These are worrisome times for those of us who have nightmares about a revengeful, reckless Donald Trump returning to the White House in 2025. Yes, it could happen despite a growing stack of indictments (two down, two or more to go, including the big one for sedition in Washington) and Trump’s increasingly bizarre behavior. 

Incredibly, Trump’s following in his party has increased since April. Logic still suggests that age or his legal troubles will eventually overwhelm him, forcing him to quit the race, but that has not happened yet. And it might never happen.

That is why Democrats need to rethink their 2024 strategy. They need to take some risks. They need to accept that a majority of voters do not think an 80-year-old, regardless of his accomplishments, should run for president. They need to calculate the risks of Biden becoming seriously ill or incapacitated between now and election day and being forced to quit in the middle of the election, a scenario that would create chaos. That risk is material. There has to be a Democratic actuary out there. Her help is needed—now.

In an ideal world, it would be the “Big guy” himself who gathers a small group of the party’s top leaders and lets them know he has changed his mind about running in 2024. By doing so, much of the risk of Biden not running can be avoided. Those risks include the party being hijacked by a candidate too-far-left to get elected or a candidate susceptible to Trump’s gift of destruction by ridicule, lies, racism, and misogyny. Put another way, resurrecting Hillary Clinton or choosing Elizabeth Warren will not work.

The party needs to create a checklist to select a candidate who can withstand Trump, exude ethics and honesty, and credibly continue the policies that have made Biden’s presidency one of accomplishment. The list would be aspirational.  It likely will be all but impossible to find a candidate able to check every box.  The list would not be “non-negotiables,” but ideals.

What should the Democrats be looking for? The candidate must be young, but also must be experienced and savvy enough to address the challenges of today. This means a candidate with extensive military or foreign policy experience. Similarly, a grasp of artificial intelligence would be a plus since regulating AI will be a top agenda item for the next five years. And the party needs a candidate who is personally committed to racial and economic justice, ideally as evidenced in the candidate’s own background and experiences. 

In summary, the list would include being right on issues important to voters, having the experience and temperament to handle the issues likely to  be encountered as president, having expertise in the emerging challenge of AI, and having a dedication and background to relate to—and be relatable to—most Americans.

That may seem like a simple list, but it would exclude many alternatives to Joe Biden that come to mind. Thinking about Michelle Obama as the candidate? Does not meet the criteria. How about Gavin Newsom? I am not sure. Maybe. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? Do you have to ask?

Who should top Democrats be thinking about? Until they develop their criteria, nobody.  To avoid a mistake, the party needs to know what it needs before starting to consider names.  Once the list is completed, party leadership should be open to considering lesser known candidates.  Two examples would be Maryland Governor Wes Moore and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.  

Ideally, if the Democrats, under the leadership of President Biden, decide to rejuvenate the party by finding a candidate who checks as many of the boxes as possible, the defeat of Diet Coke swigging Trump, who will be 78 years old on election day, could be easy. 

Imagine the Democratic party rallying behind a ticket that embraced its commitment to diversity, democracy, progress, and national unity. It is likely that such a strong ticket would dissuade the “No Labels” movement from running a candidate and unintentionally helping Trump. Pre-empting No Labels by itself is a reason for the party to consider taking the risk of moving on from Biden.

Joe Biden deserves America’s thanks for defeating Trump in 2024, leading us out of the pandemic, and making progress on social justice. He has repaired out alliances in Europe and elsewhere, established America as the leader of efforts to support Ukraine in its war against Russia, helped to prevent a recession, and stood up for basic civil rights, including the rights to abortion and to vote. 

A decision to pass the proverbial baton to a new generation would cap Biden’s career and make him a national hero. Let’s hope that happens. 

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

 

I did not have to check the official record last week to confirm that when the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan compromise to raise the federal debt limit and avoid a default on federal debt, that Andy “Handgun” Harris voted no. I also did not need to hear his explanation for his vote. Donald Trump had already issued his order during the now-infamous CNN New Hampshire Republican Town Hall Meeting on May 10. At that event, Trump called for a default on the federal debt. Harris’ vote was consistent with Trump’s call.

On June 2, like other First District residents who subscribe to Harris’ newsletters, I received a particularly offensive email from Dr. Harris. Our congressman (and my hand shakes as I write that) had the audacity to boast about his irresponsible vote on the recently passed increase in the federal debt ceiling and to tell us that he was doing what we wanted him to do as our representative in Congress. Really?

I do not recall anyone asking Dr. Harris to precipitate a national economic crisis by defaulting on the federal debt. 

Consider what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on May 11 about the consequences of not increasing the debt ceiling, “A default would threaten the gains that we have worked so hard to make over the past few years in our pandemic recovery. And it would spark a global downturn that would set us back much further. It would also risk undermining US global economic leadership and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests.” 

Does Harris, an anesthesiologist by trade, think Yellen is lying?

Don’t trust a Democratic Treasury Secretary who also served as Federal Reserve Chair? International Monetary Fund economist Filippo Gori told us, “It [a default] would be a spectacular debacle—weakening the U.S. economy and undermining the United States’ international standing.”

Harris’ vote suggests he and the defeated ex-president, who knows a thing or two about defaulting on debts, think they know better than Yellen and Gori. They do not. 

What did Harris tell us in his email: “I voted No. [in Red].”  He added, “Maryland families and the voters in my district didn’t send me to Washington to write blank checks for the federal government–they sent me to Congress to permanently change the way Washington does business and this includes getting our fiscal house in order.”

First District voters may be conservative, but they did not elect Harris with the intention of collapsing the U.S. economy. One might add that Harris is right that voters do not want Congress to “write blank checks.”  Harris does not add that he always votes for tax cuts and against tax increases regardless of the current state of the national debt. 

First District voters also did not elect Harris to jeopardize federal programs that many people in his district depend on, things like food assistance, healthcare, aid to schools, and support for improving our roads and bridges.

Harris also tells us, “I have always believed that if we raise the debt ceiling by a dollar, we should reduce spending by a dollar.” That sounds like simplistic nonsense to me.

Harris is okay supporting tax cuts for the wealthy regardless of whether they increase the federal debt. Following his logic, tax cuts will force additional cuts in federal spending. To him, that is a good thing, regardless of whether the programs which spending supports are needed in the First District.

Andy Harris’ vote reflects a willingness to risk a federal debt default and the interruption of benefits to his constituents. If asked, maybe Harris would tell us that he only voted “no” after realizing that the bipartisan compromise on the debt ceiling had the votes to pass. We will never know whether this is true. And I do not want to know. I just want Harris gone.

The First District did not send Harris to Washington to engage in extreme right-wing politics, including attending the infamous White House meeting to discuss overturning the 2020 presidential election results. 

The Eastern Shore has real needs. Why not focus on those for a while and quit being a toady for Donald Trump? The First District deserves better representation in Congress. Andy “Handgun” Harris just proved that with his irresponsible debt ceiling vote. 

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

 

 

Are you celebrating the end of the debt ceiling crisis? You know, the predicted collapse of the U.S. economy triggered by the federal government defaulting on its debt because a 1917 law prohibits it from issuing debt beyond a level set in statute. That limit is currently $31.4 trillion. 

The compromise announced over the weekend is a victory for both sides. Biden’s willingness to compromise with Republicans averted a default on federal debt. Republicans won restraints on spending and several other priorities, including reducing new funding for the IRS and imposing work requirements for many beneficiaries of the SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) program.

Politics can be a difficult, ugly process, but in the case of the Republican decision to use a confrontation on the debt ceiling to achieve several of its 2024 political priorities, it worked. Should that be celebrated? Should President Biden have been tougher in negotiations? Those are valid questions. 

Thanks to the agreement, which is expected to be approved by Congress and signed by the president, the next debt ceiling crisis will not happen until 2025, after the next presidential election. 

I am not celebrating the end of the “crisis” because it never was one. The lines drawn in the sand by both the White House and Mr. McCarthy were not non-negotiable, but political posturing. I knew that sometime just before the “deadline,” the estimated date on which new federal borrowing would be illegal, an agreement would be reached. I was right.

The concept of a “debt ceiling” is stupid. America borrows money to pay for federal programs and spending already authorized. That means that, given Congress’ authority to appropriate money and raise taxes, there is already a “control” over spending. A “debt ceiling” is not needed if Congress had the backbone to pay for what it wants to spend.

The waste of time spent by both the White House and Congress arguing about the debt ceiling is reminiscent of the 15-vote marathon the Republicans needed to elect a Speaker of the House. That circus was orchestrated by about a dozen right-wing crazies with a take-no-prisoners approach to governing. They are ready to stop Congress in its tracks to make a point on issues like “wokeness,” guns, border security, abortion, and now that a Democrat is in the White House, the federal debt. They are not ready, or should I say able, to work as members of a deliberative legislative body created to translate what the people want into government spending and policy.

It was the right-wing extremists who conditioned Kevin McCarthy’s election to the Speakership on a promise to take the debt ceiling vote “to the mat.”  Because a compromise was reached, they failed. But they will be back the next time the federal debt approaches the “ceiling.”  They will also be looking for other means to attempt to win or influence issues they are unable to win without extreme game-playing. Take, for example, Senator Tommy Tuberville ‘s refusal to allow a vote on the appointment of General Charles Brown, Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the abortion issue.

I am waiting to see if Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) or Lauren Boebert (R-CO) attempt to remove Speaker McCarthy because he compromised with the Democrats. Donald Trump, who has advocated a default, is encouraging them. 

Sadly, the compromise reached over the weekend will not eliminate future “debt ceiling crises.”  In a sane world, Congress would see that use of the “debt ceiling” to leverage cuts in federal spending only makes Congress look stupid. In its simplest form, think of Congress agreeing to spending and later refusing to pay for it. 

Representative Bill Foster (D-IL), and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) have introduced the End the Threat of Default Act, legislation to repeal the statute that established a “debt ceiling.” Ideally, the legislation would pass, but that will not happen. The entire Republican caucus, even those who were troubled by the brinksmanship of Speaker McCarthy, prefers to keep the weapon of the debt ceiling.

Lest the debt ceiling fiasco be seen as the exclusive fault of Republicans, realize the real issue behind the “problem” of deficit federal spending is the refusal of both parties to support the type of tax increases needed for federal programs that enjoy broad bipartisan support. Republicans oppose all tax increases and enthusiastically voted in support of tax cuts for the wealthy. Democrats also oppose all tax increases except for those to be paid by the “super rich,” best understood to be someone other than 99.0 percent of us. 

The Democrats’ tax policy fosters the misconception that significant expansions of federal programs can be enacted with no new taxes (meaning no new taxes except for the super-rich). That is dangerous. It turns Congress into a grab bag. It also encourages Republicans to oppose all tax increases and seek tax cuts for their friends whenever they have the power to do so.

So, please join me in not celebrating the end of the debt ceiling crisis. The can has been kicked down the road. We do not have to worry about a repeat for two years. Yippee.

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

 

Mike Pence is expected to announce his candidacy for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination by the end of June.  Forgive me if I yawn. Trump’s vice president has no chance of being elected president. 

The most memorable image of Pence comes from the 2020 Republican vice-presidential debate. A large black fly landed on his head. Pence was oblivious to it, just like he is on so many issues important to the Eastern Shore. Worried about climate change and rising sea levels? Mike is not your candidate.

I am troubled that Pence seems to think he is owed the Republican nomination because he refused to follow Trump’s request to reject the 2020 election results. We owe Pence a thank you for not rejecting democracy, but he was only doing his job. When he was inaugurated as vice president in 2017, he swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  

Other than not joining Trump’s insurrection, what else did Pence do as vice president? I cannot think of anything other than standing motionless behind Trump at bill signings and other events like a robot.

Pence’s policies, especially on abortion and guns, are, if anything, more right-wing than Trump’s. We could at least count on Trump to be unpredictable. Remember when Trump appeared to be open to gun safety reform legislation? Plus, why would any woman in their right mind vote for a man who has said he would not have lunch with a woman unless his wife were with him? Apparently the concept of professional female relationships has not entered his lexicon. 

I am also not ready to forgive Pence for agreeing to be Trump’s vice president in the first place. His being on the 2016 ticket gave Trump much-needed credibility among mainstream Republicans. (In 2016 there were some.) Imagine if Pence had rejected Trump’s invitation and publicly repudiated him? When you think back to those times, there were many pundits who predicted that if Pence had run for another term as governor of Indiana, he would have lost.  Perhaps that is why he jumped at the VP opportunity. 

If news reports are accurate, we may soon have several Republican candidates more engaging than Pence and without Pence’s baggage. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) announced on Monday. Among the candidates are Governor Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Governor Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, and even Former Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. All these names are preferable to Trump, who might be facing felony charges in three or even four different courts by the time the 2024 Republican convention is held in Milwaukee.

In dismissing Mike Pence as a boring, out of touch candidate, am I hoping for a Republican that can defeat Joe Biden or another Democrat in 2024? Of course not. I have yet to learn of any Republican who embraces the policies I deem important. My distaste for the GOP was also heightened by last week’s Republican intransigence over the debt ceiling.

It may be a naïve hope, but maybe, just maybe, a moderate Republican could revive the GOP and start a rebuilding process. I do not expect that to happen but ridding the party—and America—of Trump for good is a step in the right direction. 

Some may ask, why do I want a revived Republican party? Because America needs at least two parties to function properly. Without a disciplined, principled opposition party, the Democrats could go too far left. Without today’s Democratic party, imagine the additional damage Trump may have done with four more years in office.

Mike Pence is not the future of the Republican party. He needs to retire. His entry into the Republican presidential campaign will, unfortunately, benefit Trump. That is why he should not join the race. 

Let’s thank Pence for doing his job in January 2021. I wish him a pleasant retirement. 

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

 

 Since watching the Donald Trump show a week ago, I have been trying to figure out what is going on with politics. The CNN town hall meeting (aka The Donald Trump show) was forcefully condemned by some and welcomed by others. Seventy minutes of Trump’s lying arrogance nauseated many of us but was welcomed by others, including many Democrats. Trump’s cavalier rejection of both truth and civility convinced many, for the 100th time, that he is unelectable. 

Then we have the phenomenon of Biden’s poll numbers sinking. A lot of us want Trump gone, but apparently still prefer him over Joe Biden. I have been pondering what Biden did to deserve such rejection. Is it age alone? Is it his embrace of diversity and equity? Or is it simply a naïve belief that if we could just get Trump back in the White House, the price of gasoline would go down and the war in Ukraine would end in 24 hours (as promised by Trump at the Town Hall).

I am also watching the impasse over raising the debt ceiling. A terribly risky game of chicken is being played with both sides refusing to entertain compromise. Will Biden lose the support of his party if he “caves” to Speaker McCarthy on the issue (as Trump predicts)? And is McCarthy even in a position to negotiate? Given his razor-thin majority and the MAGA caucus, is McCarthy even able to compromise? And, most importantly, will default on federal debt end American civilization as we know it or simply produce a slight bump in the road? (Trump cavalierly told Town Hall attendees not to worry about a federal debt default.)

If you are able to read these tea leaves, congratulations. Personally, I do not believe that today’s tea leaves can be read with any reasonable degree of confidence.

Conversations with politically knowledgeable friends, as well as newspapers and cable news, have convinced me that nobody really knows what is happening. Pundits like Al From and Craig Fuller have opined that Trump will not be the Republican candidate in 2024. Other friends and pundits, however, tell me that despite being found liable for sexual battery and defamation, being indicted on 34 felony counts in New York, and facing more serious charges of election interference in Georgia and, some predict, a multitude of charges in Washington relating to misappropriated classified documents and trying to overthrow the government, that Trump is a shoo-in for the Republican nomination.

What do I think? I do not know.

Making prognoses even more difficult are the wildcards of Biden’s and Trump’s health, the economy, and the increasing possibility that a group called “No Labels” will run a third party “national unity” ticket in several states. Several friends point to the self-identification of more than a third of voters as “independent” as evidence that a centrist ticket—a Democrat and Republican running on the same ticket and guided by a platform of centrist principles—is the only way to prevent Trump or a left-leaning Democrat from winning the presidency. Others, including Mr. From on The Spy’s From and Fuller program, believes No Labels is a disaster because it would guarantee the return of Trump to the White House by attracting votes that otherwise would be cast for Biden.

What do I think? I do not know. I believe most of us would welcome a centrist president and that the best way to defeat Trump or persuade him not to run is to convince him that his base has abandoned him and that he cannot win. As I said, I do not know.

At times, I feel guilty about not “knowing” what the 2024 election cycle will hold. Last weekend, I stopped feeling guilty. What happened? I reflected on the reality of election day being more than a year and a half away. That realization prompted me to remind myself to calm down.

A year and a half is a long time. A lot of things can, and probably will, happen. Trump, for example, may self-destruct. President Biden may decide not to run for reelection. A surprise, charismatic candidate might emerge in one, or maybe both parties. Remember Obama’s meteoric rise in 2008? The economy may surprise us by not going into recession. And dozens of other scenarios are possible. What if there is another pandemic? Or the Chinese invade Taiwan? Or something else.

My takeaway is that those of us who care about America’s future must stay engaged. We cannot ignore Trump (or Biden), but we also must remind ourselves that it is too early to assume anything. The future is not yet determined. If we want the future to be positive, we need to work for it. Right?

And exactly what should we do?  If you agree that Trump’s return to power would be a disaster, we must call out the defeated ex-president’s lies and misguided policies.  More importantly, we must get involved with the Democratic party, or even the “No Labels” movement, to promote electing a president in 2024 who supports democracy and the Constitution. 

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