J.B. Pritzker Can’t Save You

Published at 11:08 on 13 May 2025

Suppose, just for sake of argument, that all the stuff J.B. Pritzker recently said in New Hampshire is sincere and not just hot air and politicking. What then?

Well, first he’s just one Democrat. He speaks for himself, and nobody else. And yes, while he’s not the only one, what is being done here is to cherry-pick Democrats. Overall, and in the aggregate, it is a party that has been a willing co-participant in the USA’s transition to an authoritarian, fascist (or at least quasi-fascist) state.

Realistically, what hope is there for that trend changing, for no apparent good reason, in the near future, just because it is politically convenient? Let’s be realistic here: it is somewhere between slim and none.

So even if JBeefy is serious, and even if he gets to the White House (and he is definitely running, even though he hasn’t officially announced it yet), it will be just him and a few other exceptions that prove a general rule. It is pretty obvious that, overall, the general rule will prevail.

And if it is just hot air and politicking? Basically the same result, just with a little less sturm und drang, that is all.

So J.B. is irrelevant.

He is irrelevant, that is, so long as action is mostly limited to voting for the self-proclaimed “opposition” party and/or candidate.

Until the none-of-the-above movement of which I have written earlier emerges, elections are more irrelevant than most think. But if such a movement emerges, it might be able to hijack the Democrats and use them to serve its end, in much the same way as Trump hijacked the Republican Party.

Will it happen because Democrats are opportunists and want to pander? Yes. Will it happen in spite of Democratic Party insiders’ attempts to contain, manage, and minimize it? Yes. Will those insiders have to be fought for true control? Yes.

But it doesn’t matter so much. A Democratic Party that does the right things for insincere reasons, does the right things against the wishes of its operatives, is still ultimately doing the right things.

But just voting alone will not and cannot make this happen.

Maybe Better than “Not Terrible?”

Published at 12:23 on 8 May 2025

Sometimes, you can tell a lot from a name.

This was certainly the case for Leo XIV’s predecessor. The instant the name “Francis” was uttered, it became obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of Catholic history what sort of pope he would probably be.

It’s not nearly so obvious, but I think think the name “Leo” might be similarly telling. The last pope to take this name was instrumental in developing many of the contemporary social teachings of the Catholic church, particularly those with respect to the rights of workers.

In choosing a name that is both traditional and associated with reformism, this pope might be saying that he will be less of an innovator than his predecessor, but is still very much grounded within the more liberal tradition of the Catholic church, and will defend those aspects of church doctrine.

We shall see.

And yes, this is all more in the vein of damage avoidance than anything. But damage avoidance is not nothing. Imagine the harm someone like Cardinal Erdő (Hungarian, staunchly traditionalist, closely allied with the neofascist government there) could have done as pope.

Update: Leo XIV is now on the record as having his name choice inspired by Leo XIII’s social teachings.