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.