To Put it in Terms of D & D

 Donald Trump is Chaotic Evil.  Joe Biden is Lawful Good.  It's as simple as that, really, in our Presidential election this year.  Pick a side in the war.

But is that all there is?  No--there is a lot more involved.  Libertarians, for example, tend to be Chaotic Neutral.  Where do they go, especially those who really want to be more Good? Corporations, and most politicians, are either Lawful Neutral, or if they can be bought, Neutral Neutral.  Some are even Neutral Evil (e.g., Bernie Madoff).  

Nikki Haley's natural consistency is the Lawful Neutral, and her victory  loss in New Hampshire shows she has some appeal to them.  She has shown, however, that she has to preserve her claim to the affection of the Lawful Evil elements of her Party in order to have a chance to defeat the forces of Chaos. 

There's more, as we cover all permutations. Neutral Evil is barely if ever represented in public; it's like the Witch in Hansel and Gretel, or Donald Trump, if you mistakenly go into his dressing room--just don't go there.  Neutral Good may be the most numerous of all, in terms of the American electorate.  Not too interested in which team, not too much involved, but their intentions are benevolent in general. Biden, logically, should win the majority of these folks, and if he can get them to vote, he will win the election.

That's Fine, But What About Me?

There aren't many politicians, or even public figures, who are Chaotic Good, like the character I portray in politics.  Bernie Sanders and his 2016 Presidential campaign comes to mind, and I love him, but I was indulging the pragmatic, rather than maximalist, dimension of my activism too much at the time.  (He wasn't going to win, and his candidacy didn't help Hilary's in her mission to Stop Trump.) Besides, I had a job. 

My ideas at heart are about removing major facades of our political infrastructure for entirely new ones.  These could fairly be called radical, and I wear the label proudly if I am ever asked (which I am not--it's practically a slur, since 1980 anyway).  I could name a couple of musicians who exemplify the characteristics:  Bono, or maybe Bruce Springsteen.  John Lennon.  Among politicians, Jimmy Carter, though his devout Christianity is a little too conventional for me. Nelson Mandela, of course.

Now, is my philosophy rare?  Not at all, Haley, after all, correctly pointed out that the majority of Americans want an option other than Biden v. Trump.  That view is the diametric opposite of today's presumed general election, in other words a very Chaotic Good impulse.  That's the space she's trying to claim, and I respect that.  

As this episode plays out, I am looking for the secret that the Dungeon Master has hidden away.  The Vorpal Weapon that will finally penetrate the Bickhead's defenses (or Dickhead's befences), or alternatively, the Ring of Power that Trump covets.

 

The One and Only

 Spin Uncertainty Despite Certain Outcome

That's quantum mechanics for you.   Check for photo

The primary season will begin and end tomorrow.  The sudden irrelevance of that democratic--even overly democratic--institution came after a rising distrust of the whole partisan system.  R.I.P.?

It's a power game now, as the Trumpites have a real foothold in the government, despite the Democratic President. The stakes are huge:  China, Russia, and even North Korea and Iran are licking their chops at the end of American global leadership they have reason to anticipate. 

The crisis of immigration is just another case in which America--by which I mean, the Federal government of the US--shows the limits of its power.  It's a result of our lawless global political framework (using the term loosely) and the collapse of populous states.  There will be more of them.  

Within the government's limited realm, though, the executive power of the President has only risen since the days of Johnson, Nixon, and the like.  These Presidents may talk about the unlimited nature of Presidential power, but  not about themselves in that role.  Meanwhile, each has looked to expand powers. Congress' moves to limit Presidents fall short repeatedly.  We would be turning loose a monster. 

It's a shame that this New Hampshire Republican primary will be likely the only meaningful decision point before we effectively go into the general election. 

As least as far as the two major parties and the selection of the Presidential candidates.  A lot of interest will then go onto the possibility of third-party alternatives.  The only one that interests me is the one implied by Chris Christie's "failure" to endorse Nikki Haley*. I see him and Liz Cheney deciding to run and get on ballots, most importantly to get into debates (ones Trump would use that excuse to escape).  I'm not sure who gets "on top", though:  I'm thinking Liz, unless Chris goes for the Ozempic soon.  (I apologize for that one.)

RFKJR polling way better than he has any reason to do indicates the range of opportunity that lies out there. His numbers will surely go down, and I doubt he will end up qualifying for any debates, though a Libertarian endorsement could change that.  In the case of Cheney-Christie, though, a few percentage of Republicans, maybe a significant result in a couple of states, could mean the difference. 

Meanwhile, the Democrats

The Biden campaign has badly handled the question of the initial primary.  Now there will be undue attention to how an unauthorized write-in campaign does against a couple of throwaway candidates (Rep. Dean Phillip and the lovely Marianne Williamson).  And the fact that Independents are being furiously wooed (mostly by Democrats) to come out  to defeat the Party of Dickhead can only reduce Democratic turnout.  

The bottom line is that a candidate never wins by refusing to participate in the election. That is a general rule, for my money one that applies even in countries with elections that are truly fixed. And Trump above all knows that first you compete and then complain about the result being fixed. 

This does have a farcical recapitulation of 1968 feeling to me.  Incumbent LBJ withdrew after New Hampshire write-ins that year led Clean Gene McCarthy's quixotic antiwar campaign to finish behind incumbent President Lyndon Johnson by only a small margin.  The war situation is not the same, but there's simmering discontent in the Democratic tent, too.  Unimaginably, there is risk. 

The last third-party run to earn electoral votes electorally was in 1968, after a chaotic series of events.  The person gaining those states, which came short of throwing the election into the House but could well have done so, was George Wallace of Alabama.  (Ross Perot never won any, with a much higher percentage of votes.)  I could see Trump losing a Republican state like Utah, Montana or North Carolina due to a strong third-party run by an establishment Republican ticket running third-party, whether the electoral votes actually accrue to the Cheney-Christie team (Would they/could they then throw their votes to Biden?  Could be historic!) or, more likely, make possible a sneaky Biden win of a state or two not fully expected. 

Biden has made New Hampshire competitive, I daresay. The good news is that Trump's militant anti-Islamic bigotry is making that theoretical run to take Biden on in Michigan very unlikely for him.

*Nikki, nikki tekel upharsin - you have been measured, Nikki, and found wanting.

Nearly at the Precipice

(Not "At the Precipice of ...Anything.")

 

 

Entering 2024, it is clear that we are there, a massive rock formation of dizzying heights and great danger.  But is it below us, this precipitous drop, or is it above, the possibilities before us almost without limit if we can only....?

Here in the Roadrunner State, we can observe the birds scurrying around, trying to stay out of the heat and find safe pickings, while Wile E. Coyote lurks, threatening the worst. We are not at the cliff's edge yet; we know it's there, though.  

The bill being designed supposedly to feed the militaries of Ukraine, of Israel, of East Asia-not-China, has been stalled by the rising border crisis and policy dispute, inflamed by the wave of migrants currently coming in. This still-unnamed compromise bill is a contradiction within itself, Fortress America with regard to the rest of the world's pressure of migration, but paying out to involve ourselves further in foreign struggles and conflicts.  I hold little hope for its passage; meanwhile, what about the bills to fund the government, some of them expiring January 12? 

To take these cases one by one, briefly:  Ukraine must be reinforced and it will be, one way or another--remember Lend-Lease?  or buying on credit?  Aid to Israel has been delayed long enough and, when it comes, and it will, it should not contain lethal offensive weapons.  Call that an attached string if you want; they need to break off the Netanyahu endless offensive, him included.  "Don't change leader in the middle of a war?"  Ask #Neville Chamberlain~:  If the war is not working, change is indicated, and sooner is then better than later. 

Finally, East Asia-not-China:  The aid to Taiwan that must be given should not be a public matter.  Aid to the Philippines, absolutely.  Singapore, you know it.  Even Thailand, if it's not all poured down the maw of corruption. It goes without saying, direct support to Australia, Korea and Japan.  That is plenty.

So, President Biden declares an emergency and uses it to give Ukraine what it needs.  Trump did it to start exuding his Wall.  Sounds like it will be less-than-SOTA*, as our electronics seem behind Russia's hackers.

Election Cliff, Viewed from Afar

Again, because of our peculiar angles of the distant vista, it's hard to say whether it is a drop-off, or a mountain so tall its top is in the clouds.  Clearly there is a Valley that must be crossed--the dangers there are both known and unknown.  On the other side, it is clear the terrain is rugged, jagged rocks poking through the mist, but after that? 

One simple example for our current dilemma:  Is Nikki Haley a step up or a step down? In quality, we're talking about, for a potential Republican nominee.  No doubt she is less evil than Donald Trump; she doesn't present the threat of immediate authoritarian rule. We can probably survive a campaign of Nikki Haley vs. Anyone (probably not Biden, in that case) without going at each others' throats en masse. 

Now, though, that little bit of a chance, which required a) a surprise second place finish in Iowa; b) a narrow victory or loss vs. Trump in New Hampshire; and (most unlikely of them) c) defeating Trump in her home state of South Carolina, well, that chance seems gone forever.  

There is irony in her befuddled mind before answering that challenging question; she didn't just improvise a bunch of nonsense.  What went through her mind were the evasive answers she had given on the question in the past (of which the anonymous questioner was well aware) and how it had to be played for South Carolina.  Yes, still today, in the state of Tim Scott, South Carolina, where she will no doubt be smeared--after she fails to take second in Iowa or win New Hampshire.  Sorry, Nikki! I really wanted you to punch The Dickhead in his blowhole. .  

I'm pretty sure Donald will name his VP fairly early if things go well.  I'm expecting it to be Kristi Noem; he wants a pretty spokesperson while he deals with some of the consequences of his mischievous putsch. Nikki Haley should not be fooling anyone with her pretense of being a possible VP to Trump; she is not under consideration, and she especially would not be if she were successful in her primary challenges.  She would disavow the notion if it didn't potentially decrease her appeal for less-than-fully-committed Trump supporters. 

It's the Economy, And I Guess I'm Stupid

I certainly draw comfort from the confidence Wall Street is showing these days. Is it possible that they don't think that it will matter whether the Democrats or Republicans sweep the table of power in 2024?  I can't believe that, nor do I believe that they know, better than all others, who will win.  And please don't tell me they are comfortable with the chaos Trump's win would produce, or either that they know all will be fine, and he will be defeated through some means. 

Instead, we are seeing the shortest of short-term bets.  Next year will be good.   There will be time to withdraw risk assets before the SHTF.+

I am a stubbornly optimistic person by nature, and with regard to most specific issues.  I always believe there is a way--just ask me.   However, I don't feel so good, even about 2024's domestic economic success forecast.  It is true that we consumers spent like crazy this Christmas, so that would be a boost.  Also, the Fed is done raising, that is clear.  In driving terms, that means they released the pressure of their foot off the brake, which they had been applying steadily. The foot is still there, resting softly on top of the brake pedal, as the regenerative braking (we have the best, modern economists!) kicks in, providing natural slowing, storing energy for a revival, if needed.

My pessimism--or maybe I should just describe it as caution--derives from a weak global economy.  So far, our economy has done well despite the unusual outbreak of war involving European nations**, but there is vulnerability in supply chains which will be exploited at some point.  I see a spotty pattern of growth, with industries like cars, oil, and financials suffering, but some of the big infrastructure and military companies thriving.  The tech stock monsters which powered 2023's market recovery are just about overpriced, as eager competitors will seek to knock away market share, sacrificing profitability.

But What About That Upside? 

There is so much potential for us if we fail to screw it up.  World peace, an end to extreme poverty and inequality, enormous improvements in our quality and duration of life, exploration of the micro- and macro-universes in ways we can barely imagine.  Our pace of progress in human capability has been enormous over the last 300 years and seems in many ways only to be accelerating.

The conversion to renewable energy is moving apace.  I don't expect things like wind, hydrothermal, or the current generation of solar energy to be long-term solutions, but we won't have to go back to oil, even if its cost is reduced further through technological advancement.  Practical fusion is now less than 50 years away for the first time, and other opportunities will present themselves.  Energy is all around us to be harvested.

Somehow, we still seem to be able to produce enough food to feed 8 billion people, even if many live in food insecurity. This may turn out to be the Golden Age of Global Food, but developing more diverse and healthy sources of food locally will be more valuable to society, especially in dealing with the damage to ecosystems that will result from climate change continuing.  

In the long run, I believe there will be a significant change in our procreation and birthing.  It may become necessary, if bad chemicals in our environment endanger successful random mating of sperm and egg.  Then there is the trauma of birthing--there, I said it.  The rise of Caesarans , even if not needed for medical reasons, and the choice of so many young people to delay or forego having children, are clues that change is coming.  I'm not expert enough to predict its form, but it will be somewhere between today's forceps and Huxley's baby factories.  As for mating rituals, they are in constant evolution, but always tend toward the dysfunctional.  That actually might be something that will improve with AI's development.  

The big improvement that will be needed is more within our minds, though.  The animal brain portion we have is not designed to handle well modern stresses and frustrations.  I don't see those distractions decreasing, though; the difference must come from how we deal with them.  In this regard, the progressing legalization of cannabis (it's not just "weed", or "dope" anymore) is a positive sign of our developing capability to adapt our minds.  That underground smoldering burst into our society in the now-mythical Sixties, but it was too much, too soon.  That's not true anymore; many more of us now realize the needs most or all have to take actions specifically to curate their mental health, because we are feeling it ourselves--one perversely positive result of the Covid epidemic 

It starts this year, in 2024, with a definitive defeat of defeatism. Trumpism is a loser, that is clear. The challenge is to prove one's system and way of life better than the authoritarians'; going his way gives up the game. 

Footnotes

#UK PM, May, 1937-May, 1940.  I feel for his suffering descendants.  (Not Wilt? I hear he has many of them.)

*State of the Art.  Should be reduced to a FLA, if it isn't already.  (TLA's are so 2010's!)

+ Shit Hits The Fan.  Useful for any general global apocalypse, without hitting the censors, for now.

**Or extended Europe, if you will (in the FIFA view).