Sleepy Joe vs. Fat Don: Our Panel’s Discussion

Sleepy Joe vs. Fat Don: Our Panel’s Discussion

Andy

With the election less than two months away, it’s time for the candidates to knock their game up an extra gear. And one surefire way to get their peeps talking is through the debates, the first of which is expected to close off this month. Now, some folk (such as Nancy Pelosi) don’t think Joe Biden should even dignify such discourse with the Mad King but he seems intent on holding his opponent’s feet to the fire nevertheless. 

Is this a good idea? Here to discuss this with me are two former MA History, UCD classmates of mine- Matthew O’Brien (PhD student, Washington Walrus co-founder) and Declan Clear (our London correspondent). Fellas, what are your initial thoughts- should Joe debate Trump or stay locked in his basement with his toffees and unfinished Sudoku puzzles?

Matt

Wow, an email thread – how 2000s of you, Andy! 

I mean, Biden is going to have to debate, right? He has remained quiet enough over the last 6-months since becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee in what seems like a lifetime ago. 

So much has happened since then, and continues to unfurl, seemingly on a daily basis. I only see that escalating between now and the election. And, if the recent suggestion from Anthony Scaramucci that senior Republican figures are going to abandon Trump at the electoral alter can be believed, it’s only going to get juicier. 

Biden will need to robustly address the social and cultural frustration and disconnect that has become a tenet of public discourse since the public execution of George Floyd, and that has in many ways defined this election cycle. 

While the debates will presumably have an eerily unfamiliar format this year, the battle for who can clock up a greater number of non sequiturs, memes, gaffs, etc., will be an enjoyable subplot. 

Declan

There is 100% a need for a debate despite what Nancy Pelosi might say. I do worry about Biden and the debates as he is making a lot of gaffes and lost his cool more than once on the campaign trail. Plus I’m sure Trump will try and push his buttons . Social media memes and gaffes aside (which I am 100% sure Trump will come out worse from), the tone that Biden takes will be interesting: will he aim to appeal to the Bernie supporting left or will he try tap into the moderate voter?

While Matt has pointed to some of the rumours (“the recent suggestion from Anthony Scaramucci that senior Republican figures are going to abandon Trump at the electoral alter”), I feel one of the strengths of Trump is that the Republican Party are more united ahead of the November election. Some of the arguments around the races within the Democratic Party this past month and the gap between the likes of Bernie supporters/ the left of the Democratic Party vs the moderates creates issues. 
A left leaning vocal democrat movement might push American moderates to go with what they might see as the safe bet in sticking with the current administration. Obviously there is a lot of time between now and November but I think the election is far less clear cut than the apparent majority Biden will win by according to many main stream news channels. 
The horrific murder of George Floyd will undoubtably have a huge impact on this election but which side will it impact more? Will it drive BIPOC people to the polls to vote Trump out or will it come help his law and order narrative?
The real question is will Trump once again silence the political experts? 2020- the so called battle for the heart of America is a stage set to far surpass the drama of 2016. 

Andy

Good points.I fear that a debate could be a no-win scenario for Biden however. Yes, he will look the part in comparison to the tyrannic wreck opposite him but will he draw the media’s attention away? I doubt it. I don’t know if the issues that matter to liberals will become more important as people pay attention. It may simply revert back to charisma, character, and vague notions of authenticity.

If he chooses not to debate, that will of course lend Trump a different kind of victory too. Biden’s too scared to get out.
But seeing as he’s willing to go head to head and assuming he doesn’t fall asleep or try to kiss a female moderator or something, how can Biden tackle Trump? How does one fight someone devoid of reason- whose campaign is epitomized by emotion? What can he learn from Hillary, Jeb, and others who’ve been slain by this man?

Declan

I think Biden needs to appeal to a wider base then the mainstream democrats are currently targeting in the debates. I think he needs to come across strong on condemning violence across the board. The shooting of 2 LA Sheriff department cops last weekend is something that Trump is obviously lording over and blaming the democrats for. But it will be interesting to see how the democrats react to this. 

While the murder of George Floyd and countless other Black Americans across the USA is not compareable to the incident in anyway or the shooting in Dallas in 2016 of a number of cops, a lack of compassion from Democrats might play into Trump supporting law and order. Then again Biden needs to be careful not to upset the movement that has emerged from BLM. 
While Biden should in no way start posing with a Blue Lives Matter flag he needs to at least show that he does support the police and the military. Otherwise Trump could say Biden only cares about appeasing liberals and BIPOC people!! further mobilising his white voter base. 
What is interesting is despite the number of developing stories about Trump, the virus, etc, the one issue which has now become embedded in every part of American life is the debate over BLM. The true question is who will it help! Will it be Biden unifying the nation or Trump pushing the gap between Black and White even further. 
Hard to believe that in 2020 race relations are at its worst since the Rodney King Riots. 

Matt

Lets also not forget that BLM has existed as an organisation since 2013, and that movement has been building to its crescendo, which appears to be 2020. A lot of scholar activists, and highly respected scholars like Robin Kelley have posited that there is something different this time, something more real about the activism taking place. When you break the scale of these demonstrations down, it’s pretty phenomenal; not to mention this is all happening to the backdrop of a pandemic that will usher in monumental social, cultural, economic, and political behaviours. The pandemic has served to magnify the iniquities of US society, and usher in critical dialogues on concerning the politics of care. As Declan said, the debate over BLM is ubiquitous, and is an issue which will largely define this election. 

Biden’s response has been largely milquetoast, and part of me cannot help but think that he feels that in selecting Harris as his running mate, this will placate those fighting for social justice. Biden was always going to score better with Black communities, and while the Democrats can’t rest on their laurels as they did 4-years ago, I think it’s a fairly safe assumption that Biden will win the Black vote. I’ve no doubt that Harris will speak eloquently on the issue of race, and the contemporary discourse on law and order. As Andy teased out, the question of emotion versus logic will be a critical factor throughout. I don’t believe we fully clasped that in the last election cycle, but we sure see it now; it’s inescapable. 
On the theme of that somewhat despondent time 4-years ago (lets not forget Brexit, too), Andy has prompted the comparison between Biden and Clinton. Most of the mainstream media outlets approach this in a very similar way: Biden will outperform Clinton with white male voters; Biden will outperform Clinton with older voters; Bidden will outperform Clinton among working-class voters; Biden will outperform Clinton with women; Biden will outperform Clinton with younger voters. The latter is broadly considered to be true because it seems the Bernie Bros have formed a consensus to “Settle for Biden” – which has created a rather hilarious Instagram account. As all three of us have discussed in the past, the presence of celebrity voices of support in politics can be grating – Clinton was unabashed in rolling out Jay-Z and Beyonce, among a litany of others. This strategy is phoney and saccharine. Lets hope Biden doesn’t do the same. 
As far as Trump’s campaign goes he really seems to just have one thing going for him: Law and Order. A few weeks ago there was an Atlantic article (not the one about Trump calling the glorious dead losers) that drew historical comparisons to Nixon’s Law and Order campaign in 1968. The funny thing is that Nixon inherited this rhetoric largely from the actions of the Johnson administration’s War on Crime, which evolved into the War on Drugs under Nixon. This was marshalled at a precarious stage of the nation’s history and had a number of markers that helped create the narrative, which mainly pivoted on police and state sanctioned violence to quench violence in the streets. While it worked with Nixon’s “silent majority,” I am not so sure the pallet is there among the wider US public – perhaps I’m giving them too much credit, who knows? 

Andy

The “lame stream” media as actually lame people call it has, to a certain extent, exacerbated this division between chaos and order. Interestingly, each side sees the other as the chaotic one.

Black Lives Matter and the issues concerning race relations have always been pertinent in the US. In recent years, the spotlight has intensified, partially due to increased coverage with camera phones and partially due to a more zealous call for accountability on the parts of liberals. I think the election of Trump really stoked a flame in the culture wars. People felt so cheated and perhaps even ashamed of their political inactivity before that they fervently moved to take up arms (in a socio political way).
We see this in the BLM movement and even in the #metoo movement. Trump represents more than just one man’s vision for America. (If he even has one.) He represents a constituency of emotional appeal for the ways of old and an end to the perceived climate of political correctness being ushered in by the “radical left”. 
I think we’ve touched on the pulse of what matters this election season but let’s consider a couple more questions to conclude this session.
1) Does defeating Trump defeat Trumpism (i.e. the cultural values of his support)?
2) Just as an afterthought- Even if Biden wins, will Trump sail away calmly into the night?

Declan

1, No a. Trump defeat will not change the cultural values of his support; they have always been there. Trump just put them in the public eye. 

2.  If Trump is defeated, he will leave. I know a lot of people are like will Trump accept the result etc. I reckon if Trump loses he will retire to his tower with his bucket of KFC and 24 piece Chicken Nuggets and get about planning a golf tour. Mind you the tweets will be fun.

I would be interested to see how the Democrats react if Trump gets reelected- will they allow the party to become more radically left or will a moderate emerge from the doldrums and tone down the narrative which a very small vocal minority of the party have pushed to the front of the agenda.

Andy

I can’t see it being a smooth transition, no matter what. Perhaps, years down the line, Barron will even try to avenge his father. What say you Matthew, on the first two questions and what Declan brings up as regards Democrats’ reaction should Trump succeed?

Matt

In response to the first question, I agree with Declan. Trump’s politics unlocked Pandora’s box as it were… his actions, and the fact that they come from the office of the President help to legitimise this further. The thing about ‘isms’ is that they’re totally malleable and relatively indestructible… they’re almost zombified. As Declan said, those values have always been there just below the surface… but in a weird way, I think for all of the hate Trump has whipped up, it has focused people a little more, given more people a reason to pause, and think,”wait… what? Is this really happening?” We need to continue to be appalled by what Trump says and does, because the more comfortable we get with his Janus-faced behaviour, even making light of it, the more he will get away with in the future. 

As for the second question, I also think Trump will leave office if defeated at the polls. However, I think his post-presidency will be torrid. The DOJ have been biding their time, massing their evidence. We know that they cannot investigate a sitting commander in chief, but when it comes to lame ducks, it’s open season!   

Andy

And there you have it! Tuesday, November 3rd is not far away so for any Americans who may be reading this, be sure to register and vote- early, if possible. 

The first of three debates between Joe Biden and Donald Trump will take place September 29 with one scheduled also between Kamala Harris and Mike Pence. The stakes are high and the ratings will surely be HUGE!
Join us next week as we rank the best and worst outfits of Kim K in 2020 so far and discuss what Kendall had hidden away in that clutch!

Will Corona Response Be Trump’s End?

Throughout history, it’s often been the case that great crises produce great leaders, should they meet the challenge of their time. Lincoln prevailed in his efforts to pass the 13th Amendment during the bloodiest war in American History. Franklin D. Roosevelt saw America through both the Great Depression and World War II. Even John F. Kennedy, to a less significant extent, bolstered his legacy by navigating the Cuban Missile Crisis (although it must be said, this was a crisis he had a hand in creating). In trying times, petty squabbles are usually put aside, and people do something quite rare; they support their leaders.

That support can be inspiring albeit brief. After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush’s approval ratings rose to 90%. His father’s also peaked during the Gulf War, a decade before. In both cases, those numbers quickly dwindled. I would like to suspect the same will happen for Donald J. Trump, whose approval ratings have somehow risen, despite a disastrous response to Covid-19.

I would like to think that because…

The effects of his inaction and bluster are palpable. As I write (Easter Sunday), the death toll in the US resulting from Covid-19 has reached 20,000. Unfortunately, that will continue to rise and many more will continue to be incapacitated to some extent or another. Hospitals are overwhelmed and there are not enough face masks to go around. Trump’s position has shifted considerably from a month ago when he glibly downplayed the extent of the crisis; something a lot of people did, but not those with top-level intel. I’m glad he is now taking it seriously and yes, perhaps it could’ve gotten a lot worse but really, with a competent president, it could’ve been a lot better.

Before this crisis, Trump had already made a mockery of the Oval Office and committed himself to the status of being the worst US President in history. However, a lot of his legacy was also built on the fragmentation of politics and polarisation of liberals and conservatives. The latter, fervent in their beliefs, would not give an inch even if it meant ignoring treason on their leader’s part. That’s pretty despicable and we can get into it another day but what’s fundamentally different about this crisis, is that politics simply shouldn’t enter the equation. Trump’s response is not political dogma; it’s sheer incompetence. Economically and emotionally, neither liberals or conservatives will be spared. The figures speak for themselves.

Alas though, I suspect he might survive this…

His election in 2016 was a fathomless affair so who’s to say this will finally be the straw that breaks the camel’s back? He’s defied reason and become exception at every other turn. Maybe, ideological differences will continue to outweigh any other perceptions. Maybe, this will still not give credence to the importance of a comprehensive health care system. Plus…

Well, you might have heard that Bernie Sanders dropped out of the Democratic race last week. This was a surprising turn for many although even if the primaries weren’t delayed, he was unlikely to succeed (being 300 delegates behind). Effectively, this has rendered “Sleepy Joe” the Democratic nominee. Again, I would like to think he would be a shoe-in to defeat Trump but his interviews thus far have been… they’ve been disastrous. Let’s not beat around the bush. He’s clearly out of his wits; uncertain of what he’s quoting, what he’s saying, and what exactly is going on. Is this a harsh assessment? Yes. But a necessary one. Joe. Needs. To. Get. His. Shit. Together. Hillary Clinton lost to Trump after all. Joe Biden, like her, is perceived by many as an establishment centrist but he’s a) “another old white dude” and b) less smart.

Now, Bernie’s supporters should do what they can to help him get elected. Although he has an iffy track record in several departments and is a less than ideal substitute for a progressive, he is a lot better than Trump. He will be reasonable, he may even work with some of those progressives, and yes, restoring a sense of normality would be a good thing. More importantly though, there’s just too much at stake to take a risk at another four years. Joe and his cohorts are right when they say the character of America would be fundamentally changed by a second term.

I’m not a big fan of theoretic propositions or what ifs when it comes to history. That way lies some Back to the Future II madness. But what if we actually tried to learn something from this crisis. It’s a devastating and frankly depressing time and one which should not be trivialised. To that extent, I’d like to specify that I’m not referring to some vague spiritual reawakening on mankind’s part or for the celebrities involved in that “Imagine” cover to reconvene and do better. I mean, what if we learn to appreciate and prioritise what matters on a practical level: the health care system. For too long, America’s rolled the dice on this one and sorry to say, it’s coming back to bite them on the ass. Politicians have sold out their peoples’ future and now innocent, less well-off people are suffering in the masses.

This crisis couldn’t have been avoided completely but it could’ve done with a steady pair of hands and a calm, reassuring voice. Like Obama’s. Trump is no leader. He’s not a unifier. He’s not smart. He’s not willing to learn. His ego means more to him than the lives of his people. That’s a hard truth for people to accept but we’re running out of time for bullshit. Again, politics shouldn’t matter. How could they in this situation? There’s no use left in blaming all those who voted for him in 2016 but it’s time to start thinking about what it’d be like to have, if not a genius in the Oval Office, a decent individual?

Super Super Tuesday

Super Super Tuesday

Or “The Washington Walrus’ Guide & Insight to Super Tuesday”.

What makes Super Tuesday so super? And why have we, The Washington Walrus, elected to add another “super” into the mix? Yes, this was no fortuitous matter. For you see, while the media and pundits have been endlessly speculating on the ramifications of the debates and results from recent primaries/caucuses, the fact of the matter is that everything could go topsy turvy this Tuesday coming. Here’s a few questions we’ve submitted and answered ourselves to shed some light.

What is Super Tuesday?

It’s like the Wrestlemania of the primary season for Republicans and Democrats. Since there’s nothing going on with the former party, the latter will be granted the full glare of the spotlight when 14 states (and the American Samoa caucuses) go up for grabs.

What are these states?

There’s Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.

How many delegates are up for grabs?

A thousand, three hundred and thirty four! To put this in context, 100 have been granted so far (with 54 more shortly as South Carolina is decided) out of a total 3,979. So while it’s not a complete deal breaker, it’s a very strong indicator of where the stars align.

What state has the most?

California with 415.

So should the candidates not put more effort into the likes of California than say, Maine?

Now, now. Maine’s 24 delegates may seem meager in comparison but the little things matter and come the general election, you’ll want to make sure you’ve covered more than just the east and west coast. Hillary learned this the hard way. After all, the electoral college is still a thing.

What is the electoral college?

Ughh… we’ll get to that at another time.

So why is so much emphasis placed on Iowa?

As aforementioned, the media revel in a good post-results analysis and while this may not account for what happens Super Tuesday, it’s important to see who has momentum. Iowa, as the first state, is something of a springboard. When Pete Buttigieg prematurely announced his victory (quite unfairly and somewhat inaccurately), he got the spotlight to shine just a little brighter on him. Sleepy Joe, on the otherhand, with his lack of success, quickly got painted as a candidate in decline.

Who’s leading right now?

Without South Carolina’s results accounted for, Bernie Sanders is leading at the moment with 45 delegates; Mayor Pete’s in 2nd place with 25; Sleepy Joe with 15, Elizabeth Warren with 8, and Amy Klobuchar with 7.

Who’s going to win Super Tuesday?

With a diverse range of states, nobody exactly wins, although a victor will be painted as such. It’s a little hard to call. Bernie Sanders has recently been topping polls nationwide so my money would be on him. This could be a turning point for the trailing Joe Biden however, who’s asserted he has a better chance of winning over Trump supporters and more moderate democrats. Mayor Pete too, is angling this territory whilst Elizabeth Warren’s settled into the gap between Bernie and them. In the end though, it’ll probably be a mix with Pete and Biden (and possibly Warren) hanging on through to the end of March.

What about Bloomberg?

His debate performances thus far have been so terrible that his camp could even do with getting help from Jeb! 2016 (don’t forget the exclamation mark). He has a tonne of money though, so you can’t exactly rule him out.

When exactly will we know who the Democratic nominee is?

The primary season ends in early June, although we should have a good idea by the end of April. Then, of course, there’s the shadowy league of super-delegates to deal with.

What are super-delegates?

Nobody quite knows. It is said they were born from an occult-like, yet beige, experiment in the woods when leading Democratic establishment figures realized they could lose the run of things after several disappointing election results. Actually, we wrote an article back in 2016 about them if you’re interested but what you need to know is that at 775 members (this year), they make up 1/5 of the total delegates and vote after the primary season is over. They’re criticized largely because they can potentially muck up things and could undermine the nomination of, oh let’s say, Bernie Sanders, should he prove problematic to the party’s core members.

When is Super Tuesday?

This Tuesday. We already mentioned this.

Ah.

Indeed. Any other questions?

Yes, why is this site called the Washington Walrus? 

Washington- cause we deal primarily with American politics. Walrus- to suggest a degree of majesty.

I don’t know if they’re all that majestic-

We said a degree of- that concludes this article!

 

 

 

Can Bernie Do It?

Can Bernie Do It?

We are a week out from the Iowa caucus now and my hopeful 2015 self should be starting to re-emerge in full blossom. Bernie Sanders is leading. Not only there. But in New Hampshire. Momentum is growing. The attacks are escalating on him, yes, but they don’t seem to be having the desired effect. And yet, I’m filled with trepidation when anyone speaks the warm and effervescent words “President Sanders”. I should stop them. I raise a finger as if to offer counsel but I just cant. Hardship must be learned in the battle fields.

I speak metaphorically, of course, with a dash of drama thrown in. After all, the 2016 election wasn’t that long ago. I still remember it well. I remember thinking: Holy cheese and crackers, he could really do it. If social media’s anything to go by, nobody’s voting for Hillary. Like that Kevin Spacey character from House of Cards, she can remain a part of the old Washington tapestry. Kevin Spacey sure does seem like a nice guy in interviews though…

What a fool I was. Not only did it turn out that my liberally-infested social media actually accounted for f- all in the grand scheme of things but apparently Kevin Spacey was also somewhat demanding on film sets. Ah, to have that cocky gleam brought back to my eyes; that penchant for hope that made 2008 a magical year for so many. But alas, it is not 2008. It’s not 2016. It’s 2020. We’ve seen the election of Donald Trump. We’ve seen Brexit come to pass. We’ve seen Bolsanaro turn a blind eye to the Amazon fires in Brazil. We’ve seen similar fires ravage the landscape of Australia and be ignored by political leadership. We’ve seen both Game of Thrones and Star Wars butchered to death. We should probably just give up and hope Sleepy Joe doesn’t make a faux pas in the debate against Donald Trump.

It would be easier that way but even though I’m skeptical of what I read on social media these days, I am hopeful to a reasonable degree. Why? Because somethings have changed for the better since 2016. Hillary may have got the nomination back then but the momentum of the party came from the rallies of Bernie Sanders. Three years later, we were given a wide and much more liberal-leaning Democratic field than we could have imagined, debating the best ways to tackle the climate change crisis without a major candidate’s proposal falling below the Greenpeace B grade. The year before, the Democrats also took the House back with cultural change highlighted in the election of representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.

Despite becoming a household name, Sanders has had, in some respects, a tougher climb this time around however. Whilst a breath of fresh air in 2015/16, by the time candidates were declaring early last year, he was one of several leftist options. Warren was leading him for the most part. Even, Kamala Harris managed a strong ascent for awhile. Joe Biden, of course, became the presumptive nominee even before he had announced. Plus, the rise of woke culture meant he had to deal with the impossible contention of being “another old white man”; a deal breaker for some people we can’t find a politically correct word for. He also had to account for some volunteers of his sexually harrassing others in 2016, as if he personally shepharded every single person involved in his campaign. The criticism was feeble and his moral consistency never wavered; that’s why he managed to succeed.

In recent weeks, the attacks have gotten more desperate. First, Elizabeth Warren affirmed that in a private meeting in December 2018, Sanders had told her he didn’t believe a woman could be president. She quickly tried to downplay the importance of this, which seemed unfair considering anyone alive would know how big a splash this would make. Sanders outright dismissed the validity of this statement anyways, leaving speculation to hang in the air although to many, Warren’s allegations came across as calculated given her falling poll numbers. Then Hillary Clinton, most calculated of all politicians, said that “nobody likes” Sanders, criticizing the culture around “Bernie Bros” and calling him a “career politician”. This may have boosted his numbers, if anything because a) people saw this as a child-like insult, b) people countered that he had done in excess of 30 rallies for her in 2016 (far more than she did for Obama in 2008), and c) not that many people like her (even Trump probably thought to enter the backlash for a minute before returning to his Mc Cheese Burger). And then, Bernie had the audacity to share a video of popular podcaster Joe Rogan saying he’d “probably” vote for Sanders, which many pointed out, was wrong because Joe Rogan has said made some controversial comments about trans people in the past. Bernie’s team responded by saying that just because he valued the endorsement does not mean he agrees with everything Joe Rogan says. I mean, it was hardly an endorsement from the KKK.

So, the attacks don’t seem to be landing. The latest polls show Bernie leading Buttigieg and Biden in Iowa. There is a good chance he could win the primaries and go onto becoming the Democratic nominee. His battle with Trump will be a whole other challenge thereafter. I don’t believe there are any proper controversies that are worth taking this man down. Unfortunately, I’m not part of the crowd with the loudest voices. Taking into account those cases above, anything seems to be on the cards for a stir. Bernie could lose half of his online California following by dismissing a vegan sandwich as “gross”. Maybe he’ll stand on a grasshopper? Who knows? For now, most people seem to be wising up to the vapid nature of woke criticism but just remember any previous election in US history; things get dirty and viscous. Is it worth discarding an A candidate if we discover a little tip-ex over the minus part that follows? Is it worth jeopardizing the future of the party over impossible standards and loose lips that okay, sometimes say the wrong words (or the right words the wrong way)?

The idea of “President Sanders” is not an impossibility. It is not going to be a walk in the park either. Just as the Republicans have united to win elections when unity was called for, so should the Democrats follow suit. And I mean this too for if Warren or Biden or Buttigieg (somehow) gets the nomination. The hope that defined Obama’s rise twelve years ago was a noble but surface concept; the jaded US of today needs something a little more tangible.

The Democrats and Climate Change

The Democrats and Climate Change

The concern surrounding the climate change crisis seems to finally be reaching its target audience, the world. This is in large part thanks to Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and her powerful campaigns as well as a growing consensus on the part of liberals that bold action is needed ASAP. So which Democratic candidate has the most to offer future generations in this debate and which plan should we be standing by? It may be a matter of simply adding the numbers against scientific projections but unfortunately in the world of Washington, political capital is just as important.

Bernie Sanders, the wild haired independent from Vermont, has naturally put up the largest number in his addresses to tackling this issue. His plan would involve spending $16 trillion over the course of 15 years, aiming for zero emissions from transport and power generation by 2030, while supporting the Green New Deal proposed earlier this year. Elizabeth Warren is rated highly by GreenPeace too; she too desires 100% clean energy and has tied her approach into a more general economic restructuring. Some candidates like Andrew Yang and Beto O’ Rourke have also discerned where funds should be appropriated for coastal inhabitants being relocated and measures being implemented like sea walls, acknowledging that the crisis is already at hand. Indeed, most of them agree that clean energy, disaster relief funds, and taxation will be necessary to some degree or another; where they differ is in funds (Bernie’s plan costing the most, Joe Biden’s $1.7 trillion among the least) and attainable goals by time (Bernie’s being the most ambitious with the likes of Julian Castro’s or O’ Rourke’s 2045/2050 in contrast.

They’re all more or less admirable approaches and where specifics arise, like Biden’s plan for half a million renewable power stations, there is some room for hope. But not too much. Yes, there has been a 17% growth since 2013 in Americans seeing climate change as a major threat and yes, there is a rise in renewable energy in parts (e.g. in wind turbines in Texas). Unfortunately, there’s also been an increase in energy consumption, with 2018 seeing a significant spike as a result of post-recession spending (with the last peak year being 2007). As of last year, petroleum and natural gas still dominate this consumption, with renewable sources adding up to a mere 11% (Energy Information Administration). Plus, although 3/4 Americans now believe in climate change (a still embarrassing figure), only 56% Republicans surveyed in August (by AP VoteCast) agreed, with even less (41%) believing human activity was a factor in this.

The odds are not great, especially with the way the Senate is tilted currently and time is running out for the nation that produces 15% of the world’s emissions. To effectively tackle the crisis, a World War 2 level of mobilization will be needed. Perhaps in an economic model of some kind then, we can place our best faith. After all, wind and solar and hydro-electric energy make sense, whether you believe the science or not. Coal is not making a comeback, despite what Trump may have suggested and fracking is coming under an increasing amount of scrutiny. Over half the candidates are for a ban in that area (Castro and Klobuchar support limiting these resources).

The next president, God willing, will face America’s and the world’s greatest challenge. For all the fear-mongering rhetoric the right and idiots would associate with such a statement and what Greta Thunberg has said, the reality is alarming. So should the candidates propose these measures with an air of restraint, lest they alienate voters, or put it out on the line, with the severity it deserves? I hope it will be the latter. After all, the Democrats finally started to impeach Trump, they won the House handily in 2018, and they’ve brought ideas like Sanders and Warren’s into the mainstream (a far cry from five years ago). Hillary tried to walk the line, the same way so many Democrats have in recent decades, positing a centrist alternative to issues the Republicans had the mic on. This time, the Democrats need to be strong and unapologetic because for all the urgency of their other priorities, e.g. health care, climate change is the only one with a non-negotiable time frame.

Can Democrats Win On Gun Control?

“Thoughts and prayers” has become synonymous with inaction and insensitivity in America today. With the advent of yet another cycle of half-clout wills and hollow debate in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton shootings, people skipped ahead to the numb realization that no, nothing would be done and what was worse, their president couldn’t even pretend to consider this issue seriously, much less get the names of the places right.

At least one president had some constructive advice to lend however. Bill Clinton called for the reinstatement of the 1994 “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act”, which lasted for a decade before its failure to be renewed. This bill has been reassessed a great deal lately, since Sandy Hook in 2012, as at least a partial means to assailing the sales and production of assault weapons which do the bulk of damage in these massacres. Citing a 2015 study by Everytown for Gun Safety, Clinton pointed out that 155% more people were shot and 47% more killed in shootings that involved assault weapons. The Dayton killer, himself, fired 41 bullets in 30 seconds. It would seem common sense to most that time is of essence in these attacks and that police response measured against the type of weapons being used calls for some restrictions.

bill-clinton-assault-weapons-column-social.jpg
Bill Clinton signing the act which came into effect before the midterms of 1994 and was said to have cost some supporting Democrats their seats.

Even that matter can’t be closed so easily however because the 1994 bill wasn’t perfect enough: only 18 types of assault weapons were listed under it; Columbine occurred in this era; there were loopholes; people couldn’t quite figure out what defined an “assault” weapon, etc. So was it prone to a system bent on ignoring it; a nation not willing to give up its guns under the banner of that richly invested 2nd amendment? Or was it possibly too mild to inspire anything effective to begin with?

The solution’s not easy and Democrats are fighting for the soul of their country in many avenues. If they felt too meek in 2004, another election year in which the act expired (even though 2/3 Americans supported it), do they really have the guts to stand up to the gun lobbyists in 2020 when so much else is at stake? Like it or not, politics will undoubtedly be at play on this issue.

The funny thing is (in the least funny way imaginable) that the people are on the side of the Democrats. In A Quinnipiac poll in 2018, it was found that 67% of Americans (including 53% of gun owners) favored at least some partial ban of assault weaponry sales. Time and time again, Gallup has also shown a majority backing stricter laws too. There are naturally fluctuations to the specified questions but what’s more interesting and crucial and ultimately sad is that the peaks of support follow crises like Parkland (67% for stricter laws- Gallup) before dropping a few months later (to 61%). People forget too quickly. Why? It’s difficult to determine but political lobbying undoubtedly plays a key role.

The NRA, founded in 1871, has a history of questionable spending. In 2008, they spent $10 million against Obama alone. In 2016, they spent over $400 million on various political activities. They hold a lot of sway and they pick their targets well. In 2012, for example, 88% of Republicans and 11% of Democrats in Congress were found to have received an NRA PAC contribution at some point in their career. Taking that into account, it’s hard to imagine the Republican controlled Senate wanting to do anything. They’re bought out.

Of course, some Democrats have become emboldened in an increasingly liberal party. Joe Biden has proposed a national buy-back program, which echoes Australia’s 1996 plan (although they had 600,000 guns bought up, whereas in America, there’s over 200 million on the market). Cory Booker has a plan for federal licensing. Elizabeth Warren has a more comprehensive plan, which would aim through executive action and legislation, to reduce gun deaths by 80%. This seems optimistic but with incentives like raising taxes from 10% to 30% on guns and 11% to 50% on ammunition and a $100m research into gun violence, she has at least conveyed some specificity.

elizwarren
Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren

With the increased polarity of the Democratic party itself between the new “woke” liberals and moderate dinosaurs like Joe Biden, I think it should be remembered that compromise isn’t always a dirty word. Yes, it would be a moral failing of the umpteenth degree to not get as progressive a ban passed as possible but what’s more important is that something needs to be passed to get the ball rolling. The 1994 Act could be a great stepping stone; one which could be built on by eliminating the old loopholes, expanding on the number of weapons banned, and incorporating some level of taxes, even if not as much as Warren’s.

The issue of gun violence will not be resolved so simply of course. It’s embedded into the fabric of America across many lines, including the normalization of White Supremacy and racial hatred under the Trump administration. A modest proposal of sorts could lessen the impact of these attacks, as Bill Clinton noted, even if it doesn’t decrease the number of them. Naturally too, you might consider the obvious solution of reaping the rewards of a possible Democratic majority in 2020 by going as far as possible with gun control but then there would also be the possibility of a major pushback if the Republicans gained back control. Compromise, of a kind, is best built on both party’s shoulders. It’s a more stable, if less desirable, foundation.

The Awkward Joe Biden

The Awkward Joe Biden

There are nearly 20 declared Democratic candidates for next year’s election and yet one key figure remains aloof and undecided. Yes, hanging out there, somewhere in the horizon with a winning smile but a shadow cast in a question mark is none other than Joe Biden. You know him best as Obama’s other half but he’s also served in the past as a Senator for 36 years with a host of positions including Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He’s got the best experience of any of these Democratic hopefuls, charisma, and something most politicians lack; a genuine personality. So why not declare? Well, let’s get straight to the first and most pertinent stumbling block and fair warning, it’s a touchy subject…. okay, sorry.

Joe Biden’s been caught in a whirlwind of controversy this last week over a number of women claiming his “personal touch” to be a little invasive and inappropriate. This is by no means an explosive or recent discovery. In the past, many commentators and comedians like Jon Stewart have squirmed at Biden’s holding of shoulders, heads, and hugs for prolonged periods. It’s never been described as sexual harassment as such but rather just uncomfortable and strange. In the context of the #metoo era, perceptions have of course shifted however and Biden is now being asked to account for these instances.

joe biden 2

In a statement last Wednesday, he explained that any handshakes or hugs were always given as marks of “affection, support, and comfort”. He said he was not sorry for his “intentions” but acknowledged that “social norms are changing” while promising to be “more mindful” in the future. On Friday however, at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Conference, after hugging the IBEW president, he joked that “he had permission” and then later made the same joke when others joined him on stage. (A bit sloppy, yes.) Well naturally, some people took this in jest and others with more affront, such as Tarana Burke (founder of #metoo movement) who said the jokes were “disrespectful and inexcusable” and that it was not enough for him to be “mindful,” he needed to make an effort to apologize properly.

Is this an overreaction? Part of me wants to say yes and defend Biden outright. After all, sensationalism in today’s media is driven by headlines rather than analysis. Most people who catch a whiff of these headlines, I hope, would delve deeper and read a bit into it. But words like “allegations,” “accusations”, and so forth have such a weight to them now that I fear Biden will be dragged into the company of far worse offenders. He certainly did himself no favors with his jokes but he did, at least, respond and yes, I do think “intentions” matter. I don’t think most people honestly consider this man to be a true creep like say, the President of the United States.

Biden’s of a different generation and age; a fact some commentators don’t think matters given the gravitas of this cultural change we’re experiencing but context is always crucial. Our backgrounds shape us, for better or worse. Biden, has suffered the loss of a wife, a daughter, and son in his tragic past and often made a connection with people in hard times through words or hugs. Most politicians do this, albeit to lesser extents. He’s 76 as well so his customs and mannerisms may be off tilt with younger generations.

That’s all just pause for thought, more than anything though. Before we #cancel Biden, we need to examine what value is to be attained in judging people’s morals and conduct retrospectively. If it’s for the cause of attaining a better 2020 candidate for the Democrats, then maybe there is something there. After all, the party has become more liberal and with so many alternatives on board, why should we accept the obvious choice like so many did with Hillary in 2016? There’s a few reasons:

  1. Some of these candidates suck, are disingenuous, and do nothing but pander to the liberal waves like Kirsten Gillibrand
  2. The aforementioned level of experience
  3. He has the highest polling
  4. He can appeal to moderates who might otherwise side with Trump
  5. He’s charismatic and likable; marketable too
  6. Association with Obama

There’s definitely reasonable debate on whether or not he should run. I would agree with Ross Douhat (New York Times) that, if he does, he should run on his record rather than against it. Any sharp left-wing moves will be preyed upon by the media, his fellow candidates, and online trolls and then mocked by Trump. There is a section of Trump’s base to be swayed too who actually do care about labor unions, health care, and other important issues, which Biden can speak to with precision as others might vaguely address. Plus, if nothing else, it’ll at least give Democratic voters some alternative to the growing liberalism represented by candidates like Booker, Sanders, Warren, and O’Rourke. Then, they can’t whine come November 2020.

Biden has always been “awkward”, prone to gaffes, and toneless remarks (e.g. wishing he “could” have done something about the Anita Hill sexual harassment trial in the early 90s, despite then being chair of the Judiciary Committee.) His record is not squeaky clean. He’s even run twice before and failed. In the Democratic Party’s quest for greater wokeness however, it can’t be worthwhile to decry and discard every ally who’s ever done wrong. When the bar is set this high, the likelihood for success becomes increasingly narrow and the bigger picture gets lost. The Republicans understand this much, if anything. I also don’t want to see Trump re-elected because his opponents couldn’t find their Messiah.