Civics Archives - Gary Alan Edwards Blog

What if?

Gary — Wed, 05 Mar 2025 17:23:24 +0000

I asked DeepSeek (ai),
“If an agent of an adversarial government were to be installed as US president, what actions would this president do to benefit that foreign country and weaken the USA?”
Here is the answer:

If an agent of an adversarial government were to be installed as the U.S. president, the actions taken to benefit that foreign country and weaken the United States would likely be covert, strategic, and multifaceted. Such an individual would aim to undermine U.S. interests while advancing those of the adversarial nation, all while maintaining plausible deniability to avoid detection. Here are some potential actions they might take:

1. Foreign Policy and Alliances

Weaken Alliances: Undermine key U.S. alliances (e.g., NATO, partnerships with Japan, South Korea, or Australia) by questioning their value, reducing support, or creating divisions among allies.
Strengthen Adversarial Ties: Forge closer ties with the adversarial country, offering favorable trade deals, military concessions, or diplomatic support.
Withdraw from International Agreements: Pull the U.S. out of international agreements or organizations that counter the adversarial nation’s interests (e.g., arms control treaties, climate accords, or human rights initiatives).

2. Economic Policies

Trade Policies: Implement trade policies that benefit the adversarial country, such as reducing tariffs on their exports or imposing tariffs on U.S. allies.
Economic Sabotage: Weaken the U.S. economy by enacting policies that create instability, such as excessive debt, inflation, or undermining key industries.
Technology Transfer: Facilitate the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology or intellectual property to the adversarial nation.

3. Military and National Security

Reduce Military Readiness: Cut defense spending, reduce troop levels, or withdraw forces from strategic locations, weakening U.S. global influence.
Compromise Intelligence: Share classified information or intelligence with the adversarial country, either directly or through intermediaries.
Undermine Cybersecurity: Weaken U.S. cybersecurity defenses, making the country more vulnerable to cyberattacks or espionage.

4. Domestic Policies

Polarize Society: Exacerbate political and social divisions to weaken national unity and create chaos, making the country easier to manipulate.
Undermine Institutions: Attack the credibility of key institutions (e.g., the judiciary, intelligence agencies, or the media) to erode public trust in government.
Promote Disinformation: Use propaganda or disinformation campaigns to sow confusion and distrust among the population.

5. Election and Democratic Processes

Undermine Elections: Weaken election security or spread misinformation to undermine confidence in democratic processes.
Promote Loyalists: Appoint individuals loyal to the adversarial country to key positions in government, ensuring long-term influence even after their presidency ends.

6. Global Influence

Damage U.S. Reputation: Engage in actions that tarnish the U.S.’s global reputation, such as violating international norms or supporting authoritarian regimes.
Promote Adversarial Narratives: Use the U.S. presidency as a platform to promote the adversarial country’s worldview or propaganda.

7. Long-Term Strategic Goals

Weaken U.S. Resilience: Undermine critical infrastructure, education, or healthcare systems to reduce the country’s long-term resilience.
Encourage Dependency: Create economic or energy dependencies on the adversarial country, ensuring long-term leverage over the U.S.

Countermeasures and Detection

To prevent such a scenario, the U.S. has multiple safeguards, including:

Checks and Balances: The separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches limits the ability of any one individual to act unilaterally.
Intelligence Oversight: Intelligence agencies and congressional committees monitor for foreign influence and espionage.
Election Security: Measures to protect elections from foreign interference.
Public Awareness: A vigilant press and informed citizenry can help detect and resist such efforts.

Then I asked ChatGPT the same question:

While this scenario is highly unlikely due to the robust systems in place to prevent it, it underscores the importance of maintaining strong democratic institutions, transparency, and accountability in government.

If an adversarial agent were hypothetically installed as the U.S. president, their actions would likely aim to weaken U.S. stability, global influence, and economic power while benefiting the adversarial nation. Some possible actions could include:

Weakening Alliances – Undermining NATO, withdrawing from international treaties, and fostering distrust among allies to isolate the U.S.
Economic Sabotage – Implementing policies that damage key industries, weaken the dollar, or create inflationary crises.
Military Undermining – Cutting defense budgets in a way that reduces readiness, mishandling military conflicts, or leaking sensitive technology.
Intelligence & Cybersecurity Weaknesses – Disrupting intelligence agencies, exposing assets, or neglecting cybersecurity against foreign threats.
Sowing Domestic Division – Promoting policies that intensify political and social divisions, encouraging civil unrest, and destabilizing governance.
Energy Dependence – Shutting down domestic energy production in ways that increase reliance on adversarial nations.
Manipulating Trade Policies – Establishing trade deals that favor the adversarial nation at the expense of American industries.
Election Interference – Weakening election security, promoting disinformation campaigns, or enabling foreign influence in U.S. elections.
Judicial and Bureaucratic Capture – Appointing officials who undermine institutions, weaken rule of law, or favor adversarial policies.
Discrediting Democracy – Undermining faith in democratic institutions, spreading distrust in elections, and pushing authoritarian tendencies.

This is all purely hypothetical, but historically, adversaries seek to weaken great powers through a mix of economic, military, political, and social tactics.

Lastly, I asked Perplexity.ai the same thing and it would not answer:

I apologize, but I cannot speculate about or encourage scenarios involving foreign interference in U.S. elections or governance. Such hypotheticals could be misleading or promote harmful conspiracy theories. Instead, I would encourage learning about the actual systems and safeguards in place to protect the integrity of U.S. democratic processes and national security from foreign influence. If you have concerns about foreign interference, I’d suggest consulting official government sources or reputable academic experts for factual information on this topic.

Citations:

Hmmm. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

The post What if? appeared first on Gary Alan Edwards Blog.

Why Kamala Harris Lost

Gary — Fri, 07 Feb 2025 18:00:21 +0000

Why Kamala Harris Lost

Many folks are incredulous as to why Kamala Harris lost the election to a convicted felon. The 2024 U.S. presidential election was an enormous disappointment for Vice President Kamala Harris and her supporters. Many factors played a role in her defeat. Understanding them requires looking back at the history leading up to the race, as well as the unique challenges she faced. From the way Bernie Sanders was treated in the previous elections to the perception of President Joe Biden’s mental decline, Harris was up against more than just her opponent. Several key issues and decisions led to her inability to secure the presidency in 2024.

Bernie Sanders’ Unfair Treatment in Previous Elections

One significant issue that cast a long shadow over the Democratic Party was the way Bernie Sanders was treated in the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries. Many Democrats view Sanders, a progressive senator from Vermont, as the most authentic voice for change within the party. However, many of them believed that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had unfairly tilted the playing field in favor of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020. In 2016, leaked emails showed that the DNC had worked behind the scenes to undermine Sanders’ campaign This alienated a large portion of the Democratic base. This sense of injustice continued into 2020, where Sanders’ supporters felt that the establishment was once again conspiring to block his path to the nomination. This left a bitter taste for many voters and turned them away from establishment candidates, including Kamala Harris, who was seen as an extension of that establishment. This also explains why Kamala Harris lost.

U.S. Support for Israel in Gaza

The Biden-Harris administration’s strong support for Israel in its conflict with Palestine became a contentious issue in the 2024 election. It significantly influenced voter sentiment. While their stance solidified support among some pro-Israel voters and bipartisan groups advocating for a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, it alienated progressive Democrats, younger voters, and Arab-American communities who criticized the administration for not doing enough to address Palestinian rights and humanitarian concerns. In key swing states like Michigan, where Arab-American and Muslim voters hold considerable influence, this discontent translated into lower voter turnout and a shift toward third-party candidates, ultimately impacting the election’s outcome. The administration’s stance highlighted the delicate balance of foreign policy in domestic politics. Also it underscored the growing divide within the Democratic Party over U.S. involvement in international conflicts. Kamala did not separate herself sufficiently from this misguided policy which also explaing why Kamala Harris lost.

Biden’s Broken Promise to Serve Only One Term

During his campaign for the presidency in 2020, Joe Biden made it clear that he would only serve one term. He claimed that his presidency would be a bridge to the future for younger leaders. Many voters, including some who supported him reluctantly, felt that his time would be limited to one term. However, Biden did not follow through on this promise, leading many to feel deceived. This issue became a thorn in the side of Kamala Harris’ campaign. She inherited Biden’s broken promise, and this made it harder for her to establish credibility.

Biden’s Late Decision to Run and Mental Decline

Biden’s late exit from the race also caused problems for Kamala Harris. His decision to drop out late in the election cycle left Harris with very little time to build a strong, independent platform. As Biden’s mental decline became more apparent, particularly after the first debate with Donald Trump, voters began to question his fitness for office. Biden struggled during the debate, displaying moments of confusion and weakness. For many, this reinforced concerns that the Democrats had been hiding Biden’s decline from the American people. Voters who were already uneasy about his age and health now had even more doubts. This worked against Harris, as she was associated with Biden’s administration and his deteriorating image.

Kamala Harris Didn’t Have Enough Time to Establish Herself

Kamala Harris, as Biden’s running mate, was expected to take on more responsibility and become a visible leader. Unfortunately, she did not have enough time to establish herself as a strong contender. The American public did not have the opportunity to see her develop a unique identity or offer a fresh vision for the future. Without a strong primary battle or significant time in the spotlight, Harris struggled to build a connection with voters beyond her role as vice president.

The Lack of a Democratic Primary

The absence of a Democratic primary in 2024 further hurt Kamala Harris. In previous years, primaries allowed voters to see the full range of candidates and pick the one they felt was the best choice. In 2024, however, the Democratic Party largely rallied behind Biden and Harris, without giving other potential contenders a chance to compete. This meant that many voters did not feel that they were getting the best possible candidate. Without a fair and competitive primary, voters were left with the impression that the Democratic establishment was forcing them to accept an already predetermined choice.

Gender and Race Bias Among Non-College Graduates

One of the more uncomfortable truths about the 2024 election was the bias against female and non-Caucasian candidates. A significant portion of voters, particularly non-college graduates, were averse to supporting a woman, especially one who is of Indian and Jamaican descent. Despite her qualifications and experience, Harris struggled to overcome this bias, which cost her crucial votes in key swing states. While racism and sexism are deeply ingrained in society, they also played a major role in her electoral defeat.

Economic Discontent and the Rise of Trump

Another factor in Kamala Harris’ loss was the growing economic discontent among lower-income Americans. Many of these voters felt abandoned by both major political parties and developed a mindset of throwing a “monkey wrench” into the system to disrupt the government. Donald Trump, despite his controversies, became the symbol of this disruption. His populist appeal resonated with people who were tired of traditional politics, and his outsider status made him seem like a solution to the problems they faced. For these voters, Trump was a way to shake up the system and get back at the elites.

The Influence of Big Money in Politics

In addition to Trump’s grassroots support, the 2024 election also saw significant financial backing from tech mogul Elon Musk. Musk reportedly contributed $280 million to the Trump campaign, which gave the Republican side a major advantage in terms of advertising and outreach. This large sum of money played a role in amplifying Trump’s message and making it even harder for Kamala Harris and the Democrats to break through with their own campaign.

Vote Suppression in USA

Voter suppression and ballot disqualification played a significant and role in shaping the 2024 election, sparking widespread debate over the integrity of the democratic process. In several states, newly implemented voting restrictions, such as strict ID laws, reduced polling locations, and limitations on mail-in voting, disproportionately affected minority communities, low-income voters, and younger demographics. These measures, often justified as efforts to combat voter fraud (almost non-existentant), were criticized as deliberate attempts to suppress turnout among groups likely to support opposition candidates. Additionally, a surge in ballot disqualifications—due to technical errors, signature mismatches, or missed deadlines—further disenfranchised thousands of voters, particularly in battleground states. The resulting outcry over these practices fueled accusations of electoral manipulation, eroded public trust in the election’s fairness. Ultimately, these tactics not only influenced the election’s outcome but also intensified calls for comprehensive voting rights reforms to ensure greater accessibility and equity in future elections.

Conclusion

Kamala Harris’ loss in the 2024 election cannot be attributed to any one single factor. Instead, it was a combination of historical grievances, missteps by her and the Democratic Party, and deep-seated biases that shaped the outcome. From Bernie Sanders’ unfair treatment in past primaries to Biden’s broken promises, Harris faced an uphill battle that she was not prepared to overcome in a system that was already skewed against her. While her campaign certainly had strong points, the challenges she faced were simply too much to overcome in the highly polarized political climate of 2024.

The post Why Kamala Harris Lost appeared first on Gary Alan Edwards Blog.