SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The transformation of the Democratic Party from a working class party to one of prosperous elites can’t be ignored or wished away. It is one reason why this election is so close and why an extremist may capture the electoral college. But it doesn't have to be this way.
In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican from Arizona, captured his party's presidential nomination and unabashedly conducted an extremist, right-wing campaign. He opposed civil rights legislation and New Deal social welfare programs. He implied a willingness to use nuclear weapons, saying he would give U.S. field commanders and the NATO Supreme Commander the freedom to launch them without presidential approval.
As Goldwater famously said in his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
The Johnson campaign exploited Goldwater’s extremism with what may be the most effective and chilling TV ad of all time.
If you watch the famous campaign ad, you’ll see a very young girl standing in a field, pulling petals off a daisy while counting them out one by one. Then, we hear the voice of a military commander (with a strong southern accent) doing a similar countdown that ends in a nuclear explosion which takes over the screen. The ad finishes with a voice-over, Lyndon Johnson offering a few pious words about love and peace. Johnson is never seen. Goldwater is never mentioned.
Lyndon Johnson crushed Goldwater 61.1 percent to 38.5, winning 486 electoral votes to 52.
This year’s election also features a self-declared extremist. Yet today, the presidential race is a toss-up. Trump’s extremism promotes lies about immigrants eating pets and the poisoning of our blood. Trump calls Democrats the enemy within and he praises those who stormed the capital on January 6th. And in total violation of the history of American electioneering, he continues to argue that the 2020 election was stolen from him. A vast majority of Republicans agree with him. Goldwater and his party of 1964 look like centrists in comparison.
Given Trump’s blatant extremism, how can the election be so close? Why isn’t Harris 20 points ahead? What is so different between now and 1964?
Hillary Clinton, in 2016, provided an explanation, shared by many, that about half of all Trump voters are bigots:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. (Laughter/applause) Right? (Laughter/applause) They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.
Voters are willing to elect Trump, the ultra-extremist, because he voices their fears about the rise of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ communities. More than anything, they and Trump want to make America white again!
If that theory is correct, we’d expect white working-class voters to be very illiberal on those issues and to have become even more so over the last several decades. We tested that theory in my book, Wall Street’s War on Workers, tracking 23 divisive social issues questions found in long-term voter surveys. It turns out that in 13 of the questions, the responses shifted in a more liberal direction over the years, and none of the 23 became more illiberal. Here are two stunning examples:
“Should gay or lesbian couples be legally permitted to adopt children?”
Said Yes in 2000: 38.2%
Said Yes in 2020: 76.0%
“Should legal status be granted to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least 3 years and have not been convicted of any felony crimes?”
Said Yes in 2010: 32.1%
Said Yes in 2020: 61.8%
If the deplorable argument is wanting, as our research suggests, what is a better explanation for the enormous support Trump is receiving?
A disclaimer is in order. It’s impossible to address all the factors in one short article. But this question shouldn’t be ignored, so here goes.
Let’s start with trust in government. In 1964, an amazing 77 percent of Americans agreed that “they trust the government to do what is right just about always/most of the time.” In 2024 it was 22 percent.
That means the incumbent President in 1964, Lyndon Johnson, was viewed as the leader of a government that protected it’s people. Kamala Harris, as the current incumbent Vice-President, is mostly viewed as a leader of a government that is not protecting the average person. Harris is perceived as part of the establishment, the elites who have benefited during the years of runaway inequality, while Trump is perceived as its wrecking ball.
But that displeasure with government today suggests another set of explanations, including the collapse of unionization and the rise of job insecurity facing working people over the past four decades. More than 29 percent of the total U.S. workforce were union members in 1964. Add in their families and at last half of all Americans had close union connections. Today, 94 percent of all private sector workers are not in unions.
As a result, nearly all workers have had little or no protection against the mass layoffs that have regularly afflicted the country since the 1970s, even when the economy is prospering. During the Johnson years, the union ecosystem was so dense that Democratic politicians had no choice but to appeal to the interests of working people. They had to be the party of workers whether they liked it or not.
But starting with Bill Clinton, unions became small enough to ignore. Appealing to and appeasing Wall Street and corporate interests became central to the Democratic Party’s path to power. They wrongly believed that workers had no place else to turn.
And white workers, in particular, fled the Democrats. The research for my book strongly suggests that the main culprit was mass layoffs and the failure of the Democrats to address them.
Take Mingo County, West Virginia, with a population 25,000. It had 3,300 coal mining jobs in 1996. In that year Bill Clinton received 69.7 percent of the vote. By 2020, Mingo County had lost 3,000 of those coal mining jobs, and Joe Biden received only 13.9 percent.
Is this cherry-picking one country to make a point? No. For Wall Street’s War on Workers, we tested all the counties in the Blue Wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Our findings showed that as the county mass layoff rate went up, the Democratic vote declined. In short, the Democrats are being blamed for failing to protect working-class people from the destruction of their jobs. While working people may not know all the details about stock buybacks and leveraged buyouts, they know that Wall Street has been walking all over them and the Democrats have done little to stop them.
In discussing with my colleagues why this election is so different than 1964, one noted that the problem may be that Harris didn’t have enough time to mount a full campaign. But another jumped in and said, maybe she had too much time. Say what?
“She’s a corporate Democrat,” my colleague responded, meaning that the more Harris campaigns the more she sends that corporate-friendly signal to working-class voters. When they say she isn’t specific enough about her plans, they’re also saying she isn’t speaking directly enough to them about their issues.
The transformation of the Democratic Party from the party of the working class to the party of prosperous elites can’t be ignored or wished away. It is one reason why this election is so close and why an extremist may capture the electoral college. If Trump wins, he will surely wield his axe against government, and that is certain to negatively impact the most vulnerable among us.
It doesn’t have to be this way. My research and that of the Center for Working Class Politics show that a strong progressive populist message is very attractive to working people, especially in the Blue Wall states. It’s a damn shame that so many Democratic politicians can’t see the writing on the wall.Don't let history fool you. Trump can be destroyed, but only if those in a position of power show the courage that's needed. It’s now up to Biden's inner circle and the leaders of the Democratic Party to make the correct decision.
By showing his age and fragility in the debate, President Joe Biden did us all a big favor. There now is a possibility, still slight but higher than before, that he will bow out of the race and not run again.
On November 20, 2023, I wrote a column—titled "Who Has the Courage to Tell Joe Biden Not to Run?"—that asked Biden to drop out. I took heat for that, even from my friends and colleagues. I heard all kinds of arguments, ranging from “He’s a great president and deserves another term,” to “It’s too late to do anything about it.” I was also accused of being a defeatist and some said that my attitude would weaken Biden and help Trump win.
After Biden gave his energetic State of the Union address, the finger wagging accelerated: “See, Biden clearly has the wherewithal to crush Trump,” friends said. I was not convinced. But, after Biden’s Thursday night debate performance, a lot more people became unconvinced. He looked old and spoke even older, that was undeniable.
It’s now up to Biden and the leaders of the Democratic Party. Do they have the guts to tell Biden not to run? Do any of the younger presidential hopefuls have the nerve to speak out? Does Biden have the guts to withdraw?
It is past time to listen to what the Democratic rank and file have been saying all along. They want someone younger to do combat with Trump. While I’m usually a poll skeptic, Biden’s approval numbers are pathetic. The president stood at just 37 percent as of June 24, and that number hardly budged even after the surprisingly strong SOTU address. That polling weakness, I believe, reflects less on the president’s job performance than on how he looks and acts on the job.
Unfortunately, the primaries have been completed and no significant Democrat has showed the nerve to oppose him. That leaves it up to Biden to decide, and in the aftermath of the debate debacle, he and his team say they’re running harder than ever... right over the cliff!
But that could change if his poll numbers further deteriorate and if enough Democratic leaders feel they might lose as well in the fall if Biden heads the ticket.
Pundits have encouraged the Democrat’s cowardice by claiming that defeat always follows when a sitting president is challenged by one of his own party. The poster child for this story is 1968, when Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota took on President Lyndon Johnson in the primaries. McCarthy’s strength led Johnson to withdraw, and for party regulars to engineer the nomination of Vice President Hubert Humphrey. This ended with the victory of Richard Nixon in the general election.
That’s not the way I see it. I challenge all comers to a historical duel about 1968 politics. I think that election was entirely winnable by Humphrey had he taken a mild anti-Vietnam War position a bit sooner during his fall campaign.
That pivotal year is worth reviewing. In 1968, there were 536,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam killing and being killed in large numbers. The Tet Offensive showed the American public that the Johnson administration had been lying when describing our success conducting the war. It was clear that America was not winning. McCarthy challenged the sitting president with a strong anti-war message, appealing to the support of young people in the growing anti-war movement. (About one million men were drafted into the armed forces from 1965 to 1968.) Thousands flocked to his campaign, going door-to-door in New Hampshire where McCarthy gained 42 percent of the Democratic primary vote. The next primary was to take place in Wisconsin and following his New Hampshire scare Johnson knew he was sure to lose. On March 30, LBJ dropped out of the race, and on April 2 McCarthy won Wisconsin by 57 to 35 percent.
With Johnson out, Humphrey became the Democratic Party establishment candidate, but then Robert Kennedy jumped in, making it a three-man race. On April 4, Dr. Martin King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis and riots broke out in 100 cities across the country, leading to 43 deaths and the mobilization of National Guard units and the military occupation of several U.S. cities. Disruption and chaos had the upper hand, and by the time of the California primary, on June 4, it was clear that Kennedy, would defeat McCarthy and become the leader of the anti-war Democrats. Sadly, he was assassinated that night in Los Angeles, greatly weakening the anti-war electoral efforts.
The August 26-29 Democratic convention, held in Chicago, turned into a riot, a police riot, as the Chicago police—under the control of Mayor Richard Daley—viciously attacked the generally peaceful anti-war demonstrators. Anti-war convention delegates, and even CBS’s Dan Rather, were beaten as Daley turned his political machine into a ramrod for the Humphrey campaign. The carnage was broadcast live on TV.
After Kennedy’s murder it was a forgone conclusion that Humphrey would become the Democratic nominee. But the key political event at the tumultuous convention turned out to be the vote on a rather mild peace plank for the Democratic Party platform, something that the Kennedy and McCarthy delegates hoped to salvage for their efforts. But LBJ, pulling the strings, refused to compromise and the plank was narrowly defeated.
I try to avoid the prediction game, but I am willing to go out on a limb on this one: If Biden stays in, we get Trump. If a younger Democrat becomes the nominee, Trump will get crushed.
That fall, Vice President Humphrey ran against the former Vice President Nixon, who based his campaign on law and order, scaring the newly concocted “Silent Majority,” and criticizing the riots and anti-war demonstrations that were ripping through the country. Nixon also claimed to have a plan to end the war in Vietnam that he would reveal at his inauguration, which turned out to be an appealing lie. Humphrey, an organization man nearly to the end, stayed loyal to the unpopular LBJ positions and fell behind by 44 to 27 percent in a September 27 Gallop poll.
On September 30, 1968, Humphrey finally broke ranks with LBJ in a nationwide speech. He announced that he would put an end to the bombing in Vietnam and would call for a ceasefire. This brought McCarthy and many of his supporters, as well as Kennedy supporters, into the Humphrey campaign, quickly narrowing the gap. But with only a month to go Humphrey didn’t quite get there: Nixon won 43.4 percent to Humphrey’s 42.7 percent, with segregationist George Wallace netting 15.5 percent.
I believe any objective analyst would conclude that had Democrats supported the peace plank at the convention or had Humphrey offered his peace plan sooner, he would have won. So please don’t use 1968 to tell us that if Biden withdraws, the Democrats are sure to lose, (which is what Kaitlin Collins said on CNN the night after the debate.)
I try to avoid the prediction game, but I am willing to go out on a limb on this one: If Biden stays in, we get Trump. If a younger Democrat becomes the nominee, Trump will get crushed.
It’s now up to Biden and the leaders of the Democratic Party. Do they have the guts to tell Biden not to run? Do any of the younger presidential hopefuls have the nerve to speak out? Does Biden have the guts to withdraw?
President Biden, we thank you for your service. Now give us the chance to thank you again for protecting democracy by stepping aside.
On whistling past the graveyards of foreign misadventures and the political peril of war-weary voters.
With just a few minor changes, President Biden’s recent op-ed in the Washington Post could have been taken from a half-century-old time capsule. “The United States is the essential nation,” he writes. “The world looks to us to solve the problems of our time. That is the duty of leadership, and America will lead.”
It’s a blast from the past, and not in a good way. The op-ed speaks of wars to fight and enemies to defeat, from Russia to the Middle East, with the U.S. once again serving as global police.
Pax Americana is back.
In the face of global outrage, the president has proposed a “humanitarian pause” in U.S.-backed violence. While that would be welcome, the president’s words show us that he’s had no change of heart. “The world looks to us to solve the problems of our time,” the op-ed asserts. Most of the world would be happy if we didn’t create any more problems than we already have.
The op-ed tells us that the president holds an obsolete view of the world as a stage, with the U.S. as chief protagonist in a Manichean struggle between the forces of light and those of darkness. America’s enemies represent “pure, unadulterated evil” who are “fighting to wipe a neighboring democracy off the map’ (as if Israel were a democracy), while the U.S. is a planetary Dudley Do-Right who will “stand up to aggressors and make progress toward a brighter, more peaceful future.”
The word “law” only appears once, and “diplomacy” isn’t mentioned at all.
Biden’s op-ed brought to mind the words of Lyndon Johnson, who said:
“For today we Americans share responsibility not only for our own security but for the security of all free nations, not only for our own society but for an entire civilization, not only for our own liberty but for the hopes of all humanity.”
Those words were spoken nearly sixty years ago. They have not aged well.
“Will Israelis and Palestinians one day live side by side in peace,” President Biden writes, “with two states for two peoples?” But the dream of a two-state solution has been crushed under the weight of 700,000 Israelis on Palestinian land, subsidized by a rightwing government that built illegal settlements under the passive gaze of U.S. politicians like Biden.
Lyndon Johnson said this about Vietnam in 1965: “We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired. We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.”
But in the end, after all the killing, that’s exactly what happened. It will probably happen again.
LBJ presided over the creation of Medicare and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, but the growing unpopularity of the war in Vietnam forced him to step down rather than face defeat.
Biden’s op-ed is another attempt to paint the administration’s multiple military sprees as a single, unified, glorious mission. That mission is failing in its goals and harming U.S. interests at home and abroad.
In that way, at least, Biden’s presidency increasingly resembles LBJ’s. Johnson presided over the creation of Medicare and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, but the growing unpopularity of the war in Vietnam forced him to step down rather than face defeat. The result was the presidency of Richard Nixon, whose one-and-a-half terms altered the trajectory of American history.
It’s odd. When we were protesting Johnson in high school, he seemed like an old man. But Johnson was 59 years old when he withdrew from the 1968 race, more than two decades younger than Joe Biden will be next November. This president cannot afford too many missteps.
Biden has won some policy victories, but the public doesn’t seem to be feeling them. His age also has voters worried. And yet, despite these weaknesses, he’s thrown caution to the winds on military adventurism. In that, he seems to be following in his younger predecessor’s footsteps.
In Israel’s case, it reflects longstanding loyalty on his part – a loyalty that is not reciprocated by Benjamin Netanyahu, who humiliates him virtually every chance he gets. But Biden is a true believer. He said this in a 1986 clip that will almost certainly be recycled in next year’s campaign:
“It’s about time we stop apologizing for our support for Israel. There’s no apology to be made, none. It is the best $3 billion investment we make. If there weren’t an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.”
In other words, let’s fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.
But Biden’s $3 billion “investment” is approaching $17 billion this year, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that — like the nation’s wasteful military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan— it’s likely to create more enemies than it kills.
Biden has won some policy victories, but the public doesn’t seem to be feeling them.
The public isn’t buying it. The latest NBC News poll shows that his handling of Israel and Gaza is crushing his already shaky poll numbers. As NBC reports:
President Joe Biden’s approval rating has declined to the lowest level of his presidency — 40% — as strong majorities of all voters disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the Israel-Hamas war, according to the latest national NBC News poll.
“The erosion for Biden is most pronounced among Democrats,” NBC adds, “majority of whom believe Israel has gone too far in its military action in Gaza, and among voters ages 18 to 34, with a whopping 70% of them disapproving of Biden’s handling of the war ...”
The NBC report continues:
What stands out in the new survey is the shift among voters ages 18 to 34. In September, 46% of these voters said they approved of Biden’s job performance. Now? Biden’s approval rating dropped to 31% among these voters.
Biden is losing groups he can’t afford to lose. He’s already seen his support plunge from 59 percent to 17 percent among Arab Americans, a critical voting bloc in several swing states. Now he’s losing young voters. These numbers are likely to get worse as voters hear more about the mass killing of innocents in Gaza with American weapons.
Biden is losing groups he can’t afford to lose.
That’s undoubtedly why the White House tried to conceal the kinds of weapons we’ve been sending Israel, but Bloomberg News got the list. They include 36,000 rounds of 30mm cannon ammunition, 1,800 M141 bunker-buster munitions, precision-guided munitions, drones, small-diameter bombs, and 155mm artillery shells.
As Bloomberg reports, over 30 relief organizations asked Austin not to send these weapons, especially the 155mm shells. ‘In Gaza, one of the world’s most densely populated places, 155mm artillery shells are inherently indiscriminate,’ the organizations said. ‘These munitions are unguided and have a high error radius.’
Too late. Austin had already declared that “U.S. security assistance to Israel will flow in at the speed of war.”
When it comes to military interventions, Biden is spending money hand over fist. This chart from the Council on Foreign Relations outlines the amount spent and publicly disclosed through July 31:
Biden’s new supplemental spending bill would provide another $66 billion in aid for Ukraine ($44.4 billion of which is military), an additional $14.3 billion in direct military aid for Israel, and $7 billion for a buildup in the South China Sea.
The projected total in direct military assistance to Ukraine alone is greater than the 2022 military budget of any nation on Earth except the U.S. and China—and the U.S. spends nearly three times as much as China.
That leaves the president and his party vulnerable to right-wing appeals like this one from Tucker Carlson:
Unlike so many of our elected leaders, (Trump voters) have been to America recently. They know what it looks like. Have you seen it? If you've got a few days this summer, find out. Take a road trip and see for yourself. Drive 500 miles in any direction and then come home. How are things looking? …
There are potholes and Jersey barriers everywhere. Looks like Tegucigalpa before the Chinese decided to rebuild the infrastructure of Honduras ... And you wonder as you see all of this, where did all the money go? It's certainly not here. Well, it's in Washington ... And of course, a huge chunk of it went to Ukraine, to Zelensky and his friends.
Whatever one’s feelings about Ukraine, it’s hard to deny that rhetoric like this could resonate with a war-weary and economically insecure electorate.
One, Two, Three, Many Vietnams
Biden’s relentless militarism, especially in Israel, is markedly driving down his already weak poll numbers. His support for Ukraine has not yet hurt him among his party’s base, but that could change. The conflict is at a stalemate even as he calls for $66 billion in additional aid. What happens next?
Biden’s relentless militarism, especially in Israel, is markedly driving down his already weak poll numbers.
Americans largely support Ukraine’s independence, as they should, but the public’s patience is not unlimited. They may demand diplomacy instead of war, especially as the fighting drags on—and especially if they learn that the U.S. alliance appears to have blocked a diplomatic settlement early in the conflict. That’s something Republicans will be eager to tell them about.
Americans’ compassion for Ukraine may take a different form as they watch its people continue to die in a war that’s not making progress. The Defense Secretary’s stated goal of using Ukrainians to “weaken” Russia’s military strength may start to look as inhumane as it is wasteful.
The most striking thing about U.S. involvement in the bombing of Gaza is how rapidly public support for it has fallen. In that sense, Israel’s assault has already become Biden’s Vietnam. By next November, his expenditures in Ukraine could become another.
The most striking thing about U.S. involvement in the bombing of Gaza is how rapidly public support for it has fallen.
Vietnam was originally a popular war, too, but the ongoing loss of life, the expense, and its well-publicized brutality eroded its support and ended LBJ’s presidency. It’s true that, unlike Vietnam, today’s conflicts don’t involve U.S. soldiers. But there is a greater sense of economic distress today—and a smart Republican will play on fears of a nuclear confrontation with Russia.
Support for Vietnam didn’t fade overnight. It took the 1968 Tet Offensive to drive the percentage of voters supporting the war down into the 30’s. Today, at least one Ukrainian general acknowledges the war is a stalemate.
Many things could go wrong. The president might have to invest more—far more—into the war than he has yet promised. He could risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Ukraine could experience a battlefield defeat similar to the Tet Offensive.
Or all those things could happen.
Unfortunately, Biden also seems to share LBJ’s hostility to criticism. He reportedly refers to Democratic strategist David Axelrod as a “prick” for questioning his re-electability, to which Axelrod responded:
“I don’t care about them thinking I’m a prick — that’s fine ... I hope they don’t think the polls are wrong because they’re not.”
Some professional Democrats insist the polls are wrong. They’re downplaying Biden’s weaknesses and counting on the unpopularity of Donald Trump to secure his re-election. That’s whistling past the graveyard – which in this case is “a graveyard for children.” Trump is a shrewd debater who has postured himself as an adversary of the military/industrial “deep state.”
And Trump may not even be the 2024 nominee. I fear Nikki Haley more than I do Trump, and polls already show her outperforming Trump by 10 points in the general election. If Trump is convicted of a crime between now and Election Day, polls show his support dropping significantly. Meanwhile, Haley has become more polished and could overwhelm Biden on the debate stage.
Supercut: NBC Goes to War! Turns GOP Debate into Bloodlust Contestyoutu.be
None of this is to suggest that Republicans offer a better alternative on military issues. While they’re skeptical about Ukraine, the GOP candidates who are not named Trump are even more bellicose than the current White House occupant. (I made the video above to illustrate that.)
But their extremism won’t necessarily save Joe Biden from LBJ’s fate. It’s foolish to predict an election that’s twelve months away, as Democratic officials often remind us. But it’s even more foolish to ignore today’s poll numbers—or yesterday’s lessons—about presidents who blindly pursue the path of war.
Republicans compete for lethal prizes.