Biden should withdraw

 

Gordon L. Weil

This is a tale of two dates: November 5, 2024, and January 20, 2029. Both matter a lot.

The first is Election Day when voters will choose the next president. The second is the last day of the term the next president would serve.

The big political story these days is about the inability of President Biden to make reasonable sense during parts of the presidential debate. The New York Times says his staff tries to minimize his performance as a mere 90-minute “blip” in a long campaign.

But his friends and backers cannot readily dismiss what millions of Americans and many around the world saw as a catastrophic situation. It is impossible to assume that between now and 1/20/29 Biden won’t have another blip. The risk is that it occurs during negotiations with Russia’s Putin or China’s Xi or when making a decision on deploying a nuclear weapon.

In their zeal to keep Trump from the presidency, the Democrats focus almost entirely on Election Day not on four more years. If Biden wins, then we can worry about his term in office. But, if Biden clings to the presidency the way he clings to his campaign, he would put the nation at risk.

The country and the world need leadership, and his barely hanging on is not enough.

The presidential debate revealed that we face a crisis of leadership. Donald Trump is either self-delusional or an outright liar. Either way lies danger to the country and, likely, the American system of government. His seeking to be dictator-for-a-day is simply un-American.

Joe Biden tries to stop Trump. But the country cannot settle for a political doorstop to Trump’s reentry into the White House. It needs a person capable of dynamic and forthright leadership. Biden has outgrown his political persona and become an old man, struggling to lead.

Le Monde, a leading French newspaper, noted that the Democrats who cling to Biden have let their loyalty turn into blindness. The same can be said about the MAGA Republicans supporting Trump. When do the people who know the truth admit “the candidate has no clothes?”

Having missed the chance to voluntarily depart after a successful one-term presidency, Biden must now find a gracious way to withdraw. Forget the polls. He should admit what the people already know. Such an honest admission would be a contribution to the welfare of the nation.

There’s no doubt he can be replaced. Had he passed away, the Democrats would not have lost the ability to find a new nominee. There are mechanisms that work right up to Inauguration Day.

His withdrawal would have a positive effect both in the U.S. and abroad.

In the U.S., it’s clear that the two old candidates have little appreciation of the values and worries of people in middle age or younger. A Democrat who shares their experience and speaks their language could immediately provide a real challenge to Trump.

Picture a campaign between an experienced Democratic leader, hopefully a woman, who knows the issues and is sensibly articulate. Such a candidate would present Trump with challenges that he does not face even from a healthy Biden. The tenor of the campaign could change overnight.

In international affairs, the U.S. simply cannot walk away from its role as leader of a community of countries faced with authoritarian and hostile forces. Whatever their gripes, much of the world depends on us.

People abroad are worried. London’s Financial Times reported that Trump’s return is “viewed as a significant geopolitical threat in Europe” and that “European officials watched Biden’s disastrous debate performance in horror.”

Le Monde’s editorial said, “After the debate, the essential question arose as to whether or nor Biden should remain the candidate, and the answer is no.” Given authoritarian threats, the paper wrote that “everyone within democracies [must] place the common interest above personal considerations.”

Biden can’t and Trump won’t deal with an increasingly dangerous world or with trying to develop bipartisan policies that meet domestic needs from immigration to inflation. Trump owns the Republican Party, so there’s no hope for change there. The Democrats could come up with a viable alternative.

Democrats should not view a narrow victory by a failing man as the best way to get the country through four more years. Biden must put “the common interest above personal considerations.” He can write history by a classy withdrawal. He can spoil his legacy by staying too long.

Biden is not the only person who can defeat Trump. And, in his way, he embodies dangers to the country no less worrisome than does Trump.

It’s likely I would have voted for Biden in November, as the only viable choice. Now, I urge him to withdraw and give us a real choice about our future through 1/20/29 and beyond.

'Christian America' -- secular nation faces religious challenge

Gordon L. Weil

Sign seen last week on the side of a Maine barn: “I stand for the flag. I kneel for God.”

While there may be nothing unusual about such sentiments, posting them in letters big enough to be read by passing drivers is a clear public statement.  The passer-by may come away thinking the farmer is promoting a link between religious belief and patriotism.

Also last week, the governor of Louisiana signed a state law requiring that the Ten Commandments, God’s directives given to Moses, should be posted in every classroom. This move is meant to promote a basic link between religion and the civil state.

Donald Trump, the once and would-be president, almost immediately endorsed the Louisiana law as worthy of wider adoption. 

The First Amendment of the Constitution states there shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.  Under the Amendment, the barn sign works, but the Louisiana law probably doesn’t. 

Yet many advocates of recognizing the religious foundation of government call for acknowledging that the U.S. is a Christian country, because it was founded by Christians and reflected their beliefs. Perhaps proponents think they can get around the “establishments clause,” because most major religions recognize the Ten Commandments.

Such a theory runs into practical problems. Even more importantly, it faces overwhelming constitutional issues.

The practical question is simple: which Ten Commandments?  Multiple versions of them exist, even among Christian denominations, to say nothing of Jewish and other versions. Who would decide the correct version to be posted?  Would the choice favor one religion over another or over nonbelievers?

More important is the principle underlying the Constitution that the American government is secular, separate from any religion and neither promoting nor rejecting any religion.  This was part of the revolutionary thinking of the new country.

In Great Britain, the monarch was (and still is) the head of the Church of England. Other European countries have had established religions.  The French Revolution, occurring immediately after the U.S. Constitution came into effect, created a secular state, designed to end the dominance of the Catholic Church. 

Even before the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, the U.S. had ruled against the imposition of religious beliefs.  In the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Continental Congress decided in the first of the “articles of compact” that no American would “ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments.”

In the core Constitution, which went into effect two years later, the Framers provided that, upon taking public office, a person should show their allegiance by swearing an oath to God or affirming their commitment, if they would not take an oath.  It also stated there would be “no religious test” for holding public office.

In 1790, President Washington wrote: “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.  It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was the indulgence of one class of people….”

Then came the First Amendment in 1791.  It confirmed that there would be no established religion and no government control of a person’s religious beliefs.  It intentionally assured diversity.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.  It is difficult to think of anybody more a Founding Father. In 1802, he wrote to a Baptist group that the Constitution built a “wall of separation between church and state.”

Many of those who founded the country or drafted the Constitution would not meet the definition of being Christian if that required accepting Jesus into their personal life.  They were deists, who believed in a creator of the universe but not in a deity involved in human affairs.   

Those arguing the U.S. is a Christian country focus on the supposed religious beliefs of most of the Founding Fathers. They suggest that their beliefs should always determine the essential character of the country.  Justice Samuel Alito seeks to recover “godliness,” a virtue that never enjoyed official status.

The Louisiana governor gambles that a conservative Supreme Court will approve his state’s effort to topple Jefferson’s wall.  Once again, religious conservatives would use the Court to impose their views on others.

In a narrower sense, this push for a Christian regime creates yet another wedge issue for the Republicans.  A wedge issue can attract voters to a party or a candidate solely on that issue alone, giving its politicians a blank check on all else. 

Trump has succeeded by adopting this and many other wedge issues originated by others.  He now seeks to assume the mantle of a man of faith and is forgiven his trespasses as a reward for his newfound allegiance.  His backers say “he keeps his promises,” because he faithfully and persistently pushes each wedge issue button in return for their support. 

U.S. partisan split: 'One side is going to win'

 Gordon L. Weil

A person, who later claimed to be a documentary reporter, interviewed members of the U.S. Supreme Court at a social event.  She hid her microphone, and they probably thought they were engaging in a purely personal conversation.

The reporter’s ambush was against the ethics that most journalists are expected to observe.  A responsible and free press is essential to our democratic form of government. But it hardly works if the media that is supposed to uncover cheating is itself a cheater.

The words of Justice Samuel Alito made their way into the media.  However questionable the method of collecting them, they proved informative, if not totally surprising.

Alito is an unrelenting partisan who reveals his orientation in his words as a justice.  So, if he took a conservative position reflecting his views and values in this chat, his comments were nothing new.  They apparently were meant to be revealed as evidence of his bias, though little more evidence was needed.

But Alito went beyond his political leanings to do a bit of political analysis. In stating his view, he was clear and forthright, characteristics often absent from political speech.  Not only might such clarity be helpful, but it may well have been an analysis understood by partisans on both sides.

Talking of the deep divide in the country, he said: “One side or the other is going to win. There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.  They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

The essence of compromise is each side gives ground.  They split the difference, though not always equally.  Look at the deals to avoid mentioning slavery in the Declaration of Independence or to create a House of Representatives, elected by the people, and a Senate representing the states.  These deals resulted from big compromises.

Traditionally, when the two houses of Congress have disagreed, they created a conference committee to come up with a compromise, which is a deal that leaves both sides equally unhappy.  These committees have disappeared.

Beginning with the GOP Contract with America in 1994, compromise began to fade to the point that it hardly survives even on routine matters.  Republicans would not compromise, leading the Democrats to play hard ball.  Donald Trump exploited the grievances of frustrated Republicans to gain the presidency.  In turn, they gained greater power thanks to him.

In the Republican controlled House, the GOP intentionally adopts bills on which compromise is impossible.  They use such bills to create election issues. In the Senate, the majority Democrats picked up the practice.

Alito’s friends emphasize that he had offered that people could find ways to work and live together “peacefully.”  But he did not explain how.

Occasionally, Republican members of Congress, especially those in vulnerable districts, claim they are willing to compromise.  But it turns out that compromise means that agreement depends on Democrats accepting their positions.  Even if that were to happen, horse-trading in which they accept some Democratic positions doesn’t happen.

Take former GOP Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He wanted Democrats to join with loyal Republicans to oppose his ouster.  They had jointly supported his successful effort to keep the government open, overcoming right-wing GOP opposition.  Yet, just before the ouster vote, he bashed the Democrats, assuring they would not join his supporters and retain him.

What if compromise, the historic hallmark of American politics, is virtually dead, as Alito suggested?

The situation might drive American voters to give the Democrats strong congressional majorities and the presidency.  As a party much less unified than the GOP, they are familiar with compromise and would know how to restore it.  They might produce results.

But that depends on the people. Are we so nearly evenly split that a governing majority is not possible without Trump’s authoritarianism?  If so, matters will have to get much worse before a popular majority for compromise emerges.

If not, today’s abortion battles may show the way.  The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Alito, said abortion would be left to the states, and they jumped to the challenge.  Leave more policy to state decisions and limit the Supreme Court’s powers by passing legislation to limit its jurisdiction.  Both sides might agree on that.

The result could be more conservative states than liberal states, but with an overwhelming majority of the American people in those liberal states.  Maybe some people would move.  The National Popular Vote for president would become increasingly likely.  In this continental country, a less centralized federation might become appealing.

Alito clearly sees national division.  Perhaps he believes that the Court could guard the conservative gates.  It shouldn’t, and it can’t.