How Does Biden Defeat This Incumbent President?

What does Joe Biden need to do to defeat Trump in November? And hopefully not just squeaking by but by trouncing him.

First, the President has the bully pulpit, and never has that phrase been more apt than in the case of Donald Trump.  Biden has to figure out a way, in this age of pandemic with social restrictions, to give himself a public presence, to make him a leader for the American people.  He must develop his own bully pulpit.

Videos from his basement don’t hack it!  Yes, he can’t hold rallies and many of the usual things that candidates do.  

But he can hold press conferences … live ones … that reporters will cover.  Certainly on the issue of how to respond to the pandemic, he has ample reason to hold a regularly scheduled weekly news conferences to criticize what Trump is doing or not doing, tell the people what needs to happen and what he would do if President.  Like his plan for the Federal government taking over responsibility for testing and contact tracing … which was announced in a post on Medium and hardly noticed.  There is so much confusion surrounding the virus and opening up, the people would welcome a sane, trustworthy voice on these issues.

He can also use press conferences to announce his policy positions on other important matters linked to his criticism of Trump administration actions or policies.  There is no shortage of weekly items that highlight how Trump is destroying policies that were meant to protect the average person … health care, environmental roll-backs, the post office, to name just a few.  And that would give Biden the opportunity to showcase his own policies, not just to protect the status quo but to improve protections for the average person.

One caveat:  do not in general campaign against Trump the person.  Data show that most people are not as upset about Trump the person as liberals and especially progressives are.  Especially since Biden needs to attract people who voted for Trump, attacking Trump the person becomes viewed as attacking the people who voted for him.  So stick to attacking Trump’s policies.

In taking himself to the people, he has to keep in mind four key audiences:  white voters without a college degree, people of color both Black and Latino, and young voters.  If Biden is to win, let alone win handily, he must achieve a large turnout of voters in all four groups.  Luckily, everything that Biden should be saying, all the policies he should be promoting, he can say to all these audiences.  But he needs to make sure that in addition to talking about the big overarching issues, he addresses the needs of each of these constituencies directly.

One of the ways he can do this is to go and speak to them directly.  Yes, again, he cannot hold rallies.  But he can have news conferences around the country, in different type of locales that emphasize the inclusive nature of his policies.  He can hold these conferences in rust-belt areas, in urban Black ghettos and urban Latino ghettos, on college campuses.  And he should hold them in rural areas to emphasize that Democratic policies are good for rural areas; they aren’t just about helping the urban poor.

What’s disturbing is that either Biden has surrounded himself with a week campaign crew, because none of these what I think are obvious tactics are happening, which is what I think is what’s going on, or the less likely possibility that he just isn’t comfortable doing what needs to be done, other than through ads.  That would be unfortunate.

Whatever.  If he is not by his nature the man for this time, than those around him have to goose him up to become the type of man needed for this time.  The future of our country depends on it, and I am not saying that lightly.  Another four years of Trump would be devastating.   Even a nail-bitingly-close election would be harmful because it would indicate that the country as a whole was still terribly divided, not ready to move forward to do what’s necessary to truly make America great again.

With Rights Come Responsibilities

People on the Right are always talking about their rights and how the government is taking away their rights.  Whether it’s the issue of gun ownership or restriction of movement during the pandemic, people on the Right don’t seem to understand what it means to be a citizen of the United States.  Yes, we have rights.  But with rights, come responsibilities.  Not even the vaunted right of free speech, let alone the right to gun ownership is absolute.

Man is by nature concerned solely with his and his family's wellbeing. That is his biological imperative.  Socially, however, man has evolved into being a member, a citizen, of a larger society. And so, from the most primitive communities to contemporary societies, that driving instinct has been reigned in for the greater good of the community.  

In primitive societies and in many Asian societies, a collective culture developed that enforced working for the good of the group largely through strong social pressure; the individual was of lesser importance. In the West, where the concept of individualism took root, societies have instead depended upon laws to control the relationship between man's individual liberties and rights and his part in the larger society.

There are thousands of laws that control the right of an individual to do what he might want to do.  Whether it's the criminal law, traffic laws, building codes and zoning laws, or product liability law, laws have been developed that balance the individual’s rights against the greater public good; they tell the individual what the limits are of his freedom to act.  Without such laws we would have anarchy.

As our society became more civilized and enlightened, the concept of man's pro-active responsibilities to the larger society developed.  Existing along side his rights, are concomitant shared responsibilities for the community that go beyond the responsibility not to harm others.

In the current political context, there is a uproar on the Right regarding this fundamental aspect of the relationship between government, individual rights, and the greater public good that came to define the American social contract in the 20^th century.  This post will look at several examples.  The most topical is the restriction on people’s movement in the pandemic.  The second  is the ongoing issue of the right of gun ownership.  Other less emotional, but equally deep concerns, are the regulation of business, progressive taxation, and the government's responsibilities towards those less fortunate.

1.  The government has wide power to regulate matters that concern public health and safety.  Certainly in this period of pandemic, they have the power to restrict movement and take other measures to control the spread of the virus, to protect individuals from each other.   Yes, this restricts our normal rights in numerous ways, but these restrictions are necessary for the public good.

2.  As for gun ownership, even if one agrees (whjch I don’t) in the Constitutional right to individual gun ownership recently-found in the 2nd Amendment, that right like the right to free speech found in the 1st Amendment is not absolute.  It can be limited when necessary for the greater good.  So whether it’s broader background checks or prohibiting private ownership of assault-type weapons, these are restrictions that meet the constitutional standard.  The NRA’s argument that ultimately pro-gun control advocates want to take away your guns is just fear-mongering.  There is no basis in that claim.

3.  Then there’s the issue of business regulation.  The primary interest of any business is self-interest ... that is its nature as much as it's man's nature.  As we saw during the industrial revolution and the early decades of the 20th century, if business is not regulated, it will show no concern for either its workers or the greater public good.  

Because of this self-interest and the resulting efforts through lobbying and other means to avoid any restrictions, regardless how necessary to protect the public good, I have argued in earlier posts (“What Is the Role of Corporations in Our Society”) that because corporations are a creature of the law and have received many benefits under that law, corporate law should require that part of the decision making process be the impact of corporate action on the public good, whether it be directly or through the environment.

4.  Taxes.  No one likes paying them.  Most taxes, likes sales taxes, are unfortunately regressive … the lower a person’s income, the larger the share of their income that goes to paying taxes.  (With regard to the sales tax, that’s because lower income people spend a larger share of their income on the purchase of necessities and other goods, accounting for the tax taking a larger share of their income.)  

As the United States developed into a more progressive society, it realized that regressive taxes posed an unfair burden on the poor.  A socially fair tax would work in the opposite way … the higher ones income, the greater the share of that income that would be paid in taxes because such people have much more discretionary income and therefore a higher tax would not pose any hardship.  And so when the income tax was instituted, that’s how it was designed … as a progressive tax.

In 1932, the income tax for the top bracket was 63% of income over $1,000,000.  In 1950, it was 91% of income over $400,000.  As recently as 1980, the rate was 70% of income over $212,000.  Today, the rate is 37% of income over $510,000. The rich are paying a smaller portion of their income as taxes to support the greater public good than at any time since the income tax was instituted.

5.  Finally, there is government action to support the poor.  Over the course of the past 100 years, again as society has become more civilized and enlightened, government has taken a greater hand in both directly providing for those in need as well as ensuring in various ways that they have the opportunity to better their position in life. 

This was a fuller implementation of the role of government stated in the Declaration of Independence … “to secure” the right to life, liberty, and happiness.  Programs that were once considered radical or socialist by Republicans, such as Social Security and Medicare, which they fought tooth and nail at the time, are now accepted by most as necessary programs ... not without their problems, but vital to the wellbeing of a large proportion of our citizens and thus the stability of our economy.

In all these areas, the current radical brand of Republicans, egged on by the energy and anger of first the Tea Party and then President Trump, have argued that the government’s role should be reduced or eliminated.  People should be free to do what they think best.  Business should not be regulated.  The wealthy should not pay more taxes.  The poor should have to fend for themselves … if you don’t succeed, it’s your fault.  (Programs like Social Security are distinguished because it’s been earned, and corporate subsidies are necessary because of their importance to the economy.)

Each of these positions is against the balance that our nation has historically struck between private rights, the public good, and the role of government.  These positions violate an enlightened concept of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen.

Republicans wish to take us back to an era where individualism ran rampant and success was limited to the few.  America’s strength in the 20^th century evolved by broadening the base of prosperity among its citizens and creating a more vibrant, intelligent workforce through the intervention of government programs and regulation.

That is where we need to continue heading in the 21^st century to ensure America’s continued strength.  Trump’s policies will not make America great again because they are against the empowerment of people and thus actually weaken America.  Radical Republicans need to be recognized for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people.  They are not responsible citizens of this great republic.

Where Is Joe Biden?

Joe Biden is running a strange campaign.  Since the COVID-19 restrictions, he has not been seen in public as far as I know.  He seems to feel that he has no options other than virtual ones and that he is already a well-enough known persona who people trust that he can beat Trump.  And if he looks at the polls, he can take comfort in them.

But there is a real risk in his losing the election if he does not step up to the plate and present his leadership chops to the American people.

First of all, he does have an option.  Both because of the pandemic and his de facto position as the Democratic nominee, he could hold a weekly news conference to present his take on what is happening, what should be happening, what he would do if he were president.  

He needs to show the American people the kind of leadership he would provide.  Which as a side benefit would make Trump look bad without saying a derogatory word.  Maybe he’s getting advice that Trump’s digging his own grave, so stay silent.  I think that’s bad advice.

Second, while he may win if people want to vote for the nice guy rather than Mr. Crazy, he won’t win big, which is what we need to take back the Senate, without him providing a strong force for the country to look to for leadership.  Joe Biden needs to show the public that he has balls.  

Third, Biden needs to show that while he is a unifier and can work with the opposition, he is not just “let’s all shake hands and be friends.”  He has got to show that he doesn’t have Obama’s key flaw, which was to think that the Republicans can be brought to the table as reasonable people; be nice to them and they’ll be nice to you.  Times have changed.  He needs to show determination and fighting spirit on the important issues of the day.

Finally, although he has now addressed the sexual assault allegation made by a former staffer, what he said isn’t enough.  Although The New York Times in reporting the allegation took no position as to whether the incident occurred or not, it did give the allegation status, especially since there is a confirmed contemporaneous statement to a friend about the incident.  

There are many problems with her story, but those are not dispositive.  Then there’s the timing, she changed her story from touching to assault just after Biden de facto won the nomination.  Hmm?  Yes, he’s never been accused of a violent or gross assault.   People who do such things do them serially, so the fact that no one else has come forward with an allegation makes it unlikely.  But that also isn’t enough.

Biden needs to get past the “she said, he said” dynamic.  What he needs to do is offer to take a lie detector test and make the test public.  He should also demand that Reade take a lie detector test.  While lie detector tests are not admissible as evidence in a court of law, they are in the court of public opinion.  

He has to get past this.  He may think it’s not going to matter for most people, even most women, but it just has to matter to enough to change some close states for him to lose the election.

Plus Biden needs to show that he has grown in stature with age.  He is not just another politician who is good at glib non-responses to serious questions.  He needs to show that he truly understands the seriousness of people’s concern about such matters and that he is willing to put himself at risk to prove his innocence.

Biden was not my candidate.  Others had better personalities and agendas for our time.  But Biden is a good man and will start the process of bringing our country out of the depths of degradation it has seen and into the light.

The Continuing Need for a National Health Policy

Several weeks ago, I wrote a post about the need for a national health policy regarding the pandemic.  Obviously that hasn’t happened.

As the President and state governors have been talking about slowly opening up the economy again, stepping back from the restrictions on people’s movements, and in a few cases taken such action, I need to repeat my call for a national health policy.

When it comes to controlling a pandemic, the fact of states’ rights makes no sense.  Since all states are connected in many ways, but especially commerce and freedom of movement, it is critical that there be a national policy controlling the actions of people.

A national health policy does not mean “one size fits all.”  It means that there are national standards that will be applied.  Under those standards, some states may be allowed to open up before others, and those decisions would be made in concert with the governors, but it must all be coordinated under a federal standard.  

For those who say that under the constitution states have to be left to go their own way … nonsense!  The interstate commerce clause allows the government to regulate anything that impacts interstate commerce.  This has been read broadly and is the basis, for example, for federal civil rights laws.  Certainly it would provide a basis for a national mandated policy on efforts to control the coronavirus pandemic.  To not have a mandated national policy in situation would be madness.

People are the key to either containing the virus or spreading it.  There is thus only one effective way of controlling the virus.

When we come out of the lockdown phase, all experts agree that testing and contact tracing combined with quarantine is key to insure that the virus does not spike again.  Everyone who has symptoms should be tested, and if that is not available, should self-isolate on the assumption that they have the virus.  Under CDC guidelines, once they have been fever free for 3 days without medication, have had no symptoms, and it’s been more than 7 days since the onset of symptoms, they can assume they are virus free and can come out of quarantine.

Every contact someone has had (which could be as minimal as being in the same room or talking) with someone who is infected needs to be traced and told to self-isolate for 14 days, the incubation period, and be tested before being free to be out and about since one could be asymptomatic and still pass the virus to others.

In addition, because experts agree that the rapid spread has occurred in part because asymptomatic people have not been tested and quarantined, yet have passed the virus on to others, random testing should be done of a large percentage of the population to insure that asymptomatic cases are detected and quarantined until they test negative.

Ideally, all people who test positive and who live together with family or other communal situations, would be removed from their home and placed in an environment where they will be isolated so as to remove the threat of an entire family or living group becoming infected.  This is especially important if people are living in crowded environments with no private space available.  This will probably only be possible in limited situations for a variety reasons, and so following guidelines for separation in the home are critical.

Everyone arriving in the U.S. by plane or any means of transportation must at a minimum be temperature screened for the virus before being allowed to enter.  Interstate travel should be restricted to critical travel and all arriving passengers should be temperature screened.

What to do about people who travel by car interstate?  If everyone could be counted on to follow the rules, to keep to their quarantine, then one could assume that anyone traveling is free to move about.  However, that would be a naive assumption, plus testing is likely not to be as rigorous as it should be.  That means that people crossing state borders by car should be temperature screened.  This will felt as a burden on states and invasive to travelers, but the government must take every necessary action to contain the virus.

But all of this leaves the question … when and how do we end or ease the lockdown restrictions.  One suggested guideline has several criteria:  new cases falling consistently over 14 days; hospitals no longer maxed out; capacity to test all who should be tested; and the capacity to trace all those who should be.  Added to that list should be the ability to isolate outside the home those who are living in severely crowded living spaces.

Although ideally there should be no opening up until most everyone who needs to be has been tested or contact traced, and isolated if necessary, that is not feasible.  The ramped up testing and tracing will have to be done while people are beginning to move about.

Thus, when restrictions are loosened, everyone must continue to wear a mask when out in public and continue to practice social distancing to limit the number of new cases because the inescapable fact that some people will still be walking around with the virus.

Coronavirus Became a Pandemic Because of Man’s Hubris and Man's Lack of Individual Responsibility

As the New Year began, the first cases of coronavirus were reported in China.  Three months later, it is in the process of ravaging countries around the globe and creating economic havoc.  We are once again reminded of the power of natural forces and of man’s grandiosity in thinking that it doesn’t have to take them seriously.

Man could have prevented the pandemic.  Had a doctor in China been listened to by the local authorities, it could have been stopped and isolated probably in a small area of China.  Had the Trump administration been prepared following the advice of its own real-time pandemic war game in 2019, had the President and his advisers taken the threat of the virus seriously, we could have isolated the virus spread because it was all coming from outside the U.S.  No shelter-at-home, school closings, or other drastic measures would have been necessary.

But the Chinese local authorities and the Trump administration didn’t because we underestimate the power of nature and our own power, and we dislike inconvenient truths.  Both were guilty of hubris.  And so after 3 months, the world’s health and economy is in shambles, and will get worse before it gets better, despite all the money spent by governments to try and mitigate the damage.

More importantly, the lives of ordinary citizens have been terribly impacted, not only by the deaths, but by the financial devastation caused by the economic engine slowing almost to a halt.  Yes, they’ve also been inconvenienced by the lockdowns or “shelter-at-home” orders, but that inconvenience is small relative to the financial peril that many families are facing.

And because we are dealing with out-of-control nature, we really have no idea where it will end.  Perhaps after 2 months of stringent controls, local new cases will almost stop as in China and life can begin to return to normal.  But with the meager testing and tracking that even today is available in the U.S. compared to China and other countries, it is quite possible that the stringent controls will not be sufficient and new cases will continue to mount as infected but asymptomatic or mild-symptom people move about, albeit in a limited way.  A slight loosening of the restrictions without adequate testing and tracking could make matters even worse.

It is possible that the world will never be the same.  All we can do at this point is take one day at a time, stay calm, and do everything we can as individuals to not spread the virus.  

If everyone takes responsibility, this still could be contained despite the failed attempts of our government.  If you feel that you may possibly have the virus, get tested immediately, and if testing is not available, self-isolate and assume you are infected until you are proven to be well.  If you have come into contact with someone who is infected, self-isolate for 14 days.  

Practice good hygiene and wear a face mask when coming in contact with others in public spaces.  This last point applies to everyone, both infected and healthy … you wear a mask to not infect others, and you wear a mask to keep from getting infected.  If masks are not available, make your own from instructions available on the internet or use a scarf.

Although we’ve been told by the government and scientists for months that masks aren’t effective for the general population, the CDC and others are now urging that everyone should wear masks, as they do in Asian countries that have been more successful in containing the virus.  Just think of all the asymptomatic infected people walking around, unwittingly transferring the virus to others because they aren’t wearing a face mask.  Especially with limited testing availability.  That asymptomatic person could be you.

This will require a different leadership from the top than we have seen so far.  It is only individual people who can spread or stop the virus.  That point needs to be made very clearly.  And citizens must be called upon to play their part in this war.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel is an Illusion

As the percentage increase in new cases and deaths starts to decrease in some cities, I like many people have been heartened and have seen the numbers as an indication of the light at the end of the tunnel.  But today I realized why that is probably an illusion.

I live in an area of Massachusetts where people have been sheltering at home even before required.  Social distancing is the general rule.  But even after the CDC advisory about wearing masks when out in public, there has been little increase in people wearing masks.

I have asked staff at the local grocery and the hardware store why they aren’t wearing masks.  Sometimes they give me a shrug.  Or they just laugh it off.  When I tell them the facts about asymptomatic infected people spreading the virus and the percentage of false negative tests, they seem surprised.  But they don’t react with, “I’m going to wear some kind of mask.”  

They seem to feel they are impervious to the virus; it’s all about whether they need protection.  Wearing a mask is inconvenient or uncomfortable.  There seems to be no concern that they might possibly be asymptomatic and infect other people unwittingly.

Today at the hardware store I asked a manager and he said that he would only wear a mask if the CDC mandated he wear a mask.  When I said that the CDC advised that everyone should wear a mask when in public, he said it was voluntary.  That he didn’t want to wear a mask and instead of breathing the air, breathe in something from the material the mask was made of.  He also said that my assertion that wearing a mask prevented someone from unwittingly spreading the virus was false.  That he followed the 6’ rule and that was enough.  And finally that he’s gone through all the flu seasons and has not gotten sick.

This is an intelligent, thoughtful, careful man.  I don’t know what his politics are, but if someone like him doesn’t see why it is his duty, his responsibility, as a citizen to wear a mask after the CDC advice, then I fear that the light at the end of the tunnel is a mirage.

It is true that the percentage increase has gone down, but it needs to go down a lot more before we can even think about returning to normalcy.  If many people refuse to follow the advice from the CDC, as well as the advice on social distancing (and I’ve seen a good bit of that especially among younger people, and I don’t just mean spring break partying), then the numbers aren’t going to go down far enough.

What would change these attitudes?  I know that pleas from Dr. Fauci or Dr. Brix have had no impact.  There is only one person who perhaps might make a difference … the President.  If Trump finally really understood the danger we were in, understood his vital leadership role and wore a mask whenever he was in public, that would be a powerful symbol and without question many more people would wear a mask.

Republicans have been behind two major attitude changes that impact our ability to contain and survive the virus.  The first is the disrespect for government that Republicans have fostered for the last several decades beginning with Reagan’s “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”  The second is the disrespect that Trump has sown towards science and facts.  And it is only Trump and his fellow Republicans that can turn this attitude around.

Even Now Trump Doesn’t Get The Pandemic

President Trump still doesn’t get it.  To contain the pandemic we must be ahead of the epidemic, not behind it.

Unfortunately, from the start, Trump has been behind.  First he belittled the threat and did nothing.  During the month before he restricted travel, 380,000 Chinese entered the country with no screening, many unwittingly bringing the virus with them.

Second, we didn’t have enough tests and so we turned to lockdowns, at a huge cost to the economy and the welfare of our citizens.  

Third, we still don’t have enough tests or testing capacity or tracing capacity.  We really don’t know what the scope of infection is in the U.S.  There are critical states, like California, which have done much less testing per capita, yet looking at the volume of passengers that flew into LAX during January, it is hard to believe that the numbers aren’t much worse than they are reported.

Fourth, he continues to refuse to order a nation-wide shelter-in-place policy.  Doesn’t he understand that people travel, and when people travel so does the virus?  Remember that 25% of infected people don’t know it because they have no symptoms.  And false negative test results are a troubling 25%.

Fifth, it’s critical that everyone follow the new CDC advisory and wear a mask when out in public.  But our President says he’s not going to do it; it’s completely voluntary.  He neither has any concept of leadership nor an understanding of the danger we face.

Finally, when the numbers stabilize and talk turns to returning back to normalcy, all experts agree that can only happen if we have the testing and tracing ability to examine all new cases of virus infection.  Otherwise we risk having another explosion of cases and a return to lockdowns.  What is the plan to achieve that capacity?  There is none.  Again, Trump just doesn’t get it.