The Power of it All

Joe Biden chose a beautiful fall day to visit here in Durham, North Carolina.  A blue sky and the sun just right, it kept us warm but not too hot.  We were a laid-back crowd, typical of this small southern city, all of us waiting to see our presidential hopeful.  Not invited to the main event--a car rally in a blocked-off parking lot--we stood along the school's drive, all of us apart from each other, trying to figure out which route Joe would take to head back to the airport.

The unmarked police cars, the motorcycles, and a side road sealed to traffic gave it away.  We figured if we waited long enough, we would see Joe's motorcade, and sure enough we did.

What struck me most of all was the power, the sheer power, of that motorcade.  The roaring motorcycles, the flashing lights, the lead cars followed by four SUVs, and multiple cars behind.  It's a heady experience seeing that kind of power, a realization that those who run our country are mighty in ways that go far beyond the ordinary.

And what a tragic mistake to have vested that extraordinary power in such a weak human being as Donald Trump.

We cannot make that mistake again.  Despite everything Trump has done to undermine our country and our standing in the world, the President of the United States is still the most powerful person on earth.  We owe it to ourselves and to each other, and to people everywhere, to do what we can to elect someone deserving of that power.  Someone who won't use that power for his own good, who won't corrupt that power into something vile, who won't treat that power like it's his personal tool.

For in the end, that power belongs rightfully to the people, we the people.  It's shared power, not authoritative power.  

Joe Biden understands this.  Donald Trump does not.

Dump the Debates, or Do Them Better

When Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas in 1858, the two men held a series of public events in seven Illinois cities that attracted "droves of citizens" across the Midwest.  The first candidate spoke for an hour; the second for an hour and a half; and the first again for thirty minutes to rebut his opponent.  The transcripts show that they spoke uninterrupted by each other, though the crowd cheered and laughed throughout.

Imagine such a debate today, where our national candidates engage in serious discourse about serious policy.  It doesn't happen.  Not when a fly on the vice president's head gets the most attention.

No, the 2020 national debates haven't been worth our time.  Not even the fly's. 

The first event between Donald Trump and Joe Biden featured a bullying president unconstrained by the moderator and too much crosstalk, while the second debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris left questions unanswered and lies unchallenged.  In both events the format didn't work: the moderators couldn't control the contenders, and the participants--especially Trump and Pence--flouted the rules established by the Commission on Presidential Debates, despite their campaigns having agreed to abide.

As soon as President Trump began speaking beyond his allotted time and interrupting Joe Biden, he should have been shut down--by either turning off his microphone or awarding extra time to his opponent.  As a matter of fact, the debate shouldn't even have been allowed to begin when Trump's family and friends in the audience removed their masks, violating the Commission's rules.  Karen Pence should have been escorted from the stage when she did the same.  Rules are rules, and the Commission needs to enforce them.

If the final debate is to go forward, and I wish it wouldn't, we need substantive change in the format.  I propose the following:

1. Ask each candidate the same questions, focused on policies and proposals, such as "Explain three specific steps you would recommend to address climate change, and, if you have none, why not?"  Substitute "climate change" with other current issues--the coronavirus, the criminal justice system, health insurance, public education--you get the idea.  

2. Give the first candidate three minutes to answer, the second candidate five minutes to answer and rebut, and the first candidate two minutes for a final rebuttal, alternating speaking order with each topic.  Display questions on the screen the entire time so that viewers can see for themselves if candidates provide answers.

3. Support the moderator by adding a timekeeper and a fact checker.  The timekeeper must have the authority and the tools to maintain control and can stop the debate if disorder breaks through. At the conclusion of each round, the fact checker will project onto a screen the most salient lies, giving thirty seconds for the contenders and audience to view.  (This proposal couldn't possibly cover Donald Trump's lies, as they're all salient, but at least it's a start.)

4. Eliminate the split screen showing the opponent's face, which distracts viewers and trivializes the debate.

Even with these proposals, the upcoming debate will still give Donald Trump free air time to spew hatred and lies, which he uses to incite violence and chaos.  The connection between his attacks on Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer earlier this year and the subsequent arrest of domestic terrorists who plotted to kidnap her is one recent example. Another is the role that his continued dismissal of scientific information plays in our nation's handling of the pandemic.

The format for national debates has been problematic for years.  What's different now, though, is that Donald Trump has brought these events to a new low as an agitator and a liar.  If his tactics can't be countered on stage, we need to ask ourselves if presidential debates today are even worth having.

A Nation on Edge

The last three days have typified life under Donald Trump's presidency, one where we live-stream chaos generated by our Commander in Chief.  Even as he remains hospitalized at Walter Reed Medical Center, Trump somehow manages to choreograph endless uncertainty, lies, and distortions.  Those who work for him have learned their roles well, from Dr. Sean Conley who evades key medical questions, to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows who continues to contradict and deceive.

From the earliest days of his presidency--when he inflated the crowd size at his inauguration--to his debate appearance last Tuesday--when he bullied and blustered his way through--he has sown confusion and doubt into our lives.  Because he incites violence in his supporters, we now worry about our safety at polling sites.  Because he courts the friendship of Vladimir Putin, we now wonder about the safety of our elections.  Because he refuses to follow the law, we now fear that he won't leave office peacefully.

Living in a state of anxiety with Trump as our president hasn't been good for our nation's health.  We all ride a daily roller coaster that has no steady operator in control.  Careening from one incident to the next, we often forget the outrage of the days before.

I resent this.  Donald Trump has intruded in my life in ways that I've never experienced before.  Yes, I disagreed with decisions made by previous presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, some of which I viewed as disastrous.  But I've never lived with the level of anxiety created by President Trump.  If I felt anxious about the state of our nation in the past, it wasn't because of the president's erratic and incompetent behavior.

I believe that Joe Biden, if elected, will restore a sense of calm in order to address the crises raging amongst us--the coronavirus, racial disparity, the economy, climate change, income inequality--which cannot be managed by an inept narcissist who foments turmoil.

We deserve a Commander in Chief, not a Commander in Chaos.

Election Blues

When I first restarted my blog in February, I was looking forward to commenting on the 2020 presidential campaign.  I've long enjoyed national politics, and the Democratic primary didn't disappoint.  But since then, I've lost interest in details that usually consume me--emerging issues, polling data, party platforms, and candidate gaffes.

I think it's in part because this campaign follows the same script every week: some new Trumpian outrage followed by rebuttals from Democrats and pundits, who make the same arguments over and over again.  Permeating beneath this is a layer of fear: fear that Trump will rig the election, fear that he won't leave peacefully, and fear that minority rule will triumph again.

All reasonable fears.

What to do?  My neighbors and friends continue to ask how they can help.  People who never wrote letters or made phone calls now offer to do so.  Others who didn't consider themselves "political" put up yard signs and volunteer to work at the polls.  These actions matter.  And yet I can't help but feel like my country's unraveling.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death and the nomination of her successor highlight both a growing national divide and the hypocrisy in our government.

In the midst of all of this, I took comfort in the spontaneous protest that erupted this week, directed at Donald Trump as he viewed RBG's casket at the Supreme Court.  Gathered on the grounds nearby stood ordinary citizens who jeered and booed as he came into view.  Eventually their scorn coalesced into the chant "Vote him out," which Washington Post writer Monica Hesse called "astonishing, discombobulating, and more patriotic than anything you'll witness at a Trump rally."

Here was Trump, pretending to honor Justice Ginsburg, forced to face an outcry against him.  This almost never happens.  Wrapped in the cocoon of the White House, he ventures only to arenas where adulation is the norm.  On Thursday, though, for about one minute, he stood and heard the voice of protest.

This gave me hope.  Fellow citizens honoring our distinguished justice and, at the same time, calling out our unworthy president.  I may be feeling blue, but I also feel buoyed by my neighbors and the protestors in DC who showed themselves to be irrepressible.

The Power of One

How can the death of one person hold so much power in our democracy? Aren’t we supposed to be “We, the people”?

The loss of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has set off a volatile, political battle. Less than twenty-four hours after her death, Republican senators were already speaking about her replacement. And though I revere Justice Ginsburg’s brilliance and accomplishments, I’m concerned that she holds this much power in our government, either alive or dead. Something’s broken when the absence of one person can wreak fundamental change across society.

A similar truth holds for Mitch McConnell. Though he’s still here, of course, he continues to block legislation, and at the height of hypocrisy, prevented a hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in March 2016 during Barack Obama’s second term. Now McConnell intends to seek Senate confirmation for Donald Trump’s nominee within six weeks of a presidential election.

What is broken must be repaired. 

When it comes to the Supreme Court, we must first dispel the myth that it’s our one non-partisan branch of government. We all know this isn’t true. The current fight over Justice Ginsburg’s seat is proof enough. We must then consider remedies to the Court’s composition. Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, reviews options in his March 2020 essay, “Should we restructure the Supreme Court?” In it, he summarizes the three most frequently discussed ideas: adding seats to the Court (aka “packing the court”), increasing the size of the Court to 15, and imposing term limits for justices. 

Whatever changes are made, our courts must be structured in such a way to avoid current trends where, as Wheeler points out, four of our five conservative Supreme Court justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote, and “senators who confirmed Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh represented less than half the population.”

McConnell’s ongoing reign is a related problem. As the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell holds the power to schedule or not schedule votes even when bi-partisan support for a bill is evident. He blocked votes on popular criminal justice reform in 2018, for example, and gun background-check legislation earlier this year. He seeks quick approval for Trump’s judicial nominees yet repeatedly held up Obama’s. His power, and Nancy Pelosi’s for that matter, should be scaled back.

The imbalances of power in our government are not sustainable, and the only way to make change is through the legislative branch. When our newly elected Congress convenes in January 2021, our representatives need to review and revise not only the structure of the Supreme Court, but the power in their own bodies as well. 

It behooves us to hold them accountable.

Coming Round to Kamala

Though Kamala Harris initially struck me as an excellent choice for Attorney General, based on her piercing examinations of Brett Kavanaugh and William Barr, she didn't impress me as the best candidate for Vice President.  Throughout the Democratic primary, I found her smug and condescending.  I didn't like her disrespectful take-down of Joe Biden in the first debate, and her performance in subsequent debates seemed equally artificial and staged. 

Here's why I've changed my mind:

1. Senator Harris has the experience for the job.  As a US senator, she serves on key committees, including Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Budget; and as California's Attorney General for six years, she headed up law enforcement for the most populous state in the nation.

2. She's tough and commanding, certainly more so than her milquetoast opponent Mike Pence, but also stronger than both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.  Biden's appeal comes more from his conciliatory and welcoming manner, whereas Donald Trump fails as a commander though his meandering, senseless speech and derogatory treatment of others.

3. Though President Trump calls Kamala Harris "phony" and "nasty," she's avoided the labels that have dogged women candidates in the past.  Hillary Clinton evoked for many the image of the stern school teacher.  Sarah Palin, unprepared for her role in 2008, became a caricature of a silly, incompetent woman.  And Geraldine Ferraro ended up mired in her husband's finances in 1972, as if she were an extension of his career and not a solid candidate in her own right.

4. With an undergraduate degree from Howard University and a law degree from the University of California, Hastings, Senator Harris brings a refreshing education to the campaign.  In fact, both she and Joe Biden break a long tradition of Democratic candidates boasting Ivy League and elite New England school backgrounds--offering an understanding of ordinary Americans.

5. Kamala Harris holds the confidence of her running mate.  Regardless of the process that Joe Biden undertook in his selection, he nonetheless sees in her a partner ready to govern.  We all benefit from their compatibility in that we'll have two smart leaders making joint decisions.

Kamala Harris isn't perfect.  Her record as a prosecutor concerns many, and the rapid collapse of her primary campaign troubled others.  Still, she can do the job and she will do it well.  We've accepted for far too long the incompetence of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.  Senator Harris will serve our country with honor and distinction, and we must give her the chance to do so.

Losers and Suckers

Can anyone seriously doubt that Donald Trump called World War I Marines "losers" and "suckers," as reported on Thursday by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic? Or that he wondered aloud why anyone willingly serves in our military? And that he didn't want wounded veterans participating in a parade?

No, and here's why: 

These comments follow logically from Trump's own words.

1. Though his most well-known "loser" is probably former Senator and POW John McCain, he has also described many others this way: Bill Kristol, Chuck Todd, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, Rihanna, Seth Meyers, Tina Brown, and a host of unnamed Twitter users.

2. He's disparaged the military before. He called James Mattis "the world's most overrated general"; he said that General John Kelly, his former chief of staff, "misses the action and just can't keep his mouth shut"; and he bullied Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman for his impeachment testimony, calling Vindman "very insubordinate" and someone who "did a lot of bad things."

3. "Suckers" is another one of Trump's words.  It's a concept he fears.  "Why is the United States always the sucker?" he said in February, opining that Europeans take us for granted. And when he announced troop withdrawals from Germany in July, he said, "We don't want to be the suckers anymore."

4. He has no understanding of military service.  As Nancy Pelosi said on Friday, "Every day Trump makes clear that he does not comprehend what it means to sacrifice for one's country--as he consistently puts his own interests ahead of our national security and those who defend it," citing his refusal to stand up to Vladimir Putin. I would add his praise for Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, his coddling of Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and his sending troops to build the border wall.

5. Finally, why wouldn't Trump want wounded veterans in his parade? Recall his 2015 mockery of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski's disability, or consider Trump's derogatory comments on women's "ugly" faces.  Clearly he disdains anyone who doesn't meet his standard of appearance.

Though General Kelly could confirm The Atlantic report if he were willing to speak out, we don't really need him to.  Donald Trump's history of insults echo from one week to the next.  His language and behavior pollute the office he holds, and for this reason alone we should vote him out.