As we enter the final two weeks of one of the most surprising election campaigns in American history, many Americans and foreign observers are wondering how American politics could have become so messy.
Two of the largest social media companies have openly attempted to suppress disclosure of scandals that at the very least, Democratic candidates have grossly misled voters, and at worst, foreign powers have blatantly bribed candidates and their families. The scandal is not just about the obvious crimes and cover-ups by politicians, but also about the systematic attempts by the largest social media companies to publish false information.
The Democratic candidate, who served 36 years in the Senate, eight years as vice president, and waited another four years to run for president, is almost universally believed to be in the early stages of dementia.
He lost badly in the early primaries, but was backed by party political heavyweights to replace Marxist candidate Bernie Sanders. But he has since endorsed almost all of Sanders’ plans, though he now claims to be reconsidering some of the plan’s more pointed elements.
As his vice-presidential candidate, he chose a candidate who failed miserably early in the campaign, dropped out early in the party’s primary, and is widely regarded by the organization that oversees these matters as the most left-wing member of the Senate.
The Democratic presidential candidate, a former serial plagiarist, never exceeded 2 percent in the intra-party nomination battle leading up to the vice presidential race. His opponent was the most successful first-term incumbent in U.S. history.
The Democratic challenger had nothing to show for his long career in Washington, D.C., while the incumbent had a remarkable four-year record of reducing taxes and regulations, stopping illegal immigration, reducing unemployment (before the pandemic) and oil imports.
He renegotiated unfavorable trade agreements, recognized the challenge from the Chinese Communist Party, revived the idea of nuclear nonproliferation, saved the country from the creation of an insane green regime (referring to the Green Energy Plan, the signature policy of the far left wing of the Democratic Party), and made the most progress on Middle East peace in over forty years; he handled the public health and economic aspects of a neo-crown virus pandemic with great sophistication, albeit with some public relations blunders.
A hostile media
Most polls show the Democratic candidate with a slight lead over the president because of his larger advertising budget and the almost lopsided and growing hostility of the national media toward the president. And that hostility is partly stylistic and partly a reaction to the president’s positions – when he ran in 2016 and since against the corruption and bias of the nation’s political media, and his deadly threat to the media as a force that determines who rises and who falls in American public life.
He despises them, and they hate him. The result is that the media have abandoned any normal professional standards of impartiality and fairness, of the distinction between reporting and commentary.
Regardless of the candidates’ fluctuating polling results, Americans generally do not trust the media. A free press is essential to democracy, and the long-term consequences of widespread public disrespect for the media could be very serious.
The mass media’s portrayal of contemporary America would lead one to believe that African-Americans are biologically afraid of whites-that is, that they fear whites but not Antifa, that whites are thugs but Antifa is not. Indeed, there is a widespread belief, including among Democratic heavyweights in Congress, that Antifa does not exist.
The leftist American media generally believes that a rising Communist China is good for peace; that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons in case Israel attacks; that boys can be girls and girls can be boys; that the police make African-American communities more dangerous; that wind energy is good and nuclear energy is bad; that high taxes increase incentives to work hard; that printing money does not cause inflation; and that babies in late gestation are not human beings, even if they are disposed of after they are born, and that infanticide is not infanticide.
A friend who is a professor in Alabama recently said to me, “The terror mongers of the French and Russian revolutions are the ‘geniuses’ of humanism compared to the modern suburban housewife who drives a Volvo, recycles plastic, carries two life-saving dogs, and goes to a theosophical church to prove the power of life. “
Respect for the office of the President
The overwhelming success of the U.S. presidency between 1933 and 1963 created a mystique to the office, and presidents earned the respect of all during difficult times when the United States faced potentially deadly threats from economic depression, Nazi Germany and Japanese imperialism, and international communism, led by the Soviet Union.
President Roosevelt got the United States through the Depression and through one of the most just wars in history, which the United States entered only because of an unprovoked and premeditated attack.
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower created and operated the institutions that ultimately won the Cold War, defended the periphery of the free world, and brought peace and prosperity to the country.
President Kennedy was a promising successor who brilliantly handled the Cuban Missile Crisis and is increasingly missed due to his brutal assassination.
So great was the confidence in the president that in 1955, the U.S. Congress voted almost unanimously in both houses (410:3 and 83:3) to give Eisenhower the authority to deploy any level of force, including nuclear weapons, he deemed appropriate to protect what he defined as U.S. national interests in the Far East against the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
It was a blank check covering thermonuclear weapons, and the world was fortunate that the recipient of this check was a great but cautious and benevolent military commander who knew how to deal with the belligerent members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The Vietnam War, the much-hyped Watergate, and the dithering of the Carter presidency had eroded public confidence, which had been substantially rebuilt by the success of the Reagan administration.
But the bloodless victories of the Cold War left the United States without an enemy that posed an existential threat to its existence. As President Lincoln said in 1838, no foreign army would “drink the waters of the Ohio River by force, nor leave a mark on the Blue Ridge. …… As a free nation, we will live forever or kill ourselves. “.
For the first time in eighty-five years, in the absence of a real external threat, the United States experienced the rise of a violent domestic national self-hate movement. They have no legitimacy and ultimately nothing to complain about. The United States is more of a good country than a bad one, and Americans have no desire for national death.
The Democratic Party has ignored this search for culpability and widespread violence all summer, from the municipal level to the national leadership, but this problem cannot be solved with the same platitudes that brought the country together. It can only be solved through proper reform, determined law enforcement and a high degree of economic prosperity.
President Trump is the only candidate capable of prescribing this policy prescription, and it remains hard to believe that the public will not perceive it on November 3.
Recent Comments