It’s hard to believe that it is going on 23 years since we moved
to Dublin. While making Ireland our residence we spend considerable time each
summer back in the States and I’m back often on business. It was touch and go
for a while this year as to whether we’d get back, but we did, the weather was
delightfully hot and sticky (like you don’t get in Ireland), the visits, while
limited, were just as meaningful and the baseball season even got started while
we were over. There was ample opportunity to complain about the Red Sox – so it
was just like old times. But, given the times we are in, there were differences
– one of which was the heightened sense of apprehension surrounding the
political situation. We recently received an invitation to a party in which one
of the pre-conditions for attendance was “NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS”. I can’t
say I blame them for setting the requirement. In a lot of ways the country
feels like a powder keg. I understand the worry – even before making this year’s
visit I had attended an event with Bob Woodward where he described America as
being engaged in a “Cold Civil War”. As current events indicate even more
clearly – Woodward should know.
Every four years I do an “Open Letter” to America setting out
what the view from outside the States would be concerning the Presidential
contest, giving a perspective and letting people back home know how (and why) I
am voting the way that I am. I think I’ll do a couple of letters this year –
it’s an important election and there is even more perspective to give since the
current President causes such strong reactions amongst, well, amongst
everybody.
That said, here I am doing letters to America and does America
ever write back? No, dammit, no. Not even a postcard. Would it kill America to
even drop one of those touristy type postcards in the mail (assuming, of
course, there is still a mail to drop it in)? You know the kind – like the
picture attached to this post:
Oh well, maybe this year.
One of the other reasons I think that it might take a few
letters to get my point across this year is that I’m getting a bit tired of
this election devolving in to a fight between two sides giving reasons NOT to
vote for the other guy. Although I understand why this is happening, and there
are compelling reasons (particularly on one side) not to vote for the
candidates in question – I think it’s always better to come up with reasons why
you should want to vote for your guy rather than why you should want to vote
against the other. So – I‘m going to try to be positive here.
Let’s get rid of the mystery (not much of a mystery to those who
know me) and state up front that I am voting for, and urge you to vote for, Joe
Biden. But the key statement there is voting FOR him, rather than simply
against Trump. In the rush to condemn the President (as tempting as that is)
people often forget that there are compelling reasons to support the other guy.
If you are sick of people focusing only on why a vote AGAINST someone or
something is what you should make this year – please, take a second to look at
the following. I think these affirmative arguments may surprise you and start
to make everyone feel a bit more positively about the Democratic nominee. At
least they will break the string of people telling you just how bad the other
guy (whoever that may be) is. I’ve backed each one up with external sourcing –
they represent my opinion but I didn’t just make them up.
RUSSIA: You would think Vladimir Putin was on the ballot given
the amount of ink he’s receiving in connection with this election. In fact,
given the level of interference that Russia has run over the last couple of
U.S. Presidential contests – maybe he should be on the ballot. Seriously –
there is good reason to be concerned with Russia in the foreign policy realm,
and not just due to the efforts undertaken to subvert the electoral process.
Russia is going to have to be dealt with no matter who wins - so it would be
nice to elect someone who has a history of successfully and competently dealing
with the folks you can see from Sarah Palin’s front porch. Luckily, Joe Biden
has exactly that sort of history – so, before making your mind up on who to
vote for consider this:
In the waning days of the Cold War the U.S. Senate was faced
with the difficulty of dealing with an increasingly recalcitrant Soviet Union
led by an entrenched group of older, intractable leaders. Leonid Brezhnev,
Alexander Kosygin and Andrei Gromyko had been in the Kremlin for decades and
were even tougher to deal with than Vladimir Putin. This was especially true in
the area of arms control, where the U.S. and U.S.S.R. had spent years putting
together the SALT II arms treaty and it was proving a hard sell amongst many
elements in the U.S. Senate, particularly the Republican leadership who were
demanding further concessions from the Russians. The State Department was
viewed with some suspicion by all sides and couldn’t create any leeway. The
Soviets were absolutely refusing all attempts to modify the language of the
SALT II treaty to make it clearer and more palatable to the Senate, which was
required to approve the arms control deal. Joe Biden, as part of a delegation
of Senators, took the lead in negotiating concessions out of the Russians –
using a strategy that secured America’s goals without resorting to threats,
coercion or abject grovelling. Here is a description of Biden’s diplomatic
efforts:
“As Biden pointed out some of the more problematic provisions,
Gromyko responded by telling him the arguments that he should use with other
Senators. In each case, Biden responded that, yes, he understood Gromyko
completely, but that some of the more difficult senators would respond in this
way or that. As the dialogue proceeded, Gromyko said at one point: "Yes, I
see what you mean. Perhaps we can modify the language of the treaty in this way
to take care of that point." By asking Gromyko to become his advisor,
Biden in the end educated Gromyko about the difficulties of ratifying the
treaty in the U.S. Senate and thereby secured changes that he needed.”
That passage is not taken from any Biden campaign literature or
self-penned biography. It comes from a book on leadership – actually one on
“Leading Leaders” – and it was written in 2006, before Biden was a candidate
for any type of national office. A mature leader, who is capable of taking (and
winning) affirmative diplomatic initiatives with the Kremlin is something to
vote FOR – you do not have to go any further. Sure, it stacks up very well
against the ongoing weakness Donald Trump has shown when dealing with the
current Russian government – but you don’t even have to consider that in order
to find the positive side of the Biden experience in this area. Aren’t we
supposed to be looking for something positive in a candidate?
MANAGING AN ECONOMIC RECOVERY: No matter who wins the election
in November they are going to be tasked with undoing the damage caused by this
pandemic. It will require a sure hand, knowledge of how the system really
works, courage to do things the right way (even though that may not be where
the headlines or the glory lies) and the ability to show patience when the
temptation will be to go for the quick result. That has actually been done
before – and not too long ago. Here is a shameless plug - I wrote about this in
the first chapter of my book “Hello Out There” (you can get it here: https://www.amazon.com/Hello-Out-There-Rambles-Lockdown-ebook/dp/B08DJ8FWS1/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=%22hello+out+there%22+shea&qid=1599765383&sr=8-1
– end of shameless plug). In the book I was writing about the recovery made
from the 2008 financial collapse. But I’d actually written about it earlier as
well, in one of my previous “open letters”. Here is what I said back in 2012:
“When the Act was first voted in the Obama administration looked
at whether to invest in enormous projects that had been at the center of the
“old” New Deal (like the Boulder Dam or Tennessee Valley Authority). They
quickly realized that projects like these (each of which employed upwards of
5,000 workers just by itself in the 1930’s) would, in the current times, only
employ about 5% of that figure due to increased mechanisation and computer
driven labor savings. So instead of opting for this type of ginormous federally
run project the stimulus monies have largely been parcelled out pursuant to a
closely monitored fund. The wastage rate as a result of this has been
remarkably low (auditors have found losses of only $7.2 million – or .001%) and
there is no way to characterize an approach of this type as “big government” in
the classic sense. In point of fact most politicians would never have allowed
this type of methodology. Big projects (rather than the small controlled type)
mean big votes. New airports in Ohio, dams in Colorado, port reconstructions in
New Hampshire – those would have been headline makers. President Obama should
not be penalized for refusing to do what most “big government” pols would have
loved to do – use that big pool of money to create large vote grabbing photo
opportunities for himself. Instead the mechanism for the stimulus was used in
the manner that primarily targeted smaller, less “sexy”, projects. You can get a
description of how it was done here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2012/08/the_new_new_deal_a_book_argues_that_president_obama_s_stimulus_has_been_an_astonishing_success.html
but the main point of this is – the stimulus package worked – and is still
working. Believe me – I live in a place where the economic approach didn’t work
– and isn’t working – and you in America could be a hell of a lot worse off.
You can’t fire a guy for being successful – it’s not fair.”
I still think that the recovery engineered by the Obama
administration was its greatest accomplishment, with the fact that it was
closely managed and controlled being its most notable characteristic. So, who
was responsible for running a project that had a wastage rate of only .001%?
You got it in one – Joe Biden. He was the one put in charge of
the administration of the stimulus funds. He brought his experience to bear and
the results speak for themselves. Here is an article recapping his effort
published by the Brookings Institute:
Look, politicians who have been around for a long time get
roundly criticized – sometimes with good reason. But there is a benefit to
having that level of experience – you know all the tricks that people are going
to try to pull. Since we know that we are going to have to engineer an economic
recovery once this pandemic is over - isn’t the fact that one of the candidates
has already been there, done that a good reason to vote FOR them? I don’t have
to tear another person down to point to this as a legitimate justification to
prefer Joe Biden over ANYONE who might run against him.
But there is an even better argument to be made – one that gets
to the heart of that sense of apprehension that I could feel hanging over the
country.
DISAGREEING WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE: Here’s a bit of recent
history. In the run up to the 1992 election Bill Clinton was able to establish
his “bona fides” as a legitimate candidate who was not beholden to special
interests by standing up to a rap artist by the name of “Sistah Soulja”. Look
it up. In politics this type of thing is still referred to as a “Sistah Soulja
Moment” – when a candidate refuses to cave in to the demands of the most
extreme elements of what is perceived to be their own base - that is what they
are said to have had.
Here's the thing – I always thought that “Sistah Souljah
Moments” (right back to the original one) were largely overrated. It’s EASY to
disregard the most extreme and inconsequential parts of your purported base.
So, Bill Clinton dissed a rapper? – big deal. Barack Obama pulled it off more
effectively when he did this:
https://www.politico.com/video/2012/04/obama-calls-kanye-a-jack-ass-012679
I suppose being able to call a jackass a jackass is a good thing
– but you know what’s even better? Being able to disagree (forcibly) with
someone who is not a jackass and retain their respect after the fact. When
politics works – this is why. When it doesn’t work, when it breaks down into
name calling and unceasing contention – that’s when people get turned off and
the system breaks.
If you want a great example of how to strongly disagree with
someone without losing the ability to work with them after the fact – you need
look no farther than this past year’s campaign for the Democratic nomination.
Putting aside the fact that the Biden people and the Sanders people work much
better together than was the case between Sanders and Clinton four years ago –
I think there are probably a few people out there who remember this incident,
one portion of which was originally structured as the premier “gotcha” moment
of the campaign:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=149&v=11U-rzW8Ufc&feature=emb_title
Kamala Harris temporarily pushed herself to the top of the heap
with her emotional attack on Joe Biden and his position on busing. There was,
of course, one problem with the substance of that attack – it was wrong. I’ve
written about this before but it bears repeating:
“The problem I have with this is
that it distorts Biden’s record on busing in a manner that will ultimately only
benefit Republicans and racists. Biden did not oppose busing as a means to
further segregation – he opposed it as an ineffective vehicle to create
integration. In that position he has largely been proven correct – Harris
herself (perhaps unknowingly) referred to supporting the attempt to find
“common ground”. What she may not have realized is that the phrase actually
recalls a Pulitzer Prize winning book of the same name by J. Anthony Lukas
which concluded that the busing policies supported by Harris and opposed by
Biden largely ended up creating a clash between poor whites and poorer blacks
rather than anything approximating true integration. That clash – reflected in
the current demographics supporting Donald Trump - are at the root of many of
the nation’s current racial problems. But in the rush to score political points
Harris saw nothing wrong in distorting Biden’s actual position.”
Look, politics is a rough game and the issue is complex – but
I’m still not happy about the way Harris behaved here. Nonetheless, in the end
it didn’t matter. The reason why it didn’t matter is that in all the following
instances where this topic came up Biden wiped the floor with Harris and
everyone else who tried to raise this “issue”. It was unfairly presented – but
Biden quickly dealt with the accusation, negated it and ended up driving Harris
from the race at an early stage. To be honest – if it was me who was at the end
of an attack like that I would’ve had a hard time dealing with someone who
essentially said “I don’t think you’re a racist, but, I do think you are kind
of “racisty””. To Biden’s credit he never got flustered, never lost his cool
and was more mature than I would have been. Instead he got the best type of
vindication there is.
He won.
More importantly, he didn’t just win, he did it in a way that
allowed him to continue to work with his opponent. Most people (myself
included) would have looked at that debate exchange and said “there’s no way
those two can work together now”. “Most people” did not include Biden who was
able to put this behind him, and, of course, Harris is now his running mate.
Damn it – do we need that type of attitude more than ever now or
what? The ability to respect, and work, with people you may not always agree
with is probably the country’s biggest need at the moment. The inability to
have even the most basic rational discussion is infuriating – and if you need
any reason to vote FOR Biden (as opposed to against someone) his proven ability
to get along with people who he opposes politically is a critical skill. It
was, after all, at the core of Harris’ own objection to Biden’s actions in the
Senate. She could not see how he could have worked with Southern senators whose
career had been marked by overt racism.
The problem is – when you are in the Senate – indeed, when you are
trying to get anything meaningful done in politics - you have to. It’s not a
choice (unless you wish to perpetuate stagnation). Dealing with people who
oppose you is your job. So, you do it, you DO YOUR JOB (Patriots fans will
relate) and if you can do it in a manner that shows respect and courtesy, well,
all the better.
Myself, I’m trying very hard to be as tolerant. While I may
treat some positions on issues with disdain – but I try hard not to treat
people that same way. While I might think I have something to teach when it
comes to the facts, I try never to forget that I probably have something to
learn as well. I also don’t think it is going too far out on a limb to say that
Biden reflects this attitude better than any other major candidate in this particular
race.
This ability to act decently even when it comes to your
opponents is not a trait Biden evidences only when working with Democrats.
Biden’s close relationship with John McCain is well known. There is more. Here
is a clip of Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of Donald Trump’s strongest
and most effective Senate allies, talking about Joe Biden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMYW8jFPHg
So, if you are sick of voting AGAINST everything, and, instead,
want to vote FOR something – I think the choice is pretty clear. Do we want our
country to reflect this?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXgjnBpxGI
Or this?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-JxsPEVSo
I know the answer I’d give – at least that’s the way it looks
from here.
No comments:
Post a Comment