The problem, however, was not just Biden;s inability to project "presidential" any more. It was a question of politics. Since taking over from Trump, economic growth quickly recovered from the Covid shock with employment rates nearing the all-time records set in 2018-19. Inflation is almost back to pre-pandemic levels. The economy is looking great, so why, according to the Clintonite wisdom, aren't the Democrats ready to run away with the election? For one, despite all the successes associated with the Inflation Reduction Act, real wages still lag behind (consumer price) inflation. And when that happens, it's a recovery that only looks good on paper. It allows James "JD" Vance to argue it's the "green crap" (where have we heard that before?) and therefore the Democrats who are to blame for thinning wallets.
But it's not just economics. Thinking about the flashpoints of recent years; Covid injustice, the hostile policing of African-American communities, the appalling support of Israel's massacre of the Palestinians, the crackdowns on protests critical of US foreign policy, the demonisation of immigrants at the southern border and the continuance of Trump's authoritarian policies, Biden's presidency has gone out of its way to alienate progressive opinion - which proved to be a crucial component of the voter coalition that saw Trump off in 2020.
Unlike the British election, whose result owed as much to luck as it did to triangulation, November's presidential contest is going to be a battle of polarised voting blocs. Which side can mobilise its support across the swing states will be the one that wins. Biden's attacks launched against those who put him in the White House, is just about the most stupid - or, if you prefer, centrist-brained thing he could have done. What Democrat strategists are now hoping that with him gone, the coalition that won four years ago might be pieced together again. It's the only way they can win.
If Kamala Harris gets the nomination, which is exceedingly likely, there is a possibility she could win back support Biden lost. Not that she's going to fundamentally alter the campaign's platform to solidify working class Democrat support or make a substantial offer that might win over soft Trump supporters. There's the hope she'll turn out black voters who've turned their back on the Democrats over the crack downs on BLM protests, and that women will notice a commitment from her on reversing the partial abortion ban. That and talking up Trump's fealty to the grotesque Project 2025, which will green light further state violence on racialised minorities and migrants. We won't have to wait too long to see if it works.
While the plaudits pour in for Biden congratulating him for "his service" and "patriotism", his presidency will be remembered for two things. The active support of a genocide against an unarmed civilian population, and exposing the republic to the danger of a hard right, authoritarian take over when different choices, different policies could have inflicted a devastating, strategic defeat on them. If the worst comes to the worst, the last four years will come to be regarded as a prelude to disaster. And if somehow Trump is seen off again, Biden's time will be remembered as a criminally wasted opportunity.
Image Credit
10 comments:
A problem for Biden and Harris in providing policies that would replenish their alliance of supporters may be the source of the funds they need to campaign. If your funds are coming from groups that support Israel or employ large numbers of workers whose wage rises will impact on your profits then you need to satisfy them by arming Israel and moderating wage rises.
They are caught in a scissors of funding needs against voting needs.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/06/12/both-sides-of-the-ledger-wage-growth-beating-price-growth-now-for-15-months-in-a-row/
Who even is Harris?
Unless her profile is an awful lot higher over there than it is over here after being VP for 4 years, she surely hasn't got a chance against the Trumpster fire.
Someone who is a genuinely new face to presidential contests might at least get the "sick of the old, let's try something else" benefit of the doubt factor.
For anyone who doesn't get all their information from the mainstream UK media there are plenty of other good reasons for masses of US voters to hate and despise Joe Biden. And millions of potential US voters do get their information from non mainstream sources. To cite just a few reasons for Biden's toxicity to them:
1. He and his son Hunter are grossly corrupt , peddling influence for millions of dollars to businesses in China and Ukraine (before the war - under Obama, Biden was given vice presidential responsibility for Ukraine). This is widely known in the US, and only his Presidential patronage powers and status, and a generally fawning mass media, has kept them out of prison- so far. The UK media doesn't cover this scandal at all.
2. The death toll so far in Gaza and the West Bank, enabled entirely by US support , has killed well over 100,000 Palestinians - because the missing dead under Gaza's destroyed buildings haven't been counted in . BUT , a BIG BUT, this is actually chickenfeed in comparison to the circa 700,000+ dead and severely wounded so far on both sides, and a destroyed infrastructure dwarfing Gaza, in the Ukraine conflict - entirely provoked by the US and its NATO vassal states , starting with the 2014 US instigated 'Maidan' coup , using neo Nazi militias, against the then elected government. THIS war has put us now extraordinarily close to a nuclear WW3 - and the end of all human life on earth . And the Biden administration's 'China Faction's' determination to militarily confront China ASAP, holds out the prospect of an extra full on war with the emerging number one global economic and advanced military superpower too ! Plenty of US voters understand that too. Hence their misguided liking for JD Vance and Trump, who they think will end the war. (who actually still both want war with China , but hope to get Russia on 'our' side !
... and just like that, not only is Harris apparently coronated by fiat, but it looks like they are honest-to-God dusting off the Hillary campaign template for her. Jesus titty effing Christ.
It still might be close due to pure opposition to Trump - not that a close victory for the Dems would be much less dangerous on the tinder pile that they're sitting on. Could the Democrats actually be any more arrogantly useless? It's almost like they want their country to collapse into a bloodbath.
The problem is the 'green crap' does entail an increase of living costs and a lowering of real terms living standards. Fashionable piffle about massive investment in all things green gloss over the fact these things are costs, and they are the costs for the little people to carry rather than elites.
«Could the Democrats actually be any more arrogantly useless? It's almost like they want their country to collapse into a bloodbath.»
There is little risk of a bloodbath, just occasional riots that are merely a cost of doing business, like in the UK for most of the past 1,000 years:
* Bloodbaths happen usually (but there are more rare other cases) when the wealthy and powerful people who can fund protracted military operations have fundamentally conflicting interests and switch from politics to war ("war is the continuation of politics by other means", and BTW also vice-versa) to settle that.
* The USA master classes are not fundamentally split as in 1860. There is a split between the right-wing globalists (Reagan, Bush, Romney, Clinton, Obama, Biden) and the resurgent right-wing nationalists (Perot, Buchanan, Trump) but it is not a fundamental conflict (so far).
* The USA servant classes have been very cleverly split by the USA master classes using wokeism, and they may occasionally riot and massacre each other, but it will have little political impact. Just "letting off steam" from the point of view of the USA master classes. Much the same for the UK.
However there is a case that eventually a "John Titor" situation will happen and there may be a mass uprising by the working class allied with the lower middle class if the repression becomes too much, but so far that has been channeled into support for the right-wing nationalism of Trump.
«the 'green crap' does entail an increase of living costs and a lowering of real terms living standards.»
It is not that simple: if the "green crap" is inevitable the only choice is between a smaller "lowering of real terms living standards" now or a much bigger one later.
Obviously there is a large constituency thinking "apres mois le deluge", "more for me now at any cost to everybody else later" and could hardly care less what happens in the future and want to maximize their present living standards by asset-stripping the present as hard and fast as they can.
https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/1u0uei/a_society_grows_great_when_old_men_plant_trees/
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”
“前人种树，后人乘凉” “Those who come after rest in the shade of the tree planted by those who have come before”
Ah Kamo. Ever wonder about the impact on living standards as failure to mitigate climate change leads to an ever increasing prevalence of extreme storms, drought, wildfire, heatwaves, flooding and sea-level rise with the resultant supply chain disruption, crop failures, food shortages, mass migration and escalating conflict?
Also, as yourself why the likes of Trump and Vance are so against "green crap"? I suggest it's not because it means the "little" people's living standards might be affected.
Blissex, bloodbath is on the list of scenarios that various US state entities and interest groups wargame, and according to rumour they consider it a very real possibility. That is, they believe that it could happen even if the master class does not want it to. A renegade group of determined and organised, and "lucky", accelerationists could do it.
The US has a lot of territory and internal divisions to hide in. So such groups are assumed to exist, and to have among their members people who have been specifically trained by the US military and/or spook outfits in the methods of inflicting bloody collapse upon other countries. It's also assumed that these groups might be capable of attracting significant sympathy from within the military.
The most glaring risk factors for the US are the proliferation of arms - just look at Sudan to see what you're at risk of when the guns are distributed among any more than ONE group - and the extreme concentrations of population relative to territory. The big cities are sitting ducks to various kinds of deadly attack.
And that's the picture from yesterday. Today and tomorrow, weaponised drones are entering the frame.
Post a Comment