On Joe Biden

At what I think is the current count, the field of Democrats seeking the party’s 2020 Presidential nomination now exceeds 20. We are all exhausted. As those that are interested are already aware, a minority of the declared candidates are seemingly starting to separate themselves from the rest of the pack by dint of campaign contributions and relatively more favorable poll numbers; some may, realistically, be running for the party’s Vice Presidential nomination; some may be running for President in 2024 or 2028; many are apparently running because their egos, spouses or mothers have told them that they’d make a good President.

I would offer that one stands apart from the rest: former Vice President Joe Biden.

Several months ago, I listed the measures I consider most germane to assessing a candidate’s strength and suitability for the presidency: the requisite knowledge and experience; the ability to look strong on the stage against the President; not an “identity” candidate; not a shiny new toy; not an overtly progressive candidate; likeability; and possessed of credible plans to address the needs of a large segment of our economically desperate people. In reviewing them, one might surmise that I had Mr. Biden in mind when I developed them. I didn’t, specifically; but he best fits them.

First, as to substance. I would suggest that among the announced candidates (for these purposes, including President Trump), Mr. Biden is the only one unquestionably qualified to conduct the presidency. He has a deep knowledge of both domestic and foreign policy. He has the standing to assure our allies, give our adversaries pause, and reinfuse some vigor to the world’s liberal democratic order. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn’t fully embraced progressive positions such as the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and Free Public College; as such, I would submit that his sentiments are more in tune with the preferences of the majority of our people than those of the zealots on either the left or right. He is obviously conversant with the levers of power in Congress, and he would seem to be as adept as any candidate will be in achieving progress in our hyper-partisan environment. He is likeable and upbeat, and Americans have consistently shown themselves willing to follow a President that casts a sunny vision.

From a handicapping standpoint, Mr. Biden has the gravitas to hold the stage against the President; facing the President, his advanced age won’t be a drawback; he has a sufficiently-established public identity that Mr. Trump and his cohort won’t be able to define him; he maintains a broad reservoir of good feeling among a wide swath of our people combined with a low antipathy quotient – i.e., few of our people actively dislike him; he has appeal amongst Mr. Trump’s working class constituency; and he’s not an identity candidate, but will undoubtedly receive the full support of identity-focused Democrats in a race against Mr. Trump. If, as I have put forth in other posts, the 2020 candidate that wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin will win the presidency, Mr. Biden – from Scranton, PA, and a former Delaware Senator, will almost certainly claim Pennsylvania, has deep long-standing union support that will help him in Michigan, and is the kind of decent, centrist candidate with whom (speaking as a Wisconsinite) Wisconsin citizens are comfortable. At the same time, he is obviously the antithesis of the shiny new toy, and he and his long record are susceptible to attack under progressive shibboleths such as crime (too harsh), Iraq (supported the invasion), the environment (not idealistic enough; too practical) and his propensity to “invade” others’ personal space.

In a note a while back, I indicated my strong affinity for the candidacy of MN Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and on the merits, I still see much to recommend her. That said: she is currently polling under 2% nationally and, most chilling for her prospects, at 3.3% in her neighbor state of Iowa, where I believe she must do very well to have a realistic chance at the nomination. In a bit of a lament, I would suggest that unless she rallies significantly in the next 7 months, she’ll be done by March 1.

As the race has shaped up, I’ve been a bit surprised that some of our more avidly progressive friends, while having great aspirations for our nation and the world, appear unaware that some of their positions are as far from mainstream American sentiment – the sentiment that generally elects Presidents — as are the views of our staunchly conservative friends that abhor business regulation, oppose all abortion on moral grounds, and favor a largely unfettered right to assault weapons on constitutional principle. If the Democratic Party nominates a candidate generally perceived as being too far to the left, progressives need to recognize that a certain number of centrists may well choose to retain Mr. Trump.

In a passage I’ve recorded once before in these pages [and pledge to try to restrain myself from repeating too many times in the coming months :)], David Halberstam wrote this in The Best and The Brightest about then-MA Sen. John F. Kennedy’s assessment of his chances for winning the Democratic Party nomination in 1960:

“[The liberal intellectual wing of the party was] not only dubious of [Kennedy] but staunchly loyal to Adlai Stevenson after those two gallant and exhilarating defeats. That very exhilaration had left the Kennedys, particularly Robert Kennedy, with a vague suspicion that liberals would rather lose gallantly than win pragmatically ….”

Hopefully, the majority of Democrats will keep in mind that this election, and our world’s situation, are too important to indulge in ideological fratricide that could result in the President’s reelection. For reasons of substance and politics – and subject to a seemingly unlikely campaign resurrection by Sen. Klobuchar — I’m for Joe …

On William Barr: a Postscript

Set forth below is a link to an article forwarded to me not long ago by a very close friend: “The Catastrophic Performance of Bill Barr,” by Benjamin Wittes, the Editor of Lawfare, published in The Atlantic on May 2. Mr. Wittes describes more eloquently than I did [and surprisingly, given the length of this site’s posts, at greater length than I did 😉 ] a number of concerns related to Mr. Barr’s handling of and public statements regarding the Mueller Report.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/bill-barrs-performance-was-catastrophic/588574/?utm_source=atl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share

On the Meaning of Polls

To pose the title of this post is to answer the question: Polls mean very little. If nothing else, President Trump’s victory in 2016 proved that even on the eve of Election Day, they are of limited value, and this far removed from Election Day, they simply provide fodder for talking heads – liberal or conservative, depending upon whose cause seems positively reflected in them. That said, I am a bit nettled to hear pundits starting to talk about Mr. Trump’s poor standing in the national polls. Under our Electoral College system, any polls that include the preferences of the citizens of about 35 of our states are irrelevant. The sentiments of the respective majorities of those states’ citizens are so firmly cast that it seems clear which Presidential candidate will receive those states’ Electoral College votes — whether the election is held next week or in November, 2020. Put another way: while indications of the President’s national unpopularity might provide an emotional salve to Democratic stalwarts, polls that capture Californians’ or New Yorkers’ intentions are pretty much a waste of time. Not only did Sec. Clinton lead in the national polling to Election Day, 2016, she … won the popular total. Didn’t do her a lot of good.

Although the relative current merits of the Electoral College in our federal system is worth and will likely receive a decent amount of discussion in the upcoming campaign, for the 2020 presidential election, the system remains what we’ve traditionally had. Without need of a lot of research, I found different pieces that collectively identified the following 14 states that arguably either the President or the Democratic nominee could win in 2020 (followed by their Electoral College total and who won them in 2016): AZ (11; DJT); CO (9; HRC); FL (29; DJT); GA (16; DJT); IA (6; DJT); MI (16; DJT); MN (10; HRC); NC (15; DJT); NH (4; HRC); NV (6; HRC); OH (18; DJT); PA (20; DJT); VA (13; HRC); and WI (10; DJT).

The candidates’ relative support in these states may be worth watching as the election draws closer. Below is a link to a Morning Consult website that sets forth Mr. Trump’s relative popularity throughout his presidency on a state by state basis. While polling results describing Mr. Trump’s standing seemingly have limited value until the Democrats settle on a candidate, this website’s findings (there are undoubtedly others that report similar statewide polling data) indicate that in March, 2019, the President was viewed more unfavorably than favorably in all of the listed states, except one – Georgia. In Michigan and Wisconsin, states that, along with Pennsylvania, put him over the top in the Electoral College, his unfavorable rating exceeds 10 points. Of the states won by Ms. Clinton, his unfavorable rating is 10 points or greater in all but Virginia (a worthy prize of 13 Electoral College votes, enough to offset a potential Wisconsin loss), where his unfavorable rating is but 4 points and he might reasonably surmise that Ms. Clinton’s 2016 victory was attributable to her running mate, VA Sen. Tim Kaine.

https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

For those that enjoy watching poll numbers despite recognizing their limited value, a potential bookmark ;).

On William Barr

As part of a note posted February 7, 2019, addressing the Senate’s confirmation process for then- Attorney General Nominee William Barr, I stated:

“Partisans on both sides are currently all too-ready to impute ulterior motives to those with whom they disagree. If solid evidence that senior members of the Trump Campaign illegally colluded with Russia is presented to Mr. Barr by a universally-respected investigator, I suggest that one need assume either that he will bring the information to the Congress, or that he is a partisan – indeed, traitorous – blackguard. I am willing to believe, unless and until I have evidence to the contrary, that Mr. Barr will do what is necessary to protect the United States while conducting his duty.”

While my caution regarding Mr. Barr specifically related to the prospect of his being presented with evidence of “illegal collusion” – technically, criminal conspiracy – for which Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team finally found insufficient basis to bring charges against Trump Campaign Principals, and the Attorney General has ultimately made the majority of the Special Counsel’s Report public, it has nonetheless now become obvious through both the contents of the Report itself and the letters sent to the Attorney General by the Special Counsel following Mr. Barr’s issuance of his Summary of the Special Counsel’s Report that for a period of weeks, Mr. Barr misleadingly characterized the overall thrust of the Special Counsel’s Report and unnecessarily delayed in releasing sections of the Report which would have made its tenor plain.

A link to Mr. Mueller’s March 27, 2019, letter to Mr. Barr is set forth below. A bit over one page in length, it is worth reading in its entirety. You will find that Mr. Mueller indicated to Mr. Barr, a scant three days after Mr. Barr issued his Summary of the Report’s findings: “[Mr. Barr’s] summary … did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine … full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations. [My emphasis].”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-robert-muellers-letter-bill-barr

It is sadly clear that my belief in Mr. Barr was … undeserved.

Late April Musings

Generally, I try to base these notes upon some level of validated facts, expert authority, history, or logic [although a number of the learned eyes that read these pages may reasonably demur, at least with regard to the latter ;)]. This note has none of that – just a couple of admittedly gut instincts I have as what is hopefully the last spring snow melts in Wisconsin.

As to the first: I think that President Trump will grossly overplay his hand if he persists in a course of rebuffing every information request and refusing to comply with every subpoena put to the Administration by House committees. While polls make clear that a plurality of Americans are opposed to any efforts to impeach him – clearly, even a number of our citizens who oppose Mr. Trump don’t believe that obviously partisan politicians should attempt to fire a duly-elected President – my gut says that the vast majority of our people don’t want a King who considers himself above the law, either. The Mueller Report has set forth a sufficiently widespread pattern of unsavory behavior that it has arguably punctured the President’s “Witch Hunt” claim in the eyes of open-minded Americans (a point that Mr. Trump, judging by his behavior of late, apparently recognizes).

It would appear that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants face a conundrum – the need to avoid commencing generally unpopular impeachment proceedings while at the same time preserving the House’s Constitutional oversight responsibilities. If advising them, I would recommend that they limit themselves to strategic probes where the President seems most legally and popularly vulnerable:

Aggressively push the subpoena to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for the President’s income tax returns. As has been widely reported, 26 U.S.C. 6103(f) provides a mechanism under which the Treasury Secretary “shall” furnish a House of Representatives’ committee with “any [tax] return” that the committee requests. While a committee’s right to a return may not be unlimited under the statute, it would seem that the House Oversight and Intelligence Committees, given the Special Counsel’s undisputed findings of repeated interactions between the Trump Organization and Russian interests, can readily construct a rationale for their need for the President’s returns to help them assess what, if any, relationships exist between the Trump Organization and Russian business interests that could influence Mr. Trump’s conduct of his office. I suspect that virtually all Americans, including those that support Mr. Trump, are curious about the contents of the tax returns he has so zealously guarded. By pushing a properly-positioned request to the Supreme Court if need be, House Democrats would potentially put the Court’s avowedly strict constructionists in a position in which they would seemingly be loath to look partisan. No matter the outcome, if the Democrats position themselves correctly, they will look reasonable – and the President autocratic — to the majority of our citizens who will decide the 2020 election.

Aggressively assert the Oversight Committee’s prerogative to thoroughly interview former White House Security Director Carl Kline regarding the security clearances provided to certain White House aides, including Jared Kushner, allegedly despite objections presented by career security staffers. As this is being typed, Mr. Kline intends to appear on May 1 with a White House lawyer. If Mr. Kline is less than fully cooperative, I would cite him for contempt and take any resisted requests for information to court for adjudication – again, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Here, the issue is national security and the Special Counsel has shown the majority of Americans that the President and his cohort are unprincipled; this seems another area in which the House’s oversight activities will appear in sympathetic light.

The second musing is perhaps more suitably offered over late night refreshers than in a sedately-toned website; nonetheless: The combination of distaste and exhaustion about President Trump is sufficiently pervasive among our people that if the Democrats present a reasonable nominee [four coming to mind for me as good matchups against Mr. Trump from a purely handicapping standpoint are former Vice President Joe Biden, VT Sen. Bernie Sanders, MN Sen. Amy Klobuchar (whose candidacy admittedly seems to be fading), or South Bend IN Mayor Pete Buttigieg], the Democrat will not only defeat Mr. Trump; s/he will win convincingly – approximating President Obama’s 2008 Electoral College total of 365 votes. It is up to the Democrats to NOT do what they are chronically prone to do – beat themselves through internecine clashes …

On the Potential Effects of Automation and Artificial Intelligence

Although we have an avalanche of data and opinion regarding the projected dangers of Climate Change to our nation and planet, the inevitable (indeed, inexorable) advance of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) seems to me to carry almost as great and probably a more immediate threat to our way of life – a potentially destabilizing force that, if appropriate policies to account for its impact are not soon implemented, will seemingly adversely affect the United States and the rest of the developed liberal democratic world the most heavily, precisely because of the combination of their peoples’ higher standards of living, greater expectations, and power of the ballot. Attached below is a link to a Brookings Institute Report issued in January, “Automation and Artificial Intelligence: How machines are affecting people and places.” I suggest that it is worth one’s time to at least read the 10-page Executive Summary. Not surprisingly, the Report indicates that our rural areas and the livelihoods of those of our people performing what it calls “routine” tasks – those involving the most predictable physical and cognitive labors generally requiring the least education – will be the most endangered. The Report projects that in the “near future,” 55% of roles requiring less than a bachelor’s degree are vulnerable, and that in the coming decades, more than 40% of all jobs in all states will be subject to “automation risk,” with some states (including my state of Wisconsin) having perhaps 47% or more of their jobs facing such risk.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/automation-and-artificial-intelligence-how-machines-affect-people-and-places/

Immediately below is a link to a video published by South Bend Mayor (and rising Democratic Presidential candidate) Pete Buttigieg (some who read these pages may recall it; I added it to an earlier post on Democratic presidential candidates in a passing reference to Mr. Buttigieg’s candidacy – which I then thought would be my only reference to Mr. Buttigieg’s candidacy). This note is not about Mr. Buttigieg; the video is offered because it may provide a useful verbal illustration of the issues raised in the Brookings Report.

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/automation-is-coming-for-american-workers-says-mayor-pete-buttigieg

I admit that I am concerned that we already face an uphill battle in developing programs to address our approaching automation risks, and about the prospects of what could be millions of our people who are unable, or perhaps unwilling, to sufficiently adapt.

On the Pursuits of Messrs. Mueller and Trump

I frequently write these notes a day or two before I post, and the Easter Holiday resulted in a bit greater delay here. Only after it was written did I become aware that UT Sen. Mitt Romney had also indicated that he was “sickened” by what he read in the Mueller Report. I am pleased to echo Sen. Romney’s sentiments. A link to his statement is included at the end of this post.

This will not be a note on the innards of the Mueller Report; my aging eyes refuse to spend hours reading a screen and my aging printer was horrified at the notion of printing 500 pages, so I have only read the 18 or so pages constituting the Special Counsel’s respective Introductions and Executive Summaries for Volume I (dealing with Russia’s interference in our 2016 election and its interaction with Trump Campaign principals) and Volume II (addressing President Trump’s actions relating to the investigations of the Russians and his Campaign’s activities). When hard copies of the Report are available, I intend to read the gory details. What follows is heartfelt, but likely nothing you’ve not already heard or felt.

Although I have deliberately not watched a lot of the commentary that has spewed forth from either side since the Report was made public, in what little I have seen, the Progressive talking heads have focused on the Report’s description of what arguably amounts to the President’s obstruction of justice, while the President’s propagandists (I refuse to call them Conservatives) have loudly noted both Mr. Mueller’s failure to find sufficient evidence of illegal conspiratorial activity by Trump Campaign principals, and the decision by Attorney General Barr – now, regrettably, appearing to be a partisan shill – that there is insufficient evidence to find that Mr. Trump obstructed justice. Both sides have speculated whether Democrats will attempt impeachment proceedings.

To me, none is the main point. I am literally sickened by what I have read – as if I have gorged on too-rich icing of a cake even before eating any of the filling. What I find grievous is the litany, even in the few pages of these Report Volumes’ Summaries, demonstrating the moral bankruptcy of the President and his cohort. The Volume I Summary makes crystal clear that Mr. Trump and his aides flirted with an enemy nation in an attack on another American and in disregard of obvious American interests to further his own political and financial fortunes. [Although I found the President’s efforts to obstruct justice outlined in the Volume II Summary less shocking – simply the tawdry flailings of a flimflammer availing himself of the prerogatives we have accorded George Washington and his successors – it is patently clear that Mr. Mueller intended his investigation to provide the groundwork for Congress to consider impeachment proceedings (See Fn. 2, Page 1 of the Introduction to Volume II)]. I concede that there is little in the Summaries that we didn’t already know or surmise, but the sheer weight of it has had a surprisingly marked impact on me; it has laid bare the amorality of the individual now bearing the most responsibility for the wellbeing of our nation and our people.

It may come as a surprise to those that know me only through these posts – but as no surprise at all to those that know me personally – that of the Presidents of my lifetime (Harry Truman – Donald Trump), I consider Ronald Reagan the most accomplished and, at least until 2003, Jimmy Carter to have been the least productive. That said, no one has ever doubted that both, opponents in 1980, were honorable men. I will hand Mr. Trump this: in all my years absorbing politics, I had actually taken for granted that our national candidates intended to put our nation first, no matter how I assessed their abilities or their positions … until we experienced his presidency. That is not to say that all of the Presidents of my lifetime were paragons – most issues facing a President are cast in shades of gray, and by no stretch could one consider at least John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton to be choir boys — but none, as far as I am aware, ever interacted with an enemy nation for personal or political gain. It’s beside the point whether the Trump Principals’ behavior related to Russian interference in our election process amounted to criminal activity; it was wrong. Notwithstanding the high regard I have for Mr. Reagan’s performance as President and the disappointment I retain about Mr. Carter’s, if the two stood before us in 2020 as they did in 1980, and I could foresee that each would conduct the presidency as he did, but further, foresee that behind the White House gates, Mr. Reagan would conduct himself as wantonly and malignly as Mr. Trump has … I would cast my vote for Mr. Carter, and be proud of it. Our nation remains strong; although we’ve stumbled a bit in this century, we still have the wherewithal to muddle through an ineffective and/or inept presidency. What we cannot sacrifice is our honor. Policies can always be modified or reversed; character is rarely redeemed.

I find it a great tribute that our children and a number of our nieces and nephews follow these pages; I hope that our grandchildren, at some point when they’re quite a bit older, read some of these notes if for no other reason than to get some idea of their grandfather. For all of them, I note here that which those of us that are a little grayer are already aware: American leadership, whether able or misguided, has not – has never – carried a stain like this. More importantly: it doesn’t need to be like this in the future. I would hope for the remainder of their days, they will cast their ballots upon a framework, first, of their assessments of the candidates’ characters, and only then – if (as we hope will at all times be the case) both candidates are honorable people as far as can be discerned — upon their ability and policy positions.

Americans will always be better off with an honorable president they disfavor than with a scoundrel who curries their favor while seeking his/her own good. I believe that the 2020 presidential election will be the most consequential for the spirit and essence of America that I will see in my lifetime.

https://www.romney.senate.gov/senator-romneys-statement-mueller-report

On the Symbiotic Relationship between President Trump and Fox News Channel

I find President Trump’s recent criticisms of Fox News Channel mildly curious. The President has chided Fox for taking Jeanine Pirro off the air for a couple of weeks for anti-Muslim remarks directed at MN U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, for adding former Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile to its stable of commentators, and for hosting the Town Hall with VT Sen. Bernie Sanders; Mr. Trump has also slapped at Fox newsman Shepard Smith, presumably for not being sufficiently supportive of Administration claims. Such outbursts have caused me to wonder whether the President recognizes the seeming vulnerability in having what amounts to a propaganda arm that he does not actually control. If the leadership at Fox, miffed at Mr. Trump, would ever choose to make even a small shift in the tenor its coverage, it could perhaps have a lethal effect on his political fortunes. Fox wouldn’t have to like Democrats, or indeed, be overtly critical of Mr. Trump, to severely hamper his 2020 re-election bid; it would merely have to be a little less supportive of the President – on-air talking heads possibly spending a bit more time discussing the fact that he won’t release his tax returns, expressing relatively greater dismay at the revelations of his unsavory behavior likely to be disclosed in the Mueller Report, etc., etc. – to quell enthusiasm for Mr. Trump in a sufficient number of Fox viewers to potentially swing what promises to be a close election. (A loss by Mr. Trump would arguably be of little account to Fox from a business standpoint; Fox is a money machine no matter which party occupies the White House, and the outlet may well consider it easier and more fun to attack a Democratic President than to lead cheers for a Republican.) Lyndon Johnson is famously reported to have said that if he had lost Walter Cronkite with regard to the Vietnam War, he had lost Middle America. The President apparently feels that he has the dominant position in his relationship with Fox; I question whether such is the case.

A Personal Note

Set forth below is a link to an announcement by the Columbia University Journalism School. As the most biased of observers, I would suggest that this year’s recipient of the Columbia J School’s Berger Award provides the best of journalism: straightforward, comprehensive reporting of the terrible difficulties in which too many of our people find themselves as we move ever faster, think (and at times seem to feel) less deeply, resort too much to slogans and labels, and focus too much on our differences rather than upon what our nation needs and can be — for those that already live here, and for those that seek refuge in the values that have set us apart from the rest of the world.

https://journalism.columbia.edu/2019-berger-tobenkin-award

I believe that one sentence from the Award Jurors’ Citation best captures our son’s work: “McCoy gives them a voice and, for us, a window into their torment.” His mother and I are more proud than we can ever put into words.

On LiMu the Emu

Retirees have time to reflect on many weighty subjects; among those topics fleetingly at top of mind this week is the notion that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (full disclosure: my long-time employer has had a close working relationship with Liberty Mutual for many years) has determined that a large swath of our people will be motivated to buy insurance from a carrier represented by a disheveled gentleman and a homely bird (LiMu Emu) (each wearing yellow shirts; the latter occasionally vomiting paper scraps on to a desk top). Liberty Mutual is able, and its marketing research has presumably determined that younger consumers find the spots endearing. My reaction to them reminds me that I am perhaps now a bit further from the Pepsi Generation than I am from the Pepperidge Farm Generation :).