Politics

Controlling the Archives

by

There is news that Jay Bhattacharya may be appointed to run NIH. Bhattacharya has a history with that agency:

“Bhattacharya teaches medicine, economics, and health policy at Stanford University; he became a national voice in 2020 as one of the coauthors of the Great Barrington Declaration. The open letter- signed by thousands of health professionals- called for an end to mass lockdowns and focused efforts on protecting the most vulnerable while letting the rest of society get back to living. The statement was met with harsh criticism from leading health officials at the time, including former NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins, who privately described the authors as “fringe” and was urging a quick rebuke of their message, according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.”

The suppression of Bhattacharya went even further with revelations that the Biden Administration coordinated with social media to censor him.

There have been times when, upon the fall of a regime, there is a scramble to control that regime’s archives. After all, while a regime may lie to you, it won’t lie to itself regarding certain things. In 1944 Parisians knew their liberation was on hand when they saw the Gestapo burning its papers.

Not only does the opening of archives reveal corruption, it also leads to a reconsideration of history. Journalism (especially these days) is often merely the reporting of what other people have said or is pure conjecture, while historians who later go through primary source material have a much better grip on what went on. The opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s led to a re-evaluation of many parts of Soviet history as well as past US-Soviet relations. Next time you want to evaluate a historian’s work, take a look at their bibliography and see if they did any original research, or if they are merely replicating the methodology of journalists by quoting other historians or engaging in conjecture.

Read more

How to Invest Political Power

by

Roger Kimball writes:

”The usual rule is this: when Democrats win elections, they wield power. When Republicans win elections, they seek, or at least agree to, compromise.”

I will take it a step further and state the Democrats know how to leverage power, in the form of transient electoral majorities, for their long-term strategic advantage. To paraphrase Rahm Emmanuel, the Democrats do not let a majority go to waste.

The great historical examples of the past 100 years are FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society, each enacted after electoral landslides that conferred Democratic control over the White House, Senate, and House. Social Security and Medicare, enacted during the New Deal and Great Society, are the twin colossi of the welfare state both in terms of dollar amounts and their political invulnerability. With their existence, the Democrats gain a structural political advantage over the Republicans.

Read more

What’s the Matter with Wisconsin?

by

Curious about election result changes in one of the swing states, once Wikipedia had the final vote counts of the 2016 election (allowing a relatively simple copy to an Excel spreadsheet), I took a look at stats for Wisconsin’s two most recent presidential elections to see if I could spot signs of any trends. The exercise confirmed what I already knew about the divides in both parties – better than expected.

Read more

Welcoming Hitler to the White House and Other Thoughts

by

First, watching a smiling Joe Biden welcome Trump back to the White House caps off an eight-day period of whipsawed memory-holing. Leave aside that just a few weeks before, Biden was reported as calling the man next to him a fascist, the media has been legitimizing the American Hitler’s victory on a daily basis by alternating between breathlessly reporting his nominations and wailing about why they lost.

That’s not how you go about stopping Hitler.

Read more

2024 Election Plus/Delta

by

Pluses: admittedly much the shorter list, but we did resolve a few things.

  1. Thanks mainly to vote shifts in California and New York, the popular vote outcome was not at variance with the Electoral College vote, and it wasn’t particularly close (over 4-1/2 million votes).
  2. Largely as a result, the losing side, and VP Harris herself, have indicated cooperation with formal certification and transition processes.
  3. Harris is gone. She’ll get a chunk of money for a book and retire to the lecture circuit.
  4. Walz, same, and given the likelihood that he would have been a 21st-century version of Henry Wallace, with Chinese instead of Soviet agents in his inner circle, that might be more important than getting rid of Harris.
  5. Taking a somewhat longer view, Trump is gone too (perhaps not a much longer view; see the final Delta item below).
  6. By extension, there is some chance that ’28 will not have the electorate choosing between a crook and an idiot for President.
  7. Whatever one may think of prediction markets, and there are arguments on both sides regarding their functionality, the biggest prediction market of all, the US stock market, was forecasting a Trump victory all year (not coincidentally, the same thing happened in 2016).
  8. By the way, the media will actually report negative economic news now.
  9. I could have put this in either category, but I’ll leave it here: your Cluebat of the Day is a reminder that Trump is as old as Biden was in ’20, and notwithstanding some of my more apprehensive items below, to expect anything much of him is a waste of time.
  10. Likely continuation of relatively good space-industry policy across Administrations, which should be the only thing that matters several decades from now.

Read more