so, the deal started to unravel almost immediately – sooner than the Trump Administration was willing to concede.  As the Iranians first began to get restless, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has brain if not spine, must have been pointing out to them that the MOU was a far better deal for them than any future American president would ever agree to – or indeed, better than any arrangement Mr. Trump himself would approve after the November U.S. mid-term elections. 

So why did the Iranians turn their back on it?

I will venture that in offering his “bribe,” Mr. Trump didn’t recognize that the Iranians are totally saturated by the same force that is the foundation of his political power.

Hate.

Let’s start with the observations of the greatest propagandist of all time – tenets upon which Mr. Trump has established and maintained his political base over the last decade:

“The broad masses of a people consist neither of professors nor of diplomats.  The scantiness of the abstract knowledge they possess directs their sentiments more to the world of feeling.  That is where their positive or negative attitude lies. … Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward.”  [Emphasis Added]

  • Adolf Hitler; Mein Kampf 

While any American administration trying to reach an arrangement with the Iranians must overcome their underlying hatred for America, the “Great Satan” – a hatred which, through a half-century of indoctrination, has become engrained “in a hysteria,” to quote Hitler – where we are now seems deeper water than that.  Recall that a decade ago the same regime agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the “Great Satan,” and many objective observers considered the Iranians to have largely abided by the arrangement until after Mr. Trump withdrew from it during his first term.

I would suggest that the Iranians’ current bellicose recalcitrance arises from its specific hatred of Mr. Trump.  In his first term, he ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, reportedly the IRGC’s most recognized military commander, and then on two occasions in his second term unleashed bombing and assassinations upon Iran while the Iranians were in discussions with the Trump negotiators.  In this context, it doesn’t matter whether the Iranians were negotiating in good faith; they almost certainly weren’t; but from their perspective, Mr. Trump has laid one deadly provocation upon them after another.

These are not exactly “turn the other cheek” kinds of guys.

Since the Iranian regime released the American diplomatic hostages in 1979, its attacks at American interests have been sporadic and, from the standpoint of the American public’s attention, not very effective – proxy strikes upon American and American-allied installations around the globe.  Even those which resulted in the rare American soldier’s death or injury were one-day stories in the American media, easily ignored by the Trump Administration.

Now, the Iranians have seemingly realized that they can really hurt Mr. Trump directly by crippling the world economy, jacking American inflation, and ensuring that he suffers a rebuke at the polls this November that not even MAGA attempts to subvert the results can overcome.  They are politically strangling him.  They have already held out for five months; they only have to hold out forabout three and a half more. 

Who doesn’t think they can do it? 

Is such an approach apparently against their own long-term geopolitical strategic interest?  Arguably.  Do they risk the collapse of their economy?  Seemingly.  But as Hitler noted over a century ago:  knowledge has less impact than fanaticism; hate is more enduring than aversion.

I and many others have expressed puzzlement over the years as to why a good third of our populace continues to support Mr. Trump although he’s seemingly done nothing for the vast majority of them.  He hasn’t brought down inflation – indeed, has arguably made it worse through his tariffs and the Iranian attack.  His tax cut made most of them but pennies while increasing a deficit that will ultimately result in a reduction of their Social Security and Medicare benefits.  He has cut back on the Medicaid many of them rely upon.  He has refused to release all of the Epstein files, upon which many of them have been obsessed for years – a refusal which I suspect all but the densest MAGA suspects arises from his knowledge that full disclosure would be devastating for him.  His ICE agents have shot two – wait for it — white American citizens, one of them – wait again – allegedly because he had a firearm which he was legally authorized to carry and hadn’t drawn.  Mr. Trump even churlishly tried to slap his name on the Kennedy Center, which for older voters, even MAGAs, represents a monument to a martyred president who is no longer identified with partisan politics.

So why does this third of our citizenry stick with him when he’s done nothing for them?  Why don’t they rush madly to support candidates — even if there are some objective concerns about their policies – who claim that they will bring down inflation, tax the rich, protect federal benefits, and release all of the Epstein files?

Because they are more interested in beating down anything contrary to their view of America – which is of a white, straight, Christian English-speaking people who live in the Cleaver neighborhood and walk through amber waves of grain contemplating purple mountain majesties — than pursuing what is objectively in their own best interest.

Mr. Trump has always understood this.  That is why he should understand why the Iranians wouldn’t take his bribe, won’t act in what is seemingly their own best geopolitical interest, don’t seem to care if their economy collapses, are ignoring how many of them die.  He is confronting the same kind of hatred that he has stoked to propel his political career.

But what, you ask, of the Iranians’ agreement to a pause every once in a while?

It gives them an occasional breather to reinforce their military positions; but I think that mostly, they’re just messin’ with him.

We’ll see what happens. 

On the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial Nomination: a Postscript

Although various commitments and experiences have kept me from burdening you with much this month, a number of events meriting remark have obviously occurred.  While the merry-go-round for the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial nomination is not the most important of these, given that the support I expressed for the candidacy of WI Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez in a June post (for which this entry serves as postscript) has turned out to be so disastrously misguided, this seems an appropriate follow-up.

As those who read that earlier post might recall, my only concern in the Democrats’ gubernatorial nomination process is that it yield the candidate most likely to beat Republican MAGA Gubernatorial Nominee Tom Tiffany, a Trump acolyte.  (I would make an exception if the most likely Democratic winner was proven to have character flaws of a kind and degree akin to those that have caused former Maine Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner to withdraw his candidacy, but as far as I am aware, no such issues surround any of the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidates.)  The premise upon which I based the initial post remains unchanged:  that in a year in which the prevailing political winds strongly favor Democrats, the party’s surest path to victory is to nominate the candidate best positioned to ride the political tide.  I based my support of Ms. Rodriguez little upon her affirmative attributes but rather upon the conclusion that she then appeared to be prominent Democratic contender least likely to anger, scare, or excite those Wisconsin voters disappointed in Mr. Trump but, if motivated to vote, would be inclined to vote Republican.

As all Wisconsinites who care are aware, Ms. Rodriguez has now dropped out of the race.  In mid-July, she had to announce that she had fired her campaign manager “after discovering serious mismanagement and inaccuracies in campaign finance filings she prepared.”  It now appears that rather than having the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Rodriguez campaign seemed to have when it had earlier announced an impending $1 million ad buy, the reports it filed as it disappeared indicate that its debts significantly outweigh its assets.

Oops. 

Since I have seen no indications of any untoward behavior by Ms. Rodriguez regarding the financial discrepancies described above, I would still have voted for her had she managed to stumble her way to the Democrats’ Gubernatorial nomination since I would prefer an inept Governor to a MAGA Governor.  That said, I would have done so knowing full well that through her incompetence she would have scared Wisconsinites disappointed in Mr. Trump but inclined to vote Republican.  Mr. Tiffany wasn’t even going to need to get dirty to beat her:  just run ads indicating that she couldn’t add 2 and 2.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, 40, an African American, who had dropped out of the race just days before and endorsed Ms. Rodriguez following her campaign’s announcement of the significant ad buy, has now reentered the race.  Mr. Crowley first won his current office in 2020 and was reelected with 85% of the vote in 2024.

WI Gov. Tony Evers, who up to now has refrained from endorsing any candidate, has now endorsed Mr. Crowley.

As this is typed, two very progressive candidates with notable bases of support remain in the race – WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong, Asian American, a self-described Democratic Socialist, and former WI Lt. Governor and 2022 Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Mandela Barnes, African American, he of the “Abolish ICE” Tee Shirt.  Ms. Hong and Mr. Barnes are reportedly blasting Mr. Crowley’s reentry as a last-ditch effort by the Wisconsin Democratic establishment to wrest the nomination from a true progressive.  I’m pretty sure:  they’re right.  That said, the Governor is obviously the Wisconsin Democrat with the deepest expertise and best record of winning statewide elections (Mr. Evers has won statewide office five times).  He is clearly signaling that he considers Mr. Crowley the most likely remaining Democratic contender to defeat Mr. Tiffany.  (In particular, by his bypassing Mr. Barnes, the Lt. Governor in his first term, and former Wisconsin Secretary of Administration Joel Brennan, who worked for him during his first term, one can only infer that Mr. Evers is pessimistic about either man’s chances of winning the nomination and/or the November election.) I want Mr. Tiffany to be defeated.

I’m voting for Mr. Crowley in the upcoming Democratic Gubernatorial primary.

Make no mistake.  The misgivings I expressed in my earlier note about Mr. Crowley’s electability still stand.  I still have the same trouble believing that any Black man can win a statewide Wisconsin race in the state’s current extremely toxic and closely contested political environment.  Since posting my original note, I have heard Mr. Crowley speak, and he does present well, but he is not an electric performer.  It takes no prescience to predict that Mr. Tiffany will use the same race and crime cards upstate against Mr. Crowley that U.S. WI Sen. Ron Johnson used effectively against Mr. Barnes in their 2022 Senate race.  In Republican pockets of Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany and his acolytes will – at least somewhat subtly at first, unless they see that subtly isn’t working — paint Mr. Crowley as one of them (you know who they are) from there (i.e., the depraved city) who will coddle criminals while ignoring good God-fearing, hard-working white folk. 

That said, it’s not hard to guess why Mr. Evers has endorsed Mr. Crowley.  Republicans are already running ads against Ms. Hong as “too liberal for Wisconsin” – which some Democrats claim is their attempt to boost her profile and support.  If she is nominated, Mr. Tiffany will be able to (correctly) call her a “Socialist,” still Boogeymen to many rural voters (who don’t realize that they favor many Democratic Socialist positions when no political labels are applied to them), and he’ll undoubtedly take a cue from Mr. Trump and start calling her a Communist, a kiss of death for rural voters over 50.  (Put aside the fact that Mr. Trump – and presumably, therefore, Mr. Tiffany – have consistently coddled Communist Russian President Vladimir Putin; go figure.)  Mr. Barnes is sufficiently progressive that although he does not identify as a Democratic Socialist, Mr. Tiffany will (in addition to using the race/crime card) label him as such, with the “Abolish ICE” Tee shirt as evidence.  A number of the lines of attack Mr. Tiffany will be able to use against Ms. Hong and/or Mr. Barnes don’t – at least now — seem like they would be as effective against Mr. Crowley.

It will be interesting to see what steps Mr. Crowley takes now that a good part of the Wisconsin Democratic state organization is presumably coalescing around him.  I think it’s a fair surmise that he has a pretty strong political organization in Milwaukee County, one of the two counties that will be most crucial in any victory achieved by any Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in November; if advising Mr. Crowley, I’d recommend that he leave the ground game in Milwaukee County to his team and between now and the August 11 Election Day live in Dane County – the other county crucial to any hopes he has of victory in November — with forays to Wisconsin’s other Democratic areas to seek to siphon off votes that would otherwise go to Ms. Hong.  I’d also advise that he start cutting ads in which he talks to the camera, introducing himself to Wisconsin, and calmly describing what he wants to do on issues that will resonate with voters of all stripes throughout the state, such as healthcare.

An aside:  I completely understand why Ms. Hong and Mr. Barnes have reportedly responded with irritation to Mr. Crowley’s reentry into the race; when you have put your heart and soul into anything as much as they have clearly done in their campaigns, winning is the focus and anything that might get in the way of that is to be disparaged.  At the same time – and again, repeating a comment from the first post – progressives and Social Democrats, emotionally reinforced by the electoral victories of compatriots in places like New York City, obliviously believe that because the moderate majority in places like Wisconsin has come to dislike Mr. Trump and his excesses, that moderate majority is eager to embrace the progressive, democratic socialist agenda labeled as such.  It isn’t.  Progressives and Social Democrats need to be mindful that the Democratic Party establishment in Wisconsin and other states isn’t the adversary; Mr. Trump and his MAGA cult are.  Although either Ms. Hong or Mr. Barnes will get my November vote if s/he secures the nomination (avid progressives make me more than a little leery, but those who implicitly seek an American Apartheid terrify me), I continue to suspect that today’s avid progressives – descendants of the Adlai Stevenson Democrat presidential campaigns of the 1950s, both electoral losers — would rather stand on principle and lose than act pragmatically and win.  This is Donald Trump and his MAGA minions on the other side.  For the future of our democracy, within the bounds of law and morals, they need to win. 

[A piece of advice to Mr. Barnes, which if he would ever read this, I’m confident he would not appreciate:  he should get out, and endorse Mr. Crowley.  He certainly appears to have too many strikes against him to beat Mr. Tiffany.  He had his chance against Mr. Johnson in 2022, and he lost.  I recall that when his last adversary for the Democrats’ 2022 U.S. Senatorial nomination, Wisconsin State Treasurer Sarah Godlewski, dropped out and endorsed him, he commended her, indicating “[Defeating Mr. Johnson] is bigger than any one of us.”  Now, Mr. Barnes should heed his own 2022 observation.  Winning is bigger than any one candidate.  (A Noise pledge:  if Mr. Barnes wins the nomination and beats Mr. Tiffany, I will happily note my misguided advice in these pages. 😊]

I observed in my earlier note that one must take stereotypes into account when assessing candidates’ respective electoral changes because, like it or not, a large segment of voters cast their ballots based on stereotypes.  Despite the heavy Democratic winds expected to prevail this November, the collapse of Ms. Rodriguez’ campaign seemingly leaves Ms. Hong and Messrs. Crowley and Barnes as the remaining likely Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial nominees (WI State Sen. Kelda Roys and, as noted above, Mr. Brennan are still in the race, but I am not aware of any polls indicating that either has much electoral support).  My gut tells me that Wisconsin Democrats are now executing a fire drill eerily similar to that which Democrats carried out on the federal level when President Joe Biden too belatedly withdrew his presidential candidacy.  I fear that these recent political convulsions have shifted the balance in favor of Mr. Tiffany and the MAGAs no matter who wins the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.  I do find it both amazing and disturbing that in a state in which half of the citizenry bitterly oppose Mr. Trump, another pivot segment is leery of his excesses, and his national support is at or near his all-time lows, Wisconsin Democrats can’t find a gubernatorial candidate who won’t anger, scare, or excite Wisconsin voters disappointed in Mr. Trump but inclined to vote Republican.

Yet, that is where I fear that we are.  At the same time, to conclude with the point I began the original note:  I rarely address Wisconsin state politics or substantive matters in these pages because I have relatively little interest in state issues.  Little interest obviously begets limited knowledge.  Hopefully, the concerns expressed here about the Democrats’ Wisconsin Gubernatorial current electoral prospects are, truly, only so much Noise.  

We’ll see what happens. 

Thomas Jefferson Still Lives

As all are aware, today marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, the birthdate of our nation.  Its signatories were men of education, means, and standing; they were not a bunch of wild-eyed crazies; they understood that they were all going to be hanged and their assets forfeited if they lost what had already become a military conflict with Great Britain.  They were accordingly moved not only to recite the principles upon which they were founding a new nation, but to set forth a bill of particulars – in effect, an indictment – listing more than twenty reasons why they felt it necessary to take the drastic step to renounce the sovereignty of a King.  These are a few of its passages, some known to every school child, several, arguably particularly pertinent today, perhaps not as frequently cited:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness …

…

The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.  To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid World. 

…

He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither …

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice …

…

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

…

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us …

…

We, therefore … solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES …

[W]e mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

When the Second Continental Congress determined that it was time for the United States of America to formally declare their independence from Great Britain, the Committee selected five men to undertake the task:  Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.  I have seen it reported that Mr. Franklin declined drafting responsibility because he would not write what others might edit (we all have our quirks 😉), and Messrs. Sherman and Livingston delegated their responsibility to Messrs. Adams and Jefferson; Mr. Adams in turn deferred to Mr. Jefferson as the far superior and inspirational writer.  Mr. Jefferson, arguably the most broadly-talented man to ever hold the presidency, fulfilling the confidence Mr. Adams had in him, drafted the document in only a few days. 

Only three of those whom we most commonly think of as our “Founding Fathers” actually executed the Declaration:  Messrs. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson.  George Washington was away leading the Continental Army, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were away serving in the Army, John Jay was in New York helping to develop that state’s Constitution, and Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, Common Sense, had been perhaps the most instrumental factor in stirring sentiments of independence among the American colonists, couldn’t sign because he wasn’t a member of the Continental Congress.  

Although in the Declaration of Independence Mr. Jefferson penned words that have become as close to immortal as one can achieve in this finite existence – that it was “… self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” today some of our people understandably object to the hallowed place he holds in our history because of his ownership of slaves – making him a perpetuator of the malignant human suffering that we later had to fight a Civil War to exterminate.  I understand such views; I recommend Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass if one wishes a firsthand description of the inhumanity of slavery.  I will nonetheless assert that the words Mr. Jefferson left us have served as the springboard for the rights and freedoms enjoyed by a billion people living in true democracies today, and capture the aspirations of many billions more.  I cannot place qualifiers upon such an achievement.

Messrs. Adams’ and Jefferson’s relationship over many decades was complex and contradictory.  Firm compatriots prior to and throughout the Revolutionary War, following the ratification of our current Constitution Mr. Adams, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, became bitterly estranged during the years of George Washington’s presidency.  Mr. Adams, our country’s first Vice President, believed that the nation required a strong federal government in order to survive; Mr. Jefferson, our country’s first Secretary of State, believed that the federal government should retain as little power as possible, with the great bulk being left to the states and local entities more closely attuned to the sentiments of the people.  Mr. Adams defeated Mr. Jefferson in 1796 in the first contested election for the presidency; Mr. Jefferson defeated Mr. Adams and assumed the presidency four years later.  Mr. Adams thereupon retired to private life in Massachusetts.    

It took over a decade – several years after Mr. Jefferson had left the White House – for Messrs. Adams and Jefferson to reconcile; they thereafter engaged in warm correspondence throughout the remainder of their lives.  Historians frequently note that they both died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the issuance of the Declaration of Independence, 200 years ago today.  Newspaper reports after Mr. Adams’ passing indicated that his last words were, “Thomas Jefferson still lives.”  Most historians conclude this account by somberly stating that Mr. Adams was wrong – that Mr. Jefferson had died a few hours earlier. 

I’m personally not at all sure that these learned scholars have understood Mr. Adams’ meaning.  Messrs. Adams and Jefferson knew the other was dying; each of them was striving with the last ounce of his respective will to live to that particular day — July 4, 2026, the 50th anniversary of the birth of the nation they had helped institute and both had led; and both were aware that Mr. Jefferson’s words, perhaps more than any other factor, had provided the inspiration for the battle for the rights and freedom that they had spawned and won.  Both had to have wondered over the preceding 50 years whether a nation founded on the principles of general freedom and equality – a theory espoused by such as John Locke but dismissed as unsustainable from a practical perspective by no less than Plato – a fledgling country threatened by much more militarily powerful European nations, beset by rivalries between American regions, states, and political parties, and challenged (as they saw it) by the indigent populations of the west, could endure. 

Given Mr. Adams’ knowledge of Mr. Jefferson’s own failing health and the amount of time it then took correspondence to travel between Mr. Adams’ Massachusetts and Mr. Jefferson’s Virginia, Mr. Adams had to be well aware as he spoke his last that there was some doubt as to whether Mr. Jefferson was then still alive in a corporeal sense – as he indeed was not.  Call it fanciful, but I would suggest that Mr. Adams understood full well what he was saying as he expired:  that in spite of all the travail that had occurred during the preceding half century, the Founding Fathers’ experiment, in which all people – inspired by and embodied in Mr. Jefferson’s words — could participate equally in their polity, still lived.  Today, yet another two centuries later, some of us fear that Mr. Jefferson’s pulse might be beating a bit more faintly, but I would submit that there is nothing that cannot be restored through a little exercise by Americans who believe that all of us of every persuasion – and those who wish to join us lawfully and peacefully — should have an equal opportunity to contribute to and be part of the promise of America.

“Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us.”

  • Thomas Paine; Common Sense; February 14, 1776 

Thomas Jefferson Still Lives.

God Bless America.  

On the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial Nomination

I rarely address Wisconsin state politics or substantive matters in these pages; I simply have much less interest in state than in federal issues.  That said, having voted for Republican Tommy Thompson each of the four times he ran for Governor in this state in the 1980s and 1990s (Mr. Thompson was conservative, but collegial, and understood how to emphasize and enhance Wisconsin’s strengths), over the last quarter-century I have been appalled by the Wisconsin Republican Party’s transition from Mr. Thompson’s governing approach to mindless tribalism and mean-spiritedness toward those it perceives its adversaries and its wholehearted embrace of ignorance and bias.  Today, the Republican MAGA-controlled state legislature more fittingly belongs in the Know Nothing Party of mid-1800s than to Wisconsin’s progressive tradition; it remains best personified by former WI Gov. Scott Walker, who was “Trump before Trump” in this state.

For the last eight years, Wisconsin has been led by Democrat WI Gov. Tony Evers.  Mr. Evers, the most inoffensive of personalities, defeated Mr. Walker by about a percentage point in 2018 and won reelection by 3 points in 2022.  He has been an effective counterweight to the Neanderthal nonsense that the Republican legislature would otherwise wreak upon Wisconsinites.  At 74, Mr. Evers has chosen not to seek a third term.

Wisconsin Republicans have already settled upon their putative Gubernatorial nominee:  U.S. WI Rep. Tom Tiffany.  A now ever-present “AI Overview” of Mr. Tiffany provides as follows:

“U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has fully embraced Donald Trump, aligning with him on policies and securing Trump’s endorsement for the Wisconsin gubernatorial race. Tiffany has openly defended controversial Trump initiatives, such as the proposed anti-weaponization fund, and frequently appears at Trump events with Wisconsin voters.”

I don’t really think more needs to be said about the stakes here, not only for how Wisconsin local policies and politics will degrade if Mr. Tiffany wins and the Republicans maintain their control of the state’s legislature, but for the nation as a whole; having rabid MAGAs control of the state apparatus in the nation’s most purely purple state would not bode well for having free and fair federal elections in this state in 2028.  Wisconsin Democrats are currently trying to figure out whom to nominate to run against Mr. Tiffany.  I am more than a little fearful that these Democrats will do what they have done before – endemic to Democrats across the country nationwide – and shoot themselves in the foot.

Although I think my sentiments are pretty clear, let me make them, as they say, crystal:  while I intend to vote for whomever the Wisconsin Democrats nominate for the Wisconsin governorship unless that candidate can be shown to have engaged in behaviors that can be fairly described as degenerate (a challenge that the Democratic nominee for Maine’s U.S. Senate seat, Graham Platner, is now seeking to refute) – in which case, I won’t vote – my primary – indeed, my only — criteria for which candidate I think is best supported is whichever candidate is most likely to beat Mr. Tiffany.  

I don’t care which contender is the smartest.  I don’t care which contender is the nicest.  I don’t care which contender has the most detailed grasp of state policy issues.  I don’t care which contender is the best administrator.  I don’t care which contender is the most experienced.  I don’t care which contender would work best with a Republican-controlled legislature.  I don’t care which contender is the one who genuinely cares about me.

You get the idea.

What follows may be offensive to some; these might consider the observations below too cynical, unfairly stereotypic.  My response:  I think we’ve had ample evidence that a large share of our electorate casts its votes on stereotypes.  The notions below outline what this Wisconsinite believes is the type of candidate most likely to defeat a MAGA candidate in a Wisconsin statewide race.  Whether or not one agrees with these observations, I am hopeful that such will be accepted in the spirit in which they are offered – that it is vital that a Democrat win the Wisconsin Governorship this November. 

Elections are about matchups and the existing political atmosphere.  In a year in which the tide is strongly rolling in Democrats’ favor, they should simply pick a candidate who can ride the wave in.  No histrionics, appeals to identity, talk of revolution, or tricks are required.  Don’t give voters who have become disappointed in Mr. Trump but are by inclination Republican any reason to get mad, scared, or excited.  Just get out of the way, and let the tide carry you in. 

Let’s look at the field.

In a poll taken at the recent Wisconsin state Democratic Convention, seven candidates received preference votes for the gubernatorial nomination:  Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez; WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong; WI State Sen. Kelda Roys; Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley; former Secretary of the WI Department of Administration Joel Brennan; former WI Lt. Governor and 2022 Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Mandela Barnes; and former secretary and chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation Missy Hughes.  Ms. Hughes has since dropped out, and endorsed Ms. Rodriguez.

Let’s start with Mr. Crowley, an African American.  He may be a heck of guy, and a heck of a County Executive.   Politically, I don’t think it matters.  In an article about the Wisconsin Democratic Convention poll, he is quoted as saying, “‘… people always ask me, David, can a Black candidate become governor?’”  Mr. Crowley ultimately answers the question, “‘Yes.’”

I applaud Mr. Crowley for openly addressing the figurative elephant in his campaign room.  I wish I could agree with his conclusion.  I can’t.  Mr. Tiffany will simply use the same race and crime cards upstate against Mr. Crowley that U.S. WI Sen. Ron Johnson used effectively against Mr. Barnes in their 2022 Senate race.  I don’t think that any Black man not named Barack Obama (whom I voted for twice) can currently win Wisconsin, and frankly, I’m not sure that even Mr. Obama could win the state in today’s environment.  Although I’ve never heard Mr. Crowley speak, it still seems a fair surmise that he’s not the political athlete Mr. Obama is. 

On to Mr. Barnes.  In addition to being Black and having lost to Mr. Johnson in 2022, there is the legendary photograph of Mr. Barnes, after having been elected WI Lt. Governor in Mr. Evers’ first term, holding up an “Abolish ICE” tee shirt.  While the Trump Administration’s Nazi-like ICE activities have arguably made that less of a detriment than it was in 2022, I would submit that it is still a disqualifier in the Republican bastions of the state.  This race is not about winning the votes of those who want to abolish ICE; it’s about not scaring those who don’t.  The Republican propaganda machine is both ruthless and effective.  I have personally seen the physical unease of Wisconsinites in the center part of the state when Republicans harp on the “invasion” by illegal immigrants (notwithstanding the fact that Latinos picked pickles in the center of the state every summer for decades without notable issues.)  As irrational as these sentiments are, they exist.  There may be a number of moderate conservatives who are uncomfortable with what the Trump Administration has done and is doing, and they may be okay with reforming ICE practices; but they will be alarmed by anyone who seeks – or can be credibly propagandized to appear to be seeking — to abolish it.  Mr. Barnes couldn’t beat Mr. Johnson in 2022; should he really be given another try?  He kinda just looks like a professional politician who is looking for a job.  (Apparently, at least some Wisconsin Democrats share at least some of these reservations; Mr. Barnes finished sixth in the Convention’s straw poll.)

Before we move on:  an aside about progressivism, democratic socialism.  While polls have shown that when issues are put before the voters without party labels, large segments of our polity agree with a number of the positions espoused by democratic socialists such as U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders, U.S. NY Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, many moderate voters — where the Wisconsin gubernatorial election will be won – remain uneasy with the same positions when they are identified with “progressivism” or “democratic socialism.”  I have commented in previous notes that rank-and-file MAGAs believe that because Mr. Trump hates the same people that they hate, Mr. Trump loves them; he doesn’t.  I submit that perhaps emboldened by recent electoral successes in places like New York City, strident progressives may obliviously believe that because the moderate majority in places like Wisconsin has come to dislike Mr. Trump and his excesses, that moderate majority is eager to embrace the progressive, democratic socialist agenda labeled as such.

It isn’t.

Repeating from above:  the MAGA propaganda machine is ruthless and effective.  Repeating from above:  Don’t give voters who have become disappointed in Mr. Trump but are by inclination Republican any reason to get mad, scared, or excited.  Just get out of the way, and let the tide carry you in.     

Let’s move on to the progressive darling of the moment, Ms. Hong.  She has been endorsed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who for some years now has obviously been the poster child for progressive demonization in the alt-right media.  Progressive media darling U.S. CA Rep. Ro Khanna has come in to campaign for her.  In her past, she has published tweets calling for the defunding of the police.  At one point, she was reportedly sued for failing to pay her credit card bill.  (Obviously, many millions of Americans have financial difficulties; the issue is whether a majority of any given state’s voters will be willing to elect a Governor who has had financial problems.)  She is from Madison.  She’s even Asian, for God’s sake.

I would guess that Mr. Tiffany is drooling at the prospect of taking on Ms. Hong.  What I find incredible is that progressives with national profiles don’t realize that their endorsements may help a Democrat win a party nomination, but in a state as closely divided as Wisconsin, their endorsement is probably the kiss of death in the general election.  I recall David Halberstam noting in one of his books that in 1960, the Kennedys had little regard for the Adlai Stevenson wing of the Democratic Party – the forebears of today’s democratic socialists – because the Stevenson Democrats seemed to prize Mr. Stevenson’s graceful, witty election night concession speeches more than they did winning.  The Kennedys were about winning.  Winning the general election – as long as such is done within the bounds of law by a candidate with some bounds of decent character — is what counts. 

This has been long enough.  (That, I know you agree with.  😉)  Ms. Roys is from Madison, and been around a long time.  Mr. Brennan, as a former top aide to Mr. Evers, has experience near the top of the Wisconsin political pyramid.  I understand why either would continue if s/he truly believes that s/he has a chance to win the nomination and if s/he truly believes that if nominated s/he can beat Mr. Tiffany, but if either of those qualifications seem doubtful, they should get out – as Ms. Hughes has – and endorse the candidate s/he believes most likely to beat Mr. Tiffany. 

All that said, and as noted above, if Messrs. Crowley, Barnes or Brennan or Mses. Hong or Roys win the Democratic nomination – and again, absent any significant verified character issues hereafter coming to light – I will vote for any of them.

That said, I’m pulling for Ms. Rodriguez.  She’s the sitting Lt. Governor; she’s from, lives and won election to the Wisconsin state assembly in a purple district, which if she is nominated may enable her to syphon off some of the support Mr. Tiffany will probably need to counteract what will be overwhelming Democratic turnout in Milwaukee and Madison; she served in the Peace Corps; she’s trained and has served as a nurse; she’s worked in the public and private sectors.  She’s married and the mother of two.  Since we’ve spent much of this note dealing in stereotypes, it must be noted that she’s (obviously) female and has a Latino last name – her husband is a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Mexico – both of which may raise concerns among some conservative voters in a state which has rejected two female presidential candidates and is in some quarters uneasy about Latino immigration; but of the likely nominees, in the current environment she seemingly presents the least that would give voters who have become disappointed in Mr. Trump but are by inclination Republican any reason to get mad, scared, or excited. 

It’s the way Mr. Evers narrowly beat Mr. Walker in 2018.

If you can persuade me that one of the other Democratic gubernatorial candidates has a better chance to beat Mr. Tiffany than Ms. Rodriguez, I’ll switch my allegiance to him/her; but persuade me.

Let’s hope whomever Wisconsin Democrats nominate to run for Governor this fall is successful; Wisconsinites deserve more on election night than a local version of Mr. Stevenson’s long ago witty and graceful odes to a lost cause.

On the Iran Memorandum of Understanding

As all who care are aware, President Donald Trump has executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran that, at least for the moment – certain issues have been deferred to be worked out over the next 60 days — suspends the conflict between the two nations and opens the Strait of Hormuz.  From the United States’ perspective, it got the Strait opened – nothing more.  I have nothing to add to the descriptions of the arrangement’s flaws and omissions being outlined by commentators on any number of outlets.  It’s clear that Mr. Trump started the war upon the expectation – the gamble – that if he did so, the Iranian regime would fall.  As I’ve suggested here earlier, the decision to take the gamble was not entirely without foundation, but Mr. Trump clearly didn’t understand that if the regime didn’t fall, he was going to have to introduce ground troops – engage in a full invasion – to remove the regime.  When the regime didn’t fall, he was stuck in a quagmire, and he was unwilling to clean up the mess his miscalculation had wrought by either accepting the American casualties that would have resulted from a full invasion or absorbing the American and global economic pain caused by waiting Iran out in a protracted stalemate in the Strait.  I can’t fault him for being unwilling to spend American blood in a venture of choice that had completely backfired; but in the end, he made a deal which ended the stalemate because he saw that if he didn’t, the world economy was going to slowly grind to a halt, and he was – as he is first, foremost, and always – concerned with money.  I took particular note of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, standing behind Mr. Trump as the President explained and defended the deal.  Mr. Rubio looked constipated.  Although he has shamelessly kowtowed to Mr. Trump over the last decade, he retains a brain if not a spine; he knows what an egregious blunder this entire foray has been. 

In addition to the enhanced strategic, psychological and economic strength that Iran has gained from this arrangement, this settlement may have shifted the dominant outside diplomatic influence among the Middle Eastern bloc of nations from America to China, since China will arguably be perceived in the future to both have more influence with the Iranian regime than any other nation and have an interest in restraining Iranian aggression in order to maintain global stability.  Even so, there is only so much any outside nation can do to influence the Iranian regime.  I will venture that this MOU simply points to a future day of reckoning when our intelligence makes clear that Iran, despite its current protestations, is close to developing a nuclear weapon.  At that point, the then-President of the United States will have to decide whether to accept such nuclear development or to order a full-scale invasion of a militarily- and economically-stronger Iran that will probably enjoy the support of China — which itself will then be both economically and militarily even stronger than it is now.

On the other hand, I am guessing that this arrangement will be a political winner for Mr. Trump.  He has always understood – and now, over the last decade-plus, taught us – that a few wonks yapping at him about policy nuances from the left, right, or both don’t matter a whit to the average American, who has the attention and retention span of a nanosecond.  (This isn’t the note to provide more than an aside about the financial markets, which are so pathetically deliriously happily micro-focused on AI and the macroeconomy’s apparent condition at any given second that they make the average American look like King Solomon.)  Jeffrey Epstein was in the forefront of the news the day America attacked Iran; now, he’s not.  The Iran excursion, the 13 American lives lost, and the more than 100 Iranian school children who lost their lives on the first day of the war through a disastrously ill-conceived U.S. strike, will be well in the rearview mirror by November.  What Americans will see is that gas prices – the single most important measure of an American president’s popularity – will go down.

There you have it.      

We’ll see what happens.

Where Do You Draw the Line?

As all who care have now become aware, Graham Platner, an early-40s oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran who is the presumed Democratic Party nominee for Maine’s U.S. Senate Seate to run against U.S. ME Sen. Susan Collins, has in recent weeks run into more than what our British friends would call a small spot of bother.  First, Mr. Platner was found to be sporting a tattoo which was apparently a one-time Nazi symbol.  I understand that Mr. Platner claimed that he didn’t know it was a Nazi symbol when he got it, and has recently gotten a tattoo over the Nazi symbol to hide it.  More recently, there have been reports that after marrying, Mr. Platner exchanged sexually suggestive texts with a number of women.  Most recently, the New York Times has run an account that a number of the women Mr. Platner dated in the past have claimed that he was physically aggressive and intimidating in his behavior toward them, one alleging that he left marks on her shoulders.

At the same time, I have heard Mr. Platner – who looks like he could be a model in a MAGA recruitment ad – described by a Republican political operative as an incredible political athlete.  I have never heard him speak (save for a few recent clips in which he is defending himself against various allegations lodged against him).  Mr. Platner boasts the active support of progressive icons U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. CA Rep. Ro Khanna (the latter’s support seemingly particularly ironic, given his aggressive efforts for disclosure of the Epstein Files), which means he must spout all of the right progressive ideals.  I have heard others say that his is a story of redemption. 

Those supporting Mr. Platner clearly are doing so because he is (in their view) right on the issues, and is apparently a dynamic candidate.  I have heard more than one liberal talking head note that in the current political environment wrought by President Donald Trump, voters care less about a given candidate’s personal characteristics, as long as s/he supports their positions on the issues.  I have heard one liberal commentator assert in effect that Maine voters should disregard any skeletons in Mr. Platner’s closet given the demonstrated failings of Mr. Trump. 

I don’t think too many Trump supporters read these pages.  😉  It would be accordingly be interesting, if a poll could be taken, to determine the overall sentiments of those who read this note regarding Mr. Platner’s candidacy.

Here is mine. 

I truly hope that Mr. Platner is sorry for his past behaviors; he has expressed regret for those to which he admits.  I desperately want the Democrats to take control of the Senate in 2027; while their controlling the House of Representatives – assuming for purposes of this note that such comes to pass – will provide a partial check on Mr. Trump’s intent to impose an American Apartheid upon us, their gaining control of both houses of Congress will be a substantially more effective roadblock.  Furthermore, in notes posted here over the last year I have come off my high horse on issues such as Democrats’ partisan midcycle redistricting efforts in states such as California and Virginia, indicating that when democracy is at stake, given Republicans’ partisan activities manifestly demonstrating that they are determined to impose their views on America no matter what its majority thinks, one must occasionally become less fastidious.

But apparently, my stomach for whataboutism only goes so far.  I think that the comparisons that liberal pundits are trying to draw between Messrs. Trump and Platner in order to rationalize Mr. Platner’s admitted and alleged behaviors fail practically and morally.  First, the politically pragmatic:  Mr. Platner isn’t running against Mr. Trump.  He’s running against Ms. Collins, who looks like everybody’s grandma (she’s younger than I am 😉) and has won – wait for it – in 1996, when President Bill Clinton was winning reelection convincingly; in 2008, when President Barack Obama was first elected at the depth of President George W. Bush’s unpopularity; and in 2020, when President Joe Biden carried Maine by over 8 points.  (I realized quite a while ago that Maine is my kind of state – electing Mr. Biden and Ms. Collins in the same election by almost the same margin.  Now, that’s independent thinking. 😊)  Given Ms. Collins’ impressive electoral record, to win Mr. Platner needed the race to be about Mr. Trump.  Now, Ms. Collins will be able to make the race about him.

From a moral perspective, MAJOR CAVEAT:  I have not delved into the details of any of the allegations lodged against Mr. Platner.  If I were a citizen of Maine, I would feel obligated to examine the allegations against him in detail and determine their substance.  As it is, I am currently heavily influenced by the comments of former New York Times Columnist David Brooks on the PBS Newshour of June 5th.  There is no pundit in America whose views I hold in higher esteem.  Of Mr. Platner, Mr. Brooks – usually more temperate in his language and tone, and no fan of Mr. Trump — said this:

“[A] moral degenerate.  The abuse of women, the sexting, the Nazi tattoo.  I don’t even need to say anything beyond his Reddit posts – which are not in the past, by the way; he did that for a long time.  Abusing people who might have been raped, diminishing rape in the military, insulting fellow military officers. … It’s a pathetic, empty guy who postures in a way that’s kind of repulsive.  There are 330 million Americans, and there are 100 Senators.  We can’t have a decent human being in those hundred?  We’re gonna settle for this? … The Democrats are supporting Platner for the same reason the Republicans are supporting Trump. … Now, if Democrats side with Platner, I don’t want to hear too much about Trump in the future and his moral degeneracy.”   

As I said, if I were a Mainer, and despite my high regard for Mr. Brooks’ views, I’d feel a responsibility to examine the allegations about Mr. Platner myself, and form my own conclusions.  However, if my own investigation indicated to me that the totality of the allegations against him had substance, I wouldn’t vote for him.  I wouldn’t vote for Ms. Collins.  I’d sit it out.

Somewhere in there is where I draw the line.

You may well feel differently; you may well consider me too squeamish, considering the imperiled state of our democracy; such differences of opinion are, as my sainted mother sometimes said, what make horse races.  However, I will be disheartened from both ethical and practical perspectives if, as now seems highly likely, Mr. Platner wins the Democratic nomination for the Maine Senate seat.

I think virtually all commentators agree that Democrats must overcome long odds if they are going to take control of the U.S. Senate in 2027.  A few months ago, Ms. Collins’ seat looked like the easiest Democratic pickup; she is the only Republican Senator remaining in New England, she’s already been there a long time, and Maine voted not only for Mr. Biden in 2020 but for former Vice President Kamala Harris by almost 7 points in 2024.  It’s the Democrats’ year, and I suspect that Ms. Collins’ support even among Maine Republicans has weakened – she’s presumably irritated Trump MAGAs by not supporting the President vehemently enough while offending traditional Republicans by not sufficiently standing up to his excesses.  I nevertheless fear that Democrats are about to do what they do best – snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  If Maine Democrats do indeed nominate Mr. Platner and he is elected, I hope that he, despite his baggage, thereafter forms part of a Senate bulwark against Mr. Trump’s excesses; but it is hard not to suspect that Ms. Collins will be mounting Mr. Platner’s scalp in her office in 2027 next to the scalps of her previous five Democratic opponents.

We’ll see what happens.

Iran:  A Reality TV President Comes Face to Face … With Reality

At the time this was typed, the New York Times was reporting that there were “conflicting signals” as to the level of progress of negotiations between the Trump Administration and the Iranian Regime to resolve the current conflict.  When this is published, the two sides are again exchanging fire while still orchestrating negotiating sessions.  Who knows where they’ll be when you actually read this.

While any end to the current war will bring about the opening of the Strait of Hormuz on some basis, and thus, from a practical perspective, will over time alleviate the stress that the two sides’ actions have placed on the global economy, I don’t believe that the terms that they finally agree to will ultimately matter that much from a strategic geopolitical perspective. 

Over the last couple of months, I have written drafts of several posts about the Trump Administration’s assault on Iran never entered here (for which I am sure you are grateful 😉); each seemed to me to miss the essence of the encounter.  I would now offer this:  President Donald Trump took the strategic gamble that in attacking Iran, America was going to be able to remove the Iranian Regime.  Iranian Regime change was the key, the only key, to the mission.  The gamble failed.   

As all who care are aware, in the period immediately before America launched its military assault on Iran on February 28, Trump Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had been in negotiations with the Iranian regime about Iran’s stockpile of nuclear material (we’ll put aside the fact that the Trump Administration had already indicated that it had “obliterated” the material that it was still discussing with the Iranians), Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s sponsoring of proxies that spread terror and unsettled other governments within the Middle East and elsewhere, perhaps about Iranian’s ballistic missile capability, undoubtedly about what concessions Iran would have to make for America to provide economic relief for Iran – you know, all the normal stuff American administrations have been discussing with the Iranian regime, either covertly or overtly, for at least the last 25 years.  Mr. Trump ordered an attack on Iran not long after Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner returned to Washington and briefed him on the status of negotiations.

No matter what you think of the morality of Israel’s extended assault on Palestinians since Hamas’ attack on Israel in October 2023, recall that at the time when Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner briefed Mr. Trump, there was a general consensus among foreign policy experts that in the preceding two-plus years since the Hamas attack, Israel’s aggressive campaigns had weakened Iran by both striking at Iranian regime leadership and substantially degrading the capabilities of Iranian proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Recall that when Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner briefed Mr. Trump, most commentators were opining that Iran’s chief ally, Russia, given the Ukrainian quagmire into which it had blundered, needed assistance from its allies; Russia was seemingly not in much position to provide much assistance to the Iranian regime.

Recall that starting in late December, 2025, there had been mass rallies in Iran by citizens protesting the regime’s political repression and the country’s economic depression.  The protests were reported to be among the most, if not the most, widespread and vociferous faced by the Iranian regime in its decades in power.  Those protests had since been dispelled by the Regime’s massacre of thousands of protestors in the first two weeks of January, 2026.

Put aside whether Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner were the most appropriate of emissaries for these kinds of negotiations, and let’s play it straight here:  they probably told the President of the United States exactly what presidential advisors have been telling U.S. Presidents since 1979, probably what you, I, or any savvy American 14-year-old would have told Mr. Trump if we had been on the U.S. negotiating team:  No matter what they say, you can’t trust them.

It has been reported that at the same time as Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner were reporting back to Mr. Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was telling the President that Israeli intelligence was indicating that the Iranian people would again rise up against the Iranian regime if America launched an assault.  Although its reputation for excellence was certainly tarnished by Hamas’ attack in October, 2023, Israeli intelligence has long been considered one of the best in the world, perhaps the best in the Middle East.

Finally, recall that on January 3, 2026, the American military had successfully snatched Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro without losing a soldier, and the Trump Administration and replaced Sr. Maduro with a Venezuelan government leadership team amenable to American interests.  I don’t think it takes much to infer from the President’s own comments comparing Venezuela and Iran that his fascination with what seems to him to be American military omnipotence caused him to believe that when the Iranian Regime experienced the shock of America’s true military might, it would roll over as the Venezuelans had.

In a nutshell:  no matter what the Trump Administration says now, no matter the give-and-take, the back-and-forth, the moving goal posts, the details that the talking heads seeking to fill telecast and podcast minutes now dwell upon, I would repeat that the mission President Trump ordered had to have been really focused on only one objective:  effecting Iranian regime change.  Everything – all of America’s subsidiary objectives — fell into place if the Ayatollahs and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were toppled, replaced by officials with sentiments similar to the other Gulf States.  Nothing sustainable was achieved if the Iranian Regime wasn’t toppled.  Recall that after the first assault assassinating the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the top echelon of the Iranian Regime, Mr. Trump kept talking about finding someone “to negotiate with.”  In those early days, he was anticipating an uprising by the Iranian people and looking for the emergence of the Iranian equivalent of Venezuela’s Delcy Rodriguez – somebody compliant. 

Despite my general sentiments about Mr. Trump, I would suggest that – except for his idiotic misconception that Iran was like Venezuela — the other factors he had in front of him made launching an attack on Iran an objectively closer call than it now appears.  Iran will indeed remain a destabilizing influence on the Middle East and the world as long as the current regime is in power.  Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner apparently understood that the day after the Iranians formally agreed not to build a nuclear bomb, they would find some desert cave and start building a nuclear bomb.  The Iranian regime and its proxies were in the weakest state they had been for decades.  Russia wasn’t in much position to assist Iran defend itself from any American attack, and China’s assistance would be muted at best.  The Iranian civilians had already shown their willingness to rise up, and Israeli intelligence is reported to have claimed that the Iranian citizenry would rise up again if inspired by an American assault.  (With the benefit of hindsight, it is also not unreasonable to surmise that both American and Israeli intelligence underestimated the extent and dispersion of Iran’s missile, drone, and like capability.)  When Mr. Trump was briefed, I wonder how much the potential ramifications on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was even considered if the Trump Administration was confident that the Iranian regime would fall or capitulate when confronted by overwhelming American military prowess.

But … the regime hasn’t fallen or capitulated.  Now, no matter what “deal” the Trump and Iranian regimes ultimately cook up, this foray was a strategic American failure that will resonate for years, perhaps generations.  The Iranians have not only refused to be docile apprentices, refused to be fired; by choking the Strait of Hormuz they have spread molasses all over Mr. Trump’s gold-plated conference table.  Today, the Iranian regime is without doubt hardened and emboldened.  It will remain a destabilizing influence on the Middle East and the world.  It will take whatever finances it obtains as part of any settlement to strengthen its hold on power and refresh its proxies.  It (obviously) still can’t be trusted, and the American assault may only have increased the Iranian regime’s determination to build a nuclear bomb (I use the “may only” qualification because it was pretty darn determined before), and the day after it makes whatever nuclear representation it needs to make to get economic relief, it will find some desert cave and start to build a nuclear bomb.  Israel and the Gulf States are reportedly concerned – and if the reports are accurate, justifiably so – that Mr. Trump is willing to strike a deal that does not limit Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities – the capabilities that present the most danger to them and their infrastructures today.  The Iranian regime can seemingly rest assured that if the civilian population was too cowed to rise up when the Americans attacked, they won’t be a challenge for a while.  Meanwhile, although it may be currently objectively militarily weakened by the American salvos, its global stature is enhanced simply by withstanding the American assault; the limits of American power and commitment have been demonstrated; Mr. Trump’s blowhard ambivalence has materially weakened America’s heretofore relationships with the Persian Gulf States; and even assuming that the agreement that the Iranian Regime ultimately works out with Mr. Trump provides for ships’ safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz with no “tolls,” its demonstrated capacity to strangle the Strait at will provides it significant implicit power it did not have before the assault.

It is clear that in this second term, Mr. Trump has primarily been engaged on a legacy-building spree from the East Wing ballroom to attempting to rewrite the reality of his 2020 election loss and the January 6th insurrection to the erection of the supposedly “Triumphal Arch” (which seemingly only lacks a McDonald’s at its top; no one does arches better than Mickey D’s 😉).  Had Mr. Trump’s assault on Iran successfully installed a replacement Iranian government whose disposition was aligned with other Gulf States – no more nuclear weapon threat, no more destabilization threat, perhaps providing greater freedoms to its citizens – even Trump naysayers such as myself would have recognized the Iranian foray as an historic legacy foreign policy achievement.  But … it didn’t work.  The President finds himself in a room with no exits. 

I recall from reading I did years ago (it might have been in David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest) an account of a senior military officer, lamenting after the Bay of Pigs invasion failed, that he should have made it clearer to President John Kennedy before the mission began that if Mr. Kennedy authorized the mission – which was supposed to be without American involvement — Mr. Kennedy could not allow it to fail – i.e., that if the American-sponsored Cuban insurgents weren’t successful in overcoming the Castro forces, and the Cuban populace didn’t rise up against the Castro Regime as American intelligence believed they would, Mr. Kennedy had to be ready to order a full-scale military invasion of Cuba to take out the Castro regime.  I recall other accounts of the Bay of Pigs incident suggesting that the generals around Mr. Kennedy assumed that if the insurgents didn’t succeed, the President would feel unbearable pressure to commit American forces.  Obviously, despite the complete collapse of the covert invasion, Mr. Kennedy elected not to commit American troops to sustain it.  Some historians maintain that what then appeared to be Mr. Kennedy’s lack of resolve was what tempted Soviet Leader Premier Nikita Khrushchev to subsequently attempt to place nuclear weapons in Cuba.  (I understand that most historians now believe that Mr. Kennedy was right to hold back in 1961, although such was not nearly so clear at the time.  Even without the benefit of the hindsight of the favorable outcome of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, perhaps the wisdom shown by the President’s restraint arose from his experience in the World War II Pacific island-to-island theater; perhaps he understood that Cuba was bigger, with more difficult terrain, than some supposed, and that unseating the Castro regime would be more difficult than many imagined.  Factors that the Trump Administration might be well to consider.  The Castros haven’t stayed in power for over 65 years by being stupid, and have been waiting for an American invasion even longer than the Iranians had.  But that’s a different blog.)

Maybe we’ll know from some future account – although we’ll have no reason to place any greater faith in the veracity of any member of the Trump Regime than we do in the Iranians – whether the Trump team was so sure that the Iranian regime would fall if Mr. Trump ordered the attack that none of the President’s advisors placed directly in front of him – really made him consider — whether he was willing to deploy ground troops, and incur American deaths, to “finish the job” if the regime didn’t fall.  Given Mr. Netanyahu’s demonstrated tendencies, it’s not difficult to suppose that he assumed, like the generals around Mr. Kennedy may have in 1961, that Mr. Trump would commit American forces rather than suffer what will would look like a humiliating setback.  It certainly now appears the Mr. Trump is unwilling to do so.  I’m not going to question which is the right course; while there are strong objective arguments on both sides, given Americans’ manifest lack of support for the war, there really is only one side.  The President clearly has greater fear of the political backlash that would accompany any American casualties and continuing disruption of the global economic system from what would be an extremely domestically unpopular ground war than he does of the continuing threat that the Iranian regime creates for geopolitical stability and America’s Middle East allies. 

The Reality TV President is looking for a commercial break.  There isn’t one.  He has come face to face with … Reality. 

There is one silver lining to what now appears to be an impending American humbling – and I consider it to be a lining wide, bright and shiny for those currently deeply concerned about the threat that Mr. Trump and his cohort present to true American democracy.  Had Mr. Trump’s Iranian venture been successful, I would expect that his popularity would have risen substantially despite the economic distress currently suffered by a significant majority of our citizens.  The President and his MAGA acolytes, rather than the Iranian regime, would have been both hardened and emboldened.  It is not difficult to suppose that he and they would have ratcheted up their frankly fascist repressive domestic measures – through criminal prosecutions, election interference, National Guard deployments, ICE’s Sturmabteilung activities, protester surveillance, a declaration of Martial Law allegedly necessary due to Iranian terrorist reprisals, and the like — against those whom they consider their political enemies.  As the Iranian negotiations now seem likely to conclude indecisively, it is hard not to believe that Mr. Trump — after having spent billions of taxpayer dollars on an ill-fated effort half a world away that increased Americans’ cost of living and diverted the Trump Administration’s attention from other issues most Americans care about much more than Iran — is going to look like a loser to all American citizens but his hardest-core, most brainwashed MAGA base.  (That “Triumphal Arch” could quickly become a mocking symbol of an American embarrassment.)  I am more than happy to suffer a temporary reduction in American global prestige – which, as Mr. Kennedy proved during the Cuban Missile Crisis, can be retrieved in the future by a future courageous and skillful American president — if such enhances our ability to preserve American democracy today.

We’ll see what happens.

On Memorial Day

As we continue to confront what I would submit is the most insidious internal threat to our democracy that this nation has ever faced, it is well to take a more than a moment to remember the sacrifices of the men and women we have marked this upcoming Memorial Day to honor:  both those throughout our history who have given, in the words of President Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, “the last full measure of devotion,” and those who came home but have ever after borne the physical and emotional scars of battle.  It is these who provide the inspiration and set forth the responsibility to maintain the promise of America.

Enjoy the Holiday.    

Memo to:  Xi Jinping: Part I

[Sometimes, life’s realities intrude upon life’s avocations, and such has been the case for us in recent weeks; what follows is the majority of a hypothetical memo that I had intended to finish before U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met this week.  (I wrote both leaders an email asking that they postpone their summit so I could finish this post, but they each declined.  😉)  I will post the remainder at some point in the future, but you’ll undoubtedly get the gist – and, will, like Mr. Xi, no matter what you think of the substance, also be grateful for the break.  😊]

Memo to:  Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”)

From:  Really Low Section Level Civil Servant Zhāng Sān (Chinese equivalent of “John Doe”)

Great One, if this memo has reached you, it means that it has passed through many hands, from my Section Leader up through his Area Leader, and ultimately to a Politburo member who arranged for it to reach your enlightened gaze.  If my name is still on it, it means that all of these highly-esteemed Comrades find merit in what I offer, but want to be sure that I am the one who is shot if you are offended by my suggestions.  (In deciding my fate, hopefully your most Merciful and Understanding Benevolence will take into account my youthful exuberance and that I sleep with my copy of Xi Jinping Thought under my pillow every night.)     

This week, you will be participating in a Summit Meeting with Donald Trump, the President of the United States.  It takes no acuity to observe that America is currently exhausted, in chaos, riven by acrimony.  Hon. Trump has become increasingly unpopular over his first year and a half in office – somewhat surprisingly, not because of his moral turpitude, his obvious self-aggrandizement in a country that claims to eschew royalty, or his 2021 assault on the American democracy — but because of his mishandling of the American economy and his more recent grossly misguided foray against our ally, Iran.  Even so, inexplicably, approximately a third of Americans still support him.  It can be predicted that the toxically polarizing divisions now existing in the American electorate will not recede when he departs, because free speech has allowed partisan broadcasters espousing views from both sides of the American political spectrum, motivated by profit, to continue to stir animosity and discord.  America is facing the pressures of an aging population while inexplicably forfeiting its appeal to immigrants – a geopolitical advantage we wish we had.  America is deeply in debt, propped up by American, China and other international U.S. bond holders because America has been perceived as the safest place to invest.  This will change.  We can help it change.

I would pose that Hon. Trump’s undeniably erratic behavior has presented the PRC with an unprecedented opportunity to set a new world order over the remaining two and a half years of the Hon. Trump’s term.  I set forth here what I see, from my very lowly position, may be the avenues for spreading the China Dream throughout the regions of the world.  The regions are listed in terms of immediacy. 

The Middle East.  It is clear, given Hon. Trump’s mental degradation, brief attention span and the unpopularity of his Iran incursion, that he is looking for a way to extricate America from the quagmire he has created.  Hon. Trump has created a mess.  He appears to be a puppet of the Israelis, and gives every indication that he will walk away from the conflict with the region must more unstable than it was before he launched is war.  If he does so, we have two advantages:  the Iranians will listen to us – and no other nation — if we wish them to tamp down hostilities; and America’s heretofore allies in the region will be irate at the manner in which Hon. Trump has abandoned them to greater Iranian terrorism and economic risk than they faced before the war.  Credible reporting indicates that Hon. Trump’s apparent half-heartedness in pursing his initiative has already significantly impaired America’s relationships with its allies in the region.  America and Hon. Trump have lost face in the region because the Iranian regime has withstood America’s assertion of its military power and as a consequence of Hon. Trump’s inconsistent messages and unfulfilled threats.  Hon. Trump’s obvious unwillingness to deploy ground troops – presumably because the inevitable resulting American casualties in an unpopular war will decimate whatever political support he still has – has shown him to be a paper tiger.  China, because of its influence with Iran, can replace America as the arbiter of stability in the Middle East.  In the meantime, China should continue whatever covert assistance to Iran it is now providing to enable Iran to continue its struggle.  During the upcoming summit, Your Uniqueness might consider demanding that America immediately begin to let oil tankers bound for China proceed through the Strait of Hormuz, and, if insufficient American concessions are not forthcoming, threaten to embargo American produce (disproportionately adversely affecting Trump supporters) and its access to our rare earth minerals.  (Hon. Trump’s predictable response will be to threaten to increase tariffs on Chinese goods.  If he does so, such measures will hurt China temporarily, but will undoubtedly impair America’s ability to maintain its defensive capabilities, alarm global financial markets, and increase America’s inflation rate; Hon. Trump currently can’t politically afford these outcomes.)  

Europe, Russia, and Ukraine.  Here again, Hon. Trump’s inexplicable disregard for America’s traditional strategic allies has provided us with an unexpected opportunity to expand our global influence.  The American president’s trade wars with the European Union, his boorish and imperialistic behavior – his threat to annex Greenland by force will never be forgotten by the other NATO nations — and his willingness to essentially abandon the other NATO nations as they face what they consider a real Russian threat to their own security has created a rift, a distrust between the European nations and America, that many experts have opined will never be entirely repaired.  America’s unwarranted Iranian incursion has exacerbated this ill will among Europeans by driving up their energy costs with the likelihood that an extended conflict will materially and significantly damage their economies.  Our approach needs to be subtle.  I will humbly suggest that despite our intent to maintain solidarity with Russia, with whom you have indicated that we have an unbreakable bond, expansion of Russian political control into western Europe is not in China’s interest.  While true democracies provide an image of political freedom which the PRC must effectively counteract in messaging to our people, China needs an economically strong Europe to buy our goods.  Without wishing to offend Your Uniqueness with being too candid, Comrade Putin, with whom I am sure you have the warmest relationship, leads the hollow shell of a once-proud nation; besides nuclear weapons — which you have seemingly made it clear to the Comrade that he cannot employ in his struggle against Ukraine – and admittedly sophisticated intelligence capabilities, Russia has limited geopolitical assets and few prospects of generating them.  Its army has been embarrassingly exposed by the Ukrainians.  While China would of course outwardly applaud a Russian conquest of Ukraine, and China clearly has an interest in covertly assisting Russia because our own prestige will be degraded if Russia is perceived to have been defeated by Ukraine, our interests are arguably best served if the struggle continues in its current status – depleting both Russian and European assets – which will make the former more dependent upon us for military assistance, and the latter more amenable to any trade proposals we will wish to make in the future.  We should surreptitiously provide Russia the aid it needs to keep it going, but not enough to enable it to overpower the Ukrainians.  In retrospect, Comrade Putin’s Ukraine invasion might be interpreted not only as an effort to reestablish the USSR but also as an attempt to achieve a greater level of parity with China among those nations choosing to be led by enlightened leaders rather than by their people; if so, its abysmal strategic failure has reduced Russia to a position of China’s favored supplicant.  If necessary, we should make it absolutely clear to Comrade Putin – similar to the manner in which America asserted its precedence among western democracies by instructing Great Britain and France to cease and desist in their Middle East invasion during the 1956 Suez Crisis — that China does not consider it in China’s interest for Russia to attempt any further reestablishment of the USSR, and that any Russian expansionist designs will HALT at the current NATO border.  One may suggest that over the coming decade Europeans will become increasingly desirous of dealing with us economically because they’ll be seeking a counterweight to America – as long as they see China as a check on Russian expansion, and China’s actions do not cause European leaders to view China as a national security threat.

South America and Africa.  These continents are obviously somewhat less important geopolitically and each includes too many countries to enable each to be dealt with specifically in this memorandum, but again, Hon. Trump’s obviously racist and one-sided mercenary instincts provide us with opportunities.  Hon. Trump’s attempt to maintain a sphere of influence over South America to the exclusion of China – his so called, “Donroe Doctrine” – is a joke.  In Brazil, his feud with its leftist leader, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and his willingness to interfere in Brazilian domestic affairs and legal and democratic processes in support of “the Trump of South America,” Brazil’s former rightest president, Juan Bolsanaro, has alienated South America’s largest and most powerful country.  I will also suggest that even America’s recent deposition of Venezuela’s leftist president, Nicolás Maduro, will backfire on the Americans.  While America’s capture of Sr. Maduro was originally viewed by ordinary Venezuelans as an act of liberation, by Hon. Trump leaving the entire Maduro regime in place – deferring popular elections, turning his back on and thus insulting the opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, after she agreed to share her Nobel Peace Prize with Hon. Trump — in return for Sr. Maduro’s minions’ willingness to provide America access to Venezuelan oil (which Hon. Trump somehow, inexplicably, considers “American oil”) will ultimately turn Venezuelan public opinion against America, making it a fertile ground for us.  Likewise, one of the first initiatives of Hon. Trump’s Administration – “DOGE” — cut out aid programs to Africa considered vital to protect Africans’ health, and Hon. Trump’s well-publicized racist reference to African countries as “Shithole Countries” has undoubtedly created sufficient disfavor among African nations that China, through deft diplomacy and economic aid, can establish primacy on the African continent as well.

North America.  Since the continent is America’s direct sphere of influence, and the economies of Canada and Mexico rely heavily upon trade with America, there is only so much that can be done within this region, but even here, there are opportunities.  Hon. Trump’s imperious approach to Mexico – recall his highly offensive attempt to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the “Gulf of America,” and that not long ago America was accused by the Mexican government of conducting operations against Mexican cartels without the Mexican government’s knowledge – taken together with his offensive trade policies and his disparaging and obviously racist attitudes and references to Latin peoples have alienated Mexico sufficiently that I would suggest that deft Chinese diplomacy may enable us to establish greater economic ties with Mexico, which will be eager to have some counterweight against America.  Canada, of course, will be the most difficult.  Although Canadian Prime Minister Carney clearly has no use for Hon. Trump, and is seeking to link Canada more closely to the EU and establish even deeper ties for Canada within NATO, the Canadians’ geographic, ethnic, and cultural proximity to America enable Canadians, more than any other people, to conceptually separate Hon. Trump and his administration from “America” and the American people.  Even so, Hon. Trump’s offensive calls to make Canada America’s “51st state” and one-sided trade policies have undoubtedly increased anti-American sentiment among some Canadians, and Canadians have now undoubtedly recognized that a large share of the American electorate is gullible, easily persuaded by demagogues.  Their government may well embrace deeper exchanges of commodities with China as a counterweight to future American instability and unreliability.  We should encourage these sentiments by granting as favorable a trade status to Canadian products and produce as our own domestic circumstances can afford.

Your Uniqueness, if you have found any merit in what I have placed before you, I will beg your sufferance for my delay in providing you with my additional very low and obviously very uninformed and unworthy views supplementing those I have had the temerity to place before you; if you haven’t, I am confident that I will have no need to further ponder how China might manage the nations with which we share our own immediate sphere of the world, and our runaway province Taiwan.  Just keep in mind:  You are a Manchester City fan.  Amazingly, so am I!  Go City!