Main Edition
US
FR
Main Edition
US
FRThe AI image posted by Trump.
And so we enter the beginning of the end. After months of insecurity, Democrats have united behind Kamala Harris as their nominee, while Republicans seem to have adjusted their messaging in response to their new opponent. The election finale is finally in sight, with voters now facing a binary choice — but what exactly does that choice entail?
While the two candidates’ respective vice-presidential selections signal a divergence between the parties on domestic policy, the foreign policy distinctions are more opaque. Democrats maintain that a second Trump presidency would shepherd in an era of American isolationism, leading to anarchy around the globe. Trump and company have fired back with claims that “there will be no future under Comrade Kamala Harris, because she will take us into a Nuclear World War III”.
Trump’s rhetoric here is relatively straightforward: a Harris presidency would be “something straight out of Venezuela or the Soviet Union”, a claim he illustrated by sharing an AI-generated image of Kamala Harris speaking at a Soviet-style assembly. As political aesthetics go, invoking America’s Cold War anxiety may seem mildly entertaining. But as Trump could soon find out, the political advantages end there.
Trump’s new messaging marks an interesting role reversal for the two campaigns. Joe Biden, before his retreat from the contest, had repeatedly characterised Trump as a dictator-in-waiting. Democracy, he warned, was on the ballot. The Republicans, meanwhile, focused on more accessible matters, in particular the rising prices in Joe Biden’s America. Yet now, the script is flipped: Trump is the one peddling apocalyptic visions of dictatorship, while the Harris campaign has dropped the fascism rhetoric in favour of the more meme-friendly allegations of “weirdness”.
At its heart, this resurrection of the red-scare boogeyman augurs a departure from the populist principles that guided Trump to victory in 2016. For someone who won an election on the catchphrase of “drain the swamp” and the promise of pragmatic dealings abroad, Trump’s new McCarthyist message — combined with his disavowal of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and embrace of Elon Musk — is a step backwards towards Manichean neoconservatism. In other words, his populist instincts have been smothered by a red menace — and this will be a losing strategy.
Most American voters do not believe that their government will fall to communism anytime soon, and the few who do can hardly be considered swing voters. More than three decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, red-scare rhetoric does not hold the existential resonance that it had at the peak of the Cold War. While the Chinese Communist Party acts as the greatest international rival to American supremacy, modern China is incomparable to the Soviet Union on multiple dimensions. Most obviously, the US is not drafting soldiers to fight against the forward march of communism, and 100,000 Americans have not died in a 21st-century Korea or Vietnam. We are not teaching school children to duck and cover under their desks in fear of imminent nuclear strikes. The CCP, at this time, is not advocating for a global socialist revolution.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeCome on, you know good and well that Neoconservativism is about Democracy building across the globe not simply engaging with the world. Trump has never claimed he’s an “Isolationist.”
Trump’s “Comrade” reference spoke to Harris’ plan to impose price controls on consumer goods. Socialist command economies are always burdened by inflation. The Harris solution to unburden high food costs was to cap them. The problem with capping prices is that it undercuts the product’s value in the market and leads to scarcity. He’s referring to Soviet bread lines not some foreign policy agenda.
His fear about WW3 is not unfounded if the status quo holds. Global disputes can’t be ignored just because there are problems here. He doesn’t want to “Build Democracies” abroad but he’s also not oblivious to destabilization of our supply chains. We need to get along with these other countries to the extent possible and broker peace when opportunities arise. The primary job of an Executive is to keep the country safe. I trust him in that regard because global dictators are hesitant to test him.
All that said, the Democrats have a chokegrip on controlling Narratives within the News Cycle and can Memory Hole nearly everything to unburden themselves from the past. It will take something of a miracle for Trump to win unless he can charm the Mainstream Press into giving him more favorable coverage. Don’t forget, they need him for Ratings.
“global dictators are hesitant to test him”
Probably too busy laughing at his obsequious ass-kissing of them!
Care to define “ass-kissing” in these circumstances.
Trump does kiss a lot of dictator-ass, but he is sufficiently unstable that they can ever be quite sure what he will do in any circumstance (not unlike the rest of us, I guess).
I think that Trump probably understands, better than career politicians seem to, the Palmerstonian doctrine that states do not have friends, only interests. And those interests are unchanging and eternal.
He’s what you might call a ‘strategic realist’. And before we sneer at that, we might consider the mess that ‘strategic moralists’ have made during the past couple of decades.
Trump’s interests are “Donald J. Trump”. That is unchanging and eternal.
Plonk Man raises his head from his curbstone pillow.
You can wallow in TDS, but Trump knows how to negotiate. He’s done it his entire life. He separates the person from the negotiations. You flatter your negotiating partner to gain leverage in negotiations. This really isn’t rocket surgery.
Yes, I’ve noticed how dispassionate Trump can be. Nothing gets under his skin.
You bring up a good point. With the extent of lawflation arrayed against him hes shown remarkable poise. I never suspect he had it in him without the Democrats highlighting it so well.
So its not just his ability to take a bullet.
Quite remarkable really, hes definitely shown these presidential qualities.
Now juxtapose Harris’s ability to handle pressure. I know who I would vote for.
You’d vote for the one who just said, “They execute babies at nine months in Minnesota”?
Yes. determining when a fetus is human, shouldn’t be part of a federal government.
A friend who worked as a nurse in maternity in a hospital in NYC described how when a 7 or 8 or 9 months fetus baby survived an abortion it was left on a metal table to die. No blanket, no comfort no dignity. That was the policy.
It’s not really a “fetus” at 7 or 8 or 9 months, is it?
Well, he wouldn’t have to face the lawfare if he hadn’t done so many illegal things.
This is the funniest thing I have read on Unherd in ages! Trump has the thinnest skin I’ve ever seen on a politician – everything riles him up!
Which is precisely the point that Martin M was making, you hopeless dunce.
If it’s something he takes personally, which is almost everything.
Oh Jimbo, I know you don’t like it when I point out that your hero is actually a complete moron but this is too much even for you!
Ripping off your contractors in New Jersey is one thing. Facing down Putin and Xi is quite another and the fat orange dope caves and asskisses every single time.
Sorry to burst your fanboy bubble!
As an avid observer of Donald Trump, his relationship with Kim Jung Eun has been a highlight! What Veenbass has said brings to mind hexagram number 31 in the I Ching called Hsien/ Influence/ Wooing. It is the opening hexagram in Part Il and courtship and wooing are the foundation of all social relationships. I first encountered the I Ching at age 16 in NYC and was fascinated that it was a divination text with a perspective of society so different than what I had known. After 45 years of little to no interest in this book, at age 78, the hexagram has emerged once again in my life, mostly because of the abortion issue. How can women and men, friends and strangers, of differing views engage in dialogue with one another about the incendiary subjects of the moment? Courtship and wooing what a lovely idea! One person makes the first move, but it must be promising and sincere if it is to succeed.
Like Brett, I would love to hear you elaborate on this.
It’s beyond him and would be a series of banalities. Yawn.
You really wouldn’t.
Please don’t project your habit of kissing your oracles’ asses onto others.
But fear of the economic plans will also fall on deaf ears, I think. As the author argues, main concerns include migration and cultural issues, and not abstract economics. Nor does it seem likely to me that many people will actually swallow the meme that mild New Deal’ish policies are “communist”. It’s simply not 1960 anymore.
Sure, temporary price controls sound somewhat radical and socialist but they have been used before during and directly after WW2, advocated by John Kenneth Galbraith if I remembered correctly. It successfully controlled inflation after the huge deficit spending. Is it a good idea now? I don’t know but I don’t think it’s a deal breaker for voters.
Price caps (and the New Deal) are more fascist than communist (nevermind that no “communist” regime has ever gotten beyond socialism).
“Communists” would outright nationalise (ie, steal) the means of production and distribution, whereas fascism just puts it in chains with price controls and endless regulations, the result being that the managers of private businesses are essentially middle-management for government bureaucrats.
It doesn’t end well, and the “New Deal” was in fact a disaster. America’s Great Depression really only ended when FDR did.
… and if you think government control of economies worked well after WWII, remember that rationing in the UK only ended 8 years after the war.
Jim- I don’t see any distinction between the long term economies of Democratic Socialism (Communism) or National Socialism (Fascism). It’s just a centrally controlled command economy. The organizational hierarchies start out differently but the former evolves into the latter after it inevitably produces shortages.
To be clear: Are you contending that the Social Democracies of Norway, Denmark, and to a lesser extent the UK and Canada are communist?
Any unabated ism is a tyranny, from protectionism to libertarianism, authoritarianism to anarchism. But a mix of social programs and robust capital can avoid extremes of oppression and inequality.
Concerning your repeated point about Grand Left Control of media and narratives: I grant there’s an imbalance, but it is not as severe, coordinated, or successful as you suggest. In addition to the popularity of Fox News and right-tilted radio and podcasts (Prager, Rubin, to a degree Rogan, etc.) there’s the influence of the Pulpit, in a nation that is still quite actively Christian by Western standards. I recognize that churches are not a sociopolitical monolith, but congregations with anything other than a black majority are likelier to be vehemently pro-Trump than anything else.
Anything that puts the word “Social” in it is malleable and hard to pin down especially when paired with “Democracy.” In the US “Democracy” has traditionally meant Representative but Progressives typically favor Direct Democracy, like ballot measures and worker cooperatives.
Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism function very differently although there’s probably a slippery slope. You can quibble with my characterization, but from my perch, Social Democracies are basically rich, less populated, homogenous countries with high degree of social trust that pool resources but maintain liberal values like individualism, free speech and free markets.
Democratic Socialism is a collective, shared society focused on equalizing outcomes through redistribution and collective control over the means of cultural and economic production. We’re seeing now that as Social Democracies become more multicultural and social trust wanes, they begin to shift more toward Democratic Socialism.
If you don’t think the balance is severe go to Yahoo, Microsoft Start, ABC, NBC, PBS or some seemingly neutral page and evaluate the ratio of articles that paint Harris/Walz favorably and Trump/Vance in a negative light. That’s what average folks getting their email or basic news see on a daily basis. If that was all I knew, my feelings on electoral politics would be alot different. It’s just a steady drip of one sided news.
Conservatives have a pretty good handle on alternative and social media but most people that get information there are already locked in. I’m talking about apolitical people that just vote every 4 years and aren’t caught up in the nonsense. That group is being fed almost exclusively biased news.
That’s mostly fair and I’m not inclined to quibble (a lot) at the moment. I agree that successful social democracies have tended toward homogeneity, though the UK, Canada, and Australia are quite demographically diverse, with a much more robust safety net—and decidedly higher taxes— than the U.S.
i contend that part of the phenomenon you’re talking about has to do with the particular populist disrupters on the current Republican ticket. The NYT has three regular conservative columnists in Ross Douthat, David French, and Bret Stephens—but no one that defends Trump, except in rare guest-contributor columns. While the mass media & entertainment complex will tend left for the foreseeable future—Hollywood always has, with rare blips like the McCarthy era—things will become less skewed if the MAGA movement dies down.
Yet in freer countries art, music, books, and video entertainment will always tilt in a less conventional, untradititional direction. So much so that boilerplate “rebellion” and low-risk “radicalism” get normalized. Principled defenses of tradition and morality—many of which I’m in strong sympathy with—remain important. We still need people like Samuel Johnson, John Adams, G.K. Chesterton, and William F. Buckley. Perhaps some traditional conservatives here can point me to present-day writers who might fit into this legacy. Scruton? Sowell? I’ve heard this last two speak with some interest but admit I haven’t cracked their books.
I have not lived my life in Conservative bubble. I lived in a Deep Blue State for over a decade and was surrounded by people to my Left. I had many friends that were probably similar to you. Creative type people that leaned Left but weren’t overtly political. I saw how politics works in a Blue State. Decisions are liberal but they will tolerate some degree of modest resistance. Blue States are littered with soft Republicans that carry mild tax objections or etc but mostly just get plowed over.
I keep trying to tell you that MAGA is simply a reaction. The “Moderates like Brooks and Douthat (or McCain/Romney) were insufficient intellectual counterweights to the Left’s cultural capture. Those guys still get invited to the proper society cocktail parties because they temper their dissent. DEI, Gender Ideology, Climate Catastrophism, Covid Extremism, School Shutdowns, Unchecked immigration Sanctuary Cities are a result of Conservatives being asleep at the wheel. The fact that Democrats are quietly rolling back their support of these things now are proof that the reactionaries have been more than necessary.
Obviously reactionaries can go too far but the so-called Moderate Republicans have been wholly insufficient in preventing cultural capture by Anti-Meritocratic forces
I take you at your word on your “positionality” (lefty jargon anyone?) as I did when you gave examples of your varied information diet. These days I get balance via The Spectator, Reason, this place—especially in its right-dominated comments—and by reading quite a few good old books, but my own views tend to land much closer to center-leaning takes from people like David Brooks, Michael Smerconish, John McWhorter, and others you’d probably dismiss as cogs in some giant agglomerated mainstream-elite machine.
I do continue to wonder if you treat left and center left sources as mere opposition research, remaining quite tribally-loyal and hardened against the potential input of real and perceived opponents.
Yes, you do keep trying to convince me that MAGA is primarily a justified and wholesome reaction to the horrors of mainstream thought and policy. But that’s not some incontrovertible fact, just an opinion you share with quite a few others. Trumpism is also a deliberate series of provocations, cynically manipulated by Trump himself above all. And he’s pretty easily manipulated by certain kinds of string-pullers behind the scenes too.
I don’t accept the idea the America is so lost and broken that we might as well just about burn it down and start over, then call that Good Old American Patriotism, let alone conservatism.
I agree that some major fundamental changes—or restorations of a more meritocratic order—are needed. But rapid and radical changes or pendulum corrections (quite inevitably overcorrections when there’s a major headwind) should almost always be avoided. Too much violence, too much enduring ill-will results. Call it what you will: Trumpism, the MAGA movement, radical-right populism—is prevailingly a force of division and negativity, however well-intentioned. And some of it is openly malevolent, angry, and ready to kill.
So yeah, I’m primarily an incrementalist, but not a timid personality or an apologist for all things status quo.
I’d love to see a third-party movement drawn mostly from the middle 60-80 percent of the sociopolitical spectrum. You seem to regard anyone near the center as a tool or a fool. I don’t consider you an extremist or violent revolutionary but you seem to be hitching your wagon to a cyclone as a sort of prematurely declared last resort. I wish you’d truly reconsider that stance. There’s still a lot worth saving, and the politics of vilification and combat, from either the far left or far right, risks smashing the worthy portion of our national inheritance beyond foreseeable-future repair. Think it can’t get worse? I wish that were so.
Well said.
That’s a rational, well written, well argued case. Those are all intelligent, legimately “Centrist” type people. But of those people only John McWhorter has actually pushed hard against the Zeitgeist.
But McWhorter’s problem is the same problem that afflicts most brilliant people. An ego that struggles to adjust when they get something wrong. I listen to Glen Loury and John often. John might score higher on an IQ test but Glen is more aware of his own biases. Like, he realizes if his emotions impact his judgment. John is always even keel, so he assumes his opinions are always completely rational.
McWhorter is insanely brilliant but he makes alot of bad judgments if you listen to him due to hubris. He has no idea when his emotions overwhelm his judgment.
I’m in strong agreement with a lot of that. However, it’s not like Michael Smerconish or David Brooks march in lockstep with the progressive or modishly woke herd.
I listen to Loury and McWhorter regularly too. McWhorter can be whiny and sometime lets what I’d call his arrogance, rather than “hubris”, get in his way. I actually think Loury has the stronger overall intellect. He can steelman the other side with genuine fairness—something you’re also quite good at—and he seems truly learned in the things he’s studied, such as economics and race in America.
In a sense, Loury frustrates me in a way that’s comparable to my remote view of certain things about you. Both of you are quite brilliant and very well-informed, but have some pretty inflexible (not extreme) views on certain complex issues. And you both defend Trump! Still, I have high esteem and respect for both of you.
You talk of living in Lefty Land for many years, but with no suggestion of having been influenced by that environment, nor your liberal, creative friends. Is my impression correct that you’ve just about always been conservative/right and grown more so since heading South?
I grew up with hippie then ex-hippie parents who were non churchgoing, vehemently anti-Reagan, anti-corporate, anti-U.S. foreign policy, etc. They weren’t actively radical but they checked most SF Bay Area liberal boxes. They’ve moderated now that they’re in their seventies, but they’re both well to the left of me—especially my Canadian citizen dad. My “rebellion” was to become a centrist with some traditional leanings!
Have a great rest of Labor Day weekend man.
Until June of 2020, Politics were mostly a side issue for me. I’ve always been right of center but I didn’t care all that much how anybody voted. I’d been watching the campus radicalism for about 10 years and thought it was relatively contained. The corporate, legal, scientific and educational rule changes that followed the 2020 riots are what hardened my stance so much.
It was terrifying to live in a place where police were attacked, shops were looted and buildings were destroyed only to see the destroyers and arsonists largely avoid punishment and somehow gain the moral highground. It was a pressure campaign that took place over months and changed all the rules. I can show you thousands of mainstream articles that acknowledge how our institutions like corporations and schools all changed dramatically in response to the “Racial Justice Protests.”
The Capitol rioters didn’t gain the moral highground and were punished severely. Some people were punished disproportionate to their actions for crimes like trespassing. There were tribunals and the event is effectively etched in stone as a historic tragedy. And fair enough. I’m not going to do much to defend that day because it’s largely indefensible. The question is why did the 2020 rioters get off so easy and why do so many left-coded protests still get treated so differently? Nobody boards their windows because of right wing extremist violence. Left wing extremism is pretty much tolerated as a given. It looks like Repressive Tolerance (Herbert Marcuse).
I completely agree with you that the Far-Right is divisive and often irrationally conspiratorial. It’s not “wholesome” or good or a positive reflection of Conservativism. But the left-wing movement being opposed is irrational and actively seeks to shut down debate. I don’t believe it’s possible for a Conservative politician to be effective if they aren’t willing to stand up to it.
Mitt Romney marched with BLM; A movement that openly called for the abolition of the nuclear family. I find that incredibly strange. And hey, people can construct their families in any way they please. It’s not my business. But I find it difficult to believe a society that openly praises movements that seek to dismantle traditional families can succeed on a functional level.
It’s surprising to hear you say you weren’t very political prior to 2020. Were you living in a city that had major riots? Didn’t you vote for Trump in ‘16 and for Romney in ‘12?
Did Romney actually march with BLM or did he show up briefly to show support for Racial Justice in a very fraught and desperate climate?
I understand your point about the disproportionate punishment for Capitol Rioters.
I also hate the way the hard or radical left often attempts to shut down debate or claim “the correct side of history”. I get a taste of that in reverse here at UnHerd, from some folks, and I don’t like it.
More of us need to meet in the middle when we can. I truly believe that.
I’ve always voted. I was always aware of politics and had opinions but I never thought anyone’s political bent was a big part of their persona.
Yes on all three and yes Romney’s march was performative not ideological. I can even respect that he was trying to be a leader. My problem is that the decision lacked a principled understanding of the ideology he was aiding. Emotion clouds judgment.
But let’s just give him the benefit of the doubt and say he made a bad snap judgment based on good intentions. Ok, then judge the Intersectionality movement for what is after it expressed itself. He couldn’t do that because he was in the sunk cost Dilemma. Once you decide to support one thing it can be hard to reverse out. If you can’t reverse, you end up allied with people that are axiomatically wrong on fundamental issues. Now your political legacy survival gets tied to the opposition party.
Everybody is wrong on fundamental issues at some point. The Iraq War destroyed Republicans intellectual standing because they doubled down on being wrong. The Woke movement has done the same to Democrats. Until Democrats lose electorally in massive numbers or turn significantly right socially and economically there will be no slowdown on MAGA ideology. The change in our society is going to need to come from within the Democrat Party before Republicans become less divisive.
Watch some of the DNC politician speeches from the convention.. There was A LOT of crude diviseness in those speeches. You sometimes talk as though Republicans are reacting with incivility to a friendly opposition.
I agree that the populist groundswell won’t go away by itself, nor any time soon. However, if DJT loses yet again there absolutely will be a curtailment or slowdown in MAGA influence and success. Maybe not the ideology—true belief is always hard to kill.
*I do not believe that emotion in and of itself “clouds judgment”. A cold detachment clouds or impairs judgment worse when it comes to many human affairs. Pure objectivity is a false ideal for us mortals, and the heart and gut are crucial to some of our most important decisions.
I’ve genuinely enjoyed this exchange. You are among the best commenters here and you make this site a better place.
This is well said, but still, in my view anyway, the elephant in the room is the “left.” The left gave birth to a previously unknown phenomenon: revolution. It is the idea that the world, as it is given to us, is an irredeemable horror and must therefore be got rid of. That hundreds of millions of people must die in the process is only the price we must pay. This line of thinking gave rise to the reactionary, a term not meant as a compliment. And it is true, to be a reactionary is to be, in the eyes of the left anyway, a clown. And so there we have it — the life-takers v. the clowns.
I think it’s a pointless exercise to debate all the isms. Only if one is very specific about what they mean with socialism, capitalism, communism, anarchism etc. can you have really a discussion about it. However, in practice these words are often just bastardized hollow phrases, swear words or badges of honor.
I agree, to a point. But abstract terms of doubtful import, including the thousand competing isms, can’t be banished from the discussion, nor should they be. They provide a potentially useful shorthand or starting point, if they are not overused, misused, treated as realities-in-themselves, or mutually misunderstood from a definitional standpoint—big ifs, I know!
That is why I pushed T Bone for follow up detail, which he provided. He and I have also had several long and civil exchanges in the past, so we are not starting in a definitional vacuum.
I sometimes feel the need to make the perhaps obvious-to-most point that any severe ism, even in its ideal form, cannot survive by itself in a wholesome form, not once it comes out of the brain and meets the heart, hand, and foot on the ground.
It’s kind of related to my favorite answer to questions like: Is it nature or nurture? individual freedom or social responsibility? tradition or innovation?
Yes, it is. Both. But the true or correct balance is not found in the abstract, nor correctly apportioned in equal measure to every person, according to the “generalizationisms” of some ruling body.
I’d like to see all “churches” taxed. Non-profit my arse.
That’s a pretty odd loophole for them to still enjoy.
Fascists and socialists are just communists who are afraid of commitment
Reality is a lot more complicated and nuanced than all of what you’re claiming I’m afraid. But I don’t want to get into a simple game of contradiction.
Therefore I can only recommend that you seriously study this history from objective sources (books) if you find it important, not just from one political perspective. In particular the postwar consensus aka the Golden Age of Capitalism. What were the (economic) policies, what did they agree upon during Bretton Woods and why? Also, how exactly did the US/West eventually win the arms- and space race, what were the reasons for welfare states and universal education? Another important event was the Kitchen Debate between then vice president Nixon and Khrushchev, especially its effects on planners behind the scenes. After that proceed with the reasons for the neoliberal turn and monetarism, in particular what was actually discussed in the relevant conservative think tanks.
There is quite a difference between “temporary” price controls during a war – and what govt power grab has ever been temporary – and price controls for the sake of pandering to voters while ultimately harming those same voters. This is not about the 60s; it’s basic economics, on which exists a profound ignorance.
Except we are just coming out of a pandemic in which governments, according to some, caused inflation because of deficit spending. So there are parallels. Again, is it a good idea? I don’t know, probably not. It might indeed be just pandering to the voter. Not good. But it has been done before and economics is almost always complex and never “basic”. So in itself it is not some crazy communist policy. More important, I cannot imagine pretending it is will resonate with swing voters, just with people wo were already convinced. But perhaps I’m wrong.
Also you asked what government power grab has only been temporary. A legitimate concern. However, I hope the irony is not lost on you that the example I gave you is literally a government intervention that was temporary. This was managed by the Office of Price Administration (OPA) I believe, if you want to learn more.
Unfortunately, it is now the Dems that are appealing to the uneducated and irrational. Or perhaps educated and irrational – they likely don’t teach these historical facts anymore.
President Richard Nixon tried price controls briefly in 1971 and it ended badly. However it makes for good leftist economic populism that the Democrats are now trying. Unfortunately it can contribute to VP Harris winning in November.
It is unfortunate that despite the Democrats being weak on multiple fronts Trump is not focusing on key bread and butter issues like jobs, the lacklustre performance of the economy, etc. that appeal to most voters but is instead turning his attention to culture war issues that are good for media ratings, memes and energizing the fanatical part of his base that is a small minority of voters but will have an overall small impact on the final outcome of the race.
Well said, couldn’t agree more.
I appreciate that you post serious comments and you may be right that the concept of “price controls” doesn’t mean much to swing voters. But it’s not abstract or complicated. The point is that capping prices will make stuff less available. If stuff is less available than the government has to make up for the shortfall by managing existing supply and rationing materials. So that means your economy will be run by the Government on the basis of “Emergency.”
In an “Emergency”, basic Democratic functioning is limited or suspended on the basis of need. That means a suppression of Freedom.
Unfortunately, it is now the Dems that are appealing to the uneducated and irrational. Or perhaps educated and irrational – they likely don’t teach these historical facts anymore.
Well at least you understood my point. As for the government (or central bank) running the economy: that ship has sailed since 2008. And to some degree it has always been the case much more than most people realize. I would go as far as to say that under neoliberalism trade is more controlled in many ways than before that. It’s mostly capital and finance that was deregulated.
Whatever. The truth is, if she wins she’ll ‘discover’ that the price controls are ‘impossible’, ‘unwise at this time’ or ‘unjust’. Typical Democratic technique for kicking the can down the rode.
Such a radical departure from the neo-liberal economic narrative is just not going to happen.
You shouldn’t give these people so much credit. It just encourages them.
Trump has disavowed the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025? Disappointing if true, but I missed that.
Until elected.
It’s hundreds of pages. He said he likes some parts and not others.
We’re already implementing the Left’s version of Project 2025 with global target goals on social wellness, economy and sustainability so the whining about Project 2025 is all projection anyways.
He did that immediately after it was released. The Heritage Foundation didn’t consult and weren’t asked to produce anything like that. Boilerplate 80’s Reaganomics is not Trump’s style. Full stop.
Of course she does know good and well on both counts: that neocons are more keen for nation building than for realism in foreign policy; that Trump’s “Comrade Kamala” is about her domestic policy, not a Soviet invasion.
But that she knows this isn’t going to stop her from doing her best to misconstrue Trump.
Unfortunately, The GOP, and Trump himself, have suddenly run into a wall in terms of communications. You’re probably correct in saying that by evoking the Soviet Union they’re referring to bread lines not nuclear war, but their artwork contradicts that message. They should have used one of the many thousands of photos of actual bread lines that are in the archives of the old school newspapers and agencies. In any case, most of today’s voters have no idea what a ‘soviet union’ was
Let’s just hope that they have something else more appropriate up their sleeves.
It may be right that America will not accept the message of impending Marxist-inspired totalitarianism, but it is absolutely accurate. Anyone who attended college during the 1960s in the USA or Europe can draw a straight line from campus Marxist rhetoric from people like Wellesley’s own Hillary Clinton or Rudi Dutschke to the equity rhetoric (and policy) of today.
But most of that is cultural theory. During that same period, economics under the neoliberal consensus actually shifted a lot to the right. Perhaps that is what is so confusing, that we had a mainstream culture full progressive discourse while the economic base remained firmly on side of private power to point of generating inequality reminiscent of the gilded age.
The rising inequality we’re seeing both here and in Europe and the US is mostly the consequence of policies pursued by supposedly ‘progressive’ governments. The great boast of the Blairites, for example, that they increased real wages by 50%, quietly overlooks the almost complete expulsion of blue collar workers from the housing market between 1997 and 2010 which renders the former ‘achievement’ utterly meaningless.
Most of the inequality figures: e.g. income, wealth, share of the 1%, took off after Thatcher. And similar trends can be seen all over the West. Third way ‘social democratic’ politics precisely changed very little about neoliberal policies such as market fundamentalism and financialisation. After all, Thatcher considered Blair her greatest achievement. As a likely consequence you don’t see much differences in the economic trends between left or right wing governments after that. Also note that a lot of the policies responsible for the current state are deeply embedded in international institutions and central banks now. National governments have only limited control in the first place. Consider, for example, the impact of QE on the housing market and inequality.
As a likely consequence you don’t see much differences in the economic trends between left or right wing governments after that.
Yes – ‘left’ has ceased to have much to do with wealth distribution in any meaningful sense.
I’ve often wondered whether the enthusiasm of the wealthy left for identity politics isn’t subconsciously a deflection from the discussion of wealth or a kneejerk resort to divide-and-rule to keep the working class at bay.
But “cultural theory” is Marxist by way of the Frankfurt School, unless, of course, it’s Nazi by way of Heidegger and Derrida.
Yes, it’s definitely one of those two. No doubt about it.
Inequality is a function of technology and in particular, “network effects.” The cultural theory has been accompanied by massive amounts of government spending. It’s just that the forces of technology have dominated. In looking at the current situation or the gilded age, one sees that inequality was nonetheless lower than in the Middle Ages and earlier.
The continued dominance of free-market, technology-enabled inequality is indeed the driving force behind increasingly totalitarian government. Government will keep ratcheting-up until it has conquered the free market.
Ironically, that will not increase economic equality.
“At its heart, this resurrection of the red-scare boogeyman “
Its not the red-scare boogeyman, or the “red menace” and the author is playing games with a pretty poor piece of writing. It’s the leftist view of how we should think and live without question that’s the “scare”. The left in the West is more dangerous to us than Russia.
Who believes there has been any role-reversal in the players? This is typical media hype about something they don’t understand or purposely distort and another example of them creating the story then “reporting” on it.
And Unherd, the articles you put up are getting to be quite shallow. Hardly the outsider you promote yourself as.
‘The left in the West is more dangerous to us than Russia.’
Yes.
As social democratic states become increasingly bloated and unable to respond to their electorates for fear of antagonising entrenched interests, politics across the West is increasingly people Vs government. We’re seeing that quite graphically in the UK right now.
social democratic states: becoming less social, less democratic, and even less like a state.
Is that an intrinsic feature of social democracy? The social democrats in Denmark follow both a hard line migration policy while also maintaining social democratic economic policies. They are very popular.
Well, that is good news. I feel quite uplifted.
UnHerd needs to broaden its base of contributors from Ivy League doctoral candidates. No echo chamber is as deafening as that one. Find somebody from a red state who knows a bit more about the US than the sacral wisdom chanted in the Ivory Tower.
Are we forgetting Biden’s ever-present claims, back when he had some level of relevancy, that Trump was a threat to American democracy?
Doesn’t it seem to be a like kind response to claim Harris is a crypto-communist?
Both claims are ridiculous on the face of it, but you seem to forget that it’s bilateral silliness.
Such commentary appears studiously one-sided.
The author has no idea what she’s talking about. Red menace? I haven’t heard anyone talk about this. Trump’s talk has always been economic, whether referring to Harris or China. Meanwhile, Harris hasn’t said anything about anything. The author notes some of the think tankers associated with both candidates and then proceeds to make some wild speculation.
I believe the problem is that when hard facts are unavailable people (especially journalists) turn to ‘reading the tea leaves’ or other other ways of predicting the future. The trouble is that given a random input (tea leaves, entrails, think tanks) you can find anything you want.
Nah.
Trump will inevitably focus more on foreign policy if he gets a 2nd term. It’s the pattern for all 2nd term Presidents, who quite quickly tend to become lame ducks on domestic affairs. Add to this Trump’s inability to focus, build alliances and navigate legislation through Congress it’s a further certainty.
The move back to a hawkish view of CCP-Putin-Tehran by Republicans is welcome. One suspects some of the confidential briefings to Select Cmtee chairs also had a role. Johnson’s eventual sign off of Ukrainian aid package a case in point. (As an aside worth also listening/following what Mike Gallagher been saying for some time as a House Chair on China competition and ex-military. Seems a big loss now he’s stepping down)
Author obviously dislikes this trend, but other than displaying the isolationist streak it’s not clear what she is suggesting – that if US cedes to the big 3 Autocracies all will be well? V naive.
Yes. What’s needed is some gunboat diplomacy, eh? The Navy’ll soon sort out Johnny Foreigner!
Funny how a foreign threat always emerges when our rulers have made themselves a bit unpopular, isn’t it?
I suspect the cost consequences mean most democratic leaders would welcome these conflicts just go away. It forces difficult choices on other spending and with little electoral gain. But leadership about doing the right thing and resisting Autocrats and Theocrats important. Spend something now to spend less later etc is the basis of deterrence.
I don’t recall your Mr Blair demonstrating any lack of enthusiasm when it came to reducing far-away countries to rubble-strewn wastelands for no good reason at all.
Your ‘Blair-fixation’ illness really is bad isn’t it. I feel for you.
On the ‘rubble-strewn’ – any thoughts on Putin’s bombing of Ukraine, or more recent Middle east conflicts, or even the US NeoCons who led the Iraqi invasion? Or ‘rubble strewn’ only triggered by the Blair virus you are afflicted with?
Yeah, that was all Blair. The US played no part in any of it.
Russia has been a “foreign threat” for 100 years. No need for it to “emerge”.
I was hoping that UnHerd would publish a reasonable report about last night’s disaster of an interview of the Harris/Walz team by CNN. Instead we are getting an article about foreign policy observed from an Ivy League Tower.
After watching CNN’s fluff piece, I am now pretty convinced that Trump will win by a landslide. Again her word salads on the few serious questions, Dana Bash put to her, shows that she is totally incapable of expressing or having any real policies . Will Americans trust this empty vessel of a candidate with complicated foreign negotiations? After all she didn’t show much skill, when her only serious task was to find solutions to the border crisis. As she admitted in an earlier interview, that she never even visited the border, her only cackling excuse was, that she also never visited Europe either .. (which btw.was a lie)
My bet is Trump will lose the swing states, where the Dems have already started their systematic rigging of mail-in ballots and voting machines.
Rasmussen doesn’t show that. She hardly made a dent in the Swing States. Biden was 4% ahead at this time and he won by a tiny margin there. The Republicans will be hopefully more switched on this time..
Let’s see. I hope you’re right. My prediction is the dems will ‘squeak’ out a victory in PA, GA, lose OH and FL but win MI and AZ.
Just enough to win the electoral college.
How would you know that?
I’m basing this on what happened in the 2020 election.
My basic premise is that we are witnessing, in ‘real time’ the full collapse of the republic of USA, and the birth of an explicit ‘American Empire’, which will continue to pay lip service to ‘democracy’, even as a smaller and smaller percentage of the population actually believes it.
Ergo: by Feb 2025, fewer than half the pop of USA will believe in the election results that will put ‘Kamala Harris’ in power.
Agreed. Except landslide is wishful thinking or non productive hyperbole. This is a teeth gritting squeaker, and DEMs control ballot boxes.
It was my immediate intuition. Of course plenty of things can still happen to the rollercoaster time leading to this election. I also think she will try to wriggle out of the debate.
div > p > a”>Kamala Harris’s big interview was an exercise in evasion – UnHerd
I watch CNN but I have to say that Dana Bash is a pathetic interviewer and her interview with JD Vance was a huge embarrassment. He chewed her up. Why they keep her is a mystery.
I thought they did as passably good interview. It wasn’t a brilliant interview, but they didn’t make any gaffes, and came across as normal human beings (something that Trump and Vance seem incapable of doing).
deleted
This writer is not terribly observant. Or serves the cause of leftist dictatorship. Draining the swamp and images of Harris as communist, are descriptions of the same problem. The threat, as always, comes from within. (Though no doubt paid for and influenced by CCP at least since Clinton admin) No need to discuss Vietnam or Korea casualties. Draining the swamp is a much more precise image though.
I disagree. I plan to vote for Trump, but I think his decision to portray the left as communists and post these sorts of AI generated images is a terrible idea. These sorts of things don’t appeal broadly to the average American, as the author correctly pointed out. The average person does not think the USA will come to an end if Kamala gets in for four years, myself included, and using scare tactics (by either side, they both do it) comes across as childish, short-sighted, and overtly manipulative.
Honestly, I feel like all he has to do is just stick to the issues and he wins easily. But I cannot for the life of me understand what Trump’s campaign is doing since Kamala was declared the nominee.
Anti-communism is never a bad position. It’s good morally and politically. It is good in the purest sense of the word.
While it won’t backfire, it might not move Trump’s campaign very far forward. Not nearly as far connecting the dots between border insecurity, drug addiction, crime, and homelessness will.
Trump should make the case that every single problem America faces is traceable to border insecurity. Even warming because CO2 use per American has gone down since 1990, population growth is 100% due to immigration, and so therefore are increasing emissions.
No attempt to reduce homeless has any hope unless the border is closed. The vast majority of the homeless are junkies. The drugs come from Mexico. Drugs are also the cause of crime, directly and indirectly.
You’re so wrong.
The Mexicans wouldn’t send drugs to the US if Americans didn’t want to buy them.
This is shallow and a poor analysis of the current political environment. Perhaps Unherd could move away the Ivy herd.
This is chatter from someone just making copy as filler for “Unherd”, like most New Yorker articles. Reliance on “recent polls” for the major contentions of this essay is the tipoff. These polls are all directed at making the election a “horserace”, nothing more. They are all bullshit.As is this article….
a Harris presidency would be “something straight out of Venezuela or the Soviet Union”,
Could that be due to the Soviet-style price controls that Harris wants? Does it have anything to do with the Dems’ embrace of an ever-growing surveillance state and their willingness to outsource censorship duties to social and legacy media? Meanwhile, remind me which candidate wants to end the Russia/Ukraine war and which side has the “as long as it takes” mantra.
How unsurprising that this would come from an Ivy League doctoral candidate. It’s the only explanation for having noticed the lack of wars during Trump’s previous term and still writing this: “both seem committed to continued military engagement around the world.”
Both? Really? Ending the forever wars was a big plank of Trump 1.0. Nothing suggests a change in that if there is a version 2.0. Trump is not Lindsay Graham; he does not get excited about the prospect of dead Russians or dead anyone. He will deploy the military if needed and did so re: ISIS and there was this Iranian general who had the habit of killing Americans. Otherwise, his time produced peace accords in a region with far too few of them.
Unherd is starting to go downhill quickly. If I wanted to read the New Statesman I would have subscribed to it.
“…this resurrection of the red-scare boogeyman…”
The boogeyman was real and is climbing out of the grave into which American opposition buried him, so naturally the Left goes back to pretending he never existed.
Either way “the military industrial complex” wins and the debts pile up!
Unfortunately or as usual, Heather and UnHerd Editors are misinformed. So-called Neoconservatism is a Democrat and Socialist malignancy from the 1960s and 1970s.
In 1973, Michael Harrington coined the term “neo-conservatism” to describe liberal intellectuals and socialist political philosophers who were disaffected with the political and cultural attitudes dominating the Democratic Party.
Intended by Harrington as a highly pejorative term, Kristol accepted it as an apt description of the ideas and policies exemplified by The Democrat Party. Neo-conservatives rejected The Great Society programs sponsored by failed Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. Unlike traditional conservatives, they supported the statist models of their hero Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The Biden-Harris reflexive war machine is textbook Neoconservatism in practice. It’s their “core.” According to Candidate Harris, “My values haven’t changed.”
Meanwhile, because neoconservatism is such a blistering pejorative, Democrats and their legacy media lackeys have assigned to high-profile Republicans naturally, while wholly engaged in the “neocon” principles.
The Trump and Republican platform is shaped by the enduring fourth-century Latin phrase, “si vis pacem, para bellum” which is “If you want peace, prepare for war.” In other words, “Peace Through Strength.” Harris’ vigorous and craven appeasement “values” invites conflict, war, misery, and death.
> Trump’s rhetoric here is relatively straightforward: a Harris presidency would be “something straight out of Venezuela or the Soviet Union”,
Hmm interesting. In the past 8 year I’ve seen one party lock up their political opponents, drum up spurious charges, advocate for violence and rioting when it was their side and then respond with incredible violence when those that weren’t with them protested, and push for government controls of “misinformation”, including threatening private businesses with fines and regulation if they didn’t. It wasn’t Trump that was doing that though.
Are you sure about that?
Often it seems that writers aren’t following the same election as me. Trump has been a peacemaker for as long as he’s been in politics. He’s said he wants to end the war in Ukraine to stop the killing. That’s not the way a neocon talks. He’s also consistently warned about the Democrat’s threat to democracy, highlighted by the Biden/Harris regime’s law fare against him and his allies.
I’m increasingly convinced that writers and more so the MSM are crafting a narrative of the election that they WANT to happen, versus reality. One can call it gaslighting, propaganda, spin doctoring, but it’s designed to affect the outcome.
More likely designed to condition us to accept a fraudulent election
Your ignorance gave me a chuckle, so thanks for that!
Both establishment parties are unfortunately committed to supporting Zionist aggression. In the Mideast, The War against Russia in Europe, and saber-rattling against China in East Asia while continuing destructive economic policies against working-class and poor Americans and mass immigration demanded by corporate and business interests. We need real populism and nationalism not warmed-over Reaganism nor charlatans and war criminals like the Clintons. We need Huey Long not Mitt Romney or John McCain. The neocons and liberal globalists are tied to The Deep State and MIC. None of these groups cares about the interests of average Americans.
Huey Long? Wasn’t he a Socialist?
It’s a weird strategy on Trump’s part given the numerous photo ops he’s had with current Russian Premier. And his sympathy for ACTUAL communist dictators in Russia & North Korea.
Sympathy? In what way has he been sympathetic?
He is on record as saying that he likes them.
Like this?
”“I like Putin. He likes me. We get along. Wouldn’t you say it’s smart to get along?”
Thats not the same as being sympathetic.
And expect it under a Harris Presidency. For whatever reason (and Trump’s embracing the swamp was underway before Biden pulled out), Trump is not campaigning as if he can win. I’m not even sure that he wants to win. Surviving an assassination attempt and the departure of his favourite foe, Biden, appears to have unsettled Trump. Bear in mind also the year of lawfare (ongoing) that he has endured and the financial as well as legal stress he has been under as a result. That would have killed most men.
It was all of his own creation.
What was?
Americans today care far more about our domestic economy, which Harris’ policies would absolutely destroy.
And she is a communist, or at least very close to one. No one with an IQ above the double digits should believe she’s now a moderate.
Her advisor Gordon loathes Israel, and is firmly in the anti-Israel camp, and probably the pro-Iranian one, insofar as foreign policy goes. Americans over 35 aren’t particularly fond of Ayatollahs, nor of Sunni sheikhs, either, and would just as soon have the anti-Israel, anti-western beachhead established in Michigan be deported.
This wildly under qualified woman, for whom no one voted, and who seems to engage regularly in day time cocktails, is really only appealing to very young and very foolish women.
Americans are largely a sensible bunch, so it should hardly be surprising if Trump at least wins the Electoral College, and very possibly the popular vote as well.
You say no one voted for Harris. Obviously some people voted for the ticket on which she became VP, and if she is to become President, some people will have to vote for her in November. I mean, she’s not Gerald Ford, for whom no one voted.
Cancel culture, rampant censorship, blatantly partisan media (omission, distortion, playing along with dubious stories) sure reminds me of Mao/Stalin era repression and control of the narrative. All under Biden-Harris administration. Attempted vaccine mandates (removing the fundamental right of autonomy over one’s own body). Bowing to attempts to redefine language itself as part of the transgender agenda. Reeks of authoritarianism, control, lack of basic freedom. Debates that were highly staged and controlled compared to previous open format. Leaders that were shielded from press and who continue to be. A befuddled, senile old man presented as The Great Leader, hale, hearty and sharp as a tack.
Nope, no longer want a Trump presidency if I ever did – I backed DeSantis, even if he came with neocon queen N Haley.
If it stands up then this piece suggests an amplification of neoconservative foreign policy under the proposed GOP administration. A lot of Americans might want that under Harris too but as an European, better the devil you know is the principle to fall back on.
And Trump would do nothing about finding a settlement in the Ukraine in the first couple of years of a new administration, I’m sure of it.