Republicans
The Modelers Have No Clothes
Predicting elections is an occult science—with a shoddy track record.
Idiot Republicans Are Saying Genocide Joe Has ‘Abandoned Israel’
Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):
https://medium.com/media/c9c1dafb4502deb41ac7d589797b4c85/href
Dopey Republican pundits and politicians have begun claiming that Joe Biden has “abandoned Israel” and has fallen under the control of Hamas, because this is a presidential election year and everything needs to be ten times dumber than usual.
Donald Trump said on the campaign trail on Wednesday that “Any Jewish person that votes for a Democrat or votes for Biden should have their head examined,” saying of Biden, “He totally abandoned Israel.”
Trump’s comments were made in response to Biden saying that Israel should declare a ceasefire of six to eight weeks, seemingly suggesting that Israel should do so without conditioning the ceasefire on the release of Israeli hostages. This hopeful statement was swiftly dispelled by Biden himself, however, with the president reiterating the same keep-killing-children-until-Hamas-gives-us-everything-we-want position that this administration has stood by for six months. Apparently Biden’s dementia-addled brain is just struggling to keep its story straight.
Meanwhile Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro has been pushing the narrative that Biden has “saved” Hamas by capitulating to demands from the left on Gaza, going so far as to declare that “Hamas is now in control of the Biden administration.”
Read Let This Radicalize You on Twitter: "We've reached the moment you've all been waiting for: "Joe Biden is Hamas" pic.twitter.com/mWmh6PJbTF / Twitter"
We've reached the moment you've all been waiting for: "Joe Biden is Hamas" pic.twitter.com/mWmh6PJbTF
To be clear, this is all foam-brained nonsense. Biden has spent six months pouring weapons of mass murder into Israel without any conditions whatsoever, and his administration has been justifying and spinning and making excuses for all of Israel’s heinous actions in Gaza this entire time. No US president in history has done more to directly serve the murderousness of the Israeli war machine than Joe Biden.
Right to this very day the president is declaring “ironclad” support for Israel as fears mount that Iran may retaliate for the Israeli strike on its consulate building in Syria which killed multiple Iranian military officers, despite the fact that Iran has made it clear to the White House that if the US comes to Israel’s defense it will make the US a target as well. Biden is so fanatically pro-Israel that we could be near the precipice of the worst-case nightmare scenario of all possible middle eastern conflicts because of his unwavering support for the genocidal apartheid state.
In reality, the only reason Republicans have begun trying to frame Biden as anti-Israel is because only through fiction and fantasy can America’s two mainstream parties pretend there are any significant differences between them. They’re both insanely supportive of Israel and its crimes. They both support war, militarism, imperialism, capitalism and oligarchy. The only areas in which there’s any meaningful disagreement between them are the issues that don’t inconvenience the powerful in any way like whether or not you’re allowed to have an abortion or whether it’s good or bad to be mean to trans people — and even those issues are only used to keep everyone’s interest and attention locked into mainstream politics and diverted from revolutionary sentiment.
https://medium.com/media/a0b83d4b530fca2203bd7a1db2d9b00f/href
So they make up these moronic fictional battlegrounds to fight on, because that’s the only way they can actually have anything to fight about. Joe Biden is a Hamas agent. Donald Trump is a Kremlin agent. Joe Biden is controlled by “the CCP”. Donald Trump is going to be another Hitler instead of another shitty Republican. The Democrats want to steal your guns and make your son wear a dress. The Republicans want to dismantle NATO and let Vladimir Putin take over the world.
Absolutely none of this is real, but if Republicans and Democrats were forced to campaign against each other solely on issues in which they truly disagreed, they’d have very little to talk about, and it would give the whole two-party scam away. Before you know it you’d have them arguing about things like whether it would be best to ramp up nuclear aggressions with China first or prioritize taking out Russia, and people would start to notice that neither of these parties have the interests of normal human beings at heart.
So they keep up their kayfabe combat schtick, and sell it as hard as they can to make sure as many Americans as possible are clapping along to the pretend drama of the two-handed puppet show.
Can’t wait til this election is over and done with so we can go back to the normal levels of stupid.
_______________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to find video versions of my articles. Go here to buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.
Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Featured images via Wikimedia Commons.
Cartoon: NBC's pundit search
Follow me on Mastodon, Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, or at my website.
The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats
Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):
https://medium.com/media/bd8c0e8f4f465b43d1063ad50564857f/href
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that if a Republican president were to back a genocide it would be an evil and unforgivable atrocity, whereas when a Democrat president backs a genocide it’s a minor foible that you’d better shut up about unless you want Trump to win.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to keep destroying Gaza because they love killing Muslims, whereas Democrats want to keep destroying Gaza because something something it’s all Netanyahu’s fault anyway hey let’s go back to talking about Trump.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans argue in support of wars, militarism, capitalism and oppression using right-wing language, whereas Democrats argue in support of wars, militarism, capitalism and oppression using left-wing language.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans do evil things for evil reasons, whereas Democrats do evil things for noble humanitarian reasons.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans facilitate all the interests of the US empire because America is strong and godly and should rule the world, whereas Democrats facilitate all the interests of the US empire because America is liberal and egalitarian and defends the rules-based international order.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to start a world war with China, whereas Democrats are strongly in favor of starting a world war with Russia.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans cheered for the invasion of Iraq solely because it was waged by George W Bush, whereas Democrats criticized the invasion of Iraq solely because it was waged by George W Bush.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the people massacring civilians in the global south under Republican administrations are racist homophobic misogynistic bigots, whereas the people massacring civilians in the global south under Democratic administrations are inclusive intersectional feminist LGBTQ allies.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans criticize Democrats for made-up nonsense reasons like wokeness, whereas Democrats criticize Republicans for made-up nonsense reasons like Russiagate.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans promise to end civil rights if you vote Republican, whereas Democrats promise to let Republicans end civil rights if you vote Republican.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans are led by demented octogenarian swamp monsters who can’t string a sentence together and have spent decades in office promoting ecocide, imperialism, exploitation and oligarchy, whereas Democrats — oh, well I guess that one’s both of them actually.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that liberals feel bad feelings when Republicans are overseeing the imperial bloodbaths and feel good feelings when Democrats are.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when a Republican is president it’s time to yell and scream about any bad things he does, whereas when a Democrat is president it’s time for brunch.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when Republicans do the monstrous things necessary to maintain a globe-spanning empire they’re the greater evil, whereas when Democrats do the monstrous things necessary to maintain a globe-spanning empire they’re the lesser evil.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when the imperial murder machine has an (R) on it we’re meant to frown, and when the imperial murder machine has a (D) on it we’re meant to smile.
_____________
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Go here to buy paperback editions of my writings from month to month. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.
Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
Cartoon: Republican primaries' cryptid candidates
Follow me on Mastodon, Facebook, Instagram, or at my website.
US Congress passes resolution declaring anti-zionism is antisemitism
Anti-zionist Jews among millions declared antisemitic by anti-humanity US lawmakers
The US Congress – of which many members are heavily funded by pro-Israel lobby groups – has passed House Resolution 894 ‘firmly’ stating ‘that anti-Zionism is antisemitism’. The House used as its excuse a supposed ‘drastic rise in antisemitism’ since the 7 October Hamas kibbutz raise – despite the fact that race-based violence since the raid has consisted of attacks on Muslims, including the shooting of three Palestinian-American friends that left one of them permanently paralysed.
The resolution was led by Republican members, but the Democrats were also guilty: the vote passed by 311 votes to just 14 – with 95 Democrats voting for the resolution and 92 ‘abstaining by voting present’. Only thirteen Democrats voted against it.
The motion had been promoted by a number of US pro-Israel pressure and funding groups.
Antizionist Jewish group Jewish Voice for Peace Action described the anti-democratic resolution as dangerous:
Falsely stating that anti-Zionism is antisemitism conflates all Jews with the Israeli state and endangers our communities. It fuels deadly violence and censorship campaigns against Palestinians,
The resolution’s conflation of Jewishness and Zionism – which is a political ideology – has also rightly been condemned as deeply dangerous.
The vote came as Israel continued its slaughter of Palestinian civilians, with bombing of southern Gaza – where the apartheid occupation regime ordered residents of northern Gaza to flee – perpetrated daily.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Tyranny of the Minority: How to Reverse an Authoritarian Turn and Forge a Democracy for All – review
In Tyranny of the Minority: How to Reverse an Authoritarian Turn and Forge a Democracy for All, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt consider the institutions and practices of counter-majoritarianism in the United States. The book effectively demonstrates that American democracy is under attack, but the authors’ proposals for constitutional amendments to help end that attack are unlikely to be implemented, writes Larry Patriquin.
Tyranny of the Minority: How to Reverse an Authoritarian Turn and Forge a Democracy for All. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. Viking. 2023.
Find this book: 
A spectre is haunting America – the spectre of Donald Trump, the loose cannon who defeated his competitors for the Republican Party nomination in 2016 and then went on to shock the world by winning the presidency. From that point on, almost all Republican politicians offered their support to him, while the few remaining GOP dissidents were effectively silenced. It all ended badly, however, with Trump’s refusal to accept his defeat in November 2020 and the ensuing coup attempt, which he encouraged, in January 2021.
As late as the 1960s, the Democrats and Republicans were “big tent” organisations dominated by white Christians. As a result, they had much in common
So, how did we get here? Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that as late as the 1960s, the Democrats and Republicans were “big tent” organisations dominated by white Christians. As a result, they had much in common, so both were able to vote overwhelmingly in favour of important legislation, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. But shortly thereafter, the Republicans began to pursue a hardcore “white party” strategy as the best way to win elections, drawing southern white voters away from the Democrats. This process solidified by the time of Richard Nixon’s re-election in 1972 and was mostly complete with the GOP’s embrace of burgeoning Christian fundamentalism in the 1970s and 1980s.
The United States is now a country where electoral minorities, rooted in a mostly white, rural-based party, can consistently rule over and dominate a multiracial, highly urbanised society.
Today, however, the Republicans are trying to scupper democracy. They realise they cannot win elections if they play by the rules, because they have for the most part abandoned the vast majority of non-white citizens, in a society that is becoming more diverse with each passing year. This has had profound effects on American governance. Representative democracies are supposed to ensure that majorities can implement their favoured policies and are able to do so relatively easily and peacefully. But the United States is now a country where electoral minorities, rooted in a mostly white, rural-based party, can consistently rule over and dominate a multiracial, highly urbanised society.
This turn toward authoritarianism has unfolded because of the US’s counter-majoritarian institutions and practices.
This turn toward authoritarianism has unfolded because of the US’s counter-majoritarian institutions and practices. These include, among others: (1) a politicised Supreme Court, in which six of its nine justices regularly contribute to rulings that are reactionary and antidemocratic; (2) the apportionment of two senators to each state (the same number, for instance, to Wyoming’s 580,000 residents as to California’s 39 million); (3) a constitution that is almost impossible to amend (aside from a minor amendment in 1992 on Congressional salaries, the last successful amendment was in 1971 – that is, more than 50 years ago – when the voting age was lowered to 18); (4) the Electoral College, which enabled Donald Trump to capture the presidency in 2016 even though he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes; and (5) the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes for a bill to proceed to the floor, hence serving as an effective veto of potential legislation by 41 senators.
In sum, “in America majorities do not really rule” (225). In response, Levitsky and Ziblatt make ten general recommendations on how to move forward, including having the government register voters, creating independent redistricting commissions in every state, and abolishing the Senate filibuster. There is a reasonable possibility that most of these reforms could be implemented.
This is not the case, however, for their additional five recommendations, which would necessitate constitutional amendments. They would like to: (1) enshrine the right to vote; (2) abolish the Electoral College; (3) have Senate seats distributed more in line with each state’s population; (4) create term limits for Supreme Court justices; and (5) revise the Constitution’s amendment process by removing the requirement to have three quarters of the states approve each proposed amendment.
They point to the abolition of slavery and the extension of suffrage to women, both of which were forward-looking ideas at one time, but were eventually implemented
Levitsky and Ziblatt anticipate my main objection to their constitutional proposals: that if they “make sense in theory, aren’t they utterly unrealistic in practice?” (236) They argue, though, that while there would be serious obstacles to their passage, these amendments are within the realm of possibility and so should at least be debated. They point to the abolition of slavery and the extension of suffrage to women, both of which were forward-looking ideas at one time, but were eventually implemented, even if they took a century or two to accomplish.
They suggest that the “unrealistic” criticism could come down to the perception that the “reforms we propose might appear radical” (236). They add that the refusal to at least air these reforms is problematic, noting that if “an ambitious idea is ‘unthinkable’,” then “the battle is lost” (238). However, the content of Levitsky and Ziblatt’s proposals is neither ambitious nor radical. As they observe, they are recommending laws and regulations similar to those in place in just about every nation outside the US.
Previous landmark constitutional amendments occurred during and after extended calamities, including the Civil War, World War I, and the massive civil rights movement of the 1960s. I am not sure the successes created in these instances could be replicated today
Still, their proposals are unlikely to pass, at least any time soon. This is because previous landmark constitutional amendments occurred during and after extended calamities, including the Civil War, World War I, and the massive civil rights movement of the 1960s. I am not sure the successes created in these instances could be replicated today, especially given that – as the authors effectively demonstrate over hundreds of pages – the Republican Party and its supporters have detached themselves from democracy, from the law, and even from reality.
The current political climate in the US is much more toxic than it was a half century ago
The current political climate in the US is much more toxic than it was a half century ago, yet throughout the 1970s advocates could not get final approval from enough states to support the Equal Rights Amendment, which passed in Congress in 1972. It would have enabled the following sentence to become part of the Constitution: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” If something so basic, something almost no sentient being would oppose, could not find its way into the Constitution, then none of the authors’ proposed amendments, all of which would significantly reduce the power of Trump-crazed Republicans, seem to have any chance of ratification.
At the time of writing, Donald Trump held a massive lead in polling for the Republican primary – with more support than all other candidates combined – so barring an asteroid hitting the earth, he will be the Republican nominee for president in 2024, and he could very well defeat Joe Biden (the two are currently running neck-and-neck in the polls). If that happens, or if Trump loses and he again cheers on his violent sycophants as they rampage through Washington, the US will not be in a position to enact sensible constitutional amendments, even ones that are relatively uncontroversial – even one which, for instance, would declare that women are equal to men.
This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.
Image Credit: tai11 on Shutterstock.
Cartoon: Nothing's shocking (for long)
Help keep this work sustainable by joining the Sorensen Subscription Service! Also on Patreon.
Video: ‘No ceasefire!’ – US pro-Israel rally chants for continued slaughter of Gaza civilians
Crowd of around 30,000 supporters of apartheid state cheers right-wing antisemitic pastor, boos speaker who says he wants to see an end to the killing of children
A crowd of right-wing supporters of Israeli apartheid and genocide booed a speaker who said he wanted an end to the killing of children – but cheered an extremist right-wing ‘pastor’ who has been called the US’s most powerful antisemite – and chanted ‘no ceasefire’ as Republican Speaker of the Congress Mike Jones said asking for a ceasefire was ‘outrageous’.
The crowd, claimed by its supporters to number more than 300,000 but in reality about thirty thousand according to video footage, also made the chant in an attempt to drown out centrist speaker Van Jones as he tried to appeal for humanity toward Gazans and for all lives and deaths to be treated equally:
Israel has killed as many as fourteen thousand Gazan civilians, around half of them children and another quarter women. The UK House of Commons yesterday voted against calling for a ceasefire, with both Tory PM Rishi Sunak and so-called ‘opposition leader’ Keir Starmer supporting Israel’s ‘right’ to keep bombing and starving the more than two million Palestinians in Gaza in its blatant programme of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.