For in fact both elections, four years ago and this year were lost, not won. Had Donald Trump’s abrasive personality, his loose cannon approach to just about all important issues not been in play and the GOP financial, economic record been the platform then the odds of Joseph Biden capturing the White House in his third kick at the can would have been very high against.
Uncle Joe, as he is derogatorily known, unfortunately reminding many of a certain age, that the same sobriquet was applied to Stalin, for some of his more absent-minded comments, does seem to be a pleasant fellow, certainly in comparison to the arrogant Trump. However, why him?
FDR’s first vice-president Texan John N. Garner’s sole contribution to posterity was the famous earthy expression that the vice-presidency wasn’t worth “a pail of warm piss.” Indeed, perhaps the greatest vice-president, at least in the last century, was Richard M. Nixon, who in effect, and effectively, ran Dwight D. Eisenhower’s White House, while the General basically basked in adulation for his work on the battlefield and chose to avoid most controversial decisions.
But times were different in those optimistic post-WWII years. The anxieties of the present age were certainly a determinant in the election results as well. Add the difficulties of addressing the pandemic and the result was a perfect political storm.
Vice-presidents often run for, and win, the top job in the nation. Nixon himself – and look where that led. And was replaced by a nice Southern Baptist, Jimmy Carter, certainly a fine gentleman - but a disaster on both the foreign and economic policy fronts.
One does not always agree with journalist Rick Salutin, but on Friday the self-described “leftish-sort” sure hit the nail on the head. In an opinion piece published by the “leftish” Toronto Star Salutin described the Democratic party’s choice of candidate thus: “a life-long, go-along mediocrity complicit in all the misdeeds of neo-liberal economics, free trade, crime crackdowns, demonizing Black ‘predators” and smearing Anita Hill.” In a nutshell, how is that for a description of a politician who has been around since 1973?
One also recalls the opinion of P. J. O’Rourke, who covered the 1988 Democratic nomination campaign for Rolling Stone. The humourist, doing serious coverage for a change, found Biden to be the weakest candidate of all. This from a lacklustre field, a party that decided on Michael Dukakis. 32 years ago Biden was forced to withdraw from the primaries for a number of reasons, not least charges of plagiarization. A politician without independent thought is not reassuring. Perhaps, though, with maturity – and having achieved his boyhood ambition to be president – Biden may deliver more than what the voters expected. However, as Salutin points out any person should be concerned about the state of affairs. He emphasizes the inability to prepare, the “inept, corrupt leadership” of the Democratic Party “(prime example: the Clintons), their retainers and paymasters (Wall St., Silicon Valley)” among other reason to fear the next four years.
Opponents have expressed concern about his age as well. The oldest to hold the post may not be an issue. But unfortunately here the choice of vice-president comes into play. FDR’s health was kept a secret. But can you imagine if, like Biden’s idol he either dies in office or becomes incapacitated? Sorry folks, Kamala Devi Harris is no Harry S. Truman. With only three fractious years of experience as the junior senator from California Harris has almost no experience. Can you say affirmative action? At least to the party’s credit she is not, like Hillary Clinton, when the hierarchy opted for her, saddled with a lengthy history that no one could be proud of. Still, Harris is known as being confrontational. Just like Donald Trump, actually. But the latter was opted for precisely as the anti-Clinton, while Biden is the anti-Trump. Hence the White House was not won, but lost, as noted above.
Canadian complacency, expressing thanks for not living south of the 49th parallel is also dangerous. While Justin Trudeau is polite, like most Canadians, his track record ethically is scary, his concept of entrenched privilege, his hemming and hawing does not engender any confidence. If it were not for some in his cabinet doing the dirty work his minority would have been toppled. Curiously, the hard-working Chrystia Freeland, although a George Soros acolyte, is the reason Trudeau remains in power. Much like Nixon for Eisenhower.
Or for that matter Ontario’s Finance Minister Rod Phillips. (Notice the pattern here? Premier Doug Ford, political neophyte, son of a long-time politician. Justin and Pierre Trudeau? All relying on experienced financial and foreign policy advice.)
In essence politics is a popularity contest. Which is sad, it should be decided on ability, not affirmative action or charisma. Consider what the twittering president, or more exactly his administration achieved economically. For all his personality flaws Trump does know business, even if he did inherit his fortune. In 2018 U.S. GDP growth was 3.18%, a 0.97% increase from 2017. Which was the first year of Trump’s presidency, reversing the declines of the Obama presidency. To put that number into perspective, at its peak, the summer of 2018 U.S. GDP growth was a whopping 4.2 per cent. At a time when Canada was stumbling along at 1.5 per cent and the Eurozone at a piddling 0,4 percent. Twenty times less than that of the U.S.
Blame bureaucracy for those latter numbers. That is a challenge everywhere. But the Reagan economic formula, which Trump adopted, generates growth. While social issues are certainly important, the trickle-down impact of a powerful economic engine, such as enjoyed by Americans, allows for the welfare-state benefits, which unfortunately have become entrenched in too many countries.
Ubi ubi? Good Latin that. Whereto is the meaning. USA and Canada both.
