A Gallup poll taken late in 2023 shows that 53 percent of Americans think that the Republicans are better at running the economy, a 14 percentage-point lead over the Democrats that is the highest since 1991.  An IPSOS poll taken around the same time shows roughly the same thing – a ten point lead for Republicans on the economy: 35% to 25%.  An NBC poll from late 2023 shows an even wider gap of 49% to 28% in favor of the GOP.  Finally, a snap poll of those who watched the Trump-Harris debate in September also gave the Republican Party a 20 point margin on the economy, although the margin has shrunk since then.  

In late September of 2024, a Gallup poll showed these trends continuing. Americans currently give the Republican Party a six-percentage-point edge, 50% to 44%, as the party they think would do a better job of keeping the country prosperous.  

The point remains: Tens of millions of Americans are convinced that the Republican party does a better job with the economy, and believe that the economy is the most important issue facing the country. They vote with that in mind. This is a crucial advantage for Republicans running for office at all levels.  

But the people who think that the GOP is better for the economy are mistaken, and the facts are out there to prove it.  In fact, Democratic administrations do a substantially better job with the economy by almost any measure.

Based on Bureau of Labor statistics since the end of the Cold War, there is a stunning difference between the number of jobs created under Democratic and Republican administrations. There were 50 million jobs created in the US under the Clinton, Obama and Biden administrations; In contrast the total of jobs created under the HW Bush, W Bush and Trump regimes were a paltry one million in total. These numbers were fact-checked by the Washington Post, and remain unchallenged to my knowledge. 

“Plutocracy,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, Clip2Comic, 2024

But wait, there is more. There is also a stark difference between Democratic and Republican administrations when it comes to growing the economy.  Over the past 75 years, Democrats have been much more successful in increasing the Gross Domestic Product and wages, and reducing the rate of unemployment, according to the Economic Policy Institute and many other analysts. 

And these differences are not at all trivial.  The New York Times reported in February 2021 that: “Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans.The average income of Americans would be more than double its current level if the economy had somehow grown at the Democratic rate for all of the past nine decades.”   

Via U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

While it is true that presidential administrations are not always able to control the economy as much as they would wish, and that both bad and good policies sometimes take years to have noticeable effects, the differences described above are just too significant to be dismissed. Democratic administrations have produced much better economic outcomes, and have done so for decades. 

So if you are among those legions of Americans who think that Republicans are better economic stewards, please rethink your views. And if you hear someone make such a claim, please correct them politely but firmly. 

This idea may not be as crazy as it first may sound, and in fact has been tried in the past with limited success. Resistance to war is taking place right now in both Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In Israel, thousands of military reservists are refusing to take part in the violence of the occupation, and in protest of the country’s drift toward authoritarianism. Among Palestinians, non-violent resistance also has a very large following, and has had for a number of years. And if anything, the numbers of military refuseniks in Russia and Ukraine are even greater. The BBC has reported that 20,000 young men have fled Ukraine to avoid military service, and those numbers in Russia are likely higher.

In fact, resistance to war by young men facing conscription and even active duty soldiers is not new, and has a storied history.

For instance, during the First World War on the evening of December 24th in 1914, peace broke out in the most unlikely of places. In the blasted, putrid trenches of Belgium and France, soldiers fighting on the Western Front put aside their arms in what became known as the Christmas Truce. Although World War I was then only a few months old, there had already been a million combat deaths. Many soldiers were weary of the futility and horrific costs of the war, and thousands of them spontaneously stopped trying to kill each other.

The drama began on Christmas Eve, as German soldiers lit up their Tannenbaums (Christmas trees), put them on top of their trenches in view of the Allied troops, and began to sing carols. From there, full scale fraternization became widespread. Troops put down their weapons, climbed out of the trenches and met in no-mans-land to pray and sing and exchange greetings and gifts. The cease fire continued into Christmas Day during which the dead were buried, toasts were exchanged and soccer games played.

The Christmas Truce | History

The break in hostilities was actually a mutiny, not a truce. It was initiated by the soldiers themselves against express orders from military commanders. In fact, the political and military leaders on both sides were horrified when the shooting stopped, and did everything they could to force a rapid resumption of hostilities. Dire threats of severe punishment were issued, and the news of the rebellion was suppressed. But in spite of this, it took weeks for the fighting to resume in some areas. Lance Corporal Adolph Hitler, serving with the Bavarian Army, did not think much of the cease fire either.

The Christmas Truce is often portrayed as a singular event, and it is true that in the later years of the war there were few holiday cease-fires. But as the war ground on in its destructive stupidity, very large mutinies took place. In the East, the Russian army disintegrated, the soldiers voted with their feet, and went home to make revolution. There were also large-scale mutinies among German and French troops, weary of being fodder for cannons. Much of Europe, not just Russia, teetered on the brink of revolution.

In fact, military mutinies have been common throughout history. During the Napoleonic Wars entire British naval fleets rebelled over brutal treatment and sympathy with French republican ideals. Warships commanded by mutineers blockaded the port of London.

The United States armed forces have at times also rebelled, for a variety of reasons. During the Mexican American War of 1846 to 1848 an entire battalion of Irish immigrants went over to the Mexican side; and in the Civil War fraternization was widespread.

But it was during the Vietnam War that resistance from inside the US military was most consequential. By 1971 the U.S. military was nearly unable to function due to active dissent among all branches of the armed forces. Aircraft carriers could not put to sea, airmen declined to fly, and ground units did not engage. Disgruntled troops had as much or more to do with ending the war than the anti-war movement.

Buffy Sainte-Marie – Universal Soldier (Video)

Upon reflection, it is incredible that crucial facts about our military adventures, such as GI resistance during the Vietnam War, are almost entirely absent from the news and history as it is taught. The topic is deemed inappropriate for young minds in our high schools and most universities, and has all but disappeared from the public consciousness. One cannot help but wonder how free our free society actually is.

In this season of peace, the citizens of the world can hope for another spontaneous truce from the trenches. If so, Buffy Saint Marie will deserve some of the credit.

If he were still around he might well have plenty to say about the English language in general, and our political lexicon in particular. A number of the terms commonly used in American politics conceal more than they reveal and seem almost designed to confuse. One of the more confusing political terms out there is “conspiracy theory.”

Why this matters: Many people are confused about what “conspiracy theories” are, how they originate, and how they are spread. Partly as a result, millions of Americans live in a dark fantasy world as a result of their misunderstanding of the nature of the information that they receive. Consequently, our tired old democracy is in peril.

Let us deconstruct the term “conspiracy theory,” explain why it is confusing, suggest a common sense alternative, and outline the information crisis that we face.

Oxford provides us with a standard definition of conspiracy theory, which is, “a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event.” That is fine as far as it goes, but it does not help us to understand where those beliefs originate. It is as if conspiracy theories spring from out in the ether somewhere, and there are no human agents responsible for them. But that is not the case: Nearly all conspiracy theories are the deliberate creations of individuals, groups, and sometimes governments seeking to confuse, stoke fear and obscure the truth.

The use of the word “theory” in the phrase is similarly problematic. A theory is a proposition that can be tested against reality, or by experiment. The great majority of theories are developed in good faith with no intent to mislead. It is rare to encounter a theory that is almost entirely devoid of testable propositions, and blatantly false, unlike most of what are called conspiracy theories.

Further, the word “conspiracy” generally connotes an activity by at least several people to secretly commit an illegal act. But most of the vile rumors advanced by right-wing influencers and Q-Anon types, as vicious as they are, are not against the law.

Therefore, in the Confucian spirit, allow me to offer an alternative phrase that represents a deliberate effort to disseminate untruthful information aimed to instill hatred, fear and divisiveness.

I suggest that we go with “disinformation plot” as a preferred alternative to conspiracy theory.

Disinformation is created purposefully. Its origins are not mysterious and can be understood. It is false information created deliberately in order to mislead. (This is not the same as “misinformation,” which is incorrect information believed or spread without necessarily malicious intent.)

CBS Sunday Morning: “Alex Jones and his ‘whole world of trouble'”

Disinformation plots would not matter very much were they not believed by millions of people, including Americans, with dire consequences. The claim that there is a secret Democratic party pedophile cabal that murders and eats children has been promoted by Q-Anon and others who know quite well that it is a monstrous lie. But it is nonetheless apparently accepted as truth by millions. This and other false beliefs have already led to violence, with more sure to follow.

While there are many sensible conservatives out there, the facts are that conservatives are more likely to believe disinformation, create it, and pass it onward. There is very little on the left side of the political spectrum resembling Alex Jones, Donald Trump or Q-Anon for sheer disregard for truth and evidence. The left side of the political spectrum is also vulnerable to disinformation, but not to the same degree.

Many disinformation plots originate and are boosted by foreign governments, among the most pernicious of which are those aimed at weakening Americans’ faith in their electoral system or sowing skepticism about the Covid pandemic and science’s response to it. It has been established that the government of Russia has employed such disinformation plots against the United States.

The US government has also launched disinformation campaigns against other countries for many years. As long as our own government engages in those sorts of practices we hardly have standing to complain when other nations do it to us as well. Covert info wars that are aimed at weakening a country’s independence and institutions are wrong whoever makes use of them.

Speaking of InfoWars, Alex Jones will pay a heavy price for his vicious lies about the Sandy Hook massacre families, as, likely, will some of those who have defamed voting machine manufacturers. Let us cheer when disinformation plots are prosecuted in courts of law, and penalties imposed. Other malicious disinformation plotters also need to be brought to justice.

If Confucius were still around, I am pretty sure he would approve.

With the current crisis in Ukraine, there has been renewed interest in peaceful and lasting solutions to European security issues. One proposal that is receiving renewed interest is the potential for a neutral, and perhaps even demilitarized, Eastern and Central Europe.

Even if Russia does launch an attack against Ukraine in the coming days, the points raised here will if anything become more relevant.

Demilitarized Zones have an extensive history, and some have lasted for centuries. In 1819 for example, the Rush-Bagot Treaty established a DMZ around the North American Great Lakes between the United States and Great Britain, which governed Canada at that time. Later the Zone was expanded to include the entire US-Canadian border. The agreement has lasted for over 200 years with only minor glitches along the way.

Other DMZ’s exist, for example along the Uruguay-Argentine border at Martín García Island; several areas along the borders between Israel, Egypt and Syria; and the continent of Antarctica. Other nation states, including Costa Rica, Grenada and Panama, have self-declared their DMZ status by abolishing their militaries.

Political neutrality differs from de-militarization in that the governments that embrace it often retain military forces. In Europe, Switzerland, Ireland and Austria are not part of defensive alliances, yet retain armed forces. It is important to understand that Russia/USSR agreed to abide by Austrian neutrality in 1955, and has done so. Finland too has been neutral since 1948, and has so little in the way of armed forces that it almost as well be a demilitarized zone. Russia has also respected that arrangement.

But now, the threat of yet another large war in Europe exists. Russia may invade Ukraine to control it, to use it as a buffer state against the West, to remove Ukraine as a potential adversary, to prevent it from joining NATO, and/or to secure water resources for Crimea.

Today’s Eastern European crisis has antecedents. The newly independent states of Eastern Europe in the 1990’s erred by not sufficiently respecting ethnic Russian civil and political rights. In particular, Ukraine has allowed its security forces to be infiltrated by Nazi sympathizers. All this was bound to lead to tension with whatever government was in charge of Russia. Russia erred grievously in the 1990’s by allowing authoritarians to seize control of the process of political reform. (The government of the United States was singularly unhelpful in that regard, siding with the thoroughly corrupt Boris Yeltsin.)

The United States and NATO are far from blameless in the current crisis. In spite of promises made during the early 1990’s the US and NATO rushed to expand the alliance to include nine new members near the Russian border. Warsaw Pact military forces were withdrawn from these areas with the understanding that they would be neutral, an understanding that the US and NATO ignored.

The original architect of Containment policy during the Cold War, US diplomat George Kennan saw the present crisis coming 25 years ago when he wrote that “…expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” In part, what Kennan had in mind was Russia’s experience with invasions from the West. Napoleon was bad enough, but against Nazi Germany Russia faced a struggle to the death. These memories are seared into the souls of the Russian people, and explain part of their security concerns.

It is time to renew the calls for the establishment of a neutral and perhaps demilitarized zone in Central and Eastern Europe. This zone would include at least Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Belarus, Slovakia and the Baltic States – later, other states may be added. As agreed by the parties involved, all outside military forces would be withdrawn from this region.

Russia would be expected to pull back offensive military forces from its borders with Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States. The creation of the agreement would be facilitated by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe defining the limits of the demilitarized zone and the methods of supervision. The Commission will organize resources to pay for the Zone’s creation and maintenance.

With the creation of a neutral Central and Eastern Europe, US and NATO forces and installations would be removed from the Zone. Russia would acquire a buffer against possible aggression from the West. The people of Europe and the US would get peace and many more resources to devote to social progress instead of war.

Need some evidence? Both Sanders and Trump have called for affordable health care for all. Sanders’ support for Medicare for All is long standing, but Trump has taken a similar position. In a Washington Post interview after his election, Trump promised that people “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” He further pledged that, “we’re going to have insurance for everybody.” These commitments were not a one-off: They were made repeatedly. (Curiously, I don’t recall any pundit asking Trump how he would pay for his plan.)

The public is well aware of Mr. Sanders intention to raise taxes for the very wealthy, but Trump frequently made similar pledges. In a July, 2017 Wall St. Journal interview, he quoted a wealthy friend, “[Robert Kraft] Tax the rich people. You got to take care of the people in the country. [Trump] It was a very interesting statement. I feel the same way. …” Sanders and Trump have also both expressed a good deal of antipathy toward the Forever War.

The environment has been an important issue for both Trump and Sanders. At a Florida rally in 2019 Trump said “We have among the cleanest and sharpest — crystal clean, you’ve heard me say, I want crystal clean — air and water anywhere on Earth.” Not surprisingly, Sanders has made similar commitments.

Sanders and Trump have both pledged to spend large amounts on public infrastructure. As Trump put it to a 2017 meeting of governors, “We spend $6 trillion in the Middle East and we have potholes all over our highways and our roads … so we’re going to take care of that. Infrastructure — we’re going to start spending on infrastructure big.” He bandied about a trillion dollar figure, according to CNBC.

And on reining in Wall Street, Trump and Sanders sang a similar tune. As CNN noted in 2017, on the campaign trail Trump accused Wall Street of getting away with “murder”. “He vowed to break up the big banks and force the finance guys to pay higher taxes. His final campaign ad showed ominous photos of the New York Stock Exchange and the CEO of Goldman Sachs and proclaimed it was time to put an end to the political and business elites that have ‘bled our country dry.'”

Both Sanders and Trump have promised to protect what remains of the social safety net – especially Social Security and Medicare. Sanders, of course, wants to expand them. Trump, in his most recent state of the union address, promised that, “We will always protect your Medicare and your Social Security,” As for prescription drug costs, both men pledged to allow Medicare to negotiate prices, and to permit the importation of less costly drugs from Canada.

Why do politicians with such drastically different philosophies take similar positions on key issues? Politicians tell voters what they want to hear, and many voters want to hear about economic populism. For instance, a recent (2019) Kaiser Foundation poll revealed that 93 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans favor government negotiating Medicare Part D prescription drug prices. Public Policy Polling (2018) found that 66% of voters are more likely to back candidates who support expanding and increasing Social Security benefits, and 64% are more likely to back candidates who support expanding Medicare. In a Politico/Morning Consult poll from February 2019, 76% of registered voters agreed that the wealthiest Americans should pay more in taxes. Almost all of the candidates’ issue positions outlined above poll very well with the American electorate.

But promises and following through on them are two different things. In case you have not been keeping up, Trump has failed to implement any of the above pledges. Since he got away with making promises that he had no intention of keeping, we can expect Trump to repeat that performance during the 2020 general election campaign.

And one might ask, how is it that Trump can make these promises without causing much of a stir, while Sanders’ similar stands seem to scare the bejeebers out of corporate Democrats and Wall Street? It’s hard to exaggerate the fear and loathing that the Democratic party establishment has for Sanders’ proposals. In spite of being very popular with the voters, his progressive agenda is loudly proclaimed to be dangerously radical, irresponsible and unattainable. Even the left wing Mother Jones blog calls Sanders “too liberal”.

But somehow, Trump gets a pass for making similar pledges. One suspects that at some level almost everybody knows that Trump is lying, but that Bernie actually means what he says.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose the Sanders candidacy, but not being in step with the American people is not one of them. If he is a dangerous radical, then so are most of the American people.

Is Mr. Trump a left-wing radical? Not likely, but at times he sure talks like one. If Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee, watch Trump run to his left.

[Arnold Oliver is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Heidelberg University in Tiffin, Ohio. He can be reached at <soliver@heidelberg.edu>]

——–

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

Cronkite News: “Trump endangers health care, Dems say | Cronkite News”