The 2020 Democratic Line Up for the White House

The 2020 Democratic Line up for the White House.

In the first Republican primary for the 2016 Presidential nomination, there were nineteen people in the race, so many that they had to be divided into two sets. Those in the second tier moaned and complained. Television’s decision had wrecked their runs. The same could happen with the Democrats next year.

New Year, 2019, will herald the unofficial starting gun for the 2020 race for the White House. No point discussing who will run for the Republicans. It will be the incumbent, unless he can’t be bothered, or is impeached or passes away. But who will emerge for the Democrats? The Presidential primaries will not start for more than a year from now but more than forty Democrats have expressed an interest in running. I’d be curious to know how many of them are already making their pilgrimages to Iowa and New Hampshire.

A new candidate emerged last week. Is he the man Democrats have been waiting for? Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania says he has “an obligation to consider” running for President. In so saying, he tacked on a Trumpian-style tease: “We’ll see what happens.” If the Democrats’ idea of the total package is a man The Washington Post describes as “mild, earnest and quite possibly the most boring person in politics,” then so be it. He would be a striking alternative to another contender, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, a showboat who often declares, with a straight face, “I am Spartacus.”

 

Are there Democratic contenders of political substance? Former Vice President Biden will be 77 next year, almost a youth in comparison to future Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Biden is popular and regarded as a safe pair of hands. Bernie Sanders is another sprightly 77 year old. I can’t believe he’ll not join in the fun. However, if youth is needed, a good choice might be Congressman Eric Swalwell of California, although his main qualification seems to be his age, 38. If experience is needed, what about Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado? He once ran a brewery. Sadly, Trump would use his name to make everybody giggle.

 

If genuineness is the essential quality, Beto O’Rourke of Texas may be the man, though he narrowly failed in his recent run for the US Senate candidate. He has since declared he will not run but I’m sure he could be persuaded, which would leave him vulnerable to his “genuine” claim. 

The Latino population is growing, making former Housing and Urban Development secretary Julián Castro an interesting choice. But would Latinos turn out in big numbers to vote? They didn’t in 2016. Would Castro be happy being cast as the brown candidate? Maybe he could take a bottom-of-the ticket spot?

Would Democrats consider a Trump-style outsider? Billionaires Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame, Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, or even Tom Steyer, a hedge fund mogul and philanthropist, all might be persuaded to follow the lead forged by Trump. But if a rich man is the answer to Democratic prayers, they could look no further than Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City. At least he has had political experience.

Assuming Trump will be the opponent, not a given, there is a distinct need for a candidate of substance, someone with a pithy and popular message and platform. I suggest the following: Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, although she carries a perceived lack of toughness which Trump would exploit.

 

Senator Kamala Harris of California is undoubtedly combative. I tipped her for the Democrat nomination a year ago. She would be a formidable candidate. But she’s not a clubbable person and might face difficulties moving in the smoke-filled rooms of Democratic politics. The formidable Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts might make a run, although her embarrassing DNA-test experience makes her a Trump “Pocahontas” target. My view is he damaged her below the water line.

Who else might emerge from this political peloton? Former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr., and former governors Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and Terry McAuliffe of Virginia fit as Clinton and Obama remoulds. Family names might make a comeback with Governor Mario Cuomo of New York and Congressman Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts.

 

It is possible that the Clintons and Bushes may have killed off Democratic dynastic politics. But if they haven’t, what about Michelle Obama? She has held no political office, has no governing experience and would hardly be classed as a wealthy candidate but she is bound to go in the mix, if only by the media. She has said loud and clear she doesn’t want to run. After all, she has already spent eight years in Washington’s best appointed prison.

So, there you have it, my thoughts about the Democratic Presidential field for 2020. It will be fun to go back after the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary to see the accuracy of my forecast. Strong hint: bet responsibly by holding onto your money.

 

 This will be my final blog of 2018. Wishing all my readers a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy Devali and a Happy New Year.

Chief Executive and Head of State: Is This Wise?

This year, on the day before Thanksgiving, the President of the United States pardoned a turkey. I don’t know exactly why he did it. It’s not an old tradition. It seems to have started with President George Bush (41) as a bit of fun. Not so much fun for the unpardoned turkeys. But it seems that nowadays, it is the duty of the Chief Executive of the United States, or is it as the Head of State, to offer a pardon to a turkey. Can you imagine Theresa May pardoning a turkey on Christmas Eve? Mind you, at the rate she is going, she’ll be the one looking for a pardon.

I am about to commit heresy. It is my opinion that the framers of the Constitution got things wrong. The Founders erred by allocating to the President the joint roles of Head of State and Chief Executive. You might think that, in the 1780s, this was hardly a hot topic. You’d be wrong. The Founders debated long and hard on the title for the new head of state. ‘King’ was a serious contender. If you don’t believe me, please read Federalist 64 of the Federalist Papers.

To be fair, I’m using hindsight. I doubt that Franklin and his colleagues thought closely about governance. If you read Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President is afforded the title of Commander-in-Chief and is required to report on the state of the nation from time to time but the vast majority of Presidential powers are subject to checks and balances by Congress.

There have been strong Presidents, such as Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, who exercised considerable influence and sway over Congress but it was not until Teddy’s cousin, Franklin, took control in 1933 that the Presidency was changed for all time. FDR seized the reins of political power in the face of a compliant Congress. After him, all Presidents have been expected to lead.

But should they lead both as Head of State and Chief Executive? There are good reasons for separation. In the corporate world, the board of directors, headed by a chairman, monitors the operations of a company and ensures it is being run with the will of the shareholders. An independent audit committee provides corporate oversight. The chief executive is responsible for day-to-day matters, working within the confines of budgets and directives from the board.

The same applies to some western political systems, where royal families actually have their uses. In the UK, the Queen is head of state. The Prime Minister heads the executive. The same is found in Scandinavia, The Netherlands and Belgium. In some countries like France, Switzerland and Italy, the Head of State is elected. The essential point is the roles of Head of State and Chief Executive are separate. However, in Germany and Israel, the leader performs both functions.

America requires its President to perform both roles too. Often, Vice-Presidents are given the more formal, least important events but if you take a look at President Trump’s calendar, he doesn’t escape. In the past few days, amid intelligence, security and finance briefings, crisis meetings, travels to France and around the USA and attending G20, he hosted a Halloween White House party, met with the Future Farmers of America at their Annual Convention and he signed several Presidential Memoranda, such as providing reliable water supplies in California. That last is surely a sine qua non. Doesn’t every state require a reliable water supply?

When Trump was about to start his term of office, there was a sense of foreboding about how well he would do as Chief Executive. He has mostly lived down to expectation. Has Trump done a better job as Head of State? The role requires pomp, circumstance and grandeur, which are qualities that would seem to fit this man of the gold leaf peccadillo. Clearly, Trump enjoys the pageantry of the Presidency: riding Air Force One, the motorcade and so forth. If there was any dimension of the presidency that Trump would embrace, surely it would be its symbolic moments.

So it is noteworthy that it is in his role as Head of State, Trump has also proved wanting. On occasion, his conduct has been truly awful. His recent failure to attend a Veterans’ ceremony at Arlington Cemetery elicited this apology: "I should have done that. I was extremely busy on calls for the country, we did a lot of calling, as you know...I probably in retrospect I should have and I did last year and I will virtually every year." What does this gobbledegook mean? In short, “I screwed up,” while ‘virtually’ means there is no guarantee he won’t do it again. 

 

 

This error highlights the difficulties Trump has had in his interactions with the military. It is not limited on passing on the Veterans Day ceremony this year. He bailed  on joining German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and French President, Emmanuel Macron, at a wreath-laying ceremony during his recent Paris trip. He has failed to visit troops in war zones such as Iraq or Afghanistan. 

 

It would be knee jerk to suggest that America change its Constitution and separate the two roles. There are more serious constitutional problems for the US to face, for example a proper revisit to the Second Amendment and its nonsense that all American citizens have the right to bear arms.

However, the world will have to put up with unlimited Trump gaffes probably until January, 2021, when a new man or woman might take over in the White House.