Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

I may be wrong, but I understand that displaying the swastika in Germany is illegal so they use the Confederate flag in place.

American history is a constant war between Northern Yankees and Southern Bourbons, where whichever side the hillbillies are on, wins. And that’s kind of how I think about American politics today, is like, the Northern Yankees are now the hyper-woke, coastal elites. The Southern Bourbons are sort of the same old-school Southern folks that have been around and influential in this country for 200 years. And it’s like the hillbillies have really started to migrate towards the Southern Bourbons instead of the Northern woke people. That’s just a fundamental thing that’s happening in American politics.

The cavalier image in the antebellum South represented the pinnacle of white southern manhood. Defined by their chivalry, honor, bravery, and skills as horsemen and fighters—characteristics found valuable by southerners. Cavaliers, however, also embodied the white South‟s control over a large
enslaved black population, and many southern planters fashioned themselves according to this image. Over time, the image became more aristocratic as cavalier became synonymous with slaveholders, and slaveholders, most believed, provided social order.

I had hoped to write tonight about the farm bill, which Eric Hovde, running for the Senate from Wisconsin although it’s not clear he lives there, could not talk about in the debate between him and incumbent senator Tammy Baldwin on Friday. “I’m not an expert on the farm bill because I'm not in the U.S. Senate at this point in time,” Hovde said. “So I can’t opine specifically on all aspects of the farm bill.”

The farm bill is one of our most important pieces of legislation. It establishes the main agricultural and food policies of the government, covering price supports for farm products, especially corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts, dairy, and sugar; crop insurance; conservation programs; and nutritional programs for 41 million low-income Americans, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps. It must pass every five years but has been held up by Republican extremists in the House and is now in limbo. One would think that anyone running for Senate should know it pretty well, especially in Wisconsin, where in 2022 farms produced $16.7 billion in agricultural products.

Perhaps this is why the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation has endorsed Baldwin, the first Democrat in nearly twenty years to receive their support.

But I cannot take tonight to explain the really quite interesting history of the farm bill (and why it contains our nutrition programs) because the real story of today is that the Republican candidate for president is not mentally able to handle the job of the presidency, and Republican leaders are trying to cover up that reality.

These two stories are related.

That same quest for power that appears to be driving Hovde to seek a Senate seat without knowing anything about a bill that is hugely important to the people he would be representing appears to be preventing Republican leaders from admitting that their 78-year-old candidate has lost the mental capacity necessary for managing the most powerful nation in the world, including its vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

The United States has guardrails to prevent an incapacitated president from exercising power.

The question of what to do when a president was unable to do his job was not really a major question until the post–World War II years. While presidents before then had been weakened—notably, Woodrow Wilson had had a stroke—medical care was poor enough that those presidents who sustained life-threatening injuries tended to die from them fairly quickly. At the same time, the difficulties of the travel necessary for a national political career made politics a young man’s game, so there really weren’t rumblings of mental incapacity from age.

But Republican president Dwight Eisenhower had seen the grave damage military leaders could do when they were incapacitated and unaware of their inability to evaluate situations accurately, and knew that the commander-in-chief must have a system in place to be replaced if he were unable to fulfill the mental requirements of his position.

Eisenhower took office in 1953, and two years later, he suffered a heart attack. Vice President Richard Nixon and members of the Cabinet agreed to a working plan to conduct business while the president recovered, but presidential assistant Sherman Adams noted that the crisis left everyone “uncomfortably aware of the Constitution's failure to provide for the direction of the government by an acting President when the President is temporarily disabled and unable to perform his functions.”

When Eisenhower went on to need an abdominal operation and then to have a minor stroke, concerns mounted. As Congress discussed a solution, Eisenhower took matters into his own hands. He drafted an informal agreement that he presented to Nixon. If the president became temporarily unable to do the duties of the office, the document gave to the vice president the power of “Acting President.”

The need to figure out what would happen if modern medicine could keep alive an incapacitated president became apparent after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Not only did the question of a president’s incapacity have to be addressed; so did the problem of succession. Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson was falsely rumored to have had a heart attack, and both the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate were old and doubted that they could adequately fulfill the duties of the presidency themselves.

Congress’s solution was the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution, providing a system by which either the president or, if they were unable to realize their incapacity, members of the executive branch would transfer the powers of the president to the vice president. Eisenhower enthusiastically backed the idea that the nation should have coverage for a disabled president.

To anyone paying attention, it is clear that Trump is not in any shape to manage the government of the United States of America. He is canceling interviews and botching the ones he does sit for, while falling asleep at events where he is not actually speaking. He lies incessantly even when hosts point out that his claims have been debunked, and cannot answer a question or follow a train of thought. And his comments of the weekend—calling the vice president a “sh*t vice president,” telling a woman to get “your fat husband off the couch” to vote for him, and musing about a famous golfer’s penis—indicate that he has no mental guardrails left.

Today, in what apparently was designed to show Trump as relatable and to compete with the story that Vice President Harris worked at a McDonalds when she was in college, Trump did a photo op at a McDonalds in the swing state of Pennsylvania, where he took prepared fries out of the fryolator. It was an odd moment, for Trump has never portrayed himself as a man of the people so much as a man to lead the people, and the picture of him in a McDonald’s apron undercuts his image as a dominant leader.

But in any case, it was all staged: the restaurant was closed, the five “customers” were loyalists who had practiced their roles, and when Trump handed food through the drive-through window, he did not take money or make change.

"Now I have worked at McDonald's," he said afterward. "I've now worked for 15 minutes more than Kamala."

The fact that someone on Trump’s campaign leaked to Politico that he is “exhausted” is almost certainly a sign that people down the ranks are deeply concerned about his ability to finish the campaign, let alone run the country. But party leaders continue to stand behind him, raising echoes of their staunch support during Trump’s two impeachment trials.

In 2019 the House of Representatives impeached Trump for his attempt to coerce Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky and pervert the security of the United States to steal an election. The evidence was so overwhelming that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) noted: “Out of one hundred senators, you have zero who believe you that there was no quid pro quo. None. There’s not a single one.” But Republican senators—except Mitt Romney (R-UT), who voted to convict on one count—nonetheless acquitted Trump. “This is not about this president. It’s not about anything he’s been accused of doing,” Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told his colleagues. “It has always been about November 3, 2020. It’s about flipping the Senate.”

Trump’s second impeachment by the House in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection ended similarly. In the Senate, McConnell refused to change the schedule to enable the Senate to vote before a new president was inaugurated, thus giving himself, as well as other Republican senators, an out to vote against conviction on the grounds that Trump was no longer the president. Seven Republican senators joined the Democrats to convict, but forty-three continued to back Trump. In a speech after the vote, McConnell said he believed Trump was responsible for the January 6, 2021, attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election but that he would have to answer for that behavior in court.

But nearly four years later, Trump has not had to answer in court because the Supreme Court, stacked with his appointees thanks to Republican senators, has said that he cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed as part of his official duties. While the courts sort out what counts as official duties, he is, once again, the Republican nominee for president. Leaders are standing behind him despite the fact he is demonstrating deeply concerning behavior.

When President Joe Biden decided not to accept the Democratic presidential nomination after his poor performance in his June debate with Trump, Republicans demanded that Vice President Harris and the Cabinet invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment, despite the fact that Biden’s job performance continued to be exemplary. We learned later that during the time of the debate, he was negotiating a historic prisoner swap involving multiple countries to free twenty-four prisoners, including Americans Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan.

Nonetheless, that one poor debate performance was enough for Republicans to condemn Biden’s ability to govern the nation. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) told the Fox News Channel that “Joe Biden has decided he isn’t capable of being a candidate; in so doing his admission also means he cannot serve as President.”

But Trump has been lying that immigrants are eating pets; calling voters fat pigs; basing his economic policy on a backward idea of how tariffs work; calling for prosecuting his enemies and making the civil service, military, and judiciary loyal to him; and praising a famous golfer’s “manhood”—hardly indications of a man able to take on the presidency of the United States.

And yet with regard to his mental acuity, Republican leaders offer only crickets.

"I've now worked for 15 minutes more than Kamala."

Generation Z is poised to flex its growing political muscle in the 2024 presidential election, and in my surveys and focus groups with these voters, I’m seeing the strong potential for a turning point in American political alignment. Unlike other recent Republican presidential nominees, Donald Trump is making young men a central focus of his campaign. If effective, his effort could peel enough away from the Democratic Party to transform the country’s electoral math for years to come.

Recent data from the Harvard Youth Poll, a national survey I oversee for the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, reveals an increasing political rift between young men and women under 30, two groups critical to Democrats’ success in recent elections. Almost exactly equal shares of young men and young women say they will definitely vote in this election or have already done so. But since the spring of 2020, the share of young men identifying as registered Democrats has dropped by seven percentage points, while those identifying as Republicans have increased by seven points — a net shift of 14 points in just four years. Young women, during the same period, shifted two points away from the Republicans.

Take one young Pittsburgh man I met in a recent focus group. A college graduate working part-time as a bartender, he felt weighed down by hopelessness, adrift in a country where rising costs, stagnant wages and lack of affordable housing have made even the modest ambitions of other generations feel out of reach for him. “Hope is great,” he told me, “but I see nothing for the future.”

The young man’s experience reflects a broader crisis of confidence and purpose, rooted in economic insecurity and social disconnection. The Covid pandemic exacerbated the alienation, with many first-time voters spending thousands of hours isolated and online in their formative years.

While these struggles affect the whole country, they weigh especially on young men of all educational, racial and ethnic backgrounds. Nearly three-quarters of Gen Z men report feeling regularly stressed by an uncertain future, stirring painful memories of the Great Recession they witnessed as children. These feelings erode self-esteem and diminish their interest in personal relationships and long-term planning, leading many to describe their future as “bleak,” “unclear” and “scary.”

Today’s young men are lonelier than ever and have inherited a world rife with skepticism toward the institutions designed to promote and defend American ideals. Men under 30 are nearly twice as likely to be single as women their same age; Gen Z men are less likely to enroll in college or the work force than previous generations. They have higher rates of suicide and are less likely than their female peers to receive treatment for mental health maladies. Most young men in my polling say they fear for our country’s future, and nearly half doubt their cohort’s ability to meet our nation’s coming challenges.

Mr. Trump has tapped these anxieties by weaving a hypermasculine message of strength and defiance into his broader narrative that undermines confidence in democratic institutions. And it’s working. Aware that boasting about “killing” Roe v. Wade drove away young women, Mr. Trump zeroed in on capturing a larger share of the young male vote. In four years, he cut what was once a 19-percentage point Democratic margin among registered young male voters (50 percent Mr. Biden, 31 percent Mr. Trump) roughly in half (48 percent Ms. Harris, 38 percent Mr. Trump) in our poll.

His playbook? A master class in bro-whispering: championing crypto, securing the endorsement of Dave Portnoy — the unapologetically offensive founder of Barstool Sports — and giving U.F.C. President Dana White, who embodies the alpha-male archetype that appeals to many young men, a prime spot at the Republican National Convention. Mr. Trump has also cultivated relationships with simpatico comedians, pranksters, influencers and Silicon Valley billionaires like Elon Musk — all while his team bombards podcasts and social media with misinformation and memes to rally his troops.

This shift in support for Mr. Trump among men is neither organic nor unexpected. It’s what happens when a well-coordinated political operation invests tens of millions of dollars to amplify Mr. Trump’s narrative and weaken confidence in the party in power. Compared with when Mr. Trump ran in 2020, young male voters are now less likely to support government-backed climate change solutions (down 15 points, according to our poll) and affirmative action for qualified candidates (down eight points). They are more likely to question immigration policy (up 12 points), free trade (up 10 points) and whether government stimulus leads to economic growth (up seven points). They are also more likely to believe that religious values should play a more important role in government (up six points).

Is this rightward drift among young men simply a short-lived, Trump-inspired episode or a more permanent transformation? The answer lies partly in Ms. Harris’s ability to connect with and motivate young voters as the campaign nears its end.

To be sure, she is doing better than Mr. Biden. Among men 18 to 29, her favorable rating is 44 percent, seven percentage points higher than Mr. Biden’s and thirteen points higher than Mr. Trump’s. While Mr. Biden’s age and traditional political approach often created distance with younger voters, Ms. Harris’s ability to engage across digital platforms and tap into youth culture sets her apart. Our polling also shows that while Mr. Trump has made significant inroads with young men, more still find Ms. Harris more relatable and competent. Mr. Trump still holds a narrow advantage on the economy, patriotism and strength, but Ms. Harris’s connection with young men continues to grow, suggesting she has yet to reach her ceiling with this demographic.

But to win more votes from young men, Ms. Harris must address their fears head-on and present a bold vision that speaks to their desire for purpose and strength. Of course, a clear economic vision that charts a pathway to financial independence is paramount, but it may not be enough to counter Mr. Trump’s appeal on this issue in the closing days. Ms. Harris needs to go big.

Here’s one way. To reignite the hope of the emerging generation, Ms. Harris should make a sweeping national call to both military and civilian service — name it the Generation Z Compact to Rebuild and Renew America. Such a plan would offer a sense of identity, community and patriotism, while providing economic stability and skill-building — things many young men feel they are missing.

Young Americans have consistently voiced support for national service programs, yet political action has yet to catch up. A 2021 survey revealed that 71 percent of adults under 25 were open to participating in a service program. Even more striking, a poll conducted last year found that about 75 percent of young people backed mandatory national service. These numbers tell a clear story: Our youth’s appetite for civic engagement is strong and growing.

From President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933 to President John F. Kennedy’s Peace Corps in 1961 to President Bill Clinton’s AmeriCorps in 1993, national service has been a cornerstone of American resilience, transformation and progress. More than three decades after the last significant civic engagement initiative, Kamala Harris can frame national service as a pathway to rebuilding America’s strength from within, addressing growing concerns about military recruitment and bridging political divides with a renewed sense of shared responsibility.

Donald Trump has gained ground with Gen Z by systematically exploiting the fears and insecurities of young men, making them feel that their masculinity and future are under siege. Kamala Harris can counter that narrative by listening and recognizing their fears but also by offering something more profound: a vision of hope, strength and shared purpose.