I was speculating provocatively! And at best prematurely.
What is clear is that Harris’s message did portray Trump as a danger to democracy and that lost.
Yeah, okay, but there's a salience and credibility problem here isn't there. A lot of people aren't going to hear this message, or will dismiss this because it's the kind of thing that politicians say - it's also the kind of thing people said when he was being voted in the first time (and they know the sky didn't fall in the previous time).
For voters with longer memories, it's also the kind of thing the same people said about Bush, and now they are all friends with him, so maybe they figure there's an element of kayfabe here.
Also, they figure that if he had done something really bad the courts would have put him in jail, but he doesn't appear to be in jail.
Obviously there's the other issue of genuinely radicalised voters which I don't want to dismiss, but as I said the best predictor of how someone voted, was how they voted before, and there's research to suggest that outside things like abortion and gun rights, culture war issues don't actually have much salience in how people vote.
Many of the Americans I know treat the British royalty as something quaint that they admire about Britain, something to come and see (or, rather, to see their palaces and stuff). But, definitely not something they want in their own nation. I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties (it would also make it difficult for a Kennedy to return to the White House, even if they weren't bat-shit crazy), though whether that ever was the case or just what a couple of friends said I'll happily be corrected on (but, even if it's a minority view present in some States given the current political situation that can be more than enough to be the difference between winning the Presidential election and losing it).
Supposed distrust of dynasties didn't prevent the election of Bush Unræd, nor does it appear to have been a significant factor in HRC's defeat.
Well, the friends I'd been chatting too were citing Bush as an example of why it's a bad idea, someone riding the coat tails of someone else when they lack the ability to stand on their own.
The blessings of constitutional monarchy have always fallen on deaf ears in the Lost Provinces
OTOH, arbitrary and indefinite rule by a German-Scottish Presbyterian with extensive land holdings isn't too far off the mark. Doesn't seem too big on the "constitutional" part, though.
He was a Presbyterian, but has specifically stated he is not anymore.
Thousands of federal probationary workers were fired today. As many as 200,000 probationary workers can be fired before it is all over. There is very little right of appeal for these workers.
As an aside; there are some branches of federal government which for various budgetary and other reasons find it hard to move on permanent employment (ironically the VA is one), so it's not unusual for people to spend one or two years on 'probation' before the bureaucratic wheels turn to make them permanent. So this is basically equivalent to firing your last two years cohort (so all sorts of knock on impacts on staff shortages years into the future).
It should also be noted that transferring between departments within the federal government will involve a period of probationary employment, even for workers with a lot of seniority elsewhere within the federal government. For example, someone who worked in the Department of Defense for twenty years and then transferred to a position in the Veteran's Administration would spend their first year or two as a probationary worker.
I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties
American politics is rife with nepotism and dynasties - much more so than UK politics. Trump, of course, is intent on running the federal administration like a branch of his family business, and his first instinct when an opening appears is to see which member of his extended family would slot in to it.
Bush père et fils were both presidents, of course; W's brother Jeb was Governor of Florida and ran for the presidency, and grandpa Prescott was a Senator. You've mentioned the Kennedys.
Many state governments are riddled with members of particular families.
I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties
American politics is rife with nepotism and dynasties - much more so than UK politics.
This is one of those very 'citation needed' moments, there is plenty of nepotism (and some dynasties) in UK politics, it just tends to be shaped somewhat differently and discussed far less.
I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties
American politics is rife with nepotism and dynasties - much more so than UK politics.
This is one of those very 'citation needed' moments, there is plenty of nepotism (and some dynasties) in UK politics, it just tends to be shaped somewhat differently and discussed far less.
The blessings of constitutional monarchy have always fallen on deaf ears in the Lost Provinces
OTOH, arbitrary and indefinite rule by a German-Scottish Presbyterian with extensive land holdings isn't too far off the mark. Doesn't seem too big on the "constitutional" part, though.
He was a Presbyterian, but has specifically stated he is not anymore.
Yeah, I think he's officially joined the ecclesiastical institution run by Paula White, who has declared him "...my son, in whom I am well pleased".
I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties
American politics is rife with nepotism and dynasties - much more so than UK politics.
This is one of those very 'citation needed' moments, there is plenty of nepotism (and some dynasties) in UK politics, it just tends to be shaped somewhat differently and discussed far less.
For Canada, I can think of about a dozen political dynasties off the top of my head. Most of them didn't involve the exact same job, though a couple(eg. the Trudeaus) did.
When Trump was campaigning, he promised he would take care of the veterans. Well, the one group that is most impacted by these firings is the veterans. 30% of the federal work force are veterans compared to 2% of the civilian work force are veterans.
Well, about 65% of veterans were stupid enough to vote for him, so...
There are some folks I'm in contact with who seem to desire to throw every single needy person off of welfare until they can get every veteran's needs met, which necessarily means cutting the entire social welfare state to make room for veteran's needs.
It kinda puts a rot into the heart of the word "sacrifice." There isn't a polite word for the practice of saying you're "sacrificing" for someone else and then calling it in as a debt, especially when your "sacrifice" was technically a paid job.
And I suspect those are the sorts who supported Ill Douche, selfishly. Veterans are one of those categories of "needy" that can still pull on the heartstrings of otherwise calloused assholes, so I was wondering if this administration was actually going to shift some pork that way. I guess I should be happy for them if it happened, because God knows this country does not pay any of its debts, and those are included and for all of my kvetching, those debts are real.
But I guess not. The face-eating leopards strike again, to use what is now a well-aged internet joke.
Many of the Americans I know treat the British royalty as something quaint that they admire about Britain, something to come and see (or, rather, to see their palaces and stuff). But, definitely not something they want in their own nation. I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties (it would also make it difficult for a Kennedy to return to the White House, even if they weren't bat-shit crazy), though whether that ever was the case or just what a couple of friends said I'll happily be corrected on (but, even if it's a minority view present in some States given the current political situation that can be more than enough to be the difference between winning the Presidential election and losing it).
Supposed distrust of dynasties didn't prevent the election of Bush Unræd, nor does it appear to have been a significant factor in HRC's defeat.
Name recognition is a very powerful force in electoral politics, to my continual horror.
I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties
American politics is rife with nepotism and dynasties - much more so than UK politics.
This is one of those very 'citation needed' moments, there is plenty of nepotism (and some dynasties) in UK politics, it just tends to be shaped somewhat differently and discussed far less.
Agree. And for all everyone knows Nicholas Soames is Churchill’s grandson (because the papers never missed an opportunity to tell us) I would be entirely unsurprised if it turned out to be more of a thing in the Labour Party than elsewhere. Someone did a very good web last year of who in the new govt was married to whom/son/daughter of/best man at wedding etc.
Red princes are a thing in the UK - to an extent that I genuinely think would be a line of attack against the Tories if they tried it in anything like the same volume as seems to be fine in a certain column of Labour.
Though I’ll admit that ‘Bonham Carter doesn’t vote Liberal. Shock.’ Is still a gossip item in the right circles. My favourite example is I think Helena Bonham Carter’s father apologising to Bill Deedes (legendary former editor of the Daily Telegraph, Tory MP, and the model for William Boot in Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop - yes he lived to a very old age) in the early 2000s when he went to interview them… something like ‘I always admired you but naturally we take The Times….’
Maybe someone should tell Musk and his DOGE-boys about this.
Secretary Kristi Noem
Tonight, I’m announcing a nationwide and international multimillion-dollar ad campaign warning illegal aliens to leave our country NOW or face deportation with the inability to return to the US. This serves as a strong warning to criminal illegal aliens to not come to America. If they do, they will be hunted down and deported.
Thank you @realdonaldtrump for securing our border and putting America first.
Who knew that the key to stopping immigrants from coming to the U.S. without the right paperwork was simply making a bunch of ads? I'm sure that will fix everything!
I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties
American politics is rife with nepotism and dynasties - much more so than UK politics.
This is one of those very 'citation needed' moments, there is plenty of nepotism (and some dynasties) in UK politics, it just tends to be shaped somewhat differently and discussed far less.
Agree. And for all everyone knows Nicholas Soames is Churchill’s grandson (because the papers never missed an opportunity to tell us)
There is a certain scale though, Churchill looms large in the British psyche - and Soames wasn't beyond playing up the connection himself. The closest analogue I can think of on the other side would be Hilary Benn, whose father wasn't nearly as notable.
Red princes are a thing in the UK - to an extent that I genuinely think would be a line of attack against the Tories if they tried it in anything like the same volume as seems to be fine in a certain column of Labour.
To an extent, and only because non-political nepotism on the Tory side is somewhat priced in. An aristocratic connection on the Tory side is less likely to draw comment than the son/daughter/sibling of a politician on the Labour side. And Rory Stewart's family background came in for less comment than - say - Emily Thornberry's Knighthood via marriage.
Many of the Americans I know treat the British royalty as something quaint that they admire about Britain, something to come and see (or, rather, to see their palaces and stuff). But, definitely not something they want in their own nation. I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties (it would also make it difficult for a Kennedy to return to the White House, even if they weren't bat-shit crazy), though whether that ever was the case or just what a couple of friends said I'll happily be corrected on (but, even if it's a minority view present in some States given the current political situation that can be more than enough to be the difference between winning the Presidential election and losing it).
Supposed distrust of dynasties didn't prevent the election of Bush Unræd, nor does it appear to have been a significant factor in HRC's defeat.
Name recognition is a very powerful force in electoral politics, to my continual horror.
I think there has been somewhat of a shift over time. The previous imperial archetype of the old East Coast family, Protestant, Ivy League Big Three, very strict and correct, and as ruthless as necessary - think Dulles brothers, Harriman, Kennan and the Bushes - aren't really seen in the same light any more, or tend not to go into politics. In terms of 'dynasties' the Clintons et. al don't really have the same depth.
Many of the Americans I know treat the British royalty as something quaint that they admire about Britain, something to come and see (or, rather, to see their palaces and stuff). But, definitely not something they want in their own nation. I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties (it would also make it difficult for a Kennedy to return to the White House, even if they weren't bat-shit crazy), though whether that ever was the case or just what a couple of friends said I'll happily be corrected on (but, even if it's a minority view present in some States given the current political situation that can be more than enough to be the difference between winning the Presidential election and losing it).
Supposed distrust of dynasties didn't prevent the election of Bush Unræd, nor does it appear to have been a significant factor in HRC's defeat.
Name recognition is a very powerful force in electoral politics, to my continual horror.
I think there has been somewhat of a shift over time. The previous imperial archetype of the old East Coast family, Protestant, Ivy League Big Three, very strict and correct, and as ruthless as necessary - think Dulles brothers, Harriman, Kennan and the Bushes - aren't really seen in the same light any more, or tend not to go into politics. In terms of 'dynasties' the Clintons et. al don't really have the same depth.
Chicago has the Daleys, and so far the longest-running mayor in our history was the son of the famous one. His tenure ended in the aughts, not too long after we'd moved into town. And I think I still see the last name pop up in mayoral races ever since.
That said, yeah. I think political machines are generally not as robust as they used to be. and they held out here longer than in many places. Though it looks like the GOP is now in the process of trying to set up a new one.
I know a few who many years ago when it was suggested that Michelle Obama should stand declared that she wouldn't have a chance because many Americans have a distrust of dynasties
American politics is rife with nepotism and dynasties - much more so than UK politics.
This is one of those very 'citation needed' moments, there is plenty of nepotism (and some dynasties) in UK politics, it just tends to be shaped somewhat differently and discussed far less.
Agree. And for all everyone knows Nicholas Soames is Churchill’s grandson (because the papers never missed an opportunity to tell us) I would be entirely unsurprised if it turned out to be more of a thing in the Labour Party than elsewhere. Someone did a very good web last year of who in the new govt was married to whom/son/daughter of/best man at wedding etc.
Red princes are a thing in the UK - to an extent that I genuinely think would be a line of attack against the Tories if they tried it in anything like the same volume as seems to be fine in a certain column of Labour.
This is probably more true than it used to be, now the machinery that took men like John Prescott from the proverbial shop floor to Westminster has largely been smashed and replaced with a spadocracy of slimy toads like Streeting.
You have a point as always. But it leaves me with a question.
There does appear to be a shift to the right in Europe as well as the USA. Does this have nothing to do with culture wars? Or is the shift more apparent than real?
You have a point as always. But it leaves me with a question.
There does appear to be a shift to the right in Europe as well as the USA. Does this have nothing to do with culture wars? Or is the shift more apparent than real?
It's real to an extent, but has to be judged by the context in which it occurs.
The financial crisis showed the limits of Third Way politics. The centre left who were mostly in charge at the time had no answers as they'd generally abandoned their previous sets of policies of redistribution, and in any case those aren't attractive to the the new generation of politicians who have taken over.
Their voting share collapses - most notably in Greece whose ruling party became a byword for the phenomena ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasokification ), and then the right wing generally takes over for a few cycles.
The issue is that the financial crisis (and later Covid) was smoothed over by financial policies which benefited the wealthiest in society - and as governments were loath to tax this back this led to massive asset price inflation - to the point where there's a housing crisis in virtual every country (housing being the one asset that everyone requires - your net neutral position on housing is one rather than zero).
The problem is exacerbated as large parts of the media have come under the control of oligarchs with a personal interest in protecting their wealth, and the professionalisation of politics to the point where many politicians are looking to their post-political careers.
So, if the mainstream parties are generally for keeping the status quo, where does change come from?
There are insurgent parties, but obviously those of the right are far more likely to get funding and publicity from fractions of capital (in the same way that there were hedge funders willing to put money behind the campaign for Brexit as they'd could profit from uncertainty and volatility). There are insurgent parties of the left (and they've been moderately successful in places where some of the traditional structures of the left are still strong) but generally established parties will unite with the media to fight them.
In that environment the alternatives that get the most airing are right wing ones. It's no surprise then that politics moves rightwards, or that the right are strongest (sometimes strong enough that insurgent fractions are able to take over mainstream parties, as we see in the US).
What I want to know is this: when he and Putin get together to carve-up Ukraine who is going to be Sykes and who Picot? Or are they going to leave the role-playing up to Lavrov and Rubio?
What I want to know is this: when he and Putin get together to carve-up Ukraine who is going to be Sykes and who Picot? Or are they going to leave the role-playing up to Lavrov and Rubio?
I think Molotov and Ribbentrop is closer to the mark.
So the puss*-orange fucktard blames Ukraine for getting itself invaded. Does this lump of bloat have a single microbe of decency in his degenerate body?
So the puss*-orange fucktard blames Ukraine for getting itself invaded. Does this lump of bloat have a single microbe of decency in his degenerate body?
* to rhyme with fuss, not a puddy cat
I can only assume we're back to the problem of him being told something and latching onto it without being able to question it or think it through, and in this case the person telling him was Putin. He just doesn't have the intellectual curiosity to question what he's told, he'll only reject it if it contradicts something else he's latched onto, unless the new thing is more convenient to him.
I don't think so. This is what Trump wants. He has always been pro-Putin and this is an opportunity to show that. Also rather like Putin he enjoys telling the big lie just because he can, to demonstrate his power (if you remember he said "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and I wouldn't lose any voters...")
So the puss*-orange fucktard blames Ukraine for getting itself invaded. Does this lump of bloat have a single microbe of decency in his degenerate body?
* to rhyme with fuss, not a puddy cat
Saw this on the BBC. He says Ukraine could have made a deal earlier. WTF. Russia invaded them. This is not a bloody business deal. Selynscky will never agree to any terms sorted out without Ukrainian input. Donald wants rare earth metals from Ukraine. Selynscky should tell him to shove it.
Ukraine has shown that it can fight against Russia. But it is difficult to fight against Russia and the US at the same time. This is awful for Ukraine and Zelenskyy for whose life I fear.
Ukraine has shown that it can fight against Russia.
Well, it's shown it can fight Russia to a standstill for a certain amount of time with outside aid. There are questions about how sustainable this is in terms of manpower, and I'm not sure the alternative policy was as much support for Ukraine as was necessary to drive Russia completely back to the pre-war border.
You should never have started it. You could have made a deal.
Somebody - anybody - get into Musk's hands a personalised book on the history of Ukraine in the 20th century, then he can explain it to his bronzer-addicted buddy.
Failing that, perhaps calls for Russia to repossess Alaska might exercise what passes for the Trumpian mind.
Failing that, perhaps calls for Russia to repossess Alaska might exercise what passes for the Trumpian mind.
I have seriously thought that, in response to Trump's annexation threats, Justin Trudeau should send out tweets like "Big shout-out to the Alaska Independence Party! We don't support your cause, but you certainly have the right to do what you're doing!"
John Crace, in today's Guardian, imagines the conversation between Trump and Putin. Here's part of it:
“You’re a genius,” said Vlad. “The world is going to be so much safer now you are in the White House. Together we’re going to carve up the world.”
“A lot of people say that to me,” Trump replied. “You won’t believe how much peace I am going to bring. The bigliest amount of peace the world has ever seen. I tell you, everyone is going to be so grateful to me. Some are calling me the Messiah.”
It would be funny, if it wasn't so close to the truth.
If Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington had a chance, I think they would apply to become a province of Canada. Okay, maybe not Alaska, and maybe not the eastern parts of Oregon and Washington or parts of California. Maybe we should call the whole thing off.
Maybe, but the Alaskans might well be better off as part of Canada, though I appreciate that there may be some who wish for independence.
Is an independent Alaska a viable proposition? Come to think of it, would an independent California be a viable proposition? I gather that Trumpkin and the Muskrat aren't 100% popular there, and it's a big state...
A friend posted a case for an Independent New England on FB this morning. California certainly could be independent on the same basis.
There are also memes circulating for an alternative proposal which has the northern states of the US as parts of Canada and the southern as part of Mexico (which, at one time many would have been, or part of the Spanish colonies of which Mexico was also part).
Pursuing this rather tangential subject, how easy (or hard) would it be for a State to unilaterally secede from the Union?
I'm pretty sure that question was answered definitively at Appomattox Court House. The position of the federal government has always been that states may not unilaterally secede from the Union. The logic here is that since states cannot unilaterally join the Union they cannot unilaterally leave it either. Art. IV, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to admit new states and, in cooperation with an existing state's legislature, the power to split existing states or to join two or more states together. Congress has done the former twice, creating the states we now know as Maine and West Virginia from pieces of Massachusetts and Virginia respectively. It has never done the latter.
At any rate, since states are added with the approval of Congress, presumably they would need Congress' assent to leave the Union.
Interesting scenarios, but probably unlikely (apart, maybe, from California?).
Pursuing this rather tangential subject, how easy (or hard) would it be for a State to unilaterally secede from the Union?
I think it would depend on the willingness of the federal government it let it go, and/or the willingness of another country to let it in.
Historically, it's the kind of stuff wars are made of. I wouldn't be optimistic, especially since states don't really have their own armies these days.
If Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington had a chance, I think they would apply to become a province of Canada. Okay, maybe not Alaska, and maybe not the eastern parts of Oregon and Washington or parts of California. Maybe we should call the whole thing off.
I'd bet the western (west of the crest of the Cascades) parts of both states would be happy to become the 11th province.
Well, the Danes have offered to swap Greenland for California ...😈
Should I check with my local Danish consulate? I walk past it several times a week.
More seriously I don't see any states leaving and I certainly don't see them joining Canada (Canada would be wary of having such a large number of Americans becoming Canadians).
When the USSR dissolved, the nukes were initially held by four of the new nations where they were placed - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Those from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan were all returned to Russia to be dismantled, with those nations being the only nuclear powers to disarm.
Trump's latest rant against Zelenskyy (you know, that evil and unloved comedian-turned-dictator chap, who started an unjust war against poor Russia...) surely proves that the would-be *king* is totally bonkers.
Not that that is exactly new news to most people, apart from Trumpians and Maganatics.
How are the Trumpian churches enjoying the enlightened rule of their new Messiah?
Serious question, from an American in California who isn't in a position to emigrate anywhere and really doesn't want to: what are PRACTICAL things we can do, as individuals, to fight this? Just posting "angry" emoji, "hashtag resistance," etc. on social media seems pretty useless IMHO. Do written postcards/letters to elected officials still have any effect, in 2025?
Comments
Yeah, okay, but there's a salience and credibility problem here isn't there. A lot of people aren't going to hear this message, or will dismiss this because it's the kind of thing that politicians say - it's also the kind of thing people said when he was being voted in the first time (and they know the sky didn't fall in the previous time).
For voters with longer memories, it's also the kind of thing the same people said about Bush, and now they are all friends with him, so maybe they figure there's an element of kayfabe here.
Also, they figure that if he had done something really bad the courts would have put him in jail, but he doesn't appear to be in jail.
Obviously there's the other issue of genuinely radicalised voters which I don't want to dismiss, but as I said the best predictor of how someone voted, was how they voted before, and there's research to suggest that outside things like abortion and gun rights, culture war issues don't actually have much salience in how people vote.
It should also be noted that transferring between departments within the federal government will involve a period of probationary employment, even for workers with a lot of seniority elsewhere within the federal government. For example, someone who worked in the Department of Defense for twenty years and then transferred to a position in the Veteran's Administration would spend their first year or two as a probationary worker.
American politics is rife with nepotism and dynasties - much more so than UK politics. Trump, of course, is intent on running the federal administration like a branch of his family business, and his first instinct when an opening appears is to see which member of his extended family would slot in to it.
Bush père et fils were both presidents, of course; W's brother Jeb was Governor of Florida and ran for the presidency, and grandpa Prescott was a Senator. You've mentioned the Kennedys.
Many state governments are riddled with members of particular families.
This is one of those very 'citation needed' moments, there is plenty of nepotism (and some dynasties) in UK politics, it just tends to be shaped somewhat differently and discussed far less.
And there is, of course, the fact that the top job in UK politics is definitionally nepotistic.
Yeah, I think he's officially joined the ecclesiastical institution run by Paula White, who has declared him "...my son, in whom I am well pleased".
For Canada, I can think of about a dozen political dynasties off the top of my head. Most of them didn't involve the exact same job, though a couple(eg. the Trudeaus) did.
There are some folks I'm in contact with who seem to desire to throw every single needy person off of welfare until they can get every veteran's needs met, which necessarily means cutting the entire social welfare state to make room for veteran's needs.
It kinda puts a rot into the heart of the word "sacrifice." There isn't a polite word for the practice of saying you're "sacrificing" for someone else and then calling it in as a debt, especially when your "sacrifice" was technically a paid job.
And I suspect those are the sorts who supported Ill Douche, selfishly. Veterans are one of those categories of "needy" that can still pull on the heartstrings of otherwise calloused assholes, so I was wondering if this administration was actually going to shift some pork that way. I guess I should be happy for them if it happened, because God knows this country does not pay any of its debts, and those are included and for all of my kvetching, those debts are real.
But I guess not. The face-eating leopards strike again, to use what is now a well-aged internet joke.
Name recognition is a very powerful force in electoral politics, to my continual horror.
Agree. And for all everyone knows Nicholas Soames is Churchill’s grandson (because the papers never missed an opportunity to tell us) I would be entirely unsurprised if it turned out to be more of a thing in the Labour Party than elsewhere. Someone did a very good web last year of who in the new govt was married to whom/son/daughter of/best man at wedding etc.
Red princes are a thing in the UK - to an extent that I genuinely think would be a line of attack against the Tories if they tried it in anything like the same volume as seems to be fine in a certain column of Labour.
Who knew that the key to stopping immigrants from coming to the U.S. without the right paperwork was simply making a bunch of ads? I'm sure that will fix everything!
There is a certain scale though, Churchill looms large in the British psyche - and Soames wasn't beyond playing up the connection himself. The closest analogue I can think of on the other side would be Hilary Benn, whose father wasn't nearly as notable.
To an extent, and only because non-political nepotism on the Tory side is somewhat priced in. An aristocratic connection on the Tory side is less likely to draw comment than the son/daughter/sibling of a politician on the Labour side. And Rory Stewart's family background came in for less comment than - say - Emily Thornberry's Knighthood via marriage.
I think there has been somewhat of a shift over time. The previous imperial archetype of the old East Coast family, Protestant, Ivy League Big Three, very strict and correct, and as ruthless as necessary - think Dulles brothers, Harriman, Kennan and the Bushes - aren't really seen in the same light any more, or tend not to go into politics. In terms of 'dynasties' the Clintons et. al don't really have the same depth.
Chicago has the Daleys, and so far the longest-running mayor in our history was the son of the famous one. His tenure ended in the aughts, not too long after we'd moved into town. And I think I still see the last name pop up in mayoral races ever since.
That said, yeah. I think political machines are generally not as robust as they used to be. and they held out here longer than in many places. Though it looks like the GOP is now in the process of trying to set up a new one.
This is probably more true than it used to be, now the machinery that took men like John Prescott from the proverbial shop floor to Westminster has largely been smashed and replaced with a spadocracy of slimy toads like Streeting.
Hence "largely".
You have a point as always. But it leaves me with a question.
There does appear to be a shift to the right in Europe as well as the USA. Does this have nothing to do with culture wars? Or is the shift more apparent than real?
It's real to an extent, but has to be judged by the context in which it occurs.
The financial crisis showed the limits of Third Way politics. The centre left who were mostly in charge at the time had no answers as they'd generally abandoned their previous sets of policies of redistribution, and in any case those aren't attractive to the the new generation of politicians who have taken over.
Their voting share collapses - most notably in Greece whose ruling party became a byword for the phenomena ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasokification ), and then the right wing generally takes over for a few cycles.
The issue is that the financial crisis (and later Covid) was smoothed over by financial policies which benefited the wealthiest in society - and as governments were loath to tax this back this led to massive asset price inflation - to the point where there's a housing crisis in virtual every country (housing being the one asset that everyone requires - your net neutral position on housing is one rather than zero).
The problem is exacerbated as large parts of the media have come under the control of oligarchs with a personal interest in protecting their wealth, and the professionalisation of politics to the point where many politicians are looking to their post-political careers.
So, if the mainstream parties are generally for keeping the status quo, where does change come from?
There are insurgent parties, but obviously those of the right are far more likely to get funding and publicity from fractions of capital (in the same way that there were hedge funders willing to put money behind the campaign for Brexit as they'd could profit from uncertainty and volatility). There are insurgent parties of the left (and they've been moderately successful in places where some of the traditional structures of the left are still strong) but generally established parties will unite with the media to fight them.
In that environment the alternatives that get the most airing are right wing ones. It's no surprise then that politics moves rightwards, or that the right are strongest (sometimes strong enough that insurgent fractions are able to take over mainstream parties, as we see in the US).
I think Molotov and Ribbentrop is closer to the mark.
* to rhyme with fuss, not a puddy cat
I can only assume we're back to the problem of him being told something and latching onto it without being able to question it or think it through, and in this case the person telling him was Putin. He just doesn't have the intellectual curiosity to question what he's told, he'll only reject it if it contradicts something else he's latched onto, unless the new thing is more convenient to him.
Saw this on the BBC. He says Ukraine could have made a deal earlier. WTF. Russia invaded them. This is not a bloody business deal. Selynscky will never agree to any terms sorted out without Ukrainian input. Donald wants rare earth metals from Ukraine. Selynscky should tell him to shove it.
* yes, yes, I know
Well, it's shown it can fight Russia to a standstill for a certain amount of time with outside aid. There are questions about how sustainable this is in terms of manpower, and I'm not sure the alternative policy was as much support for Ukraine as was necessary to drive Russia completely back to the pre-war border.
Somebody - anybody - get into Musk's hands a personalised book on the history of Ukraine in the 20th century, then he can explain it to his bronzer-addicted buddy.
Failing that, perhaps calls for Russia to repossess Alaska might exercise what passes for the Trumpian mind.
I have seriously thought that, in response to Trump's annexation threats, Justin Trudeau should send out tweets like "Big shout-out to the Alaska Independence Party! We don't support your cause, but you certainly have the right to do what you're doing!"
“You’re a genius,” said Vlad. “The world is going to be so much safer now you are in the White House. Together we’re going to carve up the world.”
“A lot of people say that to me,” Trump replied. “You won’t believe how much peace I am going to bring. The bigliest amount of peace the world has ever seen. I tell you, everyone is going to be so grateful to me. Some are calling me the Messiah.”
It would be funny, if it wasn't so close to the truth.
Is an independent Alaska a viable proposition? Come to think of it, would an independent California be a viable proposition? I gather that Trumpkin and the Muskrat aren't 100% popular there, and it's a big state...
There are also memes circulating for an alternative proposal which has the northern states of the US as parts of Canada and the southern as part of Mexico (which, at one time many would have been, or part of the Spanish colonies of which Mexico was also part).
Pursuing this rather tangential subject, how easy (or hard) would it be for a State to unilaterally secede from the Union?
I'm pretty sure that question was answered definitively at Appomattox Court House. The position of the federal government has always been that states may not unilaterally secede from the Union. The logic here is that since states cannot unilaterally join the Union they cannot unilaterally leave it either. Art. IV, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to admit new states and, in cooperation with an existing state's legislature, the power to split existing states or to join two or more states together. Congress has done the former twice, creating the states we now know as Maine and West Virginia from pieces of Massachusetts and Virginia respectively. It has never done the latter.
At any rate, since states are added with the approval of Congress, presumably they would need Congress' assent to leave the Union.
I think it would depend on the willingness of the federal government it let it go, and/or the willingness of another country to let it in.
Historically, it's the kind of stuff wars are made of. I wouldn't be optimistic, especially since states don't really have their own armies these days.
I'd bet the western (west of the crest of the Cascades) parts of both states would be happy to become the 11th province.
Should I check with my local Danish consulate? I walk past it several times a week.
More seriously I don't see any states leaving and I certainly don't see them joining Canada (Canada would be wary of having such a large number of Americans becoming Canadians).
Not that that is exactly new news to most people, apart from Trumpians and Maganatics.
How are the Trumpian churches enjoying the enlightened rule of their new Messiah?