Totally agree Kamala is cringe. But a few comments. You start with: "Nor have they much to say about Trump’s foreign policy, which is so disruptive that it forced European nations to remember they have armies and deploy troops to Greenland."
Agree that Greenland is a non starter ( but could be a negotiating ploy on Trumps side? Or more probably just Trump being a little bit crazy ) But maybe democrats need to explain why Americans should be spending billions to defend Europe, while Europe spends far less as % of GDP than the USA does. In the regular world, that's called freeloading.
As for ICE, we can all agree that federal agents shooting civilians is dreadful, and should be prosecuted. But polls show most Americans DO believe that illegals, especially illegals with criminal records, should be deported. Maybe the dems need to articulate a position on immigration that is not just let all the undocumented people stay and lets open the borders again. Maybe they need to explain why they let so many people come here illegally in the first place.
I’m totally effing done with “Europe doesn’t spend on its own defence”. That’s because the US did not want us to, just ask the French who were and still are thwarted at every turn by the US and its little helpers (especially Germany…) when they built a more or less independent defence. The quid pro quo was “you buy our hardware and we’ll think about your security.” It allowed the US defence industry to massively scale up and to finance the US political system, and the US to be in control. I understand American voters are unhappy but they should really blame themselves.
Sorry your comment doesnt make sense to me . How does the US government prevent Europeans from spending on their own defense? After the US and China, France and UK are the largest producers of military hardware. They export all over the world.. How has the US prevented Europe from allocating more to military spending, from building up their own armed forces.? They have very few men and women in the armed services - that's not the fault of the USA.
I lived in France for 20 years so I have some direct knowledge. As for history, back in the sixties France had wars in its former colonies, Algeria and Vietnam. But over the last 30 years all of Europe has neglected its own defense.
Yes, the US foreign policy establishment was fairly happy with this situation and NATO was dominated by the USA and provided a way to boss around Europe. During the Trump 1 presidency, Trump complained and tried to get Europeans to spend more. Ukraine is what changed things. Europe seems to actually want a war with Russia - and Americans know who is going to fight in that war and pay for it. Us.
Europe wants a war with Russia? That's a very strange thing to say and certainly not by anything we can see, or by what Russia is saying. Putin has explicitly stated that Ukraine is the first step in regaining what he considers as rightfully belonging to the former Russian empire. He does not talk about EU or NATO expansion (which useful idiots like Mearsheimer keep bringing up).
Secondly, it is also true that the US did actively discourage defence spending by European countries. The situation has certainly changed recently, with a man in severe cognitive decline acting like a cheap mob boss, and it is imperative that Europe does react to the fact that the US is now more closely aligned with authoritarian states than with democracies. As one example, notice how people like Vance complain about the loss of free speech in the UK, but say nothing about the much more extensive silencing of civilians and journalists in places like Humgary, El Salvador, Russia.
Its interesting that you think Trump is in severe cognitive decline. Was this a worry for you when Biden was running for a second term backed by the Democratic party?
It absolutely was. It worries me deeply that more people aren't concerned that for the last 9 years the richest and most powerful country in the world has been led by somebody who is a long way from being competent for the job. The fact that the the choice in 2026 was between Trump and Harris speaks volumes about the decline in the country. And Jill Stein is most definitely not the answer either.
Well this could be a long, probably book length discussion. But your assertion seems to be that the fact that Europe spends much less as a % of GDP on its defense than the USA does - is not the fault of European politicians, but is the fault of the USA. You make this claim but you don't marshall enough evidence. After all defense budgets are voted yearly by the national governments. And countries like France did defy the US on certain issues, such as the Iraq War.
Your final assertion is that if Americans don't like this system (America paying to defend Europe) they should vote for politicians who will change it. I agree with that, and we did. A majority of Americans agree with Donald Trumps insistence that Europe should pay more for its defense.
Donald Trump does not want to change the system I described, he just wants to extort other nations, jack up the price of the protection money and direct as much of the proceeds as he can to himself, without actually strengthening Europe, which he hates. And US voters, never the sharpest knives in the drawer, are going to continue to pay the price, only more and with considerably more corruption. My view, should you be interested, is that we should rearm and aim to be on a par with the world’s other big powers. But not of course in a relationship of dependency or even deference to the US. It will take time but I am fairly confident we will do it.
The US has benefited from Europe's low defense spending, by keeping Europe fairly compliant to US goals. Europe has benefited from it as well, by not having to spend a lot of money on defense, instead spending on other priorities.
The US has agency in what it did, and so does Europe. All countries involved made their choices, and none of them *had* to make the choices they made.
Why is anyone, anyone, taking Kamala Harris seriously? Did we lack eyes and ears in 2024? Suffer a major head wound? Medium is not her problem. Cringe is not her problem. Her problem is that she's not remotely genuine; she's a power-seeking void, or that's how she comes across to me. I'd still vote for her every day of the week over Trump, but I don't even know how to respond to someone who thinks she should be anywhere near national politics. Listen to her debate, her speeches. She is totally unfit for the office; she does not have the skills or instincts.
I dunno. There's a lot to be said for McLuhan's "media is the message." Trump, after all, was a "star" long before he ran for office. He grew up in a center of the arts, NYC. His approach is instinctive – after decades of careful study. You may not like his brand of chaos but others do because in the end he's not apologizing nor does he recoil from normal white people.
In the end, culture is instinct. And people begin to sense who likes them, and who doesn't.
This piece reminds me of the temper tangents my teenage daughters used to have: "You don't love me; you never let me do anything; you never come to my school events; etc. etc. Of course, they would later admit that they knew I loved them; that they got to do things; that my wife and I attended school events, etc. etc." Their occasional false charges occurred when they wanted to totally have their way 100% of the time.
So, accusing Democrats of not winning elections is nonsense. Accusing Democrats of not challenging MAGA's and the GOP's horrible actions and policies is likewise nonsense. Ours is a "winner-take-all" electoral system with layers of anti-majoritarian structures to boot (the electoral college for presidential elections; two U.S. senators per state regardless of population; supermajority legislative vote requirements for impeachment convictions; allowance of legislative rules like the filibuster that further dilutes electoral power; life tenure for federal judges; and lately, anytime congressional redistricting to rig upcoming elections). Despite all of this, the Democratic Party is getting close to capturing controlling Congressional power from the GOP.
The frustrations, exaggerations, and false accusations expressed by the writer is a kind of political immaturity that plague winner-take-all electoral systems in contrast to parliamentary democracies. Partisan voters in the U.S. electoral system can decide to strategically treat general elections at the national, state, and local level as if they are parliamentary by voting totally along partisan lines. This strategy ignores the generally accepted notion that partisan polarized voting is harmful. What is harmful is splitting electoral tickets in winner-take-all systems like the U.S. presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional elections.
The focus on personalities is appropriate during Partisan Primary Elections, but not General Elections. It is the Party, not the individual candidates that matters during General Elections.
Is there another alternative. Of course, amending the U.S. Constitution to remove the antidemocratic electoral obstacles to our "More Perfect Union." Is amending the Constitution possible, I don't think so. But, to quote Sly Stone in the song Everyday People, 'sometimes I'm right, but I can be wrong." For now, I urge strategic voting in General Elections along Partisan lines. To my fellow democrats, I say if you cannot embrace the strategic General Election approach, find yourself another party.
My diagnosis of the problem we face with absolutely awful political leaders is largely (though by no means entirely) a result of the incentive system provided by a very tribal, very polarized society which pushes everyone to one pole or the other, where purity ends up mattering much more than competence or wisdom. The "strategic approach" you advocate feels like it would make that worse, or at best, not change it at all.
As for removing those pesky pluralistic protections and federalist state protections, they serve a function: protecting against he overreach of federal power *and* the tyranny of the majority both. I won't pretend they're perfect, but replacing them with something closer to a majoritarian rule does not strike me as an improvement.
We need politics to be local again. Our leaders to be truly more responsive to the people they represent than they are to their national party. The vast overrepresentation of national politics and everything that goes with it pushes people into camps of party and locks them in place.
I'm with you on that. The article seemed very prone to "Whataboutism", or saying "You're making a social media page? Whatabout ICE? Whatabout the border?"
I don't know that the entire Democrat party must focus every action on the news at all times! I have seen many responses to ICE or to immigration (not enough, empirically, to put the issues to bed), but they also made a social media page, so all is gone to rot it seems.
I am watching and listening very carefully to Rahm Emanuel. He is mature, smart, experienced in many different arenas, and moderate. He would make JD Vance look like a little boy on a merry-go-round. I could easily get behind him and support him with whatever he might ask of me.
Totally agree Kamala is cringe. But a few comments. You start with: "Nor have they much to say about Trump’s foreign policy, which is so disruptive that it forced European nations to remember they have armies and deploy troops to Greenland."
Agree that Greenland is a non starter ( but could be a negotiating ploy on Trumps side? Or more probably just Trump being a little bit crazy ) But maybe democrats need to explain why Americans should be spending billions to defend Europe, while Europe spends far less as % of GDP than the USA does. In the regular world, that's called freeloading.
As for ICE, we can all agree that federal agents shooting civilians is dreadful, and should be prosecuted. But polls show most Americans DO believe that illegals, especially illegals with criminal records, should be deported. Maybe the dems need to articulate a position on immigration that is not just let all the undocumented people stay and lets open the borders again. Maybe they need to explain why they let so many people come here illegally in the first place.
I’m totally effing done with “Europe doesn’t spend on its own defence”. That’s because the US did not want us to, just ask the French who were and still are thwarted at every turn by the US and its little helpers (especially Germany…) when they built a more or less independent defence. The quid pro quo was “you buy our hardware and we’ll think about your security.” It allowed the US defence industry to massively scale up and to finance the US political system, and the US to be in control. I understand American voters are unhappy but they should really blame themselves.
Sorry your comment doesnt make sense to me . How does the US government prevent Europeans from spending on their own defense? After the US and China, France and UK are the largest producers of military hardware. They export all over the world.. How has the US prevented Europe from allocating more to military spending, from building up their own armed forces.? They have very few men and women in the armed services - that's not the fault of the USA.
I lived in France for 20 years so I have some direct knowledge. As for history, back in the sixties France had wars in its former colonies, Algeria and Vietnam. But over the last 30 years all of Europe has neglected its own defense.
Yes, the US foreign policy establishment was fairly happy with this situation and NATO was dominated by the USA and provided a way to boss around Europe. During the Trump 1 presidency, Trump complained and tried to get Europeans to spend more. Ukraine is what changed things. Europe seems to actually want a war with Russia - and Americans know who is going to fight in that war and pay for it. Us.
Europe wants a war with Russia? That's a very strange thing to say and certainly not by anything we can see, or by what Russia is saying. Putin has explicitly stated that Ukraine is the first step in regaining what he considers as rightfully belonging to the former Russian empire. He does not talk about EU or NATO expansion (which useful idiots like Mearsheimer keep bringing up).
Secondly, it is also true that the US did actively discourage defence spending by European countries. The situation has certainly changed recently, with a man in severe cognitive decline acting like a cheap mob boss, and it is imperative that Europe does react to the fact that the US is now more closely aligned with authoritarian states than with democracies. As one example, notice how people like Vance complain about the loss of free speech in the UK, but say nothing about the much more extensive silencing of civilians and journalists in places like Humgary, El Salvador, Russia.
Its interesting that you think Trump is in severe cognitive decline. Was this a worry for you when Biden was running for a second term backed by the Democratic party?
It absolutely was. It worries me deeply that more people aren't concerned that for the last 9 years the richest and most powerful country in the world has been led by somebody who is a long way from being competent for the job. The fact that the the choice in 2026 was between Trump and Harris speaks volumes about the decline in the country. And Jill Stein is most definitely not the answer either.
You do realise you are not addressing my comment, right?
Well this could be a long, probably book length discussion. But your assertion seems to be that the fact that Europe spends much less as a % of GDP on its defense than the USA does - is not the fault of European politicians, but is the fault of the USA. You make this claim but you don't marshall enough evidence. After all defense budgets are voted yearly by the national governments. And countries like France did defy the US on certain issues, such as the Iraq War.
Your final assertion is that if Americans don't like this system (America paying to defend Europe) they should vote for politicians who will change it. I agree with that, and we did. A majority of Americans agree with Donald Trumps insistence that Europe should pay more for its defense.
Donald Trump does not want to change the system I described, he just wants to extort other nations, jack up the price of the protection money and direct as much of the proceeds as he can to himself, without actually strengthening Europe, which he hates. And US voters, never the sharpest knives in the drawer, are going to continue to pay the price, only more and with considerably more corruption. My view, should you be interested, is that we should rearm and aim to be on a par with the world’s other big powers. But not of course in a relationship of dependency or even deference to the US. It will take time but I am fairly confident we will do it.
We can agree that European countries, including my own second nation, France need to re arm and be more independent.
The US has benefited from Europe's low defense spending, by keeping Europe fairly compliant to US goals. Europe has benefited from it as well, by not having to spend a lot of money on defense, instead spending on other priorities.
The US has agency in what it did, and so does Europe. All countries involved made their choices, and none of them *had* to make the choices they made.
Why is anyone, anyone, taking Kamala Harris seriously? Did we lack eyes and ears in 2024? Suffer a major head wound? Medium is not her problem. Cringe is not her problem. Her problem is that she's not remotely genuine; she's a power-seeking void, or that's how she comes across to me. I'd still vote for her every day of the week over Trump, but I don't even know how to respond to someone who thinks she should be anywhere near national politics. Listen to her debate, her speeches. She is totally unfit for the office; she does not have the skills or instincts.
If Trump is a bitter pill, Democrats have become a crap sandwich. The problem is nobody wants a crap sandwich.
I dunno. There's a lot to be said for McLuhan's "media is the message." Trump, after all, was a "star" long before he ran for office. He grew up in a center of the arts, NYC. His approach is instinctive – after decades of careful study. You may not like his brand of chaos but others do because in the end he's not apologizing nor does he recoil from normal white people.
In the end, culture is instinct. And people begin to sense who likes them, and who doesn't.
The Democratic party has become the narcissistic hippy stoner party. They ignore the real world and pretend everyone wants to be like them.
Oh, this hurts. It's so true.
Seen from Europe, what keeps Trump in power and in control is primarily the democratic party. Clinton, Biden and Harris. That says enough.
This piece reminds me of the temper tangents my teenage daughters used to have: "You don't love me; you never let me do anything; you never come to my school events; etc. etc. Of course, they would later admit that they knew I loved them; that they got to do things; that my wife and I attended school events, etc. etc." Their occasional false charges occurred when they wanted to totally have their way 100% of the time.
So, accusing Democrats of not winning elections is nonsense. Accusing Democrats of not challenging MAGA's and the GOP's horrible actions and policies is likewise nonsense. Ours is a "winner-take-all" electoral system with layers of anti-majoritarian structures to boot (the electoral college for presidential elections; two U.S. senators per state regardless of population; supermajority legislative vote requirements for impeachment convictions; allowance of legislative rules like the filibuster that further dilutes electoral power; life tenure for federal judges; and lately, anytime congressional redistricting to rig upcoming elections). Despite all of this, the Democratic Party is getting close to capturing controlling Congressional power from the GOP.
The frustrations, exaggerations, and false accusations expressed by the writer is a kind of political immaturity that plague winner-take-all electoral systems in contrast to parliamentary democracies. Partisan voters in the U.S. electoral system can decide to strategically treat general elections at the national, state, and local level as if they are parliamentary by voting totally along partisan lines. This strategy ignores the generally accepted notion that partisan polarized voting is harmful. What is harmful is splitting electoral tickets in winner-take-all systems like the U.S. presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional elections.
The focus on personalities is appropriate during Partisan Primary Elections, but not General Elections. It is the Party, not the individual candidates that matters during General Elections.
Is there another alternative. Of course, amending the U.S. Constitution to remove the antidemocratic electoral obstacles to our "More Perfect Union." Is amending the Constitution possible, I don't think so. But, to quote Sly Stone in the song Everyday People, 'sometimes I'm right, but I can be wrong." For now, I urge strategic voting in General Elections along Partisan lines. To my fellow democrats, I say if you cannot embrace the strategic General Election approach, find yourself another party.
My diagnosis of the problem we face with absolutely awful political leaders is largely (though by no means entirely) a result of the incentive system provided by a very tribal, very polarized society which pushes everyone to one pole or the other, where purity ends up mattering much more than competence or wisdom. The "strategic approach" you advocate feels like it would make that worse, or at best, not change it at all.
As for removing those pesky pluralistic protections and federalist state protections, they serve a function: protecting against he overreach of federal power *and* the tyranny of the majority both. I won't pretend they're perfect, but replacing them with something closer to a majoritarian rule does not strike me as an improvement.
We need politics to be local again. Our leaders to be truly more responsive to the people they represent than they are to their national party. The vast overrepresentation of national politics and everything that goes with it pushes people into camps of party and locks them in place.
I'm with you on that. The article seemed very prone to "Whataboutism", or saying "You're making a social media page? Whatabout ICE? Whatabout the border?"
I don't know that the entire Democrat party must focus every action on the news at all times! I have seen many responses to ICE or to immigration (not enough, empirically, to put the issues to bed), but they also made a social media page, so all is gone to rot it seems.
The Demos should support and industrial policy and a guaranteed income
“ a place where you can go online to get basically the latest of what’s going on, “
Will I need a Verrit code?
Write On!
I am watching and listening very carefully to Rahm Emanuel. He is mature, smart, experienced in many different arenas, and moderate. He would make JD Vance look like a little boy on a merry-go-round. I could easily get behind him and support him with whatever he might ask of me.