Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com

Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Journal Founding: August 2, 2012

Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year

Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed

Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access

Fees: None (Free)

Volume Numbering: 12

Issue Numbering: 3

Section: A

Theme Type: Idea

Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”

Theme Part: 31

Formal Sub-Theme: None

Individual Publication Date: August 1, 2024

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2024

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Word Count: 5,375

Image Credits: Kirk Kirkpatrick.

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*

Abstract

Kirk Kirkpatrick scored at 185 (S.D. 15), near the top of the listing, on a mainstream IQ test, the Stanford-Binet. He is the CEO of international telecommunications firm MDS America Inc. Kirkpatrick discusses: Kamala Harris; the portrayal of Trump as a messiah; a retrospective fantasy; the psychology of violent political activists; JD Vance; a principle: all politicians lie; international affairs; anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories; Project 2025; Hispanics and African Americans afraid to vote; some things not talked about that likely will be consequential; contraceptive rights; more political violence; voluntarily stepped down from tenure; rank Trump as a presiden and rank Biden as a president; positives and negatives about Kamala Harris; Indians tend to vote conservative; Indian-American relations and India and America as countries; thoughts on Project 2025; fear-mongering around China; the diversifying landscape of net wealth; Religion has been declining in the United States; a Democratic or Republican rule; jailing many people; and further thoughts.

Keywords: Biden stepping down for Harris, Billy Joel song, Biden’s historical decision, Black and Indian voter influence, Conservative Indian-American voters, Credibility issues of J.D. Vance, Kamala Harris’ legal background, Kamala Harris’ presidential candidacy, Lack of significant political violence, Major issues like abortion.

Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Kirk Kirkpatrick. We will be talking about the current political landscape in the United States. You had the debate between Biden and Trump. There was an attempted killing of Trump. Now Biden is stepping down so Kamala Harris can run as well. So, it’s pretty dramatic. What are your takes?

Kirk Kirkpatrick: Over the last month of these events? My first take is that, aside from one’s political leanings, we have lived through one of these pivotal times in history. People will read about this for years because Biden decided that what he believed was good for the country was more important than what he believed was good for himself. That’s rare in politics anywhere. So, he’s made a name for himself in history.

Kamala Harris’ entry has thrown things on its head. The Republicans spent a long time painting this as a contest between Donald Trump and an older man. Right now, Donald Trump is the older man. They’ve been beating this drum for quite a while, and now it may backfire on them. That’s what I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks. I was impressed that Biden stepped up and, without a fight, gave it up.

So, that’s where I am on the development of the last couple of weeks. The shooting is strange, simply because I would have expected some left-wing radical Antifa, and I don’t mean that poorly. I’m not saying that Antifa is evil or something, but I just would have expected somebody other than the guy who did it.

That being said, as I was explaining to two friends of mine who are Trump-oriented and want to believe in conspiracy theories, if we remember why the guy who shot Ronald Reagan shot him, it speaks a lot about the motivations of people to do things. If you remember Mr. Hinkley, Mr. Hinkley shot at Reagan because he wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Of course, that’s ridiculous. He was just basically mentally ill.

Anyway, the guy who shot Trump, we will never know why he shot Trump, obviously, but I guess that it was something just as wacko as the other guy. He’s got some mental problem that caused him to want to do this. I can’t imagine any other reason behind it. So, I’m not sure that it will affect the race significantly. It might have had Biden in the race, but no, I don’t think it’s going to affect things badly one way or the other. It’s just not. I don’t think it’s significant in the race. They’ll try and paint him as a martyr or anything like that, but it’s just not going to work.

Jacobsen: What about the portrayal of Trump as a messiah?

Kirkpatrick: Well, I’m not sure that that’s changed more than it was, meaning he’s already been portrayed as a messiah. His followers think he’s a messiah; I’m not sure this has changed much. The people who would think that, think that now, or thought it before. The most significant part of what’s happened in the last few weeks is simply that Kamala Harris is entering the race, and it throws everything on its head.

They’re planning everything. Of course, in my opinion, the people who support Trump—they’re more, how do I say this, they’re more motivated by fear than by thinking. So, they’re afraid of being left out. And they imagine better days that didn’t exist. They want to go back to those days.

Jacobsen: It’s a retrospective fantasy. 

Kirkpatrick: Yes, it’s; I hate to quote a song, but as Billy Joel says, “The good old days weren’t all that good, and tomorrow’s not as bad as it seems,” and that’s appropriate. That’s an appropriate way of saying it. When my brother was younger, he was building a house. I was working at the house, and he was working with many people who were a good bit older than him, and they were talking about the good old days. This is probably in the 1980s, so the people complaining about this were in their 40s. My brother said that the foreman was in his late 60s. He came back, and he heard these people talking about the good old days, and my brother said this: the older man looked at him and said, “The good old days? What the hell you guys were talking about? I about starved to death in those days.” The good old days aren’t always that good.

Jacobsen: What do you think goes into the psychology of violent political activists, particularly those who intend physical harm or killing?

Kirkpatrick: Yes, that one’s tough. The reason is that the American Declaration of Independence generally lays out why people go above and beyond. That is because they said that human beings are, how do I say this, how he says it, that they are built in such a way that they tend to tolerate bad things as long as they, as long as the bad things they are tolerating are tolerated. So, as long as they can tolerate it, people will tolerate it. That was their point. But the other point was that it gets to a point where it’s no longer tolerable. And when that happens, you have a revolution, or you declare yourself to be independent, and so on.

The problem is that people must reach the point where bad things are unacceptable. That would then speak to a different motivation for political violence, other than the situation is intolerable, making it personal, if you understand what I mean.

Jacobsen: What about this running a JD Vance? He has a military history and is highly conservative. What are your takes on him, his views, and how he portrays himself?

Kirkpatrick: Well, most people won’t see him as believable simply because if you look at his history, he hated Trump and what he stood for. He called him America’s Hitler in private, and he betrayed the middle class and the working class. Now, because he’s vice president, he loves the guy.

That does a lot to impact his credibility with anybody who examines it. If they think about it, that should hurt him.

This lack of credibility is a big deal in politics. The other side is that we’ve become so polarized that it may not matter. It literally may not matter. So, sadly, I may now underestimate it. It may be that people are thinking about this, but I’m not so certain, given the American voter today, that they’re even thinking about it. If this were the case, would Donald Trump be running?

That would be my question. 

Jacobsen: In a prior session, you mentioned a principle: all politicians lie. So, regarding that principle, who are the least of the ideological candidates you’re seeing?

Kirkpatrick: Well, politicians lie generally for a reason, and the reason is because they need to lie. So, to see who the politicians lie the most, you must look for people who need to lie to make a point when some things can become complex. For example, there’s a tremendous amount of blame for the inflation situation in the United States. There’s a good bit of blame on Biden, but obviously, Biden has no input in inflation in the U.S. You’ll have to lie to paint him as the cause. You have to lie. You have no choice.

Now, I’m trying to think if the Democrats have some issue now that they must lie about to make the point, and I’m not sure that I know what it is. ‘The Biden crime family’ is a lie. So, the way to find out who’s telling the lies is to find out who needs to lie.

Jacobsen: Is there any reason to weigh into that?

Kirkpatrick: I said you must know something about whatever you will discuss. But if you look at inflation, you realize it has been rising around the entire developed world. Not one country did not have inflation. So, it’s hard to blame any one politician on inflation. Therefore, if you’re blaming somebody, you have to lie about it. That’s the way to reason about it.

But, for example, we have a problem with abortion, and you can’t gauge whether somebody is lying about the substance of abortion because there’s no real accepted standard. But what we do know is that a majority, even of Republicans, support some access to abortion. So, to push the opposite, you will have to lie. You’re going to have to say, “Oh, the American people don’t want abortion.” Well, no, a majority of people do want the right. So, that’s what I mean by having to lie.

Jacobsen: What about international affairs, as opposed to domestic things—Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, Sudan? How do those measure political voting tendencies in the United States? Are these sort of moderate issues, or are these significant for them?

Kirkpatrick: Traditionally, foreign affairs have always been moderate for the United States because most Americans know nothing about them. So, I would guess the Russian intervention in Ukraine is going to be somewhat of an issue because the right-wing press is pushing it. Center and left-wing press are pushing Israel as being a problem. That’s going to affect people because the media is pushing it. How it will affect it is yet to be seen because, for one reason, Kamala Harris is basically repeating the line of Biden, and Trump hasn’t waded into it either.

So, how the Israel situation will affect it is yet to be seen. The Russian one is only because many people on the right say we shouldn’t be giving them money, but it’s only to have a cudgel against the existing administration.

Jacobsen: What about anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories?

Kirkpatrick: Yes, we’re always going to have conspiracy theories, and I’m not sure that everything that’s being designated as anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. There is a good bit of anti-Semitism, and there always has been. But being anti-Israel, or let’s say, the actions of Israel, is not anti-Semitic. There are many Jews who are against what Israel is doing and are not anti-Semitic. When Netanyahu was in D.C., some protesters were Jewish, saying, “I’m against what Israel is doing, and I’m not anti-Semitic. I’m a Jew myself.”

So that’s the problem with saying anti-Semitic because I’m not sure if they are. You’re going to get much anti-Israel sentiment. Now, of course, some of that will bleed over as anti-Semitic, but you can be anti-what Israel is doing right now and not be anti-Semitic.

Jacobsen: What voting bloc in D.C. is the most active and significant in the United States? I’ve heard some commentary around the evangelical base and a proposed Project 2025. Is that true, or is it another group?

Kirkpatrick: Older adults have traditionally been the most active voter base—those most motivated to make political change. It’s not because they want to change things so much as they want something to do when they get out there and vote; they realize how important it is.

But keep in mind that many minorities are afraid to vote. A lot of Hispanics won’t go vote, but white Americans generally don’t have that problem. So, the largest group will be old, old white Americans. But, sadly, I don’t think—now let me consider one thing though—in this election, you might see women being very influential.

Women, that’s because of the abortion issue and also contraception. Losing contraception is a big deal. Yes, it’s a very bigdeal. You can see many women who may not have normally voted wanting to vote in this upcoming election. So, that might be a very active voter base that people must consider.

Jacobsen: Why are Hispanics and African Americans afraid to vote? You mentioned earlier in a response.

Kirkpatrick: Well, unfortunately, they have been traditionally. They shouldn’t be, but many don’t go vote. And it’s sad, but they shouldn’t be. But yes, minorities generally have a fear of administration. A lot of black people feel their vote doesn’t count. I can’t speak for them.

Jacobsen: What are some things not talked about that likely will be consequential for this election?

Kirkpatrick: Well, right now, they’re still not talking about abortion as consequentially as it will be.

Jacobsen: And are you coupling all forms of contraception alongside this or just abortion?

Kirkpatrick: Abortion is going to be the big one, but contraceptive rights will be another one.

Jacobsen: What valid arguments do you think will be proposed, and what are some others that aren’t?

Kirkpatrick: About what specifically?

Jacobsen: Abortion and contraceptive rights.

Kirkpatrick: Well, the problem with abortion and contraceptive rights—or the problem with the propaganda and the understanding of it—is that legalizing abortion doesn’t increase the incidence of abortion; it increases the incidence of legal abortions.

Because there are illegal abortions, the difference is that to push the non-legalization of abortions under certain conditions, what you have to do is be deceptive about this because you’ll say something like, “They’re killing kids,” when in actuality, all they’re doing is shifting the medical care of what’s already happening and will happen regardless of the law. People will have abortions even when they’re illegal. And obviously, that’s more dangerous for the person having the abortion.

Jacobsen: Do you think there will be more political violence?

Kirkpatrick: I hope not. I don’t think so. Even if Trump loses and there’s a little rioting, I don’t think it will be significant.

Jacobsen: Are there other politicians that have voluntarily stepped down from tenure as an act of goodwill?

Kirkpatrick: Well, that’s the thing. It’s rare. I am trying to think of someone who has decided to step down. It’s consistent with the character of Joe Biden. Joe Biden has traditionally been a very upstanding man. He got rich by writing a book when he became president or vice president. But before that, his net worth was $385,000, and he’d been a Senator for 30 years. So, this is an honest politician. This guy took a train to work as a senator.

Jacobsen: Where would you rank Trump as a president? Where would you rank Biden as a president in American history? We can also consider various polls that have been done. Rick has told me about these, but even independent of those, what’s your personal opinion?

Kirkpatrick: Well, Joe Biden has been very effective legislatively. So, I agree with the polls that Rick’s talking about. I would put him up around the 17th or so, which most presidential historians put him at. And Trump, just dead last. My brother is an amateur presidential historian, but he’s one of these guys. How do I say it? He obsesses about it. And he would tell me before, when I asked him this question, that he would put Trump down around the bottom, but he wouldn’t put him at the worst because of the people who were surrounding the last civil war. But in his presidency last year, he changed his mind and said he would put him at the bottom. So, I agree, he’s just terrible. It’s just terrible. The way it is this, the American politician said he didn’t get along with George W. Bush politically. He thought George W. Bush had it all wrong. He disagreed with everything he did. But never in his imagination did he think that George Bush did not believe that what he was doing was the right thing.

He believed that George Bush believed what he was doing was right. He said, “I can’t say this about Trump. I can’t say that what he’s doing is in the country’s interest. He believes he will do what he believes is in his interest.” I would put him at an F, the worst.

Jacobsen: What are your positives and negatives about Kamala Harris?

Kirkpatrick: Well, I have to speak to who she is and who she’s been. I don’t study her that much. Other than the fact that she’s put many people in jail, and as a Democrat, that could be a problem. But on the other hand, she’s gone a long way up the ladder. She’s been elected as the Attorney General of California and a Senator. She’s a tough woman. She’s half Indian and half black and appeals to many groups. One is Indian because she is half-Indian. Indian Americans, not American Indians, and Indians tend to be conservative.

But the Indian-ness of the voter population will override that. It will override the conservatism of the average.

Jacobsen: Why do Indians tend to vote conservative?

Kirkpatrick: A lot of it is because India as a country is conservative, and Hindus are conservative, which is the majority religion. The next religion is Islam, and Muslims tend to be conservative. So, India is a majorly conservative country. Traditionally, Indians have voted conservative. Take a look at India; who do they have in power? Modi has no problem telling all of India that Hindus come first. This is a country that’s probably the second largest Muslim country in the world after Indonesia, with 200 million Muslims in India. They still have a nationalistic, conservative government. So they even vote this way.

Jacobsen: How might a Kamala Harris presidency affect Indian-American relations and India and America as countries?

Kirkpatrick: Well, it’ll only affect what you would have.

Kirkpatrick: Many Indian people will be proud that an Indian person is the president of the United States. But you didn’t see this same reaction from much of the African continent when Obama was elected president. Despite his spending much time in Indonesia and things like that, it didn’t affect his foreign policy.

So I can’t imagine that other than Kamala Harris being not Indian American by name only—her mother is Indian, and she used to take her to India—she wouldn’t lose that connection. So that’s known by the Indian community here for sure. It’s going to mean something.

So it’ll influence the vote that way. She’s hard to attack as being soft on crime because she’s put many people in prison. She was a prosecutor for years. Things like that, Trump will lose.

Her entry into this race, depending on who she picks as vice president, may have changed the course of the presidential election.

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on Project 2025?

Kirkpatrick: Nonsense is exactly what it is. There’s a reason why the guy whose website it was on wants to distance himself from it. It could be a better idea. Loyalty to the executive sounds funny and strange, especially if you’re accusing somebody of being authoritarian. It doesn’t sound good.

Scott, when I lived in Germany, I knew many Germans and talked to and lived with them. My wife was German, and I used to wonder how could these guys have been Nazis? Then, the next thing I’d think of is whether it could happen in the U.S.

I would have sworn that the answer was no back then. But I’m not so sure now. Populism is never a good idea. This rise in populism, if it doesn’t get nipped in the bud in the way that essentially the Brits and the French just did, might be a real problem.

Jacobsen: Regarding its rise, what about the countries outside of the Brits and the French?

Kirkpatrick: It’s going up in many countries, including Germany, but the Germans just voted in the equivalent of their Democrats. And the Brits had a landslide for Labour.

It’s a landslide. They have an absolute majority. And then you see what the French did. So, it only looked good for a while. Even Poland is moving away from it. So, it leaves only Hungary in Europe. However, significant sections of Germany, France, and England still have their right-wing parties, whether the A.F.D. in Germany or Marine Le Pen in France.

I would have never guessed it. It’s kind of like communism coming back. It’s not communism, but…

Jacobsen: What do you think of this fear-mongering around China as well?

Kirkpatrick: I dismiss it. It’s just ridiculous. The amount of trade between the United States and China—imagine the disruption, not just to the U.S.U.S. but to Canada and the rest of the world, if there were problems between the United States and China. It’s unbelievable. The countries are wedded at the hip. Why are you making a big problem in either direction? I don’t like the fact that Xi Jinping has been essentially president for life, but it’s just something you have to deal with.

And as long as they’re competing with you, not shooting at you, all that other rhetoric needs to be toned down. It does not help anybody.

Years ago, when Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense, China bought the first aircraft carrier from Ukraine. It was a 1968 diesel-powered aircraft carrier that floated to… Beijing or Shanghai, wherever they took it. That gave China a 1968 aircraft carrier, and Rumsfeld went on T.V. and said this was an aggressive act. Anybody would ask the question, why does China need an aircraft carrier?

The United States feels threatened. Now, he said, “So who threatens China?” If you think about that, when you tell some country that an action they have taken is threatening, you’re declaring yourself a threat to them.

So, he suddenly declares they are enemies and threats just because they bought an aircraft carrier. And there’s no reason for that. If they had been accommodating and even said, “We’ll help you understand and work with you just to be friendly,” the problem is that there’s this need to compete against the biggest. It’s just not good for either country.

It could be a better idea. Anyway, China has few expansionist tendencies, except regarding things like oil in the sea or this type of thing. So what I mean by that is they’re not going to take over Vietnam, but they may take or try to take big swaths of the Philippine Sea, the South China Sea, whatever you want to call it. But it’s not that they’re going out to take over.

Jacobsen: What do you make of the diversifying landscape of net wealth or a portion of the world? The United States had a much more significant percentage of the world’s wealth in prior decades, but the rise of everyone else also reduced the United States’ relative economic dominance, even though most everyone was doing better. What do you make of the political feel in the United States in reaction to that potential?

Kirkpatrick: Well, first of all, it’s inevitable. There’s an old story of a king who sent four wise men out in the world and said, “Bring back the words that are true in all places and at all times.” When they returned, there was none until one of them said, “Yes, there are. Those words are, ‘And this too shall pass away.'” Inevitably, the dominance of the United States will go away. It may not be in our lifetime, but it’s inevitable. That it flattens out is also inevitable. So people may wring their hands about it, but ultimately, it’s better for everybody, including the U.S. It’s just a good idea.

You can imagine it by imagining the extreme: if everybody had the same amount of money and lived in a decent house and nobody was rich, well, it may not be right, but it would certainly be livable. But if the other situation where one guy had a hundred trillion dollars, and the rest of the world lived off a hundred dollars a year, that would be not good. So, the redistribution of wealth to the world is good for everybody. The best way to solve the problem with the border in the southern part of the U.S. is to enrich Mexico.

Scott, you’re a Canadian. We are okay with Canadians coming over and overstaying their stay. Now, people do it. It happens but is not a problem because it only happens sometimes. The reason is that Canada is a nice place to live, and people want to stay. If Mexico were the same, people wouldn’t be trying to get to the U.S. or other first-world countries because they wouldn’t need to. They wouldn’t want to. They’d stay at home. So, it’s a wonderful thing. Now, whether people think it’s a wonderful thing, I can’t answer that. But, no, having wealth concentrated in either goes with people, too.

Not just countries—great concentrations of wealth are dangerous even to the wealthy. As one of the greatest American historians said, there are only two true historical mechanisms for redistributing wealth: taxation or revolution. So that’s in a country. So, looking at other countries, you will have the same problem outside of a country. A massively rich country will have to work hard to support the rest of the world. It’s just not good.

Jacobsen: Religion has been declining in the United States for quite some time. I can give a Canadian comparison off the top. In the 1970s, about 90% of the population was some version of Christian, some sect. By 2001, based on census data from Statistics Canada, it was about three-quarters, maybe a tad more. By 2021, the numbers were sitting at about 53-54%. If you follow that trend line, it’s probably about half or less; it’s just shy of half now. That same trend has progressed in the United States at a slower pace, but it has progressed. So, colloquially, it’s been called the rise of the “nones.” What do you make of this rising voting bloc with no religious affiliation? And some religious people have reactionary politics or sociopolitics based on that, too.

Kirkpatrick: Well, voting based on your religion could be more sensible. Except for very few people, most people are in the religion they were born into. As I point out, isn’t it a wonderful coincidence that the one true religion happens to be the one you were born into?

But the problem is, what are you trying to achieve? If your political goal is to make everybody exactly like you, you might vote one way. But if you want to make the place better, and that includes religious people, then they will tend to vote on what makes sense to vote about rather than their religion. So, I will vote for a good candidate even if he shares my religion.

If you understand what I mean, I need clarification. The story of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King’s father—when they were interviewing Martin Luther King’s father, they asked what he thought about Kennedy as he was running for president. He said, “I like Kennedy. I believe he’s good for the Negro. He’s a good man, and he’ll treat us well.” And so they said, “So you’re voting for him?” And he said, “No, I’ll be voting for Nixon.” They said, “But you just said he was a good man.” And he said, “Yes, he is, but I can’t vote for a Catholic.” He said, “I can’t vote for a papist.” That’s what he said. 

Jacobsen: Did you ever hear George Carlin’s joke about John Kennedy’s accent? “Now things are looking good for the first quarter of sugar in Cuber.”

Kirkpatrick: Anyway, they went to John Kennedy with this quote. What do you think he said?

Jacobsen: I’m not going to guess.

Kirkpatrick: No, he said, “Who would have imagined it? Martin Luther King Jr.’s father is a bigot.” He said, “But then we all have fathers, don’t we?”

The joke is that his father was a wild character. His father had been the American ambassador to Ireland and made money by running rums and doing things like that. His father was known to be a kind of a character, so he said, “But we all have fathers.” But yes, Martin Luther King’s father would not vote for a guy he felt was good for him because he didn’t like his religion.

So, it does happen. But I would say that the smarter religious people are voting for what’s good for them and their family’s life rather than whether or not the guy is Catholic or a papist or whatever.

But the rise of religiosity in the U.S. and elsewhere is a blip. It’s part of the curve, but the trend is still down. Even if it goes up for two or three decades, in the end, if you think about it, 200 years ago, you had to go to church. So, it continues to decline. Of course, it can reverse, but it cannot reverse over the long term. Unfortunately, we don’t live that long.

Jacobsen: What do you think will happen in this particular election? Will it be a Democratic or Republican rule?

Kirkpatrick: Yes. I wouldn’t have time to do this interview if I knew this. So, it’s hard to make the prediction, and it’s gotten much harder. I would be more likely to predict if I knew who she would pick as her running mate. But you’ve seen an almost instantaneous increase in enthusiasm for this race since she became the candidate. You have many people who were writing it off who are now enthusiastic. I don’t think the Democrats are nearly as scared as they were a week before Biden made this announcement.

Kirkpatrick: Trump has his work cut out for him if he wins because people will look at Kamala Harris as younger and without the baggage. And one of the comedians was joking; you’ll see some Trumpster standing behind his truck, staring at the back, thinking of all the bumper stickers he’s got to pull off—F.J.B. and Let’s Go, Brandon. Well, he’s not running anymore. But she’s a younger generation. If she picks the right person, she can be the next president.

The fact that she’s a prosecutor makes her appeal to people she might not have appealed to because she’s a woman. Unfortunately, the fact that she’s a prosecutorial woman is a strange standard, but it makes her seem tough on crime.

Jacobsen: Your earlier point about jailing many people.

Kirkpatrick: That can run in both directions. She’s black, and she jailed a lot of black people. So, who knows how they’ll handle that? But anyway, it’s very interesting. It was a nightmare for Trump. It’s an absolute nightmare. Everything has to be rethought.

Jacobsen: How big of an issue do you think race and ethnicity will be in this?

Kirkpatrick: It’s smaller than it was during Obama. She looks as Indian as she does black. It’s not going to be that big of a deal at all. Trump knows that pushing it as a deal will backfire if he tries to push it as a deal. He already knows that. And we’re a quarter of the way into the 21st century. It’s getting stupider and stupider all the time. No, I don’t think it’ll play. She doesn’t look that black.

Obama looked black, but she could be Indian as much as black. That’s the problem. It doesn’t have to be as big a deal as people make it. The bigger deal is going to be who she picks as vice president. It might be a big deal if she picks some hard-left-leaning person. But if she picks a reasonable candidate, somebody in the middle, she’ll win the race.

Jacobsen: Do you have any further thoughts based on the conversation today?

Kirkpatrick: This is a serious election because if Donald wins, he has promised to do bad things that are not in anybody’s interest. Not to mention that I’m working in Kuwait right now, so on the 1st of August, I’ll return to Kuwait. But I was talking with a company out of Poland. I was talking with the guy—he’s in Poland. And he was expressing the idea that if Trump got elected, Poland would be in danger. He wouldn’t feel safe. If Trump got reelected, he doesn’t believe that Trump would care what happened.

Jacobsen: Have a good one, Kirk.

Kirkpatrick: You too. Take care.

Bibliography

None

Footnotes

None

Citations

American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election. August 2024; 12(3). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kirkpatrick-election-2024

American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, August 1). Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election. In-Sight Publishing. 12(3).

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 12, n. 3, 2024.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 3 (Summer). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kirkpatrick-election-2024.

Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S “Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 3 (August 2024).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kirkpatrick-election-2024.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 12(3). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kirkpatrick-election-2024>.

Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kirkpatrick-election-2024>.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.12, no. 3, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kirkpatrick-election-2024.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Scott J. Kirk Kirkpatrick on the American 2024 Election [Internet]. 2024 Aug; 12(3). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/kirkpatrick-election-2024.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.