The United States is now leading the world with Covid-19 cases, its economy is in severe dislocation, and leadership is awol. Our “very stable genius” is far from “stable,” nor a “genius.” He remains functionally incompetent as the nation—and the world—are in unprecedented crisis.

But, he ain’t the only one. Some Governors (Democrats as well as Republicans),  and especially the simpleton in Florida, operated like the corona virus and the flu were the same thing; thus,  Spring Break could go on as normal despite federal social distancing and small gathering restrictions. Spikes in death and illness resulted. Yet, many Republican Members of Congress demonstrated their character and competence by repeatedly echoing each other’s fealty to their Leader. What to do?

It’s time to call them out—by name. Their hometown media outlets—print, electronic and digital—should be pressured to identify those whose primary interest is themselves rather than those they serve. Forget embarrassment and making enemies. Reporters and media executives should operate like Woodward and Bernstein did during Watergate. Follow the money and public and private comments and actions; then disclose what’s relevant. After a few miscreants are identified, others may begin to operate in the public interest. For media outlets like Fox News and Sinclair, the time to organize advertiser boycotts and protests against their perfidy has begun.

The behavior described above requires counteraction. In the interim, until our medical crisis abates, plans for a political reckoning should be made. Whether, in November, we vote normally or by mail, those individuals who have helped move the country along this path of treachery, stupidity, and tragedy must be publicly identified and voted out.

Often, in earlier posts,  I have discussed “Enablers,” those individuals who  knew they knew better (e.g. leading confidant of Hitler and his Chief Architect, Albert Speer; our own Vietnam-era Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara). They are particularly self-serving, evil and dangerous. They need to be moved away from levers of power asap. Identify, organize and vote. For everyone’s sake.

Every recent evening, the fiasco that is formally known as “The President’s Corona Task Force Briefing,” is held. Despite the fact that the virus remains anything but contained, the economy is tanking, individuals remain disoriented and ill-informed, and the nation’s Governors and local officials are receiving neither sufficient resources nor guidance, Trump tells us—repeatedly—that he is receiving “beautiful cooperation” and how wonderful his administration is doing.

Anyone who is living, breathing, and remains coherent will recognize what a tragic, dangerous farce the President has become. Most of what he’s been saying is inaccurate, he falls asleep at meetings, and remains out of his depth in being able to deal with this crisis. Much of this behavior is consistent with his actions over the last three years, now appearing in hyper-mode. For the good of the nation (and probably the rest of the world as well), he should be asked—or forced—to step down from the Presidency. A “President Pence” is, for the time being, an acceptable alternative for most of us. Yet, Republican officials remain quiescent and robotic, acting as if their “Leader” is all-wise. Help!

In the foreseeable future, we need the application of the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, which deals with Presidential disability. If not that, the country requires early intervention by respected national leaders that have the ability and credibility to guide us thru this unprecedented crisis. Is either suggestion likely? I doubt it. So we need an emergency  catalyst to action.

Perhaps, Presidents Obama and Bush join together, both behind the scenes and publicly, in an attempt to provide a solution, some inspiration, and unity to the American people. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts may be a salutary addition to this process. At this initial stage, I would keep current office-holders away from the conversation. Partisanship would be self-defeating.

Based upon what arises from the above, a handful of politicians should be brought into the discussion. Some of the nation’s Governors should be added to deliberations as soon as practical. Once completed, the American people should be fully-informed and lobbied for support. Speed is vital. Trump is already suggesting the lifting of social-distancing and other restrictions by Easter. According to the medical community, such actions are likely to spur an even greater health crisis.

Let’s get started.

Politicians, journalists, academics, et al, often assert the need for a country’s leaders to act in the national interest. At its most basic, they seek actions and policies that are in the interest of the nation as a whole, rather than primarily advancing that of any domestic or external factor. Of course, and unfortunately, that is not always the way decision-makers act. This is an especially acute problem in a time of crisis.

Let me briefly delineate two instances in American history wherein domestic political considerations overrode that of the nation’s.

First, in May 1940, with the Second World War only nine moths old, Britain desperately needed American assistance against Nazi Germany. Yet a request by Britain to purchase surplus American warships and other forms of military hardware, was rejected by President Roosevelt, who privately citing domestic political considerations in his response to British Prime Minister Churchill. Twenty-eight years later, then Presidential candidate Richard Nixon secretly requested that South Vietnamese leaders reject offers of a peace settlement then being sought by President Johnson in negotiations with the North Vietnamese. The South was told to “wait,” as they would “get a better deal” from the Republican candidate. President Johnson, learning of Nixon’s ploy, secretly accused him of “treason,” in conversations with top aides. Of course, Nixon was elected, the war went on for six more years, and thousands continued to die while negotiations (probably unnecessarily), dragged on. I could go on and on relating other examples in which the country’s interests were sacrificed to particularized (usually personal), concerns.

As I write, Joe Biden has assumed front-runner status in his quest to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination for President. Bernie Sanders, his sole competitor for that role, remains a bitter opponent, despite the fact that it is highly unlikely he could defeat President Trump in the general election. As was the case in the instances cited above, personal considerations outweigh the nation’s, as Sanders displays selfishness at its most spiteful—and dangerous—degree. Will Bernie come around, before he does further damage to Biden and the country?

Like so many other politicians, Bernie seems to think that he and “the state” are one and the same. In fact, a few months ago, Trump made that assertion about himself in reply to a reporter’s question. Yet, Richard Nixon resigned from the Presidency in 1974 and Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for re-election in 1968. Both, surprisingly, did what was unexpected by putting the country’s interests above their own.

Watching Trump flounder in the face of the Corona virus, amid the reality that Biden seems to have the best chance of defeating him, should bring the sharpest clarity to the stakes in 2020. The Democrats contend they are the party of competence, common sense, and compassion. If Bernie remains a factor in the nominating process much longer, it is incumbent upon Democratic Party leaders to demonstrate their commitment to the national interest by denouncing him. This message is especially directed to former President Obama.

We are now in the midst of an intense primary season. It’s time to ask some serious questions about President Trump and the Democratic “frontrunner,” Bernie Sanders. First, the President.

1. Does anybody really believe that Trump is (as he describes himself), a “very stable genius?” In fact, he is about as “stable” as California’s San Andreas Fault. He has, as compiled by The Washington Post, disseminated thousands of lies since taking office in January 2017. He is possessed by a narcissistic personality, often exhibits paranoid tendencies, and is ignorant of the world around him. He believed Frederick Douglas and Thomas Edison are alive, and consistently demonstrates little knowledge of American or world history. I could go on, but if you pay attention to the media, the evidence of his ignorance, instability, and incapacity to lead are apparent on a near-daily basis.

2. Does anyone really believe that if Donald is re-elected, we will be able to avoid climate catastrophe? Reputable scientists from throughout the world have declared deadlines for climate action. Trump acts as if they are the fools. The truth is otherwise. Climate change is real.

Trump’s views on climate disruption are largely the result of conversations with the many energy executives et al that stand to lose economically if fossil fuel use maintains its downward trend. To  follow their lead and reverse course, is to arrive at even more ferocious hurricanes, tornados, major snowstorms, etc.

3. Finally, regarding Trump, can anyone honestly deny that his unilateral decision this past fall to abandon the Kurds, in the face of years of promising them protection from their enemies, will damage American national security? The Israelis, especially, better rethink the worth of American commitments if Donald Trump remains President.

It’s Bernies turn.

1. Past elections have demonstrated how important winning Florida is to determining who is elected President. With its heavy Hispanic and Jewish electorates, alienating either one could be costly to securing the state’s electoral votes. Does anybody doubt that Senator Sanders is likely to lose both constituencies? His recent praise of Fidel Castro, alongside his consistent citing of Cuba as a model of social progress, has distanced Hispanic voters, especially America’s Cuban population. Sanders’ pattern of attacking Israel, along with its most effective political force in Washington, the American-Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), will cost him heavily among Jewish voters in November. Jews in other states are similarly disaffected with Bernie.

2. Americans who  have health insurance overwhelmingly support the option of maintaining their private insurer should the system be restructured. Does anybody really believe that Bernie’s primary policy pillar—“Medicare for All” (with no private option)—will not further sink his election chances?

3. Sen. Sanders is a self-described “Democratic Socialist.” Does anybody really believe that Americans will vote in substantial numbers for any candidate that labels themself “Socialist?” It will not happen in the United States at this point in time. No matter how much Bernie tries to wiggle around that label, past history—anti-Communist rhetoric, American relations with the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, et al—indicates that voters are not prepared to alter our system of government and economy in so radical a direction.

In sum, Sanders will lose big and, if he is nominated as the Democratic Party candidate for President, the United States will be facing its most severe existential threat since the Civil War.  In consequence, Trump’s re-election will likely trigger a Court system run-wild, further political extremism at all levels of government, and the expeditious diminishment of our civil liberties. Thanks Bernie.

During Bill Clinton’s first run for President, in 1992, his friend and political guru James Carville coined the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid,” as the centerpiece of their campaign efforts. It  was the perfect choice.

Today, while President Trump pushes positive economic reports as the central focus for his re-election, Democrats must move the the conversation in a different direction if they are going to win in November. Their efforts must center on Trump himself, and what four more years under a mean, unprincipled, incompetent and dangerous President is likely to do to the country. In other words, “It’s the COUNTRY, stupid.” This is not just a campaign theme;  it is a dystopian reality if Trump is re-elected.

Without describing the litany of problems Trump has already introduced into American life, think about his being re-elected and thereby untethered from political restraint. So, what are the Democrats doing to avoid such an outcome?

Following the New Hampshire Primary, Senator Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg seem to be ahead of the pack. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren are still viable candidates, and Vice-President Joe Biden is unexpectedly fading fast. Of course, for most of the last year, the presumptive Democratic nominee in the minds of political pundits, was Biden.

Democratic Party candidates and leaders must now wake up to a new reality: making sure that their likely nominee will be embraced as a unifier, highly electable, and not someone who will be deemed too extreme to beat Trump. Let’s examine the candidates with that premise in mind.

Sen. Sanders identifies himself as a “Democratic Socialist.” If you believe most Americans are ready to vote for someone with that label, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn (N.Y.). Elizabeth Warren, who shares most of the same views as Bernie, has similar electability problems.

Although my initial choice for President was Joe Biden, his seeming lack of stamina and underwhelming rhetoric, has moved him out of the top-tier of possible nominees. He may recover, but we need to find a strong, moderate candidate to take-on Trump. Sen. Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg, and especially Mayor Pete, can assume that mantle. In terms of the latter, Pete is exciting, moderate on the issues, and brings a relatively unique (i.e. Veteran and Gay), background to the race. But, for him to win, he needs a running-mate of color who shares his policies, rhetorical abilities, and campaign style. For me, Stacey Abrams, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris, best fit those requirements.

But, regardless of who the candidate is, their focus must be the threat of Donald Trump, with that threat magnified to the existential level it is. For example, in terms of foreign policy, the Democrats must hammer home how his policies towards the Kurds have  damaged American promises towards friends and brought comfort to foes. His sycophantic relationships with Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, are also deeply worrisome. Domestically, his recent statement that he would “look at” cutting Social Security and Medicare, while approving more funds for the Pentagon, should be publicly recognized as a further indication of his priorities in a second term. Trump also remains racist in much of his rhetoric and actions, and his infatuation with White Nationalists will likely continue. Finally, four more years under Trump, if only through neglect, will surely make the environmental crisis worse.

These are the issues the Democratic Party’s candidate for President must press; side issues should be disregarded until after the election and, at every opportunity, voters must be reminded of the reality of a re-elected and thereby unencumbered Donald Trump.

While I was working on my Doctoral Degree, I taught American History at a local High School in Los Angeles, and courses in American Government at UCLA. I was lucky. I usually had inquisitive, demanding students in my respective classrooms. They pushed for answers to their questions, completed their assignments, and rarely let me get bored. Sometimes, though, no matter how hard you tried, a given class would contain ill-prepared and purposefully ignorant individuals.

Those acting in the manner just described, seemed to do so not because of any lack of innate ability. The more I taught, I realized that in most of these cases, failure in class was reflective of poor skill development and little desire to improve. At home, they were not pressed to complete school assignments, didn’t read anything other than comic books, and rarely displayed any ambition beyond “making money” and “having fun.”

For the last few years, I feel like I have been regularly dealing with older versions of my Los Angeles students. I have difficulty in  understanding how people that I believed are intelligent and rational, support Donald Trump for President. They voted for him in 2016 and remain supportive today. Why? That is the $64,000 question.

Putting my social science skills to the test, I decided, in a primarily anecdotal manner, to explore this question. Obviously, I did not undertake an extensive study; but, some logical conclusions were ascertained.

First, ignorance is only one answer. Most people are educated, at least to the point that they understand right from wrong, good from bad.  Other causes are not hard to discover, such as greed and hubris.

An often frustrated Winston Churchill, wrote (and talked) about the “unteachability of mankind.” While true, with the Trump phenomenon I believe a more perfidious and primary explanation for his strong popular support is at work: racism. So many individuals describe feeling threatened by “immigrants,” and “people of color.” Regardless of the “facts,” Trump is perceived as their “defender,” and his administration as their “rearguard.” Whether it is Muslims, Hispanics, African-Americans, or Jews, members of these groups are perceived as objects of opprobrium and the cause of  problems when things go wrong. This is the reality of life in Trump world.

The American Civil War ended in 1865. Trump’s racist comments following the white-supremacist led riot in Charlottesville were uttered only a few years ago. Today, the words and behavior of too many of his supporters—even the “respectable” ones—should leave us in shame and alarm. Unfortunately, a Presidential victory by Democrats in November will only remove the “public face” of this deep-seated problem. But, it’s a beginning. Let’s get on with it.

People love to demonstrate. A demonstration can be in the form of a protest or a gathering to support a social cause; they remain part of American life. Whether arguing on behalf of civil rights, against intervention in Vietnam, or regarding countless other issues, individuals usually express feelings of accomplishment at the end of their structured events.  Most recently, as a means of professing their unity and concerns, thousands of Jews rallied against a surge in anti-Semitic incidents, most of them occurring in the New York metropolitan area.  At the end of their march over the Brooklyn Bridge, community leaders expressed an intention to “do something” to prevent similar incidents. Unfortunately, the Jews protesting in New York, numbering about 25,000 (when the number of available recruits geographically is in the millions), seem to have accomplished little. Unlike the massive hundreds of thousands of individuals who gathered in Washington D.C. in the 1980’s to condemn the refusal of the Soviet Union to allow Jews to emigrate, or similar massive displays in support of Israel, the goals of this most recent demonstration, were much more amorphous.

Whatever the purpose, decisions to demonstrate must be taken seriously. Goals must be well-thought out and thoroughly explained. Marching may have side-benefits, but the objectives must be unambiguous. Also, where, when, and how to demonstrate are key questions. Marching for political demands and/or to secure economic benefits from public bodies, should occur where relevant decision-makers are able to “get the message.” That may best occur in a state capital or in Washington, D.C.

Demonstrations on behalf of Soviet Jews succeeded because protestors sought objectives that most of those in attendance believed were attainable. But, gathering together to walk across a bridge seems meaningless, especially when those most affected by the events precipitating the demonstration (i.e. Ultra-Orthodox Jews), were few in attendance. When Hasidic Jewish leaders were asked why the low-turn-out, the primary response was that the event was “meaningless.”

Most analysts of this recent spurt of anti-Semitic behavior correctly tend to date its origins from the early days of the Trump administration. The President’s comments and actions since then—especially following the Charlottesville race riot—makes it apparent that little has changed: white supremacists are “good people,” American Jews also have their own country and Prime Minister, respectively, Israel and Netanyahu, all according to Trump.

American Jewish leaders should not, therefore, be entitled to escape the truth—anti-Semitism is systemically embedded in this administration. Demonstrations may bring attention to the problem, but do little to eradicate it.

In a recent column in The Washington Post (1/10/2020), Michael Gerson delineates an appropriate plan of action to confront anti-Semitism. He observes: “When anti-Semitism emerges as hate crimes or violence, as in New York, there must be a concerted community response: aggressive prosecution by police and aggressive condemnation from political leaders. When anti-Semitic tropes crop up in our discourse, they need to be effectively marginalized. And all these efforts become more powerful when we are willing to criticize anti-Semitism within our own ideological tradition—conservatives confronting problems on the right and liberals criticizing problems on the left—rather than locating the problem mainly among our opponents. When the charge of anti-Semitism is used as a political weapon, it ceases to be a shared moral imperative.

” Effectively opposing anti-Semitism is not only a moral task, but it is ultimately a moral task. The virus of bigotry is defeated by a healthy cultural immune system, defined by the prevalence of tolerance, mutual respect and basic decency. And all must be carefully taught.” Amen.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) has been weakened, the European Union is shrinking, and both our friends and enemies seriously question the  reliability and promises of the United States. American security is consequently threatened. This is not solely the work of Donald Trump. When President Obama declared a “red line” regarding  the possible use of chemical weapons by Syria, expectations were high for the imminent use of American force if the Syrians disregarded American threats. They did. Yet no retaliatory attack arose and the word of the United States was damaged. Thankfully, from the onset of World War II until the present day, that was a rare occurrence.

During the height of the Vietnam War in the mid-to-late 1960’s, President Johnson was steeped in the debate over the costs of the war and setting the parameters for continued American involvement. The one consistent and sensible argument for American entanglement were the promises made to our Asian friends and allies to come to their assistance should they be attacked. This commitment was the foundation for all our treaty alliances, including NATO, and its Asian variant, SEATO, the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization. The former organization remains vital to our security,  while the latter exists, but is rarely called upon..

Today, implicit and sometimes explicit security assurances are rendered, most often in the form of simplistic mutual agreements. For their entire histories as nation-states, both Taiwan and Israel have relied upon such “guarantees.” The Kurds, too, believed that the word of the United States was sacrosanct. Obviously, that was not the case, and its breach will, I believe, severely damage American security and our place in the world.

In a matter of minutes, and at the request of Turkish President Erdogan during a telephone conversation with the President, the Kurds were betrayed. Their position of safety along the Syrian-Turkish border was sacrificed to Turkish demands and Donald Trump’s ignorance about history and American security guarantees. That is the current state of the American security “umbrella.” If it’s leaking, and by how much, are the questions friend and foe alike must judge. Certainly, there are nations—Israel particularly—whose security may depend on their leaders making the correct decision(s) with regard to American guarantees. For at least the next year, Israelis can only pray that there will be no serious Middle Eastern crisis that directly impacts them. Hopefully, the pending election keeps Trump busy with other matters. Please remember all of this when you vote.

Russia, at the time part of the Soviet Union, was a victor in the Second World War. Among the costs: millions of lives. Today, Russia’s economy and military make it unlikely that it could achieve similar battlefield success. Yet, it is beyond question that she has scored a major strategic victory against the United States in the period leading up-to, and beyond, the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Recently, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, met with President Trump and Secretary-of-State Pompeo in Washington. During press conferences following their respective sessions with Lavrov,  “brief” discussions about Russian meddling in our elections—upcoming and past— were said to have occurred. While Lavrov agreed with Pompeo that election meddling was a topic of conversation, and although Trump asserted as much, Lavrov denied they were part of his exchange with the President.

When it comes to the Russians, Trump “sees no evil, speaks no evil, nor hears no evil.” Whether it is election interference, politicking against Western governments, or creating security concerns around the world, Putin has done what he can to weaken the United States. And, on these issues and many others, Trump has consistently sided with Russia. Why this is the case remains the obvious unanswered question.

In the past, when American banks refused to provide capital to businessman Donald Trump, he turned to Moscow financial institutions for support. How much he is in debt to them and, perhaps others, must await release of Trump’s financial history.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have consistently suggested that Ukraine was the real cyber-culprit in 2016. They now contend that this former Russian satellite may be interfering in the 2020 race. Of course, in both instances, no evidence of Ukranian interference exists; they are easy targets for Trump’s continuing campaign of dissimulation and disorder. Are the Russian and American leaders working together on this? Who knows? Yet, mutual successes are apparent: general economic turmoil and political disruption, severe strains in the Western alliance, and ignoring the climate crisis, are seemingly all part of Putin’s plans to  weaken the United States and its allies. Where Stalin and Khrushchev failed with military and political threats, Putin’s cyber- campaign is working. We seem unable to meet this challenge and, with the 2020 election fast approaching, Putin and Trump are well prepared to benefit from the riches produced by American neglect and Russian efforts and resources.

With impeachment in the House a reality, Trump’s acquittal in the Senate appears a foregone conclusion. Maybe we should all start learning Russian?

In my previous blogpost, I posed questions for Republican officeholders regarding how they manage issues in which a career versus country dichotomy is front-and-center.

For Democrats, in general, the removal of Donald Trump from office is the paramount issue. Their Presidential candidates must also ascertain if they are willing to sacrifice their own candidacies for the sake of uniting behind the individual most likely to defeat Trump. In turn, are they willing to make any compromises to help one of them secure that outcome?

Yes, it is vitally important for Republicans to be defeated at all levels—federal, state and local. They must understand that most Americans are not ready to sacrifice their country’s well-being and security to the personal goals and benefit of a would-be  dictator. Republican members of Congress continue to violate their oaths of office and the Constitution itself.

So what should Democrats do? First, they need to publicly recognize that most of their Presidential candidates are bright, decent individuals. But, they are not equally electable. Biden and Buttiegieg are at the top of most national polls. Sanders and Warren share similar, highly progressive platforms while Deval Patrick, Amy Klobouchar, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, maintain centrist positions that haven’t sparked significant public support. Ditto for Booker, Gabbard, Castro and Yang.

With the initial primaries approaching, wouldn’t it be beneficial for Democrats to declare that this time of crisis demands unique action: they should unite behind Joe Biden, the one candidate who has demonstrated sufficient strength to defeat Trump. From there, let the campaign be about a choice for vice-president. Certainly, most of those remaining in the contest, along with a few others (e.g. Stacey Abrams), are well-suited to partner with Biden.

Although it would be a shame to in any way reduce the likelihood of Democratic control of the Senate, sufficient resources are available to diminish that possibility. The House seems safely in Democratic hands. State and local races are unlikely to be predicated on the national outcome. All in all, what’s required is some ego-busting and hard conversations, especially coming from respected politicians like Barack Obama. The Clintons would best serve the country by taking an  overseas vacation until after November 2020. They both remain toxic, especially with undecided voters.

Hard talk, country above all, and a laser-like focus on removing Trump. Can the Democrats succeed in all that? I hope so. We know the alternative.