I wish Kennedy wasn't ignored by the Democrats, but is now Independent and still ignored by all parties and all media. He asserts and inspires thinking about problems and solutions instead of subjective reactions and ad hominem ad infinitum.
Remember John Anderson? Yeah, no one else does, either. He ran for President as an independent forty years ago. At the time, he got a ton of press attention, and ended up taking many votes away from both parties. I believe the political powers learned a lesson from that, which is: just ignore any potential ‘spoiler’. Ignoring him is the most powerful tactic.
But, there’s a (very) long-shot scenario in which Kennedy could win:
Suppose either Biden or Trump dies before the main election, or either one is incapacitated. (Heart attack for Trump, dementia for Biden?) Neither party has a strong-enough second choice to run for President, and not enough time to craft one. Meanwhile, the idealist young generations are increasingly attracted to Kennedy; he comes across as honorable, trustworthy, and caring. If, at the same time, the Truth about the Covid debacle becomes mainstream knowledge, and consequently millions of voters become totally disenchanted and disgusted, Kennedy could become seen as the only honest choice. Wham, he goes from obscurity to front-runner within a couple of months!
H Ross Perot ran as an independent in 1992 and many credit his siphoning away votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush the Elder and could have cost him the election.
Ralph Nader ran as an independent in 2000 and many Democrats blame him for the razor thin margins in Florida which ultimately cost Gore the election.
Given the involvement of both Clinton and George Bush the Younger in 9/11 and the military mistakes which followed, a great deal of history might have been written differently but for Perot and Nader in their respective elections.
Hmm, this might make an interesting topic for a column of yours. Compare the vote percentage earned by each independent Presidential candidate over the past fifty years, with the amount of press coverage they each had (if you can find such data). Maybe comparative graphs of their pollings over the months, etc., or any data that showcases what effect publicity given an independent candidate had on his final vote count.
I wasn’t paying much attention to politics in the eras you referenced (busy with career). Maybe my idea that the political powers have learned to ignore independents is wrong - maybe the correct idea is that the MSM today has been completely bought and captured. That was not the case in eras past, when the mighty Fourth Estate prided itself on printing the truth, and too bad if the truth upended someone’s career!
P.S. - okay, maybe not the ‘truth’ - but the media would print whatever dirt they could dig up, and be proud if it destroyed a corrupt official. I came of age during Watergate, and remember the endless media attempts to upend the ‘official narrative’ of the politicians. They wouldn’t just take the money and read their scripted lines like the MSM does today, the cowardly swine.
Oh, I didn’t realize that he is now calling for total forgiveness - that surprises me. And he’s a lawyer? He’s made a career out of prosecuting the pushers of harmful drugs!
In any case, if I have to vote for Trump in order to defeat Biden, sure, happy to oblige!
The GOP candidates have been locked in a vicious circular firing squad since the debates began (if not before).
Trump might not be as "adult" as some would like (he's not my ideal choice for President even now), but he has at least had the good sense to stay away from the other candidates while they immolate themselves. That's more political savvy than any of them possessed.
What do you think about the 'Golitsyn theory.' This theory was provided by a defector from the Soviet Union, 1962, actually. Trump discounts it completely (who know what he thinks).
“There seem to be three possible scenarios around which the history of the next half century will be written:
"In the first, communism, meeting neither ideological nor political resistance from the West, continues along its present course to disarmament, then to convergence with the West on its own terms, and so to world domination."
"In the second, the West realizes in time the nature of the communist threat, solves its own national problems, unites the noncommunist world, and adopts a policy of open competition between the two systems; as a result, the peoples of the communist bloc repudiate their leaders and the communist empire disintegrates."
"The third scenario resembles the second except that both systems remain intact and competition continues for a very long time."
"And who shall say that unrelenting competition between two opposing systems of government, each secured by the nuclear deterrent, would not prove fruitful? But where are the statesmen who will recognize this path to possible safety and guide their peoples along it?”
Golitsyn made one crucial error in his theorizing: Communism had already failed by the 1930s. By the time Stalin consolidated power his rule was more akin to Tsarist Russia (without the Russian Orthodox Church) than it was to any ideals of Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky. Stalin had Trotsky assassinated largely because Trotsky kept writing about all the ways Stalin had betrayed the Revolution.
Even in China, Communism fundamentally failed after the Great Leap Forward, and Mao Zedong's anarchic Cultural Revolution left the country in such a shambles that his eventual successor Deng Xiao Ping was force to embrace a measure of capitalism (in a manner somewhat similar to Lenin's New Economic Program after the Russian Civil War in the 1920s). Xi Jin Ping's attempts to re-establish Maoist totalitarianism has been the greatest contributor to China's ongoing economic collapse.
As Putin, Xi, and Biden all demonstrate, authoritarianism is the siren song governments and politicians rarely resist and frequently embrace.
There was never a real "East-West" competition. Merely a period where global Great Power Competition was reduced to just two powers--the US and the USSR.
After the fall of the USSR the EU member states began working to coalesce into some form of economic and ultimately political hegemony (helmed chiefly by France and Germany) in hopes of proving a viable counterweight to the United States. China, once it gained entry into the WTO, has tried mightily to bootstrap itself into the Great Power Competition game with the EU and the United States, with varying levels of success.
However, the EU is politically bankrupt and facing declining demographics. China is politically and economically bankrupt and facing collapsing demographics. Most other nations are struggling with their own internal divisions and are diffident and occasional allies to one Great Power or another at best.
The real question will be what happens as the economies of Europe, China, Russia, and the US all drift into stagnation and recession? If the US continues its inward turn, what becomes of the "rules based" international economic order that has been the status quo since the collapse of the USSR? If that international order collapses, what happens to the economies of countries around the world who are dependent upon that order for their imports of various goods and to ensure markets for whatever exports they may provide?
We know from history that, from time to time, entire civilizations collapse, usually from internal forces eroding the structures upon which that civilization resides. The Bronze Age Collapse, the Fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe, the Mayan collapse of the 12th and 13th centuries, even the stagnation of China after the inward turn of the Ming Dynasty of the 16th century, are all stark reminders that the societies and the "world" we generally take for granted is ultimately impermanent and transitory.
Are we headed towards such a collapse now? It is a distinct possibility.
I realize that I’m gushing at you all the time, Mr. Kust, but I’m just continuously impressed with your superlative analytical mind and insights. You are more spot-on with this political piece than any other commentators I’ve encountered on any format. Well done!
Looks to me like they both took out themselves and each other.
They're not adult enough to run for the presidency.
That leaves Trump and who the DemocRATS eventually nominate (Biden but who knows).
I wish Kennedy wasn't ignored by the Democrats, but is now Independent and still ignored by all parties and all media. He asserts and inspires thinking about problems and solutions instead of subjective reactions and ad hominem ad infinitum.
Remember John Anderson? Yeah, no one else does, either. He ran for President as an independent forty years ago. At the time, he got a ton of press attention, and ended up taking many votes away from both parties. I believe the political powers learned a lesson from that, which is: just ignore any potential ‘spoiler’. Ignoring him is the most powerful tactic.
But, there’s a (very) long-shot scenario in which Kennedy could win:
Suppose either Biden or Trump dies before the main election, or either one is incapacitated. (Heart attack for Trump, dementia for Biden?) Neither party has a strong-enough second choice to run for President, and not enough time to craft one. Meanwhile, the idealist young generations are increasingly attracted to Kennedy; he comes across as honorable, trustworthy, and caring. If, at the same time, the Truth about the Covid debacle becomes mainstream knowledge, and consequently millions of voters become totally disenchanted and disgusted, Kennedy could become seen as the only honest choice. Wham, he goes from obscurity to front-runner within a couple of months!
We may yet be in for an exciting election year!
H Ross Perot ran as an independent in 1992 and many credit his siphoning away votes that otherwise would have gone to George Bush the Elder and could have cost him the election.
Ralph Nader ran as an independent in 2000 and many Democrats blame him for the razor thin margins in Florida which ultimately cost Gore the election.
Given the involvement of both Clinton and George Bush the Younger in 9/11 and the military mistakes which followed, a great deal of history might have been written differently but for Perot and Nader in their respective elections.
Hmm, this might make an interesting topic for a column of yours. Compare the vote percentage earned by each independent Presidential candidate over the past fifty years, with the amount of press coverage they each had (if you can find such data). Maybe comparative graphs of their pollings over the months, etc., or any data that showcases what effect publicity given an independent candidate had on his final vote count.
I wasn’t paying much attention to politics in the eras you referenced (busy with career). Maybe my idea that the political powers have learned to ignore independents is wrong - maybe the correct idea is that the MSM today has been completely bought and captured. That was not the case in eras past, when the mighty Fourth Estate prided itself on printing the truth, and too bad if the truth upended someone’s career!
P.S. - okay, maybe not the ‘truth’ - but the media would print whatever dirt they could dig up, and be proud if it destroyed a corrupt official. I came of age during Watergate, and remember the endless media attempts to upend the ‘official narrative’ of the politicians. They wouldn’t just take the money and read their scripted lines like the MSM does today, the cowardly swine.
Kennedy say forget the mistakes of Covid.
I will crawl over broken glass and razor blades to vote against him.
Oh, I didn’t realize that he is now calling for total forgiveness - that surprises me. And he’s a lawyer? He’s made a career out of prosecuting the pushers of harmful drugs!
In any case, if I have to vote for Trump in order to defeat Biden, sure, happy to oblige!
The GOP candidates have been locked in a vicious circular firing squad since the debates began (if not before).
Trump might not be as "adult" as some would like (he's not my ideal choice for President even now), but he has at least had the good sense to stay away from the other candidates while they immolate themselves. That's more political savvy than any of them possessed.
This is as good a time to ask as any.
What do you think about the 'Golitsyn theory.' This theory was provided by a defector from the Soviet Union, 1962, actually. Trump discounts it completely (who know what he thinks).
“There seem to be three possible scenarios around which the history of the next half century will be written:
"In the first, communism, meeting neither ideological nor political resistance from the West, continues along its present course to disarmament, then to convergence with the West on its own terms, and so to world domination."
"In the second, the West realizes in time the nature of the communist threat, solves its own national problems, unites the noncommunist world, and adopts a policy of open competition between the two systems; as a result, the peoples of the communist bloc repudiate their leaders and the communist empire disintegrates."
"The third scenario resembles the second except that both systems remain intact and competition continues for a very long time."
"And who shall say that unrelenting competition between two opposing systems of government, each secured by the nuclear deterrent, would not prove fruitful? But where are the statesmen who will recognize this path to possible safety and guide their peoples along it?”
—Anatoliy Golitsyn
Golitsyn made one crucial error in his theorizing: Communism had already failed by the 1930s. By the time Stalin consolidated power his rule was more akin to Tsarist Russia (without the Russian Orthodox Church) than it was to any ideals of Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky. Stalin had Trotsky assassinated largely because Trotsky kept writing about all the ways Stalin had betrayed the Revolution.
Even in China, Communism fundamentally failed after the Great Leap Forward, and Mao Zedong's anarchic Cultural Revolution left the country in such a shambles that his eventual successor Deng Xiao Ping was force to embrace a measure of capitalism (in a manner somewhat similar to Lenin's New Economic Program after the Russian Civil War in the 1920s). Xi Jin Ping's attempts to re-establish Maoist totalitarianism has been the greatest contributor to China's ongoing economic collapse.
As Putin, Xi, and Biden all demonstrate, authoritarianism is the siren song governments and politicians rarely resist and frequently embrace.
There was never a real "East-West" competition. Merely a period where global Great Power Competition was reduced to just two powers--the US and the USSR.
After the fall of the USSR the EU member states began working to coalesce into some form of economic and ultimately political hegemony (helmed chiefly by France and Germany) in hopes of proving a viable counterweight to the United States. China, once it gained entry into the WTO, has tried mightily to bootstrap itself into the Great Power Competition game with the EU and the United States, with varying levels of success.
However, the EU is politically bankrupt and facing declining demographics. China is politically and economically bankrupt and facing collapsing demographics. Most other nations are struggling with their own internal divisions and are diffident and occasional allies to one Great Power or another at best.
The real question will be what happens as the economies of Europe, China, Russia, and the US all drift into stagnation and recession? If the US continues its inward turn, what becomes of the "rules based" international economic order that has been the status quo since the collapse of the USSR? If that international order collapses, what happens to the economies of countries around the world who are dependent upon that order for their imports of various goods and to ensure markets for whatever exports they may provide?
We know from history that, from time to time, entire civilizations collapse, usually from internal forces eroding the structures upon which that civilization resides. The Bronze Age Collapse, the Fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe, the Mayan collapse of the 12th and 13th centuries, even the stagnation of China after the inward turn of the Ming Dynasty of the 16th century, are all stark reminders that the societies and the "world" we generally take for granted is ultimately impermanent and transitory.
Are we headed towards such a collapse now? It is a distinct possibility.
Such collapses seem to be based on the climate turning colder.
Communism isn't an ideology, it is a system of revolution.
I realize that I’m gushing at you all the time, Mr. Kust, but I’m just continuously impressed with your superlative analytical mind and insights. You are more spot-on with this political piece than any other commentators I’ve encountered on any format. Well done!
LOL....thanks for all the "gushing"!
I confess...it's nice to have fans! ;)
You have fans. I’ve referenced your substack several times.
Thanks for the references and the kind words!
Both are greatly appreciated.