Category: Politics

On the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election

As all are aware, on August 11, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley eked out – truly, eked out – a primary election victory over WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong for the Democratic Wisconsin Gubernatorial nomination and will now face Republican WI Gubernatorial Nominee U.S. WI Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Trump disciple and 2020 election denier, this November.  A few impressions emerge.

The most important first:  by a margin of less than 4,000 out of over 625,000 votes cast, there remains at least a realistic chance that Wisconsinites could elect a Governor this November who will preserve a free and fair 2028 presidential election (as well as protect Wisconsinites from the regressive excesses which MAGA state legislators will otherwise seek to foist upon them).  Ms. Hong may well be a wonderful, well-meaning person, but she would have been a terrible general election candidate. That said, Mr. Crowley is still an African American from the city in a state that has never had a Black Governor and contains a lot of upstate voters who rarely see African Americans, distrust city folk generally, and resent what they see as Milwaukee and Madison’s usurpation of the state’s services and attention.  Mr. Crowley’s campaign is an uphill battle.  Even so, given President Donald Trump’s deep unpopularity and MAGA adversaries’ rabid enthusiasm, there seems a real possibility.   You take the chance you get.

Polling data is of little value, at least in Wisconsin.  2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton obviously lost the state to President Donald Trump after leading Mr. Trump in all state polls right up to the 2016 election day. Former President Joe Biden was reportedly so far ahead of Mr. Trump in Wisconsin in the final days of the 2020 campaign that the Trump Campaign suspended efforts in the state.  Mr. Biden won by such a narrow margin that I assume that the Trump forces deeply, deeply rued abandoning the state when they did.  For the last month, polling indicated that Ms. Hong was the sure-fire winner of the Democrats’ Gubernatorial nomination.  Perhaps, lulled by the polls, some of her supporters stayed home on election day, feeling their votes weren’t needed – as contrasted with the attitudes of those who voted for Mr. Crowley, who were well aware that if he had any chance, every vote was going to be needed.

I have seen an early poll indicating that Mr. Crowley holds a 2-point lead over Mr. Tiffany.  If you believe that, I can give you the number of two guys in Brooklyn ready to sell you a bridge.  I am hoping that all candidates opposing Mr. Trump and MAGAism will discount all polls from now to election day, at least insofar as they presume to project candidates’ relative support.  All MAGA opponents need to run scared.  Every vote needs to be turned out in every race.  Taking a Blue Wave for granted invites further Red Terror.

It’s clear that the MAGAs are as shocked as everybody else that Ms. Hong didn’t win the primary.  Over the next few weeks, the Tiffany Team – poised to run, eager to run, against Ms. Hong – will be flailing a bit for a strategy against Mr. Crowley.  However, I will venture – just a feeling – that the national MAGA establishment is feeling the need to reset a bit as well.  My favorite treadmill at my gym is right in front of a screen that displays Fox News.  Usually, I ignore it – at my age, I can’t let my blood pressure get too high 😉—but on the day after the election, I watched as Fox covered the Wisconsin results.  At first, inexplicably to me, the outlet spent several minutes on Ms. Hong – who had lost, and was not going to be Wisconsin Democrats’ Gubernatorial nominee – and perhaps 20 seconds on Mr. Crowley, the winner.  It’s like they couldn’t yet get over the fact that they weren’t going to have Ms. Hong to demonize.  It struck me then that although Ms. Hong was only running for statewide rather than national office, she made such an easy mark – such a softer target than U.S. NY Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, or even Democratic MI U.S. Senate Nominee Abdul El-Sayed, all superb political athletes – that national MAGAs were planning to make her the poster child of their national Communist, anti-Woke Scare Campaign.  Poof.

That said, even if national MAGAs are indeed now pausing for just a bit as they reassess, they will – as they did after Vice President Kamala Harris succeeded President Joe Biden as the Democrats’ 2024 presidential nominee – figure it out, and reset.  In a recent note, I observed that Mr. Trump’s political power has always relied on stoking hate; even without Ms. Hong as a foil, it takes little prescience to venture that the MAGA national message from now to election day will primarily seek to sow hate’s companion, fear – of Socialists, of Communists, of Muslims, of them, of the other — within the gullible quarters of the electorate.  They have no choice; they have no objective achievements to run on.

If advising Mr. Crowley, I would strongly recommend that he spend the vast majority of his time between now and Labor Day in Wisconsin’s Republican strongholds, before the Tiffany Team has time to figure out a strategy and begin smearing him.  He did much better among Democrats than Ms. Hong in Wisconsin’s rural districts – no surprise – but the main purpose of forays would be to soften before they set in potentially adverse emotions of those voters disappointed with Mr. Trump but inclined to vote Republican.  Mr. Crowley is reasonable in manner; I suspect that MAGAs are painfully aware that due to the way they have demonized Ms. Hong in ads over the last couple of months as being “too extreme for Wisconsin,” they themselves have created a conceptual contrast for Mr. Crowley.  I’ve seen a clip in which even U.S. WI Sen. Ron Johnson observed after the election that Democrats had chosen “the more moderate candidate.”  In that same clip, Mr. Johnson — who, in the rare moments he is candid, can interpret vote totals pretty accurately – noted the significant discrepancy between the Democratic and Republican primary turnouts, and observed that if Republicans were going to fare well this November, Mr. Trump was going to have to inspire his Wisconsin supporters to get to the polls.  My guess:  with no U.S. Senate seat at issue in Wisconsin this November, Mr. Trump will pay little attention to the state unless he feels he can salvage a purple House District or two; the irony is that his presence could be as much a detriment as assistance to these Republicans’ campaigns.

I’ve seen reports of national progressives who are yapping at progressive icon U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders for not endorsing Ms. Hong, feeling that Mr. Sanders’ endorsement would have brought her the few thousand additional votes needed for victory.  Mr. Sanders has responded that he has limited resources, and can’t endorse everyone.  I would have to agree with the irate progressives that such was a makeweight response; I think the true answer is that that Mr. Sanders is a practical politician, understands that Wisconsin is one of the electoral battlegrounds where American democracy is going to be saved or lost, and recognizes that what will actually help the American people is winning elections.  What I don’t understand about these national progressives’ outrage is this:  if Mr. Crowley wins, he will be the first African American Governor of Wisconsin, and I have seen it reported that he will be the first African American Governor of a Midwest state.  What could objectively be more progressive than that?

The stakes in Wisconsin this November couldn’t be higher.  I have watched Mr. Tiffany’s ads, and they’re good.  They make him look like everybody’s honest, well-meaning Wisconsin Grandpa (he will turn 69 late this year).  He’s not.  In 2020, as a member of Congress Mr. Tiffany was one of only two Wisconsin Republicans who voted to decertify Mr. Biden’s victories in Pennsylvania (which Mr. Biden won by 80,000 votes) and Arizona (whose The Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives declared that Mr. Biden had won).  He signed on to a Republican Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate Mr. Biden’s victory.  I have seen it reported that he has stated that he would have voted to decertify Mr. Biden’s victory in Wisconsin if he had had the opportunity to do so (notwithstanding the fact that even former MAGA WI Gov. Scott Walker intimated in a tweet after the election that no recount would unseat Mr. Biden’s victory).  Mr. Tiffany is either just dumb or undemocratic – and sadly, I consider it more likely that he is the latter than the former.  He owes his nomination to Mr. Trump’s endorsement, which in turn was almost certainly provided due to his seditious willingness to overturn the results of the 2020 election.  One can only assume that if he is narrowly defeated by Mr. Crowley this November, he’ll seek to challenge the results with no regard for the competence and the integrity of the election officials and workers of all political stripes who will work hard – and with a tad more trepidation, due to the scurrilous lies about our electoral processes spread by Mr. Trump over the last decade – to accurately administer Wisconsin elections; that he will unscrupulously seek to baselessly smear some of the most civic-minded citizens he wishes to lead as Wisconsin Governor.  While one can take some comfort that Mr. Crowley’s candidacy will have a fair chance through election day since Mr. Evers will still be Governor and, if he wins, will have a fair hearing to any challenges Mr. Tiffany thereafter mounts due to the liberal bent of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the further damage that Mr. Tiffany and the MAGAs seem likely to seek to sow amongst their gullible followers cannot be overstated.

We’ll end where we started:  that Mr. Crowley’s victory on August 11 seemingly gives Democrats at least a fighting chance to retain the Wisconsin governorship this November.  While he can be confident of my vote, since I see his candidacy as a bulwark against MAGA anti-democratic excesses (subject to the caveat that he not hereafter be shown 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), I would also offer from what little I’ve seen so far, I like him.  I think that if elected, he’ll make a good Governor, be able to finesse the challenges of leading a state as closely and toxically divided as Wisconsin.  That said:  he’s still a black guy from the city, and a lot of voters still cast their ballots based upon stereotypes and biases.  It’s up to those who believe in democracy – obviously not only in Wisconsin, but nationally – to do whatever we can, legally and peacefully, to ensure and safeguard what we were given 250 years ago.

We’ll see what happens.

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

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.

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.

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!         

Just a Surmise

This is posted on a whim. 

As many are aware, the White House Correspondents Association holds an annual black tie dinner on the last Saturday every April, and for many years it was attended by Presidents of the United States of both parties.  These affairs generally involved gentle jibing by Chief Executive at the White House Press Corps covering him, and the Correspondents’ (generally) good-natured ribbing of the President in response.

President Donald Trump did not attend any of the four Correspondents’ Dinners during his first term, and skipped last year’s, the first of his second term.

He’s going tonight.

Here’s the surmise – one that if it hadn’t already occurred to you when you started reading this note a few seconds ago, probably has now:  

Mr. Trump wants to start a fight.  He knows that except for perhaps the few days after he incited the January 6, 2021, attack on our nation’s Capitol building, he is as unpopular with the entirety of the American people as he has ever been, he’s mired in a war of his own making that is exacerbating Americans’ financial straits, and he wants to be attacked by the Correspondents – whom he recognizes are no more popular than he is — in a manner that can be portrayed as disrespectful in the alt-right media silo inhabited by his now-wavering supporters.  I am confident that Mr. Trump and his media advisors well recall that at the 2018 Dinner, the ribbing of then-White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders (now the Governor of Arkansas) was not good-natured, was considered in retrospect personally disrespectful, was described by even left-leaning observers as “over the line,” a “take down.” It was not a good look for the press.  I expect Mr. Trump to attempt to provoke the media in his remarks with the full litany of his normal attacks – “fake,” lying,” “failing,” “enemies of the people,” etc., etc. etc.

While Mr. Trump’s potential ploy is readily predictable, I hope – and have some confidence – that the Washington Press Corps will be too savvy to take the bait.  It probably regretted (as I recall, it should have) the treatment Ms. Sanders received at the 2018 Dinner, and the correspondents undoubtedly recognize what Mr. Trump is more than likely to be up to.  In the moment, a tongue lashing from Mr. Trump will be uncomfortable, but it’s hard to conceive of him saying anything he hasn’t said before; if the reporters don’t respond provocatively, his speech is a one-day story – tomorrow, a Sunday in spring when nobody watches media anyway – and it’s gone Monday.  If they take the bait and respond combatively, that becomes the story, and gives him the rallying point – the distraction — for his supporters that right now he desperately needs.

We’ll see what happens.   

This Weekend, It’s Hungary

As the news media trains its spotlight this weekend on the efforts of Moe, Larry, and Curly … er … Vice President J.D. Vance, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff (a real estate developer by trade) and Presidential Son-in-Law Jared Kushner (a real estate developer whose true specialty has seemingly become exploiting his relationship with his father-in-law) to reach an enduring peace settlement with the Iranian regime in Pakistan, I suggest that the weekend event having the greatest impact on the future of human democracy is not there – where I am willing to wager there will be a lot of diddling around, with very little progress — but rather in the outcome of the election taking place tomorrow – April 12 — in Hungary, in which Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his party, democratic in name, autocratic in fact, are in what has been reported to be a close contest against challenger Péter Magyar and his supporters.  (Apparently, if it is indeed a close race, Mr. Orbán and his people haven’t yet gained the level of control over his nation’s voting processes mastered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the lately-deposed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.)

[An (long) aside on the Iran talks, nonetheless.  There has been a fair amount of speculation in the press as to why President Donald Trump disregarded one of the primary tenets of international diplomacy by choosing Moe … er, Mr. Vance to lead the American delegation in the talks with the Iranians; the conventional wisdom is that using a high level emissary in preliminary negotiation raises the risks and ramifications arising from any failure.  One might also have the concern that Mr. Vance was a poor choice because he has been in politics about a minute and a half and obviously has no meaningful background in the nuances of Middle East politics, even compared to Larry and C … er, Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner.  My guess:  Mr. Trump, who even as he degrades, undoubtedly retains very sophisticated instincts of self-preservation, is well aware that as his Iranian adventure has clearly gone sideways, Mr. Vance, in an effort to maintain his standing with the MAGA base for a 2028 presidential run, has leaked to whomever will listen that he was against the invasion from the beginning (such a leak, even is such was the case, is the primary No-No of presidential – vice presidential relations in any administration).  Now, Mr. Vance has been roped in to the Trump policy.  If the talks succeed, the success is Mr. Trump’s; if the talks fail, the failure is Mr. Vance’s; and if Mr. Trump doesn’t like what Mr. Vance achieves, the President can disown it and publicly politically emasculate Mr. Vance.  As little sympathy as I have for Mr. Trump, if that’s what he’s thinking by sending Mr. Vance to Pakistan, pretty clever.  A longer post on Mr. Vance will hopefully appear in these pages before too long, but right now, if I have ventured accurately, what the President is doing to his Vice President couldn’t be happening to a more-deserving guy. 😉].     

On to Hungary.  As all who care are aware, Mr. Orbán came to power by democratic means well over a decade ago but since that time has taken extensive measures to close off any challenge to his right-wing party, and reporting is too extensive not to conclude that he has made Hungary – a member of NATO and the European Union – a tool of Russian President Vladimir Putin and done all he can to hinder NATO’s and the EU’s assistance to Ukraine’s attempt to hold off the Russian invasion.  (There are credible reports that high Hungarian officials under Mr. Orbán’s command have been communicating the details of NATO’s strategies to defend Ukraine to Russian officials.)  (On a less strategic note, I also think that one can fairly surmise that during Mr. Orbán’s years in power, while he has espoused Hungarian nationalism and railed against the fall of Western Civilization, progressives and immigrants, he hasn’t let too many helpings of goulash pass him by.  😉)   

There are obviously sufficient concerns about the election’s outcome in the Orbán camp and among the world’s autocratic regimes that the Trump Regime dispatched Mr. Vance to campaign for Mr. Orbán.  (We’ll let that maneuver, an unthinkable diplomatic faux pas in any other administration, par for the course for the Trump Regime, go by).  I am most struck by the irony and hypocrisy in reports that Mr. Orbán is claiming that Mr. Magyar’s campaign is being assisted by sinister outside forces – when he clearly has the forces of the Putin and Trump Regimes on his side.  Now, that takes some chutzpah.

From reading I did some time ago, but concede have not confirmed for this note, I understand that neither NATO or the EU have mechanisms for expelling any member once admitted.  If that is indeed the case – speaking as someone who spent a lot of his career drafting commercial agreements, for which exit clauses were almost the first issues one considered – such were colossal oversights.  That said, I understand that no matter what the level of frustration that Mr. Orbán’s obstructive behavior is causing NATO and the EU at this juncture, no move could be made by these organizations at this time to expel Hungary; such would be all the pretext that Mr. Trump – such an obvious supporter of Mr. Orbán — might need to pull the United States out of NATO (in fact, if not in law).    

What transpires if Mr. Magyar and his supporters do prevail – I suspect that the polling done in the race, which I understand favors the challengers, is probably less than truly precise – remains to be seen.  Some observers are declaring that such a victory would be a significant blow to alt-right movements across the globe. That said, the first step is to see if they do indeed prevail.  I have seen commentators opine that even if it is clear that Mr. Orbán loses, he will not go quietly; he certainly has a seditious roadmap to follow, provided by a kindred spirit across the ocean.  (Ironically, as much as Putin will want to help Mr. Orbán stay in power, I’m sure that the Russian President sees that Russia cannot overtly attempt to maintain Mr. Orbán in power; such would be considered an attack on a NATO nation.  😊) 

We’ll see what happens.  Let us hope for the best.

The Noise Yields Its Time to Mr. Walsh

Yesterday, one of the panelists on MSNOW’s The Weekend was former U.S. IL Rep. Joe Walsh, a traditional Republican who has joined the Democratic Party during the Trump Era.  As part of a discussion of the widespread anti-Trump Regime sentiment evidenced by the large turnout at the NO KINGS rallies across the country this past Saturday, Mr. Walsh said this:

“This is a really important point – and again, this is scary to say.  The current president of the United States is doing everything he can to mess with – I watch my language – the midterms, to cancel the midterms, to never accept the results of the midterms.  Jackie [Alemany, a The Weekend host], you asked at the top, ‘What next, what next, No Kings?’  We have to make sure there are midterms … these protests have to keep growing.  … [The results need to be] ‘Too Big to Rig.’ [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

Mr. Walsh continued later:

“Look, a lot of people voted for Trump in ’24 who are not MAGA.  They voted for Trump because the Democrats suck or because of the border or because [they] want[ed] things to cost less.  Those people are fleeing from him and that’s why there’s going to be a blue tsunami if we have midterms, if we have free and fair midterms.  The other thing is – can we just; we don’t talk about this enough – he’s [i.e., Donald Trump] whacked. [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

And finally, the former Congressman added:

“I think we have to assume that there will be [free and fair elections]; we have to prepare like there won’t be.  Like we never envisioned – ‘Oh My God’ – a president can lose an election and then try to overturn the election and that happened and then January 6th happened.  He’s doing it right now, again.  We have to prepare for the worst.  [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

The national NO KINGS turnout shows that we have a lot to work with in the contest to preserve our democracy.  That said:  The struggle has barely begun.