What does the rest of the world think of American democracy in 2023? Sadly, we are viewed as past our prime. Canadian friends ask how it was possible that Donald Trump was elected president, why our current 80-year-old president is running for re-election, and why “crazy people” sit in the U.S. Congress. A German friend told me Marjorie Taylor Green is better known there than Chuck Schumer and compared Ron DeSantis to Hitler.  

My response to questions and comments on American democracy is to remind people that democracy is messy. I say great presidents can be followed by mediocre ones, and we will have great presidents again. I also remind people that challenging times can ruin a presidency and that “failed presidencies” are not always evidence of democracy not working. The Vietnam War, for example, ruined the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, and inflation arguably ruined the presidency of Jimmy Carter. 

Presidents are not responsible for everything, good or bad, that happens during their time in the White House. The reelection of Trump in 2020, for example, would not have stopped Russia’s invasion of Ukraine any more than it would have stopped last year’s hurricane Ian. President Biden did not end the COVID epidemic or start the electric car revolution. 

People’s opinions of who was a good president or a bad one will differ. We should, however, wonder if more people voting would lead to electing better political leaders. In Australia, voting is mandatory. You can go to jail for not voting. If we had a similar law in the U.S., would we get another Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or George Washington?  

I believe that the quality of voters—how democracy is practiced—can make a difference. “Educated” voters are not only more likely to support higher quality candidates for office, but they are also likely to address much of the dysfunction of today’s American democracy. 

What is that dysfunction? I found one answer in an unexpected place. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs comments: “Over the years, democracy in the US has become alienated and degenerated, and it has increasingly deviated from the essence of democracy and its original design. Problems like money politics, identity politics, wrangling between political parties, political polarization, social division, racial tension, and wealth gap have become more acute. All this has weakened the functioning of democracy in the US.” 

Given China’s authoritarian government and the effective dictatorship of Xi Jinping, it is easy to dismiss any opinion of China about America. As I read the comment, however, parts of its assessment resonated. (Other parts did not.) 

An “educated” voter has the wherewithal to rise above identity politics, slick political ads paid for by billionaires, blatant appeals to racism, greed, xenophobia, and lies. Educated voters try to address issues, not passions, and seek objective sources of information (not Facebook or what used to be called Twitter). Educated voters seek to understand views different than their own and practice civility. They do not think anime of Nancy Pelosi getting shot is funny or draw pictures of Donald Trump in prison garb. 

Educated voters are guided by a core set of beliefs that are essential to a functional democracy. These beliefs include all people being created equal, the right of all citizens to vote, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and equal justice under law. Educated voters judge candidates with these values in mind. 

So, is American democracy on the way out? Is further” alienation and degeneration” of American democracy inevitable? I do not think so. If Americans strengthened their citizenship skills, the odds of addressing issues that the Chinese Foreign Ministry and others raise would improve. The cure to what ails American democracy, thus, is to improve our practice of it. Better informed citizens are more likely to want to work together—use our democratic institutions—to address issues that challenge America today.  

Dare I say it, with a little work, the best days of American democracy may be yet to come. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 Have you watched Painkiller, the limited Netflix series about the OxyContin epidemic that kills thousands of Americans each year—more than car crashes? It is an eye-opening piece–even if you already know the story of the Sackler family and the devastation the family released on America. That devastation continues, which is only one reason this series is important. 

From listening to people running for president in 2024, you would not know that more than 100 people a day die of opioid overdoses, or that 81,000 people died of opioid overdoses in 2021, more dead Americans than died in the Vietnam war. Have you seen action plans put forward by any of the dozen or so Republican presidential candidates to address the problem? I have not. Not unless you count Donald Trump’s and Ron DeSantis’ proposals to execute drug dealers. 

Painkiller tells the story of the Sackler family’s and Purdue Pharma’s greed, as well as how otherwise good people got involved in distributing drugs (in the case of Purdue, aggressive marketing to persuade doctors to prescribe OxyContin). 

The series is worth watching, but it does not address the biggest question—what does the government have to do to stop the epidemic? The Sacklers are no longer in the drug business, but the opioid epidemic continues. 

Painkiller offers a simplistic rationale for Purdue’s crimes: greed. Sackler family money allowed it to buy regulatory approvals (by effectively bribing a Food and Drug Administration official) and neuter law enforcement with money (a Maine prosecutor who once publicly attacked Purdue was hired as a consultant to the company) and hiring famous lawyers to game the legal system. (Purdue hired Mary Jo White, a former U.S. Attorney in New York, and Rudy Guiliani to represent it.) 

After more than a decade in court, the Sacklers were stopped from peddling these drugs. Yet, the Purdue story is still not over. Despite the company settling the criminal charges brought against it, the Sackler family assets remain in the billions. A court recently rejected a settlement with a Bankruptcy Court that would have ended future financial risk for the family. Thus, trials relating to Purdue will continue indefinitely. 

Much more important is the reality of at least 100 people a day dying of opioid overdoses, especially those involving Fentanyl, a synthetic 50 times more potent than heroin. Why isn’t more being done?

Experts admit there is no easy solution. Are those who overdose victims or criminals? Should doctors be second-guessed by lawyers on how they prescribe painkillers? Are families to blame? Would “drug education” programs in schools dissuade people from trying illegal drugs—or legal ones they might not need? Would stronger border enforcement stop the flow of opioids into America?

I do not know the answers to these questions. I also do not know why major presidential candidates, including Joe Biden, are not talking more about the issue, or putting forth bold plans to address it. (In February, President Biden called for “a major surge to stop fentanyl production, sale, and trafficking, with more drug detection machines to inspect cargo and stop pills and powder at the border.” Is that enough?)

The drug problem is not getting better. As a nation, are we ready to accept 100 people a day dying of opioid overdoses? I am not. 

Here are questions I would like to see the 2024 candidates answer. 

On a scale of one to ten (just like the pain charts doctors use), how serious is the drug problem in the U.S.? 

What are the causes of the drug problem? 

 

What actions would you take in your first 100 days in the White House (hopefully in the first 100 hours) to begin addressing the problem? 

What commitment of new federal resources to address the addiction problem do you support? 

How do you propose to reduce access to illegal opioids, as well as to legal opioids by people who do not need them? 

Do you think the FDA is doing its job in protecting the public from opioids? 

Do you believe executing drug dealers would solve the opioid epidemic? If so, explain.

Are new laws needed to punish doctors who inappropriately prescribe opioids to people at risk of addiction or to people who do not need the drugs to address intolerable pain? How would such an initiative work?

What innovative ideas do you have to address the drug epidemic? 

Do you agree that, if you are elected, voters should hold you accountable for your record on the drug epidemic issue? 

If anyone running for president happens to read this piece (I like to think that several candidates are Spy readers), please send me your answers. The Spy, I am sure, would like to publish them. 

And, Dr. Harris, where are you on this issue? As a doctor and the First District representative in Congress, what should be done to hold doctors who facilitate access to unneeded addictive opioids accountable? Your website tells us, “Physicians, not government bureaucrats, should provide guidance on medical decisions that affect you and your family.” What would you do to stop doctors from inappropriately prescribing opioids? 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

As widely predicted, ex-president Trump will not be in Milwaukee on August 29 for the first 2024 Republican presidential debate. Rather than risking more statements that might be used against him in the prosecution of one of 91 felony charges, he will be available to his supporters via a pre-taped interview with Tucker Carlson.  My guess is that about half of America’s Republicans will snuggle up with him.

Is there anything more interesting than commiserating about the stolen 2020 election? Of course, Trump will also discuss his demand for justice in the Hunter Biden case and the need to remove deranged and phony prosecutors from certain pending criminal cases. We’ll also hear compelling arguments about why Trump’s trials should be moved to 2026, although, by airtime he may have changed his mind and propose 2040.  It takes a lot of time to prepare a defense when you’re charged with more than seven dozen crimes.

Trump was once entertaining on the debate stage, but that was 2016 when he was still fresh and talked about things (sometimes) other than himself.  Most of us interested in learning more about Trump’s challenges welcome his absence.  His absence in Milwaukee is only a problem for his followers, most of whom can’t stand the sight of politicians challenging the defeated ex-president.

Curiously, Trump’s absence is a problem for the few Republicans on the debate stage courageous enough to call out Trump. It is easier to attack Trump to his face than to an empty podium. And, for some of the candidates, their main purpose for running is to give the GOP an outside chance of winning an election. They see Trump as unelectable and believe his nomination cedes the election to President Biden. It is harder to make the case against Trump when he not in the room.

Why aren’t Trump’s challengers contrasting their ideas with his?  One theory is cowardice. Trump was successful in remaking the Republican party and arguably winning the White House in 2016 by appealing to anger, racism, and resentment against “elites.”  Nobody running against Trump has the courage to lay out an agenda materially different than Trump’s.  

And it gets worse. Some of the candidates feel obligated to defend the man whom they are running against. The dangerous Vivek Ramaswamy, emerging as one of the stronger candidates in the race, even volunteered to serve as a lawyer for Trump.  Ron “DeSanctimonius” received talking points from his campaign to prepare for the debate which advise him not to attack Trump.

You can call those two candidates pathetic. Other candidates, like Nikki Haley, are more circumspect in their discussions of Trump. The former U.N. Ambassador, for example, defends Trump’s foreign policy, avoids direct criticism of him and argues for “a new generation of leadership.” 

Can you think of any bold new ideas being offered by Trump’s challengers?  Actually, there are some if you are broad-minded about the terms “bold” and “new.”  Chris Christie suggests changes are needed in 

Social Security to allow the program to survive. Trump has declared the program off limits. How do you think “attacking” social security will work out for the former New Jersey Governor?

And Mr. Ramaswamy wants to raise the voting age to 25, with exceptions for those with military service or who are first responders.  That idea may be “bold,” but isn’t good unless your goal is to remove younger voters, who often tend to vote Democratic, from the electorate. 

In some ways, Ramaswamy, who also is outspoken about eliminating affirmative action and other programs intended to produce a more equitable, just society is just trying to out-Trump Trump. He’s “Trump without the baggage.” That description doesn’t work for many of us.  We see Trump’s reactionary, backwards policies as part of his “baggage,” every bit as much of a problem as his sedition.

So, what should we expect in the August 23rd debate?  Not much. The first debate will be the last for some of the candidates, including poor Mike Pence, cast aside by Trump for not joining the coup attempt and rejected by his party for the same reason.  There will be a lot of shouting, interruptions, and a few boos from the audience when candidates speak ill of the missing Mr. Trump.

With luck, the forum will provide a boost to a few candidates.  How will former Texas Congressman Will Hurd do?  He’s got a remarkable resume.  How about Senator Tim Scott (SC)?  Will the exposure he gets be enough for him to gain traction, to get GOP voters to listen to him?  And will Christie’s attacks on the absent Trump begin to resonate?  

Without Trump, the show will be a bit tedious, a circus without the main clown.  And, just as I was finishing this piece, Trump is announcing that he may skip the second and possibly more debates.  Sad!

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

The walls are closing in on Donald Trump. On August 14, the long-anticipated Georgia indictment of Donald Trump was filed. It is a doozy. Trump is charged with racketeering that involves attempting to interfere with the 2020 election in Georgia. Unlike his other indictments, Trump has company in Georgia. “America’s Mayor” Rudy Guiliani, former Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows, “Constitutional lawyer” John Eastman, nutcase-lawyer Sydney Powell and 14 others join him on the indictment.

Already dozens of excellent summaries of the charges brought by Fulton County DA Fani Willis have been written, but anyone who is interested in understanding exactly what is going on should read the actual indictment. Why did yet another court indict Trump? Is it possible that the corrupt judicial system, described  by Trump and luminaries like Vivek Ramaswamy as driven by a myopic focus on “getting Trump,” actually exists? How likely is it that lightning struck in the same place four times?

Georgia may prove to be Trump’s downfall. DA Willis is said to have emails and text messages proving the direct involvement of those indicted in not only lying to Georgia election officials, attempting to get them to breach their oaths of office, but also in attempting to manipulate voting machines. Yes, there were attempts to falsify election results in Georgia in 2020, but it was the Trump team that was behind them.

Even before the indictment was filed, Trump, his campaign, and others began their efforts to discredit DA Willis. An unnamed Trump campaign official called her a “rabid partisan who is campaigning and fundraising on a platform of prosecuting President Trump through these bogus indictments.” The day before the indictments were issued, Trump directly attacked Willis, writing, “Why is ‘Phoney’ (like in perfect ‘phone’ call, get it) Fani Willis, the severely underperforming D.A. of Fulton County who is being accused of having an ‘affair’; with a gang member of a group that she is prosecuting, leaking my name in regard to a grand jury pertaining to election fraud and irregularities that I say took place in Georgia? I made a perfect phone call of protest. What does Phoney Fani have to do with me? She should instead focus on the record number of murders in Atlanta.”

I am among those sick of Trump’s name-calling. I look forward to a judge disciplining him for it. That could happen in Washington. Special Counsel “Deranged” Jack Smith must be getting tired of the abuse. Or, with any luck, Judge Tanya Chutkan will get fed up and take action.

Trumping the name calling is the pathetic efforts of Trump allies like House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Senator Lindsey Graham, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, and dozens of right-wing House Republicans to equate the “crimes” of Hunter Biden with the effort of Trump to overthrow the government (attempting to seize power through unlawful means). It is time to roundly condemn these efforts. Attorney General Garland has now appointed a Special Counsel to investigate the Hunter Biden case. Let’s see what happens.

It is also worth mentioning the cowardice of most Republicans running against Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination. Why does Mike Pence say he plans to “clean out the entire top floor of the Department of Justice” if he gets elected president? Has he forgotten the January 6 mob called for him to be hanged?

Two Republican candidates, former Congressman Hurd (TX) and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have the courage to call out Trump. What is wrong with the rest of them?

For the next several months, a day will not go by that does not include Trump worrying about his Georgia indictment. If he is elected president, he cannot pardon himself from a state conviction. And the Georgia racketeering statute includes a mandatory minimum jail term.

Trump’s team will focus on delaying the trial. In all likelihood, the Georgia trial will not take place until after November 2024. That is unfortunate, but racketeering cases are complicated. 

This situation raises the question of what happens if Georgia convicts a newly elected Trump after the election? Let’s say Trump is convicted on various Federal charges, wins the election, and then pardons himself from Federal convictions. Would Trump take up arms against Georgia if it tried to jail him? 

Who knows. The 2024 election is shaping up to be a nightmare, thanks to Trump and the moral bankruptcy of a party that continues to defend him. Trump does not care. He does not believe the law applies to him. But if Georgia was not on his radar screen before August 14, it is now. Georgia is on Trump’s mind. The post-Trump era is on mine. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

Are you familiar with the 37-year-old Cincinnati Indian American Republican businessman Vivek Ramaswamy running for the 2024 Republican nomination? If you are not, it is time to do some homework. He is the worst, the most dangerous of the unimpressive dozen Republicans running for president. 

For months, it has been easy to ignore Ramaswamy. Before he announced his candidacy, most of us had never heard of him. He has not held public office. He looked like one more multi-millionaire ready to use his own money to fund the adventure of a lifetime. What is more exciting? Buying a trip to outer space or dreaming about becoming president?

Ramaswamy fashions himself as the embodiment of the American dream. He is a successful businessman with an estimated fortune of $640 million. He is positioning himself as a baggage-free successor to Donald Trump, who, Ramaswamy promises, he will pardon if elected. 

The Ramaswamy campaign is about the evils of “wokeism,” which he proclaims is destroying America. He champions merit over entitlement and is ready to condemn anyone he views as disagreeing with him. 

While the harm (or merit) of “wokeism” is subject to debate, Ramaswamy’s views on “wokeism” could prove to be harmless rhetoric. Far worse is his vision on how to run the United States. He is a textbook authoritarian and has a plan to disassemble the deep state through executive fiat. Without interference from Congress, he would abolish the Department of Education, the FBI, the IRS, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Ramaswamy’s vision and his strategy of championing Trumpism and promising the ex-president a pardon while at the same time seeking to replace him as head of the GOP is resonating with some Republicans. Should Trump’s legal problems worsen, which is all but certain, Ramaswamy could suddenly find himself as the 2024 Republican nominee.

Are today’s Republicans ready to support an Indian American candidate? Maybe. Unlike Trump, who might be considered Ramaswamy’s inspiration to run for president, Ramaswamy has an impressive personal story. The offspring of Indian immigrants, he was valedictorian of his high school and attended Harvard before going to Yale Law School. He is an extraordinarily successful entrepreneur who amassed a net worth of more than $15 million before graduating from law school. And he is more articulate than any other candidate of either party currently running for president.

So why is Ramaswamy’s candidacy so worrisome? Because he could win. As a multi-millionaire, he is able to self-fund his campaign, if needed. He already has qualified for the first GOP presidential debate and is the only candidate likely to be a match for Chris Christie. While Christie talks about Trump, Ramaswamy talks about “equal opportunity, not equal results.” The message resonates with many Republicans.

Ramaswamy has conveniently adopted the standard set of MAGA policies, echoing Trump on foreign policy, “border security,” and abortion. There are minor differences between Ramaswamy and Trump, but not many. On abortion, for example, Ramaswamy supports Ohio’s six-week abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother or child. He opposes a federal ban on abortion, likely because of his distaste for the deep state.

Is Ramaswamy the future of the Republican party? Maybe. He now is third among Republican candidates, behind only Trump and DeSantis. If he does well in the first Republican debate (and even if he does not), he could soon eclipse DeSantis and become the frontrunner to replace Trump should Trump’s legal problems overwhelm him. That is why it is important to take Ramaswamy seriously.

The combination of a young, smooth-talking candidate who is an indisputable outsider who embraces Trumpism could result in a groundswell of support for Ramaswamy much like the one that Barack Obama experienced in 2008. 

Donald Trump is not the only threat to democracy running for president in 2024. With the emergence of Ramaswamy, Trump may not even be the worst. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

Among all the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to vote is the most important. Without it, the people lose their power and, with it, the risk of losing the rest of their rights. That is why watching some voters squander their right to vote is so troubling. 

Recent political news has kept me up at night. I fear America cannot survive another four years of Trump or Trumpism. I am unable to understand how intelligent, diligent voters can support a man who has been indicted for obstruction of justice, accused of rape, and is about to be indicted for sedition. 

It would be convenient, given my politics, if all “problem” voters were Republicans, but that is not true. I have yet to hear a compelling reason to support conspiracy theory-embracing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I also doubt the wisdom of voters who seem to think politics is exclusively about which candidate can deliver the most benefits, cut the most taxes, or who has the most charisma.

What makes a problem voter? Unfortunately, there are multiple causes. The first is disengagement. The worst voter is the one who does not vote. I will take idiotic voters, such as ones voting for Candidate X because their favorite rock star endorsed him or her, over one who has more important things to do than vote.

The second cause of problem voters is laziness. Thomas Jefferson considered an educated electorate as essential to democracy. Yet too many voters do not read the news or, even worse, rely on social media for their news. The result is a group of misinformed voters who believe wild and false information because “it is on the web.”  

Unfortunately, unscrupulous candidates from both parties have learned that lying can get you votes. Trump is the most prominent, but he has company. Is President Biden attempting to force all schools to teach Critical Race Theory? Is the White House refusing to release information proving the existence of extraterrestrial life?

The third cause of problem voters is the belief that, with the right leader, all problems in America will disappear. Hitler promised an end to Germany’s economic crisis that followed World War I. Trump told us that, among several things, undocumented immigrants were destroying America. He ran on solving those problems and then lied about his success. Unfortunately, the evidence of a mixed record notwithstanding, Trump’s followers still see him as a strong leader. It takes a courageous leader to call Jack Smith “deranged” and a “thug.” Right?

The fourth pitfall for many voters is the search for charisma. Today, Kamala Harris is widely disliked because “she lacks charisma” and is “unpresidential.”  Some voters choose their candidates based on their age, their race, their smile, and on which celebrities endorse them. Is it any surprise that so many unqualified, arguably crazy, people run for president? The practices of some voters make this happen—the best qualified candidates are rejected not on the basis of their abilities, record, or qualifications, but on what should be irrelevant personal characteristics.

The 2024 presidential vote is still about 16 months away. Am I naïve to hope that more voters will become engaged, get educated on the issues, and choose to support a candidate who is best for the country rather than one who promises them the most?

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

The well-meaning but naïve group calling itself the No Labels movement just moved one step closer to running a third-party presidential candidate in 2024. On Monday, the group released a lengthy set of policy proposals which, the group says, reflect the views of the millions of voters alienated by left-leaning Democrats and MAGA Republicans.

Donald Trump is not known for prayer, but he should say one for No Labels. If No Labels evolves into a third-party that competes in the 2024 election, it could put Trump back in the White House. No Labels, if it runs a 2024 “unity ticket,” is likely to be a spoiler. Political experts expect Trump to benefit. 

No Labels describes its genesis as a response to the harsh division in American politics. The group argues that millions of Americans—more than either the Democratic or Republican party—support centrist policies and want the two principal parties to quit fighting and address America’s problems. Sounds like common sense, doesn’t it? That is how No Labels describes its policy agenda. 

The leaders of No Labels are aware of the possibility of disrupting the 2024 elections, but, to date, are playing coy. The group tells us they are not a political party despite registering to run a presidential slate in several states. It has been recognized as a party in Arizona, Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, and Utah. More states will follow.

But who is this group that claims to be above current American politics? The group describes itself as “a national movement of commonsense Americans pushing our leaders together to solve our country’s biggest problems.” But what does “commonsense” mean? No Labels suggests the term refers to non-divisive policy solutions, policies other than those championed by either the far right or far left. 

No Labels has, sort of, determined what those policies are. It claims such policies reflect extensive polling and listening sessions with voters but the policy positions, at least as published in the group’s July 2023 brochure, lack specificity. The problem with this is that when nationally important policy is concerned, the devil, or the genius, is usually found in the details. 

While one hopes that No Labels will abandon its $70 million campaign, that is not likely. Can we trust them to not run a 2024 candidate? Have they earned our trust? 

The leadership of No Labels seeks to dispel concerns that the movement will be a spoiler in the 2024 election with a promise: “We will run a candidate only under the proper environmental conditions, which must be met for us to proceed.”  It adds, “We will measure these conditions rigorously, through regular polling and research.”

What are the “proper environmental conditions?” Who will determine if those conditions have been met? And who will interpret the polls? If those questions worry you, consider that the group has, thus far, refused to release the identities of its donors, independently reported to include several major Republicans. In other words, No Labels asks for our trust, but it is funded by dark money. Given that, we should worry. 

No Labels is also running against “Washington.”  The appeal of No Labels to many of its supporters is the belief that Washington politics are an obstacle to getting anything done in Washington. The group argues that Washington policymakers, with rare exceptions, are out for themselves. It also argues, “Washington only works for Washington. We’re working to change that.”

The appeal is a retread. It worked for Donald Trump and dozens of other legislators who have won seats in Congress—or the presidency—by running against Washington.

In the case of No Labels, the group suggests that the nation’s most passionate political divisions are somehow illegitimate and that extremists prevent a reasonable, commonsense solution from being developed. Does that mean that legislators who believe climate change is an existential crisis that demands extraordinary actions are part of the problem? It does, but only if you believe climate change can be addressed successfully with a compromise that carefully considers the interests of the fossil fuel industry. That seems naïve.

No Labels also promotes compromises for guns, abortions, border security, and more than a dozen other issues in its policy manifesto. Interested in the details? Read the pamphlet, and you will find generalities, not details. The details, No Labels seems to assume, will be worked out once the far right and left lose their power. Does that strike you as naïve?

No Labels seems to imply that passionate politics are toxic. The group argues, “This moment demands American leaders and citizens alike declare their freedom from the anger and divisiveness that are ruining our politics and most importantly, our country. A United Front. “

One wonders if No Labels would have proposed the colonies seek a middle ground with its dispute with England before the American Revolution. And should the North have split the difference with the South on the issue of slavery? (Actually, several attempts to “find the middle” were attempted before the Civil War started. One could argue that things like the Missouri Compromise postponed the Civil War and left millions in bondage for decades.) 

Some issues are sufficiently important that a compromise should not be sought. You are either for a woman’s right to choose or you are not. Suggesting that those outraged by the repeal of Roe v. Wade are somehow “ruining our politics and more importantly, our country” is offensive. 

Is it possible for No Labels to succeed? Yes, if the goal is four more years of Trumpism.

For more in-depth information on No Labels, I suggest reading the group’s policy brochure and a recent, excellent Washington Post article by Mariana Alfaro.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.

 

America celebrated another birthday last week, but as I watched the fireworks I wondered, is this the next to last one? I sense our political system may be at a breaking point. If the 2024 election proves to be the disaster it is shaping up to be, our constitutional democracy might not be around on July 4, 2025.

The leading 2024 presidential candidates from each party are individuals who a majority of us do not want to run. One is widely seen as too old to run. The other does not support democracy and is well on his way to being a convicted felon. The election of either Joe Biden or Donald Trump could throw the country into a political crisis that could become the day American democracy died.

Joe Biden, of course is a friend of democracy. The problem with his election is that he might not survive another four years in office. His death or incapacity could trigger another Trump attempt to seize power by force, especially if the incredibly unpopular Kamala Harris becomes president. 

The problem of a Trump win in 2024 is that Trump is already promising to “take our country back,” and deliver retribution to the “thugs” who are prosecuting him. Plus, he evidences increasing signs of decline if not outright insanity. 

Trump is also too old to run for president—we just do not talk about it because there are so many other reasons why his 2024 candidacy is a threat to our future. He will be 78 years old on election day 2024.

So, are we doomed or is there a way out of the pending crisis? No and yes. We will be fine if both candidates drop their candidacies. For now, that looks unlikely, but it could and should happen.

I have a theory that Joe Biden’s decision to seek a second term resulted from his conclusion that Trump remains a potent political force and could regain the White House. Biden mistakenly believes that he is the best candidate to defeat Trump. After all, he did it before. Biden may also believe that if he were not running, the Democratic party would erupt into a slugfest between moderates and progressives that would facilitate Trump winning the election.

Biden could be right about the risk of a brutal Democratic party primary season, but he does not seem to understand how unpopular he is becoming. Every time the President misspeaks, stumbles on a stage, or appears tired, more voters conclude not only that he is too old to run for president, but that he is not functioning as president today. 

What could prompt Biden to rethink his decision to seek a second term? The answer is if Trump either dropped out of the race or is defeated in the Republican primaries.

To date, Trump is holding onto his base. I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks Trump is “perfectly innocent” or is willing to take the risk of a convicted felon being elected president. Yet the numbers, so far, do not lie. 

Trump is not invulnerable. Last weekend I watched the video of Trump’s speech in Council Bluffs, Iowa. It was pathetic. Trump rallied Iowans by suggesting that Democrats seek to destroy Iowa by promoting electric cars (which do not need ethanol). He also focused on “the border” and, after calling Democrats “either evil or stupid” for promoting an open border, told the audience how he pressured Mexico into placing 28,000 troops on the border to stop illegal immigration. 

The speech, which included a reference to America going to hell, a claim that Biden is the most corrupt president in history, and that he would fix everything, was reminiscent of a Hitler speech from the 1930s. Trump uses fear and promotes hate to convince voters to support him.

Somehow, somewhere, somebody needs to take Trump down. The justice system may do it, but Trump can also be defeated if the Republican party finally rejects him. 

Could former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie be the candidate who makes that happen—the candidate who finally makes Republicans see Trump as the toxic cancer that he is? 

In recent weeks I have been encouraged—let me say excited—by Christie’s willingness to call Trump out. Christie has been outspoken in saying that it is time for Republicans to take a stand against Trump and recognize that he is the narcissistic grifter who tried to retain the presidency by force and lies in 2021.

The first GOP presidential debate is scheduled for August 23rd. Governor Christie will qualify for it by securing the requisite number of campaign donors. Will Trump participate? Given his congenital over-confidence, Trump might be persuaded to say yes. Christie expects Trump to be there and is looking forward to the chance to battle Trump directly.

If Chris Christie exposes Trump in a way that has not happened to date, Trump could decide to drop out of the race. That might clear the way for President Biden to change his mind about running in 2024. If that happens, we might get a younger, more energetic Democrat as the party’s nominee, and America might get to celebrate another birthday in 2025.

Naïve? Maybe, but there has to be a way out of this mess. I refuse to quit looking for it.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. 

 

It might seem cruel to say, but the Supreme Court was right in striking down President Biden’s $450 billion student loan forgiveness plan. Yes, hundreds of thousands of students who thought the burden of their student loans had been lifted were greeted last Friday with the news that the SOBs on the Supreme Court—the same ones who overturned Roe v. Wade—have condemned them to a life of servitude which, many of them believe, is inherent in borrowing money to go to college.

Most of us are sympathetic to the student loan borrowers. I did not enjoy borrowing money for college but had no choice. It was either borrow or not go to law school. I also found that my student loan repayments, small when compared with what recent generations of student debtors owe, were a hindrance. Buying a new car was out of the question. Taking on more debt, even after I secured a good paying job made possible by the education I financed, seemed reckless. So, I did not do it. I even worried about being able to repay the loan if I found myself unemployed, so I paid more than the required monthly repayment amount. I printed out a loan amortization table and calculated how I could avoid future loan repayments by making prepayments.

When President Biden announced his student loan forgiveness plan, I was (correctly) not included. The idea of repaying student loan borrowers for payments made many years previously is ridiculous. Reimbursing borrowers who paid back their student loans is, however, somehow fair. Had I not had to repay my student loans, I could have saved more, and would have a lot more money today. Or perhaps I could have visited St. Petersburg and visited the Hermitage before Putin effectively closed Russia to sane Americans. You get the idea, but, fortunately, President Biden drew a line. The loan forgiveness program could have cost more than a trillion dollars if taken to its logical extreme. 

President Biden was right to not include me in his student loan plan. And, but for the lack of authority to forgive part or all loans of 43 million borrowers, was right to seek loan forgiveness for student loan borrowers struggling with student loan debt.  The problem, identified by the conservative majority on the Court in striking down Biden’s action, is that the law on which Biden premised his loan forgiveness plan did not allow it.

The Court majority analyzes the 2003 HEROES Act, which grants the president authority to waive or modify student loan repayment terms to respond to hardships caused by national emergencies, and concludes that it is inconceivable that Congress intended the wholesale forgiveness of $450 billion in student loans with no analysis of whether the individual borrowers identified for forgiveness needed the help.  The Court’s dissenters, three liberal Justices, argued that there is no explicit limitation on the right of the president to “waive or modify” and that a waiver can be as broad as the president would like. 

Following the logic of dissenters, President Biden could have forgiven every penny of student loan debt. If a child of Elon Musk, for now the world’s richest oligarch, had a student loan, the Justices could have argued, President Biden could have freed him of the nuisance of having to repay the loan.

President Biden responded to the Court’s decision by condemning it. He vows to find another way to deliver on his promise of debt forgiveness. Will Biden be able to do something? Yes. The Court’s decision recognizes the power of the president to “waive or modify.”  Biden will be able to provide better-targeted loan relief to millions of borrowers. 

All of us should be glad that President Biden cares so much about student loan debtors. Even though the concept of forgiving student loan debt is highly political, the reality of out-of-control student debt is real for millions of borrowers. 

President Biden has executive authority to provide targeted student loan debt relief, but he needs to part company with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the politician responsible for pushing Biden to exceed his executive authority by basing $450 billion of federal spending on what she saw as a loophole in a statute. 

Congress is highly unlikely to simply go back and amend the HEROES Act with language like, “The President can declare anything he wants to be an emergency and forgive any federal debt owed by anyone, regardless of the federal costs involved or whether the forgiveness is fair or needed.”  Such a “solution” would be easy. It would also be monumentally unfair, illegal, fiscally reckless, and stupid.

The brouhaha resulting from the Court striking down the Biden plan should prompt Congress and the public to take an in-depth look at the cost of higher education and the issue of how students and their families finance it. At the top of the list is addressing the problem of college costing too much. Congress must figure out a way to make college affordable without massive student loan debt. The best student loan is the one never made. 

Congress also needs to face up to the reality that if you forgive current student loan borrowers’ debt, you are creating a precedent for future generations to ask for the same thing. It may be time to abolish student loans altogether and for Congress to figure out a way to make college free for most Americans. Possible? Yes. Extremely difficult? Absolutely. 

The full text, including the dissenting opinion, of Biden v. Nebraska may be found here. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. He is a former counsel to the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives where he worked on student loan and other higher education legislation.