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.

'Christian America' -- secular nation faces religious challenge

Gordon L. Weil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Gordon L. Weil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British election a preview of U.S. contest

 

Gordon L. Weil

Before you pick a movie, you can often watch a trailer offering a brief preview, designed to induce you to see the whole feature.  Wouldn’t it be great if we now had a trailer for the 2024 election story?

It looks like a cliffhanger.  More than a struggle between two candidates or parties, it may be a drama about the changing country itself.

Breaking news:  a preview is now available.  This trailer is the British campaign, which leads to the U.K. election to be held on July 4, believe it or not.  Like all trailers, it leaves a lot out.  You can wait for the American version, but there’s much relevant across the pond.

The British electorate is mainly divided between the Labour Party, which has become moderately liberal, and the aptly named Conservative Party, also called the Tories.

Each voter is not of equal weight, just as in the U.S. presidential vote.  The population from one U.K. constituency to another may vary, just as the American electoral vote gives more influence to rural state voters. In neither country is there a national popularity contest despite national polling.

In the U.S., the Republican Party has been taken over by extreme right MAGA forces.  They label traditional GOP partisans as RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – and they are either driven out or marginalized. Where the RINOs end up on Election Day and what they do might have a major effect on presidential and congressional elections.

In Britain, the hard-right takes the form of the Reform Party, created to promote Brexit, when the U.K. left the European Union.  Nigel Farage, its leader, is closely aligned with Donald Trump.  Reform will take votes away from the Tories.  In fact, combined with them, conservatives could come close in the polls to Labour, the expected winner by a landslide.

Farage comes across as a brash and outspoken leader, like Trump.  Rishi Sunak, the Tory Prime Minister, seems to be a wealthy technocrat out of touch with the people, and Keir Starmer, his presumed Labour successor, suffers from a charisma deficit.  Farage mirrors Trump, while Starmer, though much younger, recalls Biden’s diminished dynamism.

Both MAGA and the Reform Party favor more authoritarian rule but less government regulation and taxes.  Political opinion may be flowing in their direction.  Last week, in elections for the European Parliament, right-wing parties across the Continent made big gains, pushing governments in France and Belgium to call for immediate, new national elections.

The agendas of the right-wing, from the U.K. to the EU to the U.S., reject the legacy of the Second World War.  After that global conflict, international cooperation emerged as the alternative to more wars.  Traditional nationalism was to fade in favor of alliances and peacekeepers.  The U.N., NATO and the EU itself were the tools.

But nationalism is back. The expected value of international organizations has not been realized and they have mostly weakened.  Sunak and Farage even talk of taking the U.K. out of the European Convention on Human Rights, an effective judicial organization that Britain helped create. 

Even the U.S., China and Russia increasingly look inward. The right-wing agenda has become popular around the world. 

Conservatives divide in Europe, with the extreme and nationalist elements rising, as is also true in the U.S.  Many Republicans seem ready to let Ukraine fall to Russia.  Reform might win more votes, if not more seats, than the Tories.  The British election could be a preview of the U.S. vote.

While Donald Trump is really his own political party, he has successfully adopted the hard right’s demands as his platform and path back to the White House.  Having found their spokesman and been legitimized by him, extreme conservatives want to pursue the same kind of policies as the Reform Party.

There must be one reservation about all this, as the U.K. trailer shows – the unexpected event that can change everything.

Sunak abandoned the D-Day anniversary events in France to do a political interview, causing major outrage even from his own party.  He assured his defeat and may have given Reform an election boost that could kill the Tories, just as MAGA is killing the GOP.

Either Biden or Trump could make a major campaign error or age could catch up with them. That could change everything.

This year, the U.K. trailer may be a preview of coming attractions.  How can the U.S. save its system and avoid the chaotic change that may be this year’s scenario?

The national popular vote for president, approved by Maine, would make every citizen’s vote equal.  Either Maine’s ranked-choice voting or California’s primary for candidates of all parties, with the “top two” meeting in the general election, deal with fracturing parties.

But the U.K. preview reveals that politics this year could be a horror show.