Israel-Palestine: Two-state, one-state or war

 

Gordon L. Weil

News reports focus on the presidential election, which both sides warn could have disastrous results. 

But serious attention is just beginning to be paid to the conflict between Israel and the Arab groups backed by Iran that could bring more catastrophic results. 

The ultimate danger of an all-out regional war among nuclear armed states, looms.  And the risk of that Middle East conflict is directly tied to the U.S. presidential election.

The crisis poses a deceptively simple choice.  The outcome of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians could be either a one-state solution or a two-state solution.   The disagreement among the key parties – Israel, the Palestinian Arabs and the United States – runs deep. 

Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders prefer a one-state solution – though obviously not the same one.  The U.S. has long favored a two-state solution, consisting of the countries of Israel and Palestine, but has achieved no success and, in fact, now faces a deteriorating situation. 

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supposedly wants to endlessly pursue the Arab terrorists to avoid facing a new election that could drive him from power and the criminal charges pending against him.  But this misses the point.  Despite saying what Washington wants to hear about two states, he has always opposed the creation of a Palestinian state. 

He relies on far-right parties that openly favor a single state, but he is not their political captive; he agrees with them.  October 7 and its threat to Israeli security gave Netanyahu the opening to pursue his objectives.  Israel has practically obliterated Gaza and says that Lebanon, the Hezbollah base, is not a true country, so it can be bombed and invaded. 

The Israeli goal appears to be complete control of Palestine including Gaza and the West Bank, which it now occupies. These areas might not be formally incorporated into Israel, to avoid creating an Arab majority there. 

Hamas seeks to eliminate Israel and create a single Palestinian state in the entire territory.  Not an established country like Israel with its formal military, its tool is terrorism – the use of violence, even against civilians, for political purposes.  Hamas and Hezbollah have adopted terrorism as the best way to achieve their political objective. 

While much of the world condemns their terrorism, the Palestinians might see it as helping them.  It’s likely they worried about being overlooked when Saudi Arabia and Israel moved toward cooperation.  October 7 suddenly got everybody’s attention and suspended the Saudi-Israeli plans.  Saudi Arabia now won’t make a deal with Israel without the creation of a Palestinian state. 

Netanyahu may see a narrow chance to act before the U.S. presidential election.  He spurns President Biden, whose withdrawal from the presidential race has allowed him and his diplomatic team to focus on trying to achieve a ceasefire.  The Israeli leader may want to gain as much ground as he can before the election decides on his key ally. 

Biden’s options are limited for the moment, because he is avoiding a major policy shift that could damage Kamala Harris’s chances.   If she wins, he will immediately have a freer hand with Israel.  If Trump wins, Netanyahu is likely to keep stalling until his preferred president takes office. 

The American position is based on the belief that the only way to resolve the competing claims of Israel and the Palestinians is through compromise.  The U.S. political system works best when parties reach compromises, but that can only happen when both sides are invested in the success of the system itself. 

That is not the case in the Israel-Palestine confrontation.   Both sides believe that anything less than complete victory is unsatisfactory.   As a result, Israel persists in Gaza, dislikes a ceasefire and has abandoned the hostages held by Hamas. It also explains why no matter their losses, Hamas and Hezbollah will not quit.  Defeat may serve to recruit more followers for them. 

Not far below the surface of this war is the Israel-Iran confrontation. They are bitter enemies.  Israel is a nuclear power, and Iran is not far from it.  And, as the chief arms supplier of Russia, it might be paid off by gaining access to Putin’s tactical nuclear weapons.  The current clashes could be the prelude to a dangerous, regional conflict with unknown limits. 

Until November 5, domestic politics may limit the ability of the U.S. to exert its full force in the region.  Biden is right to keep up as much pressure as possible until then.  With more room to move after the election, he should deploy the political, diplomatic and military power of the U.S. to force the Gaza ceasefire that is the essential first step to pursuing a two-state compromise. 

The time approaches when the U.S. must put its interests first and act as a great power.

Trump, the would-be autocrat, gets Supreme Court backing

 

Gordon L. Weil

What does Donald Trump want to do with the presidency?

He makes his intentions clear, though less clear is whether he can turn his plans into reality.  Kamala Harris describes him as “unserious,” but cautions that voters ought to consider as “serious” the risks of his presidency.

Trump favors a strong presidency, enjoying powers he can exercise with little or no control by Congress and with the expected support of his Supreme Court majority.  His next term, if he gets it, could look a lot like authoritarian government.

One indicator is his obvious affinity for leaders who bear the title of president, but who exercise strong or total control of their national governments.  He almost fraternally refers to Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi and North Korea’s Kim.  In fact, he likes their style and their complete freedom of action.

The presidential system of government places elected presidents, serving fixed terms, at the head of the executive branch alongside legislative bodies that cannot readily remove them, but can limit their powers.  In parliamentary systems, the legislative bodies control and can remove the top executive, usually the prime minister.  

In the U.S. system, the checks on a president are a key element of democracy.  The contrast between democratic balance and the authoritarian rule of false presidents is obvious. 

Independent ranking systems are surely not absolutely correct, but they offer strong signals that prove the point. Britain’s Economist Intelligence Unit ranks countries by their degree of democracy.  Among the counties ranked as being “full democracy,” almost all in this category have parliamentary systems.

The U.S. presidential system is rated in the “flawed democracy” group, which also includes India, Poland and Hungary.  America gets a high rating for “electoral process,” but a weak rating for “functioning of government.”  There’s also an “authoritarian” group, which includes Russia, China and North Korea, operating as one-party states.

Trump plans to use his governmental powers to pursue the political enemies he calls “vermin,” expel millions of migrants, and deploy the military to carry out his policies.  Sounds like an autocrat.

His extreme departure from national norms leads conservative Republicans, who may like his policies on the economy and immigration, to endorse Harris with whom they may disagree on the issues.  She is simply safer.

In the White House, Trump would be likely to do whatever pleases the right-wing constituency that put him in office.  Although he honestly reports that he has not read the 887-page Project 2025 blueprint, he is likely to follow its right-wing manifesto.  He has little of his own policy, but depends heavily on outside, conservative advocates.

Under its terms, the Justice Department and the FBI would be bought firmly under his control.  The Education Department would be abolished, and the Federal Reserve brought under  greater political control.  No agency would be missed.

Trump would be able to take control of the government.  Though the president is supposed to be constrained by Congress, it has failed to do its job.  It delegates much of its power to executive agencies.  The Senate is often unable to act, thanks to its rules allowing decisions to be blocked by a minority of senators.

The Supreme Court’s July decision, aptly named Trump v. United States, gave the president almost complete immunity from legal scrutiny for all but his most personal actions. And who gets to decide if his actions are presidential or personal?  The Supreme Court, now dominated by his allies.

This decision does more for placing the presidency above Congress and the states than any other event in American history.  It could easily mean that limits no longer exist on a president using the military for domestic, political purposes.

Congress, because it is ineffective except in doling out benefits and increasing the debt, and the Court, because it has become so obviously partisan, have become quite unpopular.  The unfavorable rating of Congress has reached 76 percent, and it is 51 percent for the Supreme Court. 

The remaining option for controlling presidential excess is impeachment and conviction.  But impeachment has become mere political routine, and conviction continues to be impossible and ineffective. 

Trump covets unlimited power, which no president of either party is meant to have.  The pathway to unchecked presidential power has been paved by the Supreme Court’s decision.  The evidence is that it intended to achieve this result before the election.  That leaves the decision to the voters.

The Court’s Roe v. Wade decision on abortion established policy in the absence of congressional action.   Trump v. U.S. did so as well.  As Roe shows, Court decisions can be reversed.  Congress can remove the Court’s jurisdiction, but seldom does.  Presidents can reshape the Court by their appointments.

A political movement pushed the reversal of Roe v. Wade.  A similar effort should now demand the reversal of Trump v. U.S.

 

 

When shootings happen, there are rules

Ten Rules for Assassinations/Shootings/Attempts

Gordon L. Weil

Assassinations and shootings are as big as it gets, but they do not bring out the best in us.

Politicians and media select from this menu or use it all in the aftermath of shootings.  This checklist may look like the event is being taken seriously, as it should, but nothing changes.  More bluster, more shootings.

1.  Charges are made that the security people failed to detect the shooter when they should have.

 2.  Motive for shooting unknown.

3.  Season opens for unlimited speculation and free-lance blame assignment.

4.  Shooter was alone, often promptly killed, making answer to 2. more difficult.

5.  Shooter had blog with threats or kept a diary, but was usually ignored as being “odd”.

6.  Matter under investigation, report to come after we forget/care about the incident.

7.  Law enforcement agencies are cooperating, but each gets equal press conference access.

8.  Some authority somewhere had been warned sometime about the shooter.

9.  Shooter obtained gun legally; calls made for tougher laws.

10. Nothing happens. Wait for next event - but not very long. Restart at 1. above.

  

Harris' biggest campaign event; Trump's 'best'?

 

Gordon L. Weil

The debate revealed a split between the presidential candidates going beyond their differences on the issues.

At several points, Kamala Harris directly addressed viewers, reaching beyond the limits of the ABC debate set.  Donald Trump, expected to be on offense but finding himself mostly on defense, never left the limits of the debate.

After the war of words, Trump told the media, “It was the best debate I’ve ever had.”  That may be a case of wishful thinking or an attempt at campaign spin. But that statement amounted to his giving himself a grade on his performance.  He was telling the voters that this was him at his best.

The presidential election is held in each state for its electoral votes.   Trump played to his core backers in the belief that he had locked up safe states and could raise doubts about Harris in the swing states.  Of course, Harris has her own safe states, but she was reaching for voters in both swing states and on Trump’s own turf.

It’s all about electoral math. Just below the surface of the presidential election lies a politically deadly force that could pick the winner despite the will of the people.

This forecast is not merely a possibility; it is a certainty.   When the votes are counted on and after November 5, the outmoded Electoral College will determine the winner, no matter the popular vote.

The practical effect of the Electoral College is that the Democratic candidate for president must win by much more than a slim majority in the national popular vote.  If Harris leads by one or two percent in the polls, that’s probably not enough.  She needs more than a national squeaker to be assured of enough support across enough states to prevail.

The reverse is true for the Republican candidate.  They may win less than a majority of the vote nationally, but still be elected.  This seems to be an iron law: every time since 1824 when there has been a minority winner, the victor was a Republican.  Trump can win with less than a popular majority, as he did in 2016.

While a narrow national margin either way may mean a Trump victory, Harris can win by carrying swing states, and she can win big by taking one or two safe Trump states.  If she trails in swing states, even while winning the national popular majority, Trump’s electoral vote could overrule her majority.

So, Harris had to accept the electoral math and tried to turn the debate to her national advantage.  For her, it was not so much a debate as a way to talk directly with swing voters all across the country.  For Trump, it was a matter of reinforcing his hold on his MAGA core and raising doubts about Harris with other Republicans and possibly with independents. 

She stuck to her case and often avoided answering some moderators’ questions.  She needled him. He boldly asserted untruths, knowing there was not enough time to refute them all.  He was so intent on his false claims, some of them wild, that he failed to successfully link her to President Biden.

Whatever the points the candidates thought they scored in the debate format, Harris sought to use it as her only national campaign stop.  In what was clearly the best answer given by either candidate, she forcefully laid out the case for reproductive freedom for women.  This was an attempt to reach voters in all states.  If successful, she could overcome the electoral math.

The effect of the Electoral College can only be defeated in one way – turnout.  Motivated voters showing up to vote can undermine the implicit assumptions about the way states will decide. 

When voter turnout is unexpectedly high, it can upset what polling forecasts.  A surge in support for a candidate might overturn the expected outcome, flipping the electoral math.  This might occur in both the swing states and in supposedly safe states.  Momentum can make swings happen anywhere.

The debate was Harris’s chance to recover her momentum and Trump’s chance to block it.  If she rekindled enthusiasm for her candidacy, the debate could have helped her in swing states, but also to reach into Trump’s supposedly safe states.  It seems less likely that Trump could have loosened her hold on her safe states.

If one party invades the other party’s safe states, then a voter anywhere can make a difference.  That’s possible this year, because Trump may have peaked, leaving Harris nowhere to go but up.

Growing enthusiasm helps boost momentum.  Watch the number of small contributions; they reflect that enthusiasm.  Also, the surge in voter registration may be a positive sign for either candidate.

Will there be another debate?  It could help either candidate, but in hugely different ways. 

 

Close election? Don't count on it

Gordon L. Weil

“It don’t mean a thing, if you ain’t got that swing.”  That’s the name of an old popular song.

It could be the theme song of this year’s presidential election.  And it may be the key to a big win for Kamela Harris, not the expected close election.  Instead of barely scraping by, as the pundits and polls now forecast, she could win by a convincingly large margin.

We are constantly reminded that in a few states, a few votes could determine the result.  Because the outcome could go either way, that makes them swing states, while the results in all others are considered to be locked in. 

But the election across the country may depend on the changing preferences of key groups of voters.  Swing voters could have an effect in many states beyond the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.

Who are these groups?  Voters over 65, disaffected Republicans, Latinos, Asians and rural residents.  And the biggest group – women.

Beyond these groups are those whose leanings are known, and the question is if they will turn out to vote and have unimpeded access to the ballot box.   They are Blacks and young people.

As I’ve repeatedly noted, the so-called suburban women with a post-high school education have become a major voting force.  They outnumber the blue-collar men having no education beyond high school.

Not only do they outnumber the supposed Trump core, but they vote at a higher rate. They are reported to be better motivated in this election because of the abortion issue.  And they are becoming a separately identified and independent minded political force.

Older voters have traditionally been Republican supporters, but they have become almost evenly divided between the two presidential candidates.  They show up to vote at a higher rate than any other age group, so this shift could move active voters from one camp to another.  The same trend may be true for rural voters.

Clearly, Trump forces have taken control of the GOP from traditional economic conservatives.  While many Republicans will remain faithful to the ticket, others are now in play. Will they hold their noses and vote for Harris or will they stay home? 

Their leader is likely to be Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming GOP member of Congress. While she was soundly defeated in the party primary by a Trump backer, she retained a share of her state’s Republican voters.  Now that she has spoken out against Trump, millions of disaffected Republicans across the country might follow her lead.

Latino and Asian voters are not expected to depart from their usual voting patterns.  Much support will remain with Trump.  But to the extent that their support is loosened, possibly because they are uncomfortable with his style, they weaken his chances.  Given that he has likely hit his maximum level of support, he cannot afford such defections.

Black voters had been reported as lacking enthusiasm for President Biden leading to a reduced turnout and some even turning to Trump.  Their loss was a major problem for Biden.  But Harris, firmly recognized as a Black, despite Trump having tried to create doubt, can bring them back.

The constitutional amendment allowing voting at age 18 has been a disappointment as many young people have remained aloof from politics. But issues ranging from abortion to Gaza appear to be creating a wave of new registrations among the youth.  The Democrats think they stand to gain from first-time voters.

These swing voters may not only be a factor in the seven swing states, but are likely to appear to some extent in almost all states.  That may mean that states rated as solidly in the Republican camp could move closer to being in play.

Florida, once a toss-up state, has been thought to be a win for Trump.  Texas, seeming to be firmly under Republican domination, has been seen as a sure thing for him.  Neither now appears likely to disappoint him.  But the gap between Trump and Harris has narrowed to the point where both, with a total of 70 electoral votes, have lost their certainty for Trump.

The campaign is far from over.  Trump could win half of the swing states. He could try to slug it out in Pennsylvania, a state critically important for Harris.  And, of course, there could be major, unforeseen events that can radically change the election outlook.

But if the swing voters turn out to make a difference across the country with their shift not limited to the swing states, Harris could gain a major victory.  Her momentum matters.

Not only would such a win give her a clear mandate, but it would undermine any disruptive Trump “Stop the Steal” effort and promote an orderly transition.

Close election?  Don’t count on it. 

This group could decide the election

 

Gordon L. Weil

A dozen people will meet behind closed doors next month and make a decision that will heavily influence the presidential election and might even decide it.

They are not politicians. They are a group of almost anonymous economists and bankers who will set the interest rate affecting everything from mortgages and housing to credit cards and pensions. 

Its decision will have an immediate and nationwide impact. That’s more real change than most economic policy actions by the president.  And it could also determine the election.

The group bears a technical sounding name: the Federal Open Market Committee or FOMC.  But its effect is hardly technical.  It is coldly practical, and its decision will cascade through the economy the minute it is announced at two o’clock on the afternoon of September 18.  This will come at the end of the only FOMC meeting scheduled before the elections.

The FOMC is poised to lower interest rates.  That’s a big deal and is expected to be politically popular.  Coming while a Democratic president holds office, the lower rates could boost the Democrats’ election chances.  Yet the decision will be a judgment based on economic factors, information available to the public, and not on politics.

The FOMC supports the Federal Reserve, which has two major tasks – keeping employment high and inflation low.  It’s a balancing act, because promoting one goal can produce negative results for the other.

Many people have faced a higher cost of living and assign blame to high interest rates.  Whatever the underlying factors, a majority holds President Biden responsible, with inflation being a key contributor to his unpopularity.  Lower rates and resulting lower prices could boost the chances of Kamala Harris.

Donald Trump has been an advocate of lower interest rates, a position that has political appeal.  He has come to dislike the rate policy of Jerome Powell, the person he had appointed as the Fed chief.  Recently, Trump has favored waiting to lower rates to deny political help to the Democrats. 

Trump backers have suggested that presidents ought to take part in setting interest rates.  If the president played such a role, it would be like their having a say in Supreme Court decisions.  Now, the president’s role with both the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve Board consists of appointing their members. 

Presidents are supposed to keep away from these economic decisions.  Otherwise, short-term politics can seriously harm the national economy.  Leading central banks around the world, like the Fed, are kept independent of political leaders by law. 

The Federal Reserve has traditionally kept its distance from presidential politics, especially following a major crisis about 50 years ago when Fed policy got too close to a campaign. Since then, they have been a carefully reserved Reserve.

The FOMC is composed of twelve members:  the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Fed, appointed by the president for 14-year terms, plus five representatives of regional Federal Reserve banks.  The FOMC votes are made public, and, unlike the Supreme Court, there is remarkable agreement among the members, no matter their political affiliation.

Following the Great Recession of 2008 and the Covid crisis beginning in 2020, employment fell, eventually leading the FOMC to stimulate the economy by setting interest rates at zero.  Then, as the economy improved, it raised rates to block inflation by slowing business investment. 

Its policy worked.  First, unemployment was sharply cut.  Then, the FOMC raised rates back to traditional levels.  Price increases have slowed, but so has employment growth.  

Here’s where politics comes in.  People had grown accustomed to the low interest rates used to stimulate the economy.   When the FOMC increased rates, it intended to slow economic growth and reverse inflation.  But many people liked low rates, so grew unhappy with the FOMC interest policy.

The Fed has tried to bring about what is called a “soft landing.”  In dealing with both employment and inflation problems, it had to avoid pushing too hard either way, because it wanted to avoid a recession.  That’s a tough challenge, not always popular, and it seems to be working.  But the Fed has struggled to get the right timing for its moves.

If, by its decision in September, the FOMC lowers costs in the economy, almost everybody will take that as good news.  Their new optimism, probably accompanied by higher stock market values, could have a political effect.  With Trump now holding a slight lead on his ability to handle the economy, it could help Harris.

The cut won’t be huge, either a quarter or a half percent, but it will produce lower costs for people and businesses.  In this short campaign, that could be a big influence on how people vote.  Let’s see how the hot politics of a cold economic decision play out.

Harris, Trump promises depend on Congress

 

Gordon L. Weil

Promises, promises.

Presidential candidates make them.  Voters complain that they don’t keep them.

Promises reveal a candidate’s political views, but often they cannot be kept.  Keeping them most likely depends on the president’s party winning majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate. 

This year, the presidential election takes place alongside races for all 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats.  The results of those 438 other federal elections may reveal as much about national policy in the next couple of years as the outcome of the contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

Right now, the balance of power in both houses of Congress is close and is expected to remain tight.  Currently, the House has 220 Republicans and 212 Democrats with three vacancies.   In November’s election, 21 seats are rated as toss-ups, so House control is up for grabs.

A toss-up seat is usually one where the representative aligns with one party, while the voters support a presidential candidate of the other party.  Maine’s Second District, represented by Jared Golden, is one of the most Republican districts with a Democratic representative.

Golden is a classic case, like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat who keeps the views of his district always ahead of pure partisanship.  Goldin has made clear why he is a Democrat, but keeps his distance from the Democratic Party, sometimes opposing it on issues supported by most of its House members.

While he has voted against the policies of President Biden more than any other House Democrat, he has not cast the decisive vote to kill a Biden policy. That’s partly because there are other Democrats who share his approach.  In 2021, he refused to back Nancy Pelosi for House Speaker and joined others voting for another Democrat.  Still, Pelosi was elected.

The presidential race could have a major influence on his re-election chances.  Trump expects to carry the district.  Either Golden must continue to convince voters that his loyalty to them is greater than his Democratic ties or Harris must succeed in reducing Trump’s strength in the district.

By not endorsing Harris, Golden has immunized himself from having to support or defend her positions as she announces them, keeping his focus on district interests. Still, as a Democrat, he is sure to get seats on House committees, less possible for a true independent.  His committee roles can be important for Maine.

Golden’s race could be critically important to the Democrats, because they have a realistic hope of winning control of the House.  Their chances in the Senate are far slimmer, so the House could be the barrier to the possibility of full Trump government control.

The Senate now includes 51 Democrats and allies and 49 Republicans. The Democrats have 22 seats up for election this year while the GOP has only 11.   Only two of these seats, both held by Democrats, are considered to be toss-ups.  If they hold those seats, the full Senate would end up split 50-50.  The Vice President breaks ties, so the presidential election outcome matters.

But tie-breaking might not be enough, because the minority party could deny the 60 votes required to end debate and could block most decisions.  The only limit is that the American people have no appetite for a government shutdown resulting from total disagreement, so a band-aid budget could be allowed to pass.

Presidents have gained more power in recent years, but they are not completely free to act.  The courts may restrain them, and the congressional power of the purse may limit how far they can go.  Without congressionally approved spending, they can be at least partially blocked.

After the Democratic National Convention, the campaigns enter into the home stretch of this unusually short race.  The September 10 presidential debate could be a turning point.  Trump might step up his efforts to undermine public confidence in Harris.  As the younger candidate with special appeal to women voters, she could try to push her momentum.

If Trump regained the polling lead, he could have a strong influence either way on the congressional races.  Voters might support Democratic candidates to ensure a balanced or divided government or they might vote Republican to give Trump the full support he needs to keep his promises.

In contrast, a growing Harris lead would mean she had strong momentum.  That could yield her a bigger win, possibly providing a margin that would make it more difficult for the almost inevitable election challenges that would follow a Trump loss.   

If her gains continue, her momentum could help Democrats in toss-up congressional races.  Beyond that, watch to see if any race where the GOP candidate is currently rated as a sure winner becomes a toss-up, which could be a bellwether of a possible Harris victory.

 

Harris’ policies versus Trump’s

 

Gordon L. Weil

During the Democratic National Convention, news analysts repeatedly say that Kamala Harris had better hurry up and define her policies before Trump does it for her, putting her on the defensive.

They start from a false premise.  She has stated these major policy positions:

Reproductive choice (formerly known as abortion rights).  She is outspoken on this key issue and wants a federal guarantee of this right.  By contrast, Trump varies between banning it nationally and state action.

Economy.  She has proposed traditional Democratic pump-priming measures to stimulate housing and jobs.   She wants anti-gouging laws as some states, like Texas, already have. She favors an independent Federal Reserve.  By contrast, Trump favors wealth accumulation, which should be an incentive to striving workers. This is even less than trickle-down.  He would end Fed independence.

Immigration.  She supports bi-partisan legislation, which Trump instructed the GOP to block, so he could later get the credit for it.  She also supports Biden’s immigration controls which are working with Mexican help. Trump wants to deport millions of long-term residents, that would undermine the economy.  Plus, the wall.

Labor unions.  She supports them and their greater role.  Trump would fire people who seek to organize.

Israel-Palestine.  She supports immediate cease-fire, but cannot depart from Biden policy on arms sales.  The country can have only one foreign policy at a time.  Trump supports Netanyahu, so could not broker peace.  This is a loose end for Harris, but you cannot negotiate independently from Biden or by showing your hand publicly.

In a short campaign, the candidates can focus on a few of the most major issues.  They have done so and have contrasting positions.  The pundits should back off. 

Finally, Trump sees America as failing; Harris sees it rising.  It’s the “vision thing.”

Election puts image over issues

Gordon L. Weil

Political campaigns look for motivational catch phrases. 

One of the most famous was posted in Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign headquarters.  It simply read: “The economy, stupid.”  Workers were to focus on this single issue as a key to winning.

This year, the key may just be emerging to voters distracted by daily polls.  It could be: “It’s about image.”

Pollsters ask voters about the issues most important to them.  Or they may ask about whether a voter views a candidate favorably or unfavorably.  If you have ever voted for a candidate you disagreed with on a major issue or just plain disliked, you might doubt the value of such opinion surveys.

Polls don’t ask if the personality and character of a candidate influences a voter more than their position on major issues.  This year, it’s possible that the image reflecting each candidate’s character may matter more than their positions on issues.

Of course, this effect focuses mostly on swing voters.  The great majority of voters decide based on party affiliation or their personal loyalty to a specific candidate.   Relatively few such people are moved by campaigns. Some issues, like immigration or abortion, may promote voting swings, but how much is not clear.

The contest between former President Trump and Vice President Harris appears to turn largely on who they are more than on any single issue.

Donald Trump provides simple answers to difficult questions. His intentionally inflammatory statements appeal to some people unhappy with the government, especially when they believe others benefit at their expense.  He is negative about the country, and his recourse to America’s “great” past may signal an attempt to slow the changing national ethnic mix.

Yet, Trump’s simple answers may turn out to be simplistic, turning off some voters.  He does not hesitate to lie about objectively verifiable facts.  Recently, he has boldly asserted that there were no crowds at Harris rallies, when thousands could directly testify to having been there. 

He makes claims about his past successes and unfounded charges against the Democrats, but the risk is that the media’s fact-checking can sound like sour grapes.  He is harshly negative about the state of the nation.  His self-confidence may stifle reporters, who struggle to avoid showing any bias against him.

He is more attached to power than the substance of policies, many adopted from hard-right advocates.  He has successfully attached himself to extreme Republican conservatism, which he found ready for strong leadership.

Trump has always been ambitious.  His political career seems more driven by self-gratification than public service.  As with some other past political leaders, the old mantra may apply: “Deep down, he’s shallow.” 

Perhaps above all else, the undeniable fact is that he is now by far the oldest candidate, which could bring him under closer scrutiny.  He now seeks debates, both because he may see himself as the underdog and to demonstrate that age has not taken the same toll on him as it has on Biden.

Trump is well-known, but Kamala Harris has to become known in a short period of time.  Her undeniable facts are that she is middle-aged, far younger than Trump, and a woman.  The challenge for her is to demonstrate that matters politically.

She is trying to show herself as highly active and able to maintain a level of campaigning that is beyond Trump’s ability.  She implicitly makes age an issue and makes frequent campaign stops so that voters and the media can form fresh opinions about her.  She is upbeat.

The test of her political skill comes in having to remain loyal to Biden, who gave her the path to the presidency, while showing she has a mind of her own and can open some space with the administration in which she still serves.  Israel-Palestine may be a bigger challenge to showing if she can lead than immigration or the economy.

Pundits have focused on the Democrats ceding blue collar voters to the GOP, implying that these losses cannot be fully made up by their gains among educated women voters. Harris obviously ties her image to support for abortion choice, an issue resonating with women voters, and the numbers may be in her favor.

The number of women over age 25 with post-high school educational attainment far exceeds the number of men whose schooling ended at high school or earlier.   Here Harris’ persona could matter.

As for running mates, they likely can hurt a ticket more than help it.  JD Vance, like Trump who chose him, runs based on his celebrity.  He is intensely loyal.  Harris’ Tim Walz, a Minnesotan, comes across as a Midwesterner in the tradition of his state’s long-ago Veep, Hubert Humphrey, called “the happy warrior.”

Voters may decide based on candidates’ images, more than on the issues.  Maybe they always have. 

 

‘The Big Mo’ -- Harris needs momentum; Trump would block it

 

Gordon L. Weil

Political candidates want “The Big Mo” – big momentum.

The idea, which originated in professional sports in the 1960s, soon spread to politics.  The theory is that momentum influences how people vote. Progress promotes progress.

In this year’s presidential race, we may see momentum. That’s because the 100-day campaign is much shorter than it has been in more than half a century.  President Biden’s withdrawal produced a new Democratic candidate and entirely changed the landscape for the challenger. 

Not only is the campaign brief, but also both candidates start from scratch.  Though her success came rapidly, Vice President Kamala Harris could not begin her campaign until she had lined up the necessary delegate support.  For former President Donald Trump, it meant going “back to the old drawing board” to redesign his campaign.

For Harris, given the declining Biden support, there’s nowhere to go but up and momentum is essential.  She needs to restore Democratic unity and gain among independents and disaffected Republicans.  For Trump, who may have peaked just short of 50 percent, the challenge is stalling her momentum by adding to his core support.

The shorter campaign with its necessarily sharper focus might increase voter interest between now and November 5.  In this short race, the vice-presidential picks could be a factor.

Trump’s choice of hard-hitting JD Vance was meant to appeal to Mid-America’s workers. So far, Vance has not boosted Trump’s standing.  Harris’ had the same intent with Tim Walz.  She may hope that his affable style plus his greater federal government experience than Trump, Vance or herself can add to her momentum.

The media plays a critical role in how campaign interest develops.  Aside from the purely partisan players like MSNBC and Fox, preaching to the faithful, many voters develop their impressions of candidates from the media’s coverage.  Media messages may not be explicit, but can be tilted.

Of course, money also matters. With huge war chests, candidates’ paid media conveys often exaggerated or false information, focusing more on the opposition than themselves.  That can motivate their supporters and influence people who accept the video spots as fact.  The bias is obvious but still can be influential.

A driving force behind media attitudes is opinion polling.  The polls now come in a daily torrent.  Every day’s little movement, even within the so-called margin of error, influences the media. Does it focus on Harris’ experience or inexperience?   On Trump’s policies or his posing?  The polls may guide the coverage.

As frequently noted in this column, polls have serious defects, ranging from the refusal of many voters to participate to the undisclosed bias of the pollsters.  So, survey numbers should be viewed with skepticism.

But they are useful in at least one respect. They reveal momentum.  If a candidate’s numbers are steadily growing, that shows positive momentum.  At that point, the media can be expected to become more positive about a candidate whose support is growing.  In turn, more positive media coverage can stimulate more positive poll results.

Handle with care. The poll results are fragile and can be affected by a single major event.  The bottom fell out for Biden after his debate failure in a way that could not have been foreseen.  That one evening changed the entire election campaign.  If the event or error is big enough, simple coverage of it can affect voters.

Much of the media and voter focus is on the national poll standing of the candidates.  That’s not really helpful, because we do not have a national, popular election.  Given the way the electoral vote works, a Democrat is likely to need a solid lead in the country as a whole to be assured of gaining enough electoral votes.  Running even with a GOP opponent may not do the job.

Where history has shown close races, the media focuses on swing states that might determine the election outcome.  Polling may focus on individual states, but the surveys may be intermittent or incompetent. The same concerns apply as for national polling.

The greater the margin between the two alternatives, the more reliable are the poll results.  Statistics show that survey data is more reliable the wider the gap.  Here polling momentum can matter, flowing through to the media and back again.  Within the margin of error, differences don’t matter.

Trump must try to block any Harris momentum by extending his appeal beyond his MAGA core.  If he holds onto Republican conservatives, he could win.

Harris has benefitted from increased party unity following her selection and may get a lift from the Democratic National Convention. 

Can she capture “the Big Mo” next month?  If her progress is more than a polling “bounce,” she could surprise with a solid victory. The bigger her margin, the lower the likelihood of an effective Trump post-election challenge.

Election campaign worries? Take the long view

 

Gordon L. Weil

The political campaign these days often makes it sound as if the ultimate fate of the democracy and the country will be decided in November.  It’s now or never.

But this year’s election, though of unusual importance, will not represent the last word in American history no matter how much the campaigns raise fears.  Of course, elections matter and people should always vote, but some current trends seem highly likely to recede over time.  The underlying course of the country yields reasons for optimism.

The motto of Donald Trump and the Republican Party he has captured is “Make America Great Again.” By its own terms, this is a backward-looking message.  It is based on the belief that if the country can return to its glorious past, reversing immigration, halting inflation, ending diversity efforts, limiting environmental protection and stymying the rise of women.

This premise is almost entirely false.  Many of the claims lack evidence, but gain some acceptance thanks to sheer repetition.  It’s the triumph of politics over truth.

Here are some facts.  Immigration policy has been proposed more than once, but it won’t happen without the support of both parties, and that has been lacking.  Meanwhile, illegal immigration has again been slowed, though much needs to be done. And we can’t deport the millions who arrived in the U.S. unlawfully.  Besides, their removal would severely damage the economy.

Both inflation and prosperity have many causes, and presidents should not take the blame or the credit for either.  Government institutions, created to tame economic excess, have done generally well. No president can be held responsible for economic change.  Many forces outside of the government will propel the economy.

Without full equality for all Americans, some people exploit others. That may be fine with the people on top. That may be what “great again” means to some MAGA partisans, but, however traditional, it’s a long way from American ideals.  And it doesn’t work.

If corporate success is more important than human health, then the country could dismantle efforts to protect land, water and air.  That would restore some version of “great again,” by trading future survival for short-term gain.

The dominance of women by men, dating back to the Stone Age, may be what some men want, but women are better educated and less dominated these days.  Their progress can no longer be stopped or reversed.  Four of the nine Supreme Court justices are women.  More than a quarter of Congress members are women.

The country was long controlled by white men, presumably when America was “great.”  If you want to reverse or halt the loss of that control, preventing a majority from sharing in it, then MAGA is your movement.  But demographic reality rejects MAGA.

We are urged to believe that if Trump and the GOP win in November, MAGA will rule and its policies will be applied, dismantling representative democracy and replacing it with an irreversible authoritarianism.

Like the bases of MAGA itself, this conclusion won’t stand up. Nations pass through difficult times without necessarily succumbing to them. 

Take the extreme case of the Civil War when the very existence of the country was at stake. The Union was preserved and a changed country emerged to become the world’s greatest power.  While the war and its aftermath transformed the country, America kept its ideals intact and was able to adapt to rapid change.

Under far worse circumstances, countries recover.  Germany went from Nazi rule to liberal democracy with widely enjoyed prosperity.  In Chile, a popularly elected left-wing government was overthrown by the military.  Yet that the authoritarian regime could not hold onto power and democratic government has come back.

This year’s elections, whatever way they go, will not be the last word.  Of course, MAGA will fight the result, if it loses.  Over the longer term, it will be overtaken by change.

Despite efforts to block “the browning of America,” the make-up of the American population is gradually changing.  The Census Bureau forecasts that no one racial group will be a majority after 2044. 

Educated women wield new political power and anti-abortion efforts stimulate their increased involvement.  Racial attacks increase Black and Latino participation.  Climate change raises broader environmental concerns.  As it always has, immigration will change the country.

Liberal Democrats should neither panic nor hunker down while fearing eventual MAGA long-term rule.  They should agree on and pursue their own agenda and not merely respond to Trump. The moment when MAGA loses its hold could come anytime.

The greatest victim of the MAGA movement has been historically constructive American conservatism.  Traditional conservatives could retake the Republican Party.  The country needs them to get back into the political system.

This long view points to a day when “Make America Great Again” might be only an historic relic.

Trump-Harris race confused by wild speculation

 

Gordon L. Weil

Last December, I wrote a column headed, “Biden versus Trump? Not so fast.”  A month earlier, I had described a scenario in which Trump could face somebody other than Biden.

I recall these columns not to say, “I told you so,” but to underline again how much we should be skeptical of campaign punditry and polling.

Between now and Election Day, there will be a new and short campaign with former president Trump and Sen. J. D. Vance facing Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate.  That’s all we really know.

Within seconds of Biden withdrawing and endorsing Harris, the pundits hit the media. The range of subjects on which they began speculating was breathtaking, sacrificing thoughtful analysis for the sake of speed.  Notably, comments instantly criticized Harris, going tougher on her than it had on Vance, when Trump named him.

These shoot-from-the-hip opinions will probably prove worthless and will soon be forgotten, to be replaced by new rounds of punditry.  Right now, it is more useful simply to focus on the “known unknowns” about the race.

Why will Harris be the Democratic nominee?

Any challenger would have a tough time overcoming Harris’ advantage as the heir to the Biden-Harris campaign.  The campaign will be short, so the Democrats opted not to spend weeks in a nomination contest ending at an open convention. 

Does Biden’s withdrawal improve the Democratic Party’s chances for the presidency?

With Biden having appeared increasingly weak, voters may no longer worry about the age of both candidates.  Harris is younger and more connected to middle-aged and young voters.   Democrats, especially donors, seem to be enthusiastic about her.  That should improve the party’s prospects, but is far from ensuring a win.

Does the focus on Trump change?

He will now be the old man of the election and that could change perceptions of him and increase attention to his oratorical confusion and false statements.  Harris could exploit his weaknesses as Biden couldn’t and try to change the focus from being a referendum on Trump.  She might push her own agenda, while dismissing his attacks and recalling his legal woes.   

Who will the Democrats pick as their vice-presidential candidate?

They have the opportunity to avoid an elite image. Trump chose mid-American Vance, and the Democrats may be tempted to pick a male candidate from Arizona, Kentucky, Pennsylvania or North Carolina, an election victor in a GOP state who could help Harris in swing states.

Has the influence of women in the election changed?

With Harris heading the ticket, women might be even more engaged than they have been, because of the abortion issue.   The battle for the suburbs could turn on the votes of women determined to show up at the polls.  She may attract some supporters of Nikki Haley, the last GOP opponent to Trump’s nomination.

What about Black voters?

They were reportedly losing some enthusiasm for Biden.  Harris is a graduate of Howard University, a leading Black school.  That contrasts even with former president Obama’s education at Ivy League universities.  Her background could help motivate Black voters, who might swing the election.

Will there be debates and will they matter?

Both say they want to debate, but they must first agree on the media and rules. Trump may not want the CNN rules, preferring a format that allows him the chance to interrupt.  Harris may try to put him on the defensive in her own style, distinct from Biden’s or Hillary Clinton’s.  A debate could be the high point of the campaign and make the election into a real contest.

Is there something happening below the surface?

Voters pick the president. But who gets to the ballot box matters, and Trump’s GOP is ready to make voting access difficult. If he loses, Trump will inevitably challenge the result and is already preparing.  It’s not clear if the Democrats are ready to deal, quickly and effectively, with both attempts.

Could something unexpected happen?

Yes.  The debate, the assassination attempt on Trump, and Biden’s withdrawal have had major unforeseen effects.  Candidates are vulnerable in many ways, especially to their own failings.  A single unexpected event could still change everything.

Will pundits promote a clear view of the election?

Unlikely.  The “experts” change their views as often as they change their clothes.  They engage more in speculation than in careful analysis.  A single day’s news event becomes the foundation of their short-term take on long-term wisdom.

What about opinion polls?

Their problems in finding willing participants and phrasing questions are well known.  In this new political situation, they are likely to be unreliable at the outset.  Polls appearing just before the elections are likely to be the most valid forecasts.

Bottom line on the election?

Be skeptical. Avoid speculation. There’s a lot we don’t yet know.

As Trump advances, could a GOP Congress follow?

Gordon L. Weil

Conventional wisdom is dead.

No pundit’s opinion on the election could foresee the assassination attempt on Donald Trump or the debate debacle of Joe Biden.  Both events changed everything, especially for the Democrats.

Even before these developments, Biden struggled to stay even with Trump in the polls. This is not a good position for an incumbent president, even when running against a former president.  Now, Biden and the Democrats are in even greater risk of losing.

First, whatever the poor historical record on presidential assassinations, the attempt on Trump merits the strongest condemnation, no matter one’s politics.  There’s too much loose talk about violent solutions to political disputes, and it may make a potential assassin feel justified.  They aren’t and never should be.

The attempt impels us to look at the person who is president and their meaning to us.

When the Constitution created the office of President of the United States, the title described the person who was the formal chief of state and head of the federal government.  The much-revered George Washington could be succeeded by lesser leaders, because their role was restricted to heading a limited government.

By the time of the Civil War epoch, that changed.  The President of the United States became the leader of the American people.  Beyond overseeing the faithful execution of the federal laws, the president came to embody the political, moral and economic leadership of the nation.

Whatever his policies and practices, Trump comes across as a personality inspiring loyalty and respect from a large part of the population. The assassination attempt and his defiant clenched fist reply elevated his status even further. Brimming with confidence, he picked Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, sure to be absolutely loyal to him, as his running mate.

Whatever his policies and practices, President Biden comes across as a modest and goals-oriented president.  If you don’t want Trump, he represents himself as the solution. But he does not come as close as Trump to having the charisma and the aura of self-confidence needed by the nation’s leader.

While backing Biden and his policies, many Democrats seek his withdrawal from the race for the presidency.  His age has taken its toll.  While he might be right that he could competently serve, it is doubtful that he could provide the inspirational leadership that the country expects from a president.  Good enough is not enough.

If they have a chance of defeating Trump, it comes down to two possibilities.  Trump might commit an error that discredits him, but the assassination attempt has given him a lot of cushion. Or the Democrats could come up with a younger, compelling candidate who would provide Trump some real competition.

The current situation leaves the Democrats with problems in all three elections this year – for president, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate.

The presidential winner sometimes has “coattails” on which House and Senate candidates ride to office.  This year, however, the Democrats must hope to win enough congressional control to block some of Trump’s moves, should he win.  Their success was already in doubt before the Trump assassination attempt.  If he has gained, his coattails may have grown larger.

A Democratic candidate who makes a strong showing even if they fall short, could help encourage the balance that would come between Trump and a Democratic Congress.  If the Democrats fail, they may be forced to spend years in the political wilderness.

Biden has seemingly been convinced that his path to victory would come from more closely aligning himself with Bernie Sander’s progressive policies. That may have the effect of leaving behind centrist voters who seek more practical policies and fewer partisan red lines.

Though not an exact parallel, look at the reelection of Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who defeated Paul LePage, her one-term predecessor and a Trump loyalist.  She occupied the middle ground, occasionally leaning to the right.  And she benefited from the abortion wars and her recognition that progressive Democrats had nowhere else to go.

The Democrats could readily select a Biden replacement who could follow the same pattern, especially if they were to pick a dynamic, centrist woman.  It would also help if they adopt a simple message and talk less about abstract “democracy,” when what they mean is simply obeying the law.

Trump’s message, “Make America Great Again,” is feared by many as a return to the bad, old days – more polluted, more unjust, more economically unbalanced.

The Democrats could also send a similarly simple message that might resonate.  A suggestion: “Democrats – the American Way.” That slogan could imply that MAGA, Sander’s “socialism” and economic and ethnic injustice are all inconsistent with the nation’s traditional aspirations.

The Democrats need a message about how they will solve practical problems and a strong candidate to deliver it. 

Biden, Supreme Court boost national unease

Gordon L. Weil

Two events – seemingly unrelated – reveal a major historical change taking place right now.

The first is the U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.  The second is the heightened public sensitivity, caused by Joe Biden’s personal crisis, to the risks of our heavy dependence on the single person who holds the presidency.  The two are related.

Despite the belief that the Court decision was about a group of partisan justices showing their barely hidden support for Donald Trump, it was far more significant than that. It was a sharp turn in the history of the country.  What the Court decided applies to all presidents.

The question before the Court was the extent that a president – any president – is immune from criminal responsibility for their acts while holding the office.  It said there were three areas of presidential activity related to immunity.

First, when the president has been given power under the Constitution or acts of Congress and acted in line with that authority, they would be completely immune from charges.

Second, where the president acted at the “outer perimeter” of their legal authority, they are presumed to have immunity, though that presumption can be tested in court.  Charges would likely be brought by the Justice Department, an agency under the ultimate control of the president, who might assert immunity and prevent prosecution.

Third, if the president acts outside of their authority, they would have no immunity from prosecution.  Trump’s counsel has asserted that a president, as the commander in chief, could order the military to kill his political opponent and could not be charged with murder unless they were first impeached for the act.

Who decides on the type of presidential activity in question?  The Supreme Court’s answer is that the decision is made by the federal courts, and would inevitably end up at the Supreme Court.  If you had any question about checks and balances, here’s the proof they are dead.

This decision departed from the foundation of the country as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The basic reason for the Declaration was to reject the unlimited power of the British king, who could do no wrong.  He was subject to no checks. The basic message of the Court decision is that the president can do no wrong, unless the Court decides otherwise.

The new decision does not overrule the power of Congress to impeach a president, but the Constitution makes it clear that impeachment is not punishment and does not decide the question of criminal responsibility.

Now, turn to Trump, who has promised his administration would take legal action against Biden and exercise unprecedented executive authority, and Biden, whose uncertain physical and mental health could lead him to similarly unrestrained use of power.  The possible actions of either of them gives heartburn to a significant portion of the population.

To be sure, the U.S. has little history suggesting that presidents normally carry out criminal acts.  And the issues surrounding the possible excesses of this year’s candidates may be an historical warning to avoid taking big risks in choosing presidential candidates.

If the possibility of presidential felonies is rare, the Court’s decision could have an effect that is more theoretical than real.  But its thinking may represent something more essential than White House criminality.

We may be focusing too much on Trump and too little on the fact that he has wide, popular support.  Many of his backers seem to favor a more authoritarian government, though a limited one.  They appear to want government to be both narrower and deeper.

Support for stronger central rule and less popular democracy is not limited to the U.S.  Though the left-of-center Labour Party won the most seats in the British Parliament, conservatives got more popular votes.  In the French elections, the conservatives equaled the moderates and left. The same is happening in Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary and Slovakia.

The Court’s decision may reflect a landmark, generational change. Post-World War II liberal democracy is losing ground to more authoritarian and nationalistic politics.  International agencies are weakening.  National governments are challenged both as regulators and service providers.

Because the Supreme Court has assumed a right to have the last word, not specifically given it by the Constitution, it may have turned itself into a prime political issue.  Congress was supposed to be the dominant branch of the federal government, but it has let its powers slip away.  A powerful president and an unchecked Supreme Court continue to rise.

The Court is dominated by a well-disciplined philosophy and is not the neutral umpire we were promised by Chief Justice John Roberts.  Just as compromise is missing in Congress, it is missing at the Court. 

These developments place us at an historical turning point, which demands our attention and concern. 

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.