2024 Election Post Mortem, Part I. What the heck happened?

And so the finger pointing, blaming, and name calling has begun.

The 2024 Presidential Election was supposed to be close.

It wasn't.  And that means something.  How did the nation elect a convicted felon who hung out with a procurer and who is a creepy serial polygamist, who also is likely sliding into dementia, as President of the United States?

Well, there are a lot of views out there.  We offer ours, including some things we noted early on.

1.  It turns out that we were correct that Biden shouldn't have run in the first place, and that Harris shouldn't have stepped into the breach.

Biden was supposed to be a caretaker President.  "Go with the Joe you know" only made sense as long as it was just one cup of coffee.  People didn't want a refill. Biden was supposed to carry on for four years while the nation got back on its feet from a traumatic Trump presidency and figured out where to go next.

Biden's diehard insistence on running again doomed that, and in some ways, the Democrats chances in 2024.

Biden, in his defense, was dealt a bad hand right from the onset.  Left with an economy impacted by COVID, he had to deal with it, and he did a good job.  The inflation that caused was not of his making, and he actually pulled off a soft landing.  In the future, he's likely to be regarded as having pulled an economic rabbit out the hat.

And his rallying to the cause of Ukraine is singularly responsible for the country not being overrun by the Russians.

But people are stupid about economics, and stupidly believe that once inflation slows, prices return to the pre inflation norm, which actually required deflation, which generally causes a depression.  That tar baby is now Trump's, as Trump won't be able to pull that off either.

More than that, however, Biden's advanced age was showing, whereas its seemingly not as noticeable with Trump.  It was real hubris of Biden to run for a second term, and he shouldn't have done it.  That set the Democrats behind.

When he finally stepped out, I noted that the time that Harris shouldn't step in.  She did.  She actually also ran a much better campaign than I initially thought she would.  Frankly, I don't know that I can blame her for running, or blame the Democrats for running her.  She proved to be too easy to tag with the issues that had hurt Biden, however, which did not make up the reasons that I thought she should not have run.

2.  It's actually the social issues, stupid.

El Paso Sheriff : What's it mean? What's it leadin' to? You know, if you'd have told me 20 years ago, that I'd see children walking the streets of our Texas towns with green hair and bones in their noses, I just flat-out wouldn't have believed you.

Ed Tom Bell : Signs and wonders. But I think once you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am," the rest is soon to foller.

El Paso Sheriff : Oh, it's the tide. It's the dismal tide.

No Country For Old Men. 

We warned prior to 2016 that Justice Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell had awakened a latent sleeping giant.  It did.

People keep analyzing the race in terms of the economy, which I myself partially did above.  But the big issue, to put it bluntly, is that Obergefell shocked many people into confronting the moral decline of the nation, something that had been going on for a very long time.

Sexual immorality in the US really commenced its roll in the late 1940s, as we've discussed before, and started to accelerate in 1953 with the launch of Playboy, and then really took off in the 1960s with the pill and the Sexual Revolution.  The irony of all of this, however, is the public tolerated it, although not always very comfortably, as it fit into conventional immorality.  That is, the White Anglo Saxon Protestant community basically tolerated a boys will be boys attitude at first, and then accommodated itself to other trends later, as long as things roughly worked out the way they were supposed to in the end, although they have not been working out for quite some time.  Once Obergefell came along, however, the public was asked to accommodate something else, and it hasn't, and for a host of reasons.  Transgenderism, which really doesn't exist, came hard on the heels of homosexual marriage, and it was just too much for large sections of the country.

At one time, it might be noted, it was a common assertion that the Babylon Berlin atmosphere of 1920's Germany had brought about the Nazis, in part, as they seemed to stand against unconventional immorality.  In truth, homosexuality was present in the early Nazis, but the movement did a good job of plastering over it so it was ignored, if known, just like Trump's flagrant immoral conduct with women is at least somewhat known, if ignored.  It allowed people to believe that that the Nazis would foster a return to pre 1914 moral standards, while ignoring that they would inflict new horrors.*  A lot of that has gone on in the populist movement as well, which sort of imagines that the country will sort of return to an imagined 1950s, or an imagined 1970s.

The Democrats didn't even try to do anything about this, but rather embraced the matters that the Trump populists and their fellow travellers opposed.  That's a big part of what occured.  Americans proved to be willing to go pretty far with changes in Christian morality before they started regretting it, which they did, but to be kicked into a new room with a bunch of very unconventional behaviors was more than they could bear.  It not only spawned a massive counterreaction, but it spawned radical new theories about the nature of what was going on, much of them false, and sort of a modified variant of a Great Awakening, that we haven't seen the end of yet.**  This reaction, moreover, wasn't limited to the US, but has been scene all over the Western World, caused by similar events.

You have to know the times you live in.

3. What we repeatedly said about abortion being a hill to die on was correct.

Hell Courtesan by Kawanabe Kyōsai.

Part of the solid evidence of the Democrats being marooned in a post Vietnam War liberal past is the absolute adherence to swimming in a sea of blood.

I warned earlier that grasping tight to abortion was a critical mistake for Democrats, but they saw it as a great issue, one that would turn women out to vote in favor of infanticide.

Instead, what it did was to force truly adherent Christians to vote against them, even if not to vote for Harris. I was one of them.  I voted for the American Solidarity Party.  I would have anyhow, but in a state that was close, this cost the Democrats votes.  It may very well have cost them the election.

Ironically, and the Democrats failed to grasp it, Donald Trump's wishy washiness on this helped him.  Lots of Evangelicals and even Catholics could rationalize voting for him as he seemed to be against abortion, sort of.  Hadn't his court brought Dobbs around?  And Republican women who otherwise adhered to the American Civil Religion could rationalize voting for pro abortion ballot measures while voting for trump, essentially voting for the things they were comfortable with from the 1970s, like abortion and birth control, while voting against homosexuality and transgenderism.

Indeed, the entire religiosity of the Trumpites is much like this, although not of the National Conservatives. They're okay with cheating men, up to a limit, premarital sex, and divorce, as long as the plumbing matches. They aren't okay with homosexuality.  Truly religious voters were never supportive of abortion, which Harris leaned deeply into.

Democrats should have known that and figures out a way to deal with it.  Even simply taking the same position as Trump, let the states deal with it, would have leveled the choice for many.  Or they could have just remained completely silent in the election on abortion and transgenderism, which would have caused some votes to swing their way.

If the Democrats don't modify their position on abortion, they're not going to do better in 2028.

4.  What we noted as long ago as 2016 about ignoring rust belt issues is still true.

We noted a long time ago that Trump's 2016 victory was brought about in part due to a massive discontent over immigration issues and American jobs going overseas.  Both Democrats and Republicans were complicit in this for years.

The problem here is that this festering sore has become infected, and crossed from discontent into malevolence.  Basically, its much like small town Germans thinking that a local Jewish butcher was odd, to thinking he's in league with evil. This has been downright scary.

Democrats woke up to the problem of decades long mass illegal immigration, but too late.  Now, it appears, we're about to engage in a mass immorality.

This one was a hard one for the Democrats.  Biden screwed up early in his administration on this issue.  Harris was tarred with it.  It would have taken a different candidate to distance from it, perhaps, quite frankly, a Hispanic one.  There are solutions, but some of them are quite out of the box, very pre 1940, and a bit drastic.

Likewise, Trump introduced his absurd tariffs concept.  The idea is underdeveloped and economically flaccid.  But Rust Belt people don't care as in their minds if electric vehicles don't come in from China, 1965 Chevrolet Impalas will come back. This won't happen, and this will rapidly prove to be incorrect.

5.  Demographics change.

Roman Catholic Cathedral Santuario de Guadalupe (Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe), Dallas Texas

Dedicated in 1902 as the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, this cathedral was renamed the Cathedral Santuario de Guadalupe in 1977, when another aging Dallas church dedicated to the Lady of Guadalupe was torn down. This cathedral has the second largest parish congregation in the United States.

Democrats in the 1960s abandoned white Southern racists in favor of the minorities of the time, much to their credit.  Up until that time, African Americans had been Republicans.  Democrats remembered that Italian American and Irish Americans had been, and were, theirs.

But they failed to notice that Roe v. Wade shattered the Catholic immigrant retained vote of earlier eras. For some reason, they didn't grasp that retaining abortion and embracing transgenderism and abortion would come to offend  large groups of American, and even immigrant, Hispanics, who had a similar Catholic morality.  And they didn't grasp that at the pew level, this was also true for the Black Church and many African Americans, who came to resent having their cause compared to ones based on sexual orientation or practice.

They also forgot that minority adherence to patronage only lasts as long as poverty does.  Once a demographic moves into the Middle Class, it begins to disappear within a generation or two.  Irish Americans and Italian Americans were once solidly Democratic.  This hasn't been the case for a long time.  Hispanics have been moving out of poverty, and so have African Americans.

And Hispanic Americans, which are a diverse group to start with.

This left the Democratic party a party of old Boomers, and the white upper middle class, and lower upper class, white, effete, elites.  They're aren't enough of them to win an election.

Footnotes

*The Nazis ended up sending homosexuals to the death camps.  They were highly resistant to women working, and only relented on it as the war began to go very badly.  They'd also encourage pregnancy, including out of wedlock, by German women, which was definitely contrary to traditional Christian morality.

This is of note, not because there will be death camps, but because Germans voting on morality issues didn't get what they bargained for at all.  Americans doing the same in the 2024 election are likely to find they may be surprised.

**As an example, while at the county courthouse to vote early, I encountered an elderly man wearing a MAGA hat who was informing people that transgenderism "wasn't invented here", whatever that would mean, and that this was a reason to vote for Trump.

Bookends

I probably should have guessed, but I didn't.

I'd never met him before, and couldn't even place him in the set of people related to people I knew.  He was, or is rather, the grandson of a rancher I've known for eons, but I'd never seen him at a rural gathering.  He was dressed in a rural fashion, with the clothes natural to him, but wearing a ball cap rather than a cowboy hat.  I probably was too.  It was unseasonably cold, I remember that.

He was holding forth boldly on what was wrong on higher education.  All the professors were radical leftist.  

I figured he was probably right out of high school, in part no doubt as I'm a very poor judge of younger ages.  It was silly, so I just ignored him, although I found his speech arrogant.  The sort of speech you hear from somebody who presumes that nobody else has experienced what you have. ¹  I.e., we were a bunch of rural rubes not familiar with the dangerous liberals in higher education.

I figured he'd probably get over it as he moved through education.  

Yes, there are liberals in higher education. Frankly, the more educated a class is, the more likely that it is at least somewhat liberal.  That reflects itself in our current political demographic.  The more higher education a person has, the more likely they are to vote for the Democrats.  It's not universally true, but it's fairly true. And the Republicans, having gone populist, which is by definition a political stream that simply flows the "wisdom of the people", is a pretty shallow stream.  Conservatism isn't, but it's really hard to find right now.

I heard earlier this year that he'd obtained a summer position in D.C. with one of our current public servants there, and thought that figured, given the climate of the times.  Recently, his grandfather told me he'd just taken the LSAT.  

I didn't quite know what to say.  

I didn't have any idea he was that old.  And I didn't realize that was his aspiration.  I asked his progenitor if being a lawyer was his goal, and was informed that it was.  I did stumble around to asking what his undergraduate major was, thinking that some have multiple doors to the future, and some do not.

"Political science".

"Well, he doesn't have any place else to go then".²

Not the most encouraging response, I'm sure.

I've known a few lawyers that were of the populist political thought variety, but very, very few.  Of the few, one is in office right now, but I didn't know that person had that view until that person ran.  One is a nice plaintiff's lawyer who holds those views, but it's not his defining characteristic, like it tends to be with some people, and he's friends with those who don't.  One briefly was in the public eye and has disappeared.

He's going to find that most law professors, if you know their views at all, and most you won't, aren't populists.  Some are probably conservatives, and most are liberals.  A defining characteristic of the Post GI Bill field of law is that it's institutionally left wing.  As I've often noted before, there are in fact liberal jurists, but there really aren't "conservative" jurists in the true sense, in spite of what people like Robert Reich might think.

I suspect politics is the ultimate goal. By the time he's through with law school, and has some practice under his belt, the populist wave will have broken, a conservative politics will have reemerged and liberals will be back in power.³

So I hope that he likes the practice of law, as that's what law school trains you to do.  Not to save the world.  Not to "help people".  Not to provide opportunities for people who "like to argue".⁴ 

I'm not holding out a lot of hope.

Recently, I ran this:

June 25, 2024

An article on Hageman's primary challenger in the GOP:

Democrat-turned-Republican challenges Wyoming’s Harriet Hageman for U.S. House seat

Helling has a less than zero chance of unseating Hageman.  What this item really reminded me of, however, is just how old these candidates are.  Helling is an old lawyer.  His bar admission date is 1981, which would make him about 70.  Hageman's is 1989, which I knew which would make her about 61, old by historical standards although apparently arguably middle-aged now.

Barrasso is 71.  Lummis is 69. John Hotz, who is running against Barrasso, has a bar admission date of 1978 which would make him about three years older than Helling.  Seemingly the only younger candidate in the GOP race this primary is Rasner.

This isn't a comment on any of their politics, but rather their age.  Helling is opposed to nuclear power, a very 1970ish view.  With old people, come old views, quite often, even if they're repackaged as new ones.

Right after I ran it, I went to a hearing where one of the opposing lawyers is approaching 70 and supposedly is getting ready to retire, but doesn't seem to be.  Right after that, I was in a court hearing in which there were two younger lawyers, but a host of ones in their late 60s or well into their 70s.  One of the late 60s ones appeared to be stunned and noted that there was at least 200 years of legal experience in the room.

I was noticing the same thing.

Lawyers have a problem and that's beginning to scare me, not quite yet being of retirement age.  I'm not sure if they don't retire, can't retire, don't think they can retire, or something else.

It's not really good for the profession, I'm sure of that.  While it's a really Un-American thing to say, a field being dominated in some ways by the elderly pushes out the young.  And it's also sad.

It's sad as it's usually the case that younger people have wide, genuine, interests.  Lawyers often, although not always, give a lot of those up early on to build their careers. Then they don't go back to them due to those careers.  By the time they're in their late 50s, some are burnt out husks that have nothing but the law, and others are just, I think, afraid to leave it.

I think that's, in part, why you see lawyers run for office.  Maybe some are like our young firebrand first mentioned in this tread.  But others are finding a refuge from a cul-de-sac.  A lawyer who is nearly 70 should not become a first time office holder, and shouldn't even delude themselves into thinking that's a good idea (or that it's feasible).  They should remind themselves of what interested them when they were in their 20s.  The same is true of office holders in general who are in their 70s, or older.  

Footnotes:

1.  I've often seen this with young veterans and old ones.  Some young veteran will be holding forth, not realizing that the guy listening to him fought at Khe Sanh or the likes.

2.  That wasn't the most politic thing to say, but I was sort of hoping that the answer was "agriculture" or something, that had some more doors out.  

Political science really doesn't.  Maybe teaching.  But if our young protagonist graduates with a law degree and finds himself not in the world of political intrigue making sure that the American version of Viktor Orbán rises to the top, but rather whether his client, the mother of five children by seven men gets one of them to pay child support, which is highly likely, he's going to have no place to go.

3.  Bold prediction, I know, but probably correct.

Right now, I suspect that Donald Trump will in fact win the Presidential election, and the country will be in for a massive period of turmoil.  By midterm, people who supported Trump will be howling with rage about the impact of tariffs and the like and demanding that something be done.  The correction will come in 2028, but by that time much of the damage, or resetting or whatever, will have been done.  The incoming 2028 Democratic regime will set the needle more back to the center.

4.  Being good at arguing, in a Socratic sense, makes you a good debator or speaker.  Liking to argue, however, just makes you an asshole.

The Fate Of The Nation

Anyone with an interest in politics, or in the future of the United States, owes it to themselves and the country to listen to the October 10 editions of This Week and Meet The Press.

Mandatory listening or viewing.

Truly.

For one thing, they had the news a bipartisan committee that has been investigating the Justice Department and the insurrection just released some findings showing that Donald Trump sought to appoint a new Attorney General insider specifically as he was expected to be loyal in overturning the election, but did not when a mass resignation from the department was to occur.  The information makes Trump's involvement in an effort to overturn the election at all costs manifest.  The House committee is now pondering criminal referrals.  It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out by the next election.

And additionally there are now two new books looking at the events of the immediate post election events in the  White House.

What's become clear is that at first Trump was sullen, but rapidly turned towards trying to overturn the results.  These efforts were open and manifest and ultimately were focused on Georgia. Trump sought the aid of the Justice Department but the career Attorney Generals, including the then sitting AG, were not willing to go along in what they knew to be a fraud.  Trump was then going to replace the AG with a loyalist who would likely have been willing to participate, but the AGs threatened a mass resignation.

Trump has been essentially conducting early 2024 campaign rallies recently and circulating the lie that he won the election.  The question is whether he believes this.  The more news that's coming out, and it's starting to be a flood, it is clear that he was taking what essentially was a version of the apparently apocryphal William Randolph Hearst line about the lack of fighting in Cuba, when informed that by Frederic Remington, that being "you give us the pictures, we'll give you the war."  Trump told people, basically, that all they had to do was to point the finger, and he'd make it happen.

Anyway you look at it, it's now irrefutable that Trump was deeply involved in an effort to topple the 2020 election.  Those who remain in Trump's camp, and there are quite a few in the rank and file GOP who do, have to face this or simply live in denial of it.  Living in denial is likely what most are going to opt to do.  Otherwise, you have to maintain: 1) that Trump knew that election misconduct had occurred and that's why he was acting this way but was frustrated by his staff, or 2) he was delusional, or 3) he was attempting to steal the election.

Given what everything has clearly demonstrated, there's no doubt that the election was fully free and fair, although I have heard friends I deeply respect who are well-educated still maintain that it was questionable.  This gets us to the GOP today.  The GOP has yet to deal with this with many current candidates still embracing Trump and others trying to take the "quick, turn away and don't look" approach.  Those in the latter, which include the main GOP challenger to Cheney in Wyoming, Harriet Hageman, haven't been able to successful make their argument of "we need to look forward" while still grasping part of the past.  I.e., you can't really accuse Cheney of betraying the state, as she is, when her supposed betrayal is pointing out that an attempt to overthrow the election was going on.

This is all the more the case now as its more and more clear that Trump has the hubris to believe that at his extremely advanced age he is still going to be fit for office in 2024.  He's running for the Oval Office right now.  If he's alive in 2024, which frankly given the ravishes of old age and his ever advancing years, is probably a 50/50 proposition, i.e., old age catches up with us all and claims us whether we're ready to go or not, he'll run.  He's running right now.  

This means that at this point we really have to start taking Trump's statements seriously.  When he was elected the first time he made sounds about being a three term President.  Nobody took that seriously  Prior to the 2020 election, The Atlantic ran an article outlining how Trump would attempt to steal the election if he lost it, and got it more or less 100% correct, a fact which shows this effort was charged with scienter.  There's every reason to believe that if he makes it to 2024, he'll try to make it to 2028. There's something in his makeup which doesn't allow for not being at the pinnacle of whatever, even if he's really not

Democracy turns out to be much more fragile in this day and age than ever we'd imagined. Ironically, if Trump had won, he would have gone on to have a wild ride, no doubt, in his second term, but he'd passed out of office with no third term and have gone into history as, probably, an aberration at least as to his character.  Having lost, however he's become a real threat to the democratic process itself and various state legislature have acted to make interfering with elections easier.  Even in our state there's been sounds about doing that, although so far nothing has come into fruition.

We live in perilous times.  In perilous times, you need to look the danger afresh.  In the coming months, we're going to get a chance to do so.