Waiting for the end of the world 5, elections

If none of those topics was depressing enough, the election is coming up next year! That means that primary season has already kicked into gear. We could talk about the candidates.

If the current opinion polls are to be believed, there's a good chance that the leading candidates in 2024 will be President Biden and President Trump, just as in 2020. If that turns out true, it will be very hard for me to want to vote. In the first place, as I just finished describing, the two candidates are trying to destroy each other in the courtrooms. (Or rather, strictly speaking, their parties and partisans are doing the work. But everyone knows it has to be with the approval of the candidates themselves.) So this means we may end up with two candidates facing each other who have each been terminally discredited by the legal process but who are still determined to run against each other for office. 

In the second place, what does it mean for us as a country if these two men are our major candidates for the Presidency? How can we frame this fact to ourselves, in order to understand it? Or to put it another way, pretend we are in show business, or professional wrestling. Pretend we have to sell this contest to an audience. How would we bill it? What words do we post on the marquee, to advertise such an epic battle? 

• Clash of the Titans 2.0? 
• Godzilla vs. Kong? 
• Or perhaps … my favorite … Brezhnev vs. Chernenko?

Because that's what these two candidates represent, after all. They are both ancient, unfocused, and devoid of ideas. Wikipedia says that Brezhnev's administration was marked by "corruption, inefficiency, [and] economic stagnation"; Chernenko, meanwhile, was sick and weak and unable to attend to his duties. Neither one had a single new idea to offer the USSR. Neither one could do anything to stave off decay and collapse. They were both figures from a sclerotic gerontocracy that merely presided over the End Times while letting things drift.

Is that what Trump and Biden have to offer? It looks that way. Biden's public appearances definitely have a Chernenko-like feel to them, where it is not at all obvious that he is quite sure where to be, what to say, or where to go next. As for Trump, we already know what to expect: he's still good at drawing crowds and generating enthusiasm, and I guess he succeeded in implementing a couple parts of his program; but the ability to focus was never a real strong point for him either. Please tell me these two aren't the best our country can offer.

Strictly speaking they aren't. The problem is that the political system is organized in such a way that it's unlikely any better candidates can bubble to the surface while these two still sit atop their respective parties. Up to now I have seen two candidates that genuinely interest me, which already puts this campaign season ahead of many others in the past. I fear neither one has any chance at the nomination, but I guess I can always hope for a miracle.

For the Democrats: I've started to listen to Robert Kennedy, Jr. I'm not sure how far I agree with him. (He's expressed a few opinions that I know I disagree with.) But as a man he speaks fluently, articulately, and in detail; and he connects government policy to fundamental moral choices in a meaningful way. I also think it's cool that he can refer casually to Albert Camus, or to Stoicism, in the middle of a political topic. (I wish he didn't conflate The Myth of Sisyphus with Stoicism, but that feels like niggling.) 

The conventional wisdom about Kennedy is that he is an "anti-vaxxer" and a conspiracy theorist. The implication is that he is thereby a nutcase. My answer to this is, Just listen to him.

• With regard to vaccines, it is true that his opinions differ from the mainstream orthodoxy. But he is not opposed to vaccines. Go look on YouTube for his videos about vaccines. Invariably he points out that he is fully vaccinated, as are all of his children. When he raises specific concerns, they are targeted to particular topics and he always references the relevant scientific literature. That doesn't mean he's necessarily right, but it does mean that he's not crazy. Not all doctors agree about all subjects.
• As for conspiracy theories, … for heaven's sake, look at the man's life. Look at how he lost his uncle when he was nine, and then how he lost his father when he was fourteen. If anyone alive in America today has earned the right to be a conspiracy theorist, that man is Robert Kennedy Jr.!  

In short, I don't think he is crazy. Tucker Carlson posted a wide-ranging interview with Kennedy here.

For the Republicans: I've started to listen to Vivek Ramaswamy. Again, this isn't about aligning perfectly with every single policy position, although I like many of the policies he has suggested. But as a man he is detailed, articulate, and thoughtful. What is more, he is willing to lay out a position clearly and give the reasons behind it, rather than hiding behind clichés or bromides. 

Some of these positions are stunning in their bald realism. For example, rather than continuing the long American policy of "strategic ambiguity" over Taiwan, Ramaswamy states clearly that today it is a vital American security interest to preserve Taiwan's independence (because we rely on Taiwan for sophisticated computer chips). But he adds that he wants to build up America's domestic chip manufacturing to the point where we no longer depend on Taiwan; and after we reach that point, he concludes, Taiwan's independence will no longer be relevant to America's security interests. Full stop. Some critics have argued that this policy amounts to telling China, "You can't invade Taiwan until 2029; but after that, it's all yours." And, honestly, that's not far wrong. I am thrilled that Ramaswamy has the cojones to say so out loud.

Tucker Carlson posted an interview with Ramaswamy here. 

If the Democrats nominated Kennedy while the Republicans nominated Ramaswamy, that would be a campaign worth watching! It would be intelligent and detailed. I don't know (yet) which one I would vote for, but—judging them as men (and not just by their policies)—I wouldn't be too upset with whichever of them won the general election. It won't happen, but I can dream.  

Anyway, I don't think I know anyone with whom I can discuss the election, either.

―――――

And then there are my thoughts about what is going on abroad. Those will have to wait for a later installment.