Speculation persists that Joe Biden may choose not to run for reelection in 2024. On the side of the Democrats, that is perhaps the rationalization of a wish. Though Democratic luminaries publicly endorse Biden, in private they fret that he’s an accident waiting to happen: too old, too infirm, too befuddled, too unpopular. Their worries are understandable. An incumbent president who’s polling neck and neck with Donald Trump, of all people, hardly inspires confidence. And even if Biden does bow out, his heir presumptive is Kamala Harris, a dud who’s even less popular than he is.
As for Trump, with his 91 felony indictments and trademark crazy talk, the fact that he’s on track—and by a wide margin—to snag the 2024 GOP presidential nomination seems to validate Winston Churchill’s quip that the best argument against democracy is a ten-minute conversation with the average voter. And at the risk of being denounced as an insufferable intellectual snob, I’ll add that the likely 2024 presidential matchup is another strong argument against democracy. If this is the best America can do, why did we bother to give poor old King George the boot?
But despite its element of farce, the situation we face is dire. It’s not just that Biden and Trump are completely unfit to serve as president, though that’s bad enough. Congress has devolved into a dismal partisan swamp with a striking resemblance to the Fifth Circle of Dante’s Inferno. Radicals on both sides of the ideological divide act out like adolescents, throwing hissy fits and pulling fire alarms.
Meanwhile, the storm clouds gather.
In February 2024, the Russo-Ukrainian War will have been going on for two years. Though the Biden Administration may be credited for the assistance it has given to Ukraine, enabling that country to stay in the fight, its overall policy has been wavering and uncertain—perilously close, indeed, to a policy of too little, too late. Hag-ridden by fears that “escalation” risks a wider war, the Administration knows not what to do with the obligation it has assumed. For his part, Trump pledges to end the war as soon as he reassumes the presidency—the details to be announced.
Under either man, it’s more than possible that where Ukraine is concerned, America will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
On the opposite side of the world, China is in the early stages of an economic and demographic crisis that could well lead that country’s despotic governing regime to roll the dice on Taiwan.
In 1914, a sense that time was running out for them induced Austria-Hungary and Germany to plunge Europe and the world into a terrible war. Hitler too was a despot in a hurry and the war he touched off was even more terrible. China today aspires to make itself the dominant power in Asia—and fears that the clock is ticking. Both economically and geopolitically, the conquest of Taiwan is the key element of China’s long-term strategy. But the United States and its allies in the region bar the way. That barrier, however, depends for its credibility on resolute American leadership based on a policy of peace through strength: sufficient military power and an unambiguous commitment to use that power to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Can either Biden or Trump be expected to articulate such a policy and back it up with the necessary buildup of American military power? Would either man respond forcefully to a Chinese attack on Taiwan? Almost certainly, the answer is no.
Domestically, the outlook is equally bleak. It so happens that whoever takes the oath of office in January 2025 will be confronted with a massive fiscal crisis requiring immediate action. If nothing is done, an additional $5 trillion will be added to the national debt in one year: five times more than the 2009 stimulus bill passed in response to the 2008 economic meltdown.
Neither Biden, nor Trump, nor either party in Congress show any sign of alarm over this rising tide of red ink that will stoke inflation, trigger more interest rate hikes, destabilize the economy, and further undermine the federal government’s fiscal condition. In particular there’s no appetite at all for the entitlement reforms without which things will just get worse and worse. Characteristically, the Biden Administration is compounding the problem with its witless economic policies, and there’s no reason to believe that Trump would do any better.
Added to this is an out-of-control border crisis that’s flooding the country with illegal immigrants, and a crime crisis that’s turning America’s greatest cities into dystopian urban landscapes.
So there you have it: America is facing multiple foreign and domestic crises at a time when the country’s political class has descended into dysfunction and chaos. The leaders and experts who, supposedly, are guiding America’s national destiny have no idea what they’re doing. Ideological rant, theatrical posturing, magical thinking and plain incompetence rule the day. The loudest, dumbest voices drown out all counsels of reason. But a painful reality check lurks just over the horizon.
We are indeed, as the ancient Chinese curse has it, living in interesting times…
NATO – an anti-white and anti-family institution . . .
After the apocalypse of 1945, a number of global organizations have been formed with the aim of maintaining and expanding totalitarian liberalism. One of the earliest organizations formed for this purpose was the war alliance "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", or NATO, which can be seen as the military wing of globalism.
In addition to ensuring that Washington always has international support for its military campaigns, NATO as an institution is explicitly anti-white and explicitly dedicated to "racial justice" for racial aliens living in white countries. As early as 1999, NATO authored reports blaming nationalists for a number of modern problems and warning against the influence of nationalism.
In 2023, the war alliance held a summit at its headquarters in Brussels on race where the alliance's leaders pledged to fight "homogeneous attitudes" and to use NATO's "collective intelligence" for the purpose.
In fact, NATO is so dedicated to its anti-white agenda that it openly advocates that institutions must be reshaped to be "inclusive," in other words, restructured to be more anti-white, and consist of fewer white employees and executives.
https://nordfront.se/nato-en-antivit-och-familjefientlig-institution
You write well. However, what’s your proposal to deal with the crisis. Stating the mostly obvious issues is insufficient, no?