December 2024 – Page 8

Why Democrats Lost Latinos

Posted on December 18, 2024 by Lone Candle

“And yet, Democrats might not be in as much danger as it appears. There’s evidence that this year’s vote does not represent a pure, wholesale ideological transformation of Latinos. On the ground in Starr County, and in similar places across the country, I met voters who thought of the election simply as a referendum on the economy. The school teachers and gardeners and ranchers didn’t talk like Steve Bannon or J.D. Vance. They talked about the price of milk and gas. More than that, they saw national Democrats as apathetic — the party didn’t see their path to victory going through many Latino neighborhoods, so they focused elsewhere. And the results reflected that.”

…

“These two Latinos had gone through an actual ideological shift. Lira voted for Obama twice, but had transformed into a passionate Republican. Other Trump voters I met in town, however, were much less ideological. Their message, instead, was something like this: Under Biden, there were days I couldn’t afford to fill up my truck with gas; the price of eggs doubled; my rent went up. Entonces, Biden is fired. It’s time for change. While the White House could point at record-high unemployment, and historically high blue-collar wages, high prices under Biden were much more keenly felt than any boost in paychecks. Accordingly, Trump’s ability to run as the change candidate gave him a huge, structural advantage with Latinos upset with the economy.”

…

“Lira was disgusted with Democrats’ flip-flopping: She had voted for Obama in large part for his promise to create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers. But after 12 years of Democrats promising that pathway with no evidence of anything changing, Lira came to believe she’d been lied to.”

It’s sad because it was mostly Republicans that blocked a pathway to citizenship.

…

“Here’s how profoundly damaged Democrats were by losing both immigration and the economy as winning issues: They lost support even among undocumented Latinos. Lira told me she had undocumented friends in Denison who (though they couldn’t vote) nonetheless supported Trump. Some had lived in the states for decades, working long hours, paying Social Security taxes they’d never get back. They felt bitter and aggrieved that the newest arrivals, especially those from Venezuela, had been given humanitarian parole under Biden, while they themselves still lacked legal status. They felt cut in line. And the feeling of being cut in line is the glue that unites conservatives in this country. Democrats flip-flopping lost them both pro-immigration voters and anti-immigration voters. It wasn’t just that their proposals weren’t popular — they had simply lost all credibility on the issue.”

…

“Still, the situation for Democrats in swing states looks a lot better than it does in South Texas and Florida. Odio said that, in his own analysis of the vote, Democrats only performed a few points worse among Latinos in battleground states than they did in 2020 — “erosion, not realignment,” as Odio put it. When you grade on the curve on inflation and a super-unpopular incumbent, Democrats get even better grades — back when Biden was the nominee, Odio expected them to lose in a blowout. “I actually think the Republicans underperformed,” Odio said.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/11/why-democrats-lost-latinos-00188769

Why America fell for guns

Posted on December 18, 2024December 18, 2024 by Lone Candle

“our measure shows an uptick in gun prevalence beginning in the 1950s, a period defined by low homicide rates and peak trust in government, prompting questions about why and how more households acquired guns during a period of relative calm.”

…

“Of all the potential explanations we tested, we discovered that the post-Second World War economic boom and relaxed federal gun regulations most drove the surge in demand for guns. As unemployment rates decreased and incomes increased, firearms – once deemed a luxury or practical necessity – grew within reach for more and more Americans. Simultaneously, cultural attitudes surrounding gun ownership may have shifted, as multiple generations of Americans returning from the Second World War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War became accustomed to owning and using guns.”

…

“McKevitt shows, surplus war firearms flooded the US market at dirt-cheap prices. This influx was facilitated by the ‘new gun capitalists’, a group of little-known entrepreneurs who imported and sold these guns to US consumers. They reshaped the US gun industry by establishing a mass market for civilian guns that had limited practical use elsewhere and faced stricter regulations in other countries. Capitalising on the surplus of inexpensive imported firearms, the new gun capitalists learned how to stimulate demand through marketing foreign guns as desirable consumer goods for the everyday American. They mass-marketed these imported guns to consumers flush with cash and eager to acquire these one-of-a-kind war arms from across the globe.”

…

“When considering explanations for Americans’ unique gun culture, Hofstadter thought that perhaps it emerged from the enduring national idea that access to arms counters tyranny. He was partly right. As the new historical evidence shows, it was post-Second World War economic prosperity, abundant supply of cheap guns, along with increased incomes, that made way for the unique gun culture of the US. Once that gun culture took root, it flourished, helped along by public policy. Hofstadter’s theory is consistent with the fact that the steady rise in gun prevalence from 1949 to 1990 was made possible by lenient regulations, upheld by voters who saw gun rights as a symbol of freedom and the right to self-defence.”

…

“For much of US history, guns were used mainly for recreation and hunting, but during the Cold War the nation turned towards a new era of gun culture. Hofstadter died in 1970, the same year as he wrote his piece on guns. He did not live to see the transformation in the ethos around gun ownership to one of celebration that carries on to the present day.
Hofstadter believed Americans armed themselves against tyranny from above, but today’s reality is different. Guns, primarily used for hunting and sport in the mid-20th century, became largely owned for protection against fellow civilians – a reflection of a modern fear, the tyranny of uncertainty from each other.

In a country in which tens of millions of people own guns, public safety becomes a personal responsibility, and so individuals often decide that it is in their best interest to protect themselves by buying a gun. This desire to be protected against those who have guns by getting a gun, multiplied across millions of people, has resulted in an arms race that makes everyone less safe. Historical events along with policy choices have shaped this explosion in gun ownership, leading to a society in which many people have grown to associate guns with a sense of personal security.”

https://aeon.co/essays/america-fell-for-guns-recently-and-for-reasons-you-will-not-guess?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

House Foreign Affairs Dems: Bipartisanship is dead under Mast

Posted on December 17, 2024 by Lone Candle

“The House Foreign Affairs Committee has long been seen as one of the few corners of relative bipartisanship in Congress. Democrats on the panel are warning incoming Chair Brian Mast is about to blow that up.
Three Democratic staffers said Mast is expected to focus on divisive culture war issues and that his previous incendiary statements on the Middle East and Ukraine will make it difficult to get any across-the-aisle work done.

“The days of bipartisanship and collegiality on the committee could be over,” said one staffer, a sentiment echoed by the two others, who were granted anonymity to speak freely about internal conversations. “There are moments when Mast is a level-headed guy, but those are rare. It doesn’t happen very often.”

The House Foreign Affairs Committee holds considerable sway over U.S. foreign policy. Its top Democrat and Republican can block or slow-walk weapons transfers to foreign countries. The committee’s mandate also allows it to scrutinize initiatives by the State Department and other agencies, chart major foreign policy priorities, design sanctions and shape the country’s national security strategy.
Those are the type of issues and crises that Democrats and Republicans have traditionally tried to put aside some of their partisan rancor to solve. Outgoing Foreign Affairs Chair Michael McCaul of Texas took pains to work with Democrats on legislation to support Israel and Ukraine, address the rise of China and publicly show that the committee’s members were working across party lines to advance U.S. national security interests around the world.

Mast’s imminent selection came as a very unwelcome shock to committee Democrats. The assumption had been that either committee Vice Chair Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) or Helsinki Commission Chair Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), both more moderate Republicans, would prevail.

Mast has alienated some staunch Democratic supporters of Israel with incendiary comments about Palestinians. And his hardline views on Ukraine could upend the bipartisan consensus under McCaul that U.S. support for Ukraine should continue and that restrictions on Kyiv’s use of donated weapons should be lifted.

In an interview, Mast reiterated his commitment to giving the State Department “a colonoscopy” to examine how money is spent and to pursuing an “America first” foreign policy on the committee.”

…

“Mast separates him from some more moderate critics of the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy, including Trump’s pick to be secretary of State, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Rubio opposed supplemental funding as well, but the Florida Republican argued that his vote was in protest over a lack of funding for tighter security measures at the U.S. southern border. That said, Mast did previously back Ukraine receiving NATO membership and a no-fly zone in Ukraine, a stance that puts him in line with the staunchest allies of Kyiv in both parties.

And the committee could still accomplish bipartisan work on China. Mast, like McCaul and many committee Democrats, supports a tougher line on Beijing. He could also find some common ground with Democrats on policy towards Israel and the Middle East, including the need to provide Israel with defensive weaponry and counter Iranian aggression.

Democrats are expressing hope that the pressures of leadership will change the way he approaches committee work and his relationships with Democrats.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/15/house-foreign-affairs-mast-00194288

You Should Worry About Kash Patel Running the FBI

Posted on December 17, 2024December 17, 2024 by Lone Candle

“Trump’s decision to nominate Patel has proven particularly controversial, since his principal qualification appears to be his sycophancy toward Trump. (A Trump transition spokesperson said, “Kash Patel has served in key national security positions throughout the government. He is beyond qualified to lead the FBI and will make a fantastic director.”)
Many observers, including former federal law enforcement officials, oppose Patel’s nomination on the grounds that he would likely use the FBI to pursue Trump’s political opponents and that he might substantially corrupt the culture and professionalism of the bureau. To some, Patel calls to mind the specter of J. Edgar Hoover, the infamous FBI director whose nearly 50-year stint running the agency until 1972 was marked by egregious abuses of power — including illegal surveillance, blackmail and the harassment of political dissidents.

Patel clearly lacks the qualifications, experience and temperament to lead the agency. But how worried should the American public really be about him at the helm of the FBI?

The truth is that there are stronger internal and external safeguards in place against law enforcement abuses than during the Hoover era. He will indeed face some constraints because of the culture and bureaucracy of the FBI. But they may not contain him. And he will have plenty of opportunity to damage the bureau and its work — and to use and abuse the FBI for political ends. His nomination poses a considerable and unjustifiable risk to the country.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/14/kash-patel-fbi-contraints-column-00194285