Can Kamala’s Laugh Bring Joy to the World? Two Anti-War Writers Comment
by Richard Crasta and Mark David Ledbetter

Picture this: The Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world asked a group of White House invitees, “Do you think you just fell off a coconut tree?” And then she laughed a joyous, triumphant laugh, an infectious laugh that was almost insistent that you laugh along with her, a laugh that celebrated absurdity even as it questioned it, and recognized that the deeper truth may lie in the most absurd situations.

Because, in this world, color-blindness is still a goal to be desired, the words black and white do matter (a Thai skin-whitening cream conducted an advertising campaign claiming that success required, above all things, a white skin). So we constantly need to remind ourselves and others that we don’t get to choose the race or skin color we are born into. We also don’t choose which gender we’re born into, so these are not criteria to be used when voting for a presidential candidate.
So, to the Democratic leaders and strategists: a mistake not to be repeated: Do not make an issue of either Kamala’s skin color or her womanhood. These should never be a reason to vote or not vote for someone to be president of the United States (and de facto for now, of the world, minus BRICS). Hillary Clinton lost not because she was a woman, but partly because of her innate unlikability and her lack of compassion and empathy, as demonstrated by her cackling laughter when she heard of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi being brutally murdered (and the country being destroyed, thousands of innocents being bombed—which rarely deserves even a cursory mention, if that, when America or America’s friends were doing it, because the Arabs and Africans, like most colored people, are unconsciously thought of as subhuman). Many must have felt, like Mark and I did, that they were being blackmailed into voting for a woman just because we needed to have a first woman president now, now, now, and not a moment later. Whereas the charismatic and consistently anti-war Bernie Sanders, the true winner if the primary had been conducted fairly, had a crucial fault: he could not pass off as a woman (nor would he have agreed to try). But a U.S.-gifted bomb falling on a refugee camp in Gaza is not more or less destructive depending on whether it has lipstick or mustaches painted on it.
And in this one matter, Mark and I do believe Donald Trump: that, having started not a single war during his four years as president, he would most likely have avoided the wars that Joe Biden had gotten us into with his aggressive, contemptuous, and hawkish attitude towards Russia (the Ukraine coup d’état of 2014 specifically being managed by Victoria Nuland, US Asst. Secretary of State, according to Professor Jeffrey Sachs; but overall Russia policy was the province of Vice President Biden), Above all, Biden’s craven approval and gung-hoing of Netanyahu’s genocidal war is blood-curdling in its cold disregard for innocent Palestinian lives. No one is saying it loudly; but much of the economic suffering of middle-class and working class Americans and the poor is the result of the enormous expenditure the U.S. is incurring in Gaza, Ukraine, and for keeping up its military in an aggressive Cold War-style posture in 800 U.S. military bases around the world.
Let Kamala trust herself to stray away from Biden’s policies, and to disclaim his jingoistic mindset, and the country will forgive her if her past loyalty, or her idea of loyalty, or what the powers told her that loyalty demanded, made her lie about her experience of covering up for a mentally disintegrating man. Such a lie, having helped her become Vice President. It will be dismissed as minor compared to the inherent dishonesty of the Bidens, including that of the ambitious Jill Biden and Hunter Biden. From all we know (and I can’t claim to know anything, I am just relying on my hunch), she’s honest and clean.
Because with all of her charm and laughter and freshness, if Kamala Harris does not promise that she will work for world peace and an end to the tragic slaughter of young Ukrainian and Russian men and of Gaza’s women and children, Mark and I will not be voting for her.
Mark has detailed his views on war and peace in a number of exceptionally profound and yet mostly under-appreciated books, including Dancing on the Edge of the Widening Gyre: A History of Our Times. And, unlike him, I found myself inexplicably joyful in the last few days of the Democratic convention of 2024 and thereafter. Joyful that we may have, at last, found a decent and even inspiring candidate for President, one who is like us, and is a “normal” person, and who will reveal her true and pacifist colors once she is actually in presidential chair of the Oval Office.
Her overarching priority should be to make the world a safer place, because the greatest immediate danger facing the world today is a real nuclear war that will destroy human civilization with one person’s decision, one that may have to be made in around six minutes, no matter whether the president is fast asleep or in the presidential bathroom when the first minute starts. And despite escape scenarios or underground hideouts that some leaders and super-rich persons may have devised for themselves, whoever is left behind—left alive, that is—will all wish they were dead, because their death will be slow and painful, resulting from burns, cancer, and other diseases caused by the radioactivity in the atmosphere.
This grim reality suggests that being a president is not a chess game in which you make the best guess, and then surrender to your fate. Not since 1962, when two wise leaders, JFK and Khrushchev, pulled us back from the brink of total nuclear war, have we been so close to catastrophic danger, and yet, for the last four years of Biden’s presidency, we’ve being playing reruns of Macho Man or Superman—the kind in which, after a thrilling and heart-thumping contest between good and evil (with America or the American superhero always personifying the Good), it always ends well, though only in the last five minutes or so; and then we return to check our social networks, play video games, and television serials, until the next time Superman or his buddies are called upon to save the world … in theaters near you.
Having confessed that, after years of trusting only The New York Times and The New Yorker for truthful reporting, I have been recently getting much of my information from podcasts on ad-free YouTube Premium, I go for such interviews such as “Judging Freedom”, and including interviews with John Mearsheimer (veteran), Jeffrey Sachs, The Duran (Alexander Mercouris), Pepe Escobar, Richard Wolff (economist), Larry Johnson (ex-CIA), Seymour Hersh: I find that this group of around 20, who I will call the T-20 or the Thoughtful 20 or the 20 Thinkers, mostly American analysts and some ex-CIA and ex-Army officers or academics, who pursue their independent research with their sources (such as contacts and friends in the CIA or the Russian army) and often come to the same or similar conclusions. Most of them know each other and agree with each other on most points. They spoke out candidly and without compromise, and for that they risked danger (remember Julian Assange, Edward Snowden?), but cannot or refuse to escape their loyalty to the truth and their duty to speak out to their rightful bosses: The People, the citizens expressing themselves fearlessly. Together these fearless philosophers on YouTube probably have more wisdom than the airheads who are now running the Main show– Jake Sullivan, Lloyd Austin, Anthony Blinken, and Christopher Wray–since Biden, no intellectual heavyweight to begin with, but a man’s man, one with a good arm with which to threaten to throw away a reporter’s phone, and extraordinary skills in maneuvering 18-wheelers, especially when driving to Robben Island in South Africa to get arrested while trying to rescue Nelson Mandela.
So Kamala laughs a lot. Good for her, I think, in that it probably keeps her sane. Because what is American politics today but sheer insanity, and who are the rest of us to tell her when she can laugh and when not? The right of free expression, enshrined in the U.S. constitution, protects her laughter as well as yours, and mine.
Because as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has my respect (as does his late uncle JFK, who saved us from a nuclear holocaust), and should have yours, I think, puts it: “[Tim Walz] said there’s no freedom of speech for disinformation, and he’s wrong. [The 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution] protects speech that’s abhorrent, that nobody wants to hear, that’s dangerous … that’s the price of democracy. The remedy for bad speech or lies is not censorship, but more speech.”
Confession: Trusting my protection by the U.S. Constitution, I have written many satires on American, Indian, and world politics, which focus above all on the freedom to express oneself, to criticize the state of things, to oppose injustice and war: What We All Need (2005), Lord Bush of Iraq (around 2009), Impressing the Whites (2000), and perhaps a dozen sentences that will make me laugh again and again, 20, 30, 40 years after I have written them. Much like I never tire of remembering or reciting the limerick about a young man named Lancelot, who, whenever he would pass, a delectable lass, “the front of his pants would advance-a-lot.”
Both Kamala and I, I suspect, have this compensatory gift of being able to laugh at our own jokes, even if no one else gets them or laughs at them.
And I Love her laugh, it has music and passion in it: It puts the pompous and over-serious in their places. My own ability to laugh. at myself and others, has declined thanks to certain events in my life, so I count myself out as an example in making the following statement: The ability to laugh, and to see the absurdity in things, I believe, is so important it ought to be one of the basic requirements for a presidential candidate. It’s not an easy job, so I hope she does her thinking as she goes along. Why waste time over non-issues, or overblown issues, when so much that is really important does not get its due share of thought and emphasis? What an absurd country in that grown men and women are chanting, along with their would-be president, “USA! USA!”
That Kamala’s attitude to Trump’s wall and to immigration is compassionate and proceeds from her integrity, as the daughter of an immigrant: this I have reason to believe. I like that she admits laughing at Trump’s border Wall. I hope she continues to laugh, along with the entire country, at the other absurdities in US policy. If the US can give Ukraine missiles that will reach deep into Russia, why can Russia not give Mexico or the drug cartels missiles that can strike deep enough as to take out half of California, Texas, and Florida? I am only giving an example of absurdity, for I despise blood and gore, cruelty and sadism, and physical violence against all human beings.
If she thought, at one time, that the Mexican Border Wall was a stupid idea, then she’s brighter than I thought, and she should tell her advisors to fuck off, she’s not giving up on her idealism, her contempt for war, and her not leading the world in making us all more compassionate towards others. That would be a tremendous contribution, making the case that women, unlike Ursula von der Leyen (EU commission president), can be peacemakers, and probably need to be given extra consideration in elections to such posts.
So, if I could say so, loosely, I along with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Mark David Ledbetter could be said to belong to The Anti-War Party.
So, after the convention had ended, I exchanged impressions with Mark. Mark said, of his thoughts as he listened to the speakers:
“For me, the issue of forever wars and the military-industrial complex, as you know, trumps all others. I was worried about Trump. Sure, he has some antiwar supporters like Vivek and J.D. But what about the man himself? His V.P. choice would be a strong indication on where he stands. If he chose Rubio or Halley, I would have been left out in the cold, a lonely orphan. So the Donald choosing J. D. was a great relief.”
“But could Kamala still surprise? In a good way? Not likely, since, post-Ukraine, the Democrats have replaced the Republicans as the party of war. But who knows? So I’ll give her a chance.”
“At the convention, Mark Kelly and Leon Panetta channeled the worst of Dick Cheney and Lindsey Graham. Well, maybe they’re outliers. What would Kamala have to say?”
“Sadly, she was right there with the warmongers.” [This was the revelation he faced after Kamala adopted a tough militaristic stance in her acceptance speech.]
“So, it seems Kamala and the Dems have decided to keep fighting wars all over the world. But not to worry. Now they’re going to do it with joy. Bomb with joy! Maim with joy! Destroy with joy!”
Ouch! That was precisely when the joy went out of my life. The spirit of joy, of the post-Kamala-Nominating-Convention Democrats, many of whom happen to be my personal friends, outnumbering than Republicans and libertarians—that joy was soon to dissipate, as I perceived no softening of the war-mindedness. Sadly, I had to admit that my own joy was so short-lived, as the Israelis continued to bomb schools, hospitals, refugee centers, mostly killing civilians, women, and children, and Kamala’s party couldn’t stop it, or show a convincing inclination to do so.
And yet, for the sake of humanity, I will hope for Kamala being the agent of transformation, of bringing us laughter in the dark.
I end with this summary of our assessment, though more mine than Mark’s, except when he is specifically mentioned:

Points in Favor/Against voting for Kamala
In Favor:
She Would be the First Woman, and First Black Woman, to be president: a milestone, and a symbolic act of reparation for the U.S.’s racist history. (Unfortunately, these cannot be the sole qualifications for this hugely important job, but they are not trivial either. She has also to be at least somewhat equal to her male competitors in knowledge, ideals, attitude, grace, competence, inspirational leadership, and so on. (When Hillary Clinton along with the un-democratic Democratic establishment cheated to become the Democrats’ presidential nominee, she was rejected by the people.)

She Represents a Party that has traditionally supported the working class, minorities, and immigrants—who still need friends and support, since they cannot buy lobbies. (However, this is less true today as the Democrats have made friends in Wall Street and Silicon Valley and Hollywood, and Kamala raised a record one billion dollars for her campaign in just a few months. Nancy Pelosi and the Clintons are multi-millionaires, Nancy having profited greatly from her arms industry investments. And the Defense secretary owns shares in Raytheon, the maker of missiles. Whereas, under Joe Biden, the working class and middle class have become poorer.

Against:
“The Lesser of Two Evils” trap or trick that we feel we must resist. As Cornel West, who would have been my choice after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Jill Stein, say, the old trick of “Vote for X, because if X doesn’t win, Y will, and X is the lesser of two evils—this trick has been used a little too often. So first, let’s look at the pluses and minuses of each candidate:

The Ukraine War: How could Kamala, as Vice President, not know the legal and historical background of the war, and how the US had lied to Gorbachev in promising not to move NATO eastward? Here, reading or listening to at least one hour each of John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs would have sufficed to convince Kamala, or anyone else who is honest, and has slightly more than average intelligence. If only she or anyone else put herself in Putin’s shoes and asked themselves if they would have tolerated Russian missile and military bases on the US Canadian or Mexican border. Russia had historically been invaded by Western countries, first Napoleon, then Germany under Hitler, and had lost 27 million dead in the 2nd world war–far more than any other country. So, to describe Putin as an aggressor or a ruthless dictator is childish and absurd, and hypocritical, considering that while Ukraine has lost at most 800,000 casualties in this war, the US has caused 20-30 million dead in wars from Vietnam through Iraq and Libya, and other undercover regime change operations. Israel had caused the brutal killings of more than 40,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and how could she compare that to the Palestinian one-day jail break on October 7 (the escape from the world’s largest concentration camp), and how could she claim any right to self-defense when Israel is an occupying power running a concentration camp and an apartheid state?

The excuse she might legitimately have: she didn’t know, she wasn’t given the whole picture, there is an enormous amount of brainwashing conducted by the Israel lobby, and she, like most others (and even I, for a while), was a victim of it. It may also be true that men, having and wielding most of the power at the highest levels, don’t reward women who know or understand politics, and are patronizing towards them, thus perpetuating their political ignorance. Having offered this plausible excuse, she could promise to learn and to change to more ethical and humanistic policies.

If she now breaks away from Biden’s militaristic, bloodstained, Russo-phobic and Palestinian-hating mindset, if she now breaks away from the Biden camp, she could use the excuse: the deep state kept the real secrets or the extent of the Gaza genocide unknown to her. And as for pretending that all was well while Biden’s mental decline had already become severe enough as to demand his voluntary resignation, or the Cabinet’s exercise of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment declaring the President unfit: she could also rightfully claim that she was alone, or did not have enough support from others so as to initiate the 25th Amendment—against the very man who had chosen her for the Vice President’s job. The people have a right to understand and to forgive this lapse, but at least her saying so, even in the last few days before the election, might help raise her stature.

Points in Favor of and Against Voting for Donald Trump:
The overwhelming majority of my friends would want Kamala to be elected, and many because of their vehement Trump-phobia (and possibly also their Russophobia, which John Mearsheimer speaks of as being “off the charts” in Western Europe and America. But consider a few of the major figures who support Trump, and ask yourselves: If these are honest, respectable, and intelligent people, people, people with integrity and courage (it always takes far more courage to take a hugely unpopular stand on an issue like this than to take a popular stand); then why not seriously consider their arguments for supporting Trump?

1. They are anti-war, and they believe the wars the US is fighting or supporting are not in the interests of the US, or of the world. They perceive Trump as being anti-war, as wanting to solve problems, as far as possible, without bloodshed. But these monsters we are constantly told will take over the world: They are the fake creations, monsters made up by the military industrial complex, whose existence depends on the creation of endless new enemies, and frightening the mostly uninformed, misinformed, or brainwashed population into supporting their schemes, which bring them great profits, but are ruinous to the general population, its health, its infrastructure, its educational system. How come so many wars have been fought against so many so-called Hitlers, who in retrospect turned out to be not-Hitlers, and often better rulers than the dictators installed by the CIA (such as Mobutu). True, there are many injustices in the world, including women’s education suffering a setback in Afghanistan, but America cannot, single-handedly, overcome all of them—some of these changes will come from internal movements, from indigenous political and social development. America must first put its own house in order, house its homeless, provide nutritious food to its undernourished children. Let Keith Starmer and Macron solve those other “problems,” for a change. Let their military industrial complexes make some profits for a change.
2. They believe that Trump-phobia is a result of prejudice, it is irrational and prerational (atavistic?), and much like America’s and Western Europe’s Putin phobia and Russophobia.
3. Trump actually has a sense of humor. Kamala doesn’t. And her responses to the questions posed by softball interviewers seem to reveal a lack of sufficient knowledge or understanding for the job she is required to do.
4. The economy did better under Trump than it did with Kamala.
5. Trump’s supporters, or those who at least trust that he will not push the world into nuclear war, include, besides many brilliant scholars and Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Jordan Peterson, Tulsi Gabbard, Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, Russell Brand, Lil Wayne (and other black rappers who support him—how can you explain that while calling him racist?).
6. “It’s a war that should have never happened. It’s a war the Russians tried repeatedly to settle on terms that were very, very beneficial to Ukraine and us. The major thing they wanted was for us to keep NATO out of the Ukraine.”—Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This frank statement probably cost him the election. He was not allowed, by the Democratic establishment or Mainstream Media to have a fair fight (as it happened with Bernie Sanders in 2016).
7. Jill Stein, Cornel West, Robert F. Kennedy, and Tulsi Gabbard, are all deserving candidates who don’t have blood on their hands. Why not give the People a chance to vote for them? How can it be a democracy, one that preaches and sometimes imposes democracy on other countries,  if we ourselves, being American, don’t have a chance to vote for the person we think deserves the job?
8. The rule of lies: “This constant lying is not aimed at making the people believe a lie, but at ensuring that no one believes anything anymore. A people that can no longer distinguish between truth and lies cannot distinguish between right and wrong. And such a people, deprived of the power to think and judge, is, without knowing and willing it, completely subjected to the rule of lies. With such a people, you can do whatever you want.” -Hannah Arendt

So what is my summary, my conclusion? I have none. If I was sure that the world’s highest priority is avoiding a catastrophic World War III (I am, 99%, but not 100 % because I see some wisdom in George Carlin describing politics and even the human experiment as a freak show), and that Trump, though he may damage the country and bankrupt it, and in every be worse, will not venture into a nuclear conflict, I would vote for him. At this point, I need to see more evidence of Kamala’s (lately anti-war inclinations, and her understanding of the precarious situation we are in. I need to feel convinced that Kamala has a gut-level distaste for war, and truly feels sorry for the hundreds of thousands who have died because of U.S. intervention or support for murderous actions in Gaza. In this regard, the statement of President Biden apologizing for the forced removal of Indian children from their parents and imprisoning them in special schools was a grave error is heartening. At the same time, I read about yet another refugee camp bombed, and nearly a hundred dead and wounded: it’s very worrisome that he can see Indian school injustice with his left eye, but his right eye is blind to it when it happens in Gaza or the occupied West Bank.

In the absence of a firm conclusion from me, I leave it to author and historian Mark David Ledbetter, my co-author for this post, to offer a conclusion if he can.[This expandable space is reserved for his response, if any, whenever he chooses.]
Wishing us all love, laughter, happiness, and peace. Happy Diwali! And don’t forget to support the authors by buying their books. Writers who choose to be independent and true to their conscience: they have a hard time making ends meet. To contact me, Richard, write to me at novelistrichard@gmail.com

[This is the first time I have written a joint blog with historian/author Mark David Ledbetter, who I have known for a decade, and I take responsibility for any accidental errors—Richard Crasta]