Democrats have taken to calling Trump "Hitler" in the closing days of the campaign. According to the New York Times (see below), some Kamala Harris aides believe it is working, while other believe it could push voters further away.
It is, first of all, a tactic of desperation. Despite the Times' effort to paint the Harris campaign as cautiously optimistic, you don't break out the "Hitler" claim unless you really think you are losing, because it hurts your ability to govern.
How will Harris bring Americans back together after calling her opponent a Nazi, and implying that his supporters are Nazis, too? She can't -- not without significant outreach and compromise, which have never been her strong suits.
It's also such a vile and offensive claim that it will, in fact, alienate some voters. Gone is the "joy" of the early days of the Kamala Harris effort; this is mean, scorched-earth stuff. Trump can be divisive, but "Hitler" goes far, far lower.
But it works for Democrats in one way: it signals to the base that the campaign is still willing to fight -- and not just to win, but to resist a Trump victory. Already, Democrats have hinted they will not let a "dictator" take office.
Accordingly, calling Trump "Hitler" suggests that Democrats will go right back to where they were, 2016-2020: namely, making the country ungovernable if Trump wins. (How can you work with Hitler?) It is a threat, and a credible one.
There is another advantage -- one that would have been impossible without the collusion of the media: namely, that Trump and his allies have to push back against the charge of "Hitler" or "Nazi," thereby keeping it in the news.
The media not only promoted the Democrats' bizarre conspiracy theory linking Madison Square Garden to Nazis, but also took one bad ethnic joke by a comedian there and turned it into "evidence" that Hitler was in the building.
So, in sum, calling Trump "Hitler" is not persuasive, but gives a boost of motivation to the base; gives fearful voters a reason to choose Harris out of simple and understandable fear; and takes back control of the media debate.
If the Harris campaign hopes to repeat Obama's 2012 playbook, and win based on a a sheer "base turnout" strategy, then calling Trump "Hitler" makes sense. But Harris is not Obama, and turning out the party base may not be enough.
Harris has struggled all campaign long to reach out to moderate, independent, and undecided voters. Calling Trump "Hitler" is not exactly the right way to reach them; they have heard everything about Trump. They need to hear more.
They aren't going to hear it from her. But they will hear it from Trump, who has -- rather surprisingly -- built a broad coalition in his closing days. He has also been positive, and disciplined: for once, the big campaign gaffe wasn't his own.
I've often said in this campaign that we now live in a country with two separate media. Each campaign has to talk to its own audience. The "Hitler" debate is largely just Democrats talking to each other, through the Democrat media.
Trump is talking to his own audience -- and a wider audience, through podcasts, conservative news platforms, and rallies in places like Madison Square Garden. They have already tuned out the mainstream media and the "Hitler" absurdity.
Maybe the "Hitler" ploy will pull the polls a little closer. Maybe bad jokes will push a few people toward Harris. But Trump's strategy still feels like the winning one -- at least for this country, at this moment, looking for strong leadership.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/us/politics/kamala-harris-donald-trump-2024-election.html
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
