“Donald Trump is not a gentleman,” remarked my wife the other day. She’s right, but then again, neither is Ted Cruz. The two of the got embroiled in what seemed a bar fight over pictures of the candidates’ wives. (I’m not going to fill in the details here: if the whole soggy saga gets lost to posterity, it can only be an improvement!) At this point, I may end up voting for Bernie Sanders as the only candidate who (a) acts like a responsible adult, and (b) isn’t dead on the vine.
- One might vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, or because she presents herself as the logical continuation of the Obama administration. But Clinton, sadly, embodies everything that we love to hate about male politicians, and many people, myself included, believe that Obama is the worst President in modern times. Moreover, she across as stale and tired in her speeches. Even if I were on the fence and willing to consider her as a candidate, she needs to present herself as someone who actually wants the job.
- John Kasich probably has the best head for figures of any of the candidates, and is the most likely to actually fix our problems. Alas, unless he can get people’s attention, his candidacy will go nowhere. But that seems to be the plan. I can almost imagine some Republican Party guy making the pitch: “We want you to run for President. But realize that you won’t be the nominee: we just want you to be there to take momentum away from any oddballs that might show up.” I’d have told the Party guy to fuck off, but that’s just me.
* * *
I initially had nothing useful to say about last Tuesday’s terrorist attacks in Brussels. But as news reports came out that the perpetrators were already known to the intelligence services, but that the Belgians were somehow unable to stop them, I began to wonder. Apparently, what we’re supposed to do is let the potential terrorists into our midst, then maintain a police state to monitor what they’re doing and jump on them just as they’re about to attack. Wouldn’t it be far simpler and cheaper not to let the potential terrorists into the country in the first place?
* * *
And for that reason, I can’t get upset with President Obama for not aborting his trip to Cuba to address the Brussels attacks. When he woke up in the morning, the attacks were already a fait accompli. It wasn’t like 11 September, when the United States was actually under attack while President Bush continued his visit to a Texas kindergarten. (On that day it would have been so simple to say, “I’m very sorry, but something has happened that requires my immediate attention. I have to go.”) But this time, the deed was done: the Belgians have emergency services that can clean up the mess: all that’s left for our President is to utter the usual rot about how we stand with the victims.
What was creepy about the Cuba visit, however, was the President’s decision to have himself and his entourage photographed in the shadow of the Che Guevara mural in Revolution Square. The Cubans had planned something different, but the President had everyone move so that Che was in the background.
For many years, I though the Cuban embargo was pointless and stupid, but it’s probably not practical for us to simply admit that. But that isn’t what I think is happening now. We’re reopening relations with Cuba not because we acknowledge that the embargo hasn’t accomplished anything useful, but because Cuba and the United States are converging.
“But Cuba is a totalitarian surveillance state!” I hear you cry.
And what are we becoming?