RFK Jr. as HHS Secretary

 

Friend Xerxes objects to RFK Jr. as US Secretary of Health and Human Services, on the grounds that he is unqualified for the position. And, of course, that he is an “anti-vaxxer,” and promoting dangerous unscientific falsehoods about vaccines.

I note that his Wikipedia entry introduces Kennedy as, among other things, a “conspiracy theorist.” “Since 2005, Kennedy has promoted vaccine misinformation.”

However, as a result of his criticism of Kennedy, Xerxes had two readers unsubscribe from his newsletter.

I think it is a symptom of how dysfunctional our society has become that two people unsubscribed simply because Xerxes said something they disagree with. 

What is the point of reading opinions you agree with? They will tell you nothing you do not already know. To refuse to hear opposing arguments means you are not looking for truth; you can have no idea whether your own ideas are true or not, if you have not heard the opposing arguments. This amounts to deliberately choosing delusion. Too many people currently seem to be doing exactly that, systematically. They want to belong to a cult.

As it happens, I disagree with Xerxes on RFK Jr. I disagree with him on most things.

Regarding RFK Jr. being unqualified for his position, there is a Catch-22 here. Milton Friedman pointed it out. Who are the qualified experts? When a government wants to set regulations, they must indeed turn to experts for advice. That almost inevitably means people prominent in that industry or field set their own rules. For example, to regulate the automotive industry, government will turn to the executives of the big car companies. To set vaccine policy, the executives of the big drug firms. To set science, policy, prominent scientists. Of course. But such experts automatically have a conflict of interest, and an overwhelming temptation to set up a cartel. They are likely to regulate in their industry’s interests, or their profession’s interests, and to restrain competition; not in the public interest.

How can you get around this?

RFK Jr. arguably has the ideal qualifications for his position, precisely because he is not a medical doctor nor a food or pharmaceutical executive. Nevertheless, as a lawyer who has specialized in lawsuits against members of these groups, he has had to research the issues thoroughly and develop expertise to present his cases. You might argue he has a bias against the industry, but he is not beholden to them, nor nearly as financially interested. And a bias in the other direction might be a useful corrective.

For the same reason, it was rather a good idea to vote in an entrepreneur with no prior political experience as president. Trump knows how to get things done, but he is not compromised by nor beholden to what he calls the “Washington swamp.” Both appointments seem to be a useful experiment.

This is not to say I think JFK’s views are right; I have no position on that. I don’t have the knowledge nor expertise to know that. We do know something is wrong somewhere in the modern American lifestyle: perhaps in our food, perhaps environmental pollutants, perhaps the vaccines, perhaps in common drugs and medicines. We see an epidemic of obesity, of autism, of diabetes, of mass shootings, of suicides, of drug abuse, of unexplained sudden deaths of young and seemingly fit people. Something is up. Surely more research is a good thing, and independent research not directly funded by the drug companies or food companies. Maybe Kennedy can get to the bottom of it, with the resources now at his disposal.

One thing seems clear to me about Kennedy: he is sincere. He is doing this out of conviction. He is not paid off. I want leaders like that.

Why, other than voluntary delusion, would we not want to do the research to find out?

On Judging a Book by Its Cover

 

Watching a YouTube of RFK Jr. banning some food dyes. Why do I feel such spontaneous support for RFK Jr.? Why do I want to cheer him on, and go along for the ride? It is not ideology; RFK is broadly on the left, a big-government guy, and we probably disagree on much.

Is it family loyalty to the Kennedys? I am, after all, an Irish Catholic, and JFK was important to North American Irish Catholics in his day. 

No; I never liked Ted Kennedy, and did not trust or support RFK Sr. in his day. 

But there are certain politicians that seem to me to radiate good faith. They have a spiritual glow. Tulsi Gabbard gives me that same feeling. JD Vance gives me the same feeling. Look at his eyes. Pierre Poilievre gives me the same feeling, to a lesser degree. Nicole Shanahan gives me the same feeling. Ben Carson gives me that feeling. Eugene McCarthy gave me that feeling way back when. Jerry Brown did. 

By contrast, Vivek Ramaswamy makes me uneasy. Bernie Sanders does not give me the creeps, but Elizabeth Warren does. Trump does not give me the creeps, but also does not give me the warm fuzzies. Clearly, this is not related to ideology.

Joe Biden always gave me the creeps. Justin Trudeau maxes out on raw creepiness. Richard Nixon gave me the creeps to an extreme degree. Erin O’Toole powerfully repels me. Doug Ford repels me.

The sense is stronger when I am in the person’s physical presence. I once met Hun Sen, the Cambodian dictator. I could sense a great darkness. To a lesser extent, I felt a darkness meeting Sheila Copps, and, surprisingly, because I did not detect it at distance, Jean Chretien. But when I met John Diefenbaker, it was light. Intense light when I met John Paul II.

The issue seems clear: some politicians give me the impression they are in it for principle, and others that they are in it for power. What particular principle they embrace is less important. And the impression is somehow instinctive. You can see it in their faces; you can feel it. Not always; not consistently; but often.

Or I think I can.

Kennedy on SSRIs

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is getting a lot of heat during his current confirmation hearings for having criticized SSRI antidepressants in the past. Specifically, he is alleged to have said that they cause school shootings, and that they are addictive.

Obviously, there is a lot of money for drug companies in SSRIs, because people who take them are usually on them for a long time, often for life. We ought to be suspicious.

Doctors, in turn, like pills; it is their entire business. You go to your doctor with a complaint, and they will prescribe one, even if they do not believe it will do anything. You have to keep the customer satisfied. They pride themselves on the “placebo effect.”

And insurers, patients, and the government like pills too. A pill for depression looks ideal: no expensive and intrusive therapy sessions with a psychiatrist. No need for any life changes.

Moreover, “Big Pharma,” the drug companies, finance the campaigns of many politicians. Their advertising sustains a lot of the media. So they are in a position to silence any doubts, as they seem to be doing here.

We ought to begin from the suspicion that SSRIs are being overprescribed. 

RFK Jr. is right. 

Whenever another mass shooting happens, there is always an outcry to ban guns. Which is either folly or deliberate misdirection. There are lots more guns in private hands in countries like Switzerland or Israel than in the US, yet no more school shootings there. The number of mass shootings per capita is actually pretty constant country to country across the developed world, despite varying gun laws and levels of gun ownership. Even take away all guns: those intent on mass murder can resort to cars, or IEDs. The UK government has actually, absurdly, recently introduced a bill banning the sale of knives. Guns are not the issue.

Those wanting to defend the right to bear arms then resort to blaming the shootings on mental illness. After all, the shooters invariably have a history of mental illness. So what is needed is not fewer guns, but more money for mental health. These people must get treatment.

This idea, however, is equally folly or misdirection. The killers have a history of mental illness. That means they have been diagnosed; they are in the system; they have been receiving treatment. Treatment has not worked. The incidence of mass shootings or mass killings is consistent across jurisdictions despite varying levels of investment in the mental health system. Lack of treatment is not the problem.

Further, this association of violence with mental illness is profoundly discriminatory towards the mentally ill. The mentally ill as a demographic are actually statistically less likely to be violent than the general population. Stigmatizing them as violent and dangerous gives them more stigma and more problems when they are already the most stigmatized and suffering among us. It is scapegoating the most vulnerable.

RFK has rightly deduced that the problem has to be with the treatment. These killers are all taking SSRIs.

And it is not hard to see what is going on.

So far as we know, there is no such underlying disease as “depression.” This is true of everything we class as “mental illness.” What we have is a set of symptoms, listed in the DSM, which may be caused by all kinds of underlying conditions. We prescribe SSRIs for a certain set of symptoms, called “depression,” in the same way we might prescribe aspirin for pain or fever, without knowing what is causing the pain or fever.

This means SSRIs are at best only suppressing symptoms while leaving the underlying condition to fester and perhaps grow. Without SSRIs, the problem might instead be addressed and solved. Instead, tragically, modern psychiatry, given their present SSRI approach, expects most with symptoms of depression to recur in time and only get worse as the patient ages.

The initial thesis on which they were introduced, that depression was caused by a “chemical imbalance in the brain,” specifically a lack of serotonin, has been disproven by subsequent research. If they work, we do not know why they work.

But what they do, subjectively, is to deaden emotions. This includes happiness, love, laughter, but also unpleasant emotions like anxiety, fear, and sorrow—the symptoms labelled “depression.” 

This means that, rather like alcohol, they also deaden the conscience. They deaden feelings of guilt.

This is good for those feeling unwarranted anxiety and sorrow, usually as a result of being abused. 

This is bad for those feeling anxiety and sorrow due to their past bad actions or their overblown self-esteem being frustrated by the realities of life.

The former, when they feel bad, want to kill themselves. They see themselves as worthless. The SSRIs, unfortunately, can make them more likely to commit suicide, by taking away their fears and inhibitions. This problem is well known.

The latter, when they feel bad, want to kill anyone around them, as many other people as possible. Hence, mass shootings.

And the awful truth is that either form of “depression” does have a cure, that SSRIs, psychiatry, and the pharmaceutical industry suppress.

It is called religion. Religion can recalibrate one’s sense of values and self-worth. It has worked for thousands of years. 

We have been moving away from it in recent years, largely due to the rise of psychology and psychiatry as a “scientific” substitute.

Mass murder is only one of the results; along with a rising tide of depression, mental illness, drug addictions, social breakdown, family breakdown, and suicide.

Shanahan In

 

I knew nothing about her until her name came up as a possible RFK VP pick, but I think Nicole Shanahan was a good choice for that ticket. That she has no political experience, in the current climate, is a plus. RFK is running to change things. She can at least pose as a “tech entrepreneur,” and that’s a background demonstrated to be marketable by such figures as Andrew Yang and Vivek Ramaswamy. Tech entrepreneurs are modern culture heroes. Her youth contrasts well with old Joe Biden and old Donald Trump. She is a glamorous figure, which plays into the Kennedy brand: “return to Camelot.”

The immediate criticism from the right is that she is too left-wing. I don’t think most voters think in those terms. They simply either want change or the status quo. She introduces an issue which is neither obviously left nor right, but could appeal across the spectrum: chronic disease and what is causing it. This dovetails with Kennedy’s concern over vaccines and the environment to make what looks like a coherent ticket and platform. Which speaks of sincerity, an important part of RFK Jr.’s appeal. And it serves to shift the political discourse, which is the whole point of a third-party effort.

Something else occurs to me: she looks like a replacement for Tulsi Gabbard. She ticks a number of the same boxes. As if Kennedy had his mind set on Gabbard, had his strategies worked out assuming she was his running mate, and then could not get her; so he went for a reasonable facsimile. There were indeed early rumours that Gabbard would be his pick; at one point he went to Honolulu, in her home state, to make some rumoured announcement that did not happen. I thought Kennedy-Gabbard would be a dream ticket.

Perhaps a planned announcement was called off because Gabbard got a better offer. Perhaps Trump, seeing this about to happen, picked up the phone and told Gabbard to hold off, and she would be his own VP pick. There are recent rumours that Ramaswamy is out of contention, and Gabbard has recently publicly said she would be honoured. This is not something a politician usually says if they do not expect to be selected—it makes them look needy and embarrasses them when they are not chose.

Gabbard makes excellent sense for Trump as well. If Trump does not pick a woman, when both Biden and Kennedy have, that could hurt his image with women, a huge voting block. Especially in the face of prior claims by his Democrat opponents that Trump is anti-woman. As a Samoan and a Hindu, she also blunts charges of racism or “Christian nationalism” against Trump. But as a woman of faith, she is probably also viewed favourably by his Christian supporters. As an independent and former Democrat, she could broaden appeal to independent voters and disaffected Democrats. She is, like Trump, an anti-establishment figure; this would send a reassuring message to his supporters that he is not going to be controlled by the existing party bosses. Because Trump’s appeal is always that he will stand up to the “uniparty” and the beltway mafia.

How the West Was Won

 

Cornell West, who has been running for the nomination of the Green Party, has just announced he will run instead as a pure independent.

On its face this makes no sense. It is hard to get on the ballot in all the states as an independent; the Green Party already has an infrastructure and volunteers on the ground.

Here’s my guess: West is officially leaving because he was being pushed. He wouldn’t be able to get the Green nomination.

RFK Jr. is expected to announce he is leaving the Democratic party within days. Rumours have him running for the Libertarians; but the Greens would be a better fit. Kennedy has spent his career as an environmental lawyer.

There may have been talks. Even if the Greens are prepared to stick with West, it is going to be hard to get their volunteers and donors to back West against a prominent environmental crusader like RFK.

I bet RFK now announces a Green Party run.

As We Were Saying in 1963, Before We Were So Rudely Interrupted...

 

Rumour is that RFK Jr. is going to announce an independent run, possibly with the Libertarian Party. This seems confirmed by a recent teaser video from his campaign.

He absolutely should. This is the only way around the DNC’s subversion of the democratic process. The American primary system is critical to allow for only two parties. If it is subverted, multiple parties are needed to ensure that all concerns are heard.

Some suggest this will take votes away from Trump, assuming Trump is the Republican nominee. They point to polls that show Kennedy actually more popular with Republicans than Democrats.

I think it will hurt Biden, should Biden be the Democratic nominee.

RFK is popular with Republicans. That does not mean he is their first choice. His situation is like that of Erin O’Toole in Canadian politics: the most acceptable Democrat to the other side, but not so much that they have any reason to vote for him instead of their guy.

With Trump, you are either love him, or hate him. Nobody loves Biden. The Biden vote is the anti-Trump vote. If the anti-Trump vote splits, he is in trouble.

Now picture strong runs by RFK Jr. for the Libertarians, and Cornell West for the Greens. 

In theory, Libertarians should take more votes from the right than the left: the left rejects their views out of hand while the right generally accepts them into their more tolerant tent. So Libertarianism is commonly considered to be on the right. However, proving the pudding, 2016 had a strong Libertarian ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld, two former Republican governors. Trump won that race. He lost (if he did lose) four years later, when there was not a strong Libertarian ticket.

What seems to happen is that right-leaning Libertarians are happy enough to vote the Republican ticket, feeling their views are thus advanced. The Libertarian ticket is left more attractive to left-leaning Libertarians, who have no other home.

I believe it is also possible, in the current climate, that an RFK Libertarian ticket might catch fire. People are unhappy with the choice of Trump or Biden. They sense the system is broken, but may still see Trump as too reckless.  I can imagine Biden running third.

More Sanity from the Left

 

This sounds like the left I used to know.

RFK Jr.

 

I can’t help being excited by RFK Jr.’s presidential bid. I think, at a minimum, he is going to change the popular discourse dramatically—I think he already has--and ensure that Biden does not win a second term. One way or another, this is going to be historic.

As things stand, Biden and the Democratic Party are trying to fix the nomination for Biden by moving the South Carolina primary up to become the first contest. Iowa and New Hampshire are naturally enough unhappy with this. Moreover, the New Hampshire constitution mandates that NH must go before anyone else. 

So all the Biden campaign can do is refuse to run in these first two contests. That means Kennedy sweeps these first two contests. They can refuse to seat his delegates, but this gets him media and momentum. Since the Republicans are running primaries at the same time, they will not be ignored. Calculating that the Biden campaign can block this momentum with a big win in South Carolina is a gamble.

Meantime, the charges of corruption are gathering around Biden. Meantime, the signs of mental decline are multiplying. But by backing Biden and keeping everyone else out of the race, the Dem establishment has no backup, if Biden falters or becomes unelectable.

They are trying to keep RFK out of the media. But this is not likely to work as well as it did: alternative outlets like Joe Rogan now get much more viewership than the old “mainstream,” and on these alternative platforms, RFK is sought and active. He is highly articulate, he comes across as utterly sincere, he has a compelling case and a compelling personal story.

I myself find it hard to resist the personal story. Those of my generation were permanently traumatized by the assassination of JFK. It was when the postwar promise of America seemed to end, when everything started to go wrong. RFK looked like a chance to get back on track, and then he was assassinated too. It was hard not to believe a conspiracy was involved. Now RFK Jr. looks, to us old fogies, like a possibility to, even at this late date, make it all right again. 

They can try all the dirty tricks they used to keep Bernie Sanders from the nomination, twice. But each time they do this they take a grave risk of alienating their base. They covered for that last time by having Biden adopt a large part of the far-left agenda. But I think they miscalculated. People did not support Bernie Sanders because of his platform. They supported him because he seemed sincere and not a part of the establishment. A lot of strong Sanders supporters are now accused of being on the right: Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard.

Now RFK has that same ground. It is probably a majority of Democratic voters. Sanders should have won, had he not been blocked, and Sanders was not an attractive candidate—too old, and unknown before he ran. RFK is more attractive, with more compelling issues, and with Kennedy charisma.

Block him as they blocked Sanders? No doubt they can do it, but if they do, I expect they will have gone to the well too many times. RFK comes into the race already looking like a martyr; because his father and his uncle were martyred; because he has been censored for his views on vaccines. Strike him down now, and the consequences could be dire for the Dems. If their base does not defect to the Republicans, Cornell West is running. Rumours are Joe Manchin may run too. That gives alternatives to both left and right. Many more could simply stay at home.

In the meantime, Kennedy is forcing a debate on the Covid vaccine and the lockdowns, which is devastating to the establishment. People will want to vote against the establishment as a first priority. If not RFK, their choice is not going to be Biden.

The Vaccines Issue

 

Tis hclip from Donald Trump shows RFK Jr.'s influence on the race. Trump may want to appeal to R.F.K's voters once he is frozen out by the DNC.

2024 Predictions

I think RFK Jr. is an exceptionally attractive candidate. The Earth is moving beneath us. 

The Democratic Party establishment is determined to go with Biden and Harris, who are notably unpopular. Voters have growing reason to believe Biden is not in control of his faculties. The are both low in the polls. But the hubris of the Democratic establishment knows no bounds.

RFK is likely to win the first primary, in New Hampshire. Against a sitting president. In most years, that would clinch it. 

I expect the Democratic Party establishment is likely instead to blatantly rig the nomination process to keep him out. They will prevent other candidates from jumping in, the same way they managed to get everyone to jump out in 2020. They think they can get away with it, because they have previously gotten away ith it, against Bernie Sanders and the far left.

But I think they will run out of luck. I see RFK putting together a run as an independent; and I think a lot of other Democrats will join him. Imagine a ticket of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard; almost a dream ticket in terms of charisma. Imagine Kristen Sinema and Joe Manchin flocking to these new colours. Imagine vocal support from dissatisfied leftists like Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan in the media. They could pull a lot of votes, I suspect, if well-funded. Not enough to win, but enough to be a big factor, and establish a new party that might survive and supplant the current Democrats over time.

They could run on a peace platform, against big pharma and big business, for environmentalism, and against the extremities of the trans movement and the culture war. As the religious left, and as a reset of the Democrats to what they stood for in the late Sixties; “Kennedy Democrats.”

On the Republican side such a split has already happened, in 2016, and the insurgents won. That was when Trump took control of the party for the populists against the establishment.

Mike Pence is now the standard-bearer of the old guard. But I can’t see him overtaking Trump in the polls, and I can’t see them splitting off, as they did in 2016 under McMullin. That would look too much like a dead end. They will suck it up and back Trump. Conceivably, a few might move to RFK; but I can’t see even a Mitt Romney feeling more comfortable there. Because he is purely establishment, and RFK is anti-establishment. 

How about Trump’s VP pick? Unless something changes dramatically, as it certainly can, everybody else looks as though they are running for vice-president. Nobody but DeSantis is within range of Trump.

 Many are hoping for a Trump-DeSantis ticket. I think it is possible, even if they are going at it hammer and tongs for now. It would not work with DeSantis at the top of the ticket; that would seem too much of a comedown for a former president. But if Trump comes out on top, he holds no grudges. DeSantis might, in ordinary circumstances, be too big a beast to be content with second-best, but since Trump is limited to a single term, he might go for it.

Chris Christie is reputedly about to enter the race. He surely has no reasonable chance at the top of the ticket. My guess is he is consciously running for the vice-presidency. He is hoping to raise his profile. Having more people in the race actually helps Trump; he might even be a plant. Christie is a good attack dog; he took down Marco Rubio in 2016. Presidents generally like Vice Presidents who are attack dogs. Trump certainly does. He wanted Newt Gingrich on the ticket in 2016, for this reason. He had to take Pence thanks to pressure from party stalwarts. This time, he will not have that pressure. Newt is a little long in the tooth; but Christie might fit the bill. He could prove himself in the primaries.

Also auditioning for the vp slot, and highly suitable: Tim Scott, Larry Elder, and Nikki Haley. They are hoping, no doubt, to become diversity hires.

The cards look good for a Trump win.

All the Way with RFK

 

I am glad RFK Jr. is in the race. I might disagree with him on many things, I might never vote for him, but he is speaking sense and raising important issues others are not talking about.

RFK is right in this clip on the connection of mass shootings to SSRIs. 

The problem is not guns. Other countries have stricter or looser gun regulations than the US, more or fewer guns, but this does not correlate with the number of mass shootings. Nor do they correlate state by state.

The problem is not mental illness. We do not need more money for mental health. The reality is, all these shooters were already being treated. And other nations spend more or less money on “mental health,” but this does not correlate with the statistics on mass shooting. 

What does correlate, and possibly 1:1, is the treatments we are using for “mental illness”: the problem is SSRIs. That is, Prozac and its kin, the standard treatments we use for depression and anxiety.

Or rather, the problem is our inability to diagnose. SSRIs may be helpful for many, for those suffering anxiety and grief over false guilt and moral confusion produced by an abusive childhood or other abuse. But many others also suffer anxiety and grief, but over their own bad behaviour. The anxiety and the grief are actually their conscience calling them to account.

SSRIs deaden the ill-feelings in either case. 

In the first case, this is beneficial. They can allow the unjustly suffering to lead relatively normal lives—at the expense of never dealing with the problem causing the pain. 

In the case of the latter, this is catastrophic. It frees the narcissistic predator of all restraints. 

Modern psychiatry/psychology cannot see the difference, and cannot accept the difference, because it will not recognize, and denies, all moral issues. All it sees are the symptoms, of anxiety and grief, and so prescribes the same pill.

In either case, the better treatment is a call to true religion; to straighten out a smashed moral compass.

Nor is it that hard to make an accurate diagnosis, were we not in denial of morality generally. The effects of SSRIs are like those of alcohol. Either eases inhibitions. 

So observe someone drunk. If they remain good company, and simply become more talkative and sociable, they are safe for SSRIs. If the difference is notable, they are naturally too inhibited. If they just become sleepy and dopey, this is a bad sign, they are an addictive personality, who do not need more comfort, but at least they will not likely become violent. If they become critical of those around them, pick fights, or show outbursts of anger, they are a risk for violence with SSRIs. They need what inhibitions they still have.

If a true depressive feels bad, they blame and may harm themselves. If a narcissist feels bad—and they inevitably will, for the universe will always disappoint their sense of their just desserts—they will blame and seek to harm whoever else is available.

RFK Jr. on Neil Cavuto

 

Watching RFK Jr. interviewed by Neil Cavuto, I am impressed. It certainly helps to see the variety of crosses behind him. It makes him look like a serious Catholic. I am also impressed by his white bookshelves, or they eerily remind me of those in my grandfather’s house, back when JFK was president and all was right with the world. I’m tripping on the Kennedy nostalgia. But he also came across as sincere and intelligent.

He starts of course with powerful name recognition, and with the equivalent of a respected brand. I see that, even though I was not a fan of his father back in the day. He has nostalgia on his side. Many, amid the current chaos, dream of a return to something that seems like normalcy and decency. This was the illusory appeal of Joe Biden. Kennedy has that to an exponential degree—back to the Kennedy years! Back to Camelot! Back to a day when honour mattered!

I think his speech impediment is also an advantage. Like Chretien’s facial paralysis or Churchill’s stammer, it suggests sincerity and evokes sympathy. As do his sunken cheeks, as does the martyrdom of his father. We feel he has suffered. We believe he can understand our pain.

His longtime anti-vax campaign also seems to me to help him. He fought for an unpopular cause—this demonstrates that he is a man of principle. It marks him as an anti-politician. People are craving someone they can trust, and they can’t trust politicians any longer—this was Trump’s great appeal. Kennedy reinforces that by his manner, at least in this interview. He does not give the impression that he is guarding his words, or calculating them. He answers quickly and directly. This also shows his intelligence, in stark contrast to Biden or Kamala Harris, and dispels any concern, given his anti-vax beliefs, that he is some crackpot.

His history of opposing vaccines positions him as the ideal spokesman against the Covid vaccine mandates. This ought to be a vital issue, and a devastating one, and his presence in the race will force it to come out.

He is wisely appealing to unity. That is a message many want to hear, given the current atmosphere of near-civil war. It was the illusory promise offered by Obama, that got him into the White House.

He is also stealing a page from Trump and the populists by railing against the corporate-government axis.

He also profits from the Democrats’ weak front bench. Biden is senile; the US economy is in a mess under his presidency. Not to mention general chaos in the culture and the streets. Anybody would look better. But Kamala Harris looks incompetent and bubblebrained. Gavin Newsom has objectively done an awful job in California—he was recalled, and people are leaving the state. San Francisco is a war zone. Pete Buttigieg has been awful as Transportation Secretary. J.B. Pritzker is presiding over Chicago dissolving into chaos. Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, their two most promising candidates last cycle, have left the party.

Unless he is blocked by the party machine, as he is likely to be, I think he has an excellent chance at the nomination.

 If he gets the nomination, I think then he has an excellent chance in a general election.