All posts by Dr. ESP

The Next Closest Thing

Culture, Politics

During his interview with George Stephanopoulos, President Biden suggested that the only call for him to step down he might heed would have to come from “God Almighty.”  It’s said the Lord works in mysterious ways.  If that’s the case, imagine the following scene between Biden and actors James Earl Jones and  Kevin Costner, reprising their roles as Terrence Mann and Ray Kinsella in Field of Dreams.

This excerpt is based on page 67 of the original screenplay by Phil Alden Robinson:

MANN
I wish I had your passion, Joe. However misdirected it may be, it’s still a passion.  I used to feel that way.

BIDEN  (TO KINSELLA)
You got another message, didn’t you?

KINSELLA
You’ll think I’m crazy.

BIDEN
I already think you’re crazy.

After a little thought, Ray smiles sadly.

KINSELLA
It said, “The man’s done enough.”

Actually, the man’s done more than enough.  But that does not make the decision any easier, although not quite as tough as a fictional John Kennedy faces in my novel In the National Interest.  Kennedy is terminally ill and asks the protagonist Secret Service Agent Mason Rhodes, while aboard Marine One, whether he would rather be “a Wilson or a Lincoln.”

In Biden’s case, he might ask Rhodes, “Would you rather be a Jim Brown or a Muhammad Ali?”  For non-sports fans,  at age 30, Brown announced he was ending his career as a running back for the Cleveland Browns.  At the time he held records for most single game rushing yards, single season rushing yards, career rushing yards, total touchdowns, total rushing touchdowns and total all-purpose yards  In 1964, he led the Browns to the NFL championship.

I need not tell you how Ali’s career ended.  He continued to fight long after family and close friends urged him to stop.  His last two fights, losing his heavyweight title to Larry Holmes and failing to bounce back against Trevor Berbick, were hard to watch.  And each punch added to the accumulated cranial damage Ali suffered over his ring career.

Brown’s and Ali’s respective choices might help us understand why Biden is so determined to stay in the 2024 race for the White House.  Jim Brown, in the absence of free agency, had limited potential in the NFL.  He had to play for the Cleveland Browns at the salary offered by owner Art Modell.  In Terry Pluto’s book “Browns Town 1964,” he describes how Brown’s salary feud with Modell was the beginning of his racial activism.

I remember interviewing Jim Brown and he said, ‘I’m very interested in Black power, but I’m even more interested in green power because green power will give you Black power.’

If football capped his wealth potential, Brown proved he had a better option.  In 1964, he was cast as a buffalo soldier in “Rio Concho,” which led to his cinematic breakthrough in the 1966 production “The Dirty Dozen.”  When filming in London took longer than originally expected, Brown did not attend training camp.  Modell’s response?  He fined Brown $1,000 (real money in terms of a 1966 NFL salary) each week he was not in camp and told Brown he was letting his teammates down, a claim disputed by other members of the squad who knew Brown would be there when they needed him.  One can argue Modell’s actions robbed Brown of even more records and glory as the premiere running back in the game’s history.

A career cut short also applies to Ali, however, in his case, his absence from the ring was involuntary.  At the height of the Vietnam war, Ali was classified 1-A (fit for service) and faced induction in the U.S. Army.  In April 1967, Ali refused induction based on his claim of being a conscientious objector.  Two months later he was found guilty by a Houston jury of violating Selective Service laws.  On June 28, 1971, by a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, explaining that the basis for the government’s denial of conscientious objection status was flawed.

For most of the time between Ali’s 1967 conviction and his successful 1971 appeal, he was without a passport and was denied a boxing license in all 50 states.  What should have been the prime of his boxing career was taken from him, which is why, this morning, I find even more empathy for Joe Biden as he faces the toughest decision of his political career.

In another reality, Joe Biden would be on the verge of leaving the political stage next January as a successful two-term president.  As the heir apparent to continue the policies and programs of the Obama administration, I have no doubt Biden would have handily defeated Donald Trump in 2016.  The party line was that, following the death of his son Beau, Biden was not prepared to launch a rigorous campaign.  But New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd argues just the opposite. On August 1, 2015, Dowd wrote:

Beau was losing his nouns and the right side of his face was partially paralyzed. But he had a mission: He tried to make his father promise to run, arguing that the White House should not revert to the Clintons and that the country would be better off with Biden values.

Unfortunately, it was too late. Obama and the Democratic National Committee were committed to a Hillary Clinton candidacy to which Biden deferred.  The title of Dowd’s column was, “What Would Beau Do?”  Therefore, I cannot help but wonder if this obsession with a second term is driven by regret that Biden did not listen to his dying son back in 2015.  And whether the voice Joe needs to hear is not God Almighty or an invisible specter in an Iowa cornfield, but Beau Biden’s telling him:

The man’s done enough.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Government Bailouts

Economics, Politics

England and America are two countries separated by the same language!

~Mallory Brown, Christian Science Monitor
September 1942

Brown’s observation was never more true than last night as BBC correspondents reported the Labour Party’s landslide victory after 14 continuous years of Conservative Party rule.  For example, as the vote counting ended in each parliamentary district, a “returning officer,” the equivalent of our supervisor of elections, issued a “declaration” rather than a “certification” of the results.  However, these amusing differences in language paled in comparison to the decisiveness of the massacre Scotland Yard would be hard-pressed to explain.

How did Labour pull off this landslide while the American electorate seems mired in a 50/50 standoff, despite the fact both nations face many of the same issues coming into the election?   Inflation.  Immigration.  Support of the wars in Ukraine and Israel.  Health care.  Availability and cost of housing. Above all, this was a Tory defeat, not an enthusiastic endorsement of Labour or its agenda.  As reported by the BBC,  Labour’s share of the total national vote increased by a mere two percent from 32 to 34.  In contrast, support for Conservative candidates fell from 44 to 24 percent.  In many districts, the Conservative candidate ran third behind Labour and Nigel Farage’s Reform Party.  As the head of BBC’s exit polling analysis explained, voters split their votes between Labour and the Reformists based on a strategic decision which candidate had the best chance of ousting the incumbent Conservative MP.

From a U.S. perspective, the obvious question is, “What does this tell us about out November election?”  First the good news.  Labour’s success is due in part to Keir Starmer (the incoming prime minister) rejecting the extremist and bigoted views of and calls for nationalization of commerce by former party leader Jeremy Corbyn. The majority of voters have been and probably will remain in the center of the political spectrum.

In his victory speech, Starmer acknowledged that it was no easy task to convince voters Labour was once again a center-left party. “Four-and-a-half years of work changing this party… this is what it is for. ”  Democrats can make the same argument in November.  Contrary to MAGA claims that Democrats are socialists at best and communists at worst, the numbers say just the opposite.  The dollar is strong.  Equity markets are at all time highs.  Likewise for job creation, wages and productivity.  And not one industry has been taken over by the government.  Inflation, though higher than one would hope, is lower than in any other G7 nation.

The bad news?  Incumbency is a disadvantage.  Not because incumbents have done a terrible job.  Expectations have changed.   In America, the question is no longer, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” It is now, “Are you as well off as you think you should be?”  It makes a difference.  On July 5, 2020, these were the New York Times page one headlines.

  • As Coronavirus Slams Houston Hospitals, It’s like New York ‘All Over Again’
  • As Neo-Nazis Seed Military Ranks, Germany Confronts ‘an Enemy Within’
  • At Mt. Rushmore and the White House, Trump Updates ‘American Carnage’ Message 2020

In July 2020, unemployment was 10.2 percent and new unemployment claims rose to 18 million.   Exactly four years later, despite a slowing economy finally responding to high interest rates, June unemployment remains at 4.0  percent, and initial unemployment claims for the week of June 29, 2024, totaled 238,000.

So what does this have to do with government bailouts?  The answer is simple.  One of the two political parties in the United States consistently bails out the the other’s bad policies and performance.   George W. Bush, after eight years of GOP economic orthodoxy consisting of tax cuts and deregulation, handed Barack Obama the worst recession since the Great Depression.  Eight years later the economy was on an unprecedented growth streak.  And what did Donald Trump do?  He returned to the same failed formula but still claimed in his 2020 state of the union address, “Our economy is the best it’s ever been.”

[NOTE:  Last Wednesday, former navy intelligence officer Malcolm Nance told Democrats to stop whining and get ANGRY.  In that spirit, this angry blogger wants to put Trump’s bullshit about his economy to rest.  At the time of his January 2020 declaration, pre-COVID, the average annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP) during his administration was 2.58 percent, seventh when compared to Lyndon Johnson (5.05), Kennedy/Johnson (4.65), Clinton (4.45), Reagan (3.87) and Nixon/Ford (2.85).  Oh, I forgot one more.  Even Jimmy ‘F***ing’ Carter, when he left office in January 2001, delivered an average annual GDP growth rate of 3.27 percent.]

Here’s the difference between what happened in Great Britain yesterday and what may happen here in November.  The Tories stayed in power for 14 straight years.  And they continued the same failed policies year after year and things got worse and worse.  The British economy stagnated.  The National Health System deteriorated.  There was no cavalry to save them from themselves.  Even after Boris Johnson was ousted by his own party for mishandling the pandemic, the Conservatives answer were more tax cuts, deregulation and reduced services.  None of which resulted in benefits for average British working families.

Now, just imagine Donald Trump had been reelected in 2020 accompanied by MAGA majorities in Congress.  Want to take a wild stab what his economic recover plan might have been?  You do not have to guess.  It is all laid out in the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration “Project 2025.”  More tax cuts.  More deregulation. Reduced services including “elimination of the Head Start program.”  The same policies, that after 14 straight years in Britain, led to a historic defeat for the ruling party.  After eight straight years of MAGA rule, I am betting Americans would have overwhelming followed their British counterparts and shown Trump and his lemmings the exit door.

But Joe Biden stepped up with a different approach.  Investment rather than tax cuts. Investment that  defied the experts who predicted an inevitable post-COVID recession.  Investment that is reinvigorating American manufacturing in strategic industries. e.g. computer chips and alternative energy.   Investment that translated into historic job growth. 

The United States is better off for that change in direction.  However, a Democratic administration again bailed out MAGA world and saved it from itself.  Unfortunately, by doing so, Biden may have sealed his own fate.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Plan Z

Politics

In his book Innovation at the Speed of Laughter. John Sweeney, owner of the Minneapolis-based improvisation theater Brave New Workshop, describes the value of injecting the adage “always have a Plan B” with steroids.  The process he uses to encourage his troupe to push for new and better ideas when developing material from concept to full-blown skit does not stop with two or three alternatives.  He recalls how he demands hundreds of variations on a theme before picking the one  that eventually gets added to a performance.

I thought about John Sweeney when I received an email from a regular follower of this blog.  In response to Sunday’s post “Not Who, How.”  She wrote, “Appreciated it very much.  Doubt it will happen.”  My reply?  “Agree, it is unlikely to happen, But, as you know, that is never my goal.  It is to raise options without judging their plausibility.”  Remember, I am the guy who spent 19 years constructing a version of John Kennedy’s assassination that even I do not believe happened.

The need for more options when it comes to the 2024 presidential election increased in magnitude yesterday when the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for Donald Trump to become the first imperial president in the nation’s history.  Though no blood was spilled, the idea that the occupant of the Oval Office could avoid accountably for criminal conduct by invoking a manufactured doctrine of “presumptive immunity” was, for believers in the American experiment, no less gut-wrenching than Hamas’s terror attack on innocent Israelis.  The question is whether it is shocking enough to declare war against the perpetrators.  If so, what does that mean?

Although Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly surrendered the high ground during the nine months since October 7, 2024, he initially understood that defeating Hamas was unlikely with a divided government, which resulted in his inviting political opponents to be members of his “war cabinet.”  Likewise, preventing a second Trump presidency, especially with the Court’s decision to roll out the red carpet for implementation of the unitary theory of executive power in which the other two branches of government have limited control over the president, is equally unlikely with a hopelessly divided electorate.

Joe Biden believes Donald Trump is an existential threat to nearly 250 years of American democracy.  He portrays the 2024 election as a choice between democracy and autocracy although I would argue the other side is more akin to a Russian-style oligarchy with rich donors using Trump as their showrunner.  He says this is not about blue states versus red states, liberal versus conservative or white versus black.  If stopping the Trump machine is that important, Plans B through Y are probably too squishy.  Desperate times require bold thinking.

I therefore offer Plan Z, an audacious and daring signal to the American voter that “business as usual” is not an option.  I present it as an unlikely extreme, but put it out there as a conversation starter.

  1. On the morning of July 4, 2024, the 248 anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Joe Biden announces he is resigning immediately.
  2. At noon, Kamala Harris takes the presidential oath of office.
  3. As her first act as president, she nominates Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to become her vice-president and urges Congress to confirm the nomination with all deliberate speed.
  4. Harris then names Joe Biden as a senior advisor.  This is not without precedent.  During a 2003 training project for the Singapore Civil Service College, John Altman and I had the honor of a private audience with Lee Kwan Yew, one of the newly independent country’s founding fathers and first prime minister.  When we met Yew, he was 79 years old and held the title of “senior minister” with an office in the Parliament House.
  5. At the Democratic National Convention in August, Harris confirms Murkowski will be her running mate.
  6. The theme of the convention is “The United States v. Donald Trump.”  Speakers will be a mix of Democrats and former Trump allies.  Democrats will focus on their vision for America.  Republicans, as the did before the January 6 Select Committee, will remind voters of the political and personal norms that Trump and his sycophants have crossed.

Why a Harris/Murkowski ticket?  Let’s start with Harris.  First, she has the advantage of being mentored by Joe Biden and watching what he has been able to accomplish based on personal relationships and willingness to compromise.  Second, she is a skilled and experienced prosecutor, best evidenced by her questioning of attorney general nominee Bill Barr during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.  A Trump/Harris debate might be the closest thing we get to cross-examination of the former president.  And imagine his dilemma.  He can either face the music or appear weak and scared by refusing to participate.  Third, the practical matter of continuity.  Since the FEC campaign finance documents were signed by both Biden and Harris, she would automatically have access to the existing funds.  It is not clear that would be the case for other candidates, and no doubt, Trump lawyers would file court challenges to prevent or delay access to another Democratic candidate.

And why Murkowski?  First, Murkowski has bona fide conservative credentials which puts her in a position to argue Harris is open to a spectrum of ideological policy input.  Second, Murkowski lost the 2022 GOP nomination for reelection to her senate seat to a Trump-endorsed candidate.  However, running as an independent, she won the general election with 54 percent of the vote.  Third, she is a strong advocate for women’s reproductive rights, calling the Dobbs decision flawed.

Today the Supreme Court went against 50 years of precedent in choosing to overturn Roe v. Wade. The rights under Roe that many women have relied on for decades—most notably a woman’s right to choose—are now gone or threatened in many states.

Fourth, she regularly demonstrates her fealty to the Constitution and rule of law.  She voted to convict Donald Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.  And she opposed filling the vacant Supreme Court seat following Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death.

For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.

Again, this is not a call for Biden to step down.  That is a personal decision he must make.  However, if he so chooses, here is one more option to make sure his personal sacrifice has the best chance of achieving the desired outcome.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Chuck It!

Politics

I would never want to play poker with MSNBC legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg.  Neither his facial expression nor tone/tempo of his voice ever change.  And he is always cordial when discussing the law with fellow attorneys.  That is why I was so surprised when we he vehemently rebuffed former deputy solicitor general Neal Katyal who proclaimed that today’s immunity ruling by the Supreme Court affirmed that a president could order Seal Team 6 to shoot a political opponent and not be charged with a crime.  Rosenburg shot back, “I don’t see anywhere in this opinion where it says that the president can order Team Seal 6 to assassinate an opponent.”

Chuck, the Constitution does not say the president has “the presumption of immunity” for official acts either, but as of 10:40 a.m., that is now the basis on which all presidential acts must be judged. So much for the originalist theory of interpreting the Founding Fathers’ intent. Equally important, the 6-3 majority declared, “Dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into President’s motives.”  I do not see that in the Constitution, either.

So Chuck, I am going to make this really personal so you can understand it.  A president of the United States orders Team Seal 6 to kill YOU, which they succeed in doing!  Isn’t the president commander-in-chief and can therefore deploy the military under Article II of the Constitution?  Furthermore, Article II requires the president, before taking office, to swear that he will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” 

Your ghost believes you were a target because you had criticized the president on “Morning Joe” and demands the president be charged with murder.  However, the president invokes the language in Trump v. United States.  His lawyers argue YOU were a threat to the Constitution which their client swore to protect.  And therefore, the president ordered members of the military, as commander-in-chief, to eliminate that threat.   According to Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the opinion, there is nothing you can do about it.

Even if there was recorded evidence, e.g. taped conservations in which  the president said, “I’m just sick and tired of that SOB Rosenberg calling me out on something,” those tapes would never be heard.  Why?  First, the Court says you cannot question the president’s motive that he responded to a constitutional threat.  Worse yet, the Court further declared that prosecutors cannot use evidence associated with an “official act.”  Therefore, all the president needs to do is claim that this discussion with a staff member was related to the deployment of the military which is authorized under Article II.

Rest in peace, Chuck.

POSTSCRIPT:  WE THE JUSTICES

Over the last five days, the Supreme Court, based on ideological 6-3 votes, has:

  • expanded the authority of the president to act with impunity (Trump v. U.S.);
  • undercut the Congressional and Executive authority under Articles I and II to write and implement the law (Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency);
  • declared that the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2024, does not meet the definition of obstructing an official government action (Fischer v. U.S.).

There is no way to interpret these actions other than as a slap in the face of legal precedence and common sense.  If you ever thought the Supreme Court was the last bastion of hope for protection of the American form of government (as it did during Watergate) and our Constitution rights (reproductive choice and voting in the 1960s and 1970s), that era is history.

One can only hope the American people who share this view will use November 6, 2024, as their opportunity to give the Court, Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society the finger.  The only guardrail left to save the American experiment is us!

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Not Who, How

Politics

Saturday morning, Washington Post political reporter Aaron Blake ranked 10 potential replacements if Joe Biden chooses to step aside.  I found Blake’s analysis to be quite compelling.  When it came to Vice-president Kamala Harris, he rightly pointed out the backlash from the Black community if she was passed over for someone else, giving Donald Trump more ammo to convince Black voters they are being used by the Democrats.  I also appreciated his including Michelle Obama on his list, calling her “everyone’s dream candidate.”  However, he was quick to acknowledge it would not happen because the former first lady has no interest in the job.

The rest of the list was replete with the usual suspects.  Governors Gavin Newsom (CA), Gretchen Witmer (MI), Jared Polis (CO), Andy Beshear (KY) and Josh Shapiro (PA).  Senators Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Raphael Warnock (GA).  Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.  The problem is that a final decision is needed before the Democratic National Convention begins on August 19, leaving little time for the usual winnowing down that leads to a consensus candidate.

At all costs, Democrats must avoid a contentious nomination process with little chance for healing before the general election.  So the question is not so much who should head the ticket, but how that person is selected.   Fortunately, there is a model for just such a situation.  In 1999, 30 Republican governors convened a meeting to determine who would challenge Al Gore, the likely Democratic nominee for president.  Each promised not to support any other candidate.  And we know what happened.  George W. Bush, with the full backing of 29 of his fellow state chief executives, won a narrow victory in the electoral college.

I am not recommending that Joe Biden call it a day.  That is best left to him, his family and close associates.  However, if he chooses that path, I suggest he do so on one condition.  Everyone interested in becoming the Democratic standard bearer must join him for a meeting in the White House cabinet room, at which time, he informs the attendees:

I have decided to withdraw as a candidate for president and to release my pledged delegates, if and only if, before we leave this room, we all agree on who will be the presidential and vice-presidential nominees.  You will then join me on the White House lawn to announce that decision and to offer your full support of the ticket.   

Now I know several of you had your eye on 2028.  That is where the two nominees have to give a little.  Even if he or she wins in 2024, they must agree they are not guaranteed re-nomination in 2028.   They will have to earn it.  If any of you think we need a change, go for it

That’s the deal, Jack. 

What’s more, this could be another chance for Democrats to again demonstrate the difference within their ranks and the cultists who dominate the MAGA party.  If Donald Trump had as bad a night as Biden, does anyone honestly believe he would have admitted it?  Or he would be sitting down this morning with his wife and children this morning (assuming he could find them) to discuss his future.  But it is not just about Joe.  The above scenario also requires that all but two aspirants to the presidency and vice-presidency put aside their personal ambitions for the national interest.  Such a gesture would further solidify the dichotomy that the leaders of one party are willing to put country before self and one that worships a man who was hijacked his party for personal gratification.

The election with a new ticket could be waged  much like Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 campaign, a tribute to a “fallen” president and a call to finish the mission he started.  On women’s rights.  On climate change.  On income and wealth inequality.  On gun safety.  On the need for a Supreme Court the founding fathers envisioned.  On global democracy.  Joe was never good at touting his own accomplishments.  But his successor can both remind voters of what has been accomplished and honor Biden by call the party platform his “unfinished” agenda.

Nor does Biden now have the oratorical skills to prosecute the case against Donald Trump’s lies.  Imagine a national convention dedicated to dismantling Trump’s version of American in which speaker after speaker across the party’s spectrum parses the fire hose of lies presented during the July MAGA convention.  The stage is framed by a banner which simply says, “The Honest Truth.”  A convention which begins with a film that answers the question, “Are better off today than you were four years ago?”  Images that remind voters of what America looked like on January 19, 2021 and how our country is now the envy of the free world.  After which, the convention chair introduces the outgoing president, giving delegates a chance to thank him for his service and what he has accomplished in just four years.

Even if Biden stays in the race, the opportunity is the same.  With just two and a half months between the convention and election day, Democrats will have the national spotlight for three days.  All they need to do is make the most of it.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP