The way I think about it is that Harris guarantees continued mediocrity and passivity, at best. Trump presents a massive range of uncertainty between brilliant successes (e.g. the Abraham Accords) and spectacular blunders (e.g. pulling out of the TPP). Given the choice of a guaranteed eventual slide into Macur-Olson-style decline and the chance of a lasting recovery, I'll roll the dice.
My greatest worry with Trump is that he will fail to support Ukraine. However, the present administration is already doing that, for all practical purposes. The Jake Sullivan appeasement cabal has demanded that Ukraine fight with one hand tied behind its back, in a show of dishonorable cowardly sanctimony that the world has scarcely seen before in all of history. Not content with slow-walking our own military aid that we so proudly trumpeted, the administration is even forbidding other countries from transferring weapons such as F-16s and such to Ukraine. I could go on for days on the subject, or you could read Trent Telenko on X.
So I'm not sure what gain would come from supporting Harris, on that front.
Anyway, if you live in a safe state, you can vote your conscience. If you live in a swing state, I would recommend voting for Harris, for utilitarian reasons. A war with Mexico, a repeal of the CHIPS act, and tariffs on everything would not exactly help us against China.
If you're a deontologist living in a swing state, and you feel uncomfortable voting for Harris, I am willing to trade my vote with you.
A war with Mexico? Not in the next four years, under either candidate. Perhaps in the next ten.
But while we're on the subject, the U.S. military has been worrying about the collapse of Mexico into narco-state anarchy for at least the last twenty years that I personally know of, and we are getting closer to that outcome, not further away. Allowing the narco-gangs to gain strength, as the present administration has done, does not help the situation.
Utilitarian means someone who judges actions based on their expected outcome, as opposed to deontologist, who views certain actions as morally wrong no matter what. Which one describes you better?
You should hold your nose and vote Harris. Trump is not a Republican in any meaning of the word. I am positive Harris will have your kind of Republican at the table. That is way more positive in every way than a Trump win, that for what it is worth is my opinion.
How any reasonable and moral American can not be decided against Harris-Walz is beyond me.
Had the Democrats not dictatorially iced out Biden's primary challengers (and then forced Biden to withdraw--in order to nominate Harris), there was a good chance that Kennedy would have been their nominee.--and, today, I would've been that close to voting for himKennedy (instead of for Trump).
Mostly, I just want promptly--and accurately--reported election results, no nuclear war overseas, and--domestically--uninterrupted energy, food, and banking systems.
Within a week after Kennedy announced his Democrat candidacy, I was telling people around me, "If he's still in the race next spring, I will 'crossover' and vote for him (against Biden) in the Democrat primary." On some issues, Kennedy leaves me with misgivings, and, sometimes, he talks out of both sides of his mouth, but he didn't commit a "You people" blunder (as Ross Perot did in 1992), and he didn't pander to Muslim voters by criticuizing The Jewish State's military operations after October 7, 2023.
(Rarely do I lift a finger anymore for any political candidate; and yet, since last year, I bought Kennedy campaign t-shirts for my kids and for me.)
It won't surprise me if, in 2027, he declares another presidential candidacy.
When the DNC rigged its primaries to guarantee that no Biden opponent would have a chance of winning the nomination, I began to appreciate the outrage that Sanders supporters felt in 2016. (For decades, I've despised the Democrat Party; this year--as i did in 2020--I hated it.)
I genuinely do not know why you think the primary was rigged this year. Because there wasn't a debate? It makes it harder, I suppose, but I don't think that's rigging anything. You can still have a debate without the DNC.
Late last year, the DNC changed the primary election rules--to the effect that primary challengers who campaigned in a Democrat primary state would become ineligible to be awarded prez-nominating convention delegates from that state. (I don't know the fine points of the rigging, but that was an important reason that Kennedy cited for quitting the Democrats. (As long as the Clinton-Obama cabal could continue to prop up Biden, it did so--until it decided that Harris would suffice as Biden's replacement.)
Regardless of claims of DNC conspiracies against RFK, what on earth makes you think that left-wing Democratic primary voters would want him over Biden?
Wow. I wish I found this sooner. Thank you for sharing, David. I feel you. I left the Dem party after voting, consistently for Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton, Biden, and now...well, I registered Independent and voted Trump to halt the alarmingly bad policies Dems have put in place (nationally, but especially in my Left Bubble of San Francisco, CA). I am the black sheep in my family and circle of friends. Everyone I knew was shocked Trump won, but I had been telling people for awhile, Harris was the worst Dem candidate since Mondale.
I genuinely appreciate your description of the Theory of democracy that we learned versus the Practice of a constitutional republic with only 2 choices.
I have two thoughts to address this. How we do that, as a nation and people, damned if I know.
1. We need more participation of varying political parties. I don't know if parliamentary systems are better, but from a distance, I like the idea of a parry getting 10% of the vote, and therefore 10% of the seats in parliament. We could apply that to the House nationally and State Houses. Likely would be a States Rights experiment.
2. Return to the Legislative branch Legislating. In our lifetimes the Executive Branch has made a huge power grab, and continues to hold on, and try to increase that power. Executive Orders are not law, and it feels more like we are electing Kings or Emperors rather than an Executove whose sole role is to ensure the Execution of the Law and be the Commander in Chief (only in times of war). This might make the forever war issue more a democratic principal in that our representatives would actually have to deal with the consequences of their electorate when choosing war. I believe we haven't declared war since the Korean War in the 50's.
Basically, I think what you and I (and many others are feeling) is that we no longer have a system of checks and balances, as the Executive is too powerful.
1. Parliamentary systems are even worse. And even if they were better, trying to change the Constitution to change to one is never going to happen. Changing the Constitution is incredibly difficult and only works if there is mass approval of something. And that isn't going to happen here.
2. That's also not going to change.
3. "voted Trump to halt the alarmingly bad policies Dems have put in place" - I really don't think he's going to be able to accomplish that or really anything consequential. The man is wildly incompetent and a total joke. Look at this Matt Gaetz nomination and the other people he's put up who are absurdly unqualified.
Yeah, many people i speak with think the same regarding parliamentary systems. So, maybe it's my pipe dream, but representation feels like it should be simpler.
If we don't go back to legislation being legislated by the legislature, then I am worried reforming the electoral college is still irrelevant, as we are simply accepting that we have emperors.
Adam Schiff ran on, in part, removing the Electoral College. I am going to read what you shared. Thanks David!
Thanks for this, David. As you know, I have written many essays about the election. I doubt I have changed any minds. However, I believe that my writing serves three important purposes.
First, it is important to me to express my ideas in writing. It helps me to think through the issues at a deeper level so that my writing makes sense
Second, it is important to my children and, especially, my five grandchildren that I speak out as forcefully as possible against the forces of darkness.
Third, my writing may equip those who agree with me to make more persuasive arguments with those who they speak with.
If I change one mind, great. If I don’t change any minds, I still think my writing about political matters is important. And I will continue doing so though with less frequency after the election.
I guess the line I’m drawing here isn’t so much about just writing about politics so much as thinking that writing about politics can make a meaningful impact on a presidential election.
The way I think about it is that Harris guarantees continued mediocrity and passivity, at best. Trump presents a massive range of uncertainty between brilliant successes (e.g. the Abraham Accords) and spectacular blunders (e.g. pulling out of the TPP). Given the choice of a guaranteed eventual slide into Macur-Olson-style decline and the chance of a lasting recovery, I'll roll the dice.
My greatest worry with Trump is that he will fail to support Ukraine. However, the present administration is already doing that, for all practical purposes. The Jake Sullivan appeasement cabal has demanded that Ukraine fight with one hand tied behind its back, in a show of dishonorable cowardly sanctimony that the world has scarcely seen before in all of history. Not content with slow-walking our own military aid that we so proudly trumpeted, the administration is even forbidding other countries from transferring weapons such as F-16s and such to Ukraine. I could go on for days on the subject, or you could read Trent Telenko on X.
So I'm not sure what gain would come from supporting Harris, on that front.
A thought experiment.
Take 20 employees who are making 100K/year. Give them each a dime.
Tell them if they get heads their salary jumps to 200K/year, if tails then they get fired. Or they can choose not to flip and stay at 100K
Now how many of them flip the coin? We can’t really know of course, but we can know that:
a) someone who is on the verge of quitting or getting fired would risk it.
b) someone confident they could easily get another 100K job would risk it.
c) someone who is an absurd thrill-seeker who does dangerous outdoor activities could
d) someone who has a ton of money in the bank and doesn’t really need their salary to survive
Now who wouldn’t make such a risk? Obviously those in some degree of financial jeopardy with responsibilities they can’t risk on a coin flip.
In America are there more in the former category or the latter? 🤔
Anyway, if you live in a safe state, you can vote your conscience. If you live in a swing state, I would recommend voting for Harris, for utilitarian reasons. A war with Mexico, a repeal of the CHIPS act, and tariffs on everything would not exactly help us against China.
If you're a deontologist living in a swing state, and you feel uncomfortable voting for Harris, I am willing to trade my vote with you.
A war with Mexico? Not in the next four years, under either candidate. Perhaps in the next ten.
But while we're on the subject, the U.S. military has been worrying about the collapse of Mexico into narco-state anarchy for at least the last twenty years that I personally know of, and we are getting closer to that outcome, not further away. Allowing the narco-gangs to gain strength, as the present administration has done, does not help the situation.
I am in the UK and if Trump wins Ukraine loses also the tariffs he promises will affect all our economies.
Are you not a utilitarian?
No. I am more Social Democratic.
Utilitarian means someone who judges actions based on their expected outcome, as opposed to deontologist, who views certain actions as morally wrong no matter what. Which one describes you better?
As I remember from reading politics Utilitarianism is about the greatest good for the greatest number but I am too much of an individualist for that.
You should hold your nose and vote Harris. Trump is not a Republican in any meaning of the word. I am positive Harris will have your kind of Republican at the table. That is way more positive in every way than a Trump win, that for what it is worth is my opinion.
California is going blue so what difference does it make now I vote?
Well, you've had a long and varied journey.
How any reasonable and moral American can not be decided against Harris-Walz is beyond me.
Had the Democrats not dictatorially iced out Biden's primary challengers (and then forced Biden to withdraw--in order to nominate Harris), there was a good chance that Kennedy would have been their nominee.--and, today, I would've been that close to voting for himKennedy (instead of for Trump).
Mostly, I just want promptly--and accurately--reported election results, no nuclear war overseas, and--domestically--uninterrupted energy, food, and banking systems.
You believe that Democratic primary voters would have picked RFK Jr.?
He would have been a strong underdog.
Within a week after Kennedy announced his Democrat candidacy, I was telling people around me, "If he's still in the race next spring, I will 'crossover' and vote for him (against Biden) in the Democrat primary." On some issues, Kennedy leaves me with misgivings, and, sometimes, he talks out of both sides of his mouth, but he didn't commit a "You people" blunder (as Ross Perot did in 1992), and he didn't pander to Muslim voters by criticuizing The Jewish State's military operations after October 7, 2023.
(Rarely do I lift a finger anymore for any political candidate; and yet, since last year, I bought Kennedy campaign t-shirts for my kids and for me.)
It won't surprise me if, in 2027, he declares another presidential candidacy.
Kennedy could have run as a democrat, if he wanted to. I voted for Marianne Williamson in the primary. There was, in fact, a primary.
When the DNC rigged its primaries to guarantee that no Biden opponent would have a chance of winning the nomination, I began to appreciate the outrage that Sanders supporters felt in 2016. (For decades, I've despised the Democrat Party; this year--as i did in 2020--I hated it.)
I genuinely do not know why you think the primary was rigged this year. Because there wasn't a debate? It makes it harder, I suppose, but I don't think that's rigging anything. You can still have a debate without the DNC.
Late last year, the DNC changed the primary election rules--to the effect that primary challengers who campaigned in a Democrat primary state would become ineligible to be awarded prez-nominating convention delegates from that state. (I don't know the fine points of the rigging, but that was an important reason that Kennedy cited for quitting the Democrats. (As long as the Clinton-Obama cabal could continue to prop up Biden, it did so--until it decided that Harris would suffice as Biden's replacement.)
Regardless of claims of DNC conspiracies against RFK, what on earth makes you think that left-wing Democratic primary voters would want him over Biden?
With respect, I've spent about ten minutes Googling and I still cannot find any information that is similar to what you wrote.
Google is not entirely reliable.
Wow. I wish I found this sooner. Thank you for sharing, David. I feel you. I left the Dem party after voting, consistently for Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama, Clinton, Biden, and now...well, I registered Independent and voted Trump to halt the alarmingly bad policies Dems have put in place (nationally, but especially in my Left Bubble of San Francisco, CA). I am the black sheep in my family and circle of friends. Everyone I knew was shocked Trump won, but I had been telling people for awhile, Harris was the worst Dem candidate since Mondale.
I genuinely appreciate your description of the Theory of democracy that we learned versus the Practice of a constitutional republic with only 2 choices.
I have two thoughts to address this. How we do that, as a nation and people, damned if I know.
1. We need more participation of varying political parties. I don't know if parliamentary systems are better, but from a distance, I like the idea of a parry getting 10% of the vote, and therefore 10% of the seats in parliament. We could apply that to the House nationally and State Houses. Likely would be a States Rights experiment.
2. Return to the Legislative branch Legislating. In our lifetimes the Executive Branch has made a huge power grab, and continues to hold on, and try to increase that power. Executive Orders are not law, and it feels more like we are electing Kings or Emperors rather than an Executove whose sole role is to ensure the Execution of the Law and be the Commander in Chief (only in times of war). This might make the forever war issue more a democratic principal in that our representatives would actually have to deal with the consequences of their electorate when choosing war. I believe we haven't declared war since the Korean War in the 50's.
Basically, I think what you and I (and many others are feeling) is that we no longer have a system of checks and balances, as the Executive is too powerful.
1. Parliamentary systems are even worse. And even if they were better, trying to change the Constitution to change to one is never going to happen. Changing the Constitution is incredibly difficult and only works if there is mass approval of something. And that isn't going to happen here.
2. That's also not going to change.
3. "voted Trump to halt the alarmingly bad policies Dems have put in place" - I really don't think he's going to be able to accomplish that or really anything consequential. The man is wildly incompetent and a total joke. Look at this Matt Gaetz nomination and the other people he's put up who are absurdly unqualified.
The big change that we need is the removal of the electoral college. And there are ways to do that which do not involve changing the Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Yeah, many people i speak with think the same regarding parliamentary systems. So, maybe it's my pipe dream, but representation feels like it should be simpler.
If we don't go back to legislation being legislated by the legislature, then I am worried reforming the electoral college is still irrelevant, as we are simply accepting that we have emperors.
Adam Schiff ran on, in part, removing the Electoral College. I am going to read what you shared. Thanks David!
Thanks for this, David. As you know, I have written many essays about the election. I doubt I have changed any minds. However, I believe that my writing serves three important purposes.
First, it is important to me to express my ideas in writing. It helps me to think through the issues at a deeper level so that my writing makes sense
Second, it is important to my children and, especially, my five grandchildren that I speak out as forcefully as possible against the forces of darkness.
Third, my writing may equip those who agree with me to make more persuasive arguments with those who they speak with.
If I change one mind, great. If I don’t change any minds, I still think my writing about political matters is important. And I will continue doing so though with less frequency after the election.
I guess the line I’m drawing here isn’t so much about just writing about politics so much as thinking that writing about politics can make a meaningful impact on a presidential election.