There is no justification for what happened in Butler, Pennsylvania Saturday afternoon.  It was an unacceptable assault on democracy.  And America is fortunate the shooter was a less skilled marksman than Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray.  In a rare moment of agreement, both President Biden and Donald Trump called on their supporters to “cool down the temperature.”  This period of reconciliation did not last 24 hours. 

Biden went on national television Sunday night and reminded Americans, “We settle our differences at the ballot box, not with bullets” and pulled ads his campaign planned to run during the Republican National Convention.  Trump sent his supporters a fundraising letter which included a stylized version of AP photographer Evan Vucci’s image of the blooded candidate raising his fist in the air.

The question that haunts me today is, “Will Americans let a misguided 20 year-old with his father’s AR-15 decide the future direction of our country?”  Thomas Matthew Crooks must have thought he could.  Which brings me back to my previous posts, especial the one from July 9, titled, “An Unwitting Asset.”  The 2024 election, regardless of the Republican nominee, should never be about an individual.  “The soul of America,” about which Biden so often refers, has been under assault for decades.  When Democrats, myself included, focus on Trump’s flaws, we drop the ball.

I apologize for repeating myself, but the vision of America that will be laid out in Milwaukee did not begin with Donald Trump.  The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner and Joseph Coors.  [Note:  Weyrich, a la Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein, insisted his last name was pronounced “Wy-Rick” instead of “Way-Rich.]  Weyrich, a conservative commentator, political activist and ordained deacon in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, recruited Coors, patriarch of the brewery which bears his family name, to underwrite creation of the Heritage Foundation.  Feulner, after serving as an aide to Congressman Phil Crane (R-IL), became Heritage’s first president.

If you think Project 2025 is the first time the Heritage Foundation played a major role in setting the agenda for a Republican administration, think again.  In 1981, the foundation provided policy guidance for incoming president Ronald Reagan including a document with 2,000 specific recommendations titled (drum roll) “Mandate for Leadership.”  Sound familiar?  Heritage exerted similar influence during the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations.

Following the announcement of Trump’s entry into the 2016 election cycle, the foundation was no fan of the future president.  Heritage Action director Michael Needham, during a Fox News appearance, said, “Donald Trump’s a clown.”  However, after Trump secured the GOP nomination, the Foundation forwarded a list of potential appointees, according to the New York Times, drawn from “a 3,000-name searchable database of trusted movement conservatives from around the country who were eager to serve in a post-Obama government.”  (Again I ask, “Sound familiar?”)

Which brings me to the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (FedSoc), founded in 1982 by law students at Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago.  It claims to be a response to judicial activism and often quotes Alexander Hamilton to support their views.

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature.

To achieve that goal, FedSoc  wanted to flood the courts with their members.  And flood them they have.  All six Republican appointees to the Supreme Court belong to FedSoc.  And surprise, surprise, so does Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, who, as I am writing this, just dismissed the classified documents case against Trump.  Among the law professors in the FedSoc ranks is former dean of the Chapman University School of Law John Eastman, one of the architects of the 2020 fake electors scheme.

While the Heritage Foundation is the policy arm of the one-percent, the Federalist Society is the judicial branch of the same confederation.  Donors include the Koch family ($116 billion net worth), the Richard Mellon Scaife family ($1.2 billion) foundation and the Mercer family ($900 million) as well as major corporations such as Google and Chevron.  Yes, that Chevron.  The losing plaintiff in a 1984 case which was recently overturned by a six member majority, you guessed it, the GOP appointees who just happen to be FedSoc members.  [NOTE:  The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are both 501(c)(3) educational foundations which means, assuming these major donors are in the maximum 37 percent marginal tax bracket, the federal government subsidizes 37 cent for each dollar they give to their “noble” cause.]

To suggest that FedSoc-appointed justices selectively suffer amnesia when its comes to Hamilton or their originalist philosophy is an understatement.  The dam broke with Citizens United v. FEC.  So much for legislative prerogative as Hamilton advocated.  This case literally outlawed federal and state legislators’ role in regulating campaign financing.  And, to this day, legal scholars are still looking for constitutional language that equates MONEY with SPEECH.

Likewise, by reversing the 1984 Chevron decision, the justices stripped Congress of its Article I authority to legislatively delegate rulemaking to federal agencies.  To the contrary, the courts anointed the judiciary as the venue for oversight.  In general, the Roberts court has repeatedly ruled in favor of management over workers, overturned state election laws and ignored the Article II of the Constitution in support of the the Heritage Foundation’s belief in the unitary theory of the executive branch.  Can you say “presidential immunity?”  I knew you could.

So forget Donald Trump!  Republican presidents since 1980 have been doing the bidding of this cabal of oligarchs not unlike the one that pulls Vladimir Putin’s strings.  Giving them massive tax breaks.  Reducing regulations promulgated to protect the public health and safety. Appointing their hand-picked justices and judges who regularly decide cases in favor of the privileged. The difference with Trump is that they now have someone who revels in the trappings of the White House, unlike his patrons who prefer life under the radar.  Equally important, even as he tosses out non-sensical ideas such as replacing the income tax with tariffs, he eventually lands exactly where they want him to be, deeper tax cuts and deregulation.  It is this system, not Donald Trump, that should be on trial November 5th.

The solution? 

• #1: Reposition the 2024 election as something other than a “grudge match” between Biden and Trump by nominating someone who can prosecute the oligarchs’ agenda rather than their mouthpiece. 
• #2: Structure the Democratic convention to expose the consequences of an administration based on Project 2025.  Do this with presentations by one member of Trump’s first administration who tells voters how implementation of Project 2025 proposals would corrupt the executive branch, followed by a Democrat who lays out an alternative agenda for the next four years.  Each presentation should be illustrated with examples of the consequences for most Americans. 
• #3:  After pointing out Trump is only the messenger for the uber-rich elites, never mention his name again.  Although Trump claims he is a changed man following his brush with death, does any actually believe him?  Based on past behavior, I trust he will prove us correct without our help.

The prime directive?  Explain why the 2024 election is a choice between Russian-style oligarchy and democracy.  And separate voters’ perception that the MAGA agenda is a populist response to their grievances from what it really means for their families and wallets.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Jimmy Carter described his run for the White House as a marathon.  In actually, Presidential politics is more akin to a horserace.  The lead shifts when a candidate is positioned to take advantage of an opponent.  Maximizing that advantage requires vision, strategy and focus.  The last thing you want is to say or do something that erases that edge.

For most of the two weeks following Joe Biden’s “bad night,” the Biden campaign and his supporters had been playing defense.  Trump seized that advantage, until the Biden folks, and at last the media, decided to focus on Project 2025.  In response Trump did the only thing he could to accelerate this momentary shift in attention from Biden’s fitness to serve for another four years.  He tried to distance himself from the Heritage Foundation’s manifesto for an imperial presidency.  More importantly, of course he lied, posting on Truth Social, “I know nothing about Project 2025.  I have no idea who is behind it.” A laughable response considering so many members of his post-2020 brain trust and likely second term officials are listed as authors and contributors to the 940 page document.

Yesterday, everything changed.  But not for the reason you think.  Of course, Trump and his team will take advantage of the fortunately bad marksmanship of a wannabe assassin. Since January 6, 2021, Biden and Democrats had an ace in hole.  Trump peppered his speeches with dog whistles which not only incited violence, but actually produced violence.  January 6th.  El Paso.  Buffalo.  The Tree of Life Synagogue.  In contrast, most Democrats told voters the only way to defeat Trump and MAGA was at the ballot box.

This was the one issue that clearly differentiated Democrats from MAGA.  Of course, that did not stop Trump supporters such as Senator Marsha Blackburn (TN) and Representatives Mike Collins (GA) and Lauren Boebert (CO) from connecting Biden rhetoric to the gunman’s attempt to kill Trump.  When I first heard this, I chalked it up to MAGA propaganda.  Calling Trump and his plans for a second term an existential threat to America is not on the same level as telling the Proud Boys “to stand down and stand by.”

Except this time they brought the receipts.  On July 7, Politico reported that, during a “private” call with donors, Biden included the following in his remarks.

I have one job, and that’s to beat Donald Trump. I’m absolutely certain I’m the best person to be able to do that. So, we’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.

It does not matter if the timing of Biden’s words and Thomas Matthew Crooks’ failed assassination is causal or mere correlation.  In an environment of heightened political tension, uttering phrases like “it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye,” is unacceptable, exactly the way it was when Sarah Palin posted a map of vulnerable Democrats in Congress with a cross-hairs superimposed over their districts.  Just ask Gabby Giffords.

There are a lot of things about Joe Biden I could forgive.  His verbal gaffes.  An inability to prosecute the case against a second Trump term in a 90-minute debate.  His inability to sway to the music.  His agonizingly slow pace when he walks.  His occasional goofy smile.  But this is different.  His lack of self-awareness to understand, first. there is no such thing as a “private” conference call, and second, that he cannot, under any circumstances, use a metaphor involving lethal force to describe a political campaign.  Forget the issues of age and mental acuity, this is the line in the sand that must convince a consensus among Democratic leaders, donors and voters that Biden is no longer a viable candidate for president.

We all have good days and bad days.  The “Good Joe” was on full display yesterday.  He told the nation, “There is no place in America for this kind of violence.”  And he placed a phone call to Trump last night, wishing him a speedy recovery.  Too bad THAT Biden was not on the July 7 phone call with donors. 

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The two weeks since the Biden/Trump debate have been the best of times for presidential historians when it comes to media exposure.  Among the panelists on all three major news networks, you can find the likes of John Meacham, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss.   The program hosts consistently seek enlightenment on the following questions. “Are there historical precedents for the current situation where an incumbent president faces an intra-party challenge?  If so, what can we expect from efforts to replace Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket?”

In fact, there have been three such occasions beginning in 1968 when Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy took on incumbent Lyndon Johnson.  Ronald Reagan v. Gerald Ford in 1976.   And Ted Kennedy v. Jimmy Carter in 1980.  The lesson?  In each case, the candidate who eventually secured the nomination lost the general election.  Pretty strong evidence for those who believe a change at the top of the ticket will guarantee a Trump victory in November.  As they say, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it’s a duck.

However, a closer look suggests 2024 may be more of a phoenix than a duck.  First, we need to understand the context in the three comparable situations.  1968 is easy.  The January 1968 Tet offensive blew the whistle on General William Westmoreland’s declaration two months earlier that “The enemy’s hopes are bankrupt.”  McCarthy rode growing skepticism about the war, especially among young voters, to a near upset in the March 12 New Hampshire Primary.  Nineteen days later, Johnson announced he would not seek nor accept his party’s nomination for reelection.

In hindsight, the 1976 contest for the Republican nomination was more of a “coming out party” for Reaganism which had little, if anything, to do with Gerald Ford.  Voters were tired of Nixon administration scandals and an annual inflation rate of 5.7 percent.  Likewise, some members of the conservative wing of the GOP thought Nixon had gone soft on communism following his visit to China and similar outreach to Russia.  They also questioned his pro-business credentials, particularly following creation of the Environment Protection Agency and issuing an executive order freezing wages and prices in hopes of taming inflation.  What better opportunity to introduce an alternative economic philosophy.  Unfortunately, that alternative was supply-side economics.

The lessons from Kennedy’s 1980 unsuccessful attempt to oust Carter as the party’s nominee?  Politicians enter dangerous territory when they try and have an honest conversation with voters.  And, if you’re going to go there, end on a positive note and tell voters what you will do to reverse the situation.  I am, of course, referring to Carter’s infamous July 25, 1976 “malaise” speech which included the following.

The threat [to American democracy] is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.

Kennedy justified his candidacy on three tenets.  Economic recovery post-inflation during the Nixon/Ford years did not meet voter expectations.  Carter’s inability to get the release of U.S. hostages in Iran following the Islamic revolution.  And Carter’s lack of a concrete plan to address both these crises, though crisis may be an overstatement.  As I pointed out earlier this week, the average annual growth in the gross national product during the Carter years was 3.6 percent, a full point higher than Trump’s pre-COVID rate of 2.6 percent, you know, the economy he trumpets as the best of all time.

Which brings me to 2024 and while it may share some characteristics with a duck, it is not.  Unlike 1968, American soldiers are not dying in an ill-conceived war halfway around the world.  Unlike 1976, the only scandals the Biden administration is guilty of are free of any evidence and reside solely in the minds of MAGA conspiracy mongers and right-wing media.  No one is wearing a “Whip Inflation Now” button because the trend is in the right direction and is now almost half that at the end of the Nixon/Ford era.  Unlike 1980, the threat to democracy is not the mindset of the American public but a demagogue unleashed by a runaway Supreme Court.  Plus, no one can accuse Biden of inaction, having signed more legislation than any of his predecessors in the last 50 years.  And rather than bemoaning a dismal future, Joe Biden constantly reminds voters “I am never more optimistic about America.”

But for once, the past is not prologue.  Even though Biden has a strong record to run on, and Democrats are on the right side of most 70/30 issues, Democrats have done a lousy job reminding votes of those facts.  Especially when Trump is a fire hose of lies and misinformation.  Biden is a perfect example of what doomed Michael Dukakis in his race against George H. W. Bush.  Technocratic skills translate into good governance, but mediocre campaigns.  Winning campaigns depend on effective messengers.  Successful administrations depend on the knowledgeable and experienced team the winner puts together.

Therefore, I now propose Plan Z+1.  It begins with everyone who is interested in replacing Biden at the top of the ticket agreeing to the following.

1. But for the age issue, based on his accomplishment the last four years, Biden would be a heavy favorite to win reelection.
2. Despite the age issue, he won more than 90 percent of the elected delegates to the convention.
3. He deserves to be rewarded for those successes.
4. The best reward?  The right to pick his successor, someone he feels is most likely to carry forth the agenda from his time in office.  And someone best qualified to prosecute the case against Trump and Project 2025.

Given this opportunity, I would still encourage Biden to make the case for a Harris/Murkowski “unity” ticket.  Second choice is an all-Democratic, all-female Harris/Gretchen Whitmer ticket.  Not far behind is a Harris/Andy Beshear ticket.  If we, in fact, face the most existential internal threat to the United States since the Civil War, we need not ask presidential historians for their advice.  We have it straight from the horse’s mouth.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.  I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.  It will become all one thing, or all the other.

~Abraham Lincoln/June 16, 1858

If Lincoln delivered this speech today, the second sentence would describe a choice, not about slavery, but democracy and autocracy.  He would argue there is no scenario where the United States would have democratic states and autocratic states.  To repeat Lincoln’s warning, “I do not expect the house to fall–but I do expect it will cease to be divided.  It will become all one thing, or all the other.”  Ensuring that the “all one thing” be a nation without slaves depended on Lincoln’s re-election in 1864.  To do that he replaced his first term vice president Hannibal Hamlin of Maine with a southerner Andrew Johnson of Tennessee.  Ballots listed the Lincoln/Johnson ticket as nominees of the “National Union Party,” a coalition of Republicans, War Democrats and the Unconditional Union Party.

Bold and decisive actions such as the one to replace Hamlin with Johnson explain why Lincoln was recently ranked #1 among all U.S. presidents by 154 current and former members of the American Political Science Association.  For the record, Joe Biden tied for 13th with John Adams and Donald Trump was last at #45.   This was the third such ranking  going back to 2015.  Let me assure you, if Biden and the Democrats do not do whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office next January,  Biden can kiss that #13 ranking goodbye.  And that’s no malarky.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP