The Grand Illusion
The American people voted decisively to “restore” a past that never was and to again reject a qualified woman candidate in favor of a male misogynistic convicted felon and sex offender, in part because they desperately wanted certainty and put their hopes in a traditional (but highly flawed) male authority figure.
No matter who was elected, there will be no permanent certainty, possibly not even temporary certainty, given Trump’s past instability and narcissism and given the unstable world political climate, but the American electorate has always been susceptible to the appeal of charlatans, to a greater or lesser degree, especially those who appeal to the idols of nostalgia and prosperity.
One unspoken problem with the Democrat campaign was the excess baggage of the far left and its woke agenda. Most Americans still don’t like to be told which pronoun is “proper” or that they should support Palestinian people who firmly deny that Israel has a right to exist, and the Trump campaign capitalized on that, and on the fact that not all women want to be liberated from the patriarchy.
Not least of all was Trump’s appeal to less educated males, not just white less educated males, who see modern technology, globalization, and educated women as threats to their social and economic future, a threat, in a way, personified by Kamala Harris herself.
The supreme irony of it all is that many of the acts and laws pushed by the Biden Administration are just now beginning to bear fruit and likely will be recalled in the future nostalgically as the wonderful second Trump term (assuming Trump takes credit for those initiatives rather than torpedoing them).
The question ahead is whether Trump can be magnanimous, and merely revel in his success, or whether he’ll vigorously pursue his enemies, as he’s threatened, and whether the Congress can or will rein in his excesses.
Didn’t vote for Trump. In fact, have never voted either D or R for president in a general election, though I have participated in a D caucus.
That said, it will be nice to go back to an administration headed by an executive with a record of not using the DOJ to target political opponents. Unlike the outgoing administration.
The current administration hasn’t weaponized the DOJ. You’d really need to provide evidence of that. “See they’re investigating or prosecuting a political figure…” isn’t evidence of the Administration directing the DOJ to ‘target’ a political opponent. When a political figure commits a crime they get investigated. A crime like having people commit perjury by declaring themselves electors and then pressuring the Vice President to break the law and use those fake electors to throw out the results of the 2020 election…
See, the evidence you’d need for this is actual communications showing they are targeting a political rival. You don’t have that because it doesn’t exist. You’re just running on vibes.
If you feel that the election result is horrifying, it might help to write down your fears of what might happen in the next 4 years on a piece of paper.
Re-read and check in on them every few months. If your fears do not come true, you’ll feel relieved.
Then start asking yourself why you had those fears in the first place and how you can prevent them from forming next time.
Well, what I fear is that Trump will carry out the “solutions” he and his people have promised to America’s problems, none of which will achieve what he says they will, and most of which will make the problems worse. As LEM says, there is no way of knowing what else will be done a man this unpredictable, and so swayable by any idiot iike RFK who catches his ear, but I’m betting they won’t be what those who voted for him actually want to happen.
For those of us in the UK, the word Brexit sums it up: nearly all the bad things that were predicted have happened to some extent, and essentially none of the good. but the supporters just say “that’s because you didn’t do it right!”. Potential parallels include that limiting migration has left hospitality, farming and other low paid sectors struggling to find anyone to do these jobs.
@Daze. Just to balance things, the view on Brexit stated above is not universally held.
Fair enough, Joe. Here are my top three, out of many more:
1) He’ll do as he said and make himself “dictator for a day.” (How? Doesn’t matter. Who’s going to stop him? He won’t get impeached. And Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court with impunity, because the Court’s enforcement arm is the Executive Branch)
2) He’s said he’s going to get rid of or negate or something similar the parts of the Constitution he doesn’t like. I fear he’ll do just that
3) I read that he told a group of evangelicals that they won’t have to worry about elections anymore. I fear he’ll simply declare this the last presidential election. He’ll only be dictator for a day, but no one will be able to run to replace him.
Now, be fair. Here’s what you should do.
If my fears or similar ones do come true, start asking yourself why you supported the man who made them happen. Look in the mirror, and acknowledge your fault, your role in it all.
Don’t try to reassure me, though. I’ll still be reading this blog, but not the comments, and I won’t be commenting myself anymore.
LEM, thanks for all the entries. I’ll keep reading your intelligent, incisive commentary. And I’ll hope that Joe, whoever he is, proves to have a better analyst and predictor than you. Or me.
Here are my fears:
1/ The new administration will include neo-cons and we end up dead of WW3 despite Trump’s promises.
2/ It will hasten rather than fix the coming economic collapse due to the world realigning away from the West.
3/ It will wreck the environment.
I would have had the same fears had Harris won (1 & 2 worse, 3 less).
Well that’s hedging your bets. Yeah, it will be bad, but it would have been worse under the other administration. Own it!
Trump will blame the deep state is anything goes badly during the next administration. I’m not sure how he will claim he wrested control of the weather from them though.
I think we know what a Harris administration would do within a small margin of error: what Biden was doing which is increasing war, tensions within society, and not working on the fact the West is losing its economic and technological leadership.
I think we have less of an idea what a Trump administration will do: the margin of error on the prediction is much wider. Some scenarios within that margin of error seem to me to be better for us and the world. The fact that some of the people who support Trump hold these views gives me a little hope. But I also have fears because some of the scenarios within the margins of error are no better and might even be worse than if the Democrats stay in power.
As I’ve said before, I wish I had better choices. There are 335 million Americans, some of whom are quite brilliant. Were these candidates really the best that the major parties could come up with? In my view, there’s something clearly wrong with the system that selects candidates.
It’s disheartening to see Russian propaganda being parroted on Mr. Modesitt’s blog. Putin won’t rest till he has restored Russia’s so called “glory days”. There’s a reason why most of Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO asap after suffering under the brutal rule of the USSR.
WW3 will happen if the Russians aren’t stopped in Ukraine. China will be embolden to go after Taiwan due to Trump’s cowardly abandonment of Ukraine and Biden’s misguided restrictions on American weapons supplied to Ukraine. Tawanna will be the put up or shut up moment for America and Trump is the last person that I would want in charge during that time.
If Putin had been heavily sanctioned in 2008 under Bush after invading Georgia or in 2014 under Obama and rapid arming of Ukraine had occurred, things would be much better. I will give Trump credit for calling out Merkel and her predecessor as being idiots for relying on Russian natural gas.
There isn’t an economic collapse coming. China is dealing with an economic and demographic crisis. East Asia outside of North Korea, all have fertility rates well below replacement rate with no signs of this decline stopping. The West will still be in charge for this century since there are no real contenders on the horizon outside a faltering China. BRICS is a bad joke.
Your comments remind me of the upstanding German citizens who were surprised when they lost WW2 because they believed everyone else was spouting propaganda.
I guess you don’t know that the value of China exports to the global south and BRICS are now 4 times the value of what it exports to the US. It’s also more than its exports to the entire West (US,Europe,Japan). You can sanction til your blue in the face, but the only result will be worldwide dedollarization. Have you even noticed the collapse of the petro-dollar arrangement with Saudi Arabia?
[editor’s note: some comments removed because of offensive personal attacks]
I’ve already had my fears confirmed during the campaign. It was eye-opening seeing Trump and Vance’s false comments about Haitians rock the community, especially after the truth of the situation came about and they only doubled-down on their falsehoods. Living in the Springfield area I saw first hand how their comments incited people to act in horrific ways toward the population. Schools had to close due to daily bomb threats being made.
The presidency is supposed to be a major force for unification in the country, yet Trump used it in divisive ways. Even going so far as to threaten federal support for areas that have a strong Democratic presence. The president represents all Americans and is required to act as such.
The presidential oath of office requires the president to support and defend the Constitution. Yet on Jan.6 he refused to follow through on his oath.
Precedent within the American presidency is something that needs to be very carefully monitored and guarded. As Trump extends the presidency in these ways it only opens doors for future presidents to further build on these precedents and I’m sure it would frighten you to see an extreme liberal act in these ways.
I appreciate how you summarized your thoughts here. I started to try to do that in my journal yesterday and just couldn’t get very far (and because of my position tend to stay away from politics in my blog).
LEM,
Tom Nichols wrote an op-ed in The Atlantic yesterday, to which I definitely agree. He concludes that it would not have mattered one whit whether the Democrats ran someone else, had different policies, or the campaign had done anything differently. America wanted Trump and his reality TV life, and his grievances, and his arrogance. They got it. This is what America deserves, for better or worse. Let’s see how FEMA does next year when the first catastrophes hit. Hope Trump has plenty of sharpies around.
I think people are reading too much into the election results. If the incumbent is not on the ballot, the electorate almost always chooses to replace them with someone from the other party. Reagan to Bush 30 yrs ago was the last time and before that it was Coolidge to Hoover almost 100 yrs ago. (Johnson and Truman were already incumbents for their first election.)
I think it’s as simple as that: None of the warnings about Trump are believable and the fact that the incumbent is a Democrat is reason enough to vote Republican. We get Republicans to reverse excesses of Democrats and then a few years later we’ll need Democrats to reverse the excesses of the Republicans.
“None of the warnings about Trump are believable.” None? Really?
Yes, really – because unfortunately the reporting on Trump has been so blatantly biased. The media should have engaged in an industry-wide meditation on ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’ at least 8 years ago. Instead, they tossed their integrity on the garbage heap, set it on fire, and decided to adopt a new journalistic ethic of the ends justify the means.
There are the outright lies such as ‘blood in the streets’ and the recent suggestion that he advocated violence against Liz Cheney. There’s the way they take statements from Trump that are sarcastic or hyperbolic or otherwise obviously intended as non-literal and try to pretend that they were meant to be taken at face value. Such lack of integrity in communication translates to untrustworthiness.
Congratulations LEM. You have readership with diversity, inclusivity, and permit equality in your blog.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/ Even if we cannot pass the Democracy Test because we cannot pass the Reading Test you and your publisher make audiobooks versions of your works available.
You do need to work harder teaching us comprehension: how about some spoonfeeding? Unfortunately that will not help those who swung the US – non-college educated voters, middle-age voters and male voters (according to https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4977596-democrats-lose-midterms-2024/).
Keep on writing!
Hate to change subjects, but I was looking forward to hearing updates on what your reading, and writing lately. Thanks
I agree, I don’t come to LEM’s stuff for his opinions on politics. I want to hear more about the books forthcoming and if there’s anything else interesting I should take a gander at.
Mr. Smith, no one is forcing you to read this blog. The sections you are interested in are available and clearly marked. As an aside, Mr. Modesitt’s work is suffused with his life experiences in the military, politics and teaching. Many of his fans are interested in his opinions on various topics as well as his excellent work.
We don’t have to read LEM’s writings in fact we have choices: not much of that around and fewer choices in isolation and of our own choosing.
Agreed. A little political content is fine, but it’s been rather relentless.
I’d like to hear whether LEM’s going to write more SciFi, whether he doesn’t like it anymore, or whether it just doesn’t bring in enough money. (I’ve outgrown fantasy, but IIRC women prefer it, and they buy more books.)
Here is an old fashioned left critique of both parties, and a pessimistic take on the US’s future.
Support for Palestine was barely a footnote in the Democratic campaign, and Joe Biden showed the world exactly where Democrats stood on that point, so not sure why you had to drag Palestine into it, as if it actually mattered. And what great effort has Israel made towards peace in the region? Even now, with condemnation pouring in from around the world, you still see it as a just war – even with AIPAC’s meddling and interference out in the open. Let’s not pretend that US funds Israel because it actually cares about their statehood and safety. The US will do anything to protect its strategic interests, and sometimes that might mean incidentally saving lives, but in many cases it means some brown kid is going to get blow up.
The way you talk about Palestine makes me think about the things some of your protagonists have done. Things that look “cool” on paper, but are horribly evil in reality. So many of them have destroyed their enemies at an unimaginable cost to others – all just “collateral damage”. Do you also agree with the vile calls for eradication coming from ultra-right wing members of Israel’s cabinet? Aligns quite a bit with the ideals that show in your writing.
I think you, like many, are reading what you want to believe. I’ve been quite clear about Netanyahu. He’s a street thug in expensive suits. He’s a danger to his own people, and his cabinet seems to be worse and getting more so.
But there’s also the other side, which keeps trying to destroy Israel… and there’s the very real problem that all the Palestinian apologists don’t want to address. First, they allowed themselves to be governed by anti-Israeli terrorists whose avowed mission was to destroy Israel. Second, given the continuing anti-Semitism around the world, exactly what else are Jews supposed to do? Submit to continued terrorism? Relying on the good will of others hasn’t worked for Jews very well over the past 2,000 years. Third, Islam (all varieties) relied on conquest to spread the faith to non-believers, and that violence continues in areas not even involving Israel.
The U.S. conquered a large chunk of North America by destroying Native Americans and their culture, and this has happened throughout human history — and been accepted and rationalized. But all sorts of people get outraged when a small nation says that it’s had enough and uses military force against those who’ve been attacking it for years. Lots of cultures have seized Israel/Palestine region, and now that one of the more ancient cultures has reoccupied the land it once held and wants to defend it and does so effectively, that’s somehow especially immoral or unfair?
The problem, as I’ve pointed out more than a few times in my books, is that to vanquish “evil” always takes power, greater power than that of the evil — and the result is always great devastation. And, of course, each side has the tendency to portray the other as the ultimate evil.
South Africa killed 21,000 people since 1948. South African Whites started living there in 1652, so something like the US.
Israel killed more than 134,000 Palestinians since 1948. The first Aliyah to Israel was in the late 1800s. Many Palestinians are genetically closest to the ancient Hebrews: they stayed there and converted to Christianity and Islam.
Apartheid (legal and cultural segregation by race) was ended in South Africa through Western pressure. Legal and cultural segregation for not being “Jewish” is the law in Israel. If Apartheid was wrong in South Africa, isn’t it wrong everywhere?
The current leadership of both Gaza and Israel have cynically manipulated their citizens in their attempt to cling to power and it seems clear that neither Hamas nor the present government of Israel actually have any desire for the conflict to end. Until the citizens of both nations rise up and throw their respective bums out, I don’t see any hope for a resolution.
And just for the record, it is not antisemitic to question how Israel, on its present course, can possibly remain both Jewish and democratic. I agree with Joe that Israel is already well down the path towards full establishment of an apartheid state.
It is interesting how opposed to Trump so many in the US are when much of the world enjoyed the first Trump presidency for the economic implications of cheap fuel, and for a lack of new wars instigated by the US (these two things are not exclusive of one another).
I for one am curious about how Trump’s new team will perform, after he admitted that he appointed terrible people in his first term, experts but all lobbyists for corporate interests- but now we see the opposite, where his detractors say no one he’s picked is qualified for their roles, and most if not all are ex-democrats.
Perhaps the most depressing and/or funny thing of all was that the DNC found someone even less likable than Hillary to run and consequently lose to Trump.
I found these articles to be of interest.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/11/social-media-news-readership-decline/675890/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/11/you-are-the-media-now/680602/
The first article offers an explanation for the appearance of “YOU ARE THE MEDIA NOW!”.
The second article, in my opinion, tends to explain why we have generated the above set of comprehensions of LEMs “Bottom Line”. We want LEM to say what we believe! And to do it on his blog? Welcome to the 21rst Century world (not just the USA).
Hello LEM,
I’m curious as to your comments about “woke”. As I see it, that is a very dismissive way to refer to progressive social politics and greater education on racial, sexual, gender and health-related issues. Casting a Black actress is “woke”, showing a gay couple is “woke”, hiring a trans or gender non-conforming staff member is “performative wokeness”, adjusting language around mental health is “woke”.
It is a term used by certain groups to dismiss any potential concerns or changes on the grounds that it is performative or done simply to inconvenience or force an issue.
The comment on pronouns, to me, also suggests a misunderstanding of what the issue is. The issue is not necessarily about the topic of pronouns but the discussions around them. “Pronoun” has now become a rallying word for the (far-)Right and plays much the same role as the word “woke” in that it signals something undesirable. I don’t think most of the anti-pronoun brigade actually know what pronouns are, but they resist people taking agency over how they wish to be referred to and have a disproportionate response to it. There are arguments constantly about the use of “they” and “them” as singular pronouns, particularly when chosen by a person as their preferred pronouns, when in terms of English grammar it is perfectly acceptable and it can be guaranteed 100% to have been used by the “offended” person in conversation without any issue. Their issue is being made to refer to someone on that person’s own terms rather than what the offended party has decided or feels is right.
This is often then combined with a wilful or perhaps genuine lack of understanding as to what pronouns are, as well as their use in language. The sentence “I don’t have any pronouns” and its variations always make me chuckle, because “I” is a pronoun.
For what it is worth, I am sure many of these people to which I have referred would consider your books “woke”, given your predisposition to including capable and self-driven women.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I wrote. I’ve seen far, far more male sexist behavior than excessive “woke” behavior. That said, my point was that the majority of Americans don’t see it that way, and the election results show that pretty conclusively. Anyone who disputes that isn’t seeing political reality. For example, even though the number of instances where formerly male athletes compete against other women are minuscule, both in absolute and percentage terms, the perception is definitely otherwise.
Using preferred pronouns is not woke; and using people’s given names instead of “preferred pronouns” is not discrimination, but over the last year so, I’ve seen activists threatening and trying to destroy people’s careers for not using “they” or “them,” even when the individuals threatened were not using gendered pronouns at all. Using legal recourse to punish people for not changing speech patterns of a lifetime is more in line with Brave New World than with progressive democracy. While times and cultures need to change, employing language police will only make matters worse, something that the far left doesn’t seem to understand, and so long as they don’t, they’ll lose in the political arena.
“Using legal recourse to punish people for not changing speech patterns of a lifetime is more in line with Brave New World than with progressive democracy.”
Sure, if it’s being done every single instance with no margin for correction. But at what point does it go from learned patterns to wilful and aggressive non-compliance? If Person A refuses to refer to Person B via the singular they/them (Person B’s pronouns) in repeated interactions, would you not agree that Person A is actually harassing and causing harm to Person B? Or perhaps Person B’s pronouns are she/her, but A will only refer to A via he/him. Is that not also harassment and causing harm?
For me, it all boils down to respect and talking to people on their terms. If someone says they hate a certain form of their name, would you continue to call them by it? No, because you are respecting their wishes and their personal comfort. So why is it suddenly so wrong or hard when someone changes their name or adopts a new set of pronouns? You have to make allowances for mistakes, I will agree, but at what point do mistakes stop being genuine and become a genuine lack of compassion?
I have no problem with people changing their names or genders. I also think that deliberately and continually using misgendered pronouns, i.e., he/him, for someone who rejects a specific single gender identity is disrespectful. I don’t think that avoiding specific gender pronouns and not using they/them (which does not force a gender identify) is disrespectful, and is a workable compromise for people who feel strongly about the matter.
Also, please remember that I was pointing out how millions of Americans feel, not how I feel… or have behaved.
Compassion and understanding cannot be forced, and forcing conversational compliance only creates hostility, like it or not.
Compassion and understanding cannot be forced, and forcing conversational compliance only creates hostility, like it or not.
Agreed. Changing a person’s mind works and lasts. Forcing a person never does.
One doesn’t have to be far-right to think that inventing special pronouns for oneself is a demonstration of narcissism. “Hey, look at me, I’m special!”.
Unfortunately, it’s not just that. It fits into an exercise to confuse thinking, to make it impossible to reason, to communicate, or to join together to throw off the shackles of the capitalist class. It ensures that thoughts can be censored before they can be addressed. We see it also in the notion that “men should sit this one out, and only let the minorities and women speak”.
This is not the first occurrence of people purposefully destroying language in history. Confucius pointed out in his Analects that the Rectification of names is needed to avoid the collapse of civilization 200 years before Christ.
George Orwell also discussed dumbing down language to prevent clear thinking in 1984. That is what people are revolting against.
This time around, it is the rich capitalists who are pushing DEI to control the working class. Left wing ideas used to refer to not mistreating those of lower economic classes but ensuring they too can flourish. The left wing used to be delighted when people joined it. Now it stands for censorship (which was and still is targeted at the working poor), zealotry (believe everything I believe in or else I will destroy your livelihood) and obviously doesn’t care to help the poor lift themselves up, only people who are “victims”, even if very wealthy. The new left makes those who would fight for the poor politically homeless which is its point, since it allows a new feudalism to be built, while the so called “left” might be “woke” but is fast asleep.
It is good that Americans are rejecting these ideas, because as Westerners gaze lovingly at their pronouns, I mean navels, the rest of the world is out-competing them economically and educationally. Most Westerners have no idea how hard a 3rd world existence is, and they will not enjoy their fall from grace.
Speaking of strong female characters isn’t “woke”. There have been plenty of them in history: e.g. Queen Boudicea who fought the Romans, Jeanne D’arc, Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Empress Catherine of Russia, or Marie Curie. None of them had their own specially chosen “pronouns”.
Hiring a homosexual isn’t “woke” either. Homosexual people have always existed, and some of them have contributed greatly to our cultures.
But the obsession with special pronouns, genders, forcing one’s sexual displays on others, shutting others up, confiscating children to perform “gender affirming care” on them, etc, will likely cause the pendulum to swing back hard. It might even bring into question the idea that women can compete on merit. That will suck, and be unfair particularly for women who have developed competence.
“forcing one’s sexual displays on others”
Like men and women kissing, touching each other in public? This isn’t limited just to queer people, straight people do it ALL the time, it’s just “wrong” when two men or women do it. We can have posters or magazines with semi-naked women on everywhere and it’s not a problem, but you put a man in a suggestive pose on a cover and suddenly it’s political.
“confiscating children to perform “gender affirming care” on them”
Doesn’t happen at all, and no trans person (myself included) would ever condone this. It’s a far-right, anti-trans myth that is constantly perpetuated.
“unfair particularly for women who have developed competence”
Women have always been competent, they never “developed” competence.
In most countries women and men groping each other in public is not ok… nor is prolonged kissing. In some countries, a quick peck on each cheek is ok.
As to nude pictures of men and women in the West, you could be right. I’ve never thought about it. On the other hand, David is one of the world’s most famous statues.
Confiscating children: “never happens” — First result on google: https://www.reddit.com/r/transgender/comments/1asefs0/it_can_happen_anywhere_indiana_parents_lost
Everybody starts off knowing nothing and can only contribute having mastered what their forebears knew. Therefore everybody develops competence. Going to school is one way to do it. Learning a trade is another. Many societies doubted or still doubt women could or should. The Taliban today have unfortunately returned Afghani women to that state. Presumably you wouldn’t employ anyone off the street to be your surgeon, so you too must believe not everyone is competent.
Ah, destroying livelihoods when someone doesn’t agree with you. I wonder how the Dixie Chicks felt about that one. But honestly it doesn’t matter, because…
There’s a difference between destroying a normal, all-but-locally anonymous livelihood, and reducing a politician’s, celebrity’s, or wealthy person’s power by no longer giving them a platform or additional money. Those groups of people already have an outsized amount of power, and when they piss off enough people and the people decide to reduce their power, that’s a perfectly acceptable method of equalization.
It would be nicer if the power was removed from all non-person entities, and non-elected people had no greater power than any other non-elected people, but the first isn’t likely to happen in our lifetime given the current Supreme Court composition, and the second will never happen because of human nature.
I agree with your observation that the many valuable achievements of the Biden administration will probably be attributed nostalgically to Trump in the future.
Ironically, a normal president would have loudly claimed credit for Operation Warp Speed and pushed the public to get their Covid vaccines – if Trump had done that, and actually showed leadership connected with the pandemic (instead of just quietly getting his own vaccination then never discussing the topic again), he would surely have been re-elected in 2020.
“One unspoken problem with the Democrat campaign was the excess baggage of the far left and its woke agenda. Most Americans still don’t like to be told which pronoun is “proper”
But that’s a problem. Harris didn’t make her campaign about that. Does she respect people’s choices in that regard? Yes, because that’s basic civility. She didn’t go around on the campaign trail spouting anything about “pronouns”. It’s as much of a myth as the lie that schools were putting litter boxes for students who identified as “furry”. It’s nonsense propaganda advocated by the likes of Christopher Rufo…and so thanks to that propaganda, Harris’ campaign got painted in this light.,
Well, it will all be right when Trump deports millions of people and disrupts the entire national economy with ill-advised Tariffs. Somehow that will be the Democrats fault too, because of pronouns and woke.
Let’s try a short scenario:
Paul: “Hi, my name is Paul Wilson and this is my wife, Joyce Burgos”
Joe:”Hello Mr and Mrs Wilson.”
Joyce: “My name is Joyce Burgos”
Joe: “For thousands of years, women took the name of their husband. I believe in that tradition. It’s a bedrock of our culture. Therefore, you are Mrs. Wilson.”
Paul: “You should really respect my wife’s choice in keeping her last name”
Joe: “I don’t have to. That’s her saying “Hey look at me, I’m special!”
Trump’s making america great again, and I’m making science fiction great again. It’s glorious.
I love your recluce novels, but I love your politics even more. Our views seem to align to a T. Too often, I’m disappointed when I learn authors’ politics. They seem to turn out to be right wing cringelords, or communists.
Don’t agree with Trump on much of anything, but I finished Overcaptain yesterday, and perhaps he can do something about the next book not coming out until August…