The Tribune

With CHARLIE HARPER

US President Joe Biden is known for avoiding live press conferences. In sharp contrast to his predecessor, Biden appears to believe that such largely unrehearsed sessions would expose him to more of the gaffes and errors that have occurred many times throughout his long public career – albeit without the crippling effect of some of his contemporaries’ mistakes and misstatements.

Consider, for example, Hillary Clinton’s famous description of Trump voters and other grievance-focused citizens as the “Deplorables.” The Republicans and Trump still evoke the response they seek from campaign supporters at the mention of Clinton’s careless remark, because everyone believes she absolutely meant it.

Or how about 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s remark that “there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what, because they are dependent upon government, believe that they are victims, believe the government has a responsibility to care for them. These are people who pay no income tax”.

Biden has chosen to do his best to avoid this kind of blunder. As a result, the American public has therefore been largely left to discern Biden’s policy priorities via carefully staged speeches or statements by those national security and domestic advisers closest to him in the White House.

However, all American presidents also occasionally resort to an Op-Ed piece in a widely-read national newspaper or magazine to emphasise policies they regard as particularly important. Biden did this on Sunday, and in writing his Op-Ed for the Washington Post, he confirmed many of the policies and attitudes we have been discussing in this space for months. It’s worth noting. Here are some key excerpts:

“The United States is the essential nation. We rally allies and partners to stand up to aggressors and make progress toward a brighter, more peaceful future. The world looks to us to solve the problems of our time. That is the duty of leadership, and America will lead. For if we walk away from the challenges of today, the risk of conflict could spread, and the costs to address them will only rise. We will not let that happen.

“We know from two world wars in the past century that when aggression in Europe goes unanswered, the crisis does not burn itself out. It draws America in directly. That’s why our commitment to Ukraine today is an investment in our own security. It prevents a broader conflict tomorrow.

“We are keeping American troops out of this war by supporting the brave Ukrainians defending their freedom and homeland. We are providing them with weapons and economic assistance to stop Putin’s drive for conquest, before the conflict spreads farther.”

In addition to emphasising his Cold War-era determination not to be bested by Russian President Putin, Biden is careful to remind readers that he has been able so far to fight the Ukraine War by proxy without placing American troops in harm’s way.

Biden was wise to issue such a strong pronouncement when he did, inasmuch as isolationist sentiment among House Republicans threatens to rise to levels that would imperil legislative approval for new aid to Kyiv that is regarded as essential by almost every sober analyst of the war situation in Europe.

So far, majorities favour assisting Ukraine. But by the end of January, the picture may not be as rosy. And while ideology is driving much of the GOP resistance to Ukraine assistance at the levels to which President Zelensky and his military have become accustomed, overall budget concerns may add to the ranks of resistance.

• • •

Meanwhile, a growing number of Americans is expressing concern about some of Donald Trump’s plans if he is returned to the White House by voters instead of, for example, being bundled off to prison by judges. The highly respected Economist magazine has joined the ranks of the highly concerned.

In a recent issue, The Economist summed up why a Trump victory in 2024 would differ from his first win in 2016. “A second Trump term would be a watershed in a way the first was not,” the magazine’s editors wrote.

“Victory would confirm his most destructive instincts about power. His plans would encounter less resistance. And because America will have voted him in while knowing the worst, the nation’s global moral authority would decline.”

Trump looks forward to a second term as an opportunity for retribution, when he would weaponise the Justice Department to go after his opponents. There have been newspaper reports that he has identified individuals he would target for investigation, including a number who served in his administration.

Among those cited in the article were former White House chief of staff John Kelly, former attorney general William P Barr and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark A. Milley. Trump has also reportedly considered targeting Biden and his family.

The Washington Post has quoted the observant remark of a veteran political observer about Trump in 2016: “The press takes him literally, but not seriously,” she wrote. “His supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”

That observation pretty much summarizes the failings of the press in coverage of Trump seven years ago. Despite much public hand-wringing by journalists in the years since then, it sometimes does seem that the press hasn’t learned its lesson well enough. Maybe as this campaign unfolds the media will learn to cover Trump more seriously.

• • •

Of course, control of the White House is not the only critical prize for America’s dominant two political parties. Gaining or maintaining a numerical advantage in the House and Senate is also vital for both parties. These contests are unfolding somewhat counterintuitively so far.

In the House, the GOP maintains such a narrow edge now that it can lose important votes if even a literal handful of Republican congresspersons votes with a heretofore united Democratic minority. While a GOP majority in the House after next year’s elections is hardly unimaginable, abortion and the Republicans’ abject inability to actually govern with their current majority make their lead seem tenuous.

According to some analyses, as many as 18 current Republican House members are regarded by both parties as vulnerable to defeat next year. Six of these incumbents are from New York state, including the infamous George Santos. They are from swing or Democratic districts, and many pundits feel that if the New York Democratic party had been paying attention last year, few if any of these six would have even been elected.

Five other vulnerable Republicans represent California, where the tide outside the heavily agricultural Central Valley may be turning even more blue. Again, better Democratic party effort in the Golden State could produce a significant reversal of GOP fortunes there, too.

Elections that determine control of the US Senate have settled into an almost predictable pattern in recent cycles, based on how many seats up for grabs in the election are held by one party in a state that trends strongly toward the other party.

2024 is generally regarded as one of great risk for Democrats as they try to expand or maintain their slim majority in the upper house. Four races in particular are the subject of considerable speculation already. They involve seats held now by Democratic incumbents in Arizona, Montana, Nevada and Ohio.

In Arizona, incumbent Senator Krysten Sinema has been a mercurial maverick, and has now declared herself to be a political independent. She has also not yet said whether she will even seek re-election. If Republicans can manage to nominate a moderate and Sinema and a Democratic congressman also compete, the GOP might capture this seat.

The decision by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia not to seek election almost certainly concedes that deep red state to whomever the GOP chooses to run. Manchin could also further damage Democratic prospects by running for president on a third-party ticket.

Senators Jon Tester in Montana, Jackie Rosen in Nevada and Sherrod Brown in Ohio represent states where they could be swept out of office by unified Republican opposition.

But two things work in their favour. There may well not be unified Republican opposition after anticipated bitter primary races next spring. And secondly, each of these three enjoys significant personal popularity and a general sense they are doing a good job in office.

That still counts for something.