Category: U.S. Domestic Policy

Winning America’s Two-Front Domestic War

Not long after the United States’ entry into World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt, in consultation with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, decided upon a “Europe First” strategy:  that the United States would concentrate its efforts, in concert with its British and Russian allies, upon the defeat of Nazi Germany, while it maintained a “holding action” against the Japanese Empire in the Pacific theater.  Although some of the heaviest American casualties came on Pacific islands while the war waged in Europe, America only turned its full attention to the Pacific after victory over Germany was achieved.

I would submit that today, we are again engaged in a two-front war, at home:  against our internal divisive hyper-partisanship and the Coronavirus.  I think President-Elect Biden is pursuing an effective war strategy.  Although perhaps as driven by practical realities as President Roosevelt arguably was in 1942, Mr. Biden seems focused on tacitly addressing our divisiveness by (at least outwardly) exhibiting a calm inevitability while doing what he can regarding the Coronavirus.

On the Divisiveness Front, I would suggest that Election Day was much akin to D-Day in 1944.  Although the war raged for months afterward, D-Day marked the turning point of the war in Europe.  My personal greatest fear – that America might descend into autocracy due to the continuation of President Trump’s constitutional powers combined with his dictatorial tendencies — is now seemingly abating.  All but the most oblivious Trump supporters understand that Mr. Trump lost.  I have yet to find a definitive count of the number of Trump supporters at the Washington, D.C. rally this past weekend; Monday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski mentioned 20,000.  Let’s say it was 35,000.  This would amount to approximately 1 percent of the votes Mr. Trump garnered within about two hours’ drive of D.C.  Although Mr. Trump’s maimed psyche is currently being supported by the greedy and the cowardly – the alt-right media that profit by feeding sugar to the gullible, and the feckless Republican officials more interested in their political careers than in what is good for our nation – the Trump rally turnout hardly constituted a groundswell of rebellion.  The mainstream media is turning off the Trump Show.  The President’s electoral antics haven’t merited an actual front-page story in the Murdoch-controlled Wall Street Journal for days.  That said, winning on the Divisiveness front has arguably moved from achieving Mr. Trump’s departure to obtaining the grudging acquiescence of the majority of Mr. Trump’s less extreme supporters.  By maintaining his poise in the face of the President’s irrational provocations, Mr. Biden is enabling the air to continue to seep out of the Baby Trump balloon.

If advising Mr. Biden, I’d have only one suggestion on this front:  when he speaks, continue to condemn violence on all sides.  Reports of Saturday’s rally indicate that some anti-Trump groups went seemingly seeking confrontation.  Mr. Biden should declare that all Americans are entitled to peacefully demonstrate, and that those that oppose the President should avoid going to pro-Trump rallies.  Mr. Trump needs a fight to maintain relevance – and if none is offered, his avid support will continue its shrivel to the fringes.

On the Coronavirus Front:  In all other realms of national security aside from the virus response, I’d be very surprised if Mr. Biden isn’t informally getting virtually all of the information in the President’s Daily Brief:  members of the intelligence community sharing a repast with old friends outside the Administration, who in turn visit with members of the incoming Administration, and … there you have it.  And/or:  in addition to the fact that Vice President-Elect Kamala Harris gets briefed as a member of the U.S. Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, have U.S. VA Sen. Mark Warner and U.S. CA Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democratic heads of the two Congressional intelligence committees, stopped by to … er … congratulate Mr. Biden in person?  Maybe.  Would any information passed to Mr. Biden through these avenues constitute a violation of federal law?  Probably.  Any likelihood of detection and consequences?  Little … and none.

As to the Coronavirus response itself:  while noting in his news conference yesterday that “We are a war with the virus,” when asked about the Trump Administration’s unwillingness to work with his team, Mr. Biden prodded Mr. Trump by warning that “More people may die if we don’t coordinate” and “You’d think he’d at least want to go off on a positive note,” but acknowledged that if necessary, the Biden team will “try to pull together a serious and consistent plan so we’re ready on Day 1.”  It is apparent that Mr. Trump is so locked up in his own narcissistic malaise that no entreaty will move him.  My guess:  the drug companies and health equipment manufacturers are already sharing at least as much detail regarding their current status and projections with Biden representatives as they are with the Trump Administration.  Since Mr. Trump seems intent on inaction, no meaningful federal progress will be made until Inauguration Day even if/when the Trump Administration provides all of its data and plans to the Biden Transition Team.  Given comments by Dr. Anthony Fauci, I have hope that the Administration may actually have workable plans.

As Mr. Biden also noted yesterday, things are going to get “much tougher before they get easier” on COVID during the coming months.  That said, we can all help ourselves.  Let’s end where we started, with WWII:  in December, 1944, six months after D-Day, German forces that had been in retreat staged a massive counter-offensive, resulting in what became known as the “Battle of the Bulge.”  American forces in Bastogne, Belgium, were outnumbered, outgunned, and short of supplies.  The Germans demanded American surrender.  The American commander, Brigadier General Anthony McAuliffe, responded:  “Nuts.”  Despite being surrounded and ill-equipped, the Americans held on against the German assault until reinforcements arrived.  For the good of our families, our fellow citizens, and ourselves, we likewise have to do our best to hold on.  The key to prevailing on the Coronavirus front is within our control – by wearing masks and limiting if not avoiding indoor social gatherings – as we wait for federal reinforcements to arrive as soon as feasible after Inauguration Day.

On the Supreme Court … and the Republicans

It has been widely reported that in this week’s Supreme Court hearing on the Affordable Care Act, a number of conservative Justices expressed sentiments which led Court observers to suggest that the Court will reject the Republican challenge.  My comment:  this may have become a political softball for the Court’s conservatives.  The law is enmeshed in our country’s healthcare system, and to find it unconstitutional will create chaos during the ongoing COVID pandemic and wreak havoc on a huge part of the American economy.  There is a legal rationale to let it stand – providing the appearance that the Court is open-minded and taking some of the steam out of partisan Democrats calling for the Court’s drastic reorganization.  I’m guessing that the vote will ultimately be at least 6-3 to uphold the law, and wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a unanimous Court.

In the same vein:  I’ve sensed throughout Chief John Roberts’ tenure that his most fervent hope is that “his” Court will never be called upon to decide a bitterly partisan political dispute over presidential succession such as Bush v. Gore.  That said, inasmuch as the results of the Biden-Trump contest are sufficiently clear, Mr. Biden’s victory is supported by the vote in a wide variety of states, and no credible evidence of voting irregularities has surfaced that would materially affect the election’s outcome, I’m not sure that the Chief Justice, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, might not want to have one of the President’s bizarre legal challenges reach them – so they can vote against him.   As with any Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, it will enable the two junior Justices to shed some of the partisan taint that will otherwise forever dog them and their legacies among liberal legal and public policy commentators.       

As to the Republicans:  As President Trump’s petulance continues with regard to an election that all – including him – know that he lost by a clear, if in some states not overwhelming, margin, I would suggest that Republicans perhaps fall into three categories:

The (somewhat) politically brave:  Republican Senators including Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Ben Sasse, who have acknowledged that Mr. Biden won.  (There are a few other Republican Senators, such as James Lankford, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey and John Cornyn, who have had the patriotic temerity to suggest that President-Elect Biden should be provided access to national security information, although they haven’t acknowledged Mr. Biden’s victory.)  I consider even the first group only “somewhat” brave because they have either just won re-election and/or manifestly maintain standing with their constituents apart from Mr. Trump.

The scurrilous:  The political hacks pandering to Mr. Trump’s whims and putting party over country, whether due to political cowardice or deep (and frankly, un-American) partisanship.  This is the majority, but I want to single out for particular mention Wisconsin’s own Senator Ron Johnson, who keeps inhaling oxygen that the rest of us could put to better use.  (Below for your viewing pleasure is a link to the Talking Points Memo article, “The Award For Most Bad Faith Refusal To Acknowledge Biden’s Win Goes To… Ron Johnson.”)

The Award For Most Bad Faith Refusal To Acknowledge Biden’s Win Goes To… Ron Johnson

Those at the epicenter:  This may sound a bit Pollyannish, but I would submit that there may be some appearing to placate the President that are actually desperately striving to keep our democracy functioning at a time of continuing uncertainty.  While some of those within the Administration, such as Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, seem to be putting up with behavior that none of us would tolerate in a 3-year old, I would offer this:  we would probably placate the 3-year old if he walked into the room waving a loaded gun.  That may be where we are right now.  As deferential as Messrs. Pence and Pompeo appear, and notwithstanding the fact that each obviously harbors post-Trump political ambitions, former Trump Administration National Security Advisor John Bolton – himself no coddler – makes pretty plain in The Room Where It Happened that there were times that Messrs. Pence and Pompeo kowtowed to the President in order to maintain sufficient influence with him to nudge him from disastrous impulses such as withdrawing the United States from NATO.  As for Attorney General William Barr, it may be worthy of note that his recent Memorandum, altering the policy of the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section’s Election Crimes Branch to authorize U.S. Attorneys to investigate voting irregularities before election results are certified, cautioned against the U.S. Attorneys’ pursuit of “specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims.”  Given the lack of credible claims of voter fraud that have surfaced since the election, Mr. Barr’s Memorandum could be designed entirely to keep a childlike President from wielding his power to the detriment of the Republic.

“Only those that lived through the fervid atmosphere of those months can fully appreciate the debt the nation owes [Nixon Administration Chief of Staff] Al Haig.  By sheer willpower, dedication, and self-discipline, he held the government together.  … He served his President loyally but never forgot his duty to his country.  His methods were sometimes rough … But the role assigned to Haig was not one that could be filled by choir boys.  He had to preserve the sinews of America for its indispensable mission of being the last resort of the free, the hope of the oppressed, and the one country that with all its turbulent vitality could be relied upon to walk the paths of mercy.  It is not necessary that in an hour of crisis America’s representatives embody all of these qualities so long as they enable our nation to do so. … [H]e sustained the President while moving him toward the resignation that Nixon dreaded, resisted, and yet knew increasingly to be inevitable.  Haig kept the faith with his President and he kept it with the institutions of this country.”

Henry Kissinger:  Years of Upheaval

Hopefully, such will be the case now, as it was in 1974.

What Might They All Do? On Mark Esper: A Postscript

[Full disclosure:  I heard David Ignatius of the Washington Post express many of the substantive concerns set forth below on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning.  I still consider it appropriate to post this because it was written yesterday.]

So much for feeling a modicum of sympathy for President Trump’s anguish in defeat.

As all who care are aware, U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was relieved of his duties yesterday by Mr. Trump.  Mr. Esper has been replaced by Christopher C. Miller, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, described in some accounts as a loyalist to the President.  (No confirmation as to Mr. Miller’s political sentiments here; I had never heard of him until yesterday.)  While it probably matters little at this point to Mr. Esper personally, the inferences one might draw regarding the potential significance of his removal for the nation are worthy of reflection.

In a note I published last June, “The Fourth Election:  Part II,” I commented in part as follows:    

“Clearly Mr. Trump has considered himself unfettered since his [Senate impeachment] acquittal, and has felt free to exact revenge and pursue vendettas against those he considers to have wronged him or his entourage.  Does anyone think that Mr. Trump will be more restrained if he is re-elected?  Does anyone wish to wager that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has at times displeased the president with his candid assessment of the extent of COVID crisis, or Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, who each publicly separated themselves from the President’s actions in Lafayette Park, won’t be removed from their positions if and when Mr. Trump no longer considers such removals a danger to his re-election prospects? [Italics in Original]”

I noted in these pages yesterday:   “… Mr. Trump is unpredictable, and retains control the federal machinery for another ten weeks.  If any of the following individuals, I would take the following steps to guard against risks to the Republic during the interregnum in the event that Mr. Trump either resists leaving office, demonstrates irrationality or paralysis as he absorbs his defeat, or otherwise conducts his office in a manner dangerously deleterious to American domestic or international interests. [:] …  Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley:  I’d very quietly have trusted outside counsel advise me as to the circumstances under the Military Code in which a subordinate officer can relieve a commanding officer.”

Is Mr. Esper’s removal no more than an instance of Trump retribution?  Almost certainly.  A portent of anything more significant?  Almost certainly not.  Canaries undoubtedly occasionally die in coal mines for reasons other than inhalation of poisonous gas.  That said, Mr. Trump has fired the civilian in the chain of command between the military and himself who was resistant to the use of American troops against our citizens, and replaced him with an individual that at least some consider more loyal to Mr. Trump.  (It would be fascinating to know whether Mr. Esper had indeed been researching rules of the Military Code relating to removal of a superior officer that I suggested yesterday that he might.)  While Mr. Esper’s removal probably has little meaning other than to provide any American who has regrets about voting against Mr. Trump further reassurance that his/her vote for Mr. Biden was well entered, Mr. Trump’s future exercise of his presidential power arguably bears closer watching than all the hoorah arising from his electoral antics.

What Might They All Do?

In a past note, I offered some observations as to how Russian President Vladimir Putin might react, if President-Elect Joe Biden won the presidency, during the interregnum between the determination of Mr. Biden’s victory and his Inauguration Day.  There are obviously many parties with interests to pursue during the coming ten weeks, particularly since President Trump seems, at least at this point, intent on futilely thrashing about.  How a number of pivotal players might view their respective opportunities and challenges:

Mr. Biden first:  He’s already doing it.  The President-Elect is projecting momentum, inevitability, moderation, and unity.  He is executing his Coronavirus policy, and either has or will (critical:  after securing the Trump Administration’s approval) publicly and privately expressing American stability to both allies and adversaries.  While Mr. Biden has already alluded to a slew of Executive Orders he intends to issue on Inauguration Day (e.g., extending DACA, re-entering the Paris Climate Accord and appropriately rescinding overtly biased-based Trump Administration actions such as the Muslim ban), he should defer announcing dramatic policy reversals that don’t have a tinge of bias, such as those relating to fracking regulations and the Iranian nuclear deal.

I earlier indicated that during any interregnum between Trump and Biden Administrations, Mr. Trump’s failings will render American foreign policy at its most impotent in over a century; that said, Mr. Trump’s foibles and instability may cause many of our adversaries to tread gingerly.

Mr. Putin:  I have come to the opinion that if Mr. Putin – who has yet to extend congratulations to Mr. Biden — thinks inflaming American domestic passions will make future relations with Mr. Biden more difficult, he won’t.  I think Mr. Putin will be tempted to exert influence in Belarus and might probe Ukraine.

Chinese President Xi Jinping:  Having recently secured the Mainland’s position in Hong Kong, and being aware of President Trump’s erraticism and that Mr. Trump may well blame Mr. Xi for his defeat due to Mr. Xi’s early Coronavirus dissembling, I expect Mr. Xi to stand very still.  Although an overt move against Taiwan is undoubtedly tempting, it’s too likely to provoke a bellicose response from Mr. Trump.

North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un:  Will do what Mr. Xi tells him to do.  See above regarding the dangers of provoking an unstable Mr. Trump.

Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei:  The Iranians undoubtedly consider Democrats like Messrs. Obama and Biden easier to work with than erratic and warlike Republicans [Note:  I agree with the Republicans on this one ;)].  Mr. Trump probably hates Iran even more than he hates China.  If you are Iran, this is the time to stand pat and avoid provoking Mr. Trump.

The Taliban in Afghanistan:  This group is so driven by hate that it can’t get out of its own way.  Although Richard Haass commented in A World in Disarray, “[D]iplomacy and negotiations tend to reflect [armed conflict] realities on the ground, not change them,” I would nonetheless venture that if it was smart, the Taliban would throttle down its violence in Afghanistan, continue its peace talks with the Afghan government, avoid provoking Mr. Trump, give Mr. Biden the psychological space to remove our remaining troops – all but a foregone conclusion if the Taliban can restrain itself — and then overrun the country.  Since the Taliban has never demonstrated a shred of strategic thinking, this seems the Middle East’s, and perhaps the world’s, wildest card.

Our allies:  Whether happy or sad at Mr. Trump’s defeat, these nations need the United States.  They’ll seek to make accommodation with Mr. Biden.  If I were Mr. Biden, I would see what if anything could be done with German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the ally most obviously thrilled at the prospect of Mr. Trump’s departure — to obstruct Germany’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline project with Russia.

On the domestic sphere:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell:  Mr. McConnell will quietly pull the party trappings out from under Mr. Trump.  Although some commentators are talking about establishment Republicans’ desire to hold Mr. Trump’s base sans Mr. Trump, my guess is that the pros realize that a movement like Mr. Trump’s needs a charismatic demagogue.  They rode Mr. Trump to a lot of conservative judges; they know they can work with Mr. Biden; and … they know that Mr. Trump was never qualified to be president.

Rupert Murdoch:  By far the dominant voice in the alt-right propaganda echo chamber.  His Wall Street Journal and New York Post have already called the election for Mr. Biden.  Some liberal talking heads are talking about “what the Fox News hosts will do.”  I am surprised by that; these hosts have the platform that Mr. Murdoch gives them.  If/when Mr. Murdoch tells them to shift their perspective from “The election was rigged” to regret that “Mr. Trump lost, and it’s time to look forward,” they’ll do as they’re told.  Attacking Democrats will be at least as good for Fox’ business as hyping an obviously unstable and unqualified loser who is probably going to seek to become Fox’ competitor.

The following will sound paranoid, but Mr. Trump is unpredictable, and retains control the federal machinery for another ten weeks.  If any of the following individuals, I would take the following steps to guard against risks to the Republic during the interregnum in the event that Mr. Trump either resists leaving office, demonstrates irrationality or paralysis as he absorbs his defeat, or otherwise conducts his office in a manner dangerously deleterious to American domestic or international interests.  Almost certainly unnecessary; but precautions perhaps worth taking:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:  There is undoubtedly a lawyer – undoubtedly a man 😉 – elegant, cultured, who is at the epicenter of Democratic Party power politics.  Call him, “Mr. Clifford.”  (If one Googles “Clark Clifford,” you’ll see the prototype.)  If I was Ms. Pelosi, I would have already called Mr. Clifford, and – her lips to his ear — asked him to draft a generic Article of Impeachment for use if necessary.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley:  I’d very quietly have trusted outside counsel advise me as to the circumstances under the Military Code in which a subordinate officer can relieve a commanding officer.

Vice President Mike Pence:  After consulting with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, I’d have trusted outside counsel advise me regarding the 25th Amendment (this last almost certainly won’t happen).

Finally:

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett:  The ball is almost certainly not going to be hit to them in any meaningful way.  I’d already be relaxing in a warm bath with a glass of fine wine [or in Justice Kavanaugh’s case, a cold beer ;)].

President Trump:  Every one of us has suffered an emotionally crushing setback at some point or other.  I would suggest, with genuine sympathy – despite the danger his instability presents — for the unspeakable anguish that the President, a man beset by crippling insecurity, is now undoubtedly experiencing, that he consider the following clip, the conclusion of the portrayal of another talented, proud, and deeply flawed man in a film that I guarantee that all men of the President’s and my vintage absorbed at the time.  It provides perspective if not solace …

Whew!

As I suspect every conscious American is now aware, most or all of the credible mainstream news outlets in this nation, including the Wall Street Journal (which I specifically note, given its conservative editorial bent) have declared that former Vice President Joe Biden [now President-Elect Biden ;)] has won sufficient states to claim an Electoral College victory, and thus, the presidency of the United States.

Are there Democrats that are too progressive for me?  A bunch.  Are there Republicans who are too reactionary for me?  A bunch.  Will there be pitched policy battles over the next two, and then the succeeding two, years?  You bet.  Are there millions of Americans who feel disrespected by the elites — on both sides of political aisle — who deserve to have their justifiable concerns addressed?  Absolutely.  But as I just noted to a friend … I feel that I can breathe for the first time in four years.  It will come as no surprise to anyone that has read these pages, given my numerous allusions to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, that I consider President Trump to have Fascist inclinations, and that I genuinely feared that another four years of a Trump presidency seriously risked the destruction of the American Dream.  I’ve been watching presidential election nights since 1960; there have been a number in which I was joyful, others in which I was despondent.  Never in my life have I felt this level of exhilaration, combined with an equal sense of … relief.

Do we have immediate risks over the next ten weeks, both at home and abroad?  Without doubt; Mr. Trump’s reaction to his loss – and what that will mean to our domestic tranquility and what actions it might precipitate around the world – remains to be seen.  But I hope that the Lord will not consider me blasphemous if I take the liberty of paraphrasing the conclusion of the Prodigal Son parable,  Luke 15:32:  Today, it is right that we make merry and rejoice, for the American Dream seemed likely to perish, and has come to life; it seemed lost, but … is found.

On Mr. Trump and Mr. Hamilton

By this time, all who care are aware that last night, President Trump indulged in a self-pitying rant about the progress of the presidential election, including remarks such as:  “If you count the legal votes, I easily win”; “If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us”; “We were winning in all the key locations by a lot, actually, and then our numbers started miraculously getting whittled away in secret and they wouldn’t allow legally permissible observers,” “They [presumably, Democrats] want to find out how many votes they need, and then they seem to be able to find them.  They wait and wait, and then they find them, and you see that on Election Night”; “Our goal is to defend the integrity of the election.  We’ll not allow the corruption to steal such an important election,” and “[W]e can’t allow silence, anybody to silence our voters and manufacture results,” “This is a case where they’re trying to steal the election.  They’re trying to rig an election and we can’t let that happen.  Detroit and Philadelphia, known as two of the most corrupt political places anywhere in our country easily, cannot be responsible for engineering the outcome of a presidential race, a very important presidential race.”

Despite his years of malign behavior, the President’s wanton and apparently baseless effort to undercut confidence in the process that has sustained this nation for over two centuries was still shocking to me. (I know; I’m slow.)  No matter that anyone with a modicum of discernment should readily see through Mr. Trump’s transparent fabrications; his fervent supporters believe him.  Equally disconcerting was his tone:  this is a man in fantasy land, beset by delusions wrought by a maimed psyche.  I would suggest that any rational observer — even one that identifies with Mr. Trump’s substantive policies, grievances, and manner — has to question his relationship with reality.  Put aside the moral judgements; he lacks to mental stability to conduct the office he holds.

Mr. Trump’s harangue drove me back to Federalist No. 68, in which Alexander Hamilton, speaking as Publius, defended the Electoral College process for selecting the President set forth in the Constitution:

“It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.  This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. … Nothing was more to be desired than that every practical obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.”

As far as I know, there is not one case of election fraud to substantiate any of the claims the President made last night.  Election officials across the country of both political persuasions have attested to their efforts to conduct free and fair elections according to the rules of their respective states.  Politicians on both sides of the aisle have called upon the President and his cohort to produce evidence of the election fraud they allege.  So far, they haven’t.  Until they do, they are the source of the “tumult and disorder” and the “cabal, intrigue, and corruption” in the selection of the President that concerned Mr. Hamilton over 200 years ago. 

It is ironic that specifically because the electoral process has been so measured, if every vote is indeed counted, and Mr. Biden’s vote tally fails to exceed Mr. Trump’s in a sufficient number of states for Mr. Biden to secure victory in the Electoral College, Mr. Trump’s re-election will cause me to despair over the disposition of our citizens and to dread the future for our nation and the world – but I will not feel that his election was a fraudulent one.

All that said … hopefully, today is the day we begin to put this dark chapter in our history behind us.

Election Eve Reflections

As Election Day approaches, I have found my mood oddly vacillating:  at times, gripped by a fanatical focus on a Biden victory and an attendant Trump defeat; at other moments, strikingly detached.  I truly fear that the consequences I have alluded to in these pages over the last several years will befall our nation and the world if President Trump is re-elected, but when at emotional remove realize that the American dream depends upon our ability to see ourselves as one people.  If we can’t, we aren’t.  If enough of us aren’t able to grasp the significance of what he is – a close friend recently wrote me, “Reinforcing a lying cheating vulgar human being with a win is just too much to consider” – or discern the corrosive nature of what Mr. Trump has unloosed, he really isn’t the issue; the poison is within us.  I have heard projections that the President will lose the popular vote by at least the 3 million margin by which he lost in 2016; there seems the possibility that in a year of record turnout, he’ll lose by significantly more if all votes are counted.  Even if Mr. Trump legitimately wins the election under the Constitution’s Electoral College formula – or worse, is awarded a disputed victory in bitterly contested litigation with Justice Amy Coney Barrett casting the deciding vote in the Supreme Court — how long will we hold together as a people when a shrinking minority seeks to control a growing majority via constitutional stranglehold?

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ ‘A republic,’ replied the Doctor, ‘if you can keep it.’”

  • Notes of Maryland Constitutional Convention Delegate James McHenry

 “[T]hat agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.  ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’  … I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”

  • Abraham Lincoln

“This is a very trying issue for our time:  the individual’s right to be free and the individual’s respect for others.  One hopes that we can reason together …”

  • Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life … in my mind, it was a tall proud city … God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace …”

  • Ronald Reagan

“If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.”

  • Mark, 3:24-25

I see our hope in a Biden victory.  Although far from a panacea — we will need to address the poison that has metastasized beyond our hateful fringes — I am hopeful that Mr. Biden – by his very nature, inoffensive – will lance the mysterious spell gripping what I truly believe is the significant majority of Trump supporters, and we can move from the existential to a good faith debate about the best approach to address “mere” issues such as the Coronavirus, justice for all of our citizens, the global economy, the environment, our ballooning deficit, and America’s role in the world. 

May God still have a modicum of mercy for the United States of America.

On Polls and Perceptions

As anyone who reads these pages is aware, I have been – along with President Trump and apparently the rest of America’s political junkies – taken with polls.  At the time this is typed, FiveThirtyEight.com (538) shows former Vice President Joe Biden with a lead in every swing state I’ve obsessed upon during the last year, with a lead above 5 points in all three of the Upper Midwest states in which Mr. Trump eked out his 2016 victory.  I will be fascinated to see how closely 538’s findings on the morning of Election Day square with the battleground states’ final results.  I expect that Mr. Biden’s final 538 swing state margins over Mr. Trump will differ from the candidates’ final swing state vote totals, for two reasons: 

First, the Democrats’ substantive and political approach to the Coronavirus has necessarily required them to rely heavily on what in some states have heretofore been “non-traditional” voting methods – mail in, early drop-off, etc. – which seems likely to result in a proportionately greater number of Democratic than Republican votes being rejected for legitimate (and in some cases, illegitimate) reasons.

The second is more fundamental:  the reluctance by some poll respondents to admit that they support the President.  In a past note, I discounted that factor; now, I’ve tentatively concluded that there is indeed an “undervote” that will lift Mr. Trump (to what extent remains to be seen).  I’ve changed my mind because by all objective measures, the President should be trailing by much more than he is.  When pundits bore down into polling results, they note that while Mr. Trump is usually found to lead Mr. Biden narrowly in “the Economy,” he loses to Mr. Biden by notable margins in areas such as, “He cares about people like me,” “Handling the Coronavirus,” “Healthcare,” “Protecting Social Security and Medicare,” “Maintaining America’s Place in the World,” “Addressing Climate Change,” “Environmental Policy,” even – surprisingly – “Maintaining Law and Order.”

I fear that the dichotomy lies in what Mr. Trump has proven to us:  Emotion trumps [if you will ;)] reason.  Rationalists (which, at least in this context, apparently include me) fail to appreciate this. I would venture that if approached in a way that eliminates partisan overlay, many of the President’s supporters would prefer Mr. Biden’s substantive policies to Mr. Trump’s.  I suggest that the polls don’t accurately reflect the deep affinity that a large share of Americans have for Mr. Trump because pollsters don’t ask the right questions (and to which they wouldn’t get a full share of accurate answers even if the respondents are willing to admit it to themselves):

Yes or No:  Are you angry that your life hasn’t turned out as well as you expected?

Yes or No:  Do you believe that America should be white, Christian, and straight?

Yes or No:  Do you just want things to be … the way they always were?

For some, all three questions conjure images of a golden homogeneous carefree past, where everything made sense … that actually never was.  Put aside that we shouldn’t go back; we can’t. Former President Bill Clinton, whom I consider the most gifted politician of my lifetime, famously said, “Elections are about the future.”  I would submit that the outcome of this one will indicate whether we are ready to meet the opportunities and challenges of our future — one of the qualities that actually made America great — or are determined to drown in misshapen memories of our past.

How long, O Lord?

I had no intent to post today; it promises to be a busy week ahead.  Focused as I am on the upcoming election, and as numb as I have apparently become to the endless stream of unfeeling actions perpetrated by Mr. Trump and his cohort, the instance of Trump Administration callousness revealed this week almost failed to embed with me:  that in 2017, in a brutal attempt to discourage Latinos from seeking to immigrate to our country, our government forcibly separated over 500 children from their parents at our southern border – and failed to keep records which would enable it to reunite the families.  The Administration is now unable to locate the parents.  The children remain in cages that during last week’s debate, President Trump grotesquely defended – really – as “so clean.”

Many that follow these pages are parents.  I suspect that all that read these posts cherish the love they received from their parents.  These people, who came seeking refuge from us, were and are being treated like animals.

What brought me back was the first reading in today’s Mass, a familiar one:

“Thus says the Lord:

‘You shall not molest or oppress an alien, for you were once aliens yourself in the land of Egypt.  You shall not wrong any widow or orphan.  If ever you wrong them and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.  My wrath will flare up, and I will kill you with the sword; then your own wives will be widows, and your children orphans.’”

Exodus 22: 20 – 23

Not long ago, Rev. James Altman, a pastor in La Crosse, Wisconsin, released a viral video in which he declared, “You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat,” and has reportedly called liberals “fascist bullies” acting “just like Hitler’s Nazis did.” He believes that Catholics must support Republicans and Mr. Trump because of their opposition to abortion.

I’m confident that Fr. Altman has reconciled today’s Exodus passage with his vehement support of Mr. Trump.  I cannot.  That said, I cannot presume to judge; he is responsible to the Almighty for his soul, as I am for mine.

Today’s Exodus passage brought other Scripture verses to mind for me:

“How long, O Lord?  Will you utterly forget me?  How long will you hide your face from me?  How long shall I harbor sorrow in my soul, grief in my heart day after day?  How long will my enemy triumph over me?  Look, answer me, O Lord, my God!”

Psalms 13: 1-2      

May we receive the means to aid those now suffering at our hands.