1) A clean victory in an observably-fair 2024 election by the Establishment over Trump and his MAGA politics is the only thing that could actually do away with the challenge Trump and his supporters represent.
2) The pre-emptive attempt to destroy the only bridge to that outcome suggests that a final victory is not what is wanted.
Fernandez then inquires into what they might be seeking instead.
I think the general consensus has been that the attempt to disquailfy Trump and his most loyal Congressional supporters from running, get him and them off the ballots in key states, and paint their supporters as 'the same exact [thing] as Nazis,' is just that Biden knows he can't win a fair contest. If (1) is already off the table, pursuing something else is the only thing to do. Margret Thatcher used to use the slogan TINA, standing for "There is No Alternative."
Fernandez thinks it's not as simple as that. The Democratic machine might have pulled out a victory, even given the weights of Biden's evident age and an economy that is dragging, given that the media will reliably gaslight on their behalf. As the Washington Post reports today, the Republican hope to govern is afflicted by their infighting. There's no reason to believe that the Democrats can't win.
Fernandez observes:
How does one explain the paradox of Biden destroying his one sure means of victory and opting for a course that will probably lead to prolonged and indecisive conflict? The obvious explanation is to observe that is what he always does. He seems to prefer stalemates and chaos over clearcut solution. Why does he frequently do this? The answer is simple. It creates opportunities that would not exist in a clear cut situation. Turning 2024 into neither and yet both a regular election and insurrection would knock a lot of power loose for the grabs and this is perhaps the point.... Recent political developments become less confusing when we relax the assumption that events are ultimately about America. Ambiguity is the enemy of constitutional democracy, but confusion is the friend of operators and dealers. Perhaps the correct paradigm is not to judge events through the prism of national interest but by the criteria of factional gain.
I take him to mean that, just as the Establishment prefers an eternal stalemate in Israel in pursuit of a 'two state solution' that never materializes, and preferreda eternal war in Afghanistan to either withdrawal or victory, and apparently an eternal war Ukraine to giving Ukraine what it would take to win, and eternal 'strategic ambiguity' on China and Taiwan to a resolution either way, here too they prefer the conflict. The point is not to vanquish the Trump/MAGA "insurgency" but to ensure it can never take power, especially because it makes sure it is formalized as the eternal opponent.
As long as the structural levers can be wielded to be sure they stay in power -- whether changing the voting rules extra-Constitutionally by administrative actions or consent agreements with activist lawsuits, instituting unwatched mail-in "drop boxes," or a rejection of voter ID, or keeping opponents off the ballot by administrative or judicial magic -- it's better for them to have an opponent who is never beaten. They become the enemy in every Hollywood or Disney drama (as, one critic argues, they have been since the 1970s), every political speech, and every campaign. You can stop bothering with policies that help people, because the only thing you need to sell is keeping the dire evil enemy out of power forever.
Fernandez suggests this is a "political bank-robbery already in progress." He is a keen observer and thinker, none of whom are right about everything but all of whom are worth considering. Is he wrong?
8 comments:
In the latest Three Whiskey Happy Hour podcast, as part of a discussion that I think was at least tangential to this topic (they were discussing Biden's Valley Forge campaign kick-off), Steve Hayward mentioned a similar incompatibility between the old-style Progressive goal of government by an expert class with reforms that sought to expand the franchise such as women's suffrage, primaries, etc. 'Lucretia' reminded Steve that the Progressives envisioned that the electorate was going to cast votes under the guidance and supervision of that same expert class that staffed the government. I would say that we're seeing the (il)logical conclusion of that project where people are allowed to vote but only in such a way that they will make the 'right' choices.
I don't know that stalemate and chaos actually knock power loose, except in the sense that it tends to create anxiety in the populace and encourages them to make the (somewhat false) trade of power for security.
I had forgotten Fernandez, and I should not have. This analysis has considerable subtlety,trying to steer through the fog of puzzlement and contradiction to a tentative yet I think solid "What, exactly, is happening here?" explanation.
I think it wrong in that it doesn't address the wider picture like the Epstein issue where our reps are owned by someone. Yes, Ukraine is a grift operation with possible human trafficking thrown in, but there's a strong demonic part too. There are reasons perversions are front and center in this conflict too.
Stc Michael
He seems to prefer stalemates and chaos over clearcut solution.
The simple explanation is that Biden is incompetent. He was never particularly insightful or clear-headed, had no significant executive experience until he became president, and has obviously deteriorated with age. Recall how much more verbally facile he used to be as recently as his 2012 debate vs Paul Ryan. There is no mystery here. The real problem is the voters, too many of whom don't remember the old Biden or don't care.
@ Jonathan - yes, I remember him going on Imus in the Morning in 2006 and being quite adroit. My post on it was even called "The Voice of Saruman."
https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2006/09/voice-of-saruman.html (That essay will definitely be one that I bring forward when reviewing my whole history over the next few months)
No one would say he is the Voice of Saruman now.
There is another possibility: that the Deep State intends to spark a revolution which will give them the excuse to "put it down."
I don't think that they've thought it through, but that's consistent with their attack on Russia, their useless sojourn in Afghanistan, the obvious post-war FAIL in Iraq, and their hoped-for war with Iran.
They do not bother with "what then?" questions and that will assure their downfall.
'....disabling [Trump] et. al.....ensures ambiguity...'
OR it ensures a highly restive group of disaffected citizens, and I think Biden knows that. Surprising that Wretchard didn't mention that possibility.
I think that would be part of the plan under Fernandez's view. Frankly, it reminds me of the way in which Jim Crow politics turned poor whites on poor blacks, even though the two groups in the South had the same practical problems and the same actual enemies. To whit, the rich white politicians and bankers who were exploiting them both -- in exactly the same ways -- were their real enemies. The politics provoked violence on purpose in order to create actual fear, which could then be leveraged by the white politicians to convince the poor white voters to back the politicians "because we will protect you" from the poor black people (mostly disenfranchised non-voters now).
It worked for decades. The real, serious violence that occurred sporadically between the poor whites and poor blacks was an intentional and critical part of the equation. Lynchings would drive a wedge between them so they couldn't communicate, which would periodically produce a riot as an equal-and-opposite reaction that ultimately performed the same function.
Post a Comment