People make fun of ultra-red Utah Republicans and Mormons, but they have been much more sane and thoughtful than the GOP in general and I respect them a lot for it. A lot of die-hard conservative lifelong Republicans voted for Biden in 2020 (or really I should say, voted against Trump), which I know was incredibly difficult for many of them to do. I have been impressed by their ability to consider their principles over mere tribalism or reflexive hard-wiring. I only mention this because I know you have LDS heritage, and they do seem to have quite a lot of intellectual horsepower in their stock.
It is really dismaying how impossible it is to talk to so many people, who are just die hard locked into their respective teams and can't even hear anything outside the party line (on both sides). It's like mental Teflon, impervious to anything that doesn't fit their pre-conceived notions. And even more annoying is when they're so desperate to categorize you (so they can decide whether to treat you as friend or enemy) that they'll just insist you're on one team or the other, when you don't give a crap about the teams. I don't get it.
Anyway, just wanted to give you props for thinking for yourself and sticking to your principles. Isn't it just so much fun when half the people you know insist you're a commie woke shitlib, while the other insist you're a fascist hard-core conservative? Lol.
I have been pretty unhappy with Democrats for 8 years now, and thought I would be voting third party again, but like you I've been impressed with the fairly (so far) flawless execution of Kamala's campaign. And have been heartened to see that they appear to have gotten the message loud and clear that they went overboard and lost their minds in 2020, that everyone is over the woke insanity, and that they need to turn back to being moderate. I know a lot of people want to hold onto understandable grievances or insist they can't/won't change their tune, but my rule is that you should always reward people who are moving in the direction you want them to, not punish them for it.
My understanding is that Kamala mentioned something about that for groceries specifically and immediately retracted it the next day, realizing it was dumb. The irony is that she probably said it trying to court Republican votes, since they've been bitching about grocery prices for four years. In reality neither party can do a damn thing about inflation or prices, other than raise interest rates really high to the point they crash the stock market and cause way more unemployment, so they're both just full of hot air on this particular issue and have no plan to do anything about it because there's nothing that CAN be done (assuming you're anti price controls).
I find increíble how complacent Americans are with the Non concession of the previous election.
Either the election was stolen (and the US President is an usurper) or it was not, and Trump is an aspiring usurper. Discussions on policy are incredibly complacent when the election is about legitimacy.
I still find it disturbing where J6 could have ended. The democracy held, but the fact that wacky legal theories were even entertained by the sitting President is disturbing. So much so that Congress passed bi-partisan legislation to shore up parts of the election system that was considered understood.
This is an admirable example of putting principle over party. I was already fairly liberal before J6, so I would be voting for Harris even if it hadn't happened, but I do think that if the shoe was on the other foot - if Harris had tried to overturn an election while Trump championed democracy - I would be forced to vote for Trump despite disliking everything else about him. I even think there is an argument to be made for voting for Republicans who respect democracy, even if their Democratic opponents are slightly better, in order to steer the GOP off of its anti-democratic course. Trying to undermine democracy itself should be completely disqualifying in just about any circumstance.
And I think it's fine to feel good about your candidate even while disagreeing with some of their policies. Harris is obviously not perfect, but she does have some massive policy benefits over Trump. On the economic side, *not* supporting tarrifs and mass deportation will likely help the economy way more than price controls hurt it. And the differences between Harris and Trump on PEPFAR alone will likely save hundreds of thousands of lives if she's elected: https://substack.com/@benthamsbulldog/note/c-66188472
>”I even think there is an argument to be made for voting for Republicans who respect democracy, even if their Democratic opponents are slightly better, in order to steer the GOP off of its anti-democratic course.”
I think there’s something to be said for anti-Trump conservatives remaining registered as Republican to vote for more sensible Republicans in primaries, but I think any moderate should be voting party-line Dem at this point. All Rs, even the most reasonable ones, have been all in on obstructionism since well before Trump. The fact that we’ve even had to talk about crap like government shutdowns and debt ceiling crises and repealing Obamacare show that sensible Rs will fall in line with the party’s crazies when push comes to shove. The best way to make the party change is to make them lose repeatedly until a better faction can take control.
Yeah, I'm not totally sure about the argument. I think that currently, you should still vote party-line because doing otherwise could give the Republicans majorities in Congress or state legislatures, which is very bad if most of their members are anti-democracy. But maybe it could be a future consideration if the GOP starts going in a more reasonable direction. Basically a vote to signal that the party will benefit if they keep moving in that direction.
Enjoyed the post. I voted 3rd party in 2016, Biden in 2020, and now I am probably going to vote 3rd party again. Any one man can't really be a threat to democracy as what we saw on J6. I don't believe he organized a coup or insurrection but more just let it happen so Trump's role in it is a bit murky. It's impossible to take political rhetoric as evidence of intent or whatever. My take away from J6 is that Democracy worked with Pence certifying the election and providing that check on Trump wanting to overturn the results. The only thing that really scares me more than Trump is the media and Democratic Party machine wanting to stop him at any cost in the name of "democracy". I honestly don't believe most if not all the charges that have been levied against him would of come to fruition had he not announced running for 2nd term.
Many good points. Hold your nose and vote. I’m holding mine, and as of now, it’s Trump. I thought J6 was a grave error of judgment, but looking objectively, it was a rally that got out of control and morphed into a riot. The proceeding to certify Biden was delayed 5 hours. Trump left office January 20. I did not see an “ attempted coup “.
Jack Smith, a mean pit bull of a prosecutor, did not charge Trump with treason/ insurrection; nor even inciting a riot on federal property.
“ Obstruction” and “ Fraudeulently seeking to seat false electors”. Sorry, the charges brought were BS. That explanation is for another day
Trump should have apologized, he screwed up and politically I also thought he was dead and buried. I voted for Haley, but Trump received 76% of primary votes. So it goes.
The idea that Trump is a champion of the free market would be hilarious if it were not so bizarre. He’s the ultimate protectionist. Tariffs, deficits, devaluation and inflation are on the agenda if he wins.
Even if Trump were a threat to Democracy in January of 2021, that doesn’t mean he’s a threat now. If he wins, he wins -- that’s democracy in action. If he loses, he loses, and he doesn’t really have the wherewithal to do anything other than grumble. Regardless of his incompetent attempts to subvert the 2020 results, that failed. He’ll win or lose according to our system.
Now look at the Democrats. With the aid of the media, they hid the fact that their duly elected President was no longer competent. They covered it up, which should be the greatest political scandal in American history. Then, when it became obvious due to his hubris in debating Trump, they inserted Kamala without even a hint at a primary process, or even a debated convention.
Richard Hanania is doing the thing where a business-oriented conservative supports the populist radical because he looks better than the alternative and probably won’t make good on his worst ideas.
Harris is part of the Biden Administration and supported its policies. In many cases literally being the tie breaking vote in the Senate on legislation. If you were going to sit out for Biden, I don't see why you care that he's been swapped out for the same thing. Kind of seems like you are easily swayed by vibes.
The greatest imposition on my liberty in my lifetime was COVID restrictions. COVID changed my whole families life for two years. Before it happened I thought that my basic constitutional liberties would have prevented it. I certainly don't see the people who did that as being "pro democracy/liberty".
J6 had no effect on me. To be honest I never really felt it was about the election. I felt it was the COVID riot we never got, mixed with people noticing that the BLM riots were endorsed by the state (the BLM riots actually effected my life, unlike J6).
Culturally, Harris is the woke candidate embodied. Electing her would be societies tacit endorsement of wokism as the future state religion. There are various ways in which her administration would codify this into law as well.
She and her set also embodies a very anti-natal, anti-child attitude. I know she's offering a less good CTC than JD (that is income capped and refundable to welfare mamas), but the entire vibe of her set is anti-family. I also expect school choice to go nowhere under her.
On the economy I expect higher taxes and higher spending, with generous subsidies for clients that aren't me. SALT will probably come back to subsidize blue state teachers unions. When there is another "crisis", I expect her to waste a lot of money as she did during the last four years.
The deficit was $440B in 2016 before Trump took office. From 2017-2019, the “incremental deficits” above that base rate averaged $340B a year.
I will give 2020 a pass because both parties voted for the stimulus bills in that year. And I will set the Democrats incremental baseline to the $980 deficit in 2019.
But from 2021 onwards, all new spending legislation was passed on party line votes by the Democrats.
The incremental deficit of 2021-2024 is $950B. Nearly 3x the Trump years.
Economists at the time, such as Larry Summers, called the bills the Democrats passed “the worst economic policy he had seen in 40 years” and warned it would cause a spike in inflation, but they plowed through with it anyway.
I see little to reason that their policy will be different going forward. There isn’t a category of spending democrats want to cut. They have proposed some potentially terrible taxes on “the rich” (unrealized capital gains!), but it’s not going to close the gap. They also support some really terrible tax policies like the SALT deduction because it butters the bread of state employees and blue state professionals.
Overall, the last four years are a terrible track record on the economy and we shouldn’t trust them going forward.
> The greatest imposition on my liberty in my lifetime was COVID restrictions. COVID changed my whole families life for two years. Before it happened I thought that my basic constitutional liberties would have prevented it. I certainly don't see the people who did that as being "pro democracy/liberty".
Out of all things, this was the biggest circumstance that has totally shattered my faith in American democracy, and more broadly, liberalism and technocracy in general. The sheer level of violation of civil and economic liberties that transpired – and not just from governments – just broke my loyalty to the system that I just am not sure I can recover from.
Part of it was that I was 'inside the machine' when it first happened. I was working at BigTech, and I saw all the behavior and messaging firsthand: the bloodlust against people who questioned the efficacy of non-sterilizing mRNA vaccines, the burning desire to de-platform and de-bank 'disinformation artists', the complete glee at holding the control keys to information channels.
The other part is that I was the biggest defender of democracy and liberalism for many, many, many years. Going back to my high school days, even before I could vote! To be betrayed by hordes of staffers and mid-level managers working in different parts of a system; actively violating principles of autonomy, liberty, choice that they claim to uphold through the system – was incredibly disgusting.
I see our current democracy and elections as a game that a lot of people want me to care about for its (or their) sake at great personal cost and with little to no benefit.
I’m not interested in defending the integrity of any institution that (not only doesn’t cater to, but) actively opposes many of my fundamental interests, simply because it claims to certain uphold important values – which it does a rather poor job of, and has been for most of my adult life.
I’m not interested in destroying it, either, or hastening its decline. I simply see no duty to intervene as it burns. Instead, I want to make it as irrelevant as I possibly can to my life, including to those friends and family who I care about.
Harris supporters simply aren’t interested in you or your reality. You don’t get it. You don’t fit in. Harris supporters are the good people, and they should be able to tell the rest of us what to do. (Or at least let the unelected but enlightened bureaucrats in the IC do so.)
I feel like Hannania really drops the ball in terms of considering the longer term implications and what the president can and can't accomplish.
I mean let's think about what happens in 4 years. If Trump gets elected, his corrupt dealing and disregard for democratic norms are likely to galvanize opposition while Kamala's failure likely means the democrats turn farther to the left after seeing the centrist approach fail. So a Trump victory likely means we see tariffs -- something that, unlike many of Kamala's policy proposals, the president has wide unilateral control over -- for the next 4 years followed by a much more left-leaning democratic president. OTOH, a Trump defeat likely means a Republican party which turns away from Trump and Trumpism back to it's more traditional business and freedom oriented message and we rarely see parties occupy the whitehouse for more than 8 years.
I kinda suspect Hannania's support of Trump really results from a careful analysis and more out of fear that if he opposes Trump he'll be hated by both the left and right.
Ah, what a time we live in. I think of myself as being conservative in the tradition of Edmund Burke or even William F. Buckley, in other words, utterly and completely disenfranchised by both current political parties.
Refreshing take - been an NTR since 2016, but could see his appeal, despite the idiocy, through early 2020 - but he choked on his first real test as POTUS - COVID - and then should have disqualified himself with J6 - that so many in the GOP ignore this in a desperate effort to stay in power saddens me - don’t love Kamala’s policies (don’t even like them), but will proudly pull the lever for her in November (actually vote by mail, but same diff). Anyway - great piece.
I’m curious how you square the “our democracy” piece with stated pillars of the Democratic Party and the Harris administration. How is abolishing the filibuster to ram through court packing, DC and PR statehood to get four senators, nationwide ban on voter ID, no limits on ballot harvesting and mass amnesty to 15 million illegals so they can presumably vote for democrats? So that’s not stealing elections that’s just fair game? So you’d be cool if Republicans did that in reverse? All because Trump J6? Ok. Get ready for a sweet sweet life ahead of you. Hopefully you live in a blue state.
Why do you think they support these particular policies when they obviously do not, given they never passed any of them when they had control of both houses. Also you completely made up that amnesty for 15 million illegal immigrants thing. The last time we had mass amnesty was under Reagan.
Kate, agree with any objection you might have to Johnstone's tone here, but Dems have discussed most of these policies.
1. Biden himself came out in favor of scrapping the filibuster. Issue is that some centrist Dem Senators are leery about killing it, so they can't get the votes when they have 50-52 Senators, but we should fully expect the filibuster to be dead and gone the next time Dems have an Obama-like margin in the Senate.
2. A PR statehood bill passed the House when Dems controlled it, with Biden's backing, but was killed in the Senate. Not sure how far DC statehood has gotten but presumably the two would move side-by-side. Could more states be formed beyond that? That's a tougher hurdle, there would be a lot more political resistance to splitting up existing states (e.g. creating North and South California) in order to get 2 more Senators, but never say never. The Democrats are very unhappy about the Senate structurally favoring Republicans, and there's a lot of support for correcting that balance. And human nature being what it is, I'd expect them to overcorrect, rather than undercorrect, once the thing gets going and the genie is out of the bottle.
3. As for a complete amnesty, my understanding is the vocal support for it is coming from Warren. Not aware of Kamala publicly coming out in favor of it, but it's really hard to imagine her not doing so if she thought she could get the votes.
Yeah filibuster works for or against either party depending on who's in power so there are always some who want to scrap but it never happens because they know it would bite them in the butt next time they're in the minority. I actually would prefer it be scrapped and let the majority party actually govern, come what may, rather than gridlock and do nothing all the time, though I know plenty of people disagree with that. I don't think that one really favors one party or the other so much as it does allowing for things to happen that might be more extreme versus moderation and less things ever happening.
PR I know has been floated in the past. It seems weird to me, though also their current status is weird, so? I guess if Hawaii is a state, PR could be, but this seems like a non-starter, everyone likes 50 as a nice round number.
It's the amnesty thing that is just total BS. No one has ever suggested that, other than ultra libertarians and ultra leftists who are not actually in the party but are activists/commentators like Matt Yglesias. The most extensive policy that has been floated was DACA (which was a Reagan administration policy in the first place), and granting amnesty to illegals married to US citizens, with an estimate that would legalize 10-20,000 people, not 15 million. To spread that kind of ridiculous exaggeration is just irresponsible and not in good faith. I myself am quite restrictionist on immigration, btw - far moreso than the DNC, so I'm not trying to defend their platform, I'm just saying this allegation is not true.
On the first two points, again, both of these were supported by the current President. They’re deep in the Overton Window now. The PR statehood bill passed the House. These things are going to happen.
Maybe the filibuster needs to go if the legislature is to legislate again (personally I’d rather find more ways to cripple the Feds’ ability to act, rather than make things easier, but I know opinions differ).
But I think those worried about the legislating the Ds will do once they have unrestricted power have a right to worry, particularly when it seems one of their first acts upon achieving a supermajority will be to strengthen their control of the Senate.
On Warren’s amnesty plan, the term is “pathway to citizenship” for illegals. I would still call this amnesty, even if it has differences from Reagan’s program. It is forgiving an illegal action without penalty, and in fact rewarding it — if that’s not amnesty, what is? The Ds passed a bill like this in the Senate in Obama’s second term but by then he had lost the House.
Show me one piece of legislation or Dem policy platform item for amnesty for 15 million illegal immigrants. That's a blatant fabrication.
Yes, filibuster has been discussed by both parties, and both are too chicken to ever do anything about it because they both know it would be used against them when they're in the minority. PR state-hood has certainly been discussed if they want to be a state, but it isn't on any current platform that I'm aware of. YOU are making things up, you can give a cite, which you can't, because this amnesty thing is total BS.
I'm in the Harris as also a threat to democracy camp as well. With Sinema and Manchin out of the way, they'd likely pull the filibuster the next time they have a trifecta to undo the abortion ruling. And immigration asymmetrically and for all intents and purposes irreversibly changes the facts on the ground in a way that's practically back door constitutional. So if we're regrettably faced with competitive authoritarianism, you have to pick which side serves your own interests. There's no real way to return to the status quo ante of the 1990s when things were far more mutually stable.
I kind of agree with the sentiment, but I'd form it in a different, less sensational way:
Only the Democrats have the institutional power to disrupt our Constitutional order. It's quite possible that the next time they win in a landslide and get a solid trifecta, a lot of the policies you're discussing will come to pass, and our polity will never be the same again.
Even for someone who thinks that Republicans are worse, they're also less popular and have far, far less institutional power. This means that Trump can't really do anything too illegal; the institutions will revolt against him. History shows that to overthrow democracy, you either need powerful institutional backing or the support of a supermajority of the population; Trump has neither.
Now, maybe someone could argue that Trump is more dangerous -- not because the dangers of him per se (which are easily neutered by the left's institutional power) but because he'll cause the left to become more dangerous. That's plausible, and maybe the best argument for voting against him. But I tend to think the GOP is about to become nationally uncompetitive for an age, and it's probably better to squeeze out one more win and try to shore things up as best we can.
The only way to decide between two unfit candidates in my view is to try and divine which administration will take the country in a better direction. I don't like Trump and have never voted for him (didn't voter for president in 16 or 20) but I will this year because the democrats have gone off the deep end in my opinion.
The GOP could have and should have nominated someone better but they didn't. The best thing about this election is that I'll never have to make the choice between abstaining and voting for DJT.
People make fun of ultra-red Utah Republicans and Mormons, but they have been much more sane and thoughtful than the GOP in general and I respect them a lot for it. A lot of die-hard conservative lifelong Republicans voted for Biden in 2020 (or really I should say, voted against Trump), which I know was incredibly difficult for many of them to do. I have been impressed by their ability to consider their principles over mere tribalism or reflexive hard-wiring. I only mention this because I know you have LDS heritage, and they do seem to have quite a lot of intellectual horsepower in their stock.
It is really dismaying how impossible it is to talk to so many people, who are just die hard locked into their respective teams and can't even hear anything outside the party line (on both sides). It's like mental Teflon, impervious to anything that doesn't fit their pre-conceived notions. And even more annoying is when they're so desperate to categorize you (so they can decide whether to treat you as friend or enemy) that they'll just insist you're on one team or the other, when you don't give a crap about the teams. I don't get it.
Anyway, just wanted to give you props for thinking for yourself and sticking to your principles. Isn't it just so much fun when half the people you know insist you're a commie woke shitlib, while the other insist you're a fascist hard-core conservative? Lol.
I have been pretty unhappy with Democrats for 8 years now, and thought I would be voting third party again, but like you I've been impressed with the fairly (so far) flawless execution of Kamala's campaign. And have been heartened to see that they appear to have gotten the message loud and clear that they went overboard and lost their minds in 2020, that everyone is over the woke insanity, and that they need to turn back to being moderate. I know a lot of people want to hold onto understandable grievances or insist they can't/won't change their tune, but my rule is that you should always reward people who are moving in the direction you want them to, not punish them for it.
Thanks Kate
They just proposed price controls as their first economic policy. That’s becoming a moderate?
My understanding is that Kamala mentioned something about that for groceries specifically and immediately retracted it the next day, realizing it was dumb. The irony is that she probably said it trying to court Republican votes, since they've been bitching about grocery prices for four years. In reality neither party can do a damn thing about inflation or prices, other than raise interest rates really high to the point they crash the stock market and cause way more unemployment, so they're both just full of hot air on this particular issue and have no plan to do anything about it because there's nothing that CAN be done (assuming you're anti price controls).
I find increíble how complacent Americans are with the Non concession of the previous election.
Either the election was stolen (and the US President is an usurper) or it was not, and Trump is an aspiring usurper. Discussions on policy are incredibly complacent when the election is about legitimacy.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ekM9jQqXq8D8qa2fP/united-states-2024-presidential-election-so-help-you-god
Being a “republican” begins by understanding this!
Yeah good point. It's weird we are able to have another election before our legal system processes what happened after the last one.
I still find it disturbing where J6 could have ended. The democracy held, but the fact that wacky legal theories were even entertained by the sitting President is disturbing. So much so that Congress passed bi-partisan legislation to shore up parts of the election system that was considered understood.
It is not only J6, where there can be debate on the degree of involvement of Trump. Non concession (if baseless) is a political coup attempt.
This is an admirable example of putting principle over party. I was already fairly liberal before J6, so I would be voting for Harris even if it hadn't happened, but I do think that if the shoe was on the other foot - if Harris had tried to overturn an election while Trump championed democracy - I would be forced to vote for Trump despite disliking everything else about him. I even think there is an argument to be made for voting for Republicans who respect democracy, even if their Democratic opponents are slightly better, in order to steer the GOP off of its anti-democratic course. Trying to undermine democracy itself should be completely disqualifying in just about any circumstance.
And I think it's fine to feel good about your candidate even while disagreeing with some of their policies. Harris is obviously not perfect, but she does have some massive policy benefits over Trump. On the economic side, *not* supporting tarrifs and mass deportation will likely help the economy way more than price controls hurt it. And the differences between Harris and Trump on PEPFAR alone will likely save hundreds of thousands of lives if she's elected: https://substack.com/@benthamsbulldog/note/c-66188472
thank you
>”I even think there is an argument to be made for voting for Republicans who respect democracy, even if their Democratic opponents are slightly better, in order to steer the GOP off of its anti-democratic course.”
I think there’s something to be said for anti-Trump conservatives remaining registered as Republican to vote for more sensible Republicans in primaries, but I think any moderate should be voting party-line Dem at this point. All Rs, even the most reasonable ones, have been all in on obstructionism since well before Trump. The fact that we’ve even had to talk about crap like government shutdowns and debt ceiling crises and repealing Obamacare show that sensible Rs will fall in line with the party’s crazies when push comes to shove. The best way to make the party change is to make them lose repeatedly until a better faction can take control.
Yeah, I'm not totally sure about the argument. I think that currently, you should still vote party-line because doing otherwise could give the Republicans majorities in Congress or state legislatures, which is very bad if most of their members are anti-democracy. But maybe it could be a future consideration if the GOP starts going in a more reasonable direction. Basically a vote to signal that the party will benefit if they keep moving in that direction.
Enjoyed the post. I voted 3rd party in 2016, Biden in 2020, and now I am probably going to vote 3rd party again. Any one man can't really be a threat to democracy as what we saw on J6. I don't believe he organized a coup or insurrection but more just let it happen so Trump's role in it is a bit murky. It's impossible to take political rhetoric as evidence of intent or whatever. My take away from J6 is that Democracy worked with Pence certifying the election and providing that check on Trump wanting to overturn the results. The only thing that really scares me more than Trump is the media and Democratic Party machine wanting to stop him at any cost in the name of "democracy". I honestly don't believe most if not all the charges that have been levied against him would of come to fruition had he not announced running for 2nd term.
Many good points. Hold your nose and vote. I’m holding mine, and as of now, it’s Trump. I thought J6 was a grave error of judgment, but looking objectively, it was a rally that got out of control and morphed into a riot. The proceeding to certify Biden was delayed 5 hours. Trump left office January 20. I did not see an “ attempted coup “.
Jack Smith, a mean pit bull of a prosecutor, did not charge Trump with treason/ insurrection; nor even inciting a riot on federal property.
“ Obstruction” and “ Fraudeulently seeking to seat false electors”. Sorry, the charges brought were BS. That explanation is for another day
Trump should have apologized, he screwed up and politically I also thought he was dead and buried. I voted for Haley, but Trump received 76% of primary votes. So it goes.
Everyone knows about J6. Fewer remember progressives attacking the White House in 2020, with Trump fleeing to a secret bunker.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-moved-trump-to-secure-bunker-friday-after-protesters-breached-temporary-fences-near-white-house-complex/2020/06/03/e4ae77c2-a5b9-11ea-b619-3f9133bbb482_story.html
Remember or choose to “ forget “? And the March of 1 million Democrat women in DC in January 2021, before the inauguration.
I heard about it for the first time recently on Erik Torenberg's show, in an interview Balaji (can't spell his last name)
The idea that Trump is a champion of the free market would be hilarious if it were not so bizarre. He’s the ultimate protectionist. Tariffs, deficits, devaluation and inflation are on the agenda if he wins.
Even if Trump were a threat to Democracy in January of 2021, that doesn’t mean he’s a threat now. If he wins, he wins -- that’s democracy in action. If he loses, he loses, and he doesn’t really have the wherewithal to do anything other than grumble. Regardless of his incompetent attempts to subvert the 2020 results, that failed. He’ll win or lose according to our system.
Now look at the Democrats. With the aid of the media, they hid the fact that their duly elected President was no longer competent. They covered it up, which should be the greatest political scandal in American history. Then, when it became obvious due to his hubris in debating Trump, they inserted Kamala without even a hint at a primary process, or even a debated convention.
How is that process “Democracy” again?
Parties can nominate who they want, though I agree that covering up Biden's health issue was a scandal.
Richard Hanania is doing the thing where a business-oriented conservative supports the populist radical because he looks better than the alternative and probably won’t make good on his worst ideas.
He might be right, but it’s a risky bet.
Harris is part of the Biden Administration and supported its policies. In many cases literally being the tie breaking vote in the Senate on legislation. If you were going to sit out for Biden, I don't see why you care that he's been swapped out for the same thing. Kind of seems like you are easily swayed by vibes.
The greatest imposition on my liberty in my lifetime was COVID restrictions. COVID changed my whole families life for two years. Before it happened I thought that my basic constitutional liberties would have prevented it. I certainly don't see the people who did that as being "pro democracy/liberty".
J6 had no effect on me. To be honest I never really felt it was about the election. I felt it was the COVID riot we never got, mixed with people noticing that the BLM riots were endorsed by the state (the BLM riots actually effected my life, unlike J6).
Culturally, Harris is the woke candidate embodied. Electing her would be societies tacit endorsement of wokism as the future state religion. There are various ways in which her administration would codify this into law as well.
She and her set also embodies a very anti-natal, anti-child attitude. I know she's offering a less good CTC than JD (that is income capped and refundable to welfare mamas), but the entire vibe of her set is anti-family. I also expect school choice to go nowhere under her.
On the economy I expect higher taxes and higher spending, with generous subsidies for clients that aren't me. SALT will probably come back to subsidize blue state teachers unions. When there is another "crisis", I expect her to waste a lot of money as she did during the last four years.
The deficit was $440B in 2016 before Trump took office. From 2017-2019, the “incremental deficits” above that base rate averaged $340B a year.
I will give 2020 a pass because both parties voted for the stimulus bills in that year. And I will set the Democrats incremental baseline to the $980 deficit in 2019.
But from 2021 onwards, all new spending legislation was passed on party line votes by the Democrats.
The incremental deficit of 2021-2024 is $950B. Nearly 3x the Trump years.
Economists at the time, such as Larry Summers, called the bills the Democrats passed “the worst economic policy he had seen in 40 years” and warned it would cause a spike in inflation, but they plowed through with it anyway.
I see little to reason that their policy will be different going forward. There isn’t a category of spending democrats want to cut. They have proposed some potentially terrible taxes on “the rich” (unrealized capital gains!), but it’s not going to close the gap. They also support some really terrible tax policies like the SALT deduction because it butters the bread of state employees and blue state professionals.
Overall, the last four years are a terrible track record on the economy and we shouldn’t trust them going forward.
> The greatest imposition on my liberty in my lifetime was COVID restrictions. COVID changed my whole families life for two years. Before it happened I thought that my basic constitutional liberties would have prevented it. I certainly don't see the people who did that as being "pro democracy/liberty".
Out of all things, this was the biggest circumstance that has totally shattered my faith in American democracy, and more broadly, liberalism and technocracy in general. The sheer level of violation of civil and economic liberties that transpired – and not just from governments – just broke my loyalty to the system that I just am not sure I can recover from.
Part of it was that I was 'inside the machine' when it first happened. I was working at BigTech, and I saw all the behavior and messaging firsthand: the bloodlust against people who questioned the efficacy of non-sterilizing mRNA vaccines, the burning desire to de-platform and de-bank 'disinformation artists', the complete glee at holding the control keys to information channels.
The other part is that I was the biggest defender of democracy and liberalism for many, many, many years. Going back to my high school days, even before I could vote! To be betrayed by hordes of staffers and mid-level managers working in different parts of a system; actively violating principles of autonomy, liberty, choice that they claim to uphold through the system – was incredibly disgusting.
I see our current democracy and elections as a game that a lot of people want me to care about for its (or their) sake at great personal cost and with little to no benefit.
I’m not interested in defending the integrity of any institution that (not only doesn’t cater to, but) actively opposes many of my fundamental interests, simply because it claims to certain uphold important values – which it does a rather poor job of, and has been for most of my adult life.
I’m not interested in destroying it, either, or hastening its decline. I simply see no duty to intervene as it burns. Instead, I want to make it as irrelevant as I possibly can to my life, including to those friends and family who I care about.
The “democracy defender” crowd is going to give us EU style police raids for sharing “disinformation” the second it can manage it here.
Harris supporters simply aren’t interested in you or your reality. You don’t get it. You don’t fit in. Harris supporters are the good people, and they should be able to tell the rest of us what to do. (Or at least let the unelected but enlightened bureaucrats in the IC do so.)
I feel like Hannania really drops the ball in terms of considering the longer term implications and what the president can and can't accomplish.
I mean let's think about what happens in 4 years. If Trump gets elected, his corrupt dealing and disregard for democratic norms are likely to galvanize opposition while Kamala's failure likely means the democrats turn farther to the left after seeing the centrist approach fail. So a Trump victory likely means we see tariffs -- something that, unlike many of Kamala's policy proposals, the president has wide unilateral control over -- for the next 4 years followed by a much more left-leaning democratic president. OTOH, a Trump defeat likely means a Republican party which turns away from Trump and Trumpism back to it's more traditional business and freedom oriented message and we rarely see parties occupy the whitehouse for more than 8 years.
I kinda suspect Hannania's support of Trump really results from a careful analysis and more out of fear that if he opposes Trump he'll be hated by both the left and right.
agree - well said!
Harris needs to win the electoral college decisively so that Trump just goes away. Maybe jail, maybe exiled, but the GOP must move on.
Ah, what a time we live in. I think of myself as being conservative in the tradition of Edmund Burke or even William F. Buckley, in other words, utterly and completely disenfranchised by both current political parties.
But that coconut tree is a very high climb.
Refreshing take - been an NTR since 2016, but could see his appeal, despite the idiocy, through early 2020 - but he choked on his first real test as POTUS - COVID - and then should have disqualified himself with J6 - that so many in the GOP ignore this in a desperate effort to stay in power saddens me - don’t love Kamala’s policies (don’t even like them), but will proudly pull the lever for her in November (actually vote by mail, but same diff). Anyway - great piece.
Thanks Matt
Good work, Jeff. Thanks for posting.
thanks
I’m curious how you square the “our democracy” piece with stated pillars of the Democratic Party and the Harris administration. How is abolishing the filibuster to ram through court packing, DC and PR statehood to get four senators, nationwide ban on voter ID, no limits on ballot harvesting and mass amnesty to 15 million illegals so they can presumably vote for democrats? So that’s not stealing elections that’s just fair game? So you’d be cool if Republicans did that in reverse? All because Trump J6? Ok. Get ready for a sweet sweet life ahead of you. Hopefully you live in a blue state.
Fair comment/questions, but your last two sentences read as a threat. Is that your intention?
Why do you think they support these particular policies when they obviously do not, given they never passed any of them when they had control of both houses. Also you completely made up that amnesty for 15 million illegal immigrants thing. The last time we had mass amnesty was under Reagan.
Kate, agree with any objection you might have to Johnstone's tone here, but Dems have discussed most of these policies.
1. Biden himself came out in favor of scrapping the filibuster. Issue is that some centrist Dem Senators are leery about killing it, so they can't get the votes when they have 50-52 Senators, but we should fully expect the filibuster to be dead and gone the next time Dems have an Obama-like margin in the Senate.
2. A PR statehood bill passed the House when Dems controlled it, with Biden's backing, but was killed in the Senate. Not sure how far DC statehood has gotten but presumably the two would move side-by-side. Could more states be formed beyond that? That's a tougher hurdle, there would be a lot more political resistance to splitting up existing states (e.g. creating North and South California) in order to get 2 more Senators, but never say never. The Democrats are very unhappy about the Senate structurally favoring Republicans, and there's a lot of support for correcting that balance. And human nature being what it is, I'd expect them to overcorrect, rather than undercorrect, once the thing gets going and the genie is out of the bottle.
3. As for a complete amnesty, my understanding is the vocal support for it is coming from Warren. Not aware of Kamala publicly coming out in favor of it, but it's really hard to imagine her not doing so if she thought she could get the votes.
Yeah filibuster works for or against either party depending on who's in power so there are always some who want to scrap but it never happens because they know it would bite them in the butt next time they're in the minority. I actually would prefer it be scrapped and let the majority party actually govern, come what may, rather than gridlock and do nothing all the time, though I know plenty of people disagree with that. I don't think that one really favors one party or the other so much as it does allowing for things to happen that might be more extreme versus moderation and less things ever happening.
PR I know has been floated in the past. It seems weird to me, though also their current status is weird, so? I guess if Hawaii is a state, PR could be, but this seems like a non-starter, everyone likes 50 as a nice round number.
It's the amnesty thing that is just total BS. No one has ever suggested that, other than ultra libertarians and ultra leftists who are not actually in the party but are activists/commentators like Matt Yglesias. The most extensive policy that has been floated was DACA (which was a Reagan administration policy in the first place), and granting amnesty to illegals married to US citizens, with an estimate that would legalize 10-20,000 people, not 15 million. To spread that kind of ridiculous exaggeration is just irresponsible and not in good faith. I myself am quite restrictionist on immigration, btw - far moreso than the DNC, so I'm not trying to defend their platform, I'm just saying this allegation is not true.
On the first two points, again, both of these were supported by the current President. They’re deep in the Overton Window now. The PR statehood bill passed the House. These things are going to happen.
Maybe the filibuster needs to go if the legislature is to legislate again (personally I’d rather find more ways to cripple the Feds’ ability to act, rather than make things easier, but I know opinions differ).
But I think those worried about the legislating the Ds will do once they have unrestricted power have a right to worry, particularly when it seems one of their first acts upon achieving a supermajority will be to strengthen their control of the Senate.
On Warren’s amnesty plan, the term is “pathway to citizenship” for illegals. I would still call this amnesty, even if it has differences from Reagan’s program. It is forgiving an illegal action without penalty, and in fact rewarding it — if that’s not amnesty, what is? The Ds passed a bill like this in the Senate in Obama’s second term but by then he had lost the House.
You’re lying again. See DNC party platform as well as John Lewis “voting rights” act
Show me one piece of legislation or Dem policy platform item for amnesty for 15 million illegal immigrants. That's a blatant fabrication.
Yes, filibuster has been discussed by both parties, and both are too chicken to ever do anything about it because they both know it would be used against them when they're in the minority. PR state-hood has certainly been discussed if they want to be a state, but it isn't on any current platform that I'm aware of. YOU are making things up, you can give a cite, which you can't, because this amnesty thing is total BS.
I'm in the Harris as also a threat to democracy camp as well. With Sinema and Manchin out of the way, they'd likely pull the filibuster the next time they have a trifecta to undo the abortion ruling. And immigration asymmetrically and for all intents and purposes irreversibly changes the facts on the ground in a way that's practically back door constitutional. So if we're regrettably faced with competitive authoritarianism, you have to pick which side serves your own interests. There's no real way to return to the status quo ante of the 1990s when things were far more mutually stable.
I kind of agree with the sentiment, but I'd form it in a different, less sensational way:
Only the Democrats have the institutional power to disrupt our Constitutional order. It's quite possible that the next time they win in a landslide and get a solid trifecta, a lot of the policies you're discussing will come to pass, and our polity will never be the same again.
Even for someone who thinks that Republicans are worse, they're also less popular and have far, far less institutional power. This means that Trump can't really do anything too illegal; the institutions will revolt against him. History shows that to overthrow democracy, you either need powerful institutional backing or the support of a supermajority of the population; Trump has neither.
Now, maybe someone could argue that Trump is more dangerous -- not because the dangers of him per se (which are easily neutered by the left's institutional power) but because he'll cause the left to become more dangerous. That's plausible, and maybe the best argument for voting against him. But I tend to think the GOP is about to become nationally uncompetitive for an age, and it's probably better to squeeze out one more win and try to shore things up as best we can.
The only way to decide between two unfit candidates in my view is to try and divine which administration will take the country in a better direction. I don't like Trump and have never voted for him (didn't voter for president in 16 or 20) but I will this year because the democrats have gone off the deep end in my opinion.
The GOP could have and should have nominated someone better but they didn't. The best thing about this election is that I'll never have to make the choice between abstaining and voting for DJT.