Trumped: America in a Time of Corona Episode IV

A perspective of life in the United States during an epidemic, based upon conversations with Michael L. Roberts, and in conjunction with The American Chronicle podcast series.

So here I am. Finally, here on the Eastern Seaboard, in the city of my dreams; Boston, Massachusetts. The sun is shining, the sky is blue, but thanks to coronavirus, there’s not a damn thing to do. Except, perhaps, chronicle these rather strange times…

Episode IV

The lock-down continues unabated here in the United States. Easter weekend came and went and still the United States appears no closer to getting out of this situation. This was the weekend that Donald Trump originally speculated would see the country reopened, but that hasn’t happened. There seems to be very little sign as to when, or if, the various statewide curfews are going to be lifted, and the gulf between the federal and state responses is doing very little to improve that situation. The Covid crisis is raising questions beyond issues of health that now extend into the political realm, not merely regarding the handling of the pandemic, but as to whether the disease could contribute to an effort to undermine democracy here in America.

The United States is still in the process of selecting a Democratic nominee to challenge Donald Trump in the November election, with Wisconsin being the latest state to hold a primary, albeit in a very convoluted fashion. The Democrat governor of Wisconsin tried to prevent the primary because of fears for public safety, that was challenged by the Republican controlled state legislature. Initially, it looked as though the governor was going to prevail, until the decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which sided with the Republican majority, ensuring that the poll went ahead. We are still in a state of flux with regards to the result, since there was a time period allowed for postal voting and for absentee ballots to come in. It is clear, however, that people are looking at the debacle in Wisconsin and the differing approach adopted by the Democratic and Republican Parties, fearing it could be a harbinger for the general election in November.

Conspiracy theorists are already suggesting that Donald Trump might use this as an excuse to cancel the election, or to call into doubt question the results in November. He is already casting doubt on the concept of postal votes, despite the fact that he already has one in place for his residency in Florida. Four years ago, he was asked if he would accept the results of the presidential election if he lost, and he said, ‘wait and see,’ revealing his willingness to play fast and loose with accepted norms of American democracy 

What would transpire if Donald Trump sought to cancel the presidential election in November? Students of American politics who want to get a grasp of what’s going on here need to start with the Constitution. The timing of the election is addressed in the 20th amendment to the Constitution, which states that;  If the president shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect you have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until the President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as Present, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

This appears to mean that it would be up to Congress to decide who would be president, on the basis that neither Mike Pence nor Donald Trump would have become president. If the election is not held, their terms in office will expire at noon on January 20th.  As of today, the Democrats control the House of Representatives, and the Senate is controlled by the Republicans. We move into uncharted territory when you consider that the new Congress will take its seats on the third day of January. We could end up in a bizarre situation whereby if the presidential election is suspended, but there are still elections to the House and the Senate, Democrats could control both the House and Senate. Those Democratic majorities would take their seat on the third day of January next year, and in the absence of a presidential election, once Donald Trump’s term expires at noon on January 20th, they could very well decide who the new president will be.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden spoke this week with regards to the coronavirus and the only news appears to be a total lack of news coming out of that call. It was not a face to face meeting which you may expect at this time in an electoral process, but nobody expected that. President Trump is not going to turn around and suggest that his thinking on this subject has been changed due to any input from Joe Biden. That would not be politically viable. Neither should anybody necessarily expect any original thinking from Joe Biden, whose career to date suggests that such a development really would be quite a miraculous occurrence. What you ae seeing, therefore, is simply the continuation of politics as normal. It is surprising that the phone call took place at all,  but clearly it was an opportunity for the two men to demonstrate some degree of national unity in this time of national crisis, even if the unity is going to be relatively short lived in what is indeed a very strange election cycle. 

Perhaps the most important news to have occurred this week is the decision by Bernie Sanders to finally suspend his campaign for the presidency. This, however, is nothing more than acceptance of political reality. Bernie’s campaign this year really failed to take off in a manner which he and his supporters had anticipated after the results from the Democratic primaries four years ago. In 2016 he came second in a two-horse race with Hillary Clinton. He and his supporters felt that he was the anointed one this year, but history and the voters have decided otherwise. Instead, Joe Biden has emerged as the unity candidate for the Democratic Party, and it’s interesting to see what has happened within the party this year. 

Four years ago, when everyone was terrified that Donald Trump might emerge as the Republican Party candidate, everyone assumed it simply couldn’t happen. Nobody dropped out of the race in an attempt to coalesce support around a single unity candidate, such as Jeb Bush, and as a result Donald Trump came through to win with a pretty constant level of support that hovered around 35%, suggesting that the majority of Republican voters were overwhelmingly opposed to him. However, as long as their egos were intact, Trump’s opponents refused to bow out, guaranteeing him victory. The Democrats have attempted to learn from that this in 2020 and were mindful of Bernie Sanders becoming the Donald Trump figure for the Democratic Party. You saw about a month ago, the leading candidates after Super Tuesday bowing out and throwing their weight behind Joe Biden in a deliberate effort to block Bernie Sanders. What’s telling is the extent to which Biden has recognized that he needs to do what Hillary Clinton failed to do last time around: Bernie Sanders did not drop out until the last minute in 2016, and chased Hillary Clinton all the way to the convention, throwing his weight somewhat tepidly behind Hillary Clinton only very late in the game, ensuring that even at the convention Hillary was heckled by his supporters.  

Hillary’s defeat can be explained by many elements, not least of which was the fact that there was a 5 million decline in Democratic turnout from 2012. There was no great surge in Republican support, there was simply a dip by 5 million for the Democratic Party. Joe Biden believe this is an eminently winnable election. If the Democratic base gets out to vote, the thinking clearly is that Joe Biden can win where Hillary Clinton did not. Biden is attempting to court Bernie Sanders’ supporters, talking about the fact that his team have created a movement. Very clearly there has been the emergence over the past four years of a new-left movement in the United States, identifiable with Bernie Sanders as well as AOC in New York City, formulating around the support for the Green New Deal concept. It must be said that in many ways this is somewhat out of kilter with the mainstream United States. Bernie Sanders and this nascent movement helped drag the Democratic Party to the left four years ago, making it more difficult for Hillary Clinton to position herself at the political center where she spent much of a political career along with her husband. Joe Biden is, therefore, playing lip service to Bernie Sanders’ supporters, hoping that by doing so this early in the primary season any hard feeling will be diminished by the time of the election in November, enabling them to come out and voting for the Democratic candidate. 

Biden’s apparent grip on the nomination has raised questions about whom he might name as his vice-presidential running mate. He has made clear that he intends to name a woman to the position. Some people are suggesting this is a historic first, but  this is not the case; We have seen Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee at the top of the ticket four years ago, Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic Party vice presidential nominee  in 1984, and  who can forget Sarah Palin, the vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party in 2012? The idea that Biden is going to select a woman is significant, so that narrows down the field of potential candidates. The most important factor to consider is that Joe Biden needs to choose someone who can help him win the presidency. To do so, he needs 270 Electoral College votes. He needs, therefore, to choose someone as a running mate who can guarantee to bring along their own state; the more populous the state, the more delegates it brings for the Electoral College. Therefore, Biden needs to choose someone who is very popular in a state with a large population. Who might Biden be thinking about? Some people have suggested Kirsten Gillibrand, senator from of New York, although her media presence has been diminished, and no one is really talking about her.  There are certain states which are all but guaranteed to vote for the Democratic Party in November, and New York would certainly be one of them,  so it doesn’t really make an awful lot of sense to choose Senator Gillibrand because New York will be in the Democratic tally, and if it isn’t then Joe Bryant has a lot bigger things to worry about!

A similar challenge faces Kamala Harris, whom a lot of people have talked about as a potential Democratic vice-presidential running mate. Yet the last thing Joe Biden needs is any more votes from California! The Democrats won that state by 2 million votes four years ago, and desperately need to spread their support among the neighboring states, so bringing Kamala Harris on board fails to contribute an awful lot to Joe Biden’s ground game. Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota is a serious possibility, coming from the Midwest which is part of the country the Democrats desperately need to bring into their tally. It is part of the country which was seen to back away from Hillary Clinton four years ago, so she could very well be a possibility. Someone who has a lot of light on them  is Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, but again the great problem with naming her is the fact that Massachusetts is going to vote Democrat come what may, and therefore, naming her would not necessarily galvanizes an awful lot of excitement, or pick up local support beyond where it already is. An interesting candidate is Governor Whitmer from Michigan, an individual who may lack a great deal of experience, but who would be able to help deliver Michigan, a state which Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, and which Donald Trump desperately needs to hold onto it he wants to be re-elected. She’s a candidate who could help bring the Midwest along and would, therefore, be an all too obvious candidate for Joe Biden’s presidential running mate. 

We are in uncertain times. In the 1930s and 1940s, once the Great Depression was ending, and America’s involvement in the Second World war was becoming increasingly inevitable, Franklin Roosevelt presented himself as being vital to the national interests of the United States. It was claimed that ‘Dr. New Deal was going to become Dr. Win the War,’ suggesting that the United States would be unable to prevail without FDR in the White House. That turned the elections of 1940 and 1944 into unprecedented situations whereby a sitting president remained in office seeking election for a third and a fourth time. The Constitution was changed subsequently to prevent this from happening again, but when FDR did it there was nothing to prevent him from doing so, only precedent stood in his way. What Donald Trump is going do in November is anybody’s guess. At this point, he is required to run for reelection in the November election. There is no example in American history of a presidential election not being held. Even during the Civil War an election was held. During the Spanish Flu epidemic elections were held. During World War Two, elections were held, so there really is no historical precedent for Donald Trump to look back upon to use in an attempt to potentially undermine American democracy in November. His opponents would doubtless suggest that would not be an impediment for Donald Trump should he seek to thwart democracy, for we are in the most uncertain of times here in the United States. 

Trumped: America in a Time of Corona Episode III

A perspective of life in the United States during an epidemic, based upon conversations with Michael L. Roberts, and in conjunction with The American Chronicle podcast series.

Episode III

So here I am. Finally, here on the Eastern Seaboard, in the city of my dreams; Boston, Massachusetts. The sun is shining, the sky is blue, but thanks to coronavirus, there’s not a damn thing to do. Except, perhaps, chronicle these rather strange times…

The stay at home order has now lasted two-weeks here in Boston, and there is no end in sight. When Governor Baker announced it, the hope was that Massachusetts would be safe and sound very soon. Very clearly, that is no longer the case. Recommendations from the CDC, as well as from the governor’s office here in Boston, regarding what people should be doing in regard to public health have mounted in recent days. There remains, however, a real disconnect between the directives coming from the federal level, and from a state level by individual governors. President Trump has made statements regarding the use of face masks. His advisors are suggesting that the nation should start wearing face masks, although the president says that he won’t be doing so. Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, took his aircraft and flew around the world to pick up millions of masks from China, to be distributed here in Boston and in New York City. Here in Boston there is a move towards getting people to start wearing face masks. The challenge, however, is getting hold of them. There are several weeks’ delay for these things on Amazon, so it’s all well and good saying people need to start wearing these things, but  no one is telling you where to get them, how to secure them, or what particular type you are meant to get. People are walking around wearing scarves, some are wearing what appear to be decorating masks. There is a complete lack of direction being provided at a national or local as to what the ramifications or benefits are of wearing these masks. In the initial days there were suggestions that we shouldn’t be doing so, now there are suggestions that we should be doing so. The government appears to be making things up as it goes along, so we will have to wait and see what transpires with regard to directives and the use of face masks. 

The sense of the government making things up is exacerbated by President Trump, who has suggested that he really didn’t like the idea of sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office and wearing one of these things. If this is all about appearances, then that seems to be rather a poor excuse not to do something. Either these masks are going to serve a purpose and will protect the spread of disease, or they won’t, and if there is a challenge for all Americans it is understanding what it is that these masks are meant to do. Are they meant to prevent the spread of the disease if you have it to other people, or are they designed to prevent you from receiving an infection from other people who may have it? At this point there seems to be a lack of appreciation as to the viability of these masks. The only people who may be benefiting are manufacturers of these things, who have seen a spike in demand and who were no doubt able to increase their prices as a result.

The debate surrounding the wearing of masks has highlighted inter-state tensions. There is, at this point, no national lockdown in place. Those that have been instigated have been issued by state governors. The lack of a national response has undermined the process due to states which are refusing to implement a lock down. Citizens can move freely from state to state, and even around the states, causing a disconnect  between the severity of the health crisis which is being addressed in many of the states, coming up against the idea that it’s somehow un-American and potentially unconstitutional to restrict the movement of people around the nation. Some organizations are seeking to ensure that their rights are not affected at this time. One of the remarkable situations we find ourselves in is that at a time when most businesses are closed, in some states certain organizations have been deemed ‘essential to the public good.’ This includes liquor stores and gun shops, so it’s entirely possible to go out, get drunk, buy a gun and shoot someone in this time of national emergency. The National Rifle Association is ensuring that America’s rights to do just that are not being enringed at this time. It is a remarkable scenario we find ourselves in that at this time, when we’re seeing millions of people being laid off, becoming unemployed, liquor stores and gun shops are experiencing a boom in sales, as people race out to make sure that they stayed liquored up and armed to the teeth.  

All of these decisions, regarding lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, the wearing of masks, and the movement of people, comes whilst the United States is, technically at least, in the midst of a presidential campaign. At any other time that would have dominated to the exclusion of everything else. Instead, the news continues to focus on the national emergency in which the nation finds itself. Bernie Sanders remains in the campaign, still desperately seeking the Democratic Party nomination, refusing to throw the towel in, although members of his team are recognizing that it really is time to do so. Nobody in the party wants a repeat of 2016, when his continued candidacy drove the party further to the left, making it difficult for Hillary Clinton to unify the party at its convention, contributing to her defeat in the general election against Donald Trump. The conventions are going to be very interesting this year because at this point it is impossible to say for certain that they will occur. The Democrats have chosen to delay their own convention, but at this point there is no way of telling if they will be able to go ahead at all, or if they need to be virtual. It seems unlikely that we will see the kind of conventions we’re used to seeing every four years, with the accompanying razzmatazz, as the parties gather to nominate two candidates whose names are already known.  

The coronavirus has caused a further breakdown in political dialogue here in the United States. The machinations behind the scenes, and the political maneuvering that is occurring, are central to how this national crisis is being addressed. You are seeing the extent to which this crisis is revealing great schisms between the two parties. We’ve seen the Republicans, eager to try to get this over and done with, to get Americans back to work, and lift these stay-at-home orders as quickly as possible, and provide a bail out to businesses. Meanwhile, the Democrats are more willing to extend the lock down for fear of exacerbating the situation, are looking to get bailout money directly to the American people and are seeking to attach longstanding party aspirations to any related legislation. There is an expectation of more money being made available and more legislation being prepared to increase public expenditure and salvage the situation, in addition to the eye watering amounts being spent in an attempt to reinforce the national economy. There is talk about infrastructure legislation going forward, which should be a key area that Democrats and the White House could agree upon, but this is Washington DC so at this point anybody knows what will happen next. 

The political uncertainty is exacerbated by the president, who continues to speak from the White House on the state of the virus, while engaging in a war of words with high-profile governors, particularly those in New York, Michigan, and California. These are all Democrat governors, and Trump seems happy to continue his war of attrition against his political opponents. There has been talk of an attempt to instigate a unified response to the crisis by Trump and Biden and that maybe the two men will speak in regard to this. There is, however, very little in Donald Trump’s history to suggest that he will give any attention to the views of his opponents, much less give them any credence. The track record of Donald Trump’s career to date shows he has a  propensity to put his finger in the air and get a sense of where the political winds are blowing and to follow that route, to make gut decisions, rather than make decisions based on the advice of experts and certainly not his political opponents. 

One of the great challenges which the Trump administration is brought to Washington DC is that it is made political bipartisanship far more complicated and difficult. Politicians have long had caustic comments for their opponents, but they tend to be forgotten once only behind closed doors. If you have not been involved with politics, run for office, or held office, and seen the political machinations that go on behind the scenes, it’s understandable why politicians might appear to be at one another’s throats all day, every day. However, relationships between politicians of different political parties is often very different than they may appear on camera. Politics is about theater, ensuring that when most politicians go before TV cameras, they draw sharp distinctions between themselves and their political opponents in order to present themselves in as good a light as possible. Once the TV cameras are switched off, however, they have to deal with their opponents, or nothing gets done. Cross-party friendships have emerged in the past which have ensured that legislation has been able to get passed. Individuals like John McCain and Edward Kennedy were able to reach across the aisle and make political deals.  It’s notable that neither of those senators are with us anymore.

Donald Trump has taken political rivalry and name calling to a new low, making it much more complicated for politicians to forgive and forget behind closed doors. He is not unique in terms of making bipartisan agreement difficult. President Obama foolishly engaged in megaphone diplomacy, speaking harshly about his political opponents with whom he needed to work to pass his legislative agenda. It was notable that when strides were taken during the Obama administration, it was all often because of the work of the vice president, Joe Biden, who worked behind the scenes to make sure that deals were struck. Politicians can talk, and shout, and scream, and stomp their feet, but if they are not prepared to recognize that politics is the art of compromise, that to get they must also give, then nothing will ever pass. Over the course of the last decade, however, there has been a growing sense by groups on the left and the right of American politics, including the Tea Party movement and radical left, that in compromise is a dirty word. Both extremes have adopted a sense of indignation and of political purity, making life very difficult in DC. To govern you need to gather in the center, since legislation needs to have general agreement. The passage of legislation, depending upon what it involves, requires either a straight majority, or in many cases a supermajority. Trying to get a supermajority in United States Senate is a difficult prospect, and you need to have a common ground approach to politics. What is need ed is what might be thought of as old school politicians who can recognize that while politics involved  rough and tumble, there is the reality of politics which takes place behind closed doors in which people can find common ground and common purpose; no side will emerge totally victorious, and that compromise may well be a dirty word in some circles, it is also a lubricant which allows for politics to move forward. Without it, as we’ve seen in recent years, nothing gets done. As long as nothing gets done the American people will continue to look aghast at Washington DC in a time of national crisis, scratch their heads, and wonder what is that these politicians are doing in their name.

Trumped: America in a Time of Corona

A perspective of life in the United States during an epidemic, based upon conversations with Michael L. Roberts, and in conjunction with The American Chronicle podcast series.

Episode 1

So here I am. Finally, here on the Eastern Seaboard, in the city of my dreams; Boston, Massachusetts. The sun is shining, the sky is blue, but thanks to coronavirus, there’s not a damn thing to do. Except, perhaps, chronicle these rather strange times…

The outbreak of the coronavirus has revealed a near-total disconnect between the federal government in Washington, and the individual state administrations, run by the governors of each individual state. Life has taken on the guise of a civics lesson, played out in real time as the President squares off against individual governors for reasons that have less to do with the virus and more to do with raw political power and the small matter of the 2020 election cycle that we are technically in the middle of, but which everyone seems to have totally forgot about. 

The initial weeks saw a pretty consistent position being adopted by Republican and Democratic governors across the nation, realizing the importance of trying to clamp down on the virus as soon as possible. States began issuing lockdowns, effectively placing a curfew on citizens, except for going out for exercise and to get necessary items. This resulted in the effective closure of American civil society in the hope that the virus may dissipate in a matter of months if not weeks. This had been expected for several weeks here in Boston before it was eventually announced, with friends sending alerts suggesting its imposition was imminent. Clearly, the state administration here in Massachusetts was hesitant to impose such a draconian measure, but when faced with the fact that it had been already been implemented in neighboring states, its enactment became a foregone conclusion.

The decision to do so by a growing number of governors across the nation placed them at odds with the White House, which has routinely provided a very different message. From the start of this crisis, Donald Trump has called for markets and supplies to be re-opened, a remarkable stance to adopt at a time when states across the nation began tightening their grip and closing down, exacerbating a clash between the federal and state governments. A schism has also been evident within the administration, between individuals working at the White House at an advisory level who seem to understand the importance of containing the virus, and others around the president who are seeing his political fortunes collapsing. The president is clearly trying to put a spin on the situation, having touted the success of the American economy since the morning of his election. To see those gains wiped out in space of two weeks must be terrifying as he looks ahead to the November election. 

There is a great deal at stake here, not least of which is the concept of continuity of government: The president and vice president are routinely in meetings together, placing both men in jeopardy, and endangering the continuity of government in the United States. Vice President Pence is theoretically in charge of the coronavirus task force, but right now he doesn’t appear to be in charge of very much at all. Both he and the president have taken test that have come up negative, but they have had contact with members of Congress and key White House advisers who have subsequently come down with the virus. It seems clear that the virus will eventually penetrate the White House; there are reports that Secret Service agents have come down with the virus. It seems clear that from the president down, there is a lack of seriousness being adopted at the White House with regard to the potential to transmit this from person to person due to physical proximity. This is most evident at the White House press briefings. The White House is a very small building, and the West Wing complex within which the most senior members of the administration work or meet, is remarkably small. The press briefing room used to be the White House swimming pool. If you were devising a modern press advisory area from scratch, you wouldn’t use the space because it is simply not up to the standard or dimensions required in the modern era. Yet the administration is routinely cramming very important people with very important decisions to make into this very tight space. When it subsequently emerges that these people have come into contact with people who have developed the virus, it seems all the more remarkable that there has not been a greater attempt to separate these people.

The politics of the virus are remarkable to consider. A consideration of its geography is revealing: if you look at a map of where the virus was initially impacting the United States, its focus was in Blue, heavily Democratic states. Those areas most affected are dominated by major cities that are home to large numbers of solid, Democrat voters, large urban areas on the northeastern seaboard corridor, between Washington and Boston, and on the West coast, in Los Angeles and San Francisco. If you were a Trump supporter in the Midwest, or anywhere between the Appalachians and the Rockies, you might have looked at this and thought, what virus? Initially, at least, the virus found focus in California and here on the northeastern seaboard, so it will be interesting to see the extent to which Donald Trump’s supporters view this as something that is happening to ‘The Other America.’ 

The geographical focus of the virus will also present a challenge to the administration in terms of its financial response. Not all areas of the country appear to have been impacted, or to be in equal economic need of a bailout. The government is planning to distribute money directly to all American citizens below a certain economic level. That’s a fascinating development, considering that great swathes of the nation appear to be an untouched directly by the coronavirus. Yet the virus has seen the government force organizations to effectively close down, force the closure of cafeterias, and restaurants, causing a knock-on effect. While the coronavirus is affecting parts of the nation directly, a further indirect impact is affecting businesses and livelihoods. The great fear, just as with the Great Depression, is that while most Americans don’t own stocks, a collapse in the American stock market will impact all business, leading to permeant closures and declining business confidence, impacting 401K pension funds and causing long-lasting detrimental impact to the American economy and American Society. 

Much will need to be learned from the reaction to the last financial crisis in 2007/2008. Then, it was believed that while Wall Street was bailed out, Main Street was left in the lurch. A conflict is playing out in real time in halls of Congress over the financial response to adopt: the initial bailout package failed to pass due to a lack of Democratic support, since it was believed to offer too much to the banking sector, and not enough support to average citizens. There’s going to be more debate, but the Republican leadership will need to acquiesce to Democratic demands, and create a more equitable financial package, because they are nowhere near the numbers required to get this through the United States Senate. 

Throughout the history of the American presidency, the presidents that are remembered are often those who rose to the occasion during a crisis: JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. They used great rhetoric to speak to the nation: Franklin Roosevelt’s first inaugural when he made it clear that all America had to fear was fear itself; John F. Kennedy in his inaugural, and his address to the nation during the Cuban Missile Crisis, offering calming yet decisive words. Donald Trump appears to be failing this test of leadership. He has not made effective use of what Theodore Roosevelt called ‘The Bully Pulpit.’ For someone who prides himself on his communication skills and ability to connect with the American people, Trump has not used the mechanism of the White House to his advantage. At this point to is difficult to think of anything Donald Trump has said that’s been positive and beneficial. Even when he is presented with softball questions by the media that would allow him to calm the nerves of anxious Americans, he instead uses them as an opportunity to attack the medium. You have to wonder about who is advising him, and why this approach appears to be his natural inclination. He feels the need to go on the attack all the time, when this really is a tremendous opportunity for President Trump to be presidential and distinguish himself from his Democratic opponent in November.

He has great tools available at his disposal, including the ability to address the nation from the Oval Office. When he has done so, however, it has proved calamitous, as he has stumbled over his delivery, apparently unable to read from his own script speech which had been cobbled together at the last minute, without any effort to adequately weave together important ideas or concepts. His briefings from the press briefing room are not an ideal setting for a president: this is a small, cramped room that has been stripped back to let fewer members of the fourth estate in to mitigate the impact of this virus. Every time the president has spoken in recent weeks has been accompanied by a drop in the stock market and a decline in support and enthusiasm. He is surrounded by people who are trying to give him the best advice, scholars, academics, medical professions, yet he seems to be unable to get his head around the seriousness of this. Part of the American president’s job is to offer encouragement, but there is a sense that the president either doesn’t get it or is underplaying the severity of this crisis.

The longer this drags out, the more politically damaging this will be for President Trump, as people start to raise serious questions about whether more could have been done earlier. You’re starting to see a state by state recognition that there needs to be a two week clamp down on the movement of people, which see the national borders sealed in large part. We have already started to see the clamp down on movement within the largest states, but we are still to see that absolute directive come from the White House. One will have to draw conclusions as to why that is, but you can see great hesitancy on the part the president to instigate a national lockdown for fears of a political pushback and electoral blowback. Whatever happens next, one thing is for certain, the Age of Trump will now be forever defined, at least in part, by the devastating impact of the Coronavirus and his administration’s response to it.

Overcooked Rice

So, after weeks of speculation it now appears certain that the next Secretary of State will…. Not be Susan Rice. In a surprise move the current US Ambassador to the United Nations has written to President Obama, asking that her name be removed from consideration for the position. Note that she has not been withdrawn from the nomination, as she had yet to be nominated for anything. For weeks she has been in a political twilight zone; a presumptive nominee, if you will. This is, therefore, a pre-emptive withdrawal in certain expectation of a disastrous Senate confirmation hearing that promised to pitch the White House against the forces of Lindsay Graham and John McCain, who is set to join the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee ahead of the nomination process. One wonders if this news was a tipping point for the White House and for Rice’s prospects.

This nomination process has been presented in some quarters as political posturing run amok, but it is vital to recall that the United States Senate has the constitutional authority and responsibility to approve presidential appointments of this nature and it is clear that Rice has serious questions to answer in key areas, not least of which is the debacle that occurred in Benghazi, for which she may well become the administration’s unwitting fall-girl.

Beyond this, however, profound doubts have been raised about Rice’s temperament. For someone on the apparent cusp of being appointed American’s chief diplomat to be thought of as ‘ un-diplomatic, aggressive and brusque’, as was recently mentioned on The Daily Beast, is far from complementary. Her decision to ‘give the finger’ to Richard Holbrooke has clearly not been forgotten, and even if the former ambassador is not around to remind anyone of this incident, in Washington, DC, memories linger of such incidents.

Rice’s letter to Obama this evening does not mean that she will not serve in a second term. She remains the US Ambassador to the UN and could remain in this position, or possibly be named National Security Adviser, a post that does not require Senate confirmation.

With Rice now no longer in the running for the State Department, the question remains as to who will fill Hillary Clinton’s pumps. The delay in naming a foreign policy team has been remarkable and it appears clear now that this was due to the refusal of key Republicans to countenance the thought of Susan Rice as Secretary of State. Second terms often get second-rate teams, and this could be the case again. Instead, it now appears likely that a white male could return to the role for the first time since Warren Christopher (remember him? No, I didn’t think so) stood down at the end of Clinton’s first term.

The smart money is on Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. The problem with this is that it would necessitate a Special election to replace him until the midterms of 2014 and whilst the state is heavily Democratic, Scott Brown’s upset victory following the death of Edward Kennedy demonstrates that the Democrats can take nothing for granted (unless they can find another Kennedy to run, perhaps?)

So, the shadow of Benghazi has now crept over Obama’s second term, before it has had time to begin. The scandal did not appear to influence the election result, but it has already claimed its first victim. It is worth noting that presidential scandals have traditionally occurred in the much sought after second term, and have been caused by an event in the later stages of the first term. If alarm bells are not yet ringing in the West Wing of the White House, then they should be. The second term is about to begin…It’s about to get a whole lot more interesting folks!

“The Next Vice-President of the United States…”

For those who are less than inspired by the current presidential election, I have good news; it will all be over in 6 months (well 8 if you include the wait until Inauguration Day)! The dynamics could not be more removed from those of 4 years ago. Barack Obama is far from the historic figure if ‘change’ that he positioned himself as in 2008. He has aged visibly in the role and is failing to stoke the passions as once he did. Unable to run on a platform of ‘change’ he has chosen the rather uninspired ‘Forward’ slogan, that has gone down like a lead balloon.

As a candidate he appears unwilling or unable to take credit for his 2 signature moments without them rebounding in his face: His health care reforms are being considered by the Supreme Court and could be rejected as being unconstitutional any day now, and his efforts to maximise the raid that killed bin Laden were scuttled by his inability to credit the work of those on the ground who actually carried out the raid. So all, in all, Obama is failing to cut an inspiring figure in US politics anymore. He may not be Jimmy Carter just yet, but the signs are worrying.

Facing the president is Mitt Romney. This was the governor of Massachusetts who introduced a health care system so similar to that endorsed by the White House that it was referred to as ‘Romney-care’ by his Republican critics in reference to ‘Obama-care’. This is a Republican that is acceptable in Massachusetts. He is also a Mormon, which causes suspicion amongst some and finally he is the very personification of an old school insider politician; a governor and a son of a governor. This is not exactly the candidate that the Tea Party were hoping for and it is their activism that held so much promise for a potential Republican victory this November.

If the top of the ticket is failing to generate any interest then all that leaves is the VP slot. Readers of The Commentator will no doubt be familiar with the HBO movie Game Change that aired recently and which did much to ridicule the Republican process in 2008 that resulted in the selection of Sarah Palin. Less well known is that the book this was drawn from was focused almost exclusively on the Obama-Hillary race with only a small section focused on the Republican VP process.

However, whilst the selection of Governor Palin provided career a high for Tina Fey and filled ample column inches around the world, the forgotten reality is that the Democratic choice didn’t work out too well either. The initial reaction to Obama’s choice of Joe Biden was hardly euphoric with many, myself included, asking how this choice demonstrated the much-vaunted ‘change’ that Obama had campaigned on. Here in the UK Biden was most known, if he was known at all, for plagiarizing material lifted from Neil Kinnock, aka ‘The Welsh Windbag’ and former Leader of the Labour Party who was routinely trounced by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s; Hardy a figure to want to be imitating in order to secure the White House.

Biden, it was argued, helped to balance the ticket. Well, ok, he was white and Obama was black, he was old and Obama was not. Was the implication also meant to be that Biden was experienced and Obama was not? That was a reasonable position to take from the comparison, though hardly a flattering one for the would-be president. Biden was from Delaware and Obama from Illinois, so hardly a great North/South divide. Delaware is also a tiny state with only 3 Electoral College votes, so he didn’t exactly bring much to the party on that score. Since the election Biden has hardly covered himself in glory, committing gaffe after gaffe.

If Obama is victorious in November, his power will begin to ebb away very quickly as thoughts turn to the 2016 race and who will replace him in the White House. Does anyone seriously expect that candidate to be Joe Biden? Of course not. Which brings me to my point: What purpose does it serve to retain Biden on the ticket? He no longer serves any purpose other than to distract attention from the president and to act the fool. He is after all, such a buffoon that even bid Laden recognised the potential value of having him in the Oval Office. So, if Biden no longer helps with the ‘lack of experience’ vote, or with the racial equation, his state brings virtually no Electoral College votes and he serves only as a hindrance, why retain him? There is simply no logical argument for his place on the Democratic ticket in 2012.

Obama needs a candidate who will be his Game Changer for 2012. A candidate to excite the base of the Democratic Party. A candidate who is ready to assume the presidency should the unthinkable happen to the Commander-in-Chief. A candidate with a track record of winning campaigns. A candidate who has demonstrated an ability to be a tough and loyal ally. A candidate whose home state would bring in a large number of Electoral College votes. And finally, a candidate that has a viable chance of winning the White House in 2016. There is no one in the Democratic Party that fits these criteria better than Hillary Clinton. She has denied any interest in the role, but selecting Hillary will also aid Obama in his depiction of the Republican ‘War on Women’ in 2012 and present the Republicans with a dilemma.

The dilemma for Romany is how best to counter a decision to place Hillary on the ticket. It can hardly of escaped anyone’s attention that the Republicans had a week field of candidates this year. The heavy hitters all stayed home, clearly anticipating a clear run against a non-incumbent in 21016. They will be ill at ease with the thought of joining a ticket that, if successful would keep them from the Oval Office for at least eight years, and which if it fails, could end any chance of such a situation arising altogether.

Romney desperately needs a Game Changer of how own, but if Obama selects Hillary then Romney could be accused of playing gender politics if he names a woman as his VP candidate. Not that there is a logical Republican female candidate who brings the same strengths to the ticket as Hillary does for the Democrats. Romney must do something altogether different therefore. His one sure-fire bet is to choose Marco Rubio from Florida. Rubio would excite the Republican base, engage the Latino vote, put Florida in play (remember 2000?) and certainly make a Republican victory more of a possibility than it is at present.

The challenge for Romney is not placing the call; it will be if that call is rejected. The risks are huge on both sides however.  If Rubio refuses and Romney loses, does it get blamed on the petulant self-serving one term senator who placed self ahead of nation and party? If Rubio accepts and Romney loses does Rubio get tagged as a loser, thus running his chances in 2016? If Romney wins, then does Rubio lose all of his appeal when he eventually gets to run, which could be as late as 2020?

This is a debate that has been rumbling for some time and must surely come to a head in the coming weeks. Not everyone agrees with this analysis, which is one thing that makes politics so fascinating. However, with the polls close, the stakes so high, the lead candidates so dull, the VP-stakes could not be more important in 2012.