Time for Leading Republicans to Endorse Biden/Harris

I just finished Romney: A Reckoning by McKay Copping.  The book is mostly a presentation of Romney as a representative of traditional Republican values and morality.  Romney's case is persuasive.  Of course, there are other Republicans who have distanced themselves from Trump, most recently Mike Pence.  And yet, Trump remains a threat to win back the Presidency.  

Is it time for these Republicans to endorse Biden/Harris?  Surely there are features of Biden/Harris that can be supported by these Republicans.  I suppose a problem is down ballot.  A Romney endorsement of Biden cannot be seen as an endorsement of Democrats running for the House or Senate against Republican opponents.  But if Romney and friends are interested in returning sanity to the Republican, I cogent strategy could be to endorse Biden/Harris and all opponents to extremism where possible.  Reasonable candidates running against Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bobert should be grouped with Biden/Harris to purge Republicans from extremism.  

America's Trust in Capitalism

 It is clear that Americans love capitalism.  The mythology that is reality in highly visible cases features mostly men founding companies with a vision and then delivering goods and services that reward them proportionally to the value delivered to the economy.  They earned it and they deserve it.  

But America is not a purely capitalistic society.  Taxation is also proportional to income, and the use of the taxes for defense and the public welfare is seen to be in conflict with pure capitalism.  There is a certain strain of libertarianism that believes government interference, including well meaning but inefficiently (and corruptly) used government programs, does little to address societal ills while interfering with the 'invisible hand' of capitalism.  That hand could solve many more problems more efficiently while creating even greater wealth.

Americans refuse to accept the amorality of capitalism that, left unfettered, would consume the planet and impoverish a large segment of the population.  Capitalism also generates aristocracy and plutocracy.  Inheritance of wealth results in the control of capital by those who did not earn it.  If the general thesis about capitalism is that the successful people in capitalist societies deserve veneration because of their vision and energy, it simply does not follow that the inheritors of the wealth deserve the same veneration.  Thus, the concept of pure capitalism is corrupted.  That is, capital naturally flows to meet the needs of society.  Government imagines it can best solve social problems, but in fact, government is inefficient and corrupt, perhaps in much the same way that inherited wealth is.  The government did not earn its power; it is empowered through taxation of those who generated the wealth.  

I do not believe there is a utopia that would eliminate all ills, but I also believe in a mix of capitalism and socialism that can achieve a more just and productive society that is better than either pure capitalism or pure socialism.  A society that invests in research can provide guidance for capital to achieve investments that address problems, thus anticipating needs in a longer and broader scope than is inherent in pure capitalism.  That is, the virtue of capitalism is how quickly and forcefully it can pivot to solutions relative to a governmental bureaucracy.  Both inherited wealth and government institutions will naturally seek to preserve the source of their wealth, thus thwarting the flow of capital towards solving social ills.  But agencies existing to identify problems that may need long term efforts or are at scales beyond the scope of individuals can identify problems, promote innovation to solve the problems, and provide capital seed to enable a capitalistic industry that solves the problems.

Trump vs Biden

 The Iowa Caucuses are held today, with results to be published tomorrow or so.  Expectations are that Trump will win handily and that DeSantis and Haley will be distant seconds & thirds.  Most polls expect the November election will be Trump vs Biden, and most polls indicate that most voters would prefer that candidates other than Trump and Biden.  

But there is a case to be made that this matchup is needed.  I can't imagine Trump winning.  He lost by millions of votes and a significant margin in the electoral college.  There is a growing vanguard of conservatives who are dead set against Trump.  He will be convicted in one or more cases against him.  His behavior is increasingly erratic, and only the MAGA base believes Biden is directing his prosecution.  His financial empire in New York is being dismantled, and there is little he can do about it.  Coupled with his history of failed ventures, it will be difficult for anyone other than the MAGA faithful to deny his long streak of losing.  

Strategists will say negative ads work, and Democrats have much more material to use.  Much negative advertising will come out of the mouths of committed Republicans, including candidates running against him in the primaries.  If the documents case results in conviction, there will be some Republicans who will consider Trump unacceptable as a security risk. There will be a major faction of voters for whom the abortion issue is the main factor for voting against Trump.  Negative ads should help persuade Latinos and Blacks to either support Biden or at least not support Trump.  The same should hold, even for Muslims, despite Biden's strong support for Israel.

Voters convinced that Democrats are evil no matter what are not to be persuaded.  But if Biden wins reelection and Democrats win the House, the Senate, or both, there will be a reckoning about Trump's leadership.  

Meditation of Immigration

 A NY Times article today Europe May Be Headed for Something Unthinkable stimulated thoughts about the immigration problem.  I present as a given that human instinct for survival is perhaps the strongest of psychological motivations.  Unless your culture requires you to accept the fate as dictated by your surrounding conditions, people will seek first to survive and then to thrive.  As basic resources diminish and threaten existence, people will move or seek to move.

In the U.S., border policy changes have forced dangerous and often fatal treks across the southern border.  One can only shudder about the immigration challenges as climate change shrinks livable locations on the planet.  

In my utopia, immigration challenges would be actively monitored, something like the monitoring that occurred in the Covid pandemic.  Changes in the 'supply' of immigrants and in the 'capacity to host immigrants' would be tracked.  Ministries of immigration in all countries would meet regularly to discuss actions to address the dynamics.  The reality of immigration and emigration pressures would be acknowledged and addressed in the context of the rest of the political and sociological considerations.  Rather like the climate change crisis, immigration would be recognized as a global issue needing analysis and action everywhere.  

Thinking somewhat locally on the immigration crisis at the U.S. southern border, we observe millions of refugees and other displaced people seeking asylum in the U.S.  Most who are fleeing for their safety or for wont of a means of support are willing to abandon the home of their birthplace, relatives, and their culture to have even a chance to survive.  If given the choice, many would be happy to join others of their kind wherever they are in the U.S., but many others would be happy to assimilate into a culture that asks nothing of them except a willingness to work and to respect the rights of others.  

Like many other crises, immigration is an issue of distribution of limited resources.  The pressure on global resources will be high no matter how immigration is handled in any particular area, but the risks of war will depend on whether immigration is treated as a shared problem or a problem for others to solve.