Monday, August 26, 2024

Speaking of Which

File opened Wednesday, August 21, 10:10 pm, night three of the Democratic National Convention, which as usual I didn't watch a minute of (although I may have overheard bits my wife watched, but she didn't watch much, either). I did watch the replays on Steven Colbert Live, except for Monday, when the delays wiped out the DVR. As the section below shows, I collected a fair representation of writing, which for my purposes more than suffices.

I did overhear a bit of RFK Jr.'s end-of-campaign speech on Friday, but didn't stick around for the punch line, so I was a bit taken aback to read later that he had endorsed Trump. I had read rumors to that effect earlier, but what I heard of the speech didn't inexorably lead to that conclusion. Before the speech, I had collected two links to speculative Ed Kilgore pieces, which are retained below, along with various post-speech takes.

I speculated last week that the DNC would be a splendid time for Biden to deliver on his mini-ceasefire hostage deal, but Netanyahu -- ever the GOP partisan -- managed to scotch even a proposal that was so tantamount to surrender that Hamas could still be blamed. In the end, the DNC's herculean efforts at damage control sufficed: the street protests happened, but got scant notice; the "uncommitted" delegates pressed, but were brushed aside; several "progressives" trusted enough to speak (notably Bernie Sanders) showed that the party welcomes their concerns within its unity of good feelings; and the keynoters reminded us that Israel lobby still commands the Party's deepest loyalty, while reserving the right to tailor the propaganda line to a constituency increasingly uncomfortable with the news.

That there was little meaningful dissent was a tribute to two things: the extent to which the menace of Donald Trump has united all Democrats, and the new sense of excitement that Kamala Harris has brought in erasing the doldrums of the Biden candidacy, as the keywords moved from good vibes to outright joy. Even the inertia-bound polls have started to move. One thing the DNC was not was democratic, but we've been spoon-fed bitter gruel for decades now, compared to which this exercise in elitocracy felt positively nourishing. While the Party elites haven't actually ceded any power, for the first time in ages -- we can now admit Obama's "yes we can" as a cynical advertising campaign -- they have let up on their prime directive of "managing expectations," and have (at least briefly) allowed democrats to consider the possibility that their hopes and desires might finally matter.

I don't doubt that post-November they'll struggle to push the genie of democracy back into the bottle. The Harris cabinet will be recruited from the usual suspects -- although they will have to pass a gauntlet of lingering "we won't go back" sentiments. (It is worth noting that some of the worst lingering tastes of the Obama administration, like Larry Summers, didn't get invited back -- even Rahm Emmanuel had to settle for an ambassadorship.) Moreover, Harris is likely to know that Democrats can't survive on spoils and cronyism alone. Democrats are increasingly demanding tangible results. And while the influence of money makes that hard, and often steers change in peculiar directions, that understanding isn't going to go away easily.

I got to Sunday evening with about 180 links and 9200 words, with maybe 80% of my usual sources checked. I wrote the above introduction when I got up Monday, and should wrap this up not too late evening, assuming I can avoid backtracking and breaking news.

PS: Gave up working on this after midnight, and decided to go ahead and post. Good chance for some Tuesday updates, but not much (I hope). I need to move on to Music Week, and some other long-delayed work.

Top story threads:

Israel:

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

Israel vs. world opinion:

Democratic National Convention:

The DNC was held in Chicago last week, Monday through Thursday, four tightly-scripted nights of prime-time infotainment. Given its prominence, this week we'll move the Democrats ahead of similar sections on Republicans, and push "Election notes" even further down. Also, some pieces specifically on Harris or Walz have been relegated to their sections.

  • Intelligencer Staff:

  • Kate Aronoff: The Democrats are running scared from the most important fights: "At its convention this week, the party largely avoided two crises that are the cause of mass suffering: climate change and Israel's war in Gaza."

  • Ben Burgis: [08-23] Shawn Fain has been a light in the darkness: "UAW president Shawn Fain's speech was the best part of the DNC. It featured a direct focus on workers otherwise absent from party rhetoric, and sidestepped the culture wars to identify the 'one true enemy' of corporate power."

  • Jonathan Chait:

    • [08-22] Kamala Harris gave the best acceptance speech I've ever seen: "A perfectly targeted message." Evidently the target was Chait. How useful that was remains to be seen. But given how many things Chait misunderstands, it's possible to satisfy him and still make sense to other people. Just to pick out one bit:

      Harris labeled her economic goal "an opportunity economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed." The notion of opportunity, with its implication that people should control their own economic destiny, has long been a conservative one. Harris stole it.

      The magic word here isn't "opportunity" but "everyone." The only opportunity conservatives offer is to fail, which matters to them because their beloved hierarchy is built on the backs of failures -- usually because the system is so rigged in the first place. Offering opportunity to everyone is a classically liberal idea, but actually achieving it is only something the left would dare attempt. How far Harris will go not just to permit opportunity but to nurture and sustain it remains to be seen. But that she offered the word "everyone" suggests that she will not be satisfied with the conservative game of failing all but the master class.

    • [08-23] Kamala Harris understood the assignment: "The convention shows how to re-create the Obama formula." Given that "the Obama formula" lost Congress, weakening the Democratic Party so severely that they wound up surrendering the presidency to Trump, that doesn't seem like much of a goal, much less an accomplishment. But the "assignment" was always a figment of Chait's imagination, his commitment to hopeless mediocrity and inaction shared by virtually nobody else. Still, I suppose it's good that he was willing to settle for whatever she offered him. But I suppose it wasn't a surprise, given how little he wants or expects:

      There is little point in selling the public on new liberal programs that a Republican-led Senate would ignore. . . . Harris's choice was to focus relentlessly on targeting the voters she needs to win 270 electoral votes, at the expense of fan service for progressives. . . . Alienating the left is not the point of these moves. It is simply the inevitable by-product. If you are targeting your message to the beliefs of the median voter, you are necessarily going to leave voters at the 99th percentile of the right-to-left spectrum feeling cold. The bitter complaints from the right that she is a fraud, and from the left that she is a sellout, are indications that Harris has calibrated her campaign perfectly.

    • But why does that perfect balance between charges of fraud and sellout sound so familiar? Like Hillary Clinton in 2016?

  • Jessica Corbett: [08-23] Working-class journalist's speech hailed as 'most radical' in DNC history: "John Russell urged Democrats to serve working Americans 'looking for a political home, after years of both parties putting profit above people.'"

  • David Dayen:

    • [08-23] Kamala Harris's DNC promises depend on filibuster reform: More basically, they depend on Democrats retaining control of the Senate, where they have an exceptionally difficult break this year, and on winning the House. They will need to be able to pass laws, over and against formidable lobbies, including laws that fight back against adverse court rulings, which are nearly certain to follow. Given the situation in the courts, it is unlikely that much can be done simply by executive order.

    • [08-22] Will the Senate take off the handcuffs?: "The Harris-Walz ticket and every Democrat are promising big things. But the filibuster makes that agenda impossible. Will they finally remove that barrier?" Possibly the same article as the one I cited before I noticed this source.

    • [08-27] A convention that placed image over detail: "What happens when the images break down?"

  • Liza Featherstone: [08-23] The 2024 Democratic Convention: More 1964 than 1968: "The media was obsessed with comparing this year's DNC to Chicago 1968. But given the party's rejection of the Uncommitted movement, Atlantic City 1964, when Democrats refused to seat Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, is more apt."

  • Luke Goldstein: [08-21] The convention nobody gets to see: "Many of the corporate-sponsored events, and even some that aren't, are locked down to the press."

  • Stanley B Greenberg: [08-23] The success of messaging at the DNC: "Democrats are hitting all the notes that have eluded them."

  • DD Guttenplan: [08-27] In "we're not going back!" Dems find an antidote to the politics of nostalgia: "Underneath the cliché that 'we're all in this together' lie harder truths that will need to be faced if Harris and Walz want to rally the nation for real change."

  • Patrick Iber:

    • [08-26] The unity convention: "The DNC showed a party that has successfully metabolized movement energy and insurgent campaigns while distancing from demands deemed harmful to its electoral prospects." This convention report was preceded by:

    • [07-18] A popular front, if you can keep it: "Biden claims he is remaining in the race because the threat of Trump is too great. That's the exact reason he should consider retiring."

    • [07-24] Kamala can win: "Hope will be an essential resource for her campaign. At her first raly, she succeeded in providing it."

  • Jake Johnson:

  • Susan Meiselas: [08-23] Images from inside (and outside) the DNC.

  • Heather Digby Parton: [08-23] The DNC did not unify Democrats. Donald Trump did that long before.

  • Bill Scher:

  • Grace Segers: [08-22] The DNC was a party. Now for the morning after. "It was a week of raucous enthusiasm and ear-bursting decibels. But the convention wasn't perfect. And the hard work of winning the election lies in wait."

  • Alex Shephard: [08-22] At the DNC, the Democrats are finally fighting: "With Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket, Democrats have rediscovered their partisan edge."

  • Jeffrey St Clair: [08-23] As I lay coughing: Watching the DNC with Covid and Faulkner.

  • Matthew Stevenson: [08-23] The Obamas sing songs of themselves.

  • Vox: I made fun of their soft lifestyle features last week, but this week they turned their whole crew loose at the DNC, for a smorgasbord of articles collected here, including:

  • Jada Yuan: [08-21] How DJ Cassidy turned the DNC roll call into a party for the ages.

  • Amy Zimet: [08-23] Isn't it moronic: America is ready for a better story. The DNC in memes, the title referring to a piece of Trumpist fodder warning that a Harris future would be "like being in a jail full of black inmates."

  • Israel, Gaza, and Genocide: Two stories here: the anti-genocide demonstrations organized around the convention, and the near-total blackout of any discussion of the issues inside the convention. I'm roping these stories off into their own sub-section: on the one hand, I believe that it is important to make people aware of the importance of the issue, and to impress on them the importance of changing US policy to weigh against the Israeli practice of war, genocide, and apartheid. On the other hand, I'm not terribly bothered that Democrats have chosen to compartmentalize this issue, to keep it from the rest of an agenda which offers much to be desired, above and beyond defense against far more ominous Republican prospects. And while I'm unhappy that their leaders have failed to act in any substantial way to restrain Israel, or even to dissociate themselves from support of genocide, I take some heart in the ambivalence and ambiguity they have sometimes shown, understanding as I do that peace is only possible when Israelis decide to become peaceful, and that behind-the-scenes diplomacy may be more effective in that regard than open-air protest. The latter, of course, is still critically necessary, to help nudge Israel's "friends" into such diplomacy, and should be supplemented with tangible pressure in the form of the BDS movement.

    • Michael Arria:

    • James Carden: [08-23] Kamala & Gaza: All words and no deeds make a divided party. This includes Harris's "full (brief) remarks on the issue," which I might as well also quote here:

      With respect to the war in Gaza, President Biden and I are working around the clock, because now is the time to get a hostage deal and a ceasefire deal done. And let me be clear: I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the war that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on October 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival.

      At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating so many innocent lives lost, desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again, the scale of suffering is heartbreaking. President Biden and I are working to end this war, such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self determination.

      This is carefully written to show solidarity with Israel without explicitly endorsing Israel's amply demonstrated aims and tactics, while holding out a bare minimum of hope for peace and justice (but, like, no pressure on Israel). The first obvious point is the omission of any recognition of the context of the Oct. 7 outbreak. In terms Harris might relate to, Hamas "didn't just fall out of a coconut tree." Hamas was first founded as a charitable foundation in 1987, but it was preceded by 20 years of Israeli military occupation, 20 more years of Egyptian proxy rule as a refuge for Palestinians who were uprooted in Israel's 1947-49 "war for independence," and for 30 more years by the UK, whose Lord Balfour declared arbitrarily that Palestine should be a "homeland for the Jewish people." Over that entire period, basic political, economic, and human rights in Gaza (and all over Palestine) have been systematically denied, so the "suffering" finally admitted isn't something new after Oct. 7 but the result of longstanding Israeli policy.

      A second obvious thing is that the ritual endorsement of "Israel's right to defend itself" has become a sick joke. I'm not sure that anyone has, or should have, such a right, but in Israel's case it has been applied so frivolously, to justify so much excessive and unnecessary force applied so widely, that it should be discounted altogether. I've come to see "self-defense" not as a right but as a common human reaction which may be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor. Once Hamas started fighting outside of Gaza, on "Israeli soil," few people would object to Israeli forces fighting back, even indiscriminately, until Hamas forces were repulsed. That, quite plausibly, could have been called self-defense. I could imagine better ways to respond, but at least that's within the meaning of the term. However, Israel didn't stop at the walls of Gaza. They went on to inflict enormous damage on all of Gaza, killing at least 40,000 Palestinians, rendering well over a million homeless, destroying resources necessary for human sustenance, adding to the incalculable psychic harm that they have been cultivating for many decades. While one might argue that some of the damage might deter future attacks, it is at least as plausible that it will inspire future attacks. We shouldn't even entertain such arguments. What Israel has done in the name of "self-defense" is monstrous and shameful. Even observers with deep affection for Israel, like Harris and Biden, should be able to see that. If they don't, we should seriously question their cognitive skills, their empathy, and their ability to reason.

      A third obvious thing is her choice to put "a hostage deal" ahead of a cease fire. It shows first that Biden and her value Israeli lives much more than they do Palestinian lives, which is unbecoming (for democrats, who profess to believe in equal rights and respect for all) but hardly surprising (for Democrats). (By the way, note that Netanyahu seems to value Israeli lives -- that of the hostages, anyway -- less than he does Palestinians in prison or dead.) More importantly, Israel doesn't need to negotiate a ceasefire deal. They can simply declare one -- perhaps with some proviso about how much return fire they will unleash each time Palestinians fire back. For that matter, they could have accepted Hamas's offer of a truce ("hudna") long before, and prevented the Oct. 7 attacks altogether. That they didn't shows that their interest all along was the devastation of Palestinian society and economy, which has nothing to do with self-defense.

      Fourth point is "working around the clock" is belied, perhaps not by the clock but by the evidence that nothing they've tried has worked. The obvious reason is that as long as they're giving Israel "blank check" support, Netanyahu has no reason to back away from his maximal war program. While I don't think Washington should go around ordering other countries how to do their business, there are times when one must express disapproval and withdraw favor, and this is one.

    • Juan Cole: [08-23] What you didn't hear at DNC: Israeli expulsion decrees disrupt last Gaza aid hub, jeopardizing aid workers, thousands of civilians.

    • Julia Conley: [08-19] Thousands kick off DNC with protest in Chicago over Gaza.

    • Rob Eshman: [08-23] Kamala Harris did the impossible, and said exactly the right thing about Israel and Gaza: "The Democratic candidate finally spoke about her position on Israel's war against Hamas -- and revealed her pragmatism." I voiced my disagreements with her speech above, but here let me note that I'm a bit touched that someone bought it, hook, line and sinker. I thought I recognized the author, so I searched and found I had cited him once before (back on June 2, in similar -- and thus far in vain -- praise for Democratic sagacity):

    • David Freedlander: [08-22] The convention that wasn't torn apart over Gaza: "Democrats packed a pro-Israel party, while the Palestinian side didn't even get a speaking slot."

    • Emma Janssen: [08-23] Uncommitted delegates denied a DNC speaker: "A sit-in outside the convention in protest and support from numerous elected officials did not succeed."

    • Adam Johnson:

      • [08-17] 4 talking points used to smear DNC protesters -- and why they're bogus: I think the fourth point here is basically true: "Harris can't support the activists' demands even if she wanted to. She's the vice president and must maintain President Biden's policies." I'm not sure what precedents there are for vice presidents breaking radically with presidents -- at least since early days when the VP could be a president's worst enemy (e.g., John Calhoun, twice) but it's generally bad form for any candidate to undermine an active president's foreign policy options (although Nixon and Reagan did it surrepetitiously). But also, if Harris wants to do something, wouldn't she have a better chance of working her plans through the Biden administration, rather than breaking with it?

      • [08-23] Celebrating at the DNC in a time of genocide.

    • Akela Lacy/Ali Gharib: Kamala Harris mentioned Palestinian suffering -- in the passive voice.

    • Joshua Leifer: [08-20] 'The Uncommitted movement did a service to the Democratic Party': "As the Democrats' convention begins, political strategist Waleed Shahid discusses the possibilities for shifting the party on Israel-Palestine."

    • Natasha Lennard: [08-20] Democratic Party united under banner of silence on Gaza genocide: "Progressives and moderates came together to support Kamala Harris by largely ignoring the most pressing moral issue of our time."

    • Branko Marcetic: [08-22] Palestinians received both harassment and support at the DNC.

    • Mitchell Plitnick: [08-23] Message from the DNC: The Democrats do not care about Palestinians: "The Democratic National Convention did not go well for supporters of Palestinian rights where Democrats were largely successful in burying their deep complicity in the Gaza genocide."

    • Hafiz Rashid: The black mark on the Democrats' big party: "Palestinian-Americans and their allies were left alienated by a convention that went out of its way to give them a slap in the face."

    • April Rubin: [08-22] Democrats refused to give Palestinian Americans DNC speaking slot.

    • Norman Solomon: [08-20] What got lost in the DNC's love fest for a lame duck.

Harris:

  • Frank Bruni: [08-22] Kamala Harris just showed she knows how to win.

  • John Cassidy: [08-26] Kamala Harris and the new Democratic economic paradigm: "At their Convention in Chicago last week, the Democrats looked like a party that is unusually united in its goals."

  • Jonathan Chait: [08-16] Kamala Harris's economic plan: good politics, meh policy: "It's hard to tell people they're wrong about inflation." Although Chait tries hard, mostly by bringing his own wrong-headed ideas about inflation.

  • Maureen Dowd: [08-23] Kamala came to slay.

  • Richard Fausset, et al.: [08-23] What voters outside the Democratic bubble thought of Harris's speech: Most interesting thing here is the lengths they (five authors here) have to go to find "out-of-bubble" voters, and how disconnected they are from anything resembling reality.

  • Katie Glueck: [08-24] Why Harris's barrier-breaking bid feels nothing like Hillary Clinton's. Maybe having multiple checklist identity groups seems like too much bother, but more likely she just seems like a real person, not some kind of idealized pathbreaking icon -- not that Clinton was all that ideal.

  • Fred Kaplan: [08-23] Trump should be very nervous about this part of Kamala Harris' DNC speech: "She's uniquely prepared to step up to the job of commander in chief." I don't know whether Trump is smart enough to grasp any of this, but it's making me nervous:

    Its emergence Thursday night was so striking that Wall Street Journal columnist (and former GOP speechwriter) Peggy Noonan [link below] complained that the Dems "stole traditional Republican themes (faith, patriotism) and claimed them as their own." Noonan misstates what's been happening in the era of Donald Trump. The fact is, the Republicans have abandoned those themes, and the Democrats -- who never rejected them -- are picking them up, with intensity, as part of a broad rescue mission. Democracy, freedom, equality, and community -- concepts so deeply embedded in American politics that their validity has long gone unquestioned -- are "on the ballot" in this election. The same is true of national security, and so the DNC's strategists elevated it too from a common cliché to a cherished value and vital interest under threat from the cult of personality surrounding Trump.

    Some quoted parts of the speech I find bone-chilling, like:

    • "As commander in chief, I will ensure America has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world."
    • "I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists. I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-un, who are rooting for Trump . . . They know Trump won't hold autocrats accountable because he wants to be an autocrat himself."
    • "I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself . . . At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating."
    • "I helped mobilize a global response -- over 50 countries -- to defend [Ukraine] against Putin's aggression."

    That gives her a score of about 85 on a scale of American cliché jingoism, but the admission on Gaza suggests that she can recognize facts and limits, so she might be willing to adjust to deal with them. I can't swear that she's free of the gratuitous hawkishness that Hillary Clinton overcompensated in. It may even be possible that she needs this armada of clichés to maintain her credibility when/if she does think better of some doomed trajectory that the rest of the blob is senselessly stuck on.

    As I must have made clear by now, I think that Biden's foreign policy has been a colossal mistake on nearly every front, and a disaster on many, with more potential disasters lined up as far as one can see. The whole paradigm needs a serious rethink, which is hard to see happening because everyone in a position to be consulted is there precisely because they've committed to the old, increasingly dysfunctional paradigm -- one that's been locked in by business and political interest groups (notably including Israel) that profit from the status quo, and profit even more when disaster strikes.

    I can see two ways to change. One is simply to back away from the strategies that have been failing and causing trouble -- let's call this (a). This approach will be ridiculed as "isolationism," but it could just as well be dressed up as Roosevelt's "good neighbor policy" -- just hold off the guns and judgment. The idea here is that if America gives up its global hegemon ambitions, other countries will follow suit, dramatically reducing the present tendencies for conflict. Conventional blob theorists hate this idea, and argue that any US retreat will result in a vacuum where "our enemies" will rush in to expand their hegemony.

    The (b) alternative to this is for the US to use its current dominant position as bargaining chips to negotiate military draw downs elsewhere and development of international organization to provide order and cooperation in place of power projection.

    Given a choice between politicians advocating (a) or (b), I'd go with (a), because it's simpler and clearer, both easier to state and to implement. The problem with (b) is that it involves misdirection and bluffing, and so is corrosive of trust. But (b) could be the better solution, if you have the patience and skill to see it through. Still, you don't have to do either/or. You can carve out sensible steps from column (a) and from column (b).

    I have little faith that someone as tightly integrated into the blobthink world as Harris seems to be will do either, but she might be just what's needed for (b). There is at least one historical example of a politician who was enough of an insider to gain power, but who then used that power to change direction radically. This was Mikhail Gorbachev. You can debate about how successful he was, and much more. And for sure, there's little reason to think Harris would (or could) pull a similar switch. But there is some similarity in the problems, and in the sclerotic thinking that made both cases seem so intractable.

    In any case, Harris is doing what she needs to do: she is reassuring the "deep state" powers that she can be trusted as one of them. Beyond that, all she has to do is show voters that she's smarter and more sensible than Trump. That's really not very hard to do. Hoping for more in the short period left before the election is rather foolish. She shouldn't risk stirring up potential opponents. Nor does she really need, say, a groundswell of pro-Palestinian support. All she has to do into November is stay better than Trump. Later on, of course, the situation will change. As president, she'll have to face and fix real problems, and not just the polling ones that have bedeviled others.

    • Peggy Noonan: [08-23] Kamala Harris gets off to a strong start: "Her DNC speech was fine, but the race remains a toss-up. It's all going to come down to policy." I originally had the Noonan link in situ above, but brought it down here to share the title and subhed, which are pretty funny.

    • Zack Beauchamp: [08-23] The moment when Kamala Harris's speech came alive: "The Democratic nominee got foreign policy -- and especially Israel-Palestine -- right." I found this after the Kaplan piece, which it largely recapitulates, so I dropped it in here. I've also talked about her Israel/Gaza take already (see James Carden).

  • Errol Louis: [08-24] Kamala Harris and the new politics of joy.

  • Carlos Lozada: [08-22] The shifting convictions of Kamala Harris. A former book review editor, goes back to her previous books: Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor's Plan to Make Us Safer (2009), and The Truths We Hold: An American Journey (2019), both written in times when her political horizons were expanding.

  • Jim Newell: [08-23] Kamala Harris showcased a quality at the DNC that Donald Trump never has.

  • Andrew Prokop: [08-23] Kamala Harris just revealed her formula for taking down Trump: "She cited three familiar issues -- but with new twists."

  • Greg Sargent: [08-23] Kamala's harsh takedown of Trump points the way to a post-MAGA America: "In her speech, the vice president made real overtures to non-Democrats. But she also insisted that we must reject MAGA Republicanism whole cloth." I don't particularly like this way of framing her pitch. As with most political ideas -- "MAGA" is short for Trumpism, hinting at something that might survive the demise of its author -- it contains a large amount of aspiration. You can pick and choose which bits of aspiration you want to discredit and which can be co-opted. Harris's "many olive branches to right-leaning independents and Republican voters" shows that she understands this, not that she's demanding "whole cloth" conversion. But easier than fighting the ideas of MAGA is driving a wedge between them and the vehicle, Trump. The clever way to do this is to adopts some ideals, and turn them back on a very deficient Trump. Of course, that can be tricky, especially as many of us would be happier to see the whole edifice demolished.

    In a remarkable turn, Harris appears prepared to run precisely the aggressive, inspired campaign that combatting the rising forces of domestic authoritarianism requires. Her vision hints at a post-MAGA future that is fully faithful to liberal ideals -- freedom, autonomy, open societies, free and fair elections -- while also addressing dissatisfactions with American life, from economic precarity to feelings of physical insecurity, that are leading many into the temptations of illiberalism. Getting to that future, Harris and Walz appear to be saying, will require fully consigning MAGA to the dustheap of history where it belongs.

    But is this really what they're saying. While Harris/Walz may reflect liberal ideals -- and that seems to be why the idealist idiots (like Chait) are going gaga over the DNC -- they're pushing much more tangible programs, which aim to achieve levels of economic support and social cohesion that Republicans can't deliver, or even fake believing in. Also by Sargent (podcasts):

  • Peter Slevin: [08-23] Kamala Harris's "freedom" campaign: "Democrats' years-long efforts to reclaim the word are cresting in this year's Presidential race."

  • Michael Tomasky: [08-23] The female Obama? No. Kamala Harris is more than that. "Harris's speech united her party -- an incredible task if you consider where we were a month ago."

  • Nick Turse: What Kamala Harris meant by "most lethal fighting force" in her DNC speech.

  • Vox: Vox's guide to Kamala Harris's 2024 policies.

Walz:

Biden:

  • Andrew Marantz: [08-23] Why was it so hard for the Democrats to replace Biden? "After the President's debate with Trump, Democratic politicians felt paralyzed. At the DNC, they felt giddy relief. How did they do it?"

  • N+1 Editors: Hollow Man: Biden, the Democrats, and Gaza. Title explained here:

    In their recent book The Hollow Parties, Daniel Schlozman and Sam Rosenfeld describe the Republicans and Democrats as lacking in the internal organization that could, respectively, moderate extremist tendencies and mitigate elite capture. The two parties, they write, are "hard shells, marked with the scars of interparty electoral conflict, [which] cover disordered cores, devoid of concerted action and positive loyalties. . . . For all their array of activities, [they] demonstrate fundamental incapacities in organizing democracy." What we had in Biden was a hollow President, a figurehead with fundamental incapacity issues and little substance inside the shell. At best, Biden's hollowness contrasted powerfully with the great-man theory of the presidency embodied by Trump, and his reactivity made space for a resurgent electoral left. At worst, these qualities devolved into impotence, and Biden was revealed as a leader who simply couldn't lead.

    Although much of the article focuses on Biden's relationship with Israel ("the intensity of Biden's passion for Israel has been the great constant of his career -- perhaps the only one") the review of the administration's whole history is insightful and nuanced, with references to Franklin Foer's insider book, The Last Politician, that may make me reconsider shelving the book unread.

  • Charles Lane: [08-22] Biden's embarrassed silence on Afghanistan: Complaint is about his DNC speech, which the author feels should have touted withdrawal as a positive accomplishment. Indeed, it's something three previous presidents failed monumentally at. He deserves credit for recognizing that the decades-long had failed and needed to end. However, he ended it badly, not that Trump left him with many options, in large part because he never moved beyond the magical thinking that trapped the US in Afghanistan in the first place. One result was the PR fiasco, which marked the point where his approval ratings dipped under 50%, something he never overcame. So it's easy to see why he skipped over it.

    However, his failures with Afghanistan haven't ended there. He's fallen into the familiar American "sore loser" pattern, adopted first by Eisenhower in 1953 when he signed an armistice with North Korea but refused to call it peace, leaving a legacy of distrust and petty hostilities that continue to this day (a grudge held and fed for 71 years), as US sanctions have largely hobbled North Korea's development. (South Korea GDP per capita in 2022 was $32422, which is 22 times that of North Korea's $1430.) The US harbors grudges everywhere it has faced rejection and has left disappointed: Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Russia, and now Afghanistan. This usually takes the form of sanctions, which impose hardships on the people while more often than not solidifying the control of those countries' rulers. This proves two things: that regardless of wartime propaganda, the US never cared about the people, and that what it did care about was projecting its power (although with repeated failures, these days that might be more accurately defined as protecting its arms cartel -- the definition of "ally" these days is anyone who buys guns from the US, Israel and/or NATO, while "enemy" is anyone who shops elsewhere). Ironically, nothing signifies weakness like shunning countries that would gladly trade with us if we allowed them (e.g., Iran).

    The deal that turned Afghanistan over to the Taliban was negotiated by, or more accurately for, Trump, with zero concern for Afghans who had welcomed US occupation, let alone for any other Afghans, or really for anyone else. Trump's only concern was to postpone the retreat until after the 2024 election, and to minimize US casualties in the meantime. He made no effort to reconcile the Taliban with other parties, to protect civil rights of Afghans after the Taliban enters the government, to ensure that people who might want to emigrate would be free to do so, or to allow for postwar cooperation. In failing to even raise those issues, he signalled to the Afghans that they should come to their own accord with the Taliban, which they did in arranging their instant surrender.

    When Biden took over, he had little leverage left, but he also didn't use what he had, which was the promise of future cooperation to aid the Afghan people. Instead, he subscribed to the fantasy that the US-affiliated Afghans would fight on even without US aid, and delayed departure until the Taliban had completed their arrangements for assuming power, turning the actual departure into the chaos broadcast far and wide. Since then, all Biden has done has been to add Afghanistan to America's "shit list" of countries we sanction and shun.

    Once again, all we've shown to the world is our own hubris and pettiness. The Biden administration has made some serious effort to rethink domestic policy, moving it away from the high ideology of neoliberalism toward something where results matter, and have even come up with some results that do matter, but they've done the opposite in foreign policy, overcorrecting from the cynicism and corruption of "America First" (which was never more than "Trump First", as Trump's "America" seems to exclude everyone but his family and retainers) by reclaiming high moral ground, both to sanctify our own acts and opinions, and to castigate those who aren't sufficiently deferential to us. Unless you're an arms manufacturer or an oil company, the Biden foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster.

And other Democrats:

Trump:

Vance:

And other Republicans:

  • Stephanie Armour/McKenzie Beard: [08-22] Project 2025 would recast HHS as the federal Department of Life.

  • Nina Burleigh: [08-20] The con at the core of the Republican Party: "The conservative movement's total abandonment of even the appearance of principles has been decades in the making." Review of Joe Conason's new book, The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers, and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism. Conason "devotes the first third of the book to some of the right-wing scammers 'corroded to the core' like [Roy] Cohn," only one degree of separation from Trump:

    A crucial representative of this attitude, according to Conason, was Roy Cohn, the red-baiting Joe McCarthy aide, New York power broker, and Mafia lawyer whose "philosophy of impunity" was so successful that it shaped right-wing politics for decades to come. His most apt pupil was Donald Trump, whom he represented in his later years. Cohn taught the younger Donald that "it was not only possible but admirable to lie, cheat, swindle, fabricate, then deny, deny, deny -- and get away with everything," Conason writes. As a lawyer, Cohn's motto was: Better to know the judge than to know the law. As a businessman, it was: Better to stiff creditors than pay bills; and always worthwhile to lie, bribe, steal, and swindle while never apologizing.

    The editors offered links to two older pieces relevant here:

  • Eli Clifton: [08-22] Ex-Rep. Gallagher [R-WS] psyched to 'leverage my network' for Palantir: "The China hawk will be cashing in on public service to work for a major defense contractor."

  • Juleanna Glover: [08-26] Republican donors: do you know where your money goes? At some point, wouldn't you expect that even rich people, even those most flattered by solicitations catering to their prejudices, would tire of getting hounded and scammed by this corrupt system. This is worth quoting at some length:

    Anyone who has spent time reviewing Donald Trump's campaign spending reports would quickly conclude they're a governance nightmare. There is so little disclosure about what happened to the billions raised in 2020 and 2024 that donors (and maybe even the former president himself) can't possibly know how it was spent.

    Federal Election Commission campaign disclosure reports from 2020 show that much of the money donated to the Trump campaign went into a legal and financial black hole reportedly controlled by Trump family members and close associates. This year's campaign disclosures are shaping up to be the same. Donors big and small give their hard-earned dollars to candidates with the expectation they will be spent on direct efforts to win votes. They deserve better.

    During the 2020 election, almost $516 million of the over $780 million spent by the Trump campaign was directed to American Made Media Consultants, a Delaware-based private company created in 2018 that masked the identities of who ultimately received donor dollars, according to a complaint filed with the F.E.C. by the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. How A.M.M.C. spent the money was a mystery even to Mr. Trump's campaign team, according to news reports shortly after the election. . . .

    A.M.M.C.'s first president was reported to be Lara Trump, the wife of Mr. Trump's son Eric. The New York Times reported that A.M.M.C. had a treasurer who was also the chief financial officer of Mr. Trump's 2020 presidential campaign. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law, signed off on the plan to set up A.M.M.C., and one of Eric Trump's deputies from the Trump Organization was involved in running it.

    Ms. Trump is now co-chair of the Republican National Committee, which, soon after her arrival, announced it would link up with the Trump campaign for joint fund-raising. The joint entity prioritizes a PAC that pays Mr. Trump's legal fees over the R.N.C., The Associated Press has reported, making assurances from Mr. Trump's campaign co-manager that R.N.C. funds wouldn't be used to pay Mr. Trump's legal bills seem more hollow.

    One thing I'm curious about is why someone supposedly as rich as Trump would get so invested in what are effectively petty cons -- I'm not denying that the money at stake in his media company, these campaigns, and his son-in-law's hedge fund doesn't add up to serious, but how are things like selling bibles and NFTs worth the trouble? Speaking of campaign finance, I clicked on this "related" article:

    • Richard W Painter: [2016-02-03] The conservative case for campaign-finance reform: Old article, clicked on because I can imagine there being such a case, one that would appeal to people who think they are conservatives, and who think conservatism is an honest and thoughtful philosophy that should appeal to enough people to win fair elections. I even think that the most likely way we could get serious campaign finance reform would be if some Republican takes this sort of argument and uses it to guilt-trip Democrats and a few more Republicans to support it.

      As you may recall, Obama's fervor for campaign finance reform faded after he saw how much more money he could raise in 2008 than McCain -- a feat he repeated in 2012 against the more moneyed Romney. However, even when Republicans started losing their cash advantage -- cultivated with such slavish devotion to business interests -- they cling to unlimited spending, because they love the graft, but also they've seen opportunities to paint Democrats as hypocrites and scoundrels for cutting into their share. But mostly, no matter how much they like to quote Burke (and in this case, Goldwater and McCain), their staunchest belief is in inequality, which these days is denominated in dollars.

  • Patrick Healy: [08-26] Harris has the momentum. But Trump has the edge on what matters most. Author is Deputy Opinion Editor at the New York Times, the infamous "fake news" outlet that seems most desperate right now to bolster Trump's candidacy, or at least revitalizing the horse race. Still, not much here to actually define "what matters most. Consider:

    Defining the race: Harris wants to make the race about the future, freedom and unity; Trump wants to make the race about the past, his presidency and threats to the country.

    Does he really think that Harris would be troubled having to talk about "the past, [Trump's] presidency, and threats to the country" -- you know, like more of what Trump did during his presidency? Having so flailed himself, Healy turned to:

    • Rich Lowry: [08-26] Trump can win on character: I clicked on this because I like a good joke as much as anyone, but does Lowry (or Healy?) understand how funny the very idea is? He may be right that "presidential races are won and lost on character as much as the issues," though not that "often the issues are proxies for character" -- more often "character" is used as a mask for poor issues (and is most effective when it also masks poor character -- cf. Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Trump, all of whom were packaged to hide reality). Still:

      Mr. Trump's campaign has been shrewd to begin to hold smaller, thematic-focused events rather than just set him loose at rallies, where there is the most opportunity for self-sabotaging riffs.

      By what possible definition is this proof of his superior character?

    • Thomas B Edsall: [08-21] Trump isn't finished: The publisher's title fits this here, but the substance should stand nicely on its own. Edsall mostly quotes various eminences on the severe threat a second Trump term would present to Amermica and what we still think of as democracy:

      • Sean Wilentz: "Trump, who does not speak in metaphors, had made it plain: 'If I don't get elected, it's going to be a blood bath.'"
      • Laurence Tribe
      • Julie Wronski
      • Bruce Cain: "Trump is more erratic, impulsive, and self-interested than your average candidate and is much bolder than most in testing the boundaries of what he can get away with."
      • Timothy Snyder
      • Charles Stewart
      • Julian Zelizer
      • Jacob Hacker
      • Frances Lee
      • Eric Shickler
      • Robert Y Shapiro
      • Gary Jacobson: "[The biggest difference] will be the absence of officials in the administration with the stature, experience, and integrity to resist Trump's worst instincts in such matters."

    • Patrick Healy: [08-23] Joy is not a strategy.

  • Nicholas Kristof: [08-24] Republicans are right: one party is 'anti-family and anti-kid'.

Election notes:

Legal matters and other crimes:

Climate and environment:

  • Richard Heinberg: [08-25] 7 steps to what a real renewable energy transition looks like: "Historically, an overhaul for humanity's energy system would take hundreds or many thousands of years. The rapid shift to cleaner, more sustainable sources of power generations will easily be the most ambitious enterprise our species has ever undertaken." Glad to see this, as I've read several of Heinberg's books, although none since 2009's Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis, preceded by 2007's Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines. That was back in the Oil Drum era (see Wikipedia"), when Hubbert's peak seemed to be kicking in, before secondary extraction techniques like fracking became cost-effective enough to allow oil and gas production to increase from previously depleted or marginal fields. I read quite a bit on this and related subjects back then. I was especially taken by a chart from one of his books (float right; top: "world oil production from 1600 to 2200, history and projection"; bottom: "world population from 1600 to 2200, history and projection, assuming impacts from depletion"), although I could think of plenty of reasons why the post-peak decline would not be as sharp or perilous (including enhanced secondary recovery.

    I don't have time now, but could probably write quite a bit about this piece. For now, I'll note that I basically agree with his first two section heads: "Why this is (so far) not a real transition" and "The core of the transition is using less energy." His concrete proposals are more troubling, especially those that overreach politically (like rationing and "triage"). "Aim for population decline" seems both politically perilous and unnecessary, given that current projections are that world population will stabilize within 30-60 years. We have major challenges accommodating the population we have (or will have), but reducing the number of people doesn't make the task easier -- and given most ways population has been reduced in the past, may make matters much worse.

  • Benji Jones: [08-22] This chart of ocean heat is terrifying: "The Gulf's looming hurricane problem, explained in a simple graph."

Economic matters:

Ukraine War and Russia:

America's empire and the world:

  • Afyare A Elmi/Yusuf Hassan: [08-26] The coming war nobody is talking about: Ethiopia has been land-locked since Eritrea broke away as an independent country, and their prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, doesn't like it. Part of the problem here is that Somalia is effectively divided, with its northern (formerly British) wedge broken free of its nominal central government in Mogadishu.

  • Joshua Keating: [08-19] Armed conflict is stressing the bones of the global economy: "From shipping lanes to airspace to undersea cables, globalization is under physical attack."

  • Sarang Shidore: [08-21] Dangerous China-Philippine clashes could be expanding: "Serious incidents in the South China Sea are spreading well beyond the Second Thomas Shoal, pulling the US in deeper."

  • Aaron Sobczak: [08-21] Fewer Americans willing to fight and die for other countries: Probably fewer for their own, too, as various forces -- capitalism is a pretty major one -- lead people to focus on individual interests, downplay their group affiliations, and suspect states of being subject to corrupt influences. As lives grow longer and richer, it's getting harder to justify sacrificing one for war, especially as the cost-benefit analysis of war only grows grimmer. Even if the democratic left manages to stem the trend toward hyper-individualism by restoring a sense of public interest, it won't make war more attractive.

    I've been thinking about this a bit while watching pre-modern war culture dramas, like Shōgun and House of the Dragon. The fealty warriors repeated express toward their "lords" is all but unthinkable today, when everyone thinks they're self-interested. But if the alternatives are primitive atomism (individuals, small packs, or clans) and organized bandits. The latter, through cooperation, can be so much more efficient that the rest have no alternative but to organize their own collective defenses. There's more to this, of course, like the argument that the Axial Age religions were efforts to moderate the period's massive increase in warfare.

  • Military-Industrial Complex:

Other stories:

  • Current Affairs:

    • [07-14] Jeffrey Sachs on why US foreign policy is dangerously misguided: "How US presidents from Clinton to Trump to Biden squandered chances to establish a lasting peace in the post-Cold War era."

    • [08-14] Why you will never retire: "Economist Teresa Ghilarducci on why some 90-year-old Americans are pushing shopping carts in the heat trying to make ends meet." She has a book, Work, Retire, Repeat: The Uncertainty of Retirement in the New Economy. "She shows how the pension system disappeared, why Social Security isn't enough, and explains how even the concept of retirement is beginning to disappear, with many arguing that work is good for you, people should do it for longer." As always, much depends on what kind of work you do. I've been effectively retired for 20+ years now, but what that means is that I've been able to afford to do things I want to do, free of having to spend a big chunk of my life toiling for nothing better than making someone else money. I've been very fortunate in that regard. A more generous retirement system would help more people do socially worthwhile work like I do, even if it doesn't contribute to the great GDP fetish. It would also help people avoid doing useless and/or senseless work, of which there is way too much required these days, just because someone has figured out how to turn a profit from it.

    • [08-22] The extreme danger of dehumanizing rhetoric: "David Livingstone Smith, one of the world's leading scholars of dehumanization, explains what it is, why we're so prone of it, and how to resist it." Author of books like:

    • Nathan J Robinson:

      • [08-05] How empires think: "The imperial mentality sanctions some of the worst imaginable crimes in the name of progress, enlightenment, and civilization."

      • [08-07] An encouraging sign: "Choosing Tim Walz as a vice presidential nominee shows Kamala Harris has good political instincts. But what matters is policy, and we should demand real commitments."

      • [08-12] Politics should not be parasocial: "These are not our dads or aunts. We are electing a head of state who will wield immense power and control a massive nuclear arsenal. 'Policy' is not peripheral or dispensable, it's the only thing that really matters." Critique of an Atlantic article on Kamala Harris -- Tom Nichols: [08-19] Policy isn't going to win this election: "The Harris campaign seems to have grasped an important reality" -- which may in turn have led to the Giridharadas kerfuffle below (I'm reaching them in opposite order, and the point doesn't seem worth fact checking). I lean toward Robinson here, but that's largely because I think writers who focus on political policy should take care to get the policy right, regardless of the politics. (If you get the policy right, you can conceivably steer the politics toward it; but if you take the politics as a given, you're very unlikely to get to the right policy.)

        Nichols says that it's a myth that Americans care about policy. But perhaps the opposite is true. I think the very reason that so many Americans are disillusioned with politics is that they don't see how it affects them. If you went around this country and you asked everyone you saw how much attention to politics they pay, and why they don't pay more attention, I guarantee you you'll get many variations on an answer roughly like: None of these politicians ever actually do anything for us, they just care about themselves, they don't care about us, look at my community, what have the politicians ever done for us?

        I've only read the first two paragraphs of the Nichols piece (paywalls, you know). He may well have a point -- it's a truism among political consultants that voters rarely go deep into policy details, and often respond to non-policy signals, voting with an emotional hunch over reasoned analysis. Still, no matter how much politicians and journalists try to dodge them, policy positions do matter, and in a broad sense are likely to be decisive.

      • [08-15] Panic about immigrants is based on feeling and emotion: "Christopher Rufo visited Britain and saw non-white people, leading him to conclude that civilization is being hollowed out."

      • [08-25] On the role of emotion in politics: "A response to MSNBC's Anand Giridharadas, who thinks I am not fun. . . . His reply was quite personal, and he even placed a picture of me next to a picture of Lil Jon to illustrate how much less fun I seem." Seems like an unnecessary response to a charge that has no reason for being, but as a writer who can only imagine how his readers misinterpret him, I concede a bit of interest in such things.

    • Alex Skopic:

    • K Wilson: [04-01] Why the right constantly panics over societal 'decadence': "No, 'Western society' has not fallen from some mythic elevated past. But such right-wing views are appealing, and the left needs an answer to them if we want to avoid being pushed back into traditional hierarchies."

  • Arwa Mahdawi: [08-22] Stop using the term 'centrist'. If doesn't mean what you think it does: "If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy, wrote Orwell. That applies today more than ever." My eyes glaze over when I see Orwell, so I can't tell you what that's about. And while there's plenty to say about the dysfunctionality of "centrism" -- it mostly seems to mean that you would like to see some nicer things happening, but aren't willing to do anything to make it happen that might offend the rich -- the actual examples given here are mostly from Israel. A couple are grimly (or sickeningly) amusing:

    This narrative is so entrenched that people don't believe their eyes when it comes to Palestinians. Last October, the actor Jamie Lee Curtis posted a photo on Instagram showing terrified-looking children peering up at the sky. She captioned the post "terror from the skies" with an Israel flag emoji. When it was pointed out that the kids were Palestinian, she deleted the post. Her eyes may have told her that those innocent children were terrified; the narrative, however, was more complicated.

    Around the same time, Justin Bieber posted a photo of bombed houses with the caption "praying for Israel." When it was pointed out the picture was of Gaza, he deleted it and apparently stopped praying.

  • Timothy Noah: [2022-02-10] Washington is not a swamp: "Ignore the lazy conventional wisdom. The nation's capital is the most public-spirited city in the country. By far." Not sure why this piece popped up suddenly, but it remains relevant, especially with the pending Trump/Project 2025 plan to purge the civil service and replace them with political hacks. This reminds me that one of the best political books to appear during the Trump years was Michael Lewis: The Fifth Risk: Undoing Democracy, about "a government under attack by its leaders through willful ignorance and greed." Still, whenever I heard the phrase "drain the swamp," I automatically assumed that the subject was lobbying corruption, which is rife in Washington, even though Trump using it as such was certainly hypocritical -- I always assumed that, like Tom DeLay's K Street Project, his real aim was to take the racket over, to skim his vig. That he meant it as code for the civil service was unthinkable, yet that's clearly what he means.

  • Maya Wei-Haas: [08-26] Dismantling the ship that drilled for the ocean's deepest secrets: "The JOIDES Resolution, which for decades was key to advancing the understanding of the Earth and its innards, concluded what could be its final scientific expedition."

Obituaries

Books

Music (and other arts?)

Chatter

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): music.

Original count: 224 links, 12870 words (16802 total)

Current count: 290 links, 15528 words (20514 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.