Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts

11 September 2024

Donald Trump Vs Kamala Harris Debate Highlights

Highlights from the just-finished debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris:

Issue: Economy and cost of living
Kamala: "I will give tax cuts to middle class families and small businesses"
Trump attacked Biden and Kamala for increasing inflation.

Question to Trump: "Your proposed import tariffs will increase prices"
Trump: "No, they will not. And Biden has not removed the tariffs that I had put earlier"
Kamala did not say anything about Biden not removing Trump's tariffs - and instead attacked Trump's policies.

Issue: Abortion
Trump: "States must decide this matter"
Kamala: "Trump is responsible for the Supreme Court striking down the Roe Vs Wade verdict (the right to abortion)". Kamala attacked Trump aggressively with emotional examples - because this is an important issue for women (who are 50% of the voters).

Question to Kamala: "Illegal immigration reached an all-time high under the Biden government - and you were in charge of border security. Why did you act only in the last 6 months?"
Kamala did not answer the question - and instead attacked Trump's policies.
Trump counter-attacked Biden and Kamala.

Question to Trump: "You plan to deport all illegal immigrants. How will you do it?"
Trump did not answer the question - and instead attacked Biden and Kamala.
Kamala counter-attacked Trump.

Question to Kamala: "You have flip-flopped on a lot of issues - like banning fracking"
Kamala: "I will not ban fracking". She did not say anything about her other flip-flops.
Trump attacked Kamala.

Question to Trump: "Do you have any regrets about the January 6 riots by your supporters?"
Trump did not answer the question - and instead attacked the Democrats.
Kamala attacked Trump.

Question to Trump: "Do you accept that you lost the last election?"
Trump: "No, I do not accept"
Question to Kamala: "Do you think Trump will suppress the vote this time?"
Kamala did not answer the question - and instead attacked Trump.

Issue: Israel-Gaza war
Kamala: "I want a two-state solution that gives Israel security and Palestine freedom". A balanced answer.
Trump: "Kamala hates both Israel and Arabs" (!)

Question to Trump: "Do you want Ukraine to win its war against Russia?"
Trump: "I just want the war to end"
Kamala attacked Russia and Trump.

Question to Kamala: "Do you accept responsibility for our retreat from Afghanistan?"
Kamala defended the retreat - and attacked Trump for creating the problem by negotiating with the Taliban.
Trump defended himself - and counter-attacked Biden and Kamala.

Question to Trump: "Why do you talk about Kamala's race?"
Trump: "I don't care about her race"
Kamala attacked Trump as a racist.

Question to Trump: "What is your alternate plan to the Democrats' health insurance program (Obamacare)?"
Trump did not give any specifics - and just attacked Obamacare.
Question to Kamala: "You have flip-flopped on health insurance policy"
Kamala attacked Trump and defended Obamacare.

Question: "What will you do to tackle climate change?"
Kamala: "I will revive America's manufacturing". A very strange answer to give.
Trump attacked Kamala.

Closing statements:
Kamala: "We have very different philosophies - I look forward and he looks backward"
Trump: "Why didn't she do anything for 4 years as Vice President?". He attacked Biden and Kamala. 

Summary:
# Trump was his usual self - with his personal attacks and sweeping statements. But his simple language appeals to most ordinary Americans.
# Kamala is a good debater - and was well-prepared with data-points and specific policies. But she was weak in defending her and Biden's track record.
# The moderators conducted the debate well and were fact-checking both the candidates - especially Trump.

17 January 2021

America, Conservatism And Republican Party

Till the 1960s, race was not a factor at all in American politics. A) The country was 90% white and B) the non-whites were mainly blacks – who were not allowed to vote. But then two developments happened in quick succession that caused a tectonic shift in American society – and brought race to the centre of American politics. First, America passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 – allowing blacks to vote. Second, immigration from Mexico exploded from 1970 onwards – leading to a huge influx of Latinos/Hispanics. As a result, today whites are only 60% of the country – and non-whites are 40%. Inevitably, race became the central factor of American politics.

Specifically, these two developments led to a crystallisation of the two political parties. The liberal Democratic Party made racial equality/justice its #1 agenda/ideology – and got a solid vote-bank of 30% (13% blacks + 17% Latinos/Hispanics). Now conservatives and liberals are evenly matched in America. But this support of the racial minorities gave the Democratic Party a huge advantage. How could the conservative Republican Party even compete against a vote-bank like this? Republican leaders like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan came up with the answer: ally with white racists and Christian fundamentalists. The strategy was successful – from 1968 to 2016, the Republican Party won 8 out of 13 Presidential elections.

So far, so good. But there is a fundamental contradiction between conservatism/nationalism and white racism / Christian fundamentalism. Thus there was a fundamental contradiction in the alliance of the Republican Party. So how did this contradictory alliance not merely survive but also succeed for almost half a century? Winning elections in an industrialised democracy requires mainly 3 things: organisation machinery, money and media. The conservative leaders and strategists of the Republican Party (like their counterparts in the Democratic Party) controlled all these 3 things. Whereas the white racists / Christian fundamentalists are mostly middle-class and lower-class people – who only have numbers, but not control over these 3 things.

Enter the 21st century – with its cocktail of Internet, 24-hour news/media and reality TV. This cocktail revolutionised the world by democratising it. But for the Republican Party, it threatened its contradictory alliance. Because now a white racist / Christian fundamentalist leader could use this cocktail to by-pass conservative leaders/strategists, directly reach out to the large number of white racist / Christian fundamentalist voters – and use their numbers to take over the Republican Party. And that is exactly what happened in 2016. Donald Trump (a real-estate tycoon and reality TV star) threw conservatism into the dustbin, openly embraced white racism / Christian fundamentalism, reached out openly to white racist / Christian fundamentalist voters and became the Republican Party's Presidential candidate – and then America's President.

This is the tragedy of American conservatism and the Republican Party – getting undone by the country's racial demography.

20 October 2017

America, White Racism and Donald Trump

Ta-Nehisi Coates on America, white racism and Donald Trump:

• With one immediate exception, Trump's predecessors made their way to high office through the passive power of whiteness — that bloody heirloom which cannot ensure mastery of all events but can conjure a tailwind for most of them.

• It is often said that Trump has no real ideology, which is not true — his ideology is white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power.

• But whereas his forebears carried whiteness like an ancestral talisman, Trump cracked the glowing amulet open, releasing its eldritch energies.

• But that is the point of white supremacy — to ensure that that which all others achieve with maximal effort, white people (particularly white men) achieve with minimal qualification. Barack Obama delivered to black people the hoary message that if they work twice as hard as white people, anything is possible. But Trump's counter is persuasive: Work half as hard as black people, and even more is possible.

• Trump truly is something new — the first President whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black President. And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all the others who rose to become President. He must be called by his rightful honorific — America's first white President.

• The scope of Trump's commitment to whiteness is matched only by the depth of popular disbelief in the power of whiteness.

• The collective verdict holds that the Democratic Party lost its way when it abandoned everyday economic issues like job creation for the softer fare of social justice. The indictment continues: To their neo-liberal economics, Democrats and liberals have married a condescending elitist affect that sneers at blue-collar culture and mocks the white man as history's greatest monster and prime-time television's biggest doofus. In this rendition, Donald Trump is not the product of white supremacy so much as the product of a backlash against contempt for white working-class people.

• That black people, who have lived for centuries under such derision and condescension, have not yet been driven into the arms of Trump does not trouble these theoreticians.

• Ostensibly assaulted by campus protests, battered by arguments about intersectionality, and oppressed by new bathroom rights, a blameless white working class did the only thing any reasonable polity might: elect an orcish reality-television star who insists on taking his intelligence briefings in picture-book form.

• Trump's white support was not determined by income. He assembled a broad white coalition that ran the gamut from Joe the Dishwasher to Joe the Plumber to Joe the Banker. So when white pundits cast the elevation of Trump as the handiwork of an inscrutable white working class, they are being too modest, declining to claim credit for their own economic class.

• If you tallied the popular vote of only white America to derive 2016 electoral votes, Trump would have defeated Clinton 389 to 81.

• The focus on one subsector of Trump voters — the white working class — is puzzling, given the breadth of his white coalition. Indeed, there is a kind of theatre at work in which Trump's Presidency is pawned off as a product of the white working class as opposed to a product of an entire whiteness that includes the very authors doing the pawning. The motive is clear: escapism. To accept that the bloody heirloom remains potent even now, some five decades after Martin Luther King was gunned down on a Memphis balcony — even after a black President; indeed, strengthened by the fact of that black President — is to accept that racism remains, as it has since 1776, at the heart of this country's political life.

• But if the broad and remarkable white support for Donald Trump can be reduced to the righteous anger of a noble class of smallville firefighters and evangelicals, mocked by Brooklyn hipsters and womanist professors into voting against their interests, then the threat of racism and whiteness, the threat of the heirloom, can be dismissed. Consciences can be eased; no deeper existential reckoning is required.

• In law and economics and then in custom, a racist distinction not limited to the household emerged between the 'help' (the 'freemen', the white workers) and the 'servants' (the 'negers', the slaves). The former were virtuous and just, worthy of citizenship, progeny of Jefferson and, later, Jackson. The latter were servile and parasitic, dim-witted and lazy, the children of African savagery.

• Black workers suffer because it was and is our lot. But when white workers suffer, something in nature has gone awry. And so an opioid epidemic among mostly white people is greeted with calls for compassion and treatment, as all epidemics should be, while a crack epidemic among mostly black people is greeted with scorn and mandatory minimums. Sympathetic op‑ed columns and articles are devoted to the plight of working-class whites when their life expectancy plummets to levels that, for blacks, society has simply accepted as normal. White slavery is sin. Nigger slavery is natural.

• Speaking in 1848, Senator John C Calhoun: "With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals."

• On the eve of secession, Jefferson Davis, the eventual President of the Confederacy, pushed the idea further, arguing that such equality between the white working class and white oligarchs could not exist at all without black slavery: "I say that the lower race of human beings that constitute the substratum of what is termed the slave population of the South, elevates every white man in our community. It is the presence of a lower caste, those lower by their mental and physical organisation, controlled by the higher intellect of the white man, that gives this superiority to the white labourer."

• "These days, what ails working-class and middle-class blacks and Latinos is not fundamentally different from what ails their white counterparts", Senator Barack Obama wrote in 2006: "Downsizing, outsourcing, automation, wage stagnation, the dismantling of employer-based health-care and pension plans, and schools that fail to teach young people the skills they need to compete in a global economy". Obama allowed that "blacks in particular have been vulnerable to these trends" — but less because of racism than for reasons of geography and job-sector distribution. This notion — raceless anti-racism — marks the modern left, from the New Democrat Bill Clinton to the socialist Bernie Sanders. Few national liberal politicians have shown any recognition that there is something systemic and particular in the relationship between black people and their country that might require specific policy solutions.

• If anyone should be angered by the devastation wreaked by the financial sector and a government that declined to prosecute the perpetrators, it is African Americans — the housing crisis was one of the primary drivers in the past 20 years of the wealth gap between black families and the rest of the country. But the cultural condescension toward and economic anxiety of black people is not news. Toiling blacks are in their proper state; toiling whites raise the specter of white slavery.

• A narrative of long-neglected working-class black voters, injured by globalisation and the financial crisis, and forsaken by out-of-touch politicians, does not serve to cleanse the conscience of white people for having elected Donald Trump. Only the idea of a long-suffering white working class can do that.

• "You can't eat equality", asserts Joe Biden — a statement worthy of someone unthreatened by the loss of wages brought on by an unwanted pregnancy, a background-check box at the bottom of a job application, or the deportation of a breadwinner.

• Certainly not every Trump voter is a white supremacist, just as not every white person in the Jim Crow South was a white supremacist. But every Trump voter felt it acceptable to hand the fate of the country over to one.

• The white working class functions rhetorically not as a real community of people so much as a tool to quiet the demands of those who want a more inclusive America.

• What appeals to the white working class is ennobled. What appeals to black workers, and all others outside the tribe, is dastardly identitarianism. All politics are identity politics — except the politics of white people, the politics of the bloody heirloom.

• Any empirical evaluation of the relationship between Trump and the white working class would reveal that one adjective in that phrase is doing more work than the other. In 2016, Trump enjoyed majority or plurality support among every economic branch of whites.

• The real problem is that Democrats aren't the party of white people — working or otherwise. White workers are not divided by the fact of labour from other white demographics; they are divided from all other labourers by the fact of their whiteness.

• Packer concludes that Obama was leaving the country "more divided and angrier than most Americans can remember", a statement that is likely true only because most Americans identify as white. Certainly the men and women forced to live in the wake of the beating of John Lewis, the lynching of Emmett Till, the firebombing of Percy Julian's home, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers would disagree.

• The triumph of Trump's campaign of bigotry presented the problematic spectacle of an American President succeeding at best in spite of his racism and possibly because of it. Trump moved racism from the euphemistic and plausibly deniable to the overt and freely claimed.

• The implications — that systemic bigotry is still central to our politics; that the country is susceptible to such bigotry; that the salt-of-the-earth Americans whom we lionise in our culture and politics are not so different from those same Americans who grin back at us in lynching photos — were just too dark.

• Incorporating all of this into an analysis of America and the path forward proved too much to ask. Instead, the response has largely been an argument aimed at emotion — the summoning of the white working class, emblem of America's hardscrabble roots, inheritor of its pioneer spirit, as a shield against the horrific and empirical evidence of trenchant bigotry.

• The inference is that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to speak on hard economic issues and prefers discussing presumably softer cultural issues such as "diversity". It's worth unpacking what, precisely, falls under this rubric of "diversity" — resistance to the monstrous incarceration of legions of black men, resistance to the destruction of health providers for poor women, resistance to the effort to deport parents, resistance to a policing whose sole legitimacy is rooted in brute force, resistance to a theory of education that preaches "no excuses" to black and brown children, even as excuses are proffered for mendacious corporate executives "too big to jail".

• The first black President found that he was personally toxic to the GOP base. It was thought by Obama and some of his allies that this toxicity was the result of a relentless assault waged by Fox News and right-wing talk radio. Trump's genius was to see that it was something more, that it was a hunger for revanche so strong that a political novice and accused rapist could topple the leadership of one major party and throttle the heavily favoured nominee of the other.

• Trump, more than any other politician, understood the valence of the bloody heirloom and the great power in not being a nigger.

• In a recent 'New Yorker' article, a former Russian military officer pointed out that interference in an election could succeed only where "necessary conditions" and an "existing background" were present. In America, that "existing background" was a persistent racism, and the "necessary condition" was a black President.

• And so the most powerful country in the world has handed over all its affairs — the prosperity of its entire economy; the security of its 300 million citizens; the purity of its water, the viability of its air, the safety of its food; the future of its vast system of education; the soundness of its national highways, airways, and railways; the apocalyptic potential of its nuclear arsenal — to a carnival barker who introduced the phrase "grab 'em by the pussy" into the national lexicon. It is as if the white tribe united in demonstration to say, "If a black man can be President, then any white man — no matter how fallen — can be President". And in that perverse way, the democratic dreams of Jefferson and Jackson were fulfilled.

• Trump's legacy will be exposing the patina of decency for what it is and revealing just how much a demagogue can get away with. It does not take much to imagine another politician, wiser in the ways of Washington and better schooled in the methodology of governance — and now liberated from the pretence of anti-racist civility — doing a much more effective job than Trump.

18 June 2016

America: Stupidity + Ignorance + Racism = Donald Trump

Donald Trump is a real-estate tycoon with zero political experience. His campaign has been a series of stupid, ignorant and racist statements. Now he is the Presidential candidate of one of America's two political parties. He is one step away from becoming the leader of the world's most powerful country. How did this happen?

The core ingredients of Donald Trump's campaign are:
1. Stupidity + Ignorance
2. White Racism
3. Anti-Immigration
4. Anti-Globalisation
5. Christian Fundamentalism

1. Stupidity + Ignorance

In any industrialised country, this is an automatic disqualification for politics - especially for the highest office of the land. Not in America. Why? Because Americans are the perhaps the most ignorant people among the industrialised countries. How? How can the world's most technologically and economically advanced country be the most ignorant (among its industrialised peers)?

America is the world's most techno-economically advanced country due to its scientists, engineers and managers. These are the most intelligent and knowledgeable people in the world. But they are just 1% of the country. The remaining 99% of the people (factory workers, shopkeepers, clerks, etc) are stupid and ignorant. This is due to history and geography. First, America has no history to speak of - it was born only in 1600. Second, it is cut off from the world by two oceans. Third, its population is small compared to its area. So half of Americans live in 'small towns' (actually villages) which are far from one another.

So in America, stupidity and ignorance is not a disqualification for politics - even for the highest office in the land. It can even be a qualification due to the "He is one of us" factor. Example: George W Bush.

2. White Racism

Today's America was born in 1600 - when white Europeans started going there, exterminating the natives and stealing their land. This wasn't enough. They also started 'importing' Africans and using them as slaves. This slavery went on for almost 250 years. In 1865 they stopped slavery - but didn't accept blacks as citizens. They kept blacks as non-citizens for another 100 years. Only in 1964 did blacks become citizens. So racism is deeply embedded in America's DNA.

In 1968, the Republican Party became the party of racist whites. Since then it has carried on a campaign of racist propaganda. Over half a century, this has kept racism alive in America. Enter Donald Trump with his explicit racism. Previously, Republican Party leaders (like Nixon and Reagan) were implicit in their racism. Explicit racism is a disqualification, you may think. It is not. Republican Party voters embraced Trump hysterically.

When Trump launched his campaign, the violent white racist group Ku Klux Klan (infamous for killing blacks) declared its support for him. America was horrified. Even Republican Party leaders were embarrassed by this open display of racism. They called upon Trump to denounce Ku Klux Klan and distance himself from it. Trump did nothing of the sort.

Trump's campaign slogan is "Make America great again". It means "Make America white again".

3. Anti-Immigration

This is Trump's - well - trump card. After dominating America's politics for almost half a century, the Republican Party lost two Presidential elections in a row in 2008 and 2012. The reason was simple. Racist whites voted for the Republican Party. Non-racist whites, blacks and Latinos/Hispanics voted for the Democratic Party. Republican Party leaders did a lot of head-scratching. They came up with the solution: To win, all they had to do was somehow get the Latino vote. And how to do this? Simple: 'immigration reform' - ie, give citizenship to all the illegal Mexican immigrants.

There was just one problem. For half a century, the Republican Party had taught its voters to hate all non-whites - which is not just blacks but also Latinos. Now these voters exploded with rage. Enter Donald Trump with his solidly anti-immigration campaign. He had launched his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants as 'rapists' and 'drug-dealers'. Again, Republican Party voters embraced him hysterically.

America has 1 crore illegal Mexican immigrants. They do low-paying jobs that whites are not willing to do. Without them, many sectors of the American economy will collapse. Trump says he will deport all of them. He says he will build a wall along America's 3,000 km border with Mexico. This will cost $25 billion, but he says he will make Mexico pay for it. How? Only he knows.

4. Anti-Globalisation

Starting with the Industrial Revolution, transportation and communication technology advanced - and helped to connect all the different parts of the world together. This process accelerated after World War 2. People, goods, services, money and information started flowing freely all across the world. The world was 'becoming one'. This process is called globalisation.

Before globalisation, products were made in the place where they were sold. The 20th century was a honeymoon period for America. Being the largest Western country, it had the largest market in the world. American industry boomed and Americans prospered. With just a high school education, lakhs of lower class whites got a job as a worker in the local factory - and lived a middle class life (house + car). This was the American Dream.

After globalisation, products could be made anywhere in the world. Industry's aim is to maximise profits. The best way to maximise profits is to minimise cost. And a major cost is workers' wages. So the best way to maximise profits is to produce in a place where the wages are lowest - ie, poor countries. So multi-national companies started moving their factories from rich countries to poor countries. Specifically, America's factories started moving to China.

As a consequence, America's factory workers - ie, lower class whites - started losing their jobs. Their American Dream became a nightmare. With just a high school education, they could get only low-skilled and low-paying jobs. Today they are angry - very, very angry. Enter Donald Trump saying he will reverse all this and 'bring the jobs back from China'. Lower class whites embraced him hysterically.

What Trump says is impossible. You don't need a PhD in economics to know this. A minimum knowledge of today's world is enough. Yet a large number of Americans believe Trump and support him. Why? See point #1.

5. Christian Fundamentalism

Donald Trump has appealed to Christian fundamentalists also, even though this is not his strong point. He said his favourite book is the Bible. But when asked for his favourite verse, he didn't have an answer. In spite of this, Christian fundamentalists have also embraced him enthusiastically.

17 June 2016

Republican Party: Racism, Christian Fundamentalism and Plutocracy

In 1964, America's President Lyndon Johnson (of the Democratic Party) passed the Civil Rights Act giving equal rights to blacks. This enraged racist whites. In 1968, Republican Party leader Richard Nixon appealed to these whites and won the Presidential election. Since then, whites have been voting more for the Republican Party. It effectively became the party of the whites.

White voting in Presidential elections:

In 1980, Ronald Reagan combined the Republican Party's white racism with one more element: Christian fundamentalism. He appealed to Christian fundamentalists and won their support. He also did something else that was perhaps even more important. He made the Republican Party the party of the rich by adopting their agenda – which was mainly cutting their taxes. In a democracy, a political party has to work for the good of the majority of the people. Under Reagan, the Republican Party started working for the good of only the 1% rich. Thus it became a plutocratic party – and America became a plutocracy.

So the Republican Party became an alliance of the rich and racist-fundamentalist whites. But this was an unnatural alliance. Today 65% of America is white. In this, only 1% are rich. The remaining 65–1=64% are middle class and lower class. What do these people want from the government? They want welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Now these programs cost money. Where will the money come from? Obviously, from high taxes on the rich. But the aim of the rich is to minimise (not maximise) their taxes. Thus there is a fundamental contradiction in this alliance of the Republican Party.

Yet this strategy was extremely successful. From 1968 to 2007, the Republican Party won 7 out of 10 Presidential elections. How was this possible? Simple. The Republican Party pursued the economic agenda of the rich – ie, cuts in the top tax rate. This went against the economic agenda of the middle class and lower class whites – ie, more money for welfare programs. Yet the Republican Party got those people's votes. How? It diverted their attention from their economic agenda by pursuing their 'cultural' agenda – ie, white racism and Christian fundamentalism. Thus the strategy succeeded brilliantly for almost four decades.

So that is the ideology of the Republican Party – plutocracy combined with white racism and Christian fundamentalism. The rise of Donald Trump is nothing but the direct outcome of this process.

10 June 2016

America: Conservatism, Christian Fundamentalism and Racism

For almost 250 years, there was something called 'American Conservatism'. It stood for small government, low taxes and free trade. And for around 150 years, it was the ideology of the Republican Party.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan made a cynical alliance with Christian fundamentalism to increase the power of the Republican Party. A bizarre cocktail of political conservatism and Christian fundamentalism became the new ideology of the Republican Party.

But there was one more, older, ingredient. In 1968, Richard Nixon had shaken hands with another devil – white racism. The undercurrent of racism has been flowing beneath the conservatism and Christian fundamentalism of the Republican Party since then.

Today the chickens have come home to roost. The expedient add-on has ended up becoming the main engine. For the first time in America's 240-year history, a blatant racist has been elected as the Presidential candidate of one of its two parties. With the triumph of Donald Trump, white racism has now become the official ideology of the Republican Party.

What happens to the other two ingredients? Christian fundamentalism is perfectly compatible with white racism. So it will continue as a co-ideology. But the political/economic plank of Trumpism – ie, the real plank – is big government, high taxes and isolationism. This is nothing but the anti-thesis of conservatism.

So American conservatism is dead and buried. RIP.

03 June 2016

America, Racism and Donald Trump

Q: Why have Americans elected a blatant racist as their Presidential candidate?
A: Demographics.
Year
Population
Whites
Blacks
Latinos
Asians
1900
88%
12%
1%
0%
1910
88%
11%
1%
0%
1920
88%
10%
1%
0%
1930
88%
10%
1%
0%
1940
88%
10%
2%
0%
1950
88%
10%
2%
0%
1960
85%
11%
3%
1%
1970
84%
11%
4%
1%
1980
80%
12%
6%
2%
1990
76%
12%
9%
3%
2000
69%
12%
12%
4%
2010
64%
13%
16%
5%


Till 1950, America was almost 90% white. After 1950, other groups (Blacks, Latinos, Asians) started increasing in size slowly. This process accelerated after 1990 – especially with the Latinos/Hispanics. Today, whites are only 64% of America. What is even more important is the trend. If current population growth rates continue:


In 2050, non-whites will outnumber whites. Whites will still be the largest group, but they will no longer be the majority. (The US Census Bureau officially announced this last year)

So this is the #1 reason behind the rise of Donald Trump: the fear of the whites of being reduced to a minority in their 'own' country – ie, racism.

05 May 2016

20 March 2016

CIA Plot To Assassinate Donald Trump

In an exclusive interview to The Times Of India, a highly placed source in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has revealed that the Agency has prepared a top secret plan to assassinate Mr Donald Trump if he wins the Presidential election in November.

CIA: Our mission is to ensure that the United States remains the most powerful country in the world - technologically, economically and militarily. And we will use any means necessary to achieve this objective. Right now the number one threat to America is a Donald Trump Presidency. So we have a contingency plan to deal with that situation if it arises.
TOI: What contingency plan?
CIA: We will take him out.
TOI: Take him out? To dinner?
CIA: I mean we will neutralise him.
TOI: Castrate him? Why?
CIA: Not neuter, you idiot - neutralise. We will eliminate him.
TOI: You mean kill?
CIA: Yes.
TOI: Who made this decision? Who gave you this order?
CIA: The President, the CIA Director, the Vice President, the 15 Cabinet Secretaries, the 100 Senators, the 435 Congressmen, the 9 Supreme Court judges - and Kim Kardashian.
TOI: Do you have this order in writing?
CIA: Writing? What's that?
TOI: When was this decision taken?
CIA: Feb 10 - the day after Trump won his first primary (New Hampshire).
TOI: And assuming he wins the election, when will you take him out?
CIA: At the swearing in ceremony.
TOI: Exactly how will you do it?
CIA: As I speak, a crack team of Arab terrorists are being trained for the operation.
TOI: Arab terrorists?
CIA: Yes.
TOI: How on earth did you manage to recruit Arab terrorists?
CIA: We told them we are the Islamic State.
TOI: And they believed you?
CIA: Yes.
TOI: Where are they being trained?
CIA: In Area 51.
TOI: Area 51? And they still think you are the Islamic State?
CIA: We told them Area 51 has become part of the Caliphate.
TOI: OK... but isn't all this illegal?
CIA: Of course it is. That's why we're doing it. If it was legal, the Bureau (FBI) would do it.
TOI: What about the moral side of it?
CIA: This is the only moral thing the Agency has done in its entire history.
TOI: How can murder be moral?
CIA: America is bigger than one man.
TOI: This is not just any man. This is your President.
CIA: America is bigger than the President too. Especially if he's a moron like Trump.
TOI: If Arab terrorists kill America's President, there will be consequences.
CIA: Like?
TOI: Americans will demand action against Arabs.
CIA: Of course. And we have a plan for that too.
TOI: What plan?
CIA: We are going to invade all the Arab countries.
TOI: What?! But that will start World War 3!
CIA: Exactly.
TOI: Why on earth would you want to do that?
CIA: It's the only way to revive our economy. We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. And how did we get out of that one?
TOI: President Franklin Roosevelt's 'New Deal' program.
CIA: Wrong. Only illiterates believe that. Economists know the truth: The only reason we got out of the Great Depression was World War 2.
TOI: So...
CIA: So World War 3 will kickstart our military-industrial complex (again) and finally we'll have all the jobs that we need.
TOI: So your plan of removing Mr Trump will not only prevent America from becoming a basketcase, but in fact will make it even more powerful!
CIA: Absolutely.
TOI: That's brilliant!
CIA: Thank you.

09 March 2016

Donald Trump, America and Globalisation

The 2008 American Financial Crisis was mainly due to the Republicans' screwing up the economy from 2000 to 2008. So in 2008 and 2012, Americans voted for a Democrat (Barack Obama) as President.

Today - 8 years after the Crisis - Americans are still in a bad shape. Unemployment is high and wages are low. So now they are asking: Is the problem something else? Is it something bigger, deeper and more fundamental? Their manufacturing jobs have gone to China. This is due to free trade. Their service jobs have gone to the Mexicans. This is due to immigration. And what is free trade plus immigration? Globalisation.

So this Presidential election is nothing but a revolt against globalisation - on both Left and Right. On the left, Democrats are coming out for the anti-globalisation Bernie Sanders - forcing Hillary Clinton to move further to the left. And on the right, Republicans are coming out for the anti-globalisation Donald Trump - making him the frontrunner. (The only difference between Sanders and Trump is that Trump is also a racist)

16 years into the 21st century, the people of the world's largest economy - and the Holy Land of capitalism - are revolting against globalisation. What does this mean for the future of America - and the world?

05 November 2008

President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama.
Say it out loud.
Then look at the man's face.
This is not some Hollywood movie.
This is the real world.
Take a deep breath.
Let it sink in.

Yes, it has really happened.

06 June 2008

McCain Vs Obama

Who will win the US Presidential elections in November? Most people look at the national polls for the answer. But America does not elect its President by a nation-wide general election. It instead follows a state-wise "electoral college" system. So for the answer to our question we must look at the state-level polls. If the elections were held today, the results would look like this:

StateVotesMcCainObama
Alabama95833
Alaska35041
Arizona105138
Arkansas65733
California553852
Colorado94248
Connecticut74447
District of Columbia3nana
Delaware34150
Florida274740
Georgia155440
Hawaii43161
Idaho45239
Illinois213160
Indiana115143
Iowa74246
Kansas65237
Kentucky85732
Louisiana95041
Maine43851
Maryland103751
Massachusetts123950
Michigan174339
Minnesota103951
Mississippi65044
Missouri114744
Montana34843
Nebraska54940
Nevada54640
New Hampshire44543
New Jersey154148
New Mexico54346
New York313850
North Carolina154541
North Dakota34438
Ohio20 4344
Oklahoma76221
Oregon73951
Pennsylvania214146
Rhode Island43853
South Carolina84845
South Dakota35134
Tennessee115831
Texas345237
Utah55039
Vermont32963
Virginia134643
Washington113951
West Virginia55335
Wisconsin104346
Wyoming35340

'Votes' = how many electoral votes the state is worth
'McCain' = % of people in the state voting for John McCain
'Obama' = % of people in the state voting for Barack Obama


Here is how it works. All the electoral votes of a state are awarded to the candidate who wins that state. There is no proportional distribution – it's a 'winner takes all' system*. There are totally 538 electoral votes at stake. To win, a candidate must bag at least 270 electoral votes. As per this table the winner is Barack Obama, but only by a whisker – 272 to 266.

That's not the only thing close about it. Look at Ohio, which is worth 20 electoral votes. Obama is barely winning it (44% to 43%). If those 20 electoral votes go the other way, the winner will be John McCain – 286 to 252. And it's not just about Ohio. In 25 states the 'winning' candidate is ahead by less than 10%. That lead could disappear in the next 5 months. So all these 25 states are "in play". Together they are worth 240 electoral votes. That means anything can happen on November 4th!

PS: Markos Moulitsas (aka Kos) has done a similar analysis. He has chosen the poll numbers in a slightly different way, and hence has arrived at a slightly different result.

*There are two minor exceptions to this rule (Maine and Nebraska).

13 May 2008

The Vice President

Now that it's more or less settled that it will be a McCain vs Obama showdown in November, attention has shifted to who will be the vice presidential candidates. Salon magazine has an interesting quiz for readers to 'pick' the running mates for McCain and Obama. Accordingly the top 3 picks are...

For John McCain
My picks:
1. Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota)
2. Fred Thompson (Senator from Tennessee)
3. Wayne Allard (Senator from Colorado)
Salon readers' picks:
1. Colin Powell (we know this guy)
2. Tim Pawlenty (see above)
3. Mike Huckabee (former Governor of Arkansas)

For Barack Obama
My picks:
1. Kathleen Sebelius (Governor of Kansas)
2. Ted Strickland (Governor of Ohio)
3. Chris Dodd (Senator from Connecticut)
Salon readers' picks:
1. Jim Webb (Senator from Virginia)
2. Wesley Clark (former General)
3. Kathleen Sebelius (see above)

For both candidates my second and third picks are way off mark. But my first picks seem to be close to the bull's eye :-)

PS: I have been following the US presidential primaries closely, and have been tempted a lot to blog about it. But I remembered this rap on my knuckles and decided to restrain myself ;-)

28 March 2008

September 11th

The chickens have come home to roost.
What goes around comes around.
As you sow, so you reap.

These were the lines that went around in my head on the evening of 11th September 2001, as I listened to the news on my radio in Delhi. A black preacher in Chicago called Jeremiah Wright apparently agreed with me. Five days later he delivered a sermon in which he said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." Why is this of any consequence? Because one of the members of Rev Wright's church is a man called Barack Obama. Yeah, you get the picture...

Americans are – incredibly – still not ready to accept that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a direct consequence of their country's actions. It all began in 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. A Muslim country attacked by a non-Muslim country – this was jihad (holy war). Muslims all over the world responded to the call. Moroccans, Egyptians, Saudis, Pakistanis – all came to Afghanistan to fight the infidel invader. The US was quick to seize the opportunity. The CIA funded, armed and trained these mujahideen (holy warriors). Your enemy's enemy is your friend. Besides, religion was a natural ally in the fight against Communism. They were using Christianity in Eastern Europe (Pope John Paul II was Polish). Why not use Islam in Central Asia?

In 1989 the Soviet Union finally accepted defeat and left Afghanistan. The mujahideen were jubilant. They had humbled a superpower. What were they to do now? With all their money, arms and training? Well, they could humble the other superpower too. One of them, a rich Saudi named Osama bin Laden, decided to do exactly this. With another mujahid, Dr Ayman al Zawahiri from Egypt, he formed a group called Al Qaeda ("The Base") and declared war on America. If you feed a serpent, it's only a matter of time before the serpent bites you. On 11th September 2001, the serpent bit the hand that had fed it. The tragedy was that 3000 innocent Americans paid with their lives for their government's short-sighted foreign policy.

22 December 2006

Tying Up Loose Ends

I don't have anything new to write about today. I was just going through my old postings and saw that I have two corrections to make.

First is the one about Red/Blue states. Turns out my long thesis was unnecessary. I searched a little more and found a simpler and more direct explanation. All one has to do is look at the county-level (not state-level) electoral map. The picture is truly astounding - instead of Red or Blue states, what you have is a sea of Red and some Blue dots here and there! Those dots are, of course, the big cities of USA: New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. The 'Blue' states happen to be Blue because their big city population outnumbers that of the rest of the state. The 'Red' states are states in which this does not happen. For more details (and a passionate argument for liberal/urban politics) click here.

The other is the one about the India-US nuclear deal. I said,"The N-deal is as good as dead" when the Dems won the House and the Senate. Well, time for me to eat my words. The N-deal was passed on the Hill (with overwhelming bi-partisan support) and signed by Prez Bush into law, thank you very much. This subject received a lot of coverage in the Indian media, especially the Indian Express. I somehow never took much interest in it; I don't know why. How important is this deal for us really? What it basically means is that we'll now have fuel for our reactors from the US (and other countries in the NSG). Fine. But what percentage of India's energy needs can be met by nuclear power? I don't have any numbers, but I don't think it will be much. Nuclear energy will be just one of the many sources we have to tap if we want to satisfy our growing hunger for power.

10 November 2006

A Vote For Change

I missed the action on Wednesday as I was attending a friend's wedding in Mysore. I came home late in the evening and switched on the TV to see the news: Democrats had taken the House (as expected), and the Senate was in the balance. Next day brought more good news: the Senate was in the bag as well (surprise!), and Rumsfeld was gone (too little, too late). Of course from India's point of view, it wasn't good news. The nuclear deal is now as good as dead. The irony is that while Bush was bad for America and the world, he was good for India.

The woman of the moment is Nancy Pelosi. She may be a she-dragon, but even her critics admire the way she has led her party of "wimps" to an emphatic victory. And finally, after 230 years, America has a woman Speaker.

30 October 2006

Limbaugh Vs Fox

Rush Limbaugh made some politically incorrect comments about Michael J Fox's appearance in a TV ad (for a pro-stem cell research Democratic candidate) and everybody went ballistic. Even the Republicans were too embarrassed to defend Limbaugh.

For once I think I am on the side of the much-maligned conservatives. Fox's movements do appear a little exagerrated. I remember seeing Mohammed Ali at an Oscar ceremony, and his tremors weren't even 10% of Fox's.

But Limbaugh should have been more civilised in his criticism. Just a suggestion that Fox might have been exagerrating would have done. But then he wouldn't be Rush Limbaugh, would he?

20 October 2006

Red States and Blue States

This is a subject I've been reading and thinking a lot about lately. The key to understanding US politics, especially Presidential elections, is the division of the country into two halves: the Republican (red) and the Democrat (blue). Pages upon pages can be written analysing this phenomenon. Here I will confine myself to some basic numbers. (Most of them are approximate)

First, out of the 50 states, the Blue: Red division is 20:30. Population wise, the division is less skewed - 48%:50%, with the Reds having a slight edge. These translate into an electoral-votes ratio of 250:275. [The exact figures are: out of the 51 states (including District of Columbia) the blue: red ratio is 19:29. Three are 'purple' states - Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico. These 3 changed their colours in the 2004 polls and account for the missing 2% population you are wondering about]

A small note here - I was under the impression that America was majority Blue, but due to the screwed-up electoral college system, the Reds end up winning. I was wrong. While it's true that many Red states are sparsely populated, there are also some very small Blue states (in the north east). So, ladies and gentlemen, the rednecks are not a minority. They represent mainstream America. It's the liberals who are the minorty. They are confined to 3 pockets: the North East (12 states), the West Coast (3 states) and the Great Lakes (4 states).

On with our analysis. So the question arises: what decides if a state is Blue or Red? There are many factors, but one that almost everybody mentions is the urban/rural divide. The Blue states are supposed to be largely urban/industrial, and the Red states are supposed to be largely rural/agricultural. I decided to put this theory to the test. I tried to see if a state's Blueness/Redness is linked to its degree of urbanisation. I got the data for the states' urbanisation from the 1990 US census and voila!

[A caveat here: 'rural' does not mean the state is less than 50% urban. That way we'll get nowhere. We must remember that the US is a developed country with 75% of its people living in urban areas. Once we define an urban state as a state whose urbanisation is 70% or more, we can make some progress]

1. About half of America's states are urban (urbanisation is 70% or more). Among these the Blue: Red split is 16:7. So an urban state is twice more likely to be Blue than Red. If we look at the top 20 most urbanised states, the split is 12:7. Yes, the Blues' advantage has gone down. But the 12 states left are comfortably Blue with an average victory margin of 15% (The margin for each state will be the average of the margins in the 2000 and 2004 polls). Whereas out of the 7 Red states, 3 look shaky - with margins of less than 4%. Two of these are large states: Florida and Ohio. So in the 20 most urbanised states, only 4 are comfortably Red. Two of these deserve special mention: Utah and Texas - they have urbanisation rates of 87% and 80%, and Red victory margins of 42% and 22% respectively! How could such highly urbanised states be so heavily Red? The simplistic answers are Mormonism and George W Bush, respectively.

2. Now let's look at the rural states (urbanisation is less than 70%). These are 27 in number, and the Blue: Red split is 3:22! No contest there. And the 22 states are comfortably Red, with an average victory margin of 19.5%.

That ends our little investigation. The hope is that as urbanisation increases, more states will turn Blue. Till then, the strategy for the Democrats remains the same: attack Florida and Ohio, and hold Pennsylvania and Michigan! :-)

16 October 2006

End of a Revolution

There seems to be no end to the Republicans' woes. Iraq, the economy, corruption scandals - and now Foleygate. The biggest albatross around their neck is the President himself, with approval ratings of below 40%. Seen as the main vote getter for the party just 2 years ago, he will take much of the blame if the Republicans do badly in November.

TIME magazine's cover story this week talks about the end of the revolution of 1994 (when Republicans siezed control of the House of Representatives after 40 years of Democratic domination). "Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when clinging to power is the only idea left." Wow! It seems to be an original line. Click here for the article.