There was a Republican debate last night. Who cares?
To my surprise, I do. The Republicans are reduced to a cadre of climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, anti-science loons, opportunistic parasites, and Trumpkins. They are irrelevant. Their only strategy for electoral victory is to be as outrageously flamboyant as possible and get votes by fueling the worst elements of society. It’s fine if the loons want to flush themselves down the toilet — it could be a way to concentrate the bad guys before purging the political process.
Sounds great…except what’s happening on the other side. The Democratic choice is now and forever going to be an apparatchik anointed by the party and advances to confront the shambling horde. This is not a way to run a democracy. It’s how you run a bureaucracy. We need change, deep structural change, but you know the Democrats aren’t going to bring it, while the Republicans are going to bring looney autocracy and theocracy.
Agreed. And the leading Democrats will never do anything about the dark money that determins who wins during the primaries. They are obedient servants of the oligarchy, only less blatantly so, and with much less incompetence.
This will be a huge improvement over MAGA rule, but still very bad compared to western Europe, NZ and other high-functioning democracies.
Seven of eight Republican candidates raise hands to say they’d support Trump as nominee even if convicted
Hmm. I’d remind you that the UK is part of western Europe! And most continental countries of western Europe now have an influential fascist party and in quite a few (e.g. Sweden) that party is part of the governing coalition.
KG @3
AAAARGHHH!
Yes, the xenophobe party. They seem to have peaked, but they are not going away. They used the influx of refugees in 2015 to grab 20% of the vote, while having no other issue. But their partners are losing support, so the coalition has poor prospects to last.
As for Britain, their leaders claim they have left the continent. I am comforted by all polls that show they will implode in the election next year. And if labour finally introduces proportional elections the tories will never ever get the power to do so much harm again.
France -the national front remains but is not threatening to become the biggest party like when they ran against Chiraq 20 years ago.
Germany has problems with AFG but for the moment they are contained.
It is Italy (what else?) that is in worst trouble, with a democratically questionable Prime minister.
I didn’t watch it because I guessed that I wouldn’t be able to identify one of the candidates who was less bad than the others; and I can’t imagine voting in the Republican primary this time around in any event.
Did anybody watch Tucker Carleson’s interview of Trump? It might be fun to learn how that went. OTOH, it might just be predictable and boring.
Starmer has absolutely no intention of doing that! Like the Tories, he wants untrammeled power on a minority of the vote. I suppose it’s just possible he or a successor might do it if it seems clear 4 years after the approaching election that Labour is going to get trashed at the next one. Also, it seems almost inevitable that after defeat, the Tories will move even further right.
In France, Macron is already adopting far right rhetoric (as has the so-called social democratic PM of Denmark) and across the continent, the “respectable” right is proving willing to team up with the fascists. Even in Germany a CDU leader mooted joining with AfD in local coalitions, although he backpedalled in the face of criticism.
Re @ 4
Let me add that -apart from Britain- the obsolete ‘first past the post’ election system has been abolished, so more political parties can join the parliament and offer real choices to the voters. It is not the eternal seesaw between two parties we see in USA.
And to avoid Weimar republic chaos (also to be seen in the Israeli parliament) the parties must reach a treshold of typically 4-6 % to enter parliament. This way there is no myriad micro-parties that block majorities unless they get their (contradictory) demands met.
Far too many people place far too much weight on the activities going on at the kiddie table.
The only reason to track activities at the kiddie table is to keep the food fights to a minimum and make sure nobody is playing with matches. One most certainly does not listen in and expect to hear a reading from scripture.
Is there a democracy on this earth that has pleased most people? I’ve never heard of one yet. They are always “doing it wrong” according to many.
Virtually all of life is “the lesser of two evils.” Why would politics be any different?
We live in a country where MILLIONS of people are so stupid and/or evil they want a sex-criminal psychopathic traitor to be president.
In what version of that reality is the far left going to achieve the socialist paradise of their dreams, other than imposing it by force?
And if you want to impose it by force, OK, admit that – just don’t pretend you want democracy.
Democracy means you have to work with everyone – even the 30% of citizens who are stupid and/or evil.
The ‘debate’ was just a toxic pie fight among repugnantcant clowns. (many of us here know what a real formal debate is like and these political theatrics are NOT debates.) The lines are blurring between honest, critically thinking people and the drooling hoaxers. When asked about climate change, Deathsantis bullshitted a diversion saying: ‘Look, we’re not schoolchildren. Let’s have the debate’. Rummyswummy a 38-year-old biotechnology entrepreneur called climate change a ‘hoax’.
PZ has pointed out innumerable allegedly ‘sciency’ authorities who are just conspiracy theory loons. And, politicians are all too often easily fooled by all the ‘shiny sciency words’.
on another point:
PZ wrote: We need change, deep structural change, but you know the Democrats aren’t going to bring it, while the Republicans are going to bring looney autocracy and theocracy.
I reply: Yes! The corporate run duopoly we face will NEVER be honest or care for the populace. Both parties are just greedily interested in money and power. There are answers like ranked choice voting, etc. But, the massive corporate money running our political circus won’t even listen, let alone have any desire to reform governance. I keep being threatened by ‘party officials’ that if I vote for other than biden, I’ll be single-handedly responsible for putting pile of shit tRUMP back in power. I truly hate the way this country is run. I’d vote for a ticket of Dr. Cornel West and Randy Rainbow over any of the current potential candidates.
Cornel West is a fash-curious DeSantis shill
While I agree that the Republicans have reduced themselves to a cadre of opportunistic parasites, it is dangerous to consider them irrelevant. They won not just the presidency in 2016, they established a stranglehold on state governments. That didn’t get better in 2020 or 2022, and looks to be getting worse in 2024.
The problem with the willfully ignorant fringe is that while they may be passionate for only one anti-reality position (anti-climate change, anti-vax, etc.), it means they won’t object to other people’s anti-factual stances, so there is no internal resistance to adding one more group of loons to the party.
@13 Aoife_b said: Cornel West is a fash-curious DeSantis shill
I reply: most thoughtful, knowledgeable political scientists disagree with you. Cornel West is nothing like deathsantis in demeanor or policy. Deathsantis is a hateful tiny rightwingnut sociopath who is threatening to shoot anyone that tries to cross the border. Dr. West is a decent person ,and an academician, who cares about people and our society and has always worked for the betterment of our populace.
It’s been apparent to me since I was about 16 that the aim of Republican campaigns was to be as mean as possible to anyone who looked or thought differently than they did. Over 20 years later, nothing has changed.
That these 8+1 ignorant fools, sociopaths, vicious swine, fascist, dangerous lunatics are the best and brightest the Republicans have to offer, and that one of them could be President because an 80 year old not fully with it man is the best and brightest the Democrats have to offer, is a frightening taste of the future of America and the world. If you are not frightened you are not paying attention.
Nomdeplume @ 17
I would argue the 80 year old man was picked by the Democratic establishment not because he was “the best and brightest” but because he would stop Bernie Sanders.
And now we (or rather, you) are stuck with him.
Those were the priorities of the Democrats and you are right we should be frightened. It is as if in WWII, instead of Churchill and FDR the west had BoJo and Dubya.
But this is not unique. Two decades ago, the French voted for a known corrupt asshole (Chirac) to stop a bona fide fascist (Le Pen). French politics is crap, but they muddle along so far avoiding fascism. This is the very low bar 0a lot of countries have today.
@18 Agreed.
I like Australias democracy. Its always a bit back and forward and progressive ideas require a lot of time to break through, but they do.
Compulsory voting.
Preferential voting.
This means more than 2 parties and even candidates. No split tickets. Low unrest for any result because a majority is always satisfied.
@20 Arguably we have the best electoral system (including the totally independent Electoral Commission which draws boundaries, holds elections, counts votes) in the world. Which is why the conservative parties are heel bent on changing it.
I’m so glad I wasn’t able to watch the close show, but it might make a good drinking game. Every time one of them says “Trump,” have a drink. There are probably other patterns. You could get plastered before the end of the clown show, then forget about it.
@2 Reginald Selkirk
Yeah. My first thought on seven of them doing that was – If his inevitable conviction in the fast track court case he is now in leads to enough evidence to find him absolutely guilty of insurrection, wouldn’t those candidates be, “Aiding and abetting”, someone now defined as an enemy of the state and/or insurrectionist? Kind of the same thing Trump is accused of, even if he merely aided it, instead of planning it, and thus LITERALLY disqualifying themselves from running, under the same disqualification that is now being discussed as grounds to remove Trump from ballots in at least some states right now?
I mean, it seems like a damn stupid thing to do, unless you literally believe the same BS that Trump does – that presidents and presidential candidates should be immune to all laws/rules, including the actual constitution. Almost hilarious to see the GOP abandon the age old adage of, “Be careful what you say, at least until you get elected.”, in favor of, “I am a delusional nut who thinks we can still manage to rig things so the only voters that will count are the ones we allow to vote, and they all love Trump, so this is totally a sane thing for me to say.” Because, it only freaking works if you can ACTUALLY prevent everyone that hates him, including all future generation of voters, who increasingly hate MAGA, from voting. Otherwise… wtf?
shermanji@12,
From Cornel West’s War Climate and My Presidential Campaign:
If the USA and other countries stop sending Ukraine weapons, Putin will conquer it. either Cornel West doesn’t realise this, in which case he’s so naive one would have to say he’s stupid, or he does realise it, and deliberately sides with a genocidal imperialist. Which do you think it is?
KG, sounds to me like Cornel West would’ve saved the Jews in WWII by gassing them. As a proper pacifist, at that.
Because, appeasement worked so well to prevent a second world war.
@24 KG said: If the USA and other countries stop sending Ukraine weapons, Putin will conquer it. either Cornel West doesn’t realise this, in which case he’s so naive one would have to say he’s stupid, or he does realise it, and deliberately sides with a genocidal imperialist. Which do you think it is?
I reply: he said: we must find ways to end the conflict, not fuel it with cesspools of weapons. His actual policy is not that simplistic. He, like I, think that there should be better ways to stop the slaughter. If we had a United Nations that wasn’t just a toothless old dog, or if we could find ways to fully, effectively blockade aggressive nations, those are likely to lead to better solutions. I know that endless war is the most popular option of many. It seems to me that there has always been insufficient thought and effort expended in finding more constructive ways to end war.
@25 wzrd1 said: KG, sounds to me like Cornel West would’ve saved the Jews in WWII by gassing them.
I reply: having read a lot of Dr. West’s writings, I can categorically state that he is very sensitive to the plight of the Jews in WWII, as he is to all those who are persecuted for atrocious, hateful reasons. I find your condemnation (using ‘sounds like’ instead of actual information about Dr. West in context) to be born of a lack of knowledge of his background and actual position.
I know that endless war is the most popular option of many.
Actually, it’s not “popular,” so much as the default option we end up with when we know we need to fight but aren’t willing to get our backs into the fight. In the case of Ukraine, at least, what’s really needed here is to actually, conclusively, END Russia’s military actions, and stop noodling about and letting them wage an endless war of attrition to punish the Ukrainians for not letting them march in unopposed. And if the Ukrainians can’t manage that decisive smackdown on their own, then the US and/or NATO need to step in (or maybe fly in) to finish the job once and for all.
@ ^ Raging Bee : Wouldn’t that lead to World War III between Putin’s Russia and NATO countries and potentially end in Putin using nukes if he thinks he’s definitely being destroyed? The possible casualties and fallout – literal as well as metaphorical – seem staggering and far too high to risk.
Take 1: since it’s far too high to risk, no worries about it being risked.
Take 2: some people are more easily staggered than others.
(Take 3: Putin’s Russia is predicated on it being a Great Power)
You’ve just confirmed that Cornell West is, at best, a fool. We don’t have those things, and we are not going to get them any year soon. In case you hadn’t noticed, Russia (as well as China) has a veto on the UN Security Council, and most of the world, while willing to wag the odd finger at Putin in the General Assembly, is not going to join in any blockade. Meanwhile, arming Ukraine is the only way to prevent Putin overrunning it and committing full-scale genocide.
@29. John Morales :
Yeah, because people always do the smart thing and calculate risks accurately and choose wisely ..Oh wait.. Fuck.
Yeah, WW III and tens and hundreds of millions of lives lost at least – maybe many more – & ancient and now modern cities and continents full of human beings same as me and you and full of so much history and beauty and love and culture getting vapourised, no big deal? For real?
Call me overly sensitive if you want but the thought of that, yeah, staggers me. You shrug it off cheerily?
If the thought of literal Armageddon & WW III doesn’t stagger you, then what does?
Reckon you are in a tiny minority here. Hope so.
Well, definitions vary but the world’s second or third biggest military and, last time I looked, the nation with the largest nuclear arsenal of all where we have enough nukes to wipe out the world as we know it umpteen pointlessly figured times over becoz once = more than enough aint no superpower? Ya reckon? For .. FS!
I want Putin to lose and die. I want Ukraine to win.
But WWIII – pass.
The United Nations is hamstrung* and a failure.
It cannot and will not do what it was designed to do.
How we fix it and make it into what it was hoped to be? Without making it a tyranny of its own? Beats me.
.* One word? Two words? Hypenated word? Mental block, can’t recall. Yáll get the gist I hope.
@shermanj
Here, see this video by a well-informed expert about the role of war and the role of peace. He starts from the very basic stuff and then gets to the current war and then he discusses the topic of peace talks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2eQexRNWf0
Seriously, go and watch it because it is very clear that you are not well-informed (not trying to insult really).
Wouldn’t that lead to World War III between Putin’s Russia and NATO countries and potentially end in Putin using nukes if he thinks he’s definitely being destroyed?
Maybe, maybe not. The problem here is if we keep on soft-pedaling with Russia, for fear that they might go nuclear, the capitulation will never stop — at least not until he invades Germany and makes effective retaliation inevitable, at which point the stakes for both sides will be far higher than they are now, with a higher probability that Russia will nuke someone.
Refusing to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia won’t make their nuclear threat go away; it will only postpone it, and possibly increase it.
@34 lotharloo,
I will view it. Thanks for your sentiment of informing not insulting. I realize what war and peace are all about. I’ve lived with them both as constant companions. I am so tired of the idea that violence is the only answer that too many people and nations resort to.
I look around, I see the selfish, superstitious hateful violence growing every day and try not to despair. But, it’s not easy to be optimistic (to paraphrase the Kinks, as I see more and more often on blogs):
‘But with the inflation and starvation
And the crazy politicians
I don’t feel safe in this world anymore
I don’t want to die in your nuclear war
I just want to sail away to a distant shore and live like an ape man’
@^ shermanj : I can relate.
Been looking atpolitical and Climate news quite abit latelyand it does get seriously disturbing, worrying and yeah, depressing. Sympathies.
.***
Aussie ABC’s Planet America has a good detailed analysis of the debate and how eachof the contenders did here – 50 minutes long in total albiet other topics are discussed as well.
shermanj@36,
First, apologies for adding a spurious “i” to your nym earlier.
The only answer to what? The pretence that anyone who is not an absolute pacifist sees violence as “the only answer” is simply dishonest. Answers must be adapted to the “question”. Specifically, what would you have had the Ukranian government and people do in response to the Russian invasion?
Raging Bee@35,
Supplying the Ukrainians with weapons and training to fight the invasion is an odd sort of “capitulation”. Indeed, the Russian armed forces have already suffered a degree of damage, both physical and reputational, that seriously diminishes the Russian capacity for further aggression. At this stage, even if Ukrainian resistance were to collapse, it is practically inconceivable that Putin would proceed to attack any NATO country militarily (as opposed to (dis)informationally) – and if he did, the invaders could readily be defeated using conventional forces. Sending NATO forces into the war would greatly raise the risk of nuclear war. Your insouciant “Maybe, maybe not” suggests you’re OK with that. Which is, frankly, insane.
At this stage, even if Ukrainian resistance were to collapse, it is practically inconceivable that Putin would proceed to attack any NATO country militarily…
First, “practically inconceivable” sounds like pure wishful thinking. And second, if Ukrainian resistance were to collapse and neither the US nor NATO stepped in to shore them up, then Putin would almost surely take that as a sign of weakness, which he would then exploit. And that would be very bad for NATO, even if he didn’t act militarily right afterword.
Also, my “maybe, maybe not” was hastily and clumsily worded. What I had meant to say, but didn’t have time to say, was that Putin would be much less likely to go nuclear if we weren’t actually invading Russia proper or trying to destroy their government. If all we’re doing is helping to crush Russian forces in Ukraine, then we could deter a Russian nuclear attack by promising to retaliate by (non-nuclear) attacks inside Russia if he did so.
Supplying the Ukrainians with weapons and training to fight the invasion is an odd sort of “capitulation”.
Supporting them indirectly, from a safe distance, kind of signals that we’re not really willing to do all it takes, and are content to let the Russians continue waging war at their own pace, for as long as it takes for both the Ukrainians and their allies to eventually get tired of waging a protracted war with no end in sight, and with all the resulting erosion of civil society in Ukraine. Not winning is losing.
RB:
Not anymore than not losing is winning.
The rest of your comment was rather good in my estimation, but that claim is just just silly.
Not a bad summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
Nukes aside, were Russia to engage with NATO, it would be absolutely annihilated. Legacy nukes are the only constraint on Russia being hammered.
So, yeah. One can conceive it, but it would most certainly not be practical.
The scale of economies, the scale of military assets, the relative competence — just not comparable.
[Russia:Ukraine << Russia:NATO]
RB,
Remember the beginning of the war? The babooshkas offering sunflowers to the soldiers in a backhanded way? The molovov cocktail kibbutzes?
The hunting rifle equipped partisans?
Ukraine was always going to resist, super-hopeless as it might have seemed.
Your major point — that “the West” is supporting Ukraine only to the degree that it does not lose rather than so it can win — is valid.
But the claim that unless it defeats the Russian military it’s a loss is not.
And yeah, Ukraine’s economy has been devastated, its demographics hurt big-time, but Russia too is being devastated economically and demographically.
(As I noted right at the beginning. The longer it goes, the worse Russia’s prospects become. It is a truly stupid war, one that was “lost” in the first few weeks of conflict)
But the claim that unless it defeats the Russian military it’s a loss is not.
If Russia can continue to bleed Ukraine, even when they’re losing, because they can’t be forced out altogether, then yes, that’s a loss of lives, a loss of socioeconomic viability, and eventually, a loss of credibility for the ongoing defensive campaign.
And yeah, Ukraine’s economy has been devastated, its demographics hurt big-time, but Russia too is being devastated economically and demographically.
Yes, but the Russians most harmed by this war are not at all likely to be able to form any effective opposition coalition to actually change Putin’s (or his successors’) policies.
Ukraine is on the counterattack, not just a defensive campaign.
No conceding of territory.
All this stupid talk of conceding part of its territory, not gonna happen.
(Слава Україні!)
Less likely, sure. But direct fighting between Russian and NATO forces – particularly if it took place, as it would, near the Russian border would undoubtedly raise the chances of nuclear war. And there would be a strong military incentive for NATO to attack targets within Russia, just as there has been for Ukraine. If NATO troops were being killed by missiles launched from within Russia – which would happen – NATO generals would demand the right to destroy the launch sites. Then what? Even if Putin’s response was non-nuclear, it well might be non-nuclear attacks on targets in NATO countries. Just how sure are you that neither side would decide to use an itsy-bitsy tactical nuke?