Discussion about this post

User's avatar
TomR's avatar

I agree with all your points. It does seem to me the candidates (Biden/Trump) reflect the end stages of the two modern political parties.

Trump began the destruction of the Republican Party in 2016 by wiping out all the establishment-approved candidates. The modern Republican Party is now near death; the party of Trump is something else - no matter who is the 2024 "Republican" candidate. The futile efforts of people like McConnell, Romney, et. al. seem to me to be an effort to bring back a Republican Party that will then get the funding that has increasingly gone to the Democrats over the last seven years. I don't see it succeeding.

Biden may be the last of the candidates of a Democratic Party that hasn't represented its traditional values or voters in over 30 years (the Clintons started its destruction with their "New Democrats"). The DNC embrace of the Deep State has led to Joe Biden being the only viable candidate of a party that is as desiccated and senile as he is. Approved others on the horizon - Harris, Newsom,Buttigieg - may use platitudes and social issues as a distraction from the same outdated politics, but it doesn't appear they can generate much enthusiasm. None will offer any change.

The Democrats insurgent candidates (RFK Jr and Marianne Williamson) will be marginalized and ignored. Even if they could gain some traction I don't believe it would change much. The forces against them within the Democratic Party are much too strong for the people's voices to matter.

Reform of either of the two traditional party at this point seems hopeless. Outright rejection of both is the right course - but what form that would take isn't clear.

Expand full comment
John R Moffett's avatar

While the president is not actually in charge the way a corporate CEO is, he still is, as Dubya proclaimed, "the decider". Many horrible things that were on the planning board got nixed by various presidents in my lifetime, from JFK (before Allan Dulles got to him) to even bloodthirsty Obama. The MIC people bring actionable options to the president, and he or she decides which option to implement. So while their choices are very limited, they can even decide "none of the above" if they want to really piss off the MIC. So even though they may not be in charge, they have a great deal of leeway as to what gets done and what doesn't. Of course, that doesn't mean the CIA won't do an end run around them (or worse), it just means that when things are going along normally, the president makes the final call. So having a senile president has consequences in terms of how bad the actual implemented policies are (think going to war against Russia in Ukraine, as a good example).

Expand full comment
23 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?