(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)
The challenge: How could Democrats replace a feeble Joe Biden who refused to step aside with a younger identity-politics driven candidate, without subjecting that candidate to the voters?
The solution: The only way for Democratic bigwigs to get Biden to quit was to expose his frailty to himself and the public. This was accomplished in a remarkably shrewd way by playing to Biden’s vanity and have him debate Donald Trump in June. Such an early presidential debate – even before the nominating conventions – was unprecedented! They knew he would fail, and then intense pressure could be applied coercing him to step down, too late for primaries and right on time to install their candidate of choice. And Trump fell for it – there was no need for him to agree – owing to his own narcissism issues.
It was a brilliant strategy, marred only by three realities: that almost the entire Democrat establishment had collectively lied to the American people for years about Biden’s incapacity (including Kamala Harris); that Harris had been perceived by that same establishment as a mediocrity who could not win or govern; and the doubt that Dems could get away with not explaining to the American people why Biden changed his mind so abruptly and how, if he is too incapacitated to run for re-election, he is still vigorous and lucid enough to govern.
These three statements are all true and on each score the Dems have escaped accountability. Chalk that up to a compliant media and a willfully blind public. How was it that Joe Biden swore that only a direct message from God would cause him to drop out – and then just days later he’s passing the torch to a new generation? Who was it that kneecapped him with the torch? Americans would surely know by now if they weren’t either so incredibly docile or politically ossified into two rigid camps in which each camper just votes for his or her team.
Harris is an unserious individual being adroitly handled by serious people who want to win at all costs. They know exactly how to market her, how to fool a gullible population, and how to obscure her vulnerabilities, which primarily means hiding her. She has made a career of failing upwards, the beneficiary of social promotions with an undistinguished record in every office she has held and placed in critical positions by powerful male patrons. The disappearing trick can work not only because the American voting public is easily manipulated but also because of the weaknesses of her opponent.
Donald Trump is in an uphill battle. He should not be but he is, owing to the quirks, so to speak, of his personality. Even supporters (like me) should accept the reality that Trump, to my mind, was a good president, but he is a weak candidate, even a horrible candidate. The fact is that campaigning and governing are two different skill sets. Few people possess even one of them, much less both.
There are visible problems with Trump as campaigner. His rallies have become boring, although there has recently been a slight uptick in enthusiasm. He repeats the same lines, jokes, insults, clichés, and boasts. Perceptive viewers see the empty seats at his rallies and the disengaged audiences. But worse than that, the substance of his remarks is always designed to win the laughter, applause, and approval of his audience, but never to reach beyond that audience to other voters. Like Harris, he speaks in ambiguities, endlessly repeating the same hyperbolic clichés – “the worst ever… the best ever…a disaster…never would have happened…we will have to see…, etc.” It is as if he sees his primary function to be entertainer rather than leader, such that he would rather get laughs than votes. It is not just that Trump is undisciplined; it is that he thinks discipline itself is a detriment to his brand.
F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that there are no second acts in American lives. In the last century, only one man has lost a presidential election and then won on another attempt (Richard Nixon was defeated in 1960 and prevailed in 1968). It is well known that only one man has won two non-consecutive terms to the presidency – Grover Cleveland, who won in 1884, lost in 1888, and then won again in 1892. What is less pondered is that Cleveland won the popular vote in all three elections against his opponents. Trump, by contrast, has lost the popular vote in his two elections and, by all accounts, stands to lose the popular vote a third time as well. Worse, Republicans have won the popular vote for the presidency only once in the last 32 years, the George W. Bush second term victory in 2004.
That is not a good formula for electoral success because it means that the Republican message is not permeating or persuading the electorate. True, Democrats get to run up the popular vote margin in such heavily blue states like California and elections are won by majorities in the electoral college. Nevertheless, it should be exceedingly rare to lose the popular vote and win the electoral college majority. It is not healthy for democracy for that to be the norm. That Republicans are behind the popular vote eight ball in every election is worrisome. The path to victory requires threading the needle and winning just the right number of votes in several swing states by, as has become the pattern, extremely slender electoral majorities.
That too is a sign of the deep polarization in American politics that will be exacerbated by this year’s election outcome, whatever it is.
Kamala Harris is even more inept, arguably a worse campaigner except when reading a teleprompter, and flirts with incoherence every time she opens her mouth without a script in front of her. But with Harris peculiarly but wisely under wraps, the Democrats have a far better approach. She can be controlled; Trump cannot. To illustrate the problem, Harris’ nomination speech was 37 minutes long, not particularly illuminating, or inspirational, but mercifully brief. By contrast, Trump’s nomination speech was a good 37-minute speech that he delivered over a rambling 97 minutes. It was replete with half thoughts, run-on sentences, and boasts, and it was designed to appeal to no one except those already in his camp. But given the built-in Republican deficit in the popular vote, Trump is far less capable of squandering or turning off independent voters then is Harris. Someone should realize that before it’s too late.
The debate is unlikely to change any minds. An unprepared Trump simply repeated clichés and embellishments, was reticent on details, and could have challenged Harris on multiple issues but was easily sidetracked. His best moment came at the end – “why haven’t you done this already?” – but that is a point he should have pounded repeatedly. Harris dabbled in jumbled words in search of a cogent thought but adroitly – with the moderators’ assistance – dodged every question that attempted to pierce her shell and pin her down on past or present policy. Harris will return to her protective casing and Trump will be left to wonder why his message is not resonating. It is because his message is generally meandering, focused on what was, as devoid of substance as are Harris’ word salads, and speaks only to his base.
The only escape from this predicament is for Trump to expand his base and cut into the traditional Democratic voting blocks. That is easier said than done. With each election cycle, the hope builds that Republicans will gain more black votes and Hispanic votes and Jewish votes and urban votes, and yet it really never materializes. It could, and it should, but it does not. American politics is exceedingly tribal; most people vote for their team regardless of what their team represents or proposes. Jews especially will find every reason – and they are not beyond fabricating reasons or denying the reality that is right in front of them – to vote for the Democrats. For most American Jews, voting for the Democrats is akin to a religious obligation, and the only such religious devotion that they take seriously and perform enthusiastically. Israelis especially should internalize that American Jews’ attachment to Israel is waning – owing primarily to the impact of intermarriage and assimilation – and the Middle East situation ranks very low on the American Jewish list of electoral priorities, far behind abortion and the American economy.
The race remains unpredictable because every poll is within the margin of error and any victory will be narrow. Trump won in 2016 because of an electoral margin of about 70,000 votes in three states and lost in 2020 by a margin of around 42,000 votes in three states. That is volatility.
It is a shame that Trump is such a poor campaigner and digressive debater because he would again be a fine president, even with the uproar his triumph will cause in a hopelessly polarized society. It is a choice between the chaos that follows Trump but whose policies are mostly sound, and the chaos symbolized by the US retreat from Afghanistan, or on the southern border, or on the streets of American cities where the aggrieved can riot without consequence and Jews can be attacked without redress. Choose your chaos.
The United States of America needs strong leadership as does the world. Israel needs an American president whose support is not conditional, who doesn’t mouth supportive platitudes in public while wielding the hammer in private, an American president who prefers an Israeli victory instead of the survival of Hamas and is willing to do what is necessary to achieve it, an American president who will help ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power rather than one who subsidizes Iran’s nuclear program and other global, terrorist mischief.
One dramatic difference between the two parties is that Trump has ruled out the establishment of a Palestinian state as impossible at this time in history, whereas Democrats have made it their passion project regardless of its effect on Israel. Biden and Harris have never called for the defeat of Hamas, surely an American and Israeli interest, only for a cease fire which, by definition, will allow Hamas to survive to murder, maraud, and molest another day. Anyone who feels that Trump is not the better candidate for world stability, for a stronger America, and for a more secure Israel is hopelessly partisan and beyond reason.
That being said, would that Israel always act in a way that furthers our interests and advances our strategic goals rather than looking over our shoulder at our patron. When American support for Israel declines – as it invariably will given the demographics of American society – we will be compelled to do that anyway. Why not do it now – and show the free and sane world what leadership is?
No comments:
Post a Comment