Monday, September 28, 2026
Bill Bonner, from Ardmore, Ireland
Today, we pick up where we left off on Friday.
Why have mainstream voters turned against mainstream political parties?
The answer, we think, is that the Big Tent politicians — Republicans and Democrats — have run out of material. No more bearded ladies. No more strongmen or magicians. And someone seems to have let the elephants run loose.
The latest, and greatest, of the showmen — Donald Trump — tried a revival, by bringing in more freaks and high-wire acts. But even the most loyal fans are walking out. Newsweek:
Marjorie Taylor Greene declares “MAGA is dead”: “They’re in a cult”
David Paxman:
Tucker Carlson calls for Trump’s removal
In Europe, too, the ‘social democrat’ parties have ruled the roost for two generations. But now there are new cocks on the walk. Voters are turning to more ‘fringy’ parties with more radical agenda.
In Italy...The Guardian reports that ‘right wing’ Meloni is being outflanked by a more radical right winger:
Rise of far-right leader Roberto Vannacci challenges Meloni as she celebrates Italian milestone
In Germany...The Guardian again:
Far-right AfD win in Germany is ‘grave moment’ for Europe, politicians warn
In England...three ‘right wing’ parties have emerged so fast — Reform, Reclaim, and Restore — we can’t keep up with them. All we know for sure is that they must share the same thesaurus. BBC:
Britain faces political chaos
The Knowledge concludes:
Western nations have become “ungovernable.”
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz comes under fire after losing painfully to the far-right AfD in a state election, he can console himself, says Janan Ganesh in the FT, that his counterpart in Paris is “also despised”. So were the two previous French presidents. None of the last five US leaders has managed an average approval rating above 50%. Here in inclusive Britain, we have hated “white, Asian, male, female, young, old, Conservative, Labour, southern and northern” prime ministers since 2016. Before that, it was not unheard of for one to rule for a decade. Between 1975 and 2007, Australia had four heads of government. It has had seven since.
Why is this happening?
Our guess it is because the post-WWII model no longer works. There are two parts to it, guns and butter, each used to justify a large, expensive government.
As for the first, the Soviet Union seemed to be a genuine menace in the late 40s. It whupped the Wehrmacht and it looked as though it might roll all the way to the Atlantic. Voters were willing to pay to make sure nothing really unfortunate happened.
The ‘insurance’ component became more and more essential, especially to European governments, who counted on the US and NATO for protection against the Soviets. European governments not only offered pensions for old people, but medical care and university educations too. From the ‘cradle to the grave,’ the expansive state hovered like an undertaker at a wake...and sent the bill to the grandchildren.
But by the end of the 20th century, the model revealed two serious flaws. The military threat, or at least the protection offered by huge conventional forces, had evaporated. And the welfare state — with its fake money and Ponzi financing — was going broke.
The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. Americans prepared to spend their ‘peace dividend.’ Russia didn’t want to fight Europe; it wanted to be part of it. But the dividend disappeared when Western politicians realized that they couldn’t run a protection racket without something to protect the taxpayers from. They blackballed Russia’s NATO participation.
More recently, the Russian Federation has shown itself to be so weak that it couldn’t pose much of a threat to Europe anyway. It had trouble enough imposing its will on Eastern Ukraine, where people speak Russian and had voted overwhelmingly to join the Federation.
The Pentagon got a big boost in 2001, when ‘terrorists’ struck the World Trade Center in New York. In financial terms, it must have been the most successful military strike in history...for both sides. It led to trillions in ineffectual ‘defense’ spending...while increasing the number of ‘terrorists’ who might want to harm the US.
No one seemed to notice or care that beefing-up our conventional military footprint — bases, ships, planes, foreign entanglements — would in no way reduce the target opportunities available to genuine ‘terrorists.’ And the attack on Iran has made them more motivated and as intractable as ever.
New threats — out-of-control AI, for example — seem invulnerable to the Pentagon’s most tarted-up aircraft and its most testosterone-juiced warfighters. You can’t bomb an algorithm...or kill an idea with an aircraft carrier. As for what’s ahead, the public may rally behind the political class once again — if a plausible new bogeyman turns up. But for the moment, middle-of-the-road politicians are struggling to find one.
Stay tuned.
Regards,
Bill Bonner
Change is ever present, of course. But I can't but feel that the changes Bill cites are more worrisome that any that I recall.
Foremost among my worries is our economic well being.
It's being made ever less optimistic by our elected representatives who simply refuse to so much as try spend no more than the money we remit to them.
And I can take no solace by citing another industrialized country whose fiscal discipline we should emulate: They are all in hopeless debt; Japan in particular.
This in turn reminds me of Stein's Law, "if something cannot go on forever, it will stop."
What then?
Immigration is the main reason in uk and Europe voters are looking for someone who does what voters actually want heaven forbid