Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

These are not normal times.

 

The dirty tricksters of the Nixon era who used to work from the shadows now comprise much of the United States Senate, and they are using the powers of government to create a faux Biden scandal that will be helped along by a complicit media.

 

It is difficult to understand why retaining power is of utmost importance to them. If they win, what will they have won - a banana republic?

 

Ok, but they still have to be beaten. That was what I was getting at. Nobody will ever hire me to plan a political campaign but even I can see Biden is not going at this right. He needs to get moving. I really don't want to be hearing in November how unfair it was for Biden to lose. He doesn't have to take my advice but he needs to do something. Does he have what is needed to take on the problem at hand? I sure as hell hope so.

[Winstonm]

 

Ok, but they still have to be beaten. That was what I was getting at. Nobody will ever hire me to plan a political campaign but even I can see Biden is not going at this right. He needs to get moving. I really don't want to be hearing in November how unfair it was for Biden to lose. He doesn't have to take my advice but he needs to do something. Does he have what is needed to take on the problem at hand? I sure as hell hope so.

 

What exactly would you have Biden do to win the PR battle? Have you noticed that every news channel has the experts and their panels and polls and they are all spending hours and hours talking about the latest Trump distraction, his claim of taking hydroxychloroquine.

 

This is a problem of our broken form of capitalism - where chasing profits is all that matters. And Trump is good for ratings. The country be damned, not only by Trump, but by the media, as well.

 

We are in serious trouble if the silent majority turns out to be Trump voters or simply non-existent.

[johnu]

 

Ok, but they still have to be beaten. That was what I was getting at. Nobody will ever hire me to plan a political campaign but even I can see Biden is not going at this right. He needs to get moving. I really don't want to be hearing in November how unfair it was for Biden to lose. He doesn't have to take my advice but he needs to do something. Does he have what is needed to take on the problem at hand? I sure as hell hope so.

Just looking at my calendar, I see that there is a third of May still to go. There are still 16 state primaries, the DC primary, and various territory primaries that still have to be conducted. Sure, the other candidates have dropped out, but the Democratic convention is not scheduled until mid August, and the vice presidential running mate has not been named yet.

 

Oh, and there is the COVID-19 pandemic response that is being butchered by the Manchurian President and sucking up most of the news cycles. IMHO, Biden just needs to throw a few hit and run haymakers, just enough to keep his name in the news, keep his head down, and hold the heavy lumber until late September and October when the general public will still be able to remember his campaign ads and talking points. Right now, the Grifter in Chief, by his own words and actions is serving as Biden's best advertising that money can't buy. Just throw an occasional focus on the worst scandals and incompetencies and let them sink in with the general public.

[awm]

Like every election with an incumbent president, the November election will mostly be a referendum on Trump's performance. Does anyone think Trump is making himself look good these days? All Biden has to do is not create a major scandal about himself, and make sure to remind people of all Trump's failures in the fall. Trying to make news at this time (especially if the news makes stories about Hunter Biden or Tara Reade more prominent by trying to "apologize" for things) will not help Biden. Trump is the president, he will be in the news all the time and no opponent can prevent that -- and as long as it's for things like promoting quack remedies and denying responsibility for tens of thousands of American deaths, it's not going to improve his chances.

[cherdano]

Ok, but they still have to be beaten. That was what I was getting at. Nobody will ever hire me to plan a political campaign but even I can see Biden is not going at this right. He needs to get moving.

 

Ken, I think you live in a different reality where politicians can make a scandal go away by being open, forthright, transparent and inviting everyone to investigate it to come to the truth.

 

The right-wing media is just now in a several-days-long frenzy because of an email that Susan Rice sent. Here is its key bit:

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by Intelligence and law enforcement communities 'by the book.' The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.

Yup, the President conveying that law enforcement should handle everything by the book, and that he doesn't want to get involved with it, gets turned into a "scandal". Nothing can make that "SCANDAL" go away.

 

Biden has answered the Reade allegations in the most prominent forum available to him at the moment. He has clearly made all his staffers available to respond to media requests about this allegation. Meanwhile, a lot of media outlets investigating Reade's allegations have turned out a lot of problems with the story or with her credibility, from obviously coaching corroborating witnesses to this:

Reade told CNN that she received a bachelor of arts degree from Antioch University in Seattle under the auspices of a "protected program," personally working with the former president of the school to ensure her identity was protected while she obtained credits for her degree. She also said that she was a visiting professor at the school, on and off for five years.

 

Presented with this, Karen Hamilton, an Antioch University spokesperson, told CNN that "Alexandra McCabe attended but did not graduate from Antioch University. She was never a faculty member. She did provide several hours of administrative work."

 

An Antioch University official told CNN that such a "protected program" does not exist and never has.

 

Obviously none of this, nor her changing story, proves that what she now says happened didn't happen. But there is also nothing left to substantiate the current version of her story. It's a story that changed significantly after she went public about it, and she has turned out to be someone who lied multiple times to or about various media outlets.

This story won't go away, because nothing can make a story go away in the current media environment in the US. But this is Biden's fault only in your imagination.

[kenberg]

Like every election with an incumbent president, the November election will mostly be a referendum on Trump's performance. Does anyone think Trump is making himself look good these days? All Biden has to do is not create a major scandal about himself, and make sure to remind people of all Trump's failures in the fall. Trying to make news at this time (especially if the news makes stories about Hunter Biden or Tara Reade more prominent by trying to "apologize" for things) will not help Biden. Trump is the president, he will be in the news all the time and no opponent can prevent that -- and as long as it's for things like promoting quack remedies and denying responsibility for tens of thousands of American deaths, it's not going to improve his chances.

 

The replies t my comment suggest there is nothing Biden needs to be doing. I thought I would take your comments as a good presentation of that view. I am skeptical.

 

"Like every election with an incumbent president, the November election will mostly be a referendum on Trump's performance."

Yes, true, but there is also the old idea that you cannot beat someone with no one. It would be interesting to have an open ended survey where random people were asked "Tell me everything you know abou Joe Biden". Often the response would be very brief.

 

"Does anyone think Trump is making himself look good these days? "

Well, yes.

 

 

 

"All Biden has to do is not create a major scandal about himself, and make sure to remind people of all Trump's failures in the fall. Trying to make news at this time (especially if the news makes stories about Hunter Biden or Tara Reade more prominent by trying to "apologize" for things) will not help Biden."

 

There will be a "scandal", I guarantee it. Of course I put it in quotes. But there will be something. Long ago in a Minnesota gubernatorial election, one party, I believe it was the Ds, brought up a "scandal" about the incumbent governor. It was very effective. The next election the Rs, with great fanfare, announced the creation of a "Last minute phony charges" committee. You cannot stop phony charges from happening, but they have to be dealt with. I am not suggesting apology. If the charges are real, I would suggest withdrawal. If the charges are phony, I suggest dealing with them. Emphatically. And being prepared for the next phony charges.

 

 

"Trump is the president, he will be in the news all the time and no opponent can prevent that -- and as long as it's for things like promoting quack remedies and denying responsibility for tens of thousands of American deaths, it's not going to improve his chances."

 

Any president will be in the news, that's true. I am suggesting Biden not simply passively accept this.

 

Maybe Biden and his crew know what they are doing. And maybe not. I gather some of his attempts to reach out remotely cast some doubt on competence. My main point is that trusting Trump to self-destruct is not enough. I think that approach has been tried, both by R contenders for the nomination and by HC for the election.

 

I thank you for the clarity of your post. I disagree, and I acknowledge my limitations as a political forecaster, but I think Biden needs to get moving.

 

[shyams]

Maybe Biden and his crew know what they are doing. And maybe not. I gather some of his attempts to reach out remotely cast some doubt on competence. My main point is that trusting Trump to self-destruct is not enough. I think that approach has been tried, both by R contenders for the nomination and by HC for the election.

I have friends and close relations in the US. Some of them said that the Trump machinery (phone contacts, emails, social media etc.) is significantly more sophisticated and visible. So I googled about Biden's and the DNC's political machinery. It seems (or 'it is rumoured') that the Biden campaign doesn't even have auto-diallers installed for staff manning the phones.

 

I am not saying that the absence of a sufficiently robust ground game is going to doom the Biden campaign. I do however feel that Biden & the DNC have to up their game on every front in order to be 100% sure of defeating Trump.

 

Yes, it is still possible for Trump to somehow conjure up a defeat by doing stupid things. However, I agree with you that trusting Trump to do so is not enough.

[kenberg]

Ken, I think you live in a different reality where politicians can make a scandal go away by being open, forthright, transparent and inviting everyone to investigate it to come to the truth.

 

I think I live in a real reality. Accusations will happen.

 

Biden's response to the accusation was slow and, at least initially, incomplete. I, and I think many people, do not really want to hear about some consensual sexual activity he or anyone, man or woman, might or might not have hand. But the accusation was of something not at all consensual and in fact outlandish. I would have hoped for something along the lines of "I don't recall Ms. Reade vividly but I can say with full confidence that I did not do as she described with her because I did not do as she described with any woman".

 

 

Trump would not be able to say such a thing, he probably cannot remember just which woman's whatever he invaded and which he didn't but I would hope Biden would have no such difficulty. Few of us would want our sexual errors put on display, for me it would mostly be ineptness and obliviousness, but some accusations have to be dealt with, and dealt with quickly. Shoving an unwilling woman against a wall in a public area and stuffing your fingers inside of her would be an accusation that must be dealt with quickly and in a manner that leaves no room for doubt, no room for wondering if he had to think about it for a while.

 

This is reality, I am very sure that this is reality.

[hrothgar]

 

Biden's response to the accusation was slow and, at least initially, incomplete. I, and I think many people, do not really want to hear about some consensual sexual activity he or anyone, man or woman, might or might not have hand. But the accusation was of something not at all consensual and in fact outlandish. I would have hoped for something along the lines of "I don't recall Ms. Reade vividly but I can say with full confidence that I did not do as she described with her because I did not do as she described with any woman".

 

 

Ken, part of running a campaign is not allowing yourself to be distracted by every idiotic scandal that the opposition tries to gin up.

 

Biden ignored the Tara Reade accounts until the media started to take things seriously. At which point in time he responded precisely at you suggested.

You're just looking for an excuse to complain. However, ultimately what you seem to be complaining about is that reality is messy.

 

Please note: Right now, Reade's claims are pretty much imploding because there is virtually no substantiation and she herself seems to be a grifter with a history of making false claims.

[cherdano]

Biden's response to the accusation was slow and, at least initially, incomplete. I, and I think many people, do not really want to hear about some consensual sexual activity he or anyone, man or woman, might or might not have hand. But the accusation was of something not at all consensual and in fact outlandish. I would have hoped for something along the lines of "I don't recall Ms. Reade vividly but I can say with full confidence that I did not do as she described with her because I did not do as she described with any woman".

 

Biden campaign on March 27, in their official response to new inquiries on the matter:

“Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims. We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false.”

Biden on May 1, in an interview with Mika Brzinski on "Morning Joe":

Q: Would you please go on the record with the American people? Did you sexually assault Tara Reade?

A: No, it is not true. I am saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn’t. It never happened.

(...)

But in the end, in every case, the truth is what matters. And in this case, the truth is the claims are false.

(...)

Then you have to look at the circumstances and the facts. And the facts in this case do not exist. They never happened, and there’s so many inconsistencies in what has been said in this case. So yes, look at the facts, and I assure you it did not happen. Period. Period.

 

Q: If you could speak directly to Tara Reade about her claims or anything, what would you say?

 

A:I would — this never, ever happened. I don’t know what is motivating her. I don’t know what — I don’t know what’s behind any of it. But it’s irrelevant. It never happened. It never happened, period. I’m not going to start questioning her, her motive. I’m not going to get into that. I’m not going to start — I’m not going to go after Tara Reade for saying these things. It’s simple: What are the facts? Do any of the things she’s said, do they add up? It never happened.

You can watch it

and read a transcript for yourself here.

 

At the same time, the Biden campaign called on the National Archives to release any complaint by Reade, should there be one.

 

May 14, interview with "The last word":

Q: Do you remember Tara Reade who worked there for about a year in 1992, `93?

A: To be honest with you, I don`t.

Look, let me get something clear. When a woman makes a claim that she has been harassed or abused, and this

claim has changed, has gone up, but harassed or abused, she should be taken seriously. She should come forward, share her story, she should be taken seriously, and should be thoroughly vetted.

 

And in every case, what matters is the truth. Truth is what matters. And the truth of the case is nothing like this ever, ever happened.

 

She has a right to be heard but then should be vetted, and the truth ultimately matters. And I give you my word, it never ever happened.

 

(...)

This is just totally, thoroughly, completely out of character, and the idea that in a public place in a hallway, I would assault a woman? I mean, it`s – I mean – anyway, I promise you, it never happened.

 

It should be vetted. She should be thoroughly looked at and whether or not these happened, look at the story, follow the story line and determine whether there`s any truth to it.

 

And there is no truth to it. I promise you.

 

Biden can respond to the allegations. Biden can't respond to the allegations in a way that ensures it is being played over and over in Ken Berg's living room until you have internalized that he did, indeed, vehemently deny that anything like that ever happened.

[kenberg]

Biden campaign on March 27, in their official response to new inquiries on the matter:

Biden on May 1, in an interview with Mika Brzinski on "Morning Joe":

 

You can watch it

and read a transcript for yourself here.

 

At the same time, the Biden campaign called on the National Archives to release any complaint by Reade, should there be one.

 

May 14, interview with "The last word":

 

 

Biden can respond to the allegations. Biden can't respond to the allegations in a way that ensures it is being played over and over in Ken Berg's living room until you have internalized that he did, indeed, vehemently deny that anything like that ever happened.

 

 

This illustrates my point. "Biden campaign on March 27, in their official response to new inquiries on the matter:" and "Biden on May 1, in an interview with Mika Brzinski on "Morning Joe":". I am saying that the March 27 response should have come, clear and unequivocal;y, from Biden himself. A personal response from the candidate himself on May 1 is way way to late.

 

My point was and is that Biden is not doing well in his campaign. If he thinks he is doing things just fine then perhaps he is right, he has won more elections than I have (none). I hope he is getting advice from people who are more attuned to political reality than I am and perhaps you would agree that more attuned than you are would also be good.. Neither of us are politicians in the professional sense, but what I see looks very inept. To me.The response from an impersonal "Biden campaign" strikes me as weak, a May 1 response is simply too late.

[Winstonm]

This illustrates my point. "Biden campaign on March 27, in their official response to new inquiries on the matter:" and "Biden on May 1, in an interview with Mika Brzinski on "Morning Joe":". I am saying that the March 27 response should have come, clear and unequivocal;y, from Biden himself. A personal response from the candidate himself on May 1 is way way to late.

 

My point was and is that Biden is not doing well in his campaign. If he thinks he is doing things just fine then perhaps he is right, he has won more elections than I have (none). I hope he is getting advice from people who are more attuned to political reality than I am and perhaps you would agree that more attuned than you are would also be good.. Neither of us are politicians in the professional sense, but what I see looks very inept. To me.The response from an impersonal "Biden campaign" strikes me as weak, a May 1 response is simply too late.

 

Your expression of dissatisfaction about Biden sounds like an expression of your own apprehension. I read today that Biden has an 11-point lead over Trump in a national poll. Sure, polls are only polls and not binding or predictive - but 11 points is significant and shows someone is doing something awfully wrong or awfully right.

 

The only advantages Trump ever had was his appeal to the theocracy advocates and his claims of responsibility for a solid economy. The virus has shown both to be false gods, as faith hasn't crushed the virus while the virus has crushed the economy.

The only ones left to vote for Trump are those who tune into WWE as foreplay.

[barmar]

Like every election with an incumbent president, the November election will mostly be a referendum on Trump's performance. Does anyone think Trump is making himself look good these days?

Unfortunately, too many of Trump's supporters believe everything he says. So despite what they see going on around them, when he says that we're doing a great job combatting the pandemic, they believe it. They believe the conspiracy theories he spreads, and his deflections of blame, so to them the election will not be a referendum on his actual performance.

 

This is the problem with people who believe in conspiracy theories: the truth doesn't matter. Anyone who contradicts what they believe is just part of the conspiracy and can be discounted.

[awm]

Unfortunately, too many of Trump's supporters believe everything he says. So despite what they see going on around them, when he says that we're doing a great job combatting the pandemic, they believe it. They believe the conspiracy theories he spreads, and his deflections of blame, so to them the election will not be a referendum on his actual performance.

 

This is the problem with people who believe in conspiracy theories: the truth doesn't matter. Anyone who contradicts what they believe is just part of the conspiracy and can be discounted.

 

Sure, and if these Trump supporters are a majority of Americans (or a majority in enough states to win him the electoral college) then he will be re-elected. And the US is probably doomed (Trump being more of an "effect" than a cause though).

 

However, 2016 had relatively low turnout for a US presidential election. Some of Trump's voters probably held their noses and voted for him as the lesser of evils. And a bunch of other things happened (like the last-minute Comey letter) that might have depressed turnout or swung some voters. Given the Democratic landslide in the 2018 midterms and Biden's consistent leading in polls (both national and swing state), it seems like there might be some hope that Trump loses this one.

[kenberg]

Your expression of dissatisfaction about Biden sounds like an expression of your own apprehension.

 

One hundred percent correct. We could argue about whether my apprehension is well-founded, but apprehensive I am.

23 and me concludes, from my dna, that I am a direct descendant of someone named Cassandra.

Yes, I am joking.. Joking about Cassandra, not about my apprehension.

[Winstonm]

One hundred percent correct. We could argue about whether my apprehension is well-founded, but apprehensive I am.

23 and me concludes, from my dna, that I am a direct descendant of someone named Cassandra.

Yes, I am joking.. Joking about Cassandra, not about my apprehension.

 

I feel for you. I stated that Biden is showing an 11-point lead in one poll - I would feel better if that were a 40 point lead and the election was tomorrow.

 

PS: As for Cassandra, you both know what it's like to be raped - but then, so does the rest of the sane world. B-)

[kenberg]

I feel for you. I stated that Biden is showing an 11-point lead in one poll - I would feel better if that were a 40 point lead and the election was tomorrow.

 

PS: As for Cassandra, you both know what it's like to be raped - but then, so does the rest of the sane world. B-)

 

I was more thinking that Cassandra was always right and Cassandra was never believed! But yes, in general her life did not go well.

 

I have an overall unease about the political situation, I think this is shared by many. The earlier observation, that I want a president who is not a lunatic, is unfortunately relevant. But it's not enough.

 

I am more than a little uneasy.

[hrothgar]

What makes me uneasy is that it very much feels as if Trump will contest the election if he loses.

 

Having obsessively covered the Republican Party from the ground-up over the past decade, from the twilight of George W. Bush through the first term of Donald Trump, I thought I’d seen it all, heard it all. But this was new. The warp speed at which alarms about voter fraud—and specifically, voting by mail—were synchronized from the president’s Twitter feed to the lips of his voters guarantees a volatile five months ahead, and a potentially volcanic period thereafter.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/21/trump-michigan-tailgate-274416

[Winstonm]

What makes me uneasy is that it very much feels as if Trump will contest the election if he loses.

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/21/trump-michigan-tailgate-274416

 

What is unnerving to me is that he and Bill Barr have corrupted the Department of Justice to the point where I fear complicity by the Justice Department should be expected in any false claim of voter fraud, while a partisan SCOTUS who may well uphold those claims.

 

A book I have touted, How Democracies Die, described the history of countries that have lost their democracies. It reads like a playbook for Trump and Barr.

[kenberg]

What makes me uneasy is that it very much feels as if Trump will contest the election if he loses.

 

 

 

https://www.politico...tailgate-274416

 

I am very worried about this. I think that if he loses it is a certainty that he will claim it is fake news or a fake election or a fake something but whatever it is he won't accept it. This is a good part of why I want him beaten thoroughly. There will still be people who believe him, that can't be helped, but I hope that the margin is sufficient that only the true lookies will take him seriously.

[PassedOut]

What makes me uneasy is that it very much feels as if Trump will contest the election if he loses.

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/21/trump-michigan-tailgate-274416

Yes, he's been laying the groundwork for disputing a loss for a long time and is escalating that effort now. It's going to be a scary few months, and won't be pretty even if Trump gets stomped in the election -- which I, too, hope for.

[cherdano]

This illustrates my point. "Biden campaign on March 27, in their official response to new inquiries on the matter:" and "Biden on May 1, in an interview with Mika Brzinski on "Morning Joe":". I am saying that the March 27 response should have come, clear and unequivocal;y, from Biden himself. A personal response from the candidate himself on May 1 is way way to late.

 

My point was and is that Biden is not doing well in his campaign. If he thinks he is doing things just fine then perhaps he is right, he has won more elections than I have (none). I hope he is getting advice from people who are more attuned to political reality than I am and perhaps you would agree that more attuned than you are would also be good.. Neither of us are politicians in the professional sense, but what I see looks very inept. To me.The response from an impersonal "Biden campaign" strikes me as weak, a May 1 response is simply too late.

Aha, so when you wrote "Biden should have said the following:" you actually meant "Biden should have said the following right away, instead of a month later:" See, kenberg has something to hide, otherwise he would have gotten his story straight the first time! ;)

 

Personally I am glad that Biden is not being advised by either of us. (I think we may agree on that one.) I think in this case you might be misjudging how helpful it is to immediately answering to an allegation that mainstream media haven't even picked up or investigated yet. And you might underestimate how much preparation this takes - it's not enough to say "Nothing like this ever happened", you also need to be prepared for any follow-up questions journalists may have otherwise the headlines will just be about the follow-up questions. "Biden responds to allegations, but cannot answer whether Reade's complaint might be found in his Senate office's files" etc. (And if you don't make Biden available to follow-up question it's better as a statement from the campaign. "Biden denies allegation, doesn't answer questions from the media" is not a good headline either.)

[kenberg]

Aha, so when you wrote "Biden should have said the following:" you actually meant "Biden should have said the following right away, instead of a month later:" See, kenberg has something to hide, otherwise he would have gotten his story straight the first time! ;)

 

Personally I am glad that Biden is not being advised by either of us. (I think we may agree on that one.) I think in this case you might be misjudging how helpful it is to immediately answering to an allegation that mainstream media haven't even picked up or investigated yet. And you might underestimate how much preparation this takes - it's not enough to say "Nothing like this ever happened", you also need to be prepared for any follow-up questions journalists may have otherwise the headlines will just be about the follow-up questions. "Biden responds to allegations, but cannot answer whether Reade's complaint might be found in his Senate office's files" etc. (And if you don't make Biden available to follow-up question it's better as a statement from the campaign. "Biden denies allegation, doesn't answer questions from the media" is not a good headline either.)

 

Yes, we can definitely agree in hoping Biden has professional campaign people with greater savvy than either of us.

 

But here is how I think of it:

 

I am a reasonably normal person with a reasonably typical background. Yes, I am a mathematician with a PhD but everyone is a something with a something. I am not all that weird. So when I see something and say "Hey, that doesn't look so good" I figure I am not the only one thinking that. It isn't that Biden really needs to energetically go after the retired math profs for votes, it is rather that I am guessing that there are car mechanics, nurses and office workers that have about the same reaction I have. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think that I am.

[y66]

An increasing number of policy makers and pundits argue that the U.S. is heading for a new Cold War. With tensions rising between the U.S. and China, the possibility of an extended great-power struggle is all too real. But would-be 21st-century cold warriors should remember how and why the U.S. prevailed in its 20th-century contest with the Soviet Union. It was a strong economy and effective institutions that allowed the U.S. to outlast its mighty foe.

 

The U.S. and the USSR never went to war directly. They did engage in a series of proxy conflicts and interventions, but ultimately the Cold War wasn’t decided on a third-world battlefield. Nor was it James Bond-style spycraft that ultimately made the difference or soaring speeches about liberty. Simply put, the U.S. won the Cold War because its economic and political system produced broadly shared prosperity and the USSR’s system did not.

 

The U.S. was always wealthier than the USSR. Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev was reportedly impressed by a San Francisco supermarket in 1959, and President Richard Nixon bragged about high U.S. standards of living in a debate. But by the 1970s, the two countries’ economies began to radically diverge. The USSR became sclerotic and dependent on oil, with a closed trading system, inefficient factories and chronic shortages of food and household necessities. But the U.S., despite stagflation in the '70s and high unemployment in the '80s, continued to grow wealthier. By the time Russian President Boris Yeltsin reprised Khruschev’s supermarket tour in 1990, there was no doubt which system was superior.

 

But the divergence didn’t just happen because Soviet socialism failed; the U.S. had to prove that it could succeed. Nor was it simple free-market, laissez-faire policies that produced that success. The U.S. made huge and important government investments during the early stages of the Cold War that paid off big in the later stages.

 

The first big investment was in infrastructure. The U.S. interstate highway system and other road networks built in the mid-20th century was one of the great public works accomplishments of all time, and it brought lasting economic benefits. Road construction allowed goods and people to be moved around the country more efficiently, and allowed cities to spring up and flourish. Public investment complemented private construction.

 

The second big investment was in science. The Soviet space program and other military advances galvanized the U.S. into spending much more money on science. In their book “Jump-Starting America: How Breakthrough Science Can Revive Economic Growth and the American Dream,” economists Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson detail the history of how U.S. government research efforts complemented private business and led to the spinoffs of huge and profitable industries. The internet is the most well-known example. The U.S. in that era also beefed up its STEM education to create a workforce of scientists and engineers that would keep the country ahead in the tech race.

 

Infrastructure, research and education built on the U.S. system’s basic foundation of sound legal institutions, independent businesses and democratic politics. But the prosperity this system generated would have seemed hollow if it hadn’t been broadly shared. Not only was wealth more evenly distributed then, but the social programs of the 1960s and 1970s helped to reduce poverty and narrow the glaring racial gaps that had characterized the U.S. economy in the 1950s: [chart omitted]

 

In addition to broadly shared prosperity, the U.S. government also showed competence in dealing with natural threats, including infectious diseases, eliminating polio from the country and halting the 1957 flu epidemic in its tracks. This contrasted with the USSR’s failures in the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

 

In sum, the U.S. won the Cold War because its system worked on many levels. That allowed the U.S. not just to outspend the USSR in a military sense, but to win over wavering countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

 

Unfortunately, the U.S. of late has not shown a determination to make similar efforts to win a new Cold War. U.S. infrastructure is mediocre, thanks to high costs and intermittent budget cuts. Government research funding has fallen a lot as a share of the economy [chart omitted]

 

And the country’s mathematics education is lagging. Inequality has risen, leading many to question whether the country’s prosperity is being hoarded by a small slice of the population. Large numbers of Americans lead precarious, unstable lives. And relative poverty rates remain higher than in other developed nations: [chart omitted]

 

On top of all this, the coronavirus pandemic has revealed glaring weaknesses in U.S. government competence.

 

If the U.S. is going to have any hope of prevailing in a new Cold War, it can’t simply rest on its laurels from the last century. It will have to prove that its system is the best -- that it generates broadly shared prosperity while protecting the populace from natural threats. The U.S. system must not simply be OK; it must be significantly and visibly better than the Chinese alternative of authoritarian state capitalism. But because the U.S. now is so deeply wrapped up in culture wars and partisan media posturing, it looks as if the country isn’t even trying very hard.

[hrothgar]

Anyone who claims that the US "won" the Cold War has a very short sense of history.

 

It took longer for the US to collapse under the weight of its military spending, but we really screwed ourselves over