Skin Suit

The other day I saw a lawn sign in our town, "Harris/Walz: Unity Over Division".

The Democratic ticket is campaigning on the themes of "Centrism", "Joy To The World" and "Uniting America".

How can this be for the party that has made the race essentialism of "Diversity Over Unity" as its governing policy since 2020, seconded only by its efforts to attain permanent power by "Unity Over Dissent", defining any policy disagreement as misinformation and/or hate speech deserving of suppression?

The answer was provided by David Burge (Iowahawk) back in 2016.

1.  Target a respected institution.

2.  Kill & clean it.

3.  Wear it as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

It's happened over and over to our institutions, that continue to trade on their prestige from the old days, when they have become merely debased propaganda outlets (see, for instance, the New York Times).

In the case of Harris and Walz, the skin suit they have donned for the campaign consists of the Democratic Party of 1996 and Centrism, a strategy that may work for those who pay more attention to vibes instead of substance and for whom the fear of Trump obliterates any reasoning power.

But what is inside the skin suit is a radical reformation of America, continuing the march of insane academic theories hostile to racial conciliation, to the family, to freedom, and to equality under the law, in which the only solution to the inevitable frictions and disagreements that arise in a nation of more than 300 million with a diversity of political and religious beliefs, and of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, is the suppression of opposition in the name of "preserving democracy", when "democracy" is defined as doing what Democrats want.

It may work, as the Democrats have four advantages.  

First, they are much more effective in aligning their rhetoric with a strategy to achieve their goals than Donald Trump.  The Democrats use their rhetoric to obscure their goals.  It's their skin suit.

With Trump it's the opposite.  His reckless rhetoric undercuts his goals.(1)  Trump can sound authoritarian (and ignorant), yet most of his actions while President were not, and most of his policies were centrist.  The best example of the mismatch is with regards to Russia.  Much of Trump's rhetoric regarding Russia and Putin was irresponsible and terrible, while Biden talked tough about Russia during the 2020 campaign and thereafter.  But what were their actions? 

- In contrast to the Obama administration, Trump authorized the sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, weapons which proved critical to that country's defense in the early days of the Russian invasion.  At the time, AP sadly reported that, by doing so, Bad Man Trump had created yet another "sore point" between Washington and Moscow.

-Trump vocally opposed the Nordstream 2 pipeline, which would supply Russian gas to Germany, because, as he argued, it would make Germany economically dependent on Russia.  For this he was mocked for alienating an ally.

- Biden, upon taking office, endorsed Nordstream 2.  In fact, when Senate Republicans tried to introduce a resolution rebuking Biden for that support, Democrats used the "Jim Crow" filibuster to avoid the resolution even coming to a vote, so they would not have to take a public position.

- Trump vocally urged NATO allies to increase their military expenditures, for which he was mocked by our allies and American media outlets.  Doesn't sound so bad now, does it?

- Trump withdrew from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia, because of the Kremlin's noncompliance with its provisions.

- Upon taking office, Biden said, "where do I sign for the INF extension?".

- Trump imposed sanctions on Russia's ally, Iran.

- Biden lifted the sanctions on Russia's ally, Iran, providing billions of funds which Iran is using to supply armaments to Russia in support of its Ukraine invasion, as well as to Hamas and Hezbollah.

- In 2017, Trump went to Poland, delivering a speech in Warsaw praising that country as an ally, and warning Russia "to cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for hostile regimes — including Syria and Iran", adding, "We must work together to confront forces, whether they come from inside or out, from the South or the East" 

- Biden labeled Poland a "rising totalitarian" regime (because, at the time, its government was not considered progressive), grouping it with a real totalitarian regime, Putin's ally, Belarus.

- Up until the moment of the Russian invasion in February 2022, Biden sent signals to Putin that the U.S. would do nothing if Russia satisfied itself by just seizing the remaining parts of the Donbas Region, something Trump never did. 

- Trump encourage increased oil and natural gas exploration and fracking in the U.S., all of which lowered global prices, hurting the Russian economy.

- Bush hindered such exploration, helping increase oil prices and aiding the Russian economy. [NOTE: The National Intelligence Assessment on Russian interference with the 2016 election, stated as undisputed fact that Russia supported the anti-fracking movement in the U.S.].

The bottom line:

In the Bush administration, Putin invaded Georgia.

In the Obama administration, Putin invaded Crimea, the Donbas region of Ukraine, and intervened in Syria.

In the Biden administration, Putin invaded Ukraine.

In the Trump administration  . . .

Yet the public impression is much different, and part of that is due to Trump's own rhetoric, which allows the Democrats and media create false narratives on this and other issues, and it is a trait he clearly cannot, or has no interest in, modifying. 

The second advantage is the role of the news and social media in creating a bubble in which many voters who don't carefully follow politics exist.  We've seen how quickly most of the news media has switched on a dime from telling us that Joe Biden remained on top of his game mentally, and running stories questioning Harris' ability to step up, to rapturous coverage of Harris and Walz. (2)

But it is the longer term existing bubbles that create the information world in which most of us exist.  An example is the Russia collusion story, which I've covered in exhaustive detail, and is the greatest political scandal in American history, though for a large percentage of the populace that scandal doesn't even exist.

What I've experienced speaking with people who live within that media bubble is complete disbelief with what I've learned from reading the source documents.  Over and over again, I've heard people say "I read the Mueller report", but upon further inquiry it becomes clear that what they read is what the NY Times, the WaPo, the New Yorker, or other such publications or news media said about the Mueller report, which is quite different.  That media bubble is very difficult to penetrate.

The third advantage is that the sheer insanity of what the Democratic party has become inside the skin suit is hard for people to believe, particularly for older, more traditional liberal Democrats.  When you tell them that the Biden administration has repeatedly declared its top domestic priority to be promoting a conspiracy theory that whites and Jews have attained and maintained their positions in society by plotting to promote white supremacy and that is the sole explanation for any group discrepancies in America, and that all federal actions need to be taken applying those analytical lenses, they simply will not believe you because it sounds so bizarre, so un-American, and such a repudiation of traditional liberal values because it denies the legitimacy of free speech, freedom of conscience, due process, equal protection under the law, and a sense of basic fairness to individuals.

The final advantage is they are running against Donald Trump, who has no discipline or self-control when it comes to campaigning.(3)

-----------------------------

(1) "Goals" is probably the wrong word to use, but not sure what that right one is.  Trump cannot articulate meaningful goals in most cases, beyond a very high level statement.  He constantly improvises and sees what works for him and his audience.  It's why, on an issue like Ukraine, Trump's rhetoric has been all over the place.  He really doesn't know what he thinks, other than falling back on the one constant in his public life; he'll negotiate a "great deal".  In that way, he is oddly like Harris, who is stunningly inarticulate.  Her inability to speak coherently on policy is because she's never had to think clearly or deeply about serious issues.  She comes from a one-party state and has, from the start of her career, been in campaign mode, just saying stuff that her partisans like to hear, even if it doesn't make much sense.  It's why she ducks any tough questioning.  We are in such deep trouble as a country with these two people as presidential candidates.

(2) And why does the same news media, now ignore that a clearly incapable Joe Biden remains nominally president? Who is making the big decisions in this administration?

(3) To be fair, Trump's greatest advantage is he is running against Harris.