On Henry Kissinger

As all who care are aware, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger passed away on November 29 at the age of 100. Mr. Kissinger was appointed National Security Advisor by former President Richard Nixon in 1969, and Mr. Nixon named him U.S. Secretary of State in 1973. To list Sec. Kissinger’s accomplishments here would be a waste of your time; in the coming days there will be a legion of sources that will describe these for those who wish a review. I consider Mr. Kissinger to be the second finest American foreign policy mind of the last half century – behind only Mr. Nixon himself. Mr. Kissinger was a practitioner of Realpolitik – pragmatically seeing the world as it is, and advocating for those policies designed to preserve or improve America’s position in ever-shifting global landscape. (Perhaps I feel the way I do about Mr. Kissinger’s approach because his philosophy toward foreign policy was essentially the same as I would submit must be maintained by an able transaction lawyer – you don’t expect the perfect outcome; you manage within the variables you have to achieve the best outcome you can under the existing circumstances.) He believed in maintaining stability – a structured world order. Many accurately criticize him for heavily prioritizing, in deed if not in word, positions that he perceived as maintaining American strategic interests while placing significantly lesser emphasis on (if not ignoring) human rights transgressions by our less-savory allies as well as our adversaries. I would counter that when you are the world’s preeminent super power, stability is your friend, instability your enemy. Executing upon such a philosophy is not the most humanitarian, but is arguably the only approach that enables America – which has been and as of today remains, whatever our shortcomings, the foremost democracy and bulwark of freedom in the history of the world — to maintain its standing in a world run by ambitious, flawed and frequently malign humans.

Messrs. Nixon and Kissinger got the primary strategic foreign policy challenge of their age – which I consider to be China, not Vietnam – right. Despite the depth of Cold War rhetoric and atmosphere, they recognized that China’s Chairman Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai had come to fear the power of the U.S.S.R. on China’s border more than they feared America – and that America could leverage this Chinese concern to tilt the balance of world power further toward the U.S. and away from the U.S.S.R. I would submit that former President Ronald Reagan’s later direct and more bellicose approach toward the U.S.S.R., ultimately resulting in its dismantling, would not have succeeded but for the groundwork laid by Messrs. Nixon and Kissinger. I agree with the assertion that it was Mr. Kissinger’s worldwide prestige that kept American foreign policy on an even keel as the nation went through the trauma of Watergate. At the same time, Messrs. Nixon’s and Kissinger’s handling of the Vietnam conflict obviously remains controversial; I have heard commentators opine that they “widened the war” by bombing and ultimately invading North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia. It is undisputed that the American bombing left devastation; untold numbers of undetonated bombs embedded in Cambodian soil continue to maim Cambodians. (This was brought home to us over a decade ago when we visited our son, a Peace Corps volunteer stationed in Cambodia.) It is also undisputed that American troop levels in Vietnam sharply declined during every year of the Nixon presidency.

As anyone who ever heard Mr. Kissinger speak – which includes almost all of us who have lived in the western world for the last 50 years — is well aware: this brilliant strategist was a German immigrant, whose Jewish family only came to this country in order to escape Nazi persecution. His passing again causes one to reflect upon the intellectual capital that this country, our children and grandchildren may sorely lose out on in the future because the xenophobia now infecting so many of our citizens is resulting in the exclusion of immigrants fleeing persecution in their native lands who would, if allowed, enthusiastically enrich our nation.

About a year ago, I entered a note in these pages, entitled, “Our Most Influential American Non-Presidents Since World War II,” describing the contributions of 15 Americans from Muhammad Ali to Mark Zuckerberg (not all the characterizations were positive 😉 ). I remember considering but ultimately excluding Mr. Kissinger from the list because I didn’t want the group to be too heavily weighted toward my interest in public policy and politics. I ended the piece with the query, “Who did I miss?”

Now, I answer my own question: I missed Henry Kissinger.

May this great – certainly not perfect, but unquestionably great — American rest in peace.

A Gentleman in Moscow

I don’t read much fiction, and when I do, it’s most often a return to the stories of my youth – the Bond adventures, the mysteries of Agatha Christie and Rex Stout. Even so, a while ago a friend gave me A Gentleman in Moscow, a novel by Amor Towles, the account of the life of the Count Alexander Ilyich Rostov, a member of the Russian aristocracy who by happenstance is sentenced to house arrest for life in the most prestigious hotel in Moscow (rather than being shot like the majority of his station) when the Bolsheviks take over Russia. The Count is one of the most charming fictional characters I’ve ever encountered, a gentleman of taste, tact, and refinement. If you have the life space, I heartily recommend the book.

This summer, I posted a note, “Honorifics and Beyond,” in which I lamented the Wall Street Journal’s then-recent decision to dispense with honorifics – courtesy titles such as “Mr.” and “Ms.” – in its news pages. I indicated then and believe now that the Journal’s decision was simply a bow to a cruder culture.

Perhaps our friend provided me the book in part because the Count had sentiments similar to mine as he faced a transition early in his house arrest:

“‘It has been brought to my attention,’ the [hotel] manager continued, if somewhat haltingly, ‘that various members of the staff when speaking to you … have continued to make use of certain … honorifics.’

‘Honorifics?’

‘Yes. More precisely, I gather they have been addressing you as Your Excellency …’

The Count considered the manager’s assertion for a moment.

‘Well, yes. I suppose that some of your staff address me in that fashion.’

The manager nodded his head then smiled a little sadly.

‘I’m sure you can see the position that this puts me in.’

In point of fact, the Count could not see the position that this put the manager in. But given the Count’s unmitigated feelings of sympathy, he decidedly did not want to put him in any position. So, he listened attentively as [the manager] went on:

…

‘Naturally, I have little choice but to insist that my staff refrain from using such terms when addressing you. After all, I think we can agree without exaggeration or fear of contradiction that the times have changed.’

In concluding thus, the manager looked to the Count so hopefully that the Count took immediate pains to reassure him.

‘It is the business of the times to change. And it is the business of gentlemen to change with them.’

The manager looked to the Count with an expression of profound gratitude – that someone should understand what he had said so perfectly no further explication was required.

…

Your Excellency, the Count [later] reflected philosophically. Your Eminence, Your Holiness, Your Highness. Once upon a time, the use of such terms was a reliable indication that one was in a civilized country …

Here, the Count gave an indefinite twirl of the hand.

‘Well. It is probably for the best,’ he said.

…

For the times do, in fact, change. They change relentlessly. Inevitably. Inventively. … [Emphasis in Original].”

The fictional Count was largely correct; it is the business of gentlemen (and ladies 🙂 ) to change with the times, and the times do change relentlessly, inevitably, and inventively. I obviously concur with his reflection that the use of honorifics provides a reassuring indicator that one is in a civilized country. But I would respectfully question his conclusion that change – at least in all instances – is probably for the best.

Thus endeth this pontification 😉 . May you be able to embrace the Holiday Season upon us.

May Each of Us Be the One

“And it came to pass as he was going to Jerusalem, that he was passing between Samaria and Galilee. And as he was entering a certain village, there met him ten lepers who stood afar off and lifted up their voice, crying, ‘Jesus, Master, have pity on us.’ And when he saw them he said, ‘Go, show yourselves to the priests.’ And it came to pass as they were on their way, that they were made clean. But one of them, seeing that he was made clean, returned, with a loud voice glorifying God, and he fell on his face at [Jesus’] feet, giving thanks; and he was a Samaritan.

But Jesus answered and said, ‘Were not the ten made clean? But where are the nine? Has no one been found to return and give glory to God except this foreigner?’ And he said to him, ‘Arise, go thy way, for thy faith has saved thee.’”

The Gospel of Luke, 17: 11 – 16

As we approach this national day of Thanksgiving, we are in turmoil within our borders and across the world. One cannot dispute that many within our human race – victims of war, persecution, hate, natural disaster, accident, famine, poverty, homelessness, disease, loneliness – might see little to feel thankful for. At the same time, I would respectfully submit that most of those who read these pages have much for which to give thanks. It is, regrettably, human nature to focus on the difficult, to take the good for granted — to be among the nine. Something happened recently that underscored for me that one should never lose sight of how precious and yet fleeting the gift of life can be, that one should never take his/her blessings for granted. On our national day of Thanksgiving, may each of us … be the one. May we pause to be thankful for all of our gifts, and hug all of the loved ones whose company we are blessed to share this Holiday.

Happy Thanksgiving.

An Indicator and a Warning

On November 18, 2023, men wearing red shirts indicating that they were members of a neo-Nazi white supremacist group, the Blood Tribe, and almost all wearing masks, marched in and around downtown Madison, Wisconsin’s capital, carrying swastika flags and reportedly chanting, “There will be blood.” (You can find images online; Twitter blocked the links I attempted to add here.)

One might find it as pathetic as terrifying that twenty guys – so brave and proud of their beliefs that they hid their identities, on a day when it was sunny and not too cold; no one wants to be a wet or frozen fascist – strutted through the U.S. city that may be the most liberal between the coasts.

It’s still an indicator. It’s still a warning.

I am not aware that any violence was wrought by or upon the marchers. Although they may have hoped to incite a violent reaction from onlookers by parading through Madison, I would guess that violence was not the group’s intention, at least this time. It was simply to secure a square on the board, to establish a presence, to enter a preliminary gesture of menace, of intimidation. We can unfortunately be confident that this won’t be the last such overture, by this group and others, here or elsewhere.

One can have reservations about how diligently Israel, the nation-state, has tried to protect the safety of Palestinian civilians while defending itself and its citizens against the Hamas terrorist group. I suspect that these Neo-Nazis aren’t even aware of the dangers currently faced by innocent Palestinians; they hate Muslims as much as they hate Jews. The Israeli-Hamas conflict has simply provided them a pretext to come out of their holes.

I truly believe that the vast majority of the American people are well-meaning, although some lack perspective. May the overt acts by malign groups that we will inevitably see over the next year cause those of our well-intentioned citizens who are uncertain as to the best direction for our nation, due to sincere misgivings about what they perceive as progressives’ excesses, to recognize that democracy and humanity are more important than policy differences or cultural emphases, and that the actions of these hate groups – and those politicians and political groups who encourage them — must be confronted legally — but with all our strength.

An Admittedly Conflicted View on Civilian Casualties in War

My father enlisted in the Marines right after Pearl Harbor, was a participant in the Battles of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima, was promoted for his service to his country and decorated for bravery. The Marines were then and are now rightly celebrated in American lore for their courage and esprit de corps. He, along with millions of others, left the American military for good in 1946. Anybody who knows a Marine won’t be a bit surprised to hear that although I never served in the military, part of my rearing included an imprinting that all branches of the military are to be respected, but at bottom, there are the Marines … and then there’s everybody else.

Even so, but for a couple of humorous stories – mostly about brawls in bars between Marines and sailors while on leave – he never talked about the war. Never. Except once.

I recall him standing in front of our black-and-white TV, watching the network coverage of what is now known as the My Lai Massacre, a March, 1968, incident in which American soldiers commanded by Platoon Leader Lt. William Calley, who had been ordered to undertake a search and destroy mission, killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese men, women, and children in the village of My Lai.

As my father stood watching the coverage of the prosecution of Lt. Calley, he was shaking his head in disbelief – I realized not at what had been done to the villagers, but at the Lieutenant’s prosecution. He said in an even tone – not soft, not loud; I think more to himself than to me – “When you’re ordered to clear an area out, you clear the area out.”

Infer from that – and consider whatever you infer from that – as you will. Having never been near a battlefield, I don’t consider my own reflections worth much. During the Second World War, the Marines were engaged in a death struggle against an unyielding enemy to defend freedom. War is messy; there is little time for deliberation; events spin. Were all actions undertaken in that just cause warranted – or at least defensible — or not?

Almost always when I publish a note in these pages, I have concluded – wisely or misguidedly – where I stand on an issue. When it comes to the justification for inflicting civilian casualties as part of a war effort, I am uncertain.

Hamas’ attack on Israeli civilians on October 7 was horrific. (As shocking to me have been the breadth of overt anti-Semitic and Islamophobic sentiments and violent incidents it unleashed around the western world; the attack ripped off a thin veneer of tolerance, exposing a depth of widespread religious bigotry in the democracies that I — clearly living in my own oblivious Ivory Tower — had not recognized.) Hamas must be condemned in the most unequivocal terms; it is a Palestinian terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel, has done little to help civilian Palestinians during its almost two-decade control of the Gaza Strip, and employs Palestinian civilians and humanitarian facilities as shields in its assaults on Israel. Israel has a right to defend its existence and its citizens – which now appears to mean destroying Hamas — and given Hamas’ modus operandi, such Israeli efforts are necessarily going to result in civilian Palestinian casualties. At the same time, Israel has significantly expanded its control over the last 70 years into land intended by the international community to be inhabited and controlled by Palestinians when Israel was founded. Although much of this expansion occurred not because Israel attacked, but because it was attacked, it has maintained its de facto grip over Palestinian lands because … it can, and such has suited Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu’s political purposes. Before the current conflict, human rights groups had been referring to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank as apartheid. It is not anti-Semitism to suggest — using the Biden Administration, a clear friend of Israel, as the arbiter — that in its assaults, Israel has not been particularly discriminating about protecting Palestinian civilians.

Our acquiescence to civilian casualties may be determined by our view of the virtue of the cause in which they are inflicted and their necessity to achieve victory. Such does not expunge the fact that cruel and unfair consequences can be inflicted upon noncombatants even in the pursuit of a just cause. Christianity, and likely many other faiths, holds that protection of the innocent is paramount. The reality of the flawed human condition makes clear that always prioritizing compassion would lead to subjugation of more peoples by the malignant – ultimately resulting in the maltreatment of a wider set of victims.

Union General William Tecumseh Sherman’s 1864 “scorched earth” march to the sea was a major part of subduing the South and thus preserving the Union and abolishing slavery. At the same time:

“Sherman had terrorized the countryside; his men had destroyed all sources of food and forage and had left behind a hungry and demoralized people. … Sherman … burned or captured all the food stores that Georgians had saved for the winter months. As a result of the hardships on women and children, desertions increased in Robert E. Lee’s army in Virginia. Sherman believed his campaign against civilians would shorten the war by breaking the Confederate will to fight ….”

Anne Bailey, “Sherman’s March to the Sea,” New Georgia Encyclopedia

Despite Gen. Sherman’s fearsome deeds and reputation, he understood the malign nature of war, but clearly felt that some causes were worth the devastation needed to bring them about.

“War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it … You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it …”

Gen. Sherman, in a letter to James M. Calhoun, Mayor, E.E. Rawson, S.C. Wells, representing City Council of Atlanta, September 12, 1864.

If there has been a more monstrous atrocity in human history than the Nazis’ systematic slaughter of the Jews, I’m not aware of it. Allied forces were obviously justified in contesting the Nazis and their allies with all of their strength and means. At the same time, a young friend recently reminded me of the American and British bombing of the German city of Dresden in February, 1945, that killed tens of thousands of civilians in a manufacturing city whose resources the Allies believed – in retrospect, apparently erroneously — that the Third Reich could effectively employ to mount a counteroffensive against our D-Day invasion. Were the Allies’ efforts excusable? I would say yes. Were the civilian casualties wrought commendable? Obviously not.

The U.S. military estimated in the late 1940s that over 100,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions. Others place the total of dead closer to 200,000. A significant number of these were necessarily civilian. At the same time, President Truman indicated in a letter in January, 1953, that Gen. George Marshall told him prior to dropping the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima “that such an invasion would cost at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone.” Faced with that kind of an estimate, if advising the President I would have supported using the Bomb. Others would vehemently disagree, then and now.

We condemn the slaughter of Ukrainians civilians in Russia’s war of aggression. At the same time, would we denounce Ukrainian operations against Russian civilians if such losses seemed likely to turn Russian public opinion against Putin’s war? I’ll leave that one to you.

Increasing civilian casualties are a fact of modern war and technological weaponry. They are not going to stop. It is for one to ponder whether — and if so, when, and to what extent — these human tragedies are worth what is gained. Americans should be more aware than they appear to be that they have the luxury – at least at present — of considering such philosophical issues from their armchairs. Much of the world is not so fortunate. It is those fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, and sisters and brothers whose lives are collateral sacrifice to the designs of others.

“Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you destroy the good with the wicked? If there be fifty just men in the city, will you then destroy the place and not spare it for the sake of the fifty just men within it?’ … And the Lord said, ‘If I find that there are fifty just men in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.’”

The Book of Genesis, 18: 24, 26. It is little noted when this passage and the subsequent exchanges between Abraham and the Almighty are read in Christian churches that although the Lord God did allow the just Lot, his wife and daughters to escape, He ultimately did destroy the city and its inhabitants.

There is obviously no ray of enlightenment in this note.

“All cats are grey in the dark.”

Musing by the fictional James Bond; Ian Fleming, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

A Twitter Post: a Postscript

My apologies for disturbing you on consecutive days, but … I can’t resist. In the last few days much has been made in the mainstream media as well as in yesterday’s post linking former President Donald Trump’s use of words and phrases describing Mr. Trump’s opponents – principally among them, the word, “vermin” — to the words and phrases used by Fascist Nazi Fuhrer Adolf Hitler during the 1930s to depersonalize Hitler’s opponents. On his social media platform, Mr. Trump referred to his opponents (whom he clearly sees as enemies) as “Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”

During the day’s endeavors following yesterday’s post, I happened to see a report of a Trump Spokesman’s response to the outcry about Mr. Trump’s use of frankly fascist language, but I dismissed and ignored it because I really thought it was a spoof like many others one sees in liberal quarters to mock the former President. Particularly given the substance of the sharp criticism being leveled against Mr. Trump, I didn’t think anyone on the Trump team would actually be dumb enough to say what was being reported as its response — the irony would be too think, even for MAGAs.

I was wrong. It was real. For those who missed it:

“Those who try to make that ridiculous assertion [comparing Mr. Trump’s rhetoric to that of Hitler] are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House [Emphasis Added].”

We’ll come back to the breadth of Mr. Trump’s characterization of his opponents as a component of a future post. Noting the blindingly oblivious fascist irony is sufficient for today.

A Twitter Post

This recently passed through my Twitter feed. It is perhaps the ugliest, most upsetting, and yet most apt entry I have ever published in these pages. I have never heard of Mr. Parkhomenko, but feel that this is worthy of your attention.

This is worth sharing with family, friends and neighbors this holiday season pic.twitter.com/O5JLXaM4AH
— Adam Parkhomenko (@AdamParkhomenko) November 13, 2023

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?”

MAGA Branding … and a Viewer Alert

It was only after a recent note published in these pages regarding U.S. LA Rep. Mike Johnson’s election as Speaker of the House of Representatives that the significance of one aspect of former President Donald Trump’s triumphant social media declaration about Mr. Johnson’s selection occurred to me: in referring to Mr. Johnson as, “MAGA MIKE JOHNSON [my italics],” Mr. Trump made no reference to Mr. Johnson being a Republican. I would venture that this omission was understandable and perhaps intentional. Mr. Trump has an acute understanding of branding, and MAGA has become the brand for Mr. Trump’s political organization. MAGAs are now so far from the principles of the Republican Party of Presidents Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon (recall that Mr. Nixon arguably had grounds to contest the 1960 presidential election outcome, and chose not to do so in order to maintain national stability), Ford, Reagan and Bushes that it is no longer accurate to refer to Mr. Trump’s supporters as “Republicans.” Members of the Trump Sect shall hereafter be referred to in these pages strictly as “MAGAs.” What this political transition augurs for those that are, indeed, still Republicans is likely to be the stuff of a future post.

On a personal note: I have posted less over the last six months than in previous years; one major factor has been a desire to be respectful of your time. It is obvious to anyone reading the majority of these notes in recent months that I have become fixed – perhaps fixated 😉 — on the rising authoritarian shift in our country brought about by the MAGA movement. It is the most perilous threat to the existence of democracy on our planet since the rise of Adolf Hitler. Even so, how many times can one impose on those who have done a blog the honor of following it by repeating in different ways the same message: that while Mr. Trump and elected MAGAs are the venomous tip of the spear, the truly dangerous poison in our national psyche is that so many of our citizens either embrace it or abide it?

Given my level of alarm at the current sentiment within our polity and given the cathartic benefit these pages provide me, I am very likely to continue with the same theme at regular intervals between now and Election Day in November, 2024. Your time is valuable; these notes many not warrant your attention.

Now my Irish Catholic conscience can rest 🙂 .

Mr. Lincoln on Our Current Political State

“MAGA MIKE JOHNSON”

Post by former President Donald Trump on his social media website, Truth Social.

Credible polling data indicates that over 40% of our citizens – not a fringe minority that can be comfortably ignored — have expressed a willingness to vote for Mr. Trump if he is the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nominee. Republicans in the United States House of Representatives have elected U.S. LA Rep. Mike Johnson, whom I have seen described as, “[MAGA U.S. OH Rep.] Jim Jordan wearing a coat” and “a primary architect of the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election,” as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mr. Johnson’s selection makes him, by law, second in succession to the presidency of the United States.

Long time readers of these pages may recall that way back, when Mr. Trump nominated William Barr to be his Attorney General, I indicated that we needed to give Mr. Barr a chance to see how he performed in office before declaring him Mr. Trump’s lackey.

We saw how that turned out. I don’t care if Mr. Johnson is milder in manner than Messrs. Trump and Jordan or many in their cohort. We no longer have the luxury of giving MAGAs the benefit of the doubt. Say whatever else you will about them: they make their intentions plain. They intend to institute an American Apartheid.

What is set forth below is the renowned part of one of Abraham Lincoln’s most renowned addresses, delivered on June 16, 1858, in Springfield, Illinois, over two years before he assumed the presidency. Several preliminary notes:

The italics in the passage are as they appear in the text of Mr. Lincoln’s address in the volume from which it is drawn; presumably, he had underscored them to be sure that he emphasized them as he spoke.

In his speech, Mr. Lincoln provided no attribution for the quote, “A house divided,” presumably expecting that his listeners would understand his allusion to the Gospel of Matthew, 12:25.

I have substituted for only three words Mr. Lincoln declared 165 years ago. As you read the speech, I expect that you’ll readily discern what three words I inserted – one of which is italicized, since it replaces a word Mr. Lincoln underscored in his remarks — and what three words my substitutions replaced.

“Mr. PRESIDENT and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to fascism agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half fascist and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect that it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Either the opponents of fascism, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?”

You get it. One could argue that Mr. Lincoln’s words (as modified herein) have chillingly broader implications for our entire democracy today than they did even in the toxic circumstances in which they were uttered. (Despite the South’s outrage at Mr. Lincoln’s election to the presidency in 1860 and its consequent attempt to secede from the Union, nobody claimed that the election outcome was “rigged,” or stormed the Capitol.)

Since we are able, in Mr. Lincoln’s words, to determine “where we are, and whither we are tending,” I would submit that we must, as he suggested, “judge what to do, and how to do it.”

All that read these pages are well aware of the deep misgivings I have about Vice President Kamala Harris’ substantive readiness to assume the presidency. That said, I am tired of democrats’ (small “d”) lack of imagination about the forces they face. As long as Mr. Johnson holds the House Speakership, President Joe Biden and Ms. Harris should never – never – allow themselves be in the same place at the same time.

As to our future: Are enough of our people sufficiently motivated to exert all legal (this qualification is vital; otherwise, neither side is better than the other) measures to protect our democracy?