On Being a Swiftie

When the relationship between Superstar Singer Taylor Swift and Kansas City Chiefs Tight End Travis Kelce first came to my attention, I was among the cynics who felt it was a conspira — well, let’s just say, a narrative 😉 – promoted by the NFL and Ms. Swift’s organization for the mutual commercial benefit of both. Because of the Swift-Kelce relationship, a significant segment of Ms. Swift’s fans are reportedly now watching NFL games, and NFL fans are presumably buying Ms. Swift’s music in greater volumes. (Put aside the fact that the NFL and Ms. Swift were both doing okay even before the Swift-Kelce relationship was publicized 🙂 ). I myself was some evidence of the attention focused on the relationship; before becoming apprised of – or perhaps, more accurately, inundated by news of — it, I literally could not have identified Ms. Swift in a lineup of five popular young female singers. Now, I can. (I still cannot identify a Taylor Swift song as a Taylor Swift song, although I understand that I’ve heard plenty of them.) Since in recent months I have been told that many of Ms. Swift’s songs are about her past failed romances, as the publicity swirl around the relationship ripened into a hurricane I actually began to feel a bit bad for Mr. Kelce, whom I envisioned at some point in the future as sitting on some bench, helmet in hand, shaking his head, wondering how the ride had suddenly ended, where the magic had gone. (But just a bit bad. Mr. Kelce is an important, high-profile and undoubtedly extremely-well paid member of a two-time World Champion team; I figured he’d get over it 😉 ).

All of this was benign fluff. I now understand that condemnation is being heaped upon Ms. Swift in the alt-right media silo — including (yes, really) conspiracy theories that the NFL is orchestrating a Chiefs victory in this Sunday’s Super Bowl against the San Francisco 49ers so that Ms. Swift can go on the field after the game and endorse President Joe Biden – because she has become a vocal opponent of MAGAism. What has made me take another look at Ms. Swift is an apparently accurate video that drifted through my Twitter feed of Ms. Swift and her parents discussing the risks of her getting involved in politics. (One grain of salt: Ms. Swift and her parents had to be aware that their exchange was being recorded.) The discussion focuses on concerns that by being a public opponent of MAGA U.S. TN Sen. Marsha Blackburn – and, by extension, former President Donald Trump – Ms. Swift could lose a significant segment of her fan base and more importantly, would materially increase the physical danger she already faces by virtue of being such a celebrated performer. On the clip, Ms. Swift replies, “I don’t care if they write [that Taylor Swift comes out against Donald Trump.] I’m sad I didn’t [come out against Mr. Trump during the 2020 presidential election], but I can’t change that. I’m saying right now … that I need to be on the right side of history and if he [presumably, President Joe Biden] doesn’t win … at least I tried.”

Now, that’s a WOW.

I have heard it reported that adjusting for differences in eras, Ms. Swift now commands a level of devotion among her fans unequaled since a long-ago popular music phenomenon with which I am much more familiar: Beatlemania. I well remember the controversy — perhaps beyond the recall of those with shorter memories and certainly of those with shorter lives — that erupted in 1966 when John Lennon was accurately quoted in a magazine article as saying, “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I know I’m right and will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now. I don’t know which will go first – rock & roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”

The firestorm that exploded in the southern United States over the comments months after they were first published in the U.K. – after not causing a ripple in the U.K., where the Anglican Church was then under severe criticism and losing adherents by the droves – caused the other Beatles and their manager, Brian Epstein, to persuade Mr. Lennon to do a press conference to clarify his remarks when the band subsequently entered the U.S. on tour because they genuinely feared for the band members’ physical safety.

Mr. Lennon then declared, “I’m not anti-God, anti-Christ or anti-religion. I wasn’t knocking it. I was not saying we’re better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is. … I used the word, ‘Beatles’ as a remote thing – ‘Beatles” like other people see us. I said they are having more influence on kids and things than anything else, including Jesus. [The way I expressed these thoughts in the magazine article] was the wrong way.”

Candidly, whether one reviews either Mr. Lennon’s original comments or his clarification, it’s hard to say that he was wrong to the extent he was objectively observing the shift away from Christian faith toward the glitz of popular culture. Even so, it’s also hard not to conclude that despite his later well-earned reputation as a social crusader, he buckled – at least a little — when confronted on this early occasion.

As far as I know, so far Ms. Swift isn’t buckling. I’m guessing that there isn’t a security professional alive who wouldn’t agree that in the open venues and amid the screaming fans in which she performs, any well-trained crackpot who wants to visit harm upon her might be able to find the means to do so. She apparently is willing to take the risk. I can’t help but contrast this young woman’s courage to do what she believes is the right thing against the cowardice being demonstrated daily by those Republicans officeholders whom credible reporters such as U.S. UT Sen. Mitt Romney and former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney advise us have nothing but contempt for Mr. Trump but are afraid to stand up to him out of fear of physical safety or losing their stations.

The singer’s got guts. They are despicable.

I virtually never watch football not involving the Green Bay Packers. Even so, I think it’s likely that I’ll watch some of Sunday’s Super Bowl. Under normal circumstances and despite the fact that the 49ers eliminated the Packers from the playoffs, the fact that the Chiefs have won two recent Super Bowls, taken together with the Cinderella story of San Francisco “Mr. Irrelevant” Quarterback Brock Purdy, would almost certainly cause me to root for the Niners. That said, these are not normal times. The MAGA attempt to demonize Ms. Swift has injected political venom into a heretofore nonpolitical American sports spectacle. (I truly wonder how many formerly diehard Chiefs fans from two blood-red Republican states, Missouri and Kansas, are now going to root for the team from the Woke Capital of the World against their hometown entry because MAGAs are condemning Ms. Swift’s participation in our political process.) I’m rooting for the Chiefs.

If the Niners win, some MAGA will undoubtedly proclaim that Jesus, rather than Mr. Purdy, was the 49er quarterback, although I’m not aware of any Gospel passage indicating that among His miracles the Lord ever hit an inside slant or a corner fade.

At the same time, I do have a conspiracy theory that should strike fear into the heart of every MAGA intent on a Kansas City defeat: the Chiefs may be planning … to start Patrick Mahomes at quarterback.

And if I do tune in on Sunday, I’ll have to concede that in the end, maybe the NFL was right; it did capture one more viewer for its big extravaganza … because he’s become a Swiftie.

Sit Down and Watch

Can We Keep It?

According to a well-known account of a conversation occurring at the end of the last day of the 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, when the members of the Convention had just finished hammering out the Constitution under which we live today (as amended), one of the grand ladies of Philadelphia society, Elizabeth Willing Powel, asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”

According to the legend, Mr. Franklin replied:

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

By all indications, a Senate deal which would provide both stringent border protections favored by Republicans – controls, indeed, that I have seen reported as being much more rigorous than Republicans will ever secure in the future if in 2024 Democrats retain the White House and regain complete control of Congress — and aid needed by Ukraine to effectively continue its defense against Russia that enjoys bipartisan support, is about to be scuttled because former President Donald Trump has instructed his Republican minions in Congress to kill it. It appears undisputed – this is the crux — that Mr. Trump doesn’t want our border challenges to be addressed because he wants to be able to blame President Joe Biden for the chaos during the upcoming campaign. Republican U.S. UT Sen. Mitt Romney has called Mr. Trump’s action “appalling”; Republican U.S. NC Sen. Thom Tillis has called it “immoral” to reject a border deal to help Mr. Trump politically. Bowing to Mr. Trump’s bidding, MAGA Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson has declared that the bipartisan Senate arrangement will be “Dead on Arrival” in the House. After Mr. Biden expressed support for the Senate agreement late last week, Mr. Johnson sharply criticized the President, claiming that Mr. Biden should instead secure the border by executive order. (The irony here is particularly thick. Republicans have done nothing but accuse Mr. Biden of executive overreach ever since he took office; at the same time, Mr. Trump’s instructions could well politically backfire on him if Democrats have the savvy to run continuous reels, particularly in our southern border states, of Messrs. Romney, Tillis and their Republican Senate colleagues blaming Mr. Trump for the deal’s failure.)

I admit that I haven’t educated myself on immigration policy and issues over the last several years in the way I have intended; that said, it is clear even from liberal media outlets that — no matter whose fault it is, or what factors contribute to it — we face a human, security and logistical crisis on our southern border. A large segment of our people are highly exercised about it. Senate Republicans clearly think that the deal they have struck with their Democratic colleagues will markedly improve our current challenge. (I note that Mr. Romney said that the bipartisan bill would “solve” our border dilemma; I doubt any piece of legislation could do that.)

At the same time, I have for months been painfully aware that Ukrainians are fighting and dying daily to defend their homeland, that they’ve been running out of munitions, and that their ability to withstand any future major Russian onslaught will be extremely compromised without the aid that this bill would provide. It takes no prescience for anyone who has spent any time over the last 80 years considering U.S. foreign policy to understand that not only Western Europe but America will be less secure if Ukraine falls to Russia.

There is reportedly a solid majority in both Houses of Congress that would approve the Senate deal if it was allowed to come to a vote. If so, the fate of the suffering people at the border, relief for our fellow citizens whose lives are being disrupted by the onslaught of migrants, and the destiny of a Ukrainian people struggling to defend themselves (and the world’s democracies) against despotism is being hamstrung by the spasms of one old, evil, demented megalomanic.

According to accounts of Congressional Republicans such as Mr. Romney and former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney, the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate and most Republicans in the House have nothing but contempt for Mr. Trump. They nonetheless kowtow to him because they fear losing their hallowed offices. In addition to rank ambition, a rationale sometimes offered for these Republicans’ shameless obeisance to Mr. Trump is their fear of MAGA physical retribution against themselves and their families. These are frankly pitiful attempts to rationalize a monstrous dereliction of duty by those who have intentionally sought and won membership in the branch of our federal government that has the Constitutional power to declare war – the power to send our men and women of the armed forces to fight and to die on behalf of America’s interests. Those in the military and their families don’t get the luxury of ducking their responsibility in order to preserve their positions and their physical safety. They have to follow whatever these craven blowhards decide is in their own political self interests.

I’m not sure whether I feel greater antagonism toward those MAGA officeholders who want to institute an American Apartheid or for those Republican officials who would support bipartisanship if they did not fear retribution. Frankly, it doesn’t suffice to call the latter group, “cowards.” People are fighting and dying for freedom in Ukraine, and they don’t have the guts to stand up. They are — I know what crass epithet comes to my mind as an apt description; but I leave that one to you.

Meanwhile, last week a jury found the MAGA Messiah before whom these Republicans prostrate themselves liable to E. Jean Carroll for over $83 million dollars for continuing to defame Ms. Carroll after a jury of three women and six men had earlier found that he had sexually abused her. (If you don’t know and still care to learn what Ms. Carroll testified that the former president did to her before the jury rendered its verdict, the substance of her account is readily available via internet search.) The New York Times reported that as he left the courtroom last week on the day before the verdict was rendered, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee loudly declared, “This is not America.”

I ironically agree with the former president’s aggrieved declaration – although obviously not with the lies he spews. The despicable, toxic posturing and pandering now occurring in the United States House of Representatives is not America – my America – a country in which, to use Historian Jon Meacham’s analogy which I particularly like, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan have been figuratively debating our best course over the last 90 years. The two have certainly had vigorous disagreements, and each in life was a wily politician sensitive to the moods of his people, but each always urged in good faith what he felt was best for our nation, believed that it was in America’s strategic interest to use our power to constrain despotism across the globe, and understood that compromise between divergent views held in good faith was the core of our system.

At this most perilous time, when I see a compromise that could provide vital benefit on multiple fronts sacrificed to ambition and fear, I hearken back to Mr. Franklin’s exchange with Mrs. Powel.

I wonder if we can keep it.

Anointing the MAGA Messiah

This week, I have gotten a pretty continuous stream of good-natured ribbing from family and friends about my oft-stated, years-long, seemingly seriously misguided doubts about Green Bay Packer Quarterback Jordan Love’s ability to be the Green and Gold’s leader of the future. It’s obviously been easy to take the happy joshing.

I can think of no unequivocal pronouncement I have made or will ever make in these pages for which I more fervently hope to be proven wrong, and to hereafter be derided unmercifully for my lack of perspicacity, than this:

Former President Donald Trump is going to be the Republican Party’s 2024 Presidential Nominee.

As all who care are aware, Mr. Trump trounced the field in Monday’s Iowa Republican caucuses. More importantly, in what was an admittedly light turnout due to the extreme weather, the former President’s total (51%), taken together with the totals of Trump-lite Candidates FL Gov. Ron DeSantis (21.2%) and Vivek Ramaswamy (7.7%), meant that the MAGA movement claimed 79.9% of the vote, while former SC Gov. and U.S. UN Amb. Nikki Haley totaled 19.1%.

In other words, Donald Trump beat Ronald Reagan in Iowa on Monday, 80% – 20%. One could argue that the margin was actually greater, since it seems fair to assume that a good share of Ms. Haley’s vote was from Independents or Democrats, masquerading as Republicans for a night, who bitterly oppose Mr. Trump. (Had I been an Iowan, there is no cold I would not have braved to register as a Republican for a night to vote for Ms. Haley, and against Mr. Trump.)

An NBC poll of caucus goers indicated that 65% would still consider Mr. Trump fit for the presidency if he is convicted of crimes in the coming months; only 31% indicated that they would then consider him unfit. Only 29% of caucus goers consider President Joe Biden the legitimate president; 66% believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Mr. Trump. One has to assume that the vast majority of the 31% and 29% were Haley voters, and that a significant percentage of these were faux Republicans.

Although one might assert that my pronouncement is both premature and exaggerated based upon the votes of 100,000 Iowans, I would counter that the Iowa Republican profile doesn’t seem to be different from the profile of the Republican electorate in the vast majority of states. As a political handicapper, I really liked Ms. Haley (I certainly devoted a long enough post to her and her potential prospects 😉 ); but her inability to polish off Mr. DeSantis in Iowa seeming leaves the two squabbling over Mr. Trump’s table scraps, with no state in which either has a realistic hope of defeating the former president (save, perhaps, New Hampshire for Ms. Haley – a state whose Republican demographic deviates markedly from the norm).

I was struck by a sign I saw wielded by an Iowan Republican at some candidate’s rally which declared, “God over Government.” MAGAs no longer trust government. They trust what they believe God wants. We have heard Evangelicals supporting Donald Trump use the phrase that has become a cliché – “That I wouldn’t vote for him for Pastor, but I will for President.”

All this is so seemingly absurd that one can’t entirely get rid of the notion that the good people in our rural and remote regions who make up the bulk of Mr. Trump’s support – perhaps frustrated with their situations, or angered at what they see as our mainstream culture’s contempt for their values, or worried about their futures, but not rioters; good neighbors — will suddenly wake up, will snap out of their alternate reality in the manner to which we’ve become accustomed in Star Trek happy endings, will see the former president for who he is. One doesn’t have to favor progressive policies to realize that Mr. Trump is personally unfit to lead our country.

It is what it is. Donald Trump is the MAGA Messiah.

There is one part of me that finds the early clarification regarding Mr. Trump’s impending Republican anointment a relief, to be able to dispense with any uncertainty as to what we face. Since we started with a football reference, let’s end with one: We know what teams will face off in November. To preserve democracy, it’s time for both the Biden Campaign and us to strap on our helmets, and start to play.

We can only hope that winning will be enough; but one step at a time.

On Nikki Haley

[Several preliminary notes:

A couple of the points made here occurred to me before I saw them offered by media pundits, so I feel free to use them;

From a political handicapping standpoint, I’ve been intrigued by former SC Gov. and U.S. UN Amb. Nikki Haley for some years, and that interest has resulted in this note becoming fairly long; feel free to pass on it; and

Despite my high regard for President Joe Biden’s conduct of the presidency, in the unlikely event that Ms. Haley secures the Republican presidential nomination and runs against him, I am very likely to vote for Ms. Haley – unless she begins to evince undemocratic inclinations, which I have not seen thus far–although I am much closer to the President’s positon on domestic issues. My rationale is buried below. 😉 ]

Although it currently seems overwhelmingly likely that in November, we will be engaging in another existential battle to preserve American democracy pitting a seemingly increasingly infirm President Joe Biden against the now indisputably fascist former President Donald Trump, I’m posting this because I consider former SC Gov. and U.S. UN Amb. Nikki Haley Haley the only other announced presidential candidate who has a chance to win the White House in 2024. Indeed, it is a cruel irony – perhaps for the nation and certainly for what respectable vestiges remain of the Republican Party – that if Ms. Haley were to secure the Republican presidential nomination, I think she would defeat Mr. Biden this November pretty easily.

I speculated in these pages back as 2018 that if then-President Donald Trump chose not to seek reelection (we all saw how that went 😉 ), Ms. Haley would make a formidable 2020 Republican presidential nominee. I noted then: “She’s bright, knowledgeable, articulate, and attractive; she projects both toughness and femininity; she’s had executive experience as a Governor; she’s Indian-American, the child of immigrants; she was born and raised in the South, but as Governor removed the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state grounds; she has established foreign policy bona fides by representing us at the U.N.; she has fiscal policy views that appeal to traditional conservatives; her husband serves in the armed forces, and she has what appears to be a beautiful family; she identifies as Christian, but has a Sikh background.”

I well recall after over 60 years that the only Democrat my father, a rock-ribbed Republican, ever voted for was John F. Kennedy – because he was an Irish Catholic. I submit that in a race against Mr. Biden, the demographics would all be on Ms. Haley’s side. To begin, it’s hard to see her losing any of the states Mr. Trump won in 2020. As a South Carolinian, her candidacy would probably both clinch neighboring North Carolina (the only state Mr. Trump won in 2020 by a narrow margin) and win South Carolina’s neighboring Georgia back from Mr. Biden; her immigrant and Indian background will be effective with a significant segment of minorities, which would both enable her to duplicate Mr. Trump’s 2020 victory in Texas and provide her an excellent opportunity to claim Arizona and Nevada from Mr. Biden; I would venture that she has finessed the abortion issue well enough for a significant segment of women voters to rationalize voting for her to finally place a woman in the White House; her charm and vitality would sway a sufficient number of young voters and moderate swing state Democrats and independents who won’t vote for Mr. Trump but are concerned about Mr. Biden’s age and Vice President Kamala Harris’ competence; and although she would lose some diehard MAGAs as a result of the inevitable attacks upon her by a vengeful Mr. Trump, she would retain the vast share of the Republican tribe. (I vividly recall two Republican gentlemen who told me separately in early 2016 that they could never support Donald Trump. Now they are both avid Trumpers – because at bottom, their overriding emotion is antipathy for Democrats. They may be for Mr. Trump today, but will just as enthusiastically vote for Ms. Haley in November if she is the Republican nominee.) During gatherings with family and friends this past Holiday season, a number of sure Biden voters against Mr. Trump indicated that they would seriously consider Ms. Haley if she was the President’s opponent, and one sure Biden voter against Mr. Trump declared that he would vote for Ms. Haley if she was the President’s opponent. Mr. Biden’s candidacy can’t withstand that much erosion. I would submit that Ms. Haley, if she was the Republican nominee, would have the makings of a landslide victory.

I suspect that Ms. Haley and her team (and perhaps Mr. Trump as well; an aside on that below 😉 ) realize that two major shoes have to drop in order for her to wrest the Republican nomination from the former president.

The first is by far the easier but as things apparently now stand, not easy. She has to beat FL Gov. Ron DeSantis in Iowa. The longer he hangs around, the slimmer Ms. Haley’s already extremely slim chances of securing the nomination become. Mr. DeSantis a hollow, boring candidate whose presidential effort has dead-ended. He had every early advantage to present himself as the only credible Republican presidential alternative to Mr. Trump, and he fluffed it. Now, he can’t get it done but he won’t give it up. If he didn’t have IA Gov. Kim Reynolds’ support in Iowa, I’m pretty confident that Ms. Haley would have already eclipsed him. I would suggest that the gaffe about the Civil War Ms. Haley recently made in Iowa – we’ll get to that below – arose not because she was trying to overtake Mr. Trump – although she would certainly like to significantly narrow the seeming yawning polling margin between the former President and herself (a feat which is difficult to envision, given Mr. Trump’s steadfast Evangelical support; after all, the former president has, according to a video we recently saw of an Iowa Evangelical, been treated worse than Jesus) — but to carve off enough of Mr. DeSantis’ support to give her second place and effectively end Mr. DeSantis’ campaign. A second place Iowa finish will arguably make her the only remaining credible opponent to Mr. Trump in New Hampshire and her home state of South Carolina. If Mr. DeSantis drops out, he will – political pussyfooter that he is – undoubtedly endorse Mr. Trump. Even so, I would suggest that if a New Hampshire Republican wanted to vote for Mr. Trump, s/he would already be with Mr. Trump. A recent CNN/University of New Hampshire poll found Ms. Haley, with the support of NH Gov. Chris Sununu (who probably rues his decision not to run himself), to be trailing Mr. Trump by only 7 points among New Hampshire Republicans; if she claimed the majority of the 5% shown in the poll shown to be supporting Mr. DeSantis and a few of the 12% shown in the poll to be supporting former NJ Gov. Chris Christie, there is a credible path for her to beat Mr. Trump in the New Hampshire primary.

(The “birther” controversy that Mr. Trump has just hatched against Ms. Haley is, in my view, some confirmation that the former president agrees with the above analysis. I would suggest that Mr. Trump is attacking Ms. Haley now, not because he’s worried about losing to her in Iowa, but because he fears that Mr. DeSantis will lose to her in Iowa, and the resulting boost the Haley campaign will receive if Mr. DeSantis withdraws.)

That’s the easy part. The hard part: hanging around long enough in the face of what may be a string of primary victories by Mr. Trump for the occurrence of what is known in English literature as Deus ex machina – literally, in Latin, “God from a machine”; defined in my trusty American Heritage Dictionary as an “improbable … event … suddenly introduced to resolve a situation”: in this case, an event that will disqualify Mr. Trump from the nomination. Although the Republican National Committee is stuffed with Trump supporters, the Committee’s Rule 9 expressly provides that the RNC is “authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States … or … may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies. [Emphasis Added]”

I would submit that if the RNC is suddenly looking for a reason to move on from Mr. Trump – for example, if Mr. Trump suffers a obvious health reversal, a significant number of states successfully keep Mr. Trump off the ballot under the 14 Amendment, or Mr. Trump is convicted of an insurrection-related offense this spring — the RNC might deem its nomination “vacant.” Although a very unlikely scenario, it is perhaps less so if it appears to the RNC that some such factor has made it highly unlikely that Mr. Trump can win. If the RNC took such a step, it’s hard for me to believe a court would intervene to interpret a political party’s rules contrary to the interpretation of the party’s own ruling body. Ms. Haley would be the obvious winner in such a scenario.

As to Ms. Haley’s failure to initially list slavery as the cause of the Civil War – “I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run; the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do”: such was obviously disingenuous, a foolish attempt to thread too fine a needle so as to not offend the Trump and DeSantis supporters she is wooing. That said – in a geeky aside that I at times can’t resist – arguably, she was not necessarily technically incorrect. While incoming President Abraham Lincoln was viscerally offended by slavery and an implacable adversary of slave states’ attempts to extend slavery into the nation’s territories and newly-formed states, he was foremost a Constitutionalist; he viewed his primary responsibility as president to prevent the slave states from breaking their Constitutional bond by seceding. In his first inaugural address in March, 1861, Mr. Lincoln declared, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of Slavery in the States where it exists. … One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. [Emphasis Mr. Lincoln’s].” (Of course, the slave states sought to secede specifically because they considered the extension of slavery, unalterably opposed by Mr. Lincoln, necessary to prevent its ultimate extinction; if Mr. Lincoln privately agreed with their assessment, he was perhaps being a bit disingenuous himself by so apparently innocently proclaiming his intention to protect slave owners’ rights in the states in which they already existed.) I think Ms. Haley’s gaffe will ultimately fade away. I think her pledge to pardon Mr. Trump if he is convicted will, if she becomes president, likewise be easily waved away.

Two final points to this long-winded post:

Ms. Haley’s debate against Mr. DeSantis tonight is existential to her candidacy. She needs to polish him off – which given their respective on-camera skills, is certainly achievable. At the same time, if advising her, I’d recommend that she polish him off by mostly ignoring him – that she instead use tonight’s debate as the opportunity to take the gloves off against Mr. Trump. His attempting to create a “birther” controversy – which she will almost certainly be asked about – will give her an opening to point out that if he is going to make such allegations – which are a slap in the face of all children of lawful immigrants, which includes all Americans except Native Americans – he should be man enough to come on stage and do it to her face; to state that those in the military, like her husband, are not suckers and losers as Mr. Trump has said, but our greatest patriots; to declare that it was time for the country to have new, younger leadership; and conclude by noting Mr. Trump’s continual complaining and declare to the Republican crowd, “Americans have never been complainers. They’re doers. Do you want to whine, or do you want to win?”

Finally, why would I vote for Ms. Haley (again, provided that I see no hint that she will undertake undemocratic measures if she is elected) against Mr. Biden when I think Mr. Biden has done an extraordinary job and I am closer to him on domestic issues than I am to Ms. Haley? Two reasons, the less important first: I am worried about the President’s age and doubt Ms. Harris’ competence. The vital reason: if Mr. Biden wins, the alt-right propaganda machine will immediately begin spewing falsehoods against him, perpetuating the toxic conditions under which Mr. Trump may attempt yet another resurrection. While I am cognizant that voting for Ms. Haley on such ground is arguably placating the right, I would suggest that Ms. Haley’s presidency would give us as a people a chance to quiet down a bit, to take the breather we thought Mr. Biden’s presidency would give us (which it would have, but for Mr. Trump’s malignance). If Ms. Haley wins, the alt-right silo – since its overriding emotion is hatred of Democrats — will naturally rally to her support. Mr. Trump will, finally, be politically laid to rest – which is my overriding concern. The former president would clearly be out of position to effectively challenge a sitting Republican President Haley for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination; by 2032, he’ll be 86. He’ll be done – although we will need to watch for the next charismatic fascist coming to take his place.

If I correctly assess Ms. Haley as an American who respects our democratic processes, there will always be another election in 2028, no matter what she does after assuming the presidency. We can chart a more progressive course as a country with a different president in a future election if we so choose – provided that our way of life has been preserved.

If you got this far, you must be exhausted 😉 . You can’t say I didn’t warn you 🙂 .

To the Decisive Year Ahead

“You must not weaken in any way in your alert and vigilant frame of mind. Though holiday rejoicing is necessary to the human spirit, yet it must add to the strength and resilience with which every man and woman turns again to the work they have to do, and also to the outlook and watch they have to keep on public affairs. …

[W]e have yet to make sure … that the words, ‘freedom,’ [and] ‘democracy’ … are not distorted from their true meaning as we have understood them. There would be little use in punishing the Hitlerites for their crimes if law and justice did not rule, and if totalitarian or police governments were to take [their] place ….”

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, May 13, 1945

Before our last 4^th of July holiday, I quoted these remarks by Mr. Churchill in these pages – which he delivered to the British people on a date after the fall of Nazi Germany but before the defeat of Imperial Japan, and as the indications of Soviet Russia’s designs for eastward European territorial domination were first appearing – and there’s at least an even chance I’ll cite them at least once more before another of our 2024 national holidays. There has not been a time in over 75 years in which they have been as relevant as they are today, as former President Donald Trump, unabashedly using rhetoric that is often a direct lift from Adolf Hitler, seems poised to win the presidential nomination of a major American political party whose adherents now consist of the fascist, the poisonously tribal, the cowardly, or the blind.

For most of my lifetime, presidential elections have been won by the candidate that was most effective at obtaining the votes of those in the political middle of our electorate. More recently, given a closely-divided, hyper-polarized polity in which virtually all of our citizens have hardened leanings either right or left, winning has involved turnout – i.e., which side is better able to squeeze more votes out of its supporters.

This year, if democracy is to be preserved – assuming that Mr. Trump does win the Republican nomination – the supporters of the Democrat opposing him – overwhelmingly likely to be President Joe Biden – will need to be good at both. Democrats will need to persuade enough of the disaffected and disappointed – particularly among minorities and the young – that it does matter for their futures to go to the polls to vote against Mr. Trump. At the same time, Democrats will need to convince enough older voters who would in normal times lean toward a traditional Republican candidate that what matters in 2024 is preserving democracy — that there will always be another election in 2028 if Mr. Biden is reelected, no matter what he does.

It must be faced: Mr. Trump’s cultish supporters will not leave him, and will show up on Election Day. Mr. Biden’s seemingly increasing physical infirmity and what certainly appears to be a mishandled situation at our southern border clearly hurt his prospects. The animating issue of abortion, together with what increasingly appears will be a soft economic landing and Mr. Trump’s chilling fascist rhetoric, are obviously powerful political assets to help Democrats persuade the open-minded. Foreign policy (our apparently waning willingness to continue to support Ukraine, and our clearly dwindling patience with Israel’s manifestly indiscriminate destruction of Gaza) and the outcomes of Mr. Trump’s criminal and civil court proceedings are political wildcards.

It’s going to be that close.

So as we celebrate the dawn of another year that has been given us, and amid whatever other New Year’s resolutions you may be contemplating, let me offer this: consider how you might, as Mr. Churchill suggested over 75 years ago, apply your strength and resilience in the coming year to the work we have to do to preserve our democratic way of life. Don’t let exhaustion win.

Thank you for the honor of allowing me to share these posts with you again in 2023.

May you, your family and friends have a Happy and Healthy New Year.

A Letter to the Editor

[Today, I emailed the following letter to the Wall Street Journal. I have no expectation it will be published; my letters to the Journal never are. 😉 ]

In your editorial, “The Supreme Court Spurns Jack Smith,” and Peggy Noonan’s column, “National Unity and the Colorado Supreme Court,” both published shortly before Christmas, the Editorial Board and Ms. Noonan set forth an approving perspective of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices which I do not share.

In your editorial, you applaud the Court’s recent refusal to provide an expedited ruling sought by Special Counsel Jack Smith on Mr. Trump’s claimed immunity defense, declaring, “[Mr. Smith’s] plea was purely political so he could meet his opening trial date … and get a conviction of Mr. Trump before Election Day in 2024.” To the contrary, I find the Court’s declination to be a despicable dereliction of its duty. The charges against Mr. Trump are credible and of the utmost import. (In her piece, Ms. Noonan observed, “I believe that in the court cases [Mr. Trump] faces he will be found guilty of many charges.” One can infer from the Editorial Board’s criticism of Mr. Smith that it expects that if Mr. Smith does get Mr. Trump to trial, Mr. Trump will be found guilty. It is seemingly fair to assume that if Mr. Trump was himself confident that he would be found innocent, he would be seeking the earliest possible trial date.) It is not “political,” in the partisan sense, for the Special Counsel to seek the earliest possible trial date to enable our citizenry to learn whether a leading candidate for the presidency is guilty of crimes against the country he wishes to lead and the Constitution he had sworn to uphold. Does anyone doubt that the Supreme Court won’t ultimately have to rule on Mr. Trump’s immunity claim – while its unwillingness to proceed at this juncture might well delay the trial to the point that Mr. Trump’s Republican presidential nomination is a fait accompli notwithstanding any guilty verdict?

The Editorial Board’s editorial’s sub-head declared that the Supreme Court Justices “wisely” refused to grant Mr. Smith’s motion for an expedited hearing. In her column, Mr. Noonan stated, “… I respect [the Supreme Court Justices], not only as an institution but individually, as serious human beings.” I would submit that by denying Mr. Smith’s motion, at least six Justices have shown themselves to be neither wise nor serious, but merely political partisans, hiding behind their robes.

[Final note: despite my disdain for the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant Mr. Smith’s motion of an expedited hearing on the presidential immunity issue, I actually agree with the main point Ms. Noonan was making in her column: that the Colorado Supreme Court’s recent holding, barring former President Donald Trump from being on the Colorado presidential ballot under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, should not stand. No matter how strong the legal reasoning might be, the former president hasn’t yet been convicted of anything; removing him from the ballot by judicial fiat smacks of political persecution and invites civil unrest.]

Ukraine at the Precipice

As all who care are aware, a package to respectively provide billions in aid to Ukraine in its struggle against Russia, to Israel in its struggle against Hamas, and to Taiwan to help shore up its defenses against China is being tied up in a U.S. Senate squabble in which Republicans are insisting upon changes to American border security policy that are apparently an anathema to Democrats. Last week, several outlets reported that a number of Senate Republicans “stormed out” of a meeting with Senate Democrats because they did not consider Democrats to be taking their border security demands seriously.

Although some – including me — might initially dismiss the Republicans’ opposition as pandering to their base, I took particular note that U.S. UT Sen. Mitt Romney – who is not running for re-election, has unassailable credentials as an opponent of Russian aggression, and is almost certainly not beloved by his caucus colleagues after his votes to convict former President Trump in both his impeachment trials and given the revelations in Mr. Romney’s book, Romney: A Reckoning – was among the most incensed by what he viewed as Democrats’ intransigence on border issues. On December 5, he tweeted: “Dems want $106B—GOP wants a closed border. That’s the trade. But clueless Dems want to negotiate the border bill. Not going to happen. Is an open border more important to Dems than Ukraine and Israel?”.

I didn’t see it, but The Hill reported Sunday that on NBC News’ Meet the Press, Mr. Romney stated in part:

“It’s not just Republicans that are holding a hard line. It’s Democrats who are holding a hard line. Either side can move and can get this done. … We have gone from one to 2000 [illegal] encounters at the border a day under … Bush, Obama and Trump [to] … 10 to 12,000 a day. As Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman said, we’re basically seeing Pittsburgh show up [at] the border every month.”

Mr. Romney is an estimable man. Given his views, I’m willing to assume that Senate Democrats are being too rigid.

Let’s put Taiwan and Israel aside for purposes of this note; at this moment, it appears unlikely that China’s President Xi Jinping is going to risk further hardening American attitude against China by ordering a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and, as I have previously observed here, it’s pretty clear that Israel has shown little need for our military aid to either defeat Hamas or to lay complete waste to the Gaza Strip.

On the other hand, there appears to be consensus that Ukraine is about out of money, and without our military and economic aid, Ukraine will fall under Russian domination within the foreseeable future. I have found the way that at least the electronic news outlets we follow have focused so heavily on the Israel-Hamas conflict since the Hamas attack of October 7, with scant attendant coverage of Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s invasion, to be extremely distressing; such emphasis endangers western democracy by causing us to take our eye off the ball — Ukraine. Business Insider has reported that Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Russia hoped lawmakers would continue to delay the Ukraine aid; The New Republic has reported that a Russian state television commentator has declared, “Well done, Republicans! They’re standing firm! That’s good for us.”

After all their sacrifices, all of the innocent deaths, all of the displacement, and all of the destruction of their homes and their institutions, and the attempted eradication of their nation and their culture by Vladimir Putin, and notwithstanding their Herculean defense of their homeland, without our continued assistance Ukrainians will lose. Ukraine will disappear – perhaps even in name. And we diddle and bicker.

I don’t know what the Republicans are demanding in the way of different or enhanced border security measures. Even so, I will submit that if President Biden and Congressional Democrats can get Republicans’ agreement to authorize what the Administration deems to be sufficient aid to get Ukraine through to March, 2025, they should agree to all Republican border demands that don’t include shooting illegal immigrants or separating immigrant children from parents (there may be some other similarly egregious exception I’m overlooking, but you get the idea). If advising Mr. Biden, I would recommend that he call his old Senate colleague, Senate Minority Leader U.S. KY Sen. Mitch McConnell – who is currently among those holding up Ukraine aid to obtain additional border security, but does support aid for Ukraine — find out from Mr. McConnell exactly what border measures Senate Republicans are demanding in return for supporting Ukraine aid, and then – assuming that there are no Republican conditions as malign as those I listed above — call Senate Majority Leader U.S. NY Sen. Chuck Schumer and strongly advise Mr. Schumer to … Do. The. Deal.

My rationale is pretty basic: what happens now on the border doesn’t, from a practical standpoint, matter that much. If Mr. Biden wins in November, 2024, Democrats are likely to control both chambers of Congress; they can then attempt to undo whatever measures are enacted now that they consider too onerous. If Donald Trump wins the presidency next November, whatever strictures are put into effect now will be but a prelude to what Mr. Trump (with, if he is elected, will likely be a Republican-controlled Congress) will do anyway in 2025.

Although this is of wildly lesser import, I would agree with those who have opined that signing a law with stringent border measures may actually help Mr. Biden politically. By all accounts, those living near our southern border have reasonable concerns about what appears to be our mishandling of border security (no matter whose fault it actually is, the political reality is that the buck stops at the White House), and even many living in the snowy Midwest find the border an emotive issue. [I was surprised to find how border security resonated with central Wisconsinites at a Republican Town Hall Meeting we attended a couple of years ago. Although one could argue that the mid-state Wisconsin resident is only marginally more likely to be harmed by an illegal immigrant than s/he is to be strangled by a Burmese python (which are now reported to be migrating north in Florida, having wiped out the available prey in the Everglades), it doesn’t matter. Citizens vote on their perceptions.] If Mr. Biden supports stiffer border controls, he will — unlike the many Republicans who are now hypocritically touting the benefits of the Biden Administration’s Infrastructure Law for their districts, despite that fact that they voted against it – be able to correctly declare that he took serious steps to secure our border. The Wall Street Journal noted recently that if he does make major immigration concessions to Republicans, the President risks losing support amongst some segments of Democratic voters; I would counter that if/when these disgruntled Democrats recognize that the alternative to a Biden vote is a Trump Restoration, they’ll come around.

I am sickened by the fact that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has to come to Washington this week to plead – to beg – for assistance that we have the wherewithal to provide which will continue to defend his nation while at the same time safeguarding ours. The Ukrainians can’t afford to wait 13 months until (under the happiest scenario) Mr. Biden has won reelection and Democrats have regained control of Congress. By then, Russia will have conquered Ukraine and the NATO alliance will, for all intents and purposes, be in shreds. Mr. Biden’s party controls the Senate, albeit narrowly. He needs to do virtually anything within his power to secure aid for the Ukrainians now.

I recognize that this post approaches rant (or perhaps merely exhibits desperation). Is the Congressional compromise I urge here ugly? Without doubt. Essentially acquiescing to blackmail? Unquestionably. Domestic Realpolitik? Certainly. Necessary to help sustain global democracy? Seemingly, Yes.

The Ironies of Kevin McCarthy

As all who care are aware, the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican U.S. CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy, announced Wednesday that he is leaving his seat in the House as of the end of 2023. Although he never seemed to me to present, through his own affirmative behavior, as much danger to democracy as former President Donald Trump and other MAGAS, his acquiescence to their actions unquestionably facilitated their cause. I would submit that his legacy can most fairly be characterized as that of an unprincipled, gutless lickspittle.

It is Mr. McCarthy’s personal irony – not dissimilar to the irony that U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is likely to never again be Senate Majority Leader because he succeeded so well in orchestrating the elevation of U.S. Supreme Court Justices willing to strike down Roe v. Wade – that in his maneuvering and concessions to gain the necessary votes to become House Speaker at the beginning of this year, he laid the groundwork for his own truly ignominious ouster. If I could ask Mr. McCarthy one question today, it would be this: Given the bootlicking gyrations you had to go through to get the Speakership, and the humiliation you suffered at the hands of MAGA nihilists in being ejected from it – was it worth it?

Unfortunately, a corresponding irony has rebounded upon House Democrats and their leader, U.S. NY Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. They so detested Mr. McCarthy for his duplicity that when he faced the challenge to his Speakership from a pivotal – yet actually quite small – faction within his caucus, they refused to prop him up, although it seemed very possible that if they did so, they could thereafter exploit his ambition and weakness to further some of their agenda. They chose to gamble that they’d get a new Republican Speaker who, from their perspective, would either be better or no worse.

As flawed as Mr. McCarthy is, that has so far looked like a bad bet, for the country and for the world.

On we march.

Observations of Messrs. Lincoln, Yeats, Archimedes and Stengel

As all who care are aware, recently the New York Times and Sienna published results of a poll taken from October 22 to November 3, 2023, of registered voters in the swing states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In a matchup between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, Mr. Biden trailed Mr. Trump by an average of 5 points in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The outliers were Nevada – where the poll indicated that Mr. Biden trailed Mr. Trump by a whopping 11 points – and Wisconsin, where Mr. Biden was leading Mr. Trump by 2. I actually have less faith in the accuracy of outliers than in the rest; it’s hard to believe that Mr. Biden is trailing by double digits in a state he won in 2020, and speaking as a Wisconsin resident, Mr. Trump fared better in the Badger State on Election Day in both 2016 and 2020 than preliminary polls indicated he would. Averaging the two outliers together, I would venture that Mr. Biden is currently trailing Mr. Trump by about 5 points in all the polled swing states. If one asserts that a majority of citizens will be concerned enough in the ballot box about preserving democracy or the emotive issue of abortion for Mr. Biden to overcome the apparent difference, I would counter: the Times/Sienna poll shows Mr. Trump beating Mr. Biden by double digits on the Economy, the Israeli/Hamas conflict, National Security, and Immigration – the first three findings inexplicable to me, but it is what it is — so Mr. Biden’s relatively lesser overall deficit to Mr. Trump in these states arguably indicates that Mr. Biden’s advantages on democracy and women’s reproductive rights are already baked into the candidates’ top line numbers.

Given Mr. Biden’s effective – I would go so far as to say, save his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, top-tier — performance in office, a reasonable observer in a vacuum would presumably find the poll results perplexing. Given our real-world hyper-toxic environment and the virulent effectiveness of the alt-right propaganda machine, I confess that I didn’t find them much of a surprise, although — judging by the thinly-veiled hand wringing by liberal talking heads I’ve seen since they were published – they were apparently a shock among some liberal political professionals and pundits.

Hearkening back to President Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 remarks recently quoted in these pages, which he uttered in circumstances in some ways completely different on the surface from, while in other ways strikingly similar at their core to, those we face today: it’s now tenably clear “where we are, and whither we are tending”; it’s time to “judge what to do, and how to do it [Emphasis Mr. Lincoln’s].”

Mr. Biden’s subjective challenge lies in a telling characteristic of the voters he needs to retain the presidency: they are engaging in critical thinking. His doddering bearing and concerns about his continued health for another six years is an aspect that even those favorably disposed toward him are weighing. (I would suggest that those pointing out the relatively small difference in the ages of Messrs. Biden and Trump are missing a key psychological factor: on Election Day 2024, of the two only Mr. Biden will have turned … 80. Then Republican Party Presidential Nominee Ronald Reagan first challenged the 70 barrier 43 years ago, and even in an electorate that had thereafter become conditioned by Mr. Reagan’s age, Mr. Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were considered pretty old at 70 when they ran in 2016.) At the same time, the President has apparently lost support among some demographics he will need – minorities and the young – due to their perception that he hasn’t done enough for them (which I would submit is unfair, given the closely divided Congress with which he has had to deal). Open-minded citizens can be justifiably concerned about inflation, the southern border, or what have you, and those focusing on concrete issues rather than preserving democracy are apparently considering whether Mr. Trump might do better than Mr. Biden has done; although one may question their discernment, priorities, or approach, the point here is that they are thinking. Mr. Biden should already have surrogates out to persuade and reassure these critical electoral segments.

Without wishing to be too cavalier, I would suggest that Mr. Trump’s supporters have willingly suspended their capacity for critical thought with regard to his candidacy. Even if one wants to institute an American Apartheid, one might logically conclude that MAGA FL Gov. Ron DeSantis, while boring, has the same instincts as Mr. Trump but stirs less enmity, and thus arguably has a better chance to win swing state swing voters to win the general election. Mr. Trump’s cult nevertheless clings to him.

Irish Poet William Butler Yeats seemingly summed up Messrs. Biden’s and Trump’s current relative positions in verses of “The Second Coming,” published in November, 1920:

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”

Mr. Biden’s risk is erosion; his support is subject to apathy and doubt. (His turnout will be boosted in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania if, as I have seen reported, there are abortion rights measures on the 2024 ballot in these states.) Mr. Trump’s challenge is addition; his supporters are an unbreakable bulwark, but those voters who detest him have such antipathy for him that he will never gain their support. The issue is whether Mr. Biden’s support will erode in the swing states to the point that Mr. Trump’s militant support overtakes it.

In a note a while back suggesting what Mr. Biden should do to retain his office, I offered:

“ … [S]tick to the knitting. … Recall that Mr. Biden entered the 2020 race with the avowed strategy of retaining all of the [Electoral College] votes that [Ms.] Clinton had won in 2016, and adding the EC votes of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin … He succeeded in that endeavor, while surprisingly (at least to me) winning Arizona and Georgia as well. These latter two states gave Mr. Biden some breathing room against Mr. Trump’s subsequent seditious lies about election integrity, but weren’t numerically necessary to win the White House. Mr. Biden and his team need to focus their efforts on the swing states they are most likely to win …”

Something I didn’t focus on then, but am now: the effect of the 2020 Census. On net, the states Mr. Biden won in 2020 have lost 3 Electoral College votes, while the states Mr. Trump won have correspondingly gained 3 Electoral College votes. In 2020, it would have made no difference; Mr. Biden would have prevailed 303 – 235 rather than 306 – 232. However, if in 2024 Mr. Biden were to lose Arizona (11) and Georgia (16) – potential outcomes which today, a handicapper has to take seriously – his margin shrinks to 276. If he loses Nevada (6), it shrinks to 270 – literally the minimum. There is no margin for error in a contest that seems destined to be determined by courts or partisan legislatures.

I’ll test neither my arithmetical expertise nor your patience by attempting to scope out all of the potential Electoral College outcomes (if I could do math, I might not have gone into law 😉 ). That said, I suspect that if Archimedes, the “Father of Mathematics,” born in Sicily in 287 B.C., was here today and surveyed Mr. Biden’s challenge, he’d advise: “Winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin is not enough. Nevada, even if you hold it, is too small to make a difference. You need a bigger buffer.” Recall that of the seven states with the closest margins in 2020, only one was a Trump state: Mr. Trump won North Carolina (15 Electoral College votes) by 1.4%. The Times/Sienna poll did not include the candidates’ current standing in the Tar Heel State. I am encouraged by reports that the Biden Campaign is starting to make significant effort in North Carolina. I think the President needs North Carolina; other 2020 Trump states seem beyond his reach.

Finally, a note of frustration: Mr. Biden and his team seemingly remain focused on trying to win the election by reminding voters about their accomplishments. I’ve seen a recent report indicating that the Biden Team has thus far spent millions on ads touting its achievements, and only about one hundred thousand dollars on negative ads about Mr. Trump. I’m just a retired Midwest blogger and they’re political pros, but if this report was accurate, their current strategy is political malpractice. If they stick to it, Mr. Biden will lose. It is beyond dispute that negative ads work; the Biden Campaign needs to place its overwhelming emphasis on pounding Mr. Trump in the swing states. Its reported “emphasize the positive” strategy has brought to my mind the legendary Hall of Fame Major League Manager Casey Stengel, who, after winning seven World Championships and 10 pennants with the New York Yankees, took over the helm of the expansion New York Mets. If Mr. Stengel was here today and reviewed the state of the Biden Campaign efforts to date, he’d moan as he did in the midst of the Mets’ 42-120 season in 1962: “Can’t anyone here play this game?”