Rethinking Moral Panic

Now and then in the wake of the Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney controversy, I've seen the observation that it marks the end of a moral panic. I certainly think this is true, but the odd thing is that the panic is backward. What we see in the conventional definition of moral panics is that, as in the image above, a new, seemingly threatening phenomenon arises that represents a potential undermining of prevailing social values.

Thus past moral panics have involved witches, red scares, reefer madbness, crime waves, mods and rockers, and satanists. According to Wikipedia,

[T]he concept was first developed in the United Kingdom by Stanley Cohen, who introduced the phrase moral panic in a 1967–69 PhD thesis that became the basis for his 1972 book Folk Devils and Moral Panics. . . . According to Cohen, a moral panic occurs when a "condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests." To Cohen, those who start the panic after fearing a threat to prevailing social or cultural values are 'moral entrepreneurs', while those who supposedly threaten social order have been described as 'folk devils'.

I've been saying pretty much throughout the COVID episode that it's been a moral panic, with phases that have also included a "morning after", over the existence of which there appears to be less of a scholarly consensus. Nevertheless, as related to the COVID panic, there was a gradual recognition that lockdowns; social distancing; closing churches, parks, and beaches; and even masks and vaccines were not only ineffective but counterproductive in solving the problem, which had been exaggerated by moral entrepreneurs, who included media and the public health establishment, enabled by a near consensus among political leadership.

The unique feature of the COVID panic was that the traditional -- and indeed, the sociologically necessary-- feature of such panics had been the need to root out some form of deviance, which included witches, communists, gays, minorities, drug users, and the like. The deviance in COVID was much more widespread. My theory all along was that the deviants in COVID were Trump voters, who in elite quarters represented a widespread contagion that could be spread via worship services, NASCAR rallies, football games, and other mass events, which certainly included Trump rallies.

But this meant that the "deviants" in the COVID panic were something close to half the country, if you do nothing more than count the votes for Trump in the 2020 election. They weren't an easily identifiable minority that could be singled out as scapegoats. In fact, if the elites tried to single them out as "folk devils" in traditiooinal fashion, they proved capable of fighting back, as they did on January 6 -- and this episode in particular has also been represented as a genuine threat to the established order by the same elites who enabled the COVID panic, who tie it closely to the Trump phenomenon.

But as the COVID panic subsided, we got a peculiar new inversion of the standard moral panic: transsexuals, a tiny, easily identifiable group that might once have been identified as deviant, suddenly were represented by corporate media and some politicians as normative and part of the social consensus, and those who once objected to, say, drag shows in schools were characterized as "folk devils". Thus we have the demagogic politician Joe Biden issuing this statement on transgenderism:

Transgender Americans deserve to be safe and supported in every community – but today, across our country, MAGA extremists are advancing hundreds of hateful and extreme state laws that target transgender kids and their families. No one should have to be brave just to be themselves.

. . . I want every member of the trans community to know that we see you. You’re each made in the image of God, and deserve love, dignity, and respect. You make America stronger, and we’re with you.

The "image of God" turns natural law on its head: the "hateful and extreme" state laws Biden mentions are meant to prevent mutilation of preteens who are unable to grasp the implication of gender reassignment surgery or, at worst, prevent drag shows to preteen audiences. The "folk devils" who advocate such measures are, once again, close to half the population. This strikes me as something close to "gaslighting", a word that's lately come into common use to convey the idea that people who aren't crazy are bing told they actually are.

If we parse out the implications of existing moral panic scholarship, we might conclude that moral panics in one way or another do derive from human nature, and human nature isn't basically wrong to resist many forms of deviance. In fact, some moral panics contradict natural law -- such as campaigns against witches. Others, not so much -- the jury is still out on whether it was ever a good idea to minimize or eliminate panalties for marijuana.

But what we've seen until just recently were always moral panics directed against small "deviant" groups, or even groups like witches that never actually existed. Trying to stir up a moral panic against roughly half the country -- or even a clear majority, for instance of those who find transsexualism problematic -- is new and uncharted territory. It seems to come with the prevailing current notion that you can re-engineer human nature.

The incomplete information that's come in so far, though, is that it hasn't beena winning strategy.

Antony Blinken, Alissa Heinerscheid, and The Great Gatsby

I've already said, speaking of Alissa Heinerscheid, the former Bud Light marketing VP who hitched her wagon to  Dylan Mulvaney's star, that something about her reminded me of The Great Gatsby. This may have to do with the peculiar intersection of upper-crust society, the presumptive locus of stability and social confidence, with ambitious upward mobility, insecurity, and phoniness. We saw it with Ms Heinerscheid, the product of generational family wealth, Groton, Harvard, and The Episcopal Church, who nevertheless felt the need to hire a coach to tell her how to think:

As it turns out, the Bud VP has herself a “professional coach.”. . . when speaking of her professional coach, she becomes animated, shifting her posture to a straighter, higher position, indicating she holds her “handler’s” ideas in higher esteem than her own. When shifting back into expressing her own thoughts or personal experience, Heinerscheid’s body language shrinks and retreats.

Just recently, I've begun to see parallels with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, whose background I covered in this post from last September. If anything, Antony Blinken's background, although like Ms Heinerscheid's "Epsicopalian Jewish", is even more elevated:

Blinken was born on April 16, 1962, in Yonkers, New York, to Jewish parents, Judith (Frehm) and Donald M. Blinken, who later served as the U.S. ambassador to Hungary. . . . Blinken's uncle, Alan Blinken, served as the U.S. ambassador to Belgium. His paternal grandfather, Maurice Henry Blinken, was an early backer of Israel who studied its economic viability, and his great-grandfather was Meir Blinken, a Yiddish writer.

Blinken attended Dalton School in New York City until 1971. He then moved to Paris with his mother Judith and Samuel Pisar, whom she married following her divorce from Blinken. . . . In Paris, Blinken attended École Jeannine Manuel.

Blinken attended Harvard University from 1980 to 1984, where he majored in social studies. He co-edited Harvard's daily student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, and wrote a number of articles on current affairs. After graduating from Harvard, Blinken worked as an intern for The New Republic for about a year. He earned a J.D. from Columbia Law School in 1988 and practiced law in New York City and Paris. Blinken worked with his father to raise funds for Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee in the 1988 United States presidential election.

This guy should not be beholden to anyone, right? Maybe Alissa Heinerscheid needed to hire a life coach, but Blinken, from a family of diplomats, a product of the Dalton School, a French finishing school, Harvard, and Columbia Law, should not need coaching by anyone.

But what on earth is he doing mucking about with the Bidens, a decidedly downscale bunch with mob connections? It turns out that his wife, Evan Ryan, whom he married in 2002, is a Biden retainer:

Ryan served under Secretary of State John Kerry as assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs and worked in the Obama-Biden White House as assistant to the vice president and special assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs and public engagement from September 2013 to January 2017.

Prior to joining the Obama administration, Ryan served as deputy campaign manager for then-Senator Biden's 2008 presidential campaign and also served on the Kerry 2004 presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton's 2000 senatorial campaign. Ryan served in the Clinton White House, as deputy director of scheduling for First Lady Hillary Clinton and as special assistant to the first lady's chief of staff.

Just yesterday we learned,

Emails from the infamous abandoned laptop that Blinken sought to discredit show that Hunter has ties to Blinken and his wife, Evan Ryan, dating back over a decade, having scheduled meetings with him while he was on the board of Burisma and Blinken was deputy secretary of state.

Initially scheduled for late May 2015, a first meeting was rescheduled due to Beau's death from cancer that month. On July 22, 2015:

"12:00-1:30pm- Lunch with Tony Blinken (State Department)," Hunter's schedule read. "Enter at main entrance ('Diplomatic Entrance'), 22nd & C St, NW. Proceed to receptionist area where Kenny Matthews will be waiting to escort you to Tony's office."

. . . Later that day, Blinken told Hunter in an email it was "great to see" him and "catch up."

. . . It appears that Hunter first tried to connect with Blinken on June 16, 2010, when he asked Blinken's wife, current White House cabinet secretary Evan Ryan, for his non-government email address.

"Can I get Toni's non-govt email?" Hunter asked. "I want to send him something. Thanks."

Ryan, who worked at the White House at the time and later went to work at the State Department, according to her LinkedIn, then provided Blinken's personal email address to Hunter. She previously worked for Biden as his deputy campaign manager during his unsuccessful presidential run between 2007 and 2008.

So what's emerging is that the Blinkens have not only been longtime Democrat operatfves, but they seem to have had a long-standing connection with Hunter's business operations as well -- and Hunter has never quite been on the up-and-up. Matching the July 2015 date of his State Department meeting with Blinken, Hunter at the time had just been kicked out of the house by his then-wife for an episode that appears to have involved cocaine and an overnight stay with Hallie, although at this time, Hunter was also maintaining an affair with Hallie's sister and numerous escorts. That he was coked up throughout this period goes without saying.

That November, Hunter was the recipient of the notorious three-way payment to him and other Bidens for a million and a half dollars that's still under investigation. Not only was Blinken happy to meet with this guy in his office, but he appears to have had some awareness of his foreign business dealings -- and beyond that, Blinken gives every impression that he's kissing Hunter's ass.

Dalton, French finishing school, Harvard, and Columbia Law indeed. I can't stop thinking about The Great Gatsby and how maybe as a book, it's underrated.

Why Is Hunter Living At The White House?

I've noted here several times that Hunter has been seen frequently at the White House since the middle of last year, and in fact he went with Joe and his Aunt Valerie on a very private trip to Ireland earlier this month. The latest theory is from Miranda Devine at the New York Post, who has been following Hunter closely:

Hunter Biden is believed to be hiding out at the White House while his baby mama goes on the warpath.

. . . Roberts’ legal maneuvers in Arkansas lend weight to the rumor in Washington, DC, that Hunter has been living at the White House with his second wife, Melissa Cohen, and their 3-year-old son, Beau, allegedly to avoid being served with legal papers.

Numerous sightings over the past six months lend credence to the idea, with Hunter and his family spotted trailing his father and the first lady onto Marine One for weekends away to Delaware or Camp David, or for longer vacations at the borrowed homes of billionaires.

. . . Surrounded by his father’s Secret Service detail and protected by his own agents, it is difficult for a process server to get to him.

From early last year, an elaborate swing set suitable for a toddler was spotted on the White House grounds when the president ambled back to his office from Marine One.

However, just yesterday,

An Arkansas judge ordered Hunter Biden on Monday to personally show up in court in May to address questions about his laptop, including whether financial records on it belong to him.

. . . Hunter Biden's presence at the Arkansas court could create a political headache for the White House and the Biden family. He has reportedly gone to great lengths to avoid getting served with legal papers from Roberts.

But I think if anyone is following Joe's political headaches even desultorily, Hunter's baby mama is hardly the biggest. And even leaving the baby mama aside, Hunter himself is somewhat bigger, but it's clear that the current Hunter investigations are important only insofar as they lead to Joe. Joe is his own biggest headache.

If I were able to do that kind of check, the first question I'd ask is whether Hunter is still renting the Malibu house with the associated one next door for the Secret Service detail. When I last looked at Hunter's finances a month ago, I estimated,

But adding line items like alimony, wild partying, rehab, payments to Hallie and her sister, Elizabeth Secundy, with whom he was having an affair at the same time, plus child support for his natural daughter with the stripper Lunden Roberts, it seems as though Hunter's expenses even during his peak years pretty much canceled out his earnings. But now, with his income much reduced and living under effective house arrest in his Malibu compound, he's got that rent, another child, an expensive new wife, and maybe a million dollars a month in lawyer fees. I can only think Joe is picking up all these bills[.]

As best I could determine in January,

Hunter has been living in a Malibu, CA compound in a $20,000-a-month rental. . . . Access to Hunter's residence is closely controlled by the Secret Service, so that his conditions amount to house arrest. The $20,000 monthly rent on Hunter's house is reportedly paid by Hollywood lawyer Keven Morris, who reportedly underwrites other of Hunter's living expenses. According to that link, Morris also advises Hunter on his "art" sales.

However, the art sales, while controversial, seem to be in the half-million-dollar range, which can hardly pay for Hunter's lifestyle, his alimony and child support, his wife's jet-setting, and all the attorneys. Even someone like Kevin Morris has got to have his limits. Joe also had to have been on the hook for some part of this, and the increase in legal expenses since bringing Abbe Lowell on board has got to be a strain on anyone, whomever it may be and however rich, who's paying them.

So now we hear Hunter and his family have been living in the White House since last summer. My guess is that even if Kevin Morris was paying the rent on the Malibu compound, there had to be belt tightening somewhere, and the rental is done. Not only that, but if Hunter and his family are at the White House, there's less strain on the Secret Service for the separate Hunter detail in Malibu, but beyond that, Hunter is under even closer control -- a lot harder for crack dealers and Russian pimps to do business there than even in Malibu. And a lot harder for the wife to jet-set off as well, which also saves the family budget.

So evading the baby mama's process servers is the least of the reasons for Hunter to be in the White House. But there's another question. Hunter's daughter Naomi and her husband have been living in the White House simce their wedding last year as well. This all says to me there are limits to what Joe can subsidize out of his own pocket. At least he can keep Hunter, Naomi, and their useless spouses on the public dime for a while longer.

UPDATE: Naomi and her husband had apparently noved out as of this past month.

Of course he announced for reelection. It delays his own financial reckoning, which he's doing everything he can to avoid until his executors have to handle it.

The New York Times Signs On To Biden-Is-In-Decline

At Hot Air:

Have you noticed that there seems to be a campaign emerging to second guess Joe Biden’s decision to run for reelection? . . . Over the weekend, two major newspapers published editorials pointing out that Biden’s age cannot be ignored.

. . . Concerns about Biden’s age are legit, says the NYT editorial.

This is behind a paywall, and like the Wall Street Journal's version, it says nothing new. What's important is that received opinion is deciding Biden isn't working out, but they're settling on a version that absolves them of complicity. Yes, they supported Biden in 2020 (in the WSJ's case, implicitly by being never-Trump) but that was before Biden went into his terrible decline. How were we to know? This isn't the candidate we told you to vote for!

But the recoxrd is pretty plain that Biden's shortcomings were visible well before this year. As of 2008:

Rolling Stone magazine's Ben Wallace-Wells related an amusing anecdote about Obama attending his first meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which happened to be a confirmation hearing for Condoleezza Rice.

About midway through the meeting, Joe Biden is "going on and on" and Obama scribbles a note and passes it back to his aide.

The note said simply: "SHOOT. ME. NOW."

Although the anecdote was told in 2008, Rice's confirmation hearing took place in 2005. Yesterday I linked to a TIME piece from 2019 that, in discussing Biden's unimpressive start in his presidential campaign that year, linked farther back to a 1987 post-mortem on his disastrous first presidential campaign, where observers were concerned that he was a "shallow vessel", and whose staffers discounted his gaffes by claiming he was on "autopilot".

What we've begun to learn only more recently has been the decades-long family influence-peddling grift, and in connection with the grift, the wild overspending that's so far been most visible with Hunter, but the extent of the back-door financial relationships throughout the Biden extended family has yet to be revealed with any clarity. As Hunter's ex-wife Kathleen Buhle put it in excerpts from her memoir,

After filing for divorce in 2016, Buhle begins the slow process of taking back control over her own life after 23 years as a stay-at-home mom, including over her own finances, only to discover that they had no savings whatsoever. “Both our houses had a double mortgage and no equity. We had credit card debt and medical bills. We were in terrible financial shape. The sheer amount of our debt overwhelmed me. We owed as much for both houses as when we’d bought them. We were underwater,” she writes.

But it's increasingly likely that Hunter's financial issues had metastasized further throughout the Biden family:

There could be upwards of 12 Biden family members who benefitted from influence peddling by the president and his son, according to the top Republican on the Oversight Committee.

. . . There are nine known family members involved in the shady business deals, according to [Chairman James] Comer, but he now says there could be at least three more.

. . . 'I mean, this was the Biden family influence peddling scheme,' the chairman from Kentucky continued. 'And when people say, well, they were involved in ventures around the world, I haven't found a legitimate business on the Biden end.'

. . . He said these decisions and moves are likely related to payments made to LLCs from legitimate businesses as a way to launder money to Biden's family members.

'I found legitimate businesses that were paying the LLCs that were then turning around and laundering the money back to the Bidens,' Comer detailed. 'But I haven't found any legitimate business dealings on the Biden end.'

. . . 'This is bad. There are more laws that appear to me that have been broken than just tax evasion. And there are a lot more Bidens involved than just the president's son and his brother.'

I noted yesterday that we know very little about Joe's rapid rise to the Senate from an unsuccessful attorney to obscure member of a local county council, although a brief review of those early years suggests he was able to garner support in what Alan Dershowitz calls a highly corrupt Delaware legal environment.

The question in my mind is how all of this is such a big surprise. What's coming out is that Biden has in fact been the same guy for decades. His sister Valerie has run most of his campaigns throughout his career, and it appears that much of his extended family has been in on the grift for the same amount of time. Hunter was actually a latecomer. Ted Kaufman, a DuPont retainer, was a Biden adviser from his first Senate campaign until he became Joe's successor in his Senate seat. Kathy Chung, recently interviewed by Chairman Comer's committee, is another lifelong Biden functionary

If there's been nothing new in Bidenworld, why haven't we had coverage of Biden as he is now and always has been well before now? I'm deeply suspicious of this new explanation that Biden is "in decline".

The Wall Street Journal, Alan Dershowitz, And The "Delaware Way"

Although it's behind a paywall, the Wall Street Journal has editorialized that Biden shouldn't run in 2024, and the web has picked up the main points:

The Wall Street Journal editorial board argued President Joe Biden is too old to run for re-election Friday, amid reports he is likely to announce his 2024 bid next week.

"The public understands what Mr. Biden apparently won’t admit: that electing an octogenarian in obvious decline for another four years could be an historic mistake," the editors wrote.

The editors continued, "asking the country to elect a man who is 80 years old and whose second term would end when he is 86 is a risky act that borders on selfish."

This is not the WSJ of the supply-side 1970s, when it had new things to say. They don't like Biden, but they don't like Trump, either. Maybe they hope Romney will stage a comeback. Their interpretation of Biden is utterly conventional:

The editors alleged the White House "goes to great lengths" to hide what they speculate is Biden's declining health.

"But his decline is clear to anyone who isn’t willfully blind," they argued.

They pointed to his lack of press conferences, scripted appearances, and public stumbles as evidence for their position.

The hypothesis here is that Biden is in a decline from a different Biden of an earlier era, but my problem is that we don't really have evidence of that more capable, dynamic younger Biden. During the runup to the 2020 presidential campaign, TIME noted Biden's unremarkable performance as of 2019 and looked back to his disappointing perforrmance in 1987 and 1988:

By the time he did declare his candidacy for the presidency, on June 9, 1987, he had been in the Senate for more than a decade, though his age — now seen by some as a weakness — was still one of his strengths.

“What people don’t remember today about Biden in the 1980s is that he was considered by quite a few people as a bright new hope, different from other Democrats,” says [Laurence I.} Barrett, [a former TIME national political correspondent].

. . . “The Democrats had taken two shellackings at the hands of Reagan, and there was this thought, not really based on a lot of facts, that the Democrats were too soft, too feminine, too much into interest politics, and Biden was seen by his own people as an antidote to that — good looking and athletic — who would come across as stronger,” Barrett says.

Not that the candidate was without his drawbacks: “Biden’s mouth is both his greatest asset and his greatest liability,” Barrett wrote shortly after Biden announced his candidacy. That analysis would prove enduringly prescient.

The 2019 TIME piece brought up the 1987 charges that he plagiarized a speech by UK politician Neil Kinnock and the fumbling responses by his handlers, including

2) An Awkward Revelation. The Kinnock kleptomania was particularly damaging to Biden since it underscored the prior concerns that he was a shallow vessel for other people’s ideas.

3) A Maladroit Response. Top Aide Tom Donilon claimed that Biden failed to credit Kinnock because “he didn’t know what he was saying. He was on autopilot.”

In other words, the argument that the Biden of 2023 is in a decline from a youthful, adroit, dynamic Biden assumes facts that are not in evidence. He was Mr Magoo in his early 40s as he is now in his early 80s. If he was thought to be strong, good-looking, and athletic in the 1980s, this was proven to be a fantasy at the time.

But this leads to another question: If Biden has always been a shallow vessel on autopilot, how did he get to the Senate in the first place, and how did he manage to stay there? Interestingly, Alan Dershwoitz made remarks just this past week that may be helpful. In this YouTube video at about 2:25, he says in a completely different context,

Let's remember this is Delaware. I've argued cases, I think it's now 32 states, out of the 50, 32, maybe 34, something like that; I've never argued in a more corrupt state than Delaware. In Delaware the judges basically pick each other. They come from a small number of elite law firms, and then they go back to those law firms, and then they favor the lawyers from those law firms. The favorite word in Delaware, everybody knows it, is "home cooking" or home court advantage. If you're a Delaware lawyer, you get a home court advantage.

But this isn't necessarily limited to Delaware, either: the South Carolina "Murdaugh Murders" scandal shows how a tight insider clique can control things elsewhere in small backwater states. What Dershowitz saw -- and he's quite an insightful guy -- was a courthouse version of a larger phenomenon called the "Delaware Way", described in more depth by The Intercept:

The Delaware Way is the idea that there is a synergy between the success of the state’s benevolent corporate monarchies — the chemical companies, debt collectors, and pharmaceuticals that call the First State home — and the well-being of the state’s people, all of it eased by compromise and good will among leaders of both parties. The Wilmington News Journal explains that the locally famous ethos is possible because the state is “so small, the line goes, that we can get all the right people in one room and get things done.” Like runoff from its chemical plants, the Delaware Way is in the water.

The DuPonts are at the center:

Two du Ponts would go on to become U.S. senators, and a third would serve as Delaware governor. Delaware’s elite social and political circle has largely remained intact for more than 200 years now.

From what I read, the Bidens' Wilmington home is a former DuPont mansion that was apparently provided to young Joe at the start of his career at a considerable discount. Biden's rise hasn't been well covered, but it took place at an early age, and his accomplishments were unimpressive: from the TIME link above, he graduated 76th out of 85 in his Syracuse law school class, and he "failed a course because he wrote a paper that used five pages from a published law-review article without quotation marks or a proper footnote." The lad was clearly not white-shoe law firm material.

But he found favor with the DuPonts presumably because he looked good, had no center, and would do precisely what he was told. This was Biden in the beginning, is the Biden now, and is the Biden that ever shall be.

Semi-Denouement For Bud Light

This moirning's news was full of gleeful headlines that the horsefaced and sublimely self-satisfied Alissa Heinerscheid, late brand marketing VP for Bud Light, is on leave of absence:

Anheuser-Busch has shared a statement with Beer Business Daily, informing the publication that Bud Light marketing VP Alissa Heinerscheid is off the brand in the wake of the Mulvaney Bud Light can controversy.

“We understand she has decided to take a leave of absence,” Beer Business Daily announced. “Todd Allen is now VP of Bud Light, reporting directly to CMO Benoit Garbe. It appears Todd was most recently VP of global marketing for Budweiser.”

However, I posted a week ago that Alissa was already out, and that she'd deleted her LinkedIn profile was a good indication. I suspect that she hadn't been in to the office since the Dylan Mulvaney story broke. But let's read some other tea leaves here. The story says, “Todd Allen is now VP of Bud Light. . . . It appears Todd was most recently VP of global marketing for Budweiser.”

That says to me that Todd has been demoted, and he's been told to fix Bud Light fast or else. I think the next head to roll will be Brendan Whitworth, the show horse CEO of Anheuser. A couple of weeks ago, the talk was that Dylan Mulvaney was the biggest marketing blunder since New Coke, but I think it's becoming clearer that Dylan Mulvaney is the biggest marketing blunder since marketing even became a thing, whenever that was.

That Anheuser would make such an announcement, in even this offhand way, is an indication that they've begun to get the message, and what was needed was a firing. But the other thing that's needed by general consensus is a specific apology. I assume Todd Allen has the task of working this out in a way that satisfies both the suits and the public, or he'll be the next to go. But I think some sort of semi-specific apology will be the next step, followed by an announcement on Mr Whitworth's plans.

And one of my favorite topics has been the Fringe TV series and how it's a sendup of Harvard, which gave us Timothy Leary and Ted Kaczynski, a blend of which characters the actor John Noble brilliantly portrays in Dr Walter Bishop. But Harvard has more recently brought us Ms Heinerscheid and Mr Whitworth. Indeed, Mr Whitworth was formed as well in the CIA.

It isn't helpful to gloat, but at least in this one inning, it's plebs 1, toffs 0.

The Frammis Is Taking Shape

One of my stylistic models for some years has been the mid-20th century noir writer Jim Thompson, author of titles like The Alcoholics (1953), The Criminal (1953), A Swell-Looking Babe (1954), and The Grifters (1963). He never titled any of his novels The Frammis, but it was a term his characters frequently used, which in context referred to the overriding scheme of avarice and betrayal that drove the narrative.

The media, even on the right, have been on an extended spring break, but as they slowly return to working at the office, the intermittent leaks are beginning to reveal the shape of the Biden frammis. First, he's clearly going to run. This was solidified during that strange trip to Ireland with his sister, Valerie, and his living son, Hunter. We all know who Hunter is, but it's worth catching up on Valerie. According to Wikipedia,

Valerie Biden Owens (November 5, 1945) is an American political strategist, campaign manager and former educator. She is the younger sister of Joe Biden, the 46th and current President of the United States. . . . Owens has played a substantial role in all of her brother's political campaigns. She was the campaign manager during all of his Senate elections and for his 1988 and 2008 presidential campaigns, as well as a senior advisor to his successful 2020 presidential campaign.

Based on the sketchy reports that have been coming out, Valerie appears to be a key beneficiary of the baksheesh that streams into the Biden family accounts, while Hunter has been, and apparently remains, the financial vice president of the enterprise. As I've noted here, the program at least since last summer has been to rehabilitate Hunter, with his wife Melissa and toddler son Beau providing a renewed beard of respectability.

But it seems fairly plain that Hunter and Valerie have been Joe's key advisers all along, with the trip to Ireland serving as a strategy session for both the campaign and the continuing family business. Meetings could be held in effective seclusion, without even the presence of normal White House aides who might prove untrustworthy.

Their plan is in general conformity with the new Democrat agenda -- as Victor Davis Hanson puts it, the purpose of the elderly white guy Joe and other figures like Nancy Pelosi, Steney Hoyer, and Dianne Feinstein is to provide a veneer of respectability for the crooks and radicals who are actually running the show.

Decades ago, they sometimes supported strong national defense, secure borders, gas and oil development, fully funding the police, and a few restrictions on partial-birth abortions.

Not now.

. . . Their final role is to acculturate the electorate to the new Democratic Party.

Its radicals are breathing down their necks to get out of the way. Yet for a while longer they still need such an ossified veneer of respectability to ease the transition to what is now essentially a socialist-European green party.

It seems to me at this point that the deal, for Joe and the Biden family -- or more colorfully put, the frammis -- is to charge the radicals, and the corporations who are paying the radicals off for protection -- money for their part in enabling the scheme. The radicals are making out big time on several counts. They're promoting an alliance with the urban petty criminal class, which must certainly involve payoffs from the organized crime that sponsors drugs, sex trafficking, and other activities, with woke policies, which require corporate payoffs to evade implementation and enforcement.

All well and good -- but figures like Sen Feinstein have probably been naive all along in not demanding to be paid handsomely for their part in enabling the corruption by making it respectable. Thus the radicals want her out soonest, but they'll certainly tolerate Joe for another election cycle -- in fact, at least for the next cycle, they even need him. Joe knows this, and his proxies Valerie and Hunter spent their time with him out of view in Ireland finalizing the plan.

A key part of the deal is that Joe on one hand won't oppose the radical quasi-agenda, which will be implemented at the deep state level, while there will effectively be no expectations for Joe himself, who can continue to spend much of his time retired but nominally on the job. As long, of course, as Joe and the family get their cut.

The problem with a frammis is that it involves a fairly intricate scheme of avarice and betrayal -- but at some point, all options for betrayal are on the table. What if the cartels and corporations who are funding the frammis decide finally not to pay the Bidens? That question is at the back of my mind here.