X Close

America’s future isn’t fascist Whatever's coming is far more worrying

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)


October 29, 2024   6 mins

“Weird” does not begin to describe the American atmosphere at this moment. The media and internet seethe with talk of civil war; but everyone is going about their daily business. The weather is uncanny: temperatures in the Northeast, where I live, have been about 20 degrees above normal and autumn leaves swirl to the ground in summer heat. Similarly, the internet swirls with the heat of imminent political apocalypse. But compared with the mass violence of the Sixties, it is like living in Norway. If anything, the national mood is more festive than alarmed as Halloween swings into action. Can we really be 10 seconds from civil war?

Civil war tends to happen along lines that are regional, as in the American civil war; tribal, as in Sudan; or ideological, as in Spain in the Thirties. None of that is occurring here. Regional? MAGA and liberals are scattered in and across every state in the union. Tribal? There are no actual tribes in America, with the exception of Native American tribes — being black, gay or Catholic is not like belonging to a “tribe” the way being a Hutu or a Tutsi was in the Nineties. Ideological? Harris’s ideology seems to reconfigure itself every day, and far from being steeped in any kind of ism — fascist leaders were nothing if not educated in their world view — it is likely that Trump does not even have a library card. Civil wars are preceded by intense, if sporadic violence. There has been no intense political violence in America — both assassination attempts on Trump were the politically incoherent work of unstable loners. There has been violent rhetoric, which, though disturbing, has not crossed the line into actual calls for violence.

I have yet to meet or talk to anyone, from various walks of life, who is afraid of what will happen after Election Day. And yet we are told that fear is in the air by journalists who interview true believers at political rallies, or solicit answers in surveys conducted over the phone, in which individuals, eager to make a good impression, tell strife-hungry journalists what they want to hear, or simply want to vent.

“The whole evening was less Nuremberg rally than Trump’s ‘Happy Birthday, Mr. President'”.

Before Trump’s rally in Madison Square Garden last night, the internet was sizzling with cries that the rally would resemble the Nazi assemblies of yore. But nowhere in Leni Riefenstahl’s famous cinematic account of the Nuremberg spectacle was there a segment where, once the massive gathering ended, workers rushed to convert the rally site to the German equivalent of a Knicks game the following evening. (They are playing the Cleveland Cavaliers — from a former swing state!)

The whole evening was less Nuremberg rally than Trump’s “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” experience, that eerie moment when a heavily drugged, super-sexualised Marilyn Monroe sang to JFK on the occasion of his 45th birthday at a gala event in Madison Square Garden. But this was Trump singing to himself. He spoke, startlingly, about “if” he wins rather than “when” he wins. This was his last hurrah, and he knew it. He had to give one flamboyant middle finger to the city that rejected him before his middle finger faded into history.

Trump spoke for his customary 90 minutes. Some people started leaving 20 minutes into his speech; the rest cheered and laughed as though they were at a music festival, not a political rally. The yardstick for excellence in just about every realm of American life now is individual pleasure and satisfaction. For all Trump’s darkness about “enemies from within”, and murderous immigrants, and soaring crime rates, and mass deportations, you felt he was playing not to a burning desire for revenge, but to a good-old American Saturday night fever. It was jarring to watch him sway to the rally music before he spoke, then to abruptly swing into talk of American carnage, almost as jarring as it is to watch Harris amateurishly readjust the expression of her face from indignation to a broad grin in the space of a nanosecond. Both figures are the phoniest presidential candidates in modern American history. The difference is that the obviously unstable Trump is a first-rate monstrosity. Harris is a second-rate mediocrity.

No one believes Trump when he summons a vision of America as being overrun by barbaric immigrant hordes, or so ridden by crime that a person cannot walk across the street to buy a loaf of — barely affordable! — bread without being murdered or raped. That is a super-charged version of Trump’s depiction of “American carnage” in 2016 — it is so yesterday. No one knows what he is talking about when he talks about America as if it were Sudan, with the exception of his most isolated and narrowly parochial supporters, who think they know.

As for Harris’s toothless charge that Trump is a fascist — that is also so 2016. The term disappeared from the liberal vocabulary for a while, only to be revived in these desperate final days of campaigning. The ordinary American has no more idea of what it means to be a fascist than they have the experience of watching their neighbours being slaughtered on their way to the grocery store.

No, the fears being marketed by the candidates, the way they are marketing impossible promises, are more like pacifying lozenges for the electorate to suck on while the real terrors of history gather. Immigration, crime, economic collapse, cultural outrage — this is the rhetorical stuff of every political campaign since the beginning of the last century. The fact that the language in which they are being delivered has become more strident and explicit only accentuates their familiarity. They are known terrors, standard and consoling because they are so familiar to hear. But behind Trump’s murderous hordes and Harris’s legions of fascists are the fears that few people will face or acknowledge. Yet they are an open secret.

There is the fear of Elon Musk. Not the Musk who is so ham-fistedly trying to interfere in the election process by promising money to people who sign a petition as registered Republican voters. But the Musk whose Space X and Starlink capabilities are precious to America’s generals. You cannot have a fascist coup or any kind of coup without the complicity of the generals. Up until now, Trump has alienated America’s military and its intelligence agencies. But if he were to be elected, he might well have the generals, who would do anything to keep Musk’s technology in America, eating out of his hand. Already Jeff Bezos, the motto of whose newspaper, the Washington Post, is “democracy dies in darkness”, has refused to allow his newspaper to endorse Harris, for fear, so people say, of losing precious contracts he has with the federal government.

And there is the fear, not of civil war, but of an accelerating withdrawal from reality, regardless of who wins the election. If it were to be Trump, then the institutions of American civil society, all of which are in liberal hands, would rise up and make the woke revolution look like a Girl Scout cookie drive; Trump is the greatest gift to the morally ravenous liberal ego since Watergate. If Harris wins, then MAGA alienation and MAGA fantastical conspiracy theories would accelerate to the point where their criterion of truth is simply the opposite of what liberals believe. It is hard to have a civil war when people on both sides keep checking their phones. But self-contained screen-worlds are perfect for fomenting mental and spiritual chaos. Neighbour does not need to fight neighbour when neither really registers the other’s existence except to deny it. Strife then becomes numbed into ever more advanced forms of social atomisation.

Finally, there is the most hidden fear of all; the fear of nuclear war. Trump likes to blurt it out as just another on the laundry list of catastrophes that will befall the country should he not win back the White House. It is not clear whether nuclear war horrifies or fascinates him. Harris does not bring up the subject at all.

In Volume V of A History of Private Life, published in 1991, Gerard Vincent observes that although nuclear capabilities are now able to destroy the planet many times over, there is no cultural “obsession” with nuclear annihilation. At this point, there is not even a cultural preoccupation with that possibility. In past times, writes Vincent, when vast numbers of people died in various pandemics, “impressive works of art emerged from the collective imagination”. In our time, the possibility of catching Covid was our obsession, while the chance that we will be wiped out by nuclear war is no longer even the subject of art of entertainment. Annie Jacobsen’s scrupulous, brilliant, terrifying book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, became a bestseller, but it failed to lead to a sense of historical crisis.

And yet Putin has threatened to unleash nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and the Middle East is hurtling toward a final reckoning. No one doubts that Israel would use its nuclear arsenal were its existence threatened; once Iran has a similar capability, no one doubts it would resort to the same. But instead of urging Americans to confront the possibility of nuclear horror, some politicians and journalists in America like to play chicken, fatuously reminding America’s leaders of their obligations to Taiwan, for example, no matter what such obligations would entail, if China invaded.

There is no doubt that a mentally unstable Trump, should he be president again, poses a threat to America and to the world, just as a mentally unstable Biden would have had he run and prevailed. Harris, on the other hand, if she comes out on top, will be operated by committee, along more or less rational lines. And there is no doubt that whatever side wins, there will be people left feeling angry, unhappy and betrayed. But civil war? Social apocalypse? Conflict over who won lasting tense, agonising weeks after the polls close next Tuesday? Not likely. By Thanksgiving, the country will have returned to its routine go-go stupefaction, continuing to sleepwalk toward the fears that dare not speak their name.


Lee Siegel is an American writer and cultural critic. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award. His selected essays will be published next spring.


Subscribe
Notify of
guest

168 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marc Epstein
Marc Epstein
1 month ago

What’s far more worrying is another Lee Siegel article.

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 month ago
Reply to  Marc Epstein

It is drivel like this that caused me to cancel my subscription.

General Store
General Store
1 month ago
Reply to  Daniel P

yeah – I don’t think I will renew

Brett H
Brett H
1 month ago
Reply to  General Store

I hope the mods read yours and others comments. Mods, Unherd is becoming a trashy, braindead magazine. Do you have to start losing subscriptions before you wake up?

Aidan Trimble
Aidan Trimble
1 month ago
Reply to  Daniel P

I am perfectly happy to read stuff like this. ‘Know your enemy’.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 month ago

Lee is reassuring us that Kamala will be the best choice because she is nothing but a puppet of “rational” committees. Having seen the absolutely insane and irrational decisions that have been made by bureaucrat committees over the last thirty years that is not comforting. From war to economics to Covid-19, trying to get a rational explanation for their decision making is terrifying.

LindaMB
LindaMB
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

If decisions are made by committee no one is responsible for the (bad) outcomes

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  LindaMB

No committee, just Barak Hussein Obama.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 month ago
Reply to  LindaMB

Even if you find out a committee was responsible for a bad outcome good luck finding out who was on the committee.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

Lee, G. F. Y.
The fascist shtick + Trump is stupid shtick, while defending *Kamala* and after defending dementia Joe only shows you are the person riding the short bus.
Americans are tired of the democrat tactic of “who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes”.
It is over. Lefties lied, lefties rioted all of 2020, lefties lied about the election, they lied about J6 and now you lie about MSG.
democrat lies have consumed the party. We are watching in real time the same violent hysterical psychosis that democrats deployed against America in 1860. G. F. Y.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago

This is as good as it gets from Siegel, I suppose.

Sisyphus Jones
Sisyphus Jones
1 month ago

Why do Lee Siegel’s ruminations make me feel like I’m trapped in an elevator with a guy who doesn’t have anything to say but won’t shut up?

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 month ago

I think we’ve reached the point in this fevered election season when journalists have run out of things to say, and so are forced to reach ever further for a story idea.
The author of the current article does a good job building suspense as he describes our current state of political dysfunction. He then debunks myths about the main dangers facing America, but he warns real dangers exist.
Having set the hook (as good fiction writers are taught to do), he then reveals the first of these real dangers: Elon Musk!
How is Musk such a danger? Apparently because he owns Starlink which is essential to the prosecution of the Ukraine war, and, by implication, might be essential to future wars. The Generals, we’re told, want to keep Musk sweet and so keep a tight hold on Starlink and perhaps other Musk-inspired technologies. The implications seems to be, and perhaps I’m wrong here, that the Generals will be ever more powerful in domestic issues if only they can keep hold of advanced technology. Either that or they’ll be so grateful to Trump for backing Elon (and vice versa) they’ll go along with a Trump coup.
The author seems to be channeling the 1960s thriller “Seven Days in May” where Burt Lancaster plays General James Mattoon Scott who organizes a coup against the US government (happily, he fails).
Is this really the danger we’re all facing? The author throws in (somewhat more convincingly) nuclear war as something else we should worry about when we’re tired of worrying about Elon. Maybe he’s right about nuclear war, but just as the author informs us he hasn’t encountered people worrying about being killed while walking across the street for groceries, I haven’t encountered anyone worrying about nuclear war.
The best thing about getting the November election over with is journalists can find new things to write about–genuinely scary things.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
1 month ago
Reply to  J Bryant

You think this November election won’t be extended into December, or even next year?

🙂

B Emery
B Emery
1 month ago
Reply to  J Bryant

‘The Generals, we’re told, want to keep Musk sweet and so keep a tight hold on Starlink and perhaps other Musk-inspired technologies. The implications seems to be, and perhaps I’m wrong here, that the Generals will be ever more powerful in domestic issues if only they can keep hold of advanced technology. Either that or they’ll be so grateful to Trump for backing Elon (and vice versa) they’ll go along with a Trump coup.’

I got that impression too. It’s quite a funny analogy from the author, but pure fantasy surely. It’s a really weird rant the author goes on about musk, half way through the article. I’m not sure it’s really a very coherent essay. He seems to have forgotten about the rest of the enormous corporations that make weapons and tech in America, like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, northrop grumman etc. Tech companies like Google and Amazon both work with the American government too I believe. I think some of them are probably older and more deeply embedded in the political system than starlink.
If musk has used starlink to assist America in its proxy war against Russia surely that shows he is helping, rather than hindering, and certainly not the threat the author makes out.
I don’t see how he is any greater threat than any of the other mega Corp CEOs that work with the American military.

This post has been moderated. It may contain some kind of triggering content.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 month ago

This article reads like a stream of consciousness. No shade thrown at the author, who I’m sure is very capable in other topics and times, but this article is not as tightly wound together as other articles on Unherd have been. It’s mildly interesting to read, but makes me no wiser in any regard.

El Uro
El Uro
1 month ago

«There is no doubt that a mentally unstable Trump, should he be president again, poses a threat to America and to the world, just as a mentally unstable Biden would have had he run and prevailed. Harris, on the other hand, if she comes out on top, will be run by committee, along more or less rational lines»
.
What an idiot! Only someone with a negative IQ could assume that Harris would be any different from Biden. Replace one moth-eaten doll with another, even more worn out, and claim that it will bring us happiness? Where do they sell such a weed?

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 month ago

Sorry but Lee Siegel just didn’t see the same rally as any normal person who isn’t virulently anti-Trump. Nobody left during Trump’s speech. What is he talking about. The atmosphere in there was absolutely electric. As for illegal immigrants, yes 70%+ of US citizens want illegals to be deported. Yes, many thugs and gangs are coming across the border. Yes, dumping 20,000 Haitians in a town (Springfield, Ohio) of only 40,000 to start with is a recipe for disaster. Lee, get off your hobby horse and start reporting properly and accurately.
One other thing Lee. May I suggest you listent o the Jo Rogan-Trump interview. Maybe then he will realize that Trump is not unstable or insane, but is actually perfectly normal and loaded with common sense. And just so we’re clear there were no new wars under Trump and the Middle East was getting into a good place with the Abraham accords which, unfortunately, Biden didn’t pursue because, of course, everything Trump did was bad.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
1 month ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

I am finding it astounding how many supposed professional political commentators have been opining about Trump over the past few days haven’t bothered watching any of the Rogan interview.
A good case in point was Spectator TV’s panel discussion broadcast yesterday, with all 3 professional commentators giving statements and comments about Trump as fact in complete ignorance of what was discussed on Rogan. James Kanagasooriam’s views were a particular case in point – “we don’t know Trumps opinions about Taiwan…etc”.
If he’d watched it he’d know.
Now, you might not generally like Rogan or watch him, but to ignore this event is ludicrous if you’re a professional commentator, given its social significance and reach. It aired 3 days ago and has had just shy of 38 million views (on youtube alone – it will be more considering many listen/watch on spotify).
More and more journalists and commentators are exposing themselves as anachronistic and out of touch. That goes even for those with some sympathetic views on Trump.
I say this as someone who is not a particular Trump fanboy but the cognitive dissonance is deafening.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 month ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

I also watched the Spectator panel and thought, that the journalists seemed at times pretty clueless. As professional commentators reporting on the US election, they should at least have taken the time to listen to the whole Joe Rogan interview, which answered many of their questions.
Although I read Lee Spiegel‘s article, I think I will skip his next ones, because there is little insight and only biased reporting. After all he already told us in September about “The night Trump lost the election”….

Courtney Maloney
Courtney Maloney
1 month ago

I’ve got a theory that his contributions serve nothing more than to conjure commentary and bolster engagement on the platform. The time spent wading through Siegel’s severe case of TDS was long ago identified as a bad investment for myself and straight to the comments is where I immediately go.

Dash Riprock
Dash Riprock
1 month ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

‘Are you going to present this, ever?’

Gregory Hickmore
Gregory Hickmore
1 month ago
Reply to  Dash Riprock

Jethro, is that you?

General Store
General Store
1 month ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

LS is such a snore. I wish Unherd would change the roster. These TDS folks add precisely nothing to my day. “Ideological? Harris’s ideology seems to reconfigure itself every day, and far from being steeped in any kind of ism” She is very clearly an ultra-progressive, materialist and globalist. They are globalists, hate civic-nationalism, want open borders, digital currencies, digital ID, face recognition and most worryingly, a good number of them quite literally want white people (a non-culture according to Joy Reid) eliminated as a category. Ans as for ‘ likely that Trump does not even have a library card’ this is such dumb insult it’s hardly worthy of comment.

André Angelantoni
André Angelantoni
1 month ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

Rogan had to keep reminding him of the question. It was painful to watch.
Trump calls it “weaving” but anyone who has had a parent with Alzheimer’s (like me) knows that one of the first faculties that goes is “sequencing” or the ability to order thoughts to reach a destination (if in physical space) or to reach a point (if in the conceptual space).
And the compilation videos of his slurring are coming out faster than ever before now.
Between his trouble sequencing and his slurring, he is clearly showing signs of dementia.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

I just buried a parent who suffered from alzheimers and dementia for several years, and you are full of schitt.

Brett H
Brett H
1 month ago

Or just possibly the accumulation of being dragged through the courts by the Democrats, constant smearing, invasion of his home, two assassination attempts and constant campaigning.

Brett H
Brett H
1 month ago

one of the first faculties that goes is “sequencing” or the ability to order thoughts to reach a destination
Hardly. The first signs are repeating things and trouble using nouns.

James Twigg
James Twigg
1 month ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

I thought this publication was called UnHerd. An article like this is just more MSM “Herd” propaganda. You’re starting to disappoint me with this crap.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  Johann Strauss

How do you know that no one left early at the rally? Were you there? There were plenty of witnesses who saw people leaving, some of them before Trump arrived. When people wait for hours both lining up and waiting indoors for Trump, they are tired. When I went to a Rolling Stones concert many moons ago, I waited for four and a half hours—in the stadium—for the Stones to take the stage at 11:30 at night. I had waited hours outside. I fell asleep for half of the concert. Tired.

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 month ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

Did you look at the Rally live. I did. Not the whole thing but from Vance onwards. The atmosphere in MSG was electric. Never seen anything like it. Made a Rolling Stones concert tame which is saying something given how high energy any Stones concert is. When Musk was introduced the noise was deafening. When Musk introduced Melania the crowd went wild and the noise dial was turned up by a factor of 10. It was just crzy. When she then introduced Trump, the decibels increased even more. It was just unbelievable. There is now way that anybody would leave under those circumstances or fall asleep!

Brett H
Brett H
1 month ago

Hard to believe the quality of this piece. Hard to believe someone spent part of their life writing it and hard to believe Unherd paid for it. Halfway through I found my attention wandering until I just stopped reading. There is nothing of substance here. This is trash journalism.

David Kidd
David Kidd
1 month ago
Reply to  Brett H

Silly drivel.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  Brett H

I didn’t understand where the author of this article was coming from until the final paragraph. Trump insane and will result in a nuclear apocalypse and Harris controlled and run by a committee. Ah the ideal outcome for another Obama presidency as he will pick the committee. Sad, really sad.

Bobby Levit
Bobby Levit
1 month ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

You forgot to add …”will be operated by committee, along more or less rational lines”.>> There is nothing rational when it comes to the Democrats

Steve Hamlett
Steve Hamlett
1 month ago

There is a lot of whistling past the graveyard going on here. But one statement really caught my attention: “The yardstick for excellence in just about every realm of American life now is individual pleasure and satisfaction.” Boy, is this ever true. So much of our culture (especially pop culture) is now all about self-promotion, self-aggrandizement, self, self, self. It’s disgusting and depressing. America’s spirit of individualism seems to have no checks on it and it’s running amok.

Martin M
Martin M
1 month ago

But nowhere in Leni Riefenstahl’s famous cinematic account of the Nuremberg spectacle was there a segment where, once the massive gathering ended, workers rushed to convert the rally site to the German equivalent of a Knicks game the following evening“. That is unsurprising. I don’t think the Germans were that into basketball in those days (and the Knicks themselves weren’t founded until 1946).

J Cizek
J Cizek
1 month ago

Didn’t even read (why bother). You can pretty much guess what this guy Siegel is going to say, and you know it won’t be well written, and you know it won’t be true & accurate.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 month ago
Reply to  J Cizek

Why bother? So that you know what you’re talking about, that’s why.

I don’t agree with the article’s conclusion or the general attitude of the writer, but there are still one or two tangentially interesting points made nevertheless.

J Cizek
J Cizek
1 month ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Go ahead, John, waste your time reading Siegel, feel free. Care to point out the tangentially interesting parts?

J Cizek
J Cizek
1 month ago
Reply to  J Cizek

UnHerd needs to take a hard look at some of what it is publishing. This is, in my opinion, one of the best current platforms for reading and discussion, but fair and balanced is not two opposing extremists lying and shouting at each other. If you are not between center-left and.center-right, you are probably not worth paying attention to. I want to be able to depend on UnHerd to cull the wheat from the chaff.

Nik Jewell
Nik Jewell
1 month ago

I’m not in the US, and Twitter is not reality, but this article does not match my current understanding of the country. Trump is clearly winning this election, but I don’t believe he will be the next president, and that means things are going to turn ugly. 
I used to suffer from TDS. I have been cured of that for two main reasons: the fight to preserve free speech and because Trump has said that he’s going to unleash RFK Jr (my preferred candidate) on Big Pharma and Big Food. Do you imagine, for one second, that Pharma will permit that?
From what I read and hear, plans are already in place to use the 14th to prevent him from becoming president again.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  Nik Jewell

May you be wrong. If democrats hijack a third election the fallout will be disastrous.

Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
1 month ago

“Trump is a first-rate monstrosity. Harris is a second-rate mediocrity.”
This is the best summation of the Hobson’s choice Americans have this election year. Democracy is dead, just another reality TV show to entertain the twisted masses who love Survivor and Dancing with the Stars. Large international corporations and banks run the world and Presidents and Prime Ministers do their bidding, they are their hired hands. Participating makes me feel dirty.
I have filled out a ballot, but I can’t bring myself to mail it in. I refuse to choose which person will be the least, worst President.
Unfortunately, the truth will fall on the deaf ears of the true believers that makeup Unherd’s readership.

philip kern
philip kern
1 month ago
Reply to  Benjamin Greco

I share your frustration, but don’t you have an opinion or position on abortion, LGBTQ rights (including the denial of parental involvement in decisions about castration), constraining free speech–esp of religious groups, etc.? Seems to me, there are enough differences between the two, and the inevitable outcomes they will produce.

Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
1 month ago
Reply to  philip kern

Those issues are part of the show. They are meant to distract us from the real issues, the need for political and economic reform. The media pushes our buttons, and we argue with each other over nothing very important. These issues effect very few people. And if you can complain about your freedom of speech then no one is taking it away from you.

philip kern
philip kern
1 month ago
Reply to  Benjamin Greco

I hear what you’re saying, and while they may be a side show, Harris’ entire campaign has been (a) for abortion, (b) for gay and trans rights, and (c) that Trump is evil. There are far too many lawsuits and imprisonments going on right now (in the US, UK, and Australia) for me to think the threat to free speech isn’t real. It might not have affected me (yet) but it isn’t hard to find situations where it has. And my academic work comes perilously close to being illegal in Victoria, though thankfully I’m safer in New South Wales (and too old to worry about it over-much).

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
1 month ago
Reply to  Benjamin Greco

You’re demonstrating nothing more than your own self-imposed limitations by casting a slur on Unherd‘s readership. Participating in Comments should – by your own standard – make you feel dirty too.

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 month ago
Reply to  Benjamin Greco

The UK election on July 4th was exactly the same: a non-choice

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
1 month ago
Reply to  Benjamin Greco

If you lived in Australia you’d mail it in regardless of the outcome because voting is mandatory. There’s a huge fine if you don’t.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 month ago

What a load of rubbish. We deserve better from Unherd.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 month ago

This is like one of those Bob Dylan songs that didn’t make release the first time round. The whole is incoherent but it has some ear-catching phrases.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 month ago

Harris, on the other hand, if she comes out on top, will be operated by committee, along more or less rational lines.

Committees don’t operate rationally. They operate by groupthink (like this article). The Russian Empire and USSR survived and even strengthened under centuries of murderous strongmen only to descend into absolute dysfunction and then collapse following just 30 years of bureaucratic committee.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
1 month ago

No new comments allowed on this one after 3 scathing reviews below the line?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

My comment was sent into the ether for a bit. This is what it said; “This is as good as it gets from Siegel, I suppose.”

Why in the world would this be moderated?

Hugo Montgomery
Hugo Montgomery
1 month ago

And then there’s the debt mountain.

B Emery
B Emery
1 month ago

“Weird” does not begin to describe the American atmosphere at this moment. The media and internet seethe with talk of civil war; but everyone is going about their daily business. ‘

‘It is hard to have a civil war when people on both sides keep checking their phones. But self-contained screen-worlds are perfect for fomenting mental and spiritual chaos.’

Perhaps the censorship industrial complex should take note. It is surely preferable for said civil war to take place on the Internet, than on the streets. I feel like this is a good argument against censorship. It is rather hard to have a civil war if people are immersed in their phones, if people are battling it out on the Internet it is surely a good vent for frustrations over battling it out on the streets. The author seems quite surprised that the media and the Internet are ‘seething with talk’, and that this has not translated into civil war on the streets. I don’t think this is surprising, the Internet and msm love the hype. I feel like the powers that be get far too carried away in this hype themselves.

‘And yet Putin has threatened to unleash nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and the Middle East is hurtling toward a final reckoning. No one doubts that Israel would use its nuclear arsenal were its existence threatened; once Iran has a similar capability, no one doubts it would resort to the same….. But instead of urging Americans to confront the possibility of nuclear horror, some politicians and journalists in America like to play chicken, fatuously reminding America’s leaders of their obligations to Taiwan, for example, no matter what such obligations would entail, if China invaded.’

America is hiding from the geopolitical sh*t show now unravelling around it’s ears. Let’s not talk too much about that. Nobody really knows what to do about it, it might be quite expensive to sort out and America is in serious debt, best not mention that either. That would require vision and solutions, culture wars are easier. Let’s shout about woke people and f*scists.

‘There is no doubt that a mentally unstable Trump, should he be president again, poses a threat to America and to the world, just as a mentally unstable Biden would have had he run and prevailed. Harris, on the other hand, if she comes out on top, will be operated by committee, along more or less rational lines. ‘

I’m not sure there is evidence to support the claim that trump is’ mentally unstable’. Just because Harris is operated by a committee, does not mean that it will be rational. Surely this is nearly the same committee that has been helping Biden. I’m not sure Ukraine is going well, they have caused carnage for Europe and now the middle east is on the brink, they have had various problems in bond markets and serious inflation in the energy markets, banking problems, including a bank run scare, I’m not sure they have been selling rational up to this point.

Safety certificate: this post has been moderated for your safety. You can be reassured that your tax money is being wasted policing online discourse.

Andrew Sweeney
Andrew Sweeney
1 month ago

I tried. Turgid.

John Corcoran
John Corcoran
1 month ago

That’s it Lee, people queued five hours to go to the Trump MSG rally to leave early. Another self styled “intellectual” writes a sneering exercise in condescencion, and indulges the conceit of excluding his dear reader from his scorn, “of course we’re not like that are we? “. Siegel affects impartiality by royally despising both the blue and the red behemoths. All it boils down to in the end is a long puff of hot air, and a boring one at that.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
1 month ago

Just one note which shows the writer isn’t interested in listening to Trump’s side: he had a good, long-form (10 minutes perhaps?) talk about the threat of nuclear war on Joe Rogan’s podcast, what other countries’ stances are and how he would avoid it. He called it the greatest threat to the world. I have to take the writer’s word for it that Kamala hasn’t talked about it.

Stephanie Surface
Stephanie Surface
1 month ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Actually that was for me the most interesting part of the interview. I am also terrified of the threat of a nuclear escalation and got reassured by Tump’s reflections. He put the Global Warming doomsters into their box.

Darwin K Godwin
Darwin K Godwin
1 month ago

A scintillating discourse hung on a TDS template. I can empathize (up to the limit of my own average IQ) with the author’s cultural alienation, which hums along as a counter melody to his wit. One observation, an American Civil War may be quick. It will take place around 3am CST. The lights will be out for a couple days, then the winner will turn them back on. Watch the former paratroopers.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 month ago

I think this writer, like so many American commentators, is so steeped in the belief that the US is a ‘classless’ society that he will never understand what is going on around him.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 month ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

He represents the people who are so consumed with hating Trump that they have never stopped to consider how his candidacy was made possible.

Cool Stanic
Cool Stanic
1 month ago

I’m sorry but for me, as an interested and engaged observer from the UK, this election, like no other, represents a historic decision point for the US (with consequent ramifications for the rest of the anglosphere). Will America continue on its current trajectory, hurtling towards economic and cultural catastrophe in the hands of the Biden/Harris blob puppets? Will feelings and lazy rhetoric continue to trump reason and even facts? It seems to me that Trump has put together an impressive team of big-hitters with drive, ambition and some genuine intellectual clout: Musk; Kennedy: Vance; Ramaswamy. We know who they are, what they want to do and how critical it is that they do it. By contrast, we don’t even know for sure who the faceless people are who are pulling Kamala’s strings; we can only guess at a loose convergence of corporate interests, megalomaniacal billionaires and deluded ideologues.
I am very firmly from “the left” and my values haven’t changed. But I no longer recognise the values and outlook of those who claim that label today. A week or so ago I came to what for me was a startling conclusion: the Democrats are no longer the good guys. It may appear that there is a huge conceit in an Englishman thinking that he can have something meaningful to say about American politics, but this piece is vacuous, silly and profoundly missing the point.

Hennie Booysen
Hennie Booysen
1 month ago
Reply to  Cool Stanic

Add Tulsi Gabbard to that team and Trump has put together what seems like a highly competent and passionate team wanting to make a real difference.

Kevin Kilcoyne
Kevin Kilcoyne
1 month ago
Reply to  Hennie Booysen

Vance, Kennedy, Ramasawamy, Musk, and Gabbard alone should be enough to convince anyone that Trump is genuine about his conviction to address the many crises America faces. The man himself may be narcissistic megalomaniac, but his motivations are noble. The fact he is conscious of the mistakes he made in his first term and has started to compile a transition team ahead of the election that is free from corporate lobbyists is a sign he does not want to repeat those mistakes. It will mean that the machine will push back harder than ever, as can be seen by the ever-increasing alarmist warnings to the public about ‘fascist’, ‘authoritarian’, and whatever other mud they can sling to try and scare people away from supporting him. Those alarm bells have been ringing since 2016 though, and are starting to sound reminiscent of the boy who cried wolf.

Jill Corel
Jill Corel
1 month ago
Reply to  Cool Stanic

Hear Hear! Well said.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  Cool Stanic

It is a huge conceit. You don’t have to live with an unstable president. By the way, 12 heavy hirers from Trump’s administration are speaking out against Trump, because he is dangerous. Those are the ones who aren’t afraid to speak up. Two of the 12 are generals, and they fear for our country. If you love him so much, move here for four years and enjoy the near daily insanity. I’m tired of people who aren’t Americans speaking with supposed authority about our candidates.

philip kern
philip kern
1 month ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I’ve worked with people whose jobs have been terminated. They don’t tend to offer the most reliable portrait of their previous employer.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 month ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

“Two of the 12 are generals, and they fear for our country”
I bet they don’t fear for their country when the US military does DEI instead of defense, spends many billions on Ukraine or overinflated defense purchases while US military edge over China dissipates, or when US CEOs and politicians look the other way while China brazenly steals vital US tech and manufacturing knowledge how.

And of course Trump is “dangerous”. Doesn’t go around starting pointless wars. The lunatic.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

As an American I’m tired of Americans who have fallen for the lies, no matter how many times the lies are disproven, about Trump. These same people have supported a corrupt demented fool, support an appointed empty pant suit, and the invasion of the
United States.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

The democrats are very undemocratic and a danger to the country.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 month ago
Reply to  Cool Stanic

In other words you don’t agree with it! The idea that JD Vance is politically competent is rather off the mark, as his unnecessary insult to half the electorate indicates (and so it is perceived).

As usual it depresses me that most people on herd simply pick a side and say Trump is brilliant. This is the guy who has managed to lose three out of four elections for the Republicans and on the popular vote win none of them – it wouldn’t even be close in terms of a British election. I suppose you have to up the rhetoric on how awful the other side are to balance the unthinking extreme rhetoric of Trump and many MAGA supporters. Do they not have any clue how this sounds too many ordinary Americans?

Alexander van de Staan
Alexander van de Staan
1 month ago

Mr. Siegel seems to have a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, selectively—or perhaps unconsciously—ignoring that Trump already served a full term, during which the country fared ‘pretty, pretty good’ compared to Obama’s first, second, and now de facto third term through his feeble stand-in, Biden. For those catastrophizing Trump’s presidency like Mr. Siegel, here’s a little video put together by Nicole Shanahan, Sergey Brin’s ex-wife, who has since overcome her own bout of TDS and is now on a mission to help others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDKYJXYemn4&t=6s

T Doyle
T Doyle
1 month ago

What a crap article. Trump is only unstable to leftists. It’s like being labelled a Nazi because one has legitimate concerns about mass immigration. The unstable lunatic is Harris. The Democrats have stabbed America in the back.

Philip L
Philip L
1 month ago
Reply to  T Doyle

Trump was unstable to most of his former cabinet and national security people. The Nazi part is referring to your political enemies as vermin, talking about putting Gen. Milley in front of a firing squad, asking his supporters at rallies to put hecklers into the hospital. Not so innocent.

Martin Dunford
Martin Dunford
1 month ago

Where is the evidence that Trump is “mentally unstable”? are the same unserious remarks he has indulged in for the last decade now harbingers of being deranged? Says who?
Article that pretends to be even handed is anything but.

Andrew Vanbarner
Andrew Vanbarner
1 month ago

Harris is not, by most accounts, a paragon of mental stability. She giggles inappropriately, has appeared to be inebriated in public, talks in strange, fatuous riddles, and has a volcanic temper.
Any committee she heads could well be equally insane – a coterie of leftists will often be a coterie of the deluded and the irrational – and can make terrible decisions. The USSR, the PRC, and Cambodia under the Khymer Rouge were all run by committee, with cataclysmic results.
Trump will at least have the country’s best interests as a consideration. Harris will not. Most leftists actively dislike capitalism, the free market, personal freedoms, and the rule of law, and have said as much, regularly.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

They want to destroy the US. They’re using Saul Alinsky’s solution, financial destruction, but by wiping out Social Security etc.

Roland Fleming
Roland Fleming
1 month ago

There has been violent rhetoric, which, though disturbing, has not crossed the line into actual calls for violence.

Except for the actual assassination attempts on one of the candidates?

Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 month ago
Reply to  Roland Fleming

And the ‘mostly peaceful ‘ rioting of 2019 that left cities burnt out wrecks

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
1 month ago
Reply to  Roland Fleming

The author addresses the assassination attempts in the sentence before the one you quote:

There has been no intense political violence in America — both assassination attempts on Trump were the politically incoherent work of unstable loners.

Daniel P
Daniel P
1 month ago

If we are heading for a civil war it will start with the lefts reaction to a Trump victory.
They are preparing to do two things.

Prevent Trump from taking office if he wins.

Deal with his supporters. Saw an article the other day by a lefty commentator that specifically asked the question of what to do with the 50% of the country that supports Trump even if Harris wins.

Read this today. Might be worth your time.

https://tomklingenstein.com/is-the-left-preparing-for-war-if-trump-wins/

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 month ago

If you want to know what a fascist America looks like, go back about a century to when Woodrow Wilson was President. Some of the ambitions of the Democrats at that time were quite terrifying when viewed through the prism of the rest of the 20th century.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Worst president ever. Shocker!! He was a progressive.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Indeed. Fascism is a progressive creed just like the other flavours of Marxism.

Richard Ross
Richard Ross
1 month ago

An article that will not age well.
As stated in other comments, the DJT/Rogan interview is obvious proof that Trump is no unhinged monster. Yes, he rambles widely instead of speechifying – in other words, he speaks like a normal human being, not a party-line robot.

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 month ago
Reply to  Richard Ross

I’m no Trump fan but it did rapidly become obvious after 2016 that while he’s about as coherent a public speaker as a drunk uncle at a wedding, he thinks a whole lot better than almost anyone who disagrees with him politically.

In fact he arguably constitutes evidence supporting the increasingly-common view that the last 30 years of Liberal consensus in the West can be characterised as stupid people who know how to look and sound good while making a pig’s ear out of everything they touch.

I still don’t like him, not out of any personal animosity, but because the fact that he’s a contender at all shows that the system is badly broken and perhaps unfixable. Trump is who Americans vote for when they’re so angry that they don’t care what happens next. That’s not a good thing, even if I sympathise with why they’re angry.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 month ago
Reply to  John Riordan

He has his sights set on the swamp…. No other politician would be doing this.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
Reply to  John Riordan

 Trump is who Americans vote for when they’re so angry that they don’t care what happens next. That’s not a good thing, even if I sympathise with why they’re angry.

Exactly!! And acting as if you do not care what happens next is not the way you get good outcomes.

he thinks a whole lot better than almost anyone who disagrees with him politically.

Sincere question – since I know you as a serious person: Just what evidence do you base that on? Not that he is stupid – he could not have done that well on luck and inherited wealth alone – but the impression he gives me is that he does not think at all. Apart from being basically uninformed he decides on gut reactions, and his reactions are heavily driven by the needs of his ego. Admiration and support to those who are strong and show him respect (like Putin), petty vindictiveness to anyone who refuses to to support him, and contempt for anyone else. Where do you see the thinking in a man who kept shooting from the hip so that his aides had to struggle to contain him – and whose take-home message is that next time he needs to surround himself by yes-men so he can shoot from the hip without interference?

John Riordan
John Riordan
1 month ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Three examples of things that I would never, on the day of his marginal and controversial victory in 2016, have believed he’d get right but managed to do so:

North Korea: Trump was the first President since Ronald Reagan to face a nuclear-armed aggressor in an escalating situation. Commentary at the time was that he was so far out of his depth we’d end up in a nuclear war by accident. As it happened, it de-escalated far faster than even the most optimistic predicted.

The economy: I’m a low-tax small-state libertarian but even I couldn’t believe that the Trump tax cuts would work: they looked reckless to me, and yet I was wrong: the USA’s growth started climbing in response. It is true that this didn’t yet have a significant Laffer effect at the time of the 2020 election, but it did improve the debt/GDP trajectory somewhat. The imprecations of doom from the usual suspects in opposition to him were certainly wrong, anyway.

The Abraham Accords: this almost got nailed while he was in office and it was only the distracted state of the Biden administration that led to the attack on Israel which has temporarily delayed the normalisation of Arab/Israel relations. When this works – and it will – Nobel Peace prizes will be deserved. How much Trump can claim direct credit is another question, but the fact his that his administration knew to prioritise it while in office, and that counts for something.

In short, the evidence you’re looking for can be found by ignoring everything Trump says, and focusing on what he does.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
Reply to  John Riordan

Fair enough answer, but I find it very unconvincing.

North Korea: As I remember the US administration was trying to pressure North Korea into cutting down on its nuclear plans, and the NKs were making trouble about it. Then Trump decided to stop pushing, give them a summit – which is a HUGE propaganda victory for Kim Young’un – and ask for NOTHING in return. Clearly if you give them gifts and leave them to do what they want they are not going to make trouble, but at best Trump abandoned US policy goals, and allowed NK to keep building their bombs undisturbed. Surrendering your objectives while convincing the voters you have won may be a useful political skill, but I would hardly call that ‘getting it right’.

As I understand you, Trump borrowed money and made huge tax cuts. The economy grew (well, Duh!), the bond markets did not crash, and the deficit grew, for some future president to deal with. Much like me borrowing 15 years income and buying a Porsche – even if I succeed in getting it past the banks it is hardly a sign of deep thinking. BTW – has anyone ever seen a significant Laffer effect i.e. that cutting taxes led to higher government incomes?

The Abraham accords? Well, they were good, and they did happen on his watch, though, as you say yourself, it is hard to say how much of that Trump himself actually caused. But when you get to “it was only the distracted state of the Biden administration that led to the attack on Israel” we are into fantasy politics. Hamas and Iran wanted to hurt Israel and scupper the accords – and neither is partricularly attentive to US desires. Just what do you think Biden ought to have done would have kept Hamas in check? And how do you know?

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
1 month ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Interesting to see your take on Donald Trump’s negotiations with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. I’m an experienced negotiator myself, but not in Donald Trump’s class. His work with North Korea is a textbook case on how to negotiate. Your take on it is factually incorrect, and to me at least, makes no sense logically. If you have interest, I’d be happy to give details on why I think that.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
Reply to  Carlos Danger

I would love to hear that. My question is simple: What did the US get out of it? Kim got a huge propaganda boost for the summit (previous presidents had held that out as a reward to give in return for concessions), and got the US to stop pestering him about changing his policies. Trump got the headlines and the ego boost of sitting in a real summit and negotiating on nuclear weapons. And the US got what? I honestly cannot see this as more than a face-saving way for the US to back down and give up its claims in return for nothing.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
Reply to  Carlos Danger

I would love to see that.
My question is simply: what did the US get out of it?
Kim got a summit (which previous presidents had held back as a reward for future concessions) and he got the US to stop pestering him about changing his policies. Trump got the headlines and ego boost of doing a proper summit about nuclear weapons. But what did Kim concede? What did the US get? Near as I can see the US got nothing – except a convenient cover for accepting defeat and abandoning all their demands while publicly claiming victory.

B Emery
B Emery
1 month ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

So this us general I believe he is, seems to contradict your idea that the us will ‘get nothing’ and he was hopeful about the progress made under Trump.
The idea of us policy in north Korea according to him, should be to reduce tensions and save the us money on sustaining troops in the area. Hopefully moving towards peace and away from grand standing which the author of the article below, says doesn’t work.
He is an experienced us general.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/xavier-brunson/

‘There was a glimmer of hope during the Trump-Kim meetings in 2018 and 2019, but that was dashed when the Hanoi Summit collapsed. Something must be done, and General Brunson has a chance to make a difference.’

‘As the leader of the military coalition (CFC), shift focus from countering a possible but unlikely DPRK invasion to a more imaginative all-domain strategy that is more effective and relies less on conventional land forces that require provocative and costly large-scale exercises.

In your U.S. role, make it clear to your South Korean counterparts know that you will not advocate for actions that have more risk than benefit such as strategic (nuclear) asset visits to the ROK. Such grandstanding does nothing to contribute to readiness and they inflame rather than reduce tensions with North Korea.’

This post has been moderated.

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
1 month ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Here’s a better chronology of Donald Trump’s negotiations with Kim Jong Un than yours. In handing over the White House to Donald Trump in 2017, Barack Obama told him that North Korea worried him the most. He didn’t know how seriously to take Kim Jong Un’s threats.
So Donald Trump went to work. When Kim Jong Un made threats Donald Trump ridiculed him in front of the United Nations, calling him “rocket man”. He then ridiculed him on Twitter by telling him he too had a button to launch nuclear missiles on his desk, and his button actually worked.
I can only touch on the highlights and will skip the Seoul Winter Olympics, Otto Warmbier, and all of that but eventually Kim Jong Un decided to restart talks with South Korea. Those talks went well so some South Koreans went to the White House to invite Donald Trump to meet with Kim Jong Un. They were shocked when Donald Trump accepted on the spot.
That was a brilliant move. When you go into a negotiation, you don’t know what the outcome will be. It’s uncertain. So when your enemy wants to talk, you talk. Go as far as you can. You can always back out if the talks don’t work. That makes the risk of talking minimal.
In the Netflix show The Diplomat the fictional character ambassador Hal Wyler makes exactly this point in a speech:
“Diplomacy never works. It’s getting to ‘no’ over, and over, and over. It never f—ing works. Until it does.”
“One of the boneheaded truisms of foreign policy is that talking to your enemies legitimizes them. Talk to everyone. Talk to the dictator and the war criminal. Talk to terrorists. Talk to everyone. Fail, and fail again. And brush yourself off, and fail again, because maybe, maybe . . . .”
(By the way, the second season of The Diplomat was released just today on Netflix. I haven’t watched it yet, but I will. It’s an uneven show, too woke at times, but it gets a lot of things right.)
So Donald Trump met with Kim Jong Un in Singapore and in Hanoi, and then Donald Trump dropped in for a visit (arranged via Twitter!) to step into North Korea at the DMZ. Love letters were exchanged as well.
Donald Trump didn’t lose interest in a deal with Kim Jong Un. He put his best offer on the table (via a promotional video that he showed Kim Jong Un on an iPad!), and Kim Jong Un turned it down. You can’t always reach an agreement that is agreeable to both sides. But there were no hard feelings — Donald Trump knows it’s still important to maintain good ties to leave an opening to talk again, so he did. Like Hal Wyler said, you fail fail, and fail again.
What did we gain? We learned that Kim Jong Un is going to do the same thing as his father and grandfather did — make promises in order to get American aid and then break those promises. He’s not going to give up his nuclear weapons.
Donald Trump did not fall for that ploy. He gave North Korea nothing in terms of aid or concessions. He met with Kim Jong Un, but so what? If anything, that helped the American side. Now it’s hard for Kim Jong Un to paint Americans as the bad guys to his people. And Kim Jong Un has been defanged, to some extent. No one is as worried about him using his nuclear weapons as they once were. We took his measure.
Donald Trump taught us a master class in negotiations. Joe Biden doesn’t observe these basic principles that Donald Trump has a lifetime of experience applying. With Ukraine Joe Biden should have been talking with Vladimir Putin. He should have been exploring options. Volodymyr Zelensky would have had a tough time doing that, but Joe Biden wouldn’t.
If Donald Trump becomes president negotiating an end to the Ukraine war will be one of the first things he does. He may not succeed, but he will try. Let’s hope he gets the chance. Joe Biden was hopeless at negotiation. Kamala Harris is even worse.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
Reply to  Carlos Danger

Thanks.
I like ‘The Diplomat’ too, but Hal Wyler was mentioning secret talks. Not public summits. If you are a head of state – and not a scrappy real estate developer – going into public talks has a real cost. You strengthen your opponent, and give his claims legitimacy. Getting a summit with the US president was in itself a gift – to the point that Obamas team had kept it as a reward for good behaviour, not a freebie. If you disagree on this point tell me – do you think Biden, or Trump, should hold a summit with the leader of Hamas?

But the big point is that the talks failed. Nothing came out of it. Why do you praise Trump so extravagantly for embarking on a failure – Trump would never do that himself (‘ I like them better if they do not get captured’ right?). All very well that you like his style, but that is hardly evidence of anything. There are mitigating circumstances, sure – Obama was not succeding either, and apart from giving Kim some propaganda freebies the US did not give away much. I suppose one could say that Trump did not give Kim everything he wanted, nor did he start a nuclear war, and he got the US to back down and let Kim continue with his nuclear efforts without getting bad headlines for it – but even for Trump the bar is not that low.

I really wonder where you get the idea that ” Now it’s hard for Kim Jong Un to paint Americans as the bad guys to his people. And Kim Jong Un has been defanged, to some extent“. A much more likely interpretation is that Kim (and his propaganda team) is convincing people that the Americans are as evil as always, but that the young leader is so strong and so clever that even the evil Americans are forced to defer to him. And Kim has not been defanged. He has the same powers as always, and he is as unpredictable as he always was. The US has just acepted that it is powerless to do anything and now looks the other way.

As for ‘exploring options’ we did not ‘learn’ that Kim is not going to give up his nuclear weapons. We knew that. There is no point in ‘exploring options’, particularly with Putin, unless you can find some combination of sticks and carrots that will get your opponents to accept a deal you can live with. We already know what Putin will accept: A deal that allows him to take full control of Ukraine and make it into a vassal state, if not immediately, then by and by. If Trump is happy to hand victory (and much of Eastern Europe) to his friend Putin, then talking about ‘peace’ makes sense. If he is not he needs to pressure Putin into accepting something better – and to keep his negotiating powder dry until then.

I would not be surprised if Trump believes that he is such a genius that he can go in and always get a good deal. Maybe it is even true if the point in question is nothing more than getting persona profit from real estate, and you are happy to screw third parties. But I am surprised that you, too, have bought into the myth.

B Emery
B Emery
1 month ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

‘The best, and best written, book in English on the practice of diplomacy is by the late British diplomat (or as he would have said, diplomatist)
Sir Harold Nicolson Nicolson’s words,

“The worst kind of diplomatists are missionaries, fanatics and lawyers; the best kind are the reasonable and humane sceptics. Thus it is not religion or ideology which has been the main formative influence in diplomatic theory; it is common sense…[Ideal diplomacy] can be described as common sense and charity applied to international relations.”’

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/diplomacy-diplomats/

So trump and his common sense should do OK. You should check out that article, I don’t think Mr Nicholson would agree with you that talking with North Korea is a bad idea.
How else do you propose reducing tensions.
You say:
‘Trump, should hold a summit with the leader of Hamas’

There are negotiations going on between Hamas and Israel being mediated by Qatar. I don’t understand your point. If the point is that hamas shouldn’t be negotiated with, I’m afraid the reality is that negotiations with them are actually happening in reality.

‘. We already know what Putin will accept: A deal that allows him to take full control of Ukraine and make it into a vassal state, if not immediately, then by and by.’

Where is your evidence for this claim.
That is a very unlikely outcome at this point in my opinion.
As far as I know, that is not the stated objective of Russias special operatio either.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
Reply to  B Emery

Talking with North Korea is not necessarily a bad idea – just that in this case it did not lead to any gains. It may have reduced tensions – slightly, temporarily – but what is your aim here? To appease a dangerous, unstable and nuclear-armed NK, or to get it to abandon its threats of nuclear war? In the second case you need more than ‘reducing tension’.

Of course Hamas should be negotiated with – discreetly. It is good to keep connection open, and to know as much as possible about where they are coming from. But holding a presidential summit with Shinwar – or with a Colombian drug lord for that matter – is not the way forward. Merely holding the summit gives the other side a tremendous boost of credibility and legitimacy that you really do not want to give them for free.

As for Putin, the stated objectives of his war is to ‘demilitarise’ and ‘de-nazify’ and Ukraine. In plain English that means making Ukaine incapable of defending itself against future Russian threats, and guaranteeing a pro-Russian government in perpetuity. Of course Russia also wants to annex Crimea and four Oblasts, two of which they have not even conquered yet.

Putin himself says publicly that Ukrainians are really just a kind of Russians, but that they are welcome to play pretend and have their own state as long as they stay with the Motherland. The fear of a NATO build-up in Ukraine is not rational, and therefore cannot be their real reason. It would not be hard to make a deal that Ukraine remained demilitarised but could join e.g. the EU – if Russia was willing to give credible guarantees against attacking it. The Russian position only makes sense if they want a guarantee that Ukaine cold never, under any future circumstances take sides against Russia. And the only way to guarantee that is to have Ukraine as a defenseless vassal state.

It also fits the evolution of events. For a long time Russia tried to control Ukraine through corruption and political interference. When Ukraine started talking about accession to the EU (not NATO) Russia vetoed that and forced the Ukrainian government to abandon it. The Maidan then showed that the Ukrainian people was not willing to be carried along, so the policy of discreet manipulation could not give Russia what it wanted. Imemdiately after that, Russia took Crimea and granbbed Luhansk and Donetsk through a deniable local militia. The various Minsk accords were never implemented in full by either side, but Russia was clearly pushing for having an effective veto over Ukrainian policies through giving Luhansk and Donetsk voting rights and vetoes in Ukraine while remaining under effective Russian control. Then, as Ukraine kept fighting in the oblasts, Russia opted for invasion and regime change.

it is worth noting that Russias actions have led to Poland rearming, and Sweden and Finland joining NATO – none of which Russia is going to be happy with. If Russia could have given reliable guarantees that they were not goin to invade its neighboursm, those things would not have needed to happen. So, why did they insist on going to war, if not to gain control over Ukraine?

B Emery
B Emery
1 month ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I think that’s a fair reply to be honest, what do you think the next us president should do in that case?
Ukraine seems to be getting a bit exhausted now, although they have made a serious effort to up weapons/drone production, and the kursk offensive was reasonably successful, they are loosing territory in the East.
Some members of the us military have spoken about the fact that regaining the lost territory would be very difficult at this stage without NATO intervention.
Do you think nato intervention is worth the risk of a serious escalation? (bearing in mind the tension between Israel/ Iran, China/ US, attacks on the shipping lanes in the middle east). Could the west afford to back such an offensive financially? Or do you think a push for diplomacy would be better?
Russia and Ukraine are negotiating over ending attacks on energy infrastructure at the moment, which is surely a step in the right direction towards a diplomatic solution.
It is surely unlikely now, that russia would be able to ‘take over’ ukraine politically, and surely having been at war for a number of years now, ukraine has been able to remove much of the Russian influence. I think the danger of Russia trying to ‘take over’ all of Ukraine is overstated. I’m not sure it was a takeover that was intended, more a test/ pushback against western interests/ influence.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
Reply to  B Emery

What to do? Ah, here it gets hard. I do not think it is by any means impossible that Russia could end up dominating Ukraine. Not tomorrow, maybe, but if there is an armistice, what would prevent Russia from getting ammunition stocks back up, waiting a few years, and then just attacking again?

In purely theoretical terms, one would hope for a situation where Ukraine was safe and viable and able to form its own policies, which would probably require some kind of western military backing since Russian promises just will not do. On the other hand, getting back Crimea, and maybe Luhansk and Donetsk does not sound like a particularly realistic goal. Again, in theoretical terms, that would require a strong, sustained commitment from the west sufficient to convince Russia that it is not worth fighting on, and some kind of offer (territory? guarantees?) to make a deal worth while. The starting point would have to be that stopping Russia is important, and that the west is willing to pay the cost – if you just say ‘we want peace now’ that amounts to gifting Ukraine to Putin.

What is possible, and what, specifically, should be done is more than I could say. I hope that someone with the necessary skill and commitment ends up in power.

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
1 month ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

You completely miss the points the fictional Hal Wyler so dramatically made in his speech at the Chatham House. He said it is boneheaded to think like you do. That it is boneheaded to think that talking to your enemy gives them legitimacy. That it is boneheaded to not talk to your enemy because you think talks would fail. You should talk to anybody, at any time, and when you fail, get up and fail again and again.
He wasn’t talking about private meetings. The backstory to his speech was that he had been forced to negotiate as ambassador to a Balkan country with the head of state who had ordered the bombing that killed Hal Wyler’s first wife. The first time they met Hal Wyler refused to shake his hand. But that was a mistake and the negotiations failed. So a year later he shook the man’s hand to develop a relationship that led to peace.
Those words of Hal Wyler were interspersed in the season one finale with dramatic scenes of his now-wife ambassador to Britain Kate Wyler who was then in France meeting with people there. The point was that you can never really know what people are thinking and you shouldn’t make assumptions about what they will do. Just like in chess, you make a move, then see how the other side responds. That’s the only way to play the game.
That’s one reason it’s so important to meet with the other side in a negotiation. Talking tells you some things, but you find out other things as well. Before the summits we knew little about Kim Jong Un. Now we know a lot more. Such important things as his relationship with his sister. And more mundane things like the fact that he uses a portable toilet when he travels so that others cannot obtain his bodily waste and analyze it to determine how healthy he is. (The rumor that he doesn’t actually produce bodily waste seems to be false.) His cigarette butts are collected for the same reason.
You seem to have little or no background or experience in negotiation. That has been a big part of my career. I’ve been involved in the negotiation of billions of dollars worth of deals, working with and against negotiators for 10 years in Tokyo and 20 years in Silicon Valley. I’ve seen some masters at work, both on my side of the table and sitting across from me. (And some less skilled people too.) I have taken some of the negotiation training offered at Harvard and have read uncounted books and articles on the topic.
So when I say Donald Trump is a master of the art of the deal, and his actions with regard to North Korea show it, that assessment is more informed than ignorant. I’m not sure I can say the same for you. That makes it hard to respond to your arguments. We are not on the same page. Maybe not even in the same book.
So let me just respond to your single direct question — whether the president of the United States should meet with the leader of Hamas. My feeling is that such a meeting might make sense, but probably not. But if, say, Israel sent an envoy to the White House asking the US president to meet with the leader of Hamas, that would be a big reason to do it. And that is what happened with respect to North Korea. The South Koreans brought Kim Jong Un’s invitation to a summit to the White House, hoping the US president would accept it, and were shocked and delighted when Donald Trump himself did so on the spot.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago
Reply to  Carlos Danger

Well, you are quite right that I have no particular experience in negotiation – unlike you. And I will admit (that was not particularly clear in my earlier posts) that there is nothing wrong with talking to NK. The alternatives did not work either. But I stand by the fact that making those summits were (among other things) a gift to Kim that strengthened his position, which is one cost of the venture. And that nothing useful came of it. Kim made no concessions. A better knowledge of Kims toilet habits or a warm fellow feeling between the individual Kim Young Un’ and the individual Donald Trump is not really much of a payback for that. I would add that this was very much the predicted outcome. The only thing that has changed is that the US is no longer pressing particularly hard for NK to mend its ways. Which is a climb-down – at best – no matter how you choose to spin it.

I cannot judge Trump’s negotiating technique – just that in this case he won nothing by it. There is no doubt that Trump thinks he is divinely gifted in the art of the deal, and you seem to agree. But to want him to deal for you, you would have to trust that his aims are the same as yours – and I see no evidence of that. If he is negotiating for a real estate deal (on his own property) it is a safe bet that he will aim for maximum profit. If he is negotiating with Putin or Kim, what will he aim for? The long-term good of the US? Really? Is it not more likely that he will concentrate on boosting his ego and his fame as a brilliant negotiator by making a big-headline deal and sacrifice whatever it takes (for the US – he is not putting his own money on the line here) to prove to himself and others what a genius he is? And is it not likely that savvy and well-prepared enemies will make use of that to manipulate him? A man who denies the fact that he lost the election and takes it as a personal insult, a man who insists that he had the biggest ever election crowds (and never mind the photos), a man with an oversized needy ego and almost no inhibitions, do you really want to let him loose to deal for the future of your children, no matter how much you admire his technique?

Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 month ago

If Trump is elected, some clear, Milei-style purge will be needed. The Siegel class, are turning increasingly fascistic and consider that elections should not interfere with their continuous rule.
Those “elites” should be purged from civil service, taxed, and removed from any position of power. Because the painful truth is that a significant portion of our “elites” reject the concept of democracy, and citizen sovereignty. The reason Trump is popular is because he confronts their yoke.

Richard Ross
Richard Ross
1 month ago

Those who can, write. Those who can’t get National Magazine Awards, apparently.

Nathan Sapio
Nathan Sapio
1 month ago

Yawn, sorry a few paragraphs in I reached max saturation for conventional opinion. Trump is the worst, got it.

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
1 month ago

America is simply another empire that as with every single empire in history, is in terminal decline.

Brian Doyle
Brian Doyle
1 month ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

Absolutely correct but may I add that such decline has reached Terminal Velocity
Particularly so with the ever growing mountain of debt

Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
1 month ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

Everyone is in terminal decline

blue 0
blue 0
1 month ago

I see Lee’s fever dreams are becoming more vivid.

Dash Riprock
Dash Riprock
1 month ago

Trump tends to harrass allies and flatter the adversaries of America, which is distrubing, though frustration with NATO is to some extent fair and has long been expressed by administrations before his first one (his tarriff stuff is obvious nonsense and won’t happen).
Everyone worries about his lack of evidence for the ‘stolen’ 2020 election. But again, he left in the end.
He does modest deals then proclaims them ‘the best ever’. His dicator-love is a provcation as much as it’s felt. He’s a showman and is too old for the job. Mid terms will see to his clout and then he’ll be gone and the world can relax.

Brian Doyle
Brian Doyle
1 month ago

No mention whatsoever of the recent Supreme Court ruling whereby a President is exempt from The Law with the caveat that The Presidents actions were in the remit of their duties
At a stroke the Central plank of the American constitution was thrown in the dustbin
That No One is above the Law
The door to Dictatorship is now wide open for Trump should he win

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 month ago
Reply to  Brian Doyle

Get a grip and stop watching MSNBC…. Or just stop listening to Harris.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  Brian Doyle

Brian, every President has been immune for acts carried out as part of the office. The USSC affirmed it also applies to Orangeman McBadden. Do try and read some.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

Utter tosh and piffle from Lee Siegal, as usual. Nothing new, just repackaged TDS.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

“Harris, on the other hand, if she comes out on top, will be operated by committee, along more or less rational lines.” Anyone who has supported gender ideology, does not operate on more or less rational lines. They are deluded and dangerous to women. That is why I am NOT voting for Harris.

Jill Corel
Jill Corel
1 month ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

“They are deluded and dangerous to women”. You can remove the “to women”. Gender ideology is “dangerous” period and anyone who supports such appalling lies is a menace to society.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 month ago

I have yet to meet or talk to anyone, from various walks of life, who is afraid of what will happen after Election Day
perhaps the author should get out a little more. Because the govt is afraid of what might happen, to the point that a federal directive has been issued authorizing the military not just to aid civilian law enforcement if needed, but to use deadly force in doing so: https://alexlekas.substack.com/p/what-happens-november-6th-and-after
To call it unprecedented sells the matter short. Mr. Seigel also conveniently forgets who multiple cities went into full prep mode in 2020 preparing violence in the event that Trump won. Again, in the event that Orange McBadman won. What will happen this time? Already, ballot boxes have been set ablaze by the leftist Antifa crowd in areas that are heavily blue.
While gazing at his navel, the author manages boilerplate idiocy like this: There is no doubt that a mentally unstable Trump, should he be president again, poses a threat to America and to the world,” No doubt. Really? Does he forget that Trump was already president once and neither the country nor the planet were threatened. The nation enjoyed economic growth and stability, while the US engaged in exactly ZERO new wars.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

“No one believes Trump when he summons a vision of America as being overrun by barbaric immigrant hordes, or so ridden by crime that a person cannot walk across the street to buy a loaf of — barely affordable! — bread without being murdered or raped.”
It may be hyperbole, but the fact is that people remember what their towns used to be like, and what they are now, and Trump is the only person acknowledging that fact. Everyone else just wants to either ignore it, or gaslight them that nothing is happening at all, and anyway even if something is happening, its all wonderful so shut up bigot!

Trump and his ilk only exist because they are all people opposed to the current direction of travel in Western democracies have got. Everyone else is in the ‘More of the same’ party. If Western political elites had not decided 25-30 years ago to all start singing from the same hymn sheet, and had provided real alternatives to the electorate, then Trump, and all his mini-me versions across Europe would not exist. The Western elites decided to ignore a massive proportion of the electorate and said to them ‘Whatcha going to do about it?’. Well now the electorates have done something, they voted for Trump, and Bexit, and the AfD and and and.

And its all the fault of the likes of Lee Seigel.

Ardath Blauvelt
Ardath Blauvelt
1 month ago

Please, don’t bother including this ignorant, anti- American in future selections. Criticism is one thing when it is based on understanding; his is vapid and sophmoric.

James Davis
James Davis
1 month ago

Just like supposed “intellectual” Sam Harris, Lee Seigel has a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. For those who may not believe this is a real thing, the American Psychiatric Association says otherwise…
https://article107news.com/psychiatrists-add-trump-derangement-syndrome-to-list-of-depressive-disorders/
Psychiatrists Add “Trump Derangement Syndrome” to List of Depressive Disorders
October 21, 2020 
by Maxwell Paddington
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The American Psychiatric Association has added Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
According to Dr. Macon Bank, the criteria for TDS diagnosis includes:
Since November 8, 2016, there has been a grief response characterized by intense preoccupation with thoughts of Donald Trump with at least 3 of the following symptoms experienced to a clinically significant degree, nearly every day:
1.     Identity disruption (e.g., feeling as though part of oneself has died)
2.    Marked sense of disbelief about Donald Trump
3.    Avoidance of reminders that Donald Trump is President
4.   Intense emotional pain (e.g., anger, bitterness, sorrow) related to Donald Trump
5.    Difficulty moving on with life (e.g., problems engaging with friends, pursuing interests, planning for the future)
6.    Emotional numbness
7.    Feeling that life is meaningless
8.    Intense loneliness (i.e., feeling alone or detached from others)
The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The duration of the reaction clearly exceeds expected social, cultural or religious norms for the individual’s culture and context.

Gregory Hickmore
Gregory Hickmore
1 month ago
Reply to  James Davis

I’m surprised “Macon Bank” did not insist on his more professional name when he discusses medical matters. When he writes for peer-reviewed journals, I am sure he is “Dr. Making Bank.” Please. Seriously. Will someone try to keep up with idioms, even one this old?

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 month ago

Stupid article full of futile centrist blather.

Brian Doyle
Brian Doyle
1 month ago

Re Tawain oh how The West is slowly but surely being led to War
Make no mistake about any of the following
Tawain is irrefutably Chinese
This is a civil War that has still to conclude and consequently the following are the only possible solutions under all International Law that no other Nation can interfere in the Internal affairs of another If so then the other is fully within their rights to declare War upon those that do interfere
So how does this ongoing Civil war
Conclude
1 China surrenders and Tawain wins
2. Tawain surrenders and returns to the fold of The Motherland
3. Tawain returns to the Motherland by way of peacefully negotiation
4. If 3. Above fails then China applies full force in order to reunite
Tawain with the Motherland
And to reinforce points 3 and 4 China has passed into Law the undernoted that none can repeal
A ) By 2040 Taiwan must return to
The Motherland
B ) All peaceful avenues must be fully explored to do so peacefully
C ) Should B ) fail then full military force deployed
In the event of full force China has also passed into Law
D ) Any whether from Mainland or Tawain who resist reunification shall be classified as Traitors and as such will be hunted down and brought to Court and the full force of the Law applied
1. China has clearly and plain for all to see A Red Line in The Tawain Straights and Sth.China Sea and any who cross that line in the event
Of military action to prevent Reunification
Then Instantly China shall declare War upon you
And solely on the Basis of Unconditional Surrender
Further stating that China shall win and fight to the Last man standing
Dare not call this out either by stupid mistake , miscalculated error or blatant deliberate action
China has effectively built a 2nd Great wall to which it refers to as a
Access denial area
Just like their 1st Great wall it’s function is not deterrence but one of guaranteeing that should any who breach the Wall then they shall have no means of escape and your destruction is certain

Bobby Levit
Bobby Levit
1 month ago

“Unherd” should be aware that if Lee Siegel is it’s lead writer with his article’s being the headline story…they won’t be around for too much longer

Jeff Butcher
Jeff Butcher
1 month ago

I enjoyed this article, particularly regarding our blasé attitude to nukes. I thought this also very apposite:

‘Both figures are the phoniest presidential candidates in modern American history.
The difference is that the obviously unstable Trump is a first-rate monstrosity. Harris is a second-rate mediocrity.’

It reminds me of the recent general election here in the UK: an irrelevant piece of political theatre peopled by bad actors and mediocre wannabes.

No wonder the US population views it in the same way as they would a baseball game. It reminds me of that Frank Zappa quote: ‘Politics is the entertainment branch of industry’.

AC Harper
AC Harper
1 month ago

I always think that pundits’ articles should be reviewed after a year or so and the pundits performance given a star rating for accuracy.
In this case I think the article should be printed off on archival paper and locked away, ready for review. Otherwise it may be ‘disappeared’.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
1 month ago

Lee Siegal misses the most salient point about Harris.
She was appointed candidate, in lieu of any democratic process, by someone or ones, unknown to the voters. The question automatically arises: Who are they and why are they hiding their involvement?
In this time of “eat bugs” and “the next pandemic” and “Net Zero or bust!”, etc. the next question is: “What are they planning?”.
That leaves many of us thinking that Harris might be far more dangerous than Trump; who is, after all, a known quantity.

c hutchinson
c hutchinson
1 month ago

Unherd readers would be better served purchasing articles written by it commenters rather than some of the hacks that are featured.

William Cameron
William Cameron
1 month ago

Which of two unsatisfactory people is most likely to cause a nuclear war ?
Harris clearly. Trump actually has quite a good record of avoiding war and conflict. She does not.

André Angelantoni
André Angelantoni
1 month ago

People aren’t thinking clearly about the nuclear war threat hence the fear of nuclear war with Russia is completely overblown. Here’s why.
China and India have both told Putin that nuclear war is a line he can’t cross or THEY would have to withdraw all support for him. He can’t afford that. His economy is already crumbling as it is (21% interest rate is the latest sign of that).
There is no tactical advantage to using a nuke that doesn’t also wipe out his own troops or cause fallout on Russian soil.
As long as Putin is a rational actor, he stays alive. The moment he uses nukes, he ceases being that and every intelligence agency goes after him. The US recently leaked that they know exactly where he is at all times on purpose. Putin would never be able to leave a bunker for the rest of his life.
Finally, Ukraine with its drones has shown the entire world—including Russia—that Russia has no air defences to speak of. Many were moved to the Ukrainian front where they were destroyed. The remainder are being picked off by Ukraine week by week. Sure, Russia may get to use a tactical nuke—but then everyone else has their pick of whichever targets inside Russia they want.

Pete Marsh
Pete Marsh
1 month ago

“Not the Musk who is so ham-fistedly trying to interfere in the election process by promising money to people who sign a petition as registered Republican voters. ”

This is factually wrong if it’s the million dollar lottery you’re referring to. Musk pointedly said that they can be republican, democrat, independent or none. He wants people to register and vote.

It’s difficult to believe any of the other claims (mostly anti republican) that I’m less familiar with.

Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
1 month ago

Well I guess there are no democrats that read unherd articles. Can we just get this sh*tshow election over with? It’s a media farce. Nothing will change, if anything the oligarchs like Musk and Bezos will have even more power and influence, in 4 years most people will still be skrewed.

David Walters
David Walters
1 month ago

It’s a shame the quality of articles for unherd is becoming increasingly poor. I have to ask myself why I still subscribe but there are a a few good writers still I suppose. This piece was distinctly second rate and lazy

Richard Bruce
Richard Bruce
1 month ago

Where was Mr. Siegel living during the four years of Pres. Trump’s presidency? Did I sleep through the nuclear war and other evils deeds the left claims Pres. Trump did? If he didn’t do all the bad things expected of him back then, why would he do it the next four years?

Robert F Holubr
Robert F Holubr
1 month ago

Trump, and Vance, are sensible leaders, mentally stable, as made obvious during the 4 years of remarkably successful Trump’s presidency, in spite of “resistance”, an opposite of the greatest Anglo-saxon invention – loyal opposition. Unherd is certainly not worth of any support

Clive MacDonald
Clive MacDonald
1 month ago

“I have yet to meet or talk to anyone who is afraid of what will happen after Election Day.” According to Yougov, 2 in five Americans believe that civil war is likely: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/43553-two-in-five-americans-civil-war-somewhat-likely

Cantab Man
Cantab Man
1 month ago

How one labels those who have different political views (e.g. referring to them as Hitler, Nazis, fascists, etc.) is an effort by the one to dehumanize “The Other” so that innocents – as measured by the actual law of the land – may be destroyed via extrajudicial pseudo-religious sacrifice (read: cancelling) without any impact to one’s conscience.
In short, it is how one assuages their moral cognitive dissonance.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

no way to block authors ?

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
1 month ago

All over then. Let me drink the best whiskey, then sit waiting for the bomb.

Or I could just ignore this nonsensical drivel

J Arthur Rank
J Arthur Rank
1 month ago

“Lee Siegel is an American writer and cultural critic. He is a Democrat and is a biased, uninformed journalist that uses pejorative language describing those he hates, sparing the same language for those he supports. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award. His selected essays will be published next spring.”
This is what this journalist’s bio should read. ‍

J Arthur Rank
J Arthur Rank
1 month ago

J Arthur Rank
 7 seconds ago
Agree with several other readers’ comments.
Lee Siegel is an American writer and cultural critic. He is a Democrat and is a biased, uninformed journalist that uses pejorative language describing those he hates, sparing the same language for those he supports. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award. His selected essays will be published next spring.
This is what this journalist’s bio should read. ‍

Gordon Arta
Gordon Arta
1 month ago

‘Annie Jacobsen’s scrupulous, brilliant, terrifying book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, became a bestseller, but it failed to lead to a sense of historical crisis.’ Because anyone who knew anything recognised it as journalistic hyperbole, odds and ends of unconnected factoids, overly sensationalised for ‘impact’. Rather like a Siegel column, in fact.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

Lee actually found a way to say something even more deranged and false than “Trump is Hitler”: Lee has said “Trump is *worse* than Hitler” . Pointing out that Lee is as dumb as sack of rocks insults a sack of rocks. What a bunch of nasty clowns the democrats have become.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

One important correction: Israel would resort to a nuclear bomb if it’s being obliterated. Iran will use nukes to attack. The clerics who control the government and have their hand on the button believe in and want the end of the world in fire — the coming of the Hidden Imam, and the world’s takeover by Islamic law, Sharia. They aren’t a lunatic fringe: they are who took over in 1979 and speak often of how this will end, but not in English. There is no mutually assured destruction as with the Cold War. This is their sincere desire.

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
1 month ago
Reply to  UnHerd Reader

I’ve seen no indication that Iran wants to build nuclear weapons to use them for offensive purposes. Everything I’ve seen says the opposite. Iran has supported low-level militant groups, but nothing like a military invasion. In the Iraq-Iran war it acted only in defense, and it has not been involved in any other wars except for support (much like the US supports Israel and Ukraine).
Iran, for example, fights against jihadists like the Islamic State. Iran’s leadership is not peace-loving, to say the least, but neither do they monger war. They have done nothing like the United States, which invaded and occupied both Afghanistan and Iraq in wars of unprovoked aggression.

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
1 month ago

Classroom assignment for Lee Siegel. Go and read Martin Gurri’s Revolt of the Public.
Gurri’s argument is fairly simple. The Age of Mass Media, with its top-down domination, is over. Replacing it is what he calls the Fifth Wave, but what I call the Age of Inter-network, where political communication is no longer top down.
Of course, the current ruling class that ruled in the Age of Mass Media isconfused, afraid, and fit to be tied. How dare, how dare journalists expelled from the heights of Mass Media — Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Bari Weiss, etc. — turn around and attack the sacred Cardinals of the Holy Administrative State from their bunkers in the Inter-net-work of the web, podcasts, and YouTube.
By the way, convicted criminal Steve Bannon just got out of jail and says that the Black and Hispanic criminals in jail “detest” Kamala Harris. I wonder why.

Travis Cooper
Travis Cooper
1 month ago

What a condescending and banal “essay!”

Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
1 month ago

I am not a US voter, so I have no say in the election of the “Leader of the Free World”.
Having said that, I am mystified by the vitriol levied against the author. At the very least, it should give anyone pause that the only choices available next week are two such personally and procedurally flawed candidates.

Dave Weeden
Dave Weeden
1 month ago

“You cannot have a fascist coup or any kind of coup without the complicity of the generals.”
I’m no historian, but I believe Messrs Lenin, Castro, and Gaddafi say you can.

mike flynn
mike flynn
1 month ago

“Mentally unstable Trump….” . He also imputes to Harris way too much credit for being in charge of her career. So, unfair assessment ll around.

Jack Altman
Jack Altman
1 month ago

I am an American, see the election and live it from up close, and was thinking hard on the comment I wanted to make, but this time nothing more worth saying that, what an idiotic piece. Feel sorrey for the writer, having been taken by the herd.

thomas dreyer
thomas dreyer
1 month ago

Can’t believe I wasted 5 minutes of my life on this shit

Mark epperson
Mark epperson
1 month ago

Wow, if Mr. Siegel was actually a journalist, I would take issue with 90 percent of this pap. But since he is a paid propagandist, this is the usual drive produced and disturbed by his ilk. Well, at least it was entertaining and provided a few laughs of really how desperate the Dems, deep state bureaucrats, and “the elites” have become.

Ralph Faris
Ralph Faris
1 month ago

Good grief! Is there no end to the bluster and vacuous ruminations of Mr. Siegel? How exactly does he know how many people left the love fest at Madison Square Garden? Does he also know how many of Harris’ fans left her rallies? In fact the total numbers as estimated by serious crowd analysts (https://ash.harvard.edu/programs/crowd-counting-consortium) consistently show both candidates drawing about the same number of supporters. But who cares if you generalize about crowd size without supporting data, especially if you’re engaged in an effort to dismiss one candidate and reluctantly endorse another.
So forget his mistaken account of what Trump offered those in attendance at the gardens, or his frequent swipes at anything Trump, or his pathetic attempt to propose the idiot Harris would be better for us since she will have handlers, as if the presidency is, as others have commented here, rule by committee.
His is an amateurish legitimizing of the possible election of a fool like Harris, someone who has no accomplishments in her life except sleeping with powerful men to secure her upward social mobility. And we’re supposed to feel ok with that because others will simply tell her what to do as president. Great theory of democracy in action by the humble Mr. Siegel.
He pretends to see the big political picture as he lambasts what he thinks is the dreary and hopeless situation confronting us over and over ad nauseam. In spite of what he takes to be a farcical polity, he wishes to nudge us toward a light weight word salad candidate rather than someone who has actually handled the office of the presidency against an army of malignant conspirators in both parties. So, he doesn’t notice the rats leaving the sinking ship who already sense the very real possibility of Trump winning? But then for him orange man bad, empty headed twit better because . . . . what, she won’t really be allowed to be president? And that’s better how???

Chipoko
Chipoko
1 month ago

“… a mentally unstable Trump, should he be president again, poses a threat to America and to the world …”
What a load of crap!

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
1 month ago

You don’t have to be Republican to get musk bucks.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

The writer lives in the bubble of New Hampshire. I can’t even finish the article.

Dr. G Marzanna
Dr. G Marzanna
1 month ago

Excellent rational and brutally accurate. Well done.

Michael Clarke
Michael Clarke
1 month ago

I don’t know where the “Trump is deranged” idea came from. His public rhetoric could be more restrained while being equally hard-hitting but he is what he is – streets ahead of Harris.

Estes Kefauver
Estes Kefauver
1 month ago

“Jeff Bezos, the motto of whose newspaper, the Washington Post, is “democracy dies in darkness”, has refused to allow his newspaper to endorse Harris, for fear, SO PEOPLE SAY, of losing precious contracts he has with the federal government.” [my caps]
Wow, dems have always trashed the Donald for using such blanket phrases like “so people say”, and yet here is a supposedly ‘fair-and-balanced’ writer going there. Nothing about what Bezos actually said in the letter he published in WaPo about a newspaper losing its credibility with biased endorsements. Just further fear mongering.
And the author then loses all credibility himself when he comes out with a virtual endorsement himself by the end. What a shambolic mess..

steve eaton
steve eaton
4 days ago

Jeez, what a load of BS…This guy is clueless.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 month ago

Both figures are the phoniest presidential candidates in modern American history. The difference is that the obviously unstable Trump is a first-rate monstrosity. Harris is a second-rate mediocrity.

Well seen.

There is no doubt that a mentally unstable Trump, should he be president again, poses a threat to America and to the world, just as a mentally unstable Biden would have had he run and prevailed. Harris, on the other hand, if she comes out on top, will be run by committee, along more or less rational lines.

Indeed. Me for rationality.

Duane M
Duane M
1 month ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

I think most of the world shares your feeling. Harris is mediocre in much the same way as George W. Bush (Bush, Jr.). And if elected, it will be her handlers who drive the country while she looks out the window of the Oval Office. So, more predictable and safer. With Trump you get neoconservative idiots like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo who are much more likely to trigger the nuclear war that, as Siegel aptly notes, we are working very hard to not think about.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
Reply to  Duane M

Duane, Trump fired neocons as quickly s possible. Neocvons mutinied against him. He has discussed this in some detail. Most neocons are voting for Kamala. Please do try and keep up.