HARRIS, TRUMP AND THE AMERICAN STORY

With the election over and Kamala Harris vanquished, there is an audible groan reverberating across the globe. In this Titanic clash there was a fork in the road where the electorate was given a choice as to which direction they wanted the American Story to continue. They chose to follow former President Trump who described America as a "Garbage Can". 

Now is the moment to reflect as to how embedded Trump and Harris are in the American narrative and what constitutes the latter. The contrasting visions between the two protagonists couldn't have been starker. Their race and gender are even more defining. Harris is a first generation American of the pigment that the Trump MAGA movement have made abundantly clear is not the kind that they want as Americans. Even more disqualifying is that she is a woman. Trump on the other hand is a multigenerational white male property owner, who has the unlimited resources of the richest man in the world and his dominant social medium platform.

THE STORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The story of the USA isn't nearly as pretty as it is romanticized  from a white perspective. It is mired by the slaughter of its indigenous peoples and slavery on a vast scale. What distinguished it, for purposes of this discussion from other settler colonies of that period, is that it won a war of Independence to rid itself of the dictatorial rule of King George III. This was way back in the eighteenth century. 

Other British colonized countries. to this day, maintain a relationship with the "mother ship"  or severed ties hundreds of years later. They inherited cultural norms and political systems from the "oppressor". The British Empire colonies have Westminster Parliamentary style governmental models and beat them at their national game of cricket, which to many epitomizes the English way of life. These contrasts are illustrated by just looking at sleepy Canada next door where the British monarch's face is still on its currency.

America went to war against the British with a flourish and announced their manifesto in the "Declaration of Independence"

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 

Thomas Jefferson the author of America' s "Declaration of Independence", laid down the bedrock of what the country would maintain was it's principles. This document was remarkable for its times. Profoundly influenced by the Enlightenment figures particularly John Locke, it was signed by all 13 States. The Declaration was aspirational as the author was well aware that it made no concessions to the slaves and indigenous natives. 

 Inter alia The Declaration maintained, "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men were created equal, Included was also "...Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Earth shattering was the statement that "all men were created equal". It was all the more so in that these were the words that the citizenry, led by George Washington, were prepared to lay down their lives for. The estimate of Americans dying in the 8 year long War of Independence was well over 25,000. Some have posited as many as 75,000 out of a population, including slaves, of 2,500,000.

Trump a male white property owner would have  agreed to all of this with a wink and a nod. Of course he would have been medically unfit to fight the war as that was a deal for "Suckers and losers". There would have been no place for a Black woman other than being a slave mistress to Jefferson himself.

To ensure that they would not have a repetition of dictatorship The Founding Fathers labored long and hard over a Constitution.

THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

So the United States had to invent its own narrative with its own way of governing. Thomas Jefferson had written the manifesto in 1776. After the victory it was fleshed out in a Constitution, (1787), which was designed for its times, a compromise to include the slave states of the South.  Central to the exercise was to create a mechanism whereby the country would never be ruled by a King - "A Petty Tyrant". In order to effect this objective they created an elaborate system of three co - equal branches of government. The Executive Branch, which had at its head The President, would be held in check by the independent Legislative and Judicial branches. Among many rights enshrined in the Constitution and its Amendments was the rule of law and that all were equal before the law. 

THE STORY CONTINUED - EXPANSION OF ALL CITIZENS' RIGHTS

It took a Civil War nearly a hundred years later where men once again followed a transformational leader, Abraham Lincoln, to move, " that all men were created equal" mantra to rid the country of slavery. Nearly a million died for their beliefs - approximately equal numbers of Unionists (The North) and Confederalists, (The South). Many believe that this division is still the basis of current battle for the heart and soul of America. 

Nevertheless the war moved the aspirational needle more than a bit, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution added "The Negros" to the "all men are created equal" list. Kamala wouldn't have been included as she is a woman. Then followed "Reconstruction" with great advancement of the former slaves only to be negated by Jim Crow and The Klu Klux Klan who introduced draconian segregation laws in The South as well as lynching of "uppity blacks" while effectively depriving them of the vote. All to be reversed by Martin Luther King's Civil Rights protests and Lyndon Baines Johnson's Civil Rights Legislation in the 1960's. 

Oh just one more major movement in the "all men are created equal" saga, in 1922 women finally became part of "all men" and the 19th Amendment was passed. This too had been a long and bitter struggle and came well after the United Kingdom's decision. So Kamala would have been finally able to vote.  Significantly women's rights were central in the 2024 election. Neither Trump or Vance  believe that women were also "created equal", and they said so!

It is fair to say that it has been a long walk.  The Founders' original constitution designed to avoid a dictatorship has come to a screeching halt. A Trump victory following a Supreme Court decision limiting a President's criminal liability has paved the way for authoritarian rule - the very reason the War of Independence was fought over. However "all men" include all citizens and they are the ones who have put Trump in power and can remove him!  

The population of America expanded exponentially over the centuries as the country sponge like mopped up refugees from  Western and Eastern Europe including Russia.  

IMMIGRATION AS PART OF THE STORY

America throughout the nearly four hundred years since The Pilgrim Fathers has attracted boundless numbers of immigrants. These have been welcomed. On the Statue of Liberty which immigrants passed on their way to Ellis Island was the welcoming message, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free...". Even after the 1924 Immigration Act which created national quotas for immigration, the legal and illegal immigration to America has provided an unparalleled source of workers highly skilled and unskilled that have allowed America to become the military and industrial powerhouse of the world. 

As everyone except the indigenous Native Americans is either an immigrant themselves or descendants of immigrants or slaves there has been generally an acceptance of them with a path to citizenship. With the country trending to have a minority of white skinned citizens, immigration legal and illegal became the major platform of the Trump Republican Party. The rhetoric towards those who derive from "shit hole countries" has been openly racist. 

Number one on Trump's agenda regardless of the economic consequences is the rounding up and deporting of 11 million "illegals". Ironically the Trump triumph could not have been achieved had such large numbers of Latino immigrant men switched to him. 

So the world watched as America frog marched to isolationism and authoritarianism.

 WORLD INVOLVEMENT AS PART OF THE STORY

America's leadership in the world has been a wedge issue ever since it has become relevant. It is fair to argue that America wouldn't have been involved in WW1 had not the Germans torpedoed their submarines or WW11 had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor. Not that there weren't protagonists for defending world democracy but the country was so split that direct involvement was out of the question. Opposition to WW11 was to a large extent pro Nazi and Franklin Roosevelt had to struggle to support the Allied Forces. 

Notwithstanding the division prior to the World Wars, Americans honor the veterans of those clashes and proudly maintain that their involvement helped the world fight off fascism. The anti war party had the same name as Trump often uses to describe his overall philosophy (sic), "America First". Trump has championed an isolationist policy, that together with his bromance with Putin has put the fear of G-D in the Ukrainians. 

Following WW11 American sentiment to become the leader of the world's Democracies became more bipartisan. All Presidents from FDR to Biden have unhesitatingly supported the role as it also ensures the safety of the USA. All except Trump that is.

There have been many misadventures such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and after the Cold War ended the necessity of NATO was questioned. However with an authoritarian axis once again being formed between Russia, China, Iran and North Korea there is an urgency, not shared by Trump who admires the leadership of those countries, for America to continue to lead the "Free World".  Trump's ascendency to Commander in Chief will impact the world order dramatically. This especially if two four star generals who served under him in the most senior of positions, characterization of him being a "Fascist to the core" proves correct.

THE 2024 ELECTION AND THE AMERICAN STORY,

It is an irony that this election Trump's opponent was a transformative woman leader, who is pigmented and a first generation immigrant who has reveled in the "American Story". The Trump campaign was openly misogynistic particularly towards Harris. They strung epithets galore in describing her - "dumb" , "shit" "trash". The Trump/Vance team wore their favoring of the "bros" on their sleeves. Their push culminated with three hour interviews with the titular social media head of the testosterone laden gender, Joe Rogan. They appear to be the side that recognize that there has been a revolution in communication in the form of the internet. There is now a generation that only get their news from that medium.

Inexplicably a chunk of the Trade Unionists voted for Trump when the Harris/Biden administration have done more for Unions since FDR. The suburban Republican women voted for the abortion rights referenda and also voted for Trump. swallowing the non sequitur that they could have it both ways. 

The massive smear campaign against Harris worked. She underperformed many down ballot Democrats. The seriously flawed candidate won. Trump has  the mindset of the Pre Enlightenment period. He is ignorant of the fact that the America that he wants to make great again would never have ever been great in the first place under the policies and autocracy he proposes. The question is how far back he will take it.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

The alignment of American political parties has been radically altered. There is no longer a Republican Party which espouses small government, few regulations, open trade, democracy and America's role as the leader of the "Free World".Instead there is a Trump Party which is autocratic, wants to control everything, misogynistic, racist, is against free trade and is happy to let the rest of the world be controlled by other autocrats. 

The Kamala Democratic Party with their main plank being "Freedom" and the continuation of the American story.- "They are not going back". did not carry the day. Unhappily with the resounding defeat going back is exactly what will happen. The Democratic Party needs to get back to its roots and rid themselves of the image of being in the thrall of the cultural elites and join in the communication revolution.

The good news is that Trump can't deliver on his wild promises. In two years time the Women movements will have grown stronger. The downtrodden males will still be downtrodden in spite of Trump. The Blue States will thwart every move he makes to push the clock back. If he carries through on his tariff plans he will plunge America into a recession. The latter would be worsened if Musk cuts 2 trillion from the budget. So the MAGA Trump party will receive setbacks galore in the midterms.  

 Don't take Jay H. Ell's word for any of this as he confidently forecast that Harris would win the Presidency!

 

WHAT IF TRUMP LOSES 2024?

There is flat out panic among the Democrats, (D.P), largely engendered by the polls that see all the swing states within the margin of error coupled by the tied generic vote which the D.P. usually win hands down. Jay H. Ell believes that the polls in this evolving realigning political landscape are less reliable as predictors of the outcome. The other factor that is causing the D. P. angst is that the early GOP vote is higher than the traditional number. Ignored is the fact that the Republican Party is a cult and the cult leader told them to vote early this time around.

The polls don't seem to reflect what are the eyes are witnessing - enthusiastic rallies for Harris filling football stadiums and small unfilled venues for Trump where spectators stream out before the end. Nor can the polls calculate the full weight of the female vote, many of whom are silent and have been mobilized on reproductive care. Approximately 40 million have voted already with women representing 55 percent of that number.

Nor can the polls estimate the registered Republicans that are switched off by the fact that Trump has been labelled a Fascist. Most importantly what is left out is party organization. Harris is way ahead in the latter and for Trump to win he needs to get the low propensity young male voters to the polls. Hence Jay H. Ell blogged last week, "Why Harris Will Win in 2024". However because the general narrative is that Harris is on the way to an ignominious defeat nobody contemplates "What if Trump Loses?". 

 IF TRUMP LOSES

It is common cause what will happen if Trump wins. Even though he has done nought to organize his transition no one has any illusions as to what he will set about doing. He won't be able to do it all by a long shot and the institutions will hamper him somewhat but he will do enough to create chaos, social upheaval, an economic shambles internally and world disorder. More to the point what are the sequelae if he loses?  

There will be fruitless court challenges, attempts to persuade the states to change the  results and so on and so forth. He will challenge the results say they were manipulated, refer to the polls that his pollsters are currently flooding the zone with, blame crooked "sleepy Joe" and "corrupt KAmala" who registered the illegal immigrants to vote. He will warn that this corruption could cause violence, then "stand back and stand by" and  claim that whatever happens was "a protest against the election results".

 What Trump will do is predictable it is how the various constituencies around him will react and respond that is not. The latter include, the Biden administration, the legislative bodies, the legal system and his cult. How will outcomes be different this time around?

So let us look at the "Day After".

THE INSTITUTIONS POST ELECTION

Trump has no control over the Justice Department and most significantly any of the powers associated with the Presidency. Many of the shananogans seen last time out have been nullified by the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022. 

The Vice President who officiates at the counting of the electoral college slates is "lunatic, sh.t, dumb, low intellect, try for black, the worst Vice President ever", KA- ma- la. Harris is the Vice President and officiates over the vote count and her role has been legislatively confirmed as "nominal". So the ratification of the electoral college would have to go the vote of the legislators. Even assuming that Trump wins the Senate, (likely), and the House, (far less likely), the majority of Republicans in both the Senate and the House, in an electoral outcome most favorable to the Republicans would be at most ten of five hundred and thirty eight legislators. There will be enough votes from the Republican side in the Senate alone to see to it that the election results will be ratified. 

So Trump will have to try to sort it out at the State level. At best he could hope for delays in the ratification of results causing uncertainty, when of course anything can happen.

STATE SECRETARIES, ELECTORAL BOARDS AND LEGAL CHALLENGES

There are seven swing states six of them have Democratic Secretaries of State who oversea the elections. The seventh, Georgia, has Republican Secretary Raffensberger who refused last time out, when Trump was President to find him. "11,780 votes which is just one more than he needed". That phone call was recorded and Trump is facing State and Federal charges as a result. Trump thought he had hit the jackpot when the Georgia Electoral Board created rules whereby they could gum up the works if they just so desired. The Georgia State Court reversed their arbitrary efforts.  

What makes the ratification of elections dicey is because each county in each state has to ratify its own jurisdiction and it has been mooted that is where problems could arise. There are 3,144 counties in the United States.

Needless to say each party has mobilized an army of lawyers ready to act. If the 2020 election is anything to go by Trump initiated 62 legal challenges losing 61. The one case he won was on a technicality and changed nothing. However the legal threat is not negligible. All that is needed is one rogue judge. The Supreme Court record is not so hot either in a judgement in 2000 they declared George W Bush the winner of the election by overruling the Florida State Court where it had jurisdiction on matters of State affairs. Justice Anthony Scalia who wrote the majority 5-4 opinion openly stated that the decision was "shit", that it should not be regarded as a precedent and those protesting "should just get over it". However most of the issues that Trump brings before the courts are meritless and more often than not, just dismissed. Pre election attempts by Trump at voter suppression of groups that are more likely to favor Harris have been summarily dismissed thus far. 

It is fair comment that although Trump will go through the motions, his appeal to the decision makers in the swing states and  courts as well as his ability to exert the same pressure that he was able to exert on Vice President Pence in 2021 to stop the ratification of the election, all are minimal as compared last time around. The 2022 Electoral reform will make matters much more difficult. 

So what else may happen?

TRUMP'S CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITIES

If Trump loses, even if he wins, he walks slap bang into his sentencing for his 34 felonies on November 25th 2024. The legal fraternity have pointed out that even though he is a first offender, (sic), that if this was anyone else they would definitely facing prison time. He attempted to turn the proceedings into a circus and was found guilty ten times for contempt of court with the Judge even threatening to incarcerate him if he continued. In addition a factor in sentencing is whether the convicted felon shows remorse. Needless to say he has showed none, nada, nil zero. The judge can then decide whether or not he need go straight to jail or allow bail to continue while he appeals. 

Then there is all the other litigation, Federal and State criminal and wads of civil litigation. Federal Judge Chutkin in his arraignment for his doings on January 6 2020 will schedule hearings. She has shown no patience for his pleas that he is in a midst of an election. His documents trial which a Judge threw out, who he has incidentally indicated that she is on his short list to be his Attorney General, will be reversed on appeal and probably unceremoniously dumped off the case. 

He owes over $600,000,000 in awards against him in civil trials. Appeal Courts invariably reduce gigantic sums suggested by juries but you are still talking real money. Then there is a pile of civil litigation for those that claim damages for his alleged insurrection on January 6. All in all much to take in even for a seasoned litigant such as him.

The 64 billion dollar question is how this will impact his MAGA cult?

HOW WILL THE CULT REACT?

Implicit in all of this scenario is how will the Cult, the militant Cult that is, react. Last time out everyone knows what happened on January 6, why shouldn't there be a rerun? Trump hasn't called it quits yet, he still is claiming that he won in 2020. So it is a reasonable assumption that he is not going to give KAmala a call and say Mazel tov. He is already making it quite clear on the trail that the only way he can lose is if the election is stolen, or "rigged" as he likes to put it. What clues have we got that nobody is "standing by and getting ready?".

Trump called for support at every court appearance he has had since being the nominee. There has been no mass uprising or even big crowds of supporters. Maybe at best a hundred or so but for the most part curious bystanders. There have been threats of violence following his attacking Judges, witnesses and the like. Some really got violent such as the assault on the 82 year old husband of Nancy Pelosi.

  In fact there are no signs of an uprising. There is no overwhelming conviction to storm the Capital. Well over a thousand of the "patriotic political prisoners" are doing serious jail time. The leaders are doing up to twenty years. There have been no public demonstrations with new "patriotic" leaders  willing to step into the breech. 

This time out there will be security and police in place even if Trump once again calls for a "Day of Love" from the Elipse in Washington. So if Trump loses what else can happen?

COME JANUARY 6 2025

By January 6 2025 the court challenges will be over.  Trump  will claim foul and carrying on doing so. There may well be local protests and even in Washington. There will be isolated acts of violence.  There will be endless discussions whether Trump should be pardoned for his Federal Crimes. Even if he was there will still be the State charges and the civil litigation. So one way or another Trump will still be around for the foreseeable future. Maybe everyone will get tired of it all. Even "The Apprentice" was pulled for dwindling ratings. 

 AT THE END OF THE DAY

The Democrats should stop panicking and carry on with their comprehensive ground plan. Kamala should carry on packing the stadiums and get the message across that Biden's legislation specifically is directed at giving non college educated men, or women for that matter, "good paying jobs". 

 

WHY HARRIS WILL WIN IN 2024

 

A stark feature of the 2024 USA Presidential race is that the central dispute is not over issues but rather whether America should remain an imperfect two party liberal globalist democracy or a nativist isolationist xenophobic autocracy. In the frenetic pitches to the finish line neither candidate is hiding their vision. As a result the conventional priorities in these tussles such as the economy, health care and taxes, while still important, are taking a back seat to the life or death struggle of what America stands for. The race is a statistical tie but Jay H. Ell believes Harris will win but before he gets there, there needs to be an explanation as to the state of play in what is being touted as the most important USA election since the Civil War. 

The Republican Party has dramatically morphed into a Trump cult which has ditched it's traditional platform of small government, low taxes, minimal regulation, internationalism and pro immigration. The result of this transformation is that this election is very difficult to read as differing coalitions of voters are being rapidly assembled. Kamala Harris the Democratic Party nominee has skillfully assembled a swath of Reagan, Bushes, and Trump luminaries who agree naught with her economic programs but back democracy. The gestalt of the business world is epitomized in that the world's richest man Elon Musk is out on the stump for Trump while Mark Cuban, a high profile role model billionaire entrepreneur, is going full tilt for Harris. 

The 2024 American Presidential election has ramifications not only for America but for the world. Trump is running on the fact that he is the isolationist strong man. He argues, when he is able to string a sentence together, that he is the solution to the chaotic mess that he maintains America is in at home and abroad. So his mantra is "Make America Great Again", again.  

Kamala Harris the Democratic candidate thrown into this race at a late stage has turned the contest into a referendum on Trump arguing that she is the change candidate. Hence at her packed out rallies, the crowd chant, "We are not going back". As Trump's America is autocratic the cry of "Freedom"is her central platform with special reference to reproductive freedom and in answer to the Heritage Foundation's blueprint for a Trump Presidency, "Project 25".

Reality seems removed from this momentous clash with the electorate apparently split, half believing that Trump is the simplistic answer to America's and the World's complex problems. So what will decide the outcome in a race that is currently tied? Traditionally issues and immediate past elections are guides. However never before has America faced a presidential candidate who is unabashedly pushing an authoritarian agenda. In addition he is exhibiting, on steroids, the impact of aging that drove Biden out of this race. His cult following backed by the cult media interpret his unhinged deteriorating behavior as Trump's genius or Trump being Trump. Alternatively they sanitize  his word salad or his dissembling, which he calls "weaving", into coherent policy.

So what are the purported issues? 

THE ISSUES

The bread and butter issues are the ones that purportedly this election is mainly about. Jay H. Ell will argue that they are not really but for completeness sake he will deal with them. Just for starters age was considered the most important issue. Biden had a disastrous first debate attributed to age, so exit Biden. Trump had a far worse second debate but he is still standing. The voters, ostensibly 80 percent of them, did not want a rematch between Biden and Trump, now they haven't got one. They are still apparently happy. So age and the fact that there is a new face isn't as relevant as the polls indicated they were  initially.

There are several areas that the voters tell the pundits that they are considering, usually from a list they are given  - the economy, illegal immigration, female reproductive rights are the top three. Trump leads in the first two and Harris in the third. Objectively the American economy has never been stronger, 4.1 percent unemployment, wage growth beating inflation with the latter coming down steadily, the stock market at record highs but, for whatever reasons the respondents to the poll questioners want the good old days of Trump who tanked the economy over Covid. 

Trump axed a bipartisan Republican led border deal as he openly opined he wanted to run on an unstable border. So in spite of that and the failure of his first term promises on security such as to build a wall that Mexico would pay for, the likely voters trust him more on this issue. Reproductive freedom is trusted more for Harris than Trump but he has claimed that he has given women everything they asked for by axing Roe v Wade and he invented IVF and a sizable number of females are buying the cant. 

So how is Harris, at least  attempting to respond to the "real" issues.

HARRIS

Try as Harris may. by showing empathy that inflation is higher than they would like it to be, presenting her plans that include  providing assistance for home purchase, child care allowance, home care for seniors and lowering taxes for the middle class and decreasing drug costs the perception remains that Trump is far better for the economy. Similarly the insane argument that Biden/Harris let in tens of millions of criminals, lunatics, rapists, drug peddlers does not seem to resonate in the polls that Trump is not with the program with his ridiculous claims. 

Harris has strung together a remarkable coalition. She is prosecuting the case with unbelievable skill, empathy, strength and joy. She is fearless walking into the lion's den and being interviewed by the cult media, Fox News. The Democratic protagonist is tireless in the home stretch playing to packed out crowds. She has presented a coherent manifesto and if it mattered the economists, even Murdoch's "Wall Street Journal" back it over Trump's inflationary mumbo jumbo.

However Trump, with regard to the "real" issues maintains that with him "You never had it so good". He is soft on policy rather leaning into what this election is really about.

TRUMP

Trump is unashamedly trumpeting fascist slogans. -"The immigrants are spoiling the blood of the country" and "If I lose it will be the fault of the jews", He has said that his former Military Chief of Staff should be "executed" and has stated that the January 6 insurrection was "a day of love".His central election platform is to round up 11 million "illegals" place them in detention camps and deport them. He rants that "The Enemy Within" is a larger threat, by far than Iran, China and Russia. He continues that he would be entitled to sic his justice department on his enemies like the "lunatic leftists, fascists and Marxists the worst of which are Nancy Pelosi and 'Shifty' Adam Schiff". Projection, denial, deflection and lies are such a daily fare that it is impossible to focus on any scandalous outburst as the next five have already hit the airspace. 

Trump is so incoherent on the stump to the extent that at last the conventional media are questioning his cognition. George Conway a prominent conservative lawyer, who almost took a job in his first administration, runs a website maintaining that he is according to psychiatric criteria a malignant narcissist and sociopath. 

Trump's cult status by definition makes his followers immovable - a third of American voters believe that "the immigrants are spoiling the blood of the country"

So why on earth is Trump, according to the polls, still in a statistical tie with Harris?

THE NEW ALIGNMENTS AND WHY

There is a rearrangement of the traditional demographics backing the two parties. Simplistically this election is being characterized as being a gender battle as women are flocking to Harris in droves. There are no signs that the Republican suburban women who switched to Biden in 2020 have returned to Trump, in fact there has been a greater move towards Harris. Up to ten percent of former members of the Republican Party are said to be supporting Harris. They are putting country over party as democracy is on the ballot as is character. The Mormons who have always broken for the Republicans are moving, especially in Arizona, towards Harris

 The Trade Union support is not fore square behind Harris in spite of the Biden/Harris Presidency being the most pro worker since FDR. Trump if the polling is right has increased his support among the young men of all demographics, white, Hispanic and African Americans. The male youth are mainly non college educated. Amateur psychologists would interpret that they need the testosterone overloaded Trump to help them tolerate that the younger women are getting ahead of them. They favor Vance's attitude that the other gender should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Jay H. Ell would put some of the Union members in the same category. 

Hispanic voters in general are continuing their drift to the Republicans. In 2020 there was a drift of about 15 percent from Hillary Clinton's 2016 number. Harris  had to have made up some ground in her Town Hall on Spanish TV where in a similar setting Trump bombed. She now has to forcefully remind them that it will be their doors that will be busted open by the militia when they are searching for the "11 million illegals"

WHY ARE 90 PERCENT OF REPUBLICANS BACKING TRUMP?

So the question is why are 90 percent of the Republican Party supporting this despicable con artist, why are young males rebelling and what is it with the Union members?

The Republican Party members backing Trump fall into a number of categories. There is the one issue, particularly backed by the Evangelicals namely anti abortion and anti reproductive rights voters and Trump has delivered and he will continue to do so. There are the cynics who believe all politicians are corrupt and Trump is by far the better at it - a businessman, a thug which is what you need in this world of dog eat dog, and Harris is no better. There are those that feel that voting for the Democrats is a policy stretch too far while some argue Trump is better for their pocket books.

Then there is the cult. Strictly speaking all his supporters are a part of the cult. Why would anyone vote for a cruel authoritarian vulgarian to negate the very constitution they all swear blind they believe in. For argument's sake the "pure" cult are those really but really regard the "Big Lie" as gospel and believe every conspiracy theory and even that "the immigrants are poisoning the blood of the people".

WELL WHY IS HARRIS GOING TO WIN?

Accepting the two assumptions, namely that this race is tied and that the battle is in the seven swing states, why does Jay H. Ell believe Harris will win?

Firstly, Trump is unraveling before the nation's eyes. "Just watch his rallies", invited Harris. These are now being run on the internet and every channel. "Fox News" are cutting away from them as they become more and more the theater of the absurd.The latest in La Trobe Pennsylvania, which was the home of the famed golfer Arnold Palmer,  where he inserted vulgarity on a level never witnessed when he discussed the late legend's genitalia. This drew a sharp rebuke from Palmer's family.  He also called his opponent sh.t!

He announced on Fox News that he is going to enjoin Rupert Murdoch the "Fox News" owner to axe any appearance of an opposing voice and any negative ad on the channel. Fox followed that braggadocio with a really tough interview the day after! In addition Trump has cancelled a number of appearances owing to "exhaustion". The rallies now have rows and rows of empty seats and visuals of audience members leaving before the end. He has also held election meetings, when time is short, in states which have no impact on the electoral college. 

Harris at her rallies is featuring the unhinged Trump on the jumbo screen inviting the crowd to literally watch him run against himself. 

The male youth vote is being courted by the most popular current politico, President Barak Obama, who is working overtime in the swing states. Mark Cuban is also an effective surrogate for this group. Moreover there are multiple organizations that have been  registering and canvassing the GenZ demographic for years. There are 13 million more voters on the rolls since last time out and half are young women, the most impacted by the Trump reproductive position. 

The toughest nut to crack is the male Union worker and rural demographic where former President Bill Clinton and Governor Walz are concentrating. Trump has no surrogates of the former Presidents' stature. Also Republicans are out on the stump for Harris including Liz Cheney the doyen of the former Republican Party, 

The Democratic Party have concentrated on decreasing rural Republican majorities in the swing states with reported small success. Also there are reports that women in that demographic are trending away from Trump.

The percentage of women that vote is 54 and they are far more mobilized because of reproductive rights. There are also referenda on abortion in several states and some awful down ballot Republican candidates in swing states. The current polling indicates that tickets will be split. The rationale presumably is that voters will axe Trump endorsed candidates and then vote for Trump. This is counterintuitive, there has to be some spill over effect.

Early voting has shown record turnouts which favor the Democrats. 

Having outlined all of the above and the race is still tied what will decide this race?

VOTER TURNOUT WILL BE THE DECIDER

Voter turnout will decide this election. The latter depends on the ground game. Trump axed the Republican infrastructure and has outsourced the "get out the vote" to inexperienced conservative Political Action Committees, chief of which is controlled by Elon Musk. The latter is still advertising for canvassers and in desperation dishing out a million dollars a day to a lucky Trump supporter. (That is illegal incidentally but who cares. The lead story in "The Guardian" outlines the fact that has been circulating the internet, that the paid uncommitted workers are not even knocking on some doors. This mess contrasts with tight long standing operation of the Democrats.

Harris has 2,500 paid organizers in 350 offices that have been in place since Biden days as well as an army of hundreds of thousands of volunteers. The NY Times  reported that in one week the campaign knocked on 600.000 doors, made 300,000 calls and had 63,000 volunteer shifts. Harris has even more money than Trump, significantly a ton more from small donors which translates into commitment and involvement.  Besides a billion dollars collected in a 100 days she has a Political Action Committee that has $700 million dollars to put out ads. 

Basically Trump is relying on his charisma to engender the enthusiasm of his base to voluntarily rush to the polls. 

AT THE END OF THE DAY

This race that is being fought on values and character and will be decided by turnout is trending Harris . The question is what does Trump do when he loses? But that is a story for another blog on another day.

  

 

WATERGATE v JANUARY 6

 

Richard Nixon must be looking down from above or up from below,   whatever the case may be, and has to be wondering how on earth is Trump still standing. Nixon in a scandal named Watergate was hounded out of the Presidency by his own party for a fraction for what Trump did in a scandal labelled January 6. Both had been found by bipartisan Legislative committees to have violated their constitutional oaths. So why did Watergate cause such a national and even Republican Party revulsion that Nixon was forced to resign in 1974? And why has the Republican Party embraced, to put it at its lowest, a flawed standard bearer of their party in 2024?

Watergate was a merely a cover up by a President of a break into Democratic Party offices in order to get dirt on the opponents for the forthcoming election. Juxtapose that latter fact that the same Republican Party fifty years later in 2024 have as its Presidential candidate, a twice impeached, a judicially adjudged rapist, a convicted felon and an individual after losing an election and where a Legislative Committee found that he had  perpetrated an elaborate scheme to remain in power culminating in instigating an insurrection where he sicced the mob to kill his Vice President. The scandal collectively is referred to as January 6. 

 A central factor in this sordid degradation of a political party, which has boasted such icons as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan, was how the American citizenry received and processed information in the 1970's versus the manner in which they do in the second decade of the twenty - first century.  Another cardinal feature in Trump's survival was the differing interpretations by the Nixon and Trump Supreme Courts of whether or not the President has the divine rights of  kings. 

NEWS DISSEMINATION AND RECEPTION - CIRCA THE 1970'S AND THE INVESTIGATIVE HEARINGS OF WATERGATE

In the 1970's television had come into its own as a communication medium. There were three national networks with news channels that were available to all - NBC, CBC and ABC. News was confined to the distinctive slots in the day and everyone saw and heard more or less the same objective factual comment. CBS was the dominant network and their famed newscaster Walter Cronkite's view of the world was accepted as gospel. The famed Watergate Bipartisan Senate hearings took nearly three months and were broadcast live on all three channels. Ninety percent of Americans tuned in at one stage or another. It is important to note that in this era of broadcasting the segment of "The News" was not considered a "cost center", that is on its own it did not have to cover the costs of the news coverage. .  

The Watergate hearings were dramatic. John Dean, Nixon's WhiteHouse Counsel, who went along with the cover up till he didn't, evidenced that he had finally confronted Nixon warning him that, "there was a cancer on the Presidency". There was a procession of co conspirators in the WhiteHouse from Nixon's Chief of Staff to aides, to members of his cabinet and his re election committee members, all of whom subsequently resigned and/or ended up in jail. The smoking gun was produced by Alexander Butterfield, a Special Assistant, who gave the explosive evidence that there was a tape system in the President's Office. 

The upshot was the unanimous bipartisan decision of the Senate Hearing to recommend to the House to conduct an Impeachment Enquiry.

The Watergate scandal really broke as a result of relentless investigative reporting, primarily, by "The Washington Post" investigator journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. They subsequently wrote the first two books  that were considered the definitive works on the affair. "All The President's Men", subsequently made into a blockbuster movie staring Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford, was a best seller for eons and was followed up by "The Final Days", another gripping non fictional narrative of how the saga all came to an end.

To sum up: The story of the Watergate scandal was told in an era where there was a singular version of news. Facts were facts and where the interpretation of them was obvious it was accepted by the overwhelming majority of the population and the legislature that represented them.

NEWS DISSEMINATION AND RECEPTION CIRCA THE TWENTY - FIRST CENTURY. 

The decade preceding the twentieth first century saw the breakneck evolution of the expansion of the internet more or less contemporaneously with the formation of the Cable News Networks. By the first decades of the 21st Century the internet expanded exponentially providing omultiple social and chat platforms, podcasts.visual networks and endless blogs. There was 24 hour news coverage and opinion and news programs became cost centers. In other words they needed high ratings in order to obtain the money to pay for their production, unlike in the 1970's. 

The initial Cable News outlets as did the internet splintered the body politic into separate camps, presenting news that bolstered their viewpoints. However this was only the beginning more significantly the focus was less and less on the news per se but rather on "opinion makers" who presented their interpretation of events. Today the latter dominate the information being received by the body politic. 

These burgeoning outlets assumed more and more sinister proportions by creating a dystopian environment appealing to specific identities. If anymore evidence is needed to illustrate the importance of these entities, Kamala Harris the Democratic nominee, who came into the race late and needs to present herself to the electorate, in one week had interviews with five different news sources within the space of a few days, all of which had audiences of differing identities. 

Thus the third millennium heralded a method of delivering and perceiving facts in total contrast to the "Watergate" era. The new paradigm laid the door wide open for distortion of reality and the presentation of fiction as fact - a "Post Truth" world. 

" THE POST TRUTH WORLD - THE ERA OF DONALD J. TRUMP".

The whole era of what was to become characterized by the word of the Year in 2016 as "Post Truth" was dominated by Donald J. Trump. The domain of "Post Truth" allows the exponent to create his or her own reality, regardless of the objective facts. 

It is in the milieu of multiple news sources that Donald J. Trump, objectively a fabulist, thrived. As a skillful communicator and a salesman par excellence, he could and did create a cult like following. Trump manufactured his own world whether it was that he was the most successful businessman ever, and that he was the defender of America to maintain its white Christian national identify - a man you could trust to act in your interests and manage anything and everything. He summed it all up. "I alone can fix it as I am very stable genius". 

Trump will go down in history as Plato's original "Post Truth" exponent. In fact he developed fictional reality into art form fifty years earlier than the Oxford Dictionary named "Post Truth" the word of the year. From claiming from the word go that he was the most eligible "man about town and the smartest business man alive" he lived up to the maxim that any publicity was good publicity especially as news sources began to propagate his worldview without questioning it.  

Six bankruptcies later and married to his third wife he emerged as a national figure through his role in a TV series "The Apprentice". There he strutted and preened and convinced America that he was the greatest businessman the world had ever seen. There is also a movie on "The Apprentice" which does not agree with Trump's assessment of himself.  

Trump gained more and more prominence over "The Apprentice" years, his major construction over that period was a "Trump Tower" in Chicago. The latter venture has been so financially calamitous that it has been declared a permanent loss. He is also being investigated by the IRS for double dipping on claiming that financial loss. Prior to the 2016 election he settled a claim for having estanlished a fraudulent University for $25 million dollars . He claimed it was a "great deal" because the attorney general demanded  $40 million for the defrauded students. His political credentials were established by a serial disinformation campaign that President Obama was born in Africa.

Notwithstanding his evil buffoonery Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016, partly as a reaction to the arrogance and hubris of decades of the Dole, Reagan and Bush dynasty but more as a result of the splitting of the news sources including the internet and the cynical yet dominant Murdoch/Ailes Fox News Empire. Then in a Black Swan sequence of events including an opponent who as a female was considered a siren not just a "glass breaking" ambitious politician, an arrogant FBI investigator and with more than a little help from his friend Vladimir, he became President.

Trump's mendacious Presidency can be summarized in a footnote, namely, that in four years The Washington Post documented over 30,000 lies. Then came the biggest of them all, The Big Lie, that he never lost the 2020 election. He therefore felt entitled to concoct a multi layered conspiracy to overturn the result so as to remain in power. This months long effort culminated in him inciting an insurrection on January 6, the day designated to formerly count the electoral votes and announce the name of the newly elected President. The attack on the Capitol produced such a sense of shock that the whole Trump episode of trying to subvert the will of the people was labeled January 6 - much like Nixon's criminality was referred to as Watergate.

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION OF JANUARY 6

As the news sources that provided the information were now multiple aiming at different identities and groups the House of Representatives' January 6 investigation could not engender viewers that unified the revulsion seen in Watergate. The House of Representative Republicans refused  to participate in the investigation because they broadly agreed with Trump that this was a "partisan witch hunt". Two breakaway Republicans joined the Democrats in a months long journey which produced new and breathtaking revelations as to the scope of the conspiracy. 

In the 2020's there were not daily broadcasts of the "January 6" Committee's proceedings. When the Committee did hold a TV hearing it was an hour long and garnered less than ten percent of the population's viewership. Of that number the news was being influenced by the political slant of the Cable Channels and social media anchors.

 In this milieu Trump in the years thereafter was able to claim that the convicted insurrectionists were patriots whom he would pardon, the brutality was from the Capitol's police, it was the Speaker Nancy Pelosi's responsibility to obtain security and she had refused to call for help and that the charges against him for inciting this sedition were an attack on a political opponent and election interference for 2024. The multipolar news landscape comfortably allowed the Republican Legislative Members to go along with this tissue of lies. 

So how does the Supreme Court fit into all of this?

THE SUPREME COURT ON WATERGATE AND JANUARY 6

Both President Nixon and President Trump had appointed three judges to the Supreme Court. Both Presidents claimed absolute power for their offices. Nixon maintained he had rights similar to that of  King Louis XIV. Trump maintained that he could order the Navy Seals to eliminate a political opponent. The power of the Presidency ultimately had to be decided by the Judiciary, the final arbiter being the Supreme Court.

Within two months of the Federal District Court ruling against Nixon, the Supreme Court speedily heard arguments and issued a unanimous decision against Nixon. Nixon was persuaded by his own party to avoid being axed by as President to resign.

The Federal District Court rejected Trump's aargumrnts on December 1, 2023, maintaining that the Presidency didn't confer on him the divine right of kings. Trump appealed the ruling and the Special Counsel asked the Supreme Court to hear arguments urgently as the Court had done in the Nixon litigation. The Robert's court demurred and sent the matter to the Federal Appeal Court. Trump having once again lost in that court the 45th President  appealed to the Supreme Court. The latter deferred their opinion on the matter till July 1, 2024, 7 months after the District's ruling, making it impossible for Trump's criminal trial to be heard before the November election.

With regard to Presidential immunity the Robert's Supreme Court ruled that any "official" action could not be prosecuted. As an example of an "official;" action they referred to the section of the criminal case against Trump where he offered to make a lowly Justice Department Attorney General if he agreed to send a letter to the States stating that the Justice Department was investigating possible election corruption. They opined that the trial Judge should adjudicate which other of Trump's actions were "private" and which were "official". The majority of the Court gave Trump even more leeway, ruling that if the President was charged with a criminal "private" act any corroboratory evidence arising from his actions in his "official" capacity could not be used against him. 

In effect the Supreme Court majority have abandoned the unanimous Nixon precedent. They willfully ignored the urgency of the situation declining to adjudicate the merits of the allegations against a candidate running for the Presidency who had been indicted of an insurrection. Surely it was in the country's interest to have the matter adjudicated prior to the election? 

WHERE DOES THE LEAVE THE MATTER NOW?

In this bizarre transformative historical period Donald J Trump has, if the polls are right, an even chance of becoming President again. He has formed a transactional alliance with the richest businessman on earth who has poured five hundred million dollars into Trump's campaign. This billionaire, Elon Musk, who has been offered a job in Trump's administration also happens to own the largest social media platform in the world where he spreads misinformation, largely to benefit Trump.  Elon Musk has 200,000 million followers on his platform "x" and has generated message after message with misinformation so as to favor Trump's candidacy. 

AT THE END OF THE DAY

If the current Supreme Court had been sitting in 1974 Richard Nixon would not have had to obey the Subpoena and there would have been not been a Watergate. Despite the overwhelming evidence already out in the open there may not be a January 6 either. 

Bob Woodward of Watergate fame has written books on Trump and has little doubt which President is the worse. He has a new book "War" which has more block buster revelations as to Trump's malevolence.

On the bright side the other major candidate for the Presidency is a woman, a first generation immigrant of Jamaican and Asian parentage. So maybe all is not lost but at the end of the day it is pretty scary.

THE SUPREME COURT, ABORTION AND APARTHEID

The analogies between Trumpism and Apartheid abound. (See Blog: "Trump, USA, RFK and Apartheid, September 18, 2024). The Supreme Court is playing a central role in creating a dystopian authoritarian America including the abrogation of the fifty year old constitutional right to abortion under the privacy provision of the Constitution.

What deeply disturbs Jay H. Ell is that it is one thing for politicians and "think tanks", (sic), to advocate for totalitarian measures, it is another for the Justice System to literally, arbitrarily flaunt their role and become the arbiters and be the creators and distorters of the intent of the Constitution. In addition to the latter, the Court, unbelievably has enacted legislation declaring them as the experts on every conceivable area such as Environmental Protection. In their total reversal of Roe, which was not an even an issue in the litigation before the court, they became the umpires, to use the term Chief Justice Roberts so loves, of what women's health care should encompass.

While Trump. McConnell and the Republican legislatures of 20 states did not care what the outcome of negating a women's right to choose would be, the Supreme Court, having put themselves in the role of the decision makers on the subject, sought no information into the fact that one out of five normal pregnancies could present with complications that are indistinguishable from those wrought by "abortions". So bad as banning abortions per se might have been, (incidentally they further worsened their edict by making no provision for rape and incest}, their ruling laid open the door for the chaos that has followed. A good start would have been researching the sequalae of "abortion bans" under apartheid rule. There they might have learned of the devastation it wreeked and that in effect they were impacting health care on a wide scale. 

The Court also had to know that a slew of Republican State Legislatures had "trigger" anti abortion laws should Roe be overturned with draconian sentences for doctors who dared to intervene in the death threatening complications of any pregnancy gone wrong lest they be accused of aiding an abortion.  Apparently they cared about the consequences of their legislation as much as the politicians did. 

Jay H. Ell as a physician who acted in two capacities in the apartheid era from 1948 to 1990, primary and the emergency care, had personal experience of what the impact of an "abortion ban" was on reproductive and general medical care. 

THE BACKGROUND OF SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID ABORTION LAW

Before 1975 there was no statutory legislation on the termination of pregnancy in South Africa. There was common law which was a de facto overall ban unless it be the saving of a woman's life. In the 1960's there were approximately 200,000 illegal abortions a year and that epidemic expanded to 250.000 in the 1970's,  (Susanne Klaasen, Med. His., (58.2),  2014). (It should be noted in that period the population of South Africa was about 20 million). Klaasen states in the apartheid period 1 of 9 women had an abortion. 

Professor Derek Crighton, head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Natal, in his defense at his trial for performing 26 abortions stated that between 1954 and 1973 his hospital had treated 40,000 Black Africans with complications from abortion. (In his evidence he apparently did not or could not distinguish between complications of a normal pregnancy and those by induced abortions), He maintained 1 in 200 of those had died and 5 percent had become sterile. In King Edward hospital, which was one of the hospitals that Crighton worked at in 1973, 934 cases of abortion complication were admitted of which 354 were septic. (Klaasen op citra).

 A major difference of apartheid abortion care as compared to the current USA situation was. while the bans on abortion were draconian in both countries, if in South Africa, a woman pitched up to the  hospital bleeding or with complications of pregnancy there was no effective legislation to prevent the doctors from treating the patients regardless whether this was a complication of a normal pregnancy or an "illegal" abortion. 

In 1975 just about a few years after America interpreted the privacy provision in the constitution to permit a woman the right to control her own body, draconian legislation was introduced by the theocratic misogynistic Nationalist apartheid government entitled, "The Abortion and Sterilization Act". Ostensibly the South African allowed for abortions for the life threatening health conditions of the mother even mental health, in rape and incest and where gross fetal abnormalities were detected. However the legislation was similar to those now enacted by American States in that it was impossible to interpret these without fearing the penalties for the health care providers enshrined in the Act. In addition all abortions had now to be performed in State institutions and had to receive the "ok" from the head of those institutions.

The 1975 Legislation had the desired effect of putting the fear of G-D into anyone who had as much advocated an abortion and the backstreet abortion industry thrived. The medical profession had watched the public humiliation and termination of the career of the foremost academic in obstetric and gynecology in his public trial in 1972, so they had little doubt of the outcome as to the impact that their involvement might have on their ability to earn a living and their reputations.

Another important background fact. is that the anti abortion legislation throughout the apartheid history had a socio economic component. Those without resources were more likely than those without to obtain safe abortion care.

HOW DID THIS WORK IN THE REAL WORLD OF PATIENT CARE IN APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA

There were two major differences in apartheid South Africa as compared to the current situation in the USA. There were no arbortifactient medications then so the "illegal" terminations had to be done by back street abortionists. (The introduction of mifesterone as an abortifacteint has revolutionized medical abortion care in that 63 percent of abortions in America utilize this method). So "illegal" procedures in apartheid South Africa were all performed by back street abortionists.

A major difference of apartheid abortion care as compared to the current USA situation was while the bans on abortion were draconian in both countries, if, in South Africa, a woman pitched up to the  hospital bleeding or with complications of pregnancy there was no effective legislation to prevent the doctors from treating the patients. 

The South African "illegal" abortion patients were predominantly non white and a percentage had serious complications, the most ravaging of which was sepsis. Which intern in South Africa cannot remember spending endless hours,"specialing" the septic patient, who was alert to what was happening as one adjusted the isoprenaline intravenous therapy according to the blood pressure which was measured every half an hour. To this day with all the medicine advances the sepsis survival rate is at best 25 percent and at worst 50 percent.  

 There were also the poorer whites. One which stands out in memory was a 12 year old from a rural area who came in holding her teddy bear. A routine chest X-ray revealed a safety pin, a picture to this day that is indelibly printed in my mind, both in the lateral and frontal X-ray views.

What is more memorable are those young women seen in general practice.  These unfortunate patients were part of an ongoing relationship that is part and parcel of family medicine. "Unwanted" pregnancy knew no racial, political or cultural boundaries. The whole experience of devastation that the circumstance evoked in the family as well the life of the individual was ongoing lasting sometimes the length of the pregnancy and beyond. This was in stark difference as compared to the hospital encounters of patients, who had come from G-d's knows where and who would leave to pick up their lives in G-d knows whence. 

As a physician I had the responsibility of putting the limited options to the patient knowing full well that it depended on their circumstances. There were the few who could  get on a plane and fly to the United Kingdom. If they were old enough and had appropriate insurance or funds maybe the Gynecologist would do a Dilatation and Curettage. (Far less likely after 1975). There were those whose family insisted that they have the child. There was a rape victim who was referred to a "State Institution" where doctors had to decide whether her story was valid. 

There were two seventeen year old teenagers who elected to go to an agency out of town where they could continue their schooling and give their babies out for adoption. They were of course far away from their families in this dark time but they had very few options. 

As an activist against apartheid I had to be mindful that I was being watched. There was the time when I was faced with a young university student who was suicidally depressed at her pregnancy. A referral to a psychiatrist confirmed the diagnosis and a D and C was arranged. On completion of the latter the Security Police burst into the Operating Room. This was pre 1975 and a prosecution under common law would have probably failed.  I was questioned and sought legal opinion.  

Nobody arrived in the office announcing they were going to have an illegal abortion. Presumably some took that decision without needing a physician's counsel. There had to be some and I will never know

STATUS QUO IN USA  - THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT

The situation of health care providers in America is worse than it ever was in South Africa who in the hospital setting could treat "incomplete" abortions whatever the cause.  Self righteous sanctimonious men have made life or death decisions concerning women illegal, rendering them helpless to respond whether the complications are in a normal pregnancy or as a result of an induced abortion.

Now 20 states have abortion bans some with a life time prison sentence for health care providers. One third of women in America are under an abortion ban.  Anyone who assists in obtaining an abortion can be subject to penalties. Even the Uber driver who speeds you to the airport to go to a state where you can still get care.  The plight of women mainly, with complications of a normal pregnancy has been graphically presented in the media. The examples to date have to be the tip of the iceberg as how many can be strong willed enough to share their personal stories of reproductive grief, loss or relive rape and incest. 

The Supreme Court in the very near future might decide whether or not the FDA's decision to allow the prescription of abortion drugs is "constitutional" or not. They did not decide that issue last time on the basis of "standing". That is those that had brought the litigation had no right to do so. There are right wing judges who will need not much convincing that the FDA have acted "unconstitutionally" by allowing doctors to "subvert the Constitution" by providing all women in America, in person or by mail, the means to procure an abortion.  

The Court  has already ruled that reproductive freedom is not a constitutional right. If they ruled against the FDA that would put America, as bad as the situation is now, in a far far worse predicament than apartheid South Africa. It would open the door to back street abortionists with doctors powerless to mitigate the destruction of women's bodies and their lives. 

AT THE END OF THE DAY

If in November 2024 the President of America is Donald Trump both the women and men of America will be to blame. However if men, particularly the youth, haven't the insight to recognize the danger, women have to really step up to the plate. If they can vote in every referendum in every state, red or blue, in favor of women's reproductive rights how can they then negate that vote by putting the dot next to Trump for President..........?

If in November 2024 Kamala Harris is the President of America and the Democrats retain the Senate and win the House she needs to support Senate Leader Schumer to pass Roe v Wade with a simple majority. The majority isn't "simple" by any means it is the broad will of the people. The issue itself isn't some distorted arcane interpretation of what the white men were thinking in the late eighteenth century it is rather the aspirational belief that "all men, (sic), are created equal". Mitch McConnell never hesitated to "break the rules" when he ensured that the Trump anti abortion judges were elected,  neither should Schumer hesitate when the issue is undoing the law that the Supreme Court enacted in depriving women of their constitutional right to control their own bodies. 

Lest anyone forget, the Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2024. With a Trump Presidency he will carry on his "proud" record and replace aging Alito and Thomas, who will go out to pasture, with two young Aileen Canons who will be there for the next forty years. 

TRUMP, USA, RFK AND APARTHEID

There are marked similarities and differences in the South African and the American story. Race has been a central factor in the politics of both countries since their inception over three hundred and fifty years ago. Ironically, now that one of the archetypical proponents of a racial superiority, South Africa, has long abandoned its apartheid policy, an American candidate of one of the two major political parties is running on the self same canard that was the basis of apartheid - Keep America White or as he euphemistically refers to it - Make America Great Again. 

It was Robert Kennedy, (Senior), in a speech in Cape Town South Africa in 1966 who brought the two countries preoccupation with race into focus.

ROBERT F KENNEDY (THE FATHER THAT IS)

It was Robert F. Kennedy, (the father that is), in his Affirmation Address at the University of Cape Town, June 1966, who highlighted the analogies between his homeland and South Africa. The American icon opined, " I come here because of my deep interest and affection for a land settled by the Dutch in the mid seventeenth century, then taken over by the British and at last independent. A land in which the native inhabitants were first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem today.....a land which was an importer of slaves and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage. I refer of course to the United States of America...... 

THE ACCURACY AND INACCURACIES OF RFK'S NARRATIVE

RFK's narrative was not entirely accurate in so far that South Africa was never a significant importer of slaves nor did it wipe out the indigenous populations which action had stained Kennedy's land of birth. The white race in South Africa was very much in a minority as opposed to the USA.

 By comparison very little immigration has occurred to the Southern tip of Africa while America is characterized as a melting pot of many nations. These circumstances have played a role in racial politics. The South African White Nationalists rated the threat to survival more highly in the 1960's than did their American brethren. 

But both countries enacted policies relating to their pigmented citizenry. Both had had their history dominated by two distinct white groups who wrestled for power and who had differed in their attitudes to their colored brethren. 

Notwithstanding the genesis of the racial politics, in 1966 the two nations were on divergent paths as to meeting the challenge created by their diverse populations. South Africa had engaged in apartheid with the trappings of totalitarianism to keep it in place while America had thrown off their historical shackles through the Civil Rights legislation. Martin Luther King had mobilized public opinion while Nelson Mandela was only a few years into his 28 years into his prison sentence.

LEGISLATION OF APARTHEID TO KEEP SOUTH AFRICA WHITE

The Nationalist Party in 1948 with a minority of votes came into power on a platform of naked racist segregationist policies as well as to promote the Afrikaner in every sector of society. While the latter was a valid objective and many may have voted for that aspect of their program, their reign morphed into the second major human rights travesty of the twentieth century.  In this inflection point in history South Africa went the wrong way.(See blog, January 22, 2104,"Smuts The Man Who Might Have Prevented Apartheid"). 

The new Nationalist Government immediately proceeded to remove any vestige of any pigmented citizens' voting rights. Then followed a slew of legislation to segregate. For purposes of this discussion the focus will be on limiting Black Africans presence in so called"White South Africa". First they enacted the Population Registration Act, whereby everyone was classified according to "race". The latter wreeked havoc especially among the "colored" group who were descendants of some indigenous peoples and indentured labor that had been imported from South East Asia. Families were split. 

For the Black Africans rigid criteria were laid down as to who was entitled to live in "white areas of South Africa". The legislation became tougher and tougher as the years rolled on. "iIlegals"  were rounded up sentenced to jail terms and sent back to rural areas some of which they had never ever seen before. Families were split by the family values regime. The arrests were on an epidemic like scale. In 1971 at the height of this cruel insanity 381,000 Black Africans were arraigned. 

The methods used to find those without documents referred to as "passes" were barbaric. Squad cars could career around confronting anyone who was black demanding to see their pathetic "passports". What occurred in the black townships was out of sight but in the "White Group Areas" the fascism was there for all to see. The police would raid domestic workers quarters for example in the middle of the night, bang on the doors and scream, "Maak oop", ("Open up"). 

THE RATIONALE FOR APARTHEID CHANGED IN 1960

While the day to day impact on the black population didn't change, in 1960 the rationale and the philosophy did. The opprobrium throughout the world was enough alone for the need to put a new face on this racism. 

Enter Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd a theocrat autocrat who was elected Prime Minister in 1960 and had all the answers. The latter was a former newspaper editor who had been sued for pro Nazi propaganda during the war and had led a march against the immigration of Jews in the late 1930's. He was not new to the game having been Minister of Native affairs since nearly the beginning of National Party reign. He introduced an absurd solution - the concept of "Bantustans".Prior to that the "illegals" were sent to rural districts run by hereditary chiefs and the like, now they had a "Homeland". Each of these would be the home to persons of a particular tribe whether they liked it or not. Social engineering on the grandest of scales.

The Bantustans were to be run by parliaments that would be constituted by hereditary chiefs and by election. It is fair to say that they by definition they had to be puppet states as they had few sources of revenue. The first experiment in the Transkei area, the "Homeland" of the Xhosa tribe, nearly came adrift as the government's nominee was almost defeated but with much maneuvering and bribery the anointed one was elected as head. There were eventually 7 such dummy states that did nothing to alleviate the situation and inhumanity that apartheid had engendered. 

In 1986 as a prelude to the historic ending of apartheid the influx control laws were abolished. Verwoerd was assassinated in 1966 by a schizophrenic who was found guilty but insane in a high profile court case.

REPRESSIVE LEGISLATION TO CARRY THIS OUT.

The repressive legislation begun early in the Nationalist Party reign. The first piece of legislation was The Suppression of Communism Act, followed by others including detention without trial. "Communism" was defined by the government and the interpretation would have made Senator Joe McCarthy envious. There was the banning of individuals who were not allowed to be in the company of more than two others. Winnie Mandela was famously banished to a remote area and banned under the  act. There was detention without trial. Defined crimes against the state with minimum sentences. Of course there was the accusation of torture, suspects jumping out of windows, falling down stairs, all illustrated by the infamous Biko case - a student activist who was murdered in detention. 

All this scary stuff what has it to do with MAGA Trump and his side kick Vance?

MAGA TRUMP 

The central MAGA playbook is immigration, illegal and legal. Trump will round up the 11 million criminals, drug dealers, murderers, rapists, lunatics and the rest that Biden and Harris have welcomed into America. Trump will put them in detention camps and presumably send them to G-d knows where. He has proudly screamed at his Nuremberg style rallies that it will be "bloody". 

The comparison to purification of the race by getting rid of the vermin and those that are poisoning the blood of our people sounds more like the language of those who protested in Charlottesville and some of Trump's lunch guests than the purveyors of apartheid. The force and resources needed to effect this cruelty would be on a scale that would make the apartheid operation seem minuscule. 

Just in case Trump really is worried that the illegals that are taking away black jobs he gives the game away by his attack on legal immigration on those who aren't blue eyed and blond. The  attack and unashamed lies about Haitian immigrants is the most recent example of his racism. He has attacked the policy of allowing immigrants from "shit hole" countries. 

In fact if you go through his highly recorded career he has smeared immigrants from virtually every country that have made up America's population. Another tactic is to question whether fellow Americans of different hues were in fact born in the USA. Who can forget his years long polemic that Barak Obama was born in Kenya? And now whether Kamala Harris is really black? 

   AT THE END OF THE DAY

It may be trite to call this the most consequential election in America's history. There are inflection points in history that impact the future for generations. Biden finally did his bit by putting country before ambition, (See blog, July 10, 2024, "Biden's Hubris - A Movie ReRun"). There are many who should search their consciences. 

If the MAGA Republican Party are trashed and Trump defeated it will be the end for years to come. Cults need leaders and Trump has no successor. He will be a geriatric 4 time loser and probably in jail. 

The good news is that Kamala Harris and the Democrats are on a roll. 

Just a thought  - Elon Musk who is a highly intelligent individual surely has taken note of the evisceration of so many who served Trump. In case he has forgotten he hails from one of Trump's "shit holes". 

Another thought - what an irony that RFK, (the son that is), is on the wrong side of the racial equation nearly 60 years after his father was the icon of American equality.