The Next President's Term in Office Will Be Transitional

[MineralMan]

That's true in many ways, but in one way, it will be unique. It's going to serve as a generational transition, too, I think. The President we elect may be the last President who was born during WWII or soon afterwards. If, as I expect, Joe Biden runs against Trump, it will be a race between two people who were alive during WWII.

I feel this internally, because I was born in July of 1945, just a week before the Hiroshima bomb. I'm 73 years old now.

In 2020, we face a real and unprecedented challenge. Donald Trump has worked tirelessly to destroy American traditions and is not at all in the model we have of a President. That appeals to 30-something percent of the population, who are willing to dispense with a caring, responsible, future-thinking government, in exchange for a tyrannical ruler who promises things he cannot deliver.

For that reason, I believe we need a presidential candidate from the Democratic Party who understands the American model of government intimately and who is capable of undoing the harm Trump has already done to our system of government and how it functions. Joe Biden fits that need very, very well, which is why I think he will be the nominee.

Also running in 2020 is a group of younger candidates who were not alive during WWII. They're the offspring of people who are more familiar with the destructive Vietnam war. There are some very, very promising people in the race, and one of them should become the Vice Presidential candidate, in my opinion. Those younger candidates, however, have not had a long enough time to learn the intricacies of governance as it exists in the United States. They have outstanding ideas, but not the means of making those ideas happen in our strange, two-party system.

So, that's why I'm supporting Joe Biden in 2020. He would be an ideal President during this transitional period. His running mate, and future Vice President, will have the benefit of working with a seasoned pro. Biden will, no doubt, give his Vice President plenty of work to do and the opportunity to gain hands-on experience in effective, humanistic governance. He's the sort of guy who will not shove the VP into a box with nothing to do. He didn't fit into that box and won't ask his VP to do so.

I'm thinking ahead to a time when I won't probably even be alive. I want to see this country on its way to preserving its traditions while transitioning into a nation that can handle all the new challenges that face it. I want that transition to be successful and have a strong chance of success, once Trump's influence has been erased.

[hlthe2b]

1. Neither George W. Bush nor Obama were alive during WWII...

seems the transition began some time ago, the aberrant Trump admin notwithstanding.

[MineralMan]

2. That's not important.

You're correct, of course. But, Obama was replaced by Donald J. Trump, who is trying his best to destroy the nation. He has actually gone quite a ways toward that goal. Restoring things is going to test the abilities of anyone who replaces him.

It is going to take a steady, seasoned hand to do that job. Joe Biden fits that description.

[hlthe2b]

5. what a rude response...

I clearly stated: "seems the transition began some time ago, the aberrant Trump admin notwithstanding.

[pnwmom]

40. If you're just going by age, Jay Inslee is a seasoned hand, a Governor, and he's 68.

And Amy Klobuchar is also "seasoned," at 58. Kamala Harris is "seasoned" at 54.

I disagree that Joe is the best because he's the oldest. The younger candidates are just as knowledgeable about the American system of democracy. The oldest candidate is the most likely to end up with Alzheimers, like Reagan did.

I don't see Biden as a particularly steady hand. I see him as someone who is too willing "to go along to get along" -- like he did in the Anita Hill hearings, like he did when he opposed school bussing, and like he did with the bankruptcy bills.

[First Speaker]

3. This is a great post...

...though maybe I feel that way because it's pretty close to where I've ended up, thinking about this mess. I was born in 1953, Dad a WWII vet, so I get where you're coming from. I also think that Biden is what the Dems, and the country, need right now--a very experienced man, who understands very well the seriousness of our national crisis, but is trying to deal with it in a rational, grown-up way. (Which I confess, I've not always been able to do myself these past few years...)

[MineralMan]

4. Thanks.

I believe we're at risk of losing control of the federal government in a way I never would have anticipated. Getting things back on track isn't going to be easy, by any means, but it's certainly doable at this point. Experience is going to matter, as is flexibility and knowledge of what government in the USA is supposed to look like.

We've almost forgotten how it's supposed to be.

[peggysue2]

9. Biden has said as much

A Democratic Administration will have a chance to right the ship, repair the damage and heal our relationships abroad. In that case, Donald Trump will be remembered as an aberrant hiccup in American history. However, if we fail to oust Trump and eradicate Trumpism in 2020, give the Squatter-in-Chief and his enablers 4 more years of havoc, the country's character and definition of itself, our Institutions and Rule of Law will be irreparably damaged.

We see it happening now!

There's not a lot of wiggle room to get this right. Which means our nominee will need to hit the ground running. Experience and knowledge will be critical.

That's why I'm a Go for Joe.

[MineralMan]

12. Exactly.

[pangaia]

14. It is not so much 'trumpism,' as it is republicanism.

trump is simply the symptom of the cancerouos disease that is republicanism.

republicanism must be torn, chemo-ed and surgically removed from existence.

[TryLogic]

17. "Trump is simply the symptom of the cancerous disease that is Republicanism" -- I agree.

Michael Bennet spoke about tea party republicans and Mitch McConnell last night on Rachel Maddow. He knows, and "goes there".

[Polly Hennessey]

6. I agree.

Biden is probably our best choice. It is sad, but I don’t believe a Democratic woman can win this time. I agree we are in a transitional moment and those 30 percenters are going to fight hard to retain their illusion of the past. Joe can right the wrongs and lead us to 2024, when, we can only hope, a new generation will move us forward.

[guillaumeb]

7. Donald Trump is Ronald Reagan unmasked.

The GOP has been the unofficial Party of racism since 1968.

[rickyhall]

8. Trump born in '46, but close

[Ron Green]

10. I see how Joe Biden and a "return to normalcy" can be transitional, but

I believe it’s too late for transition. We need transformation. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, the “normalcy” we’ve lost was not working for most people, or for the institutions of the commons upon which a democracy relies.

[MineralMan]

11. Until the rule of law is restored, transformation is impossible.

We have to first return to following the Constitution. Only then can we hand off the government to those who would transform it.

Trump is attempting to transform it. Stopping him is going to be the first job. If we do not do that, we may never get another chance without armed conflict.

[Ron Green]

13. I believe transformation has begun.

Conversations in the public realm now include single-payer health care, expansion of the Supreme Court, reparations for African slavery, national decriminalization of cannabis, a tax on carbon, and other issues that, under administrations from Regan through Obama, were effectively ignored.

Along with the damage he’s done, Trump has made not only possible but necessary the opening of the way to a new approach, different from the muddling of the past four decades.

The Constitution is still intact; we simply need to go forward with new leadership of presidential character.

[KPN]

29. If Biden wins the nomination, I will vote for him and

work hard locally to get out the vote. But I’m not even close to convinced that he’s the “one” who can beat tRump at this point.

Rule of law has nothing to do with transformation. tRump is the best example. Beating him will be transformation in itself.

[MineralMan]

30. OK. Keep watching.

We'll all see...

[KPN]

28. Exactly. How quickly we forget or never learned the

lessons of 2016. The page has turned meanwhile here at DU we keep talking about more of the past. My fear is we lose in 2020 exactly because of this kind of thinking.

[treestar]

31. the Dotard is a transformation

We need to transform back to the rule of law and respect for the office of the Presidency from the ruin Dotard has caused by making it into a power for his personal interests.

[Karadeniz]

15. You make many good points. Thanks for sharing!

[TryLogic]

16. If Biden gets the nomination and wins...

He could resign after about three years handing the presidency to his VP, making that person the incumbent. Biden would in essence pick the next president, assuming he picked a good VP. Of course, health issues could have the same effect.

Biden is one year older than I am. No way would I want to try to do a job that horrendous not to mention the campaign. I am hoping for someone younger, but not too young.

[Locrian]

18. you say "transitional" but then imply to "restore"?

IHMO the genie is truly out of the bottle in terms of the future looking NOTHING like the "stable" past.

Please read the below and understand the metaphores he's using (don't get hung up by "church" etc) - we're in a different world. A candidate that doen't either explicitly or implicitly get this is in trouble. IMHO a lot of the more "traditional" candidates do not.


https://medium.com/deep-code/understanding-the-blue-church-e4781b2bd9b5

The abstract is this: the Blue Church is a kind of narrative / ideology control structure that is a natural result of mass media. It is an evolved (rather than designed) function that has come over the past half-century to be deeply connected with the Democratic political “Establishment” and lightly connected with the “Deep State” to form an effective political and dominant cultural force in the United States.

I am focusing on what I think is both much more fundamental and much less obvious: deep shifts in technology and society that are undermining the very foundations of the Church. Shifts that render the Church itself obsolete.

[MineralMan]

19. Well, clearly you are a much "deeper" thinker than I am.

I think I'll leave stuff like that to you.

"Blue Church," indeed...

[Locrian]

20. well ok - thanks

Maybe I misunderstood. Do you think we need to "return" to some type of previous state of government?

[Hortensis]

21. Yes to taking a strategic, big-picture approach to this choice.

Last edited Fri May 3, 2019, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

And that extends to our expectations for what this next administration should accomplish.

Political scientists mostly believe this terrible, dysfunctional period of narrowly winning and losing elections, shifting power back and forth, will continue for some elections due to the extreme partisanship of a dysfunctionally divided electorate.

A badly rocking boat as each side rushes to undo the worst of what the last has accomplished would inflict severe damage even if it didn't sink us, which it might. And the right is intentionally gutting our treasury so we'll have no money for big ideas.

With that in mind, we need to support those programs most likely to survive long enough to be fully implemented and demonstrate their value to the nation. Those will be ones that people across the political spectrum want and need, that can meet those needs very well, and that will eventually create their own strong bipartisan support.

Healthcare reform, in the form of the ACA, is an outstanding example. The Republican leadership and the kleptocrats behind them absolutely intended to stop the ACA from being passed, and after failing that have made many ferocious efforts to break, gut, repeal -- all in vain so far -- because people across the political spectrum really want and need it. Not just that, they want more. Attacks intended to kill it permanently, and whatever might replace it, continue nevertheless.

So big programs, any advance that would cost big time and money to implement, need to meet "the ACA standard": Do a strong majority of people need it enough to set aside partisan divisions to have it? Can it be done and done well? Once we have it, will the people's determination to keep it make anti-government conservatives punch their walls in frustration?

Climate change must be addressed, and that will be hideously expensive and require change reaching into every household, but support is growing every year. And it can be used as a vehicle to meet a wide range of other needs, such as creating infrastructure and infrastructure jobs.

We can also push far with important fixes that have some bipartisan support and won't cost enormous sums and take years to implement, like our critically important plans for sweeping reform legislation to protect voting rights, fix gerrymandering, greatly strengthen laws and ethics governing people in office, and limit and illuminate money in politics. This is now even more critically important than the ACA was but will be far easier to have fully implemented before the next general election and generate strong opposition to repeal.

We need to make college attainable and help those with student debt; but if we could draw signficantly stronger bipartisan support right now by making the one affordable and helping with the other, we should. In general, dreams with strong opposition or that provide big weapons to use to defeat us in elections, should remain dreams for now.

And so on, checking, editing, and crossing out items down our long lists of needs.

[MineralMan]

32. Good analysis, I think.

One of the problems the Democratic Party faces is proposing too much, too soon. Our goals are good ones, but not immediately achievable or affordable. We shouldn't underestimate the ability of voters to recognize that factor.

We've been set back, and set back hard by Trump's incompetence and inability to think clearly. The worst thing he has done, in my opinion, has been stripping leadership out of departments and agencies without bothering to replace it. Those organizations are stumbling along right now without any direction. The results of that are not immediately evident but will end up being very severe.

I think it is going to take at least a full term for a President just to restore leadership in the government organizations that plan and execute the goals and essential work of government. Look at the Department of Justice and the State Department, just for a start. Both are leaderless, and the staff at all levels are demoralized and reduced in capability.

We've focused our attention on Trump's bluster and nonsense at the top, and are ignoring what is going on down the organizational charts throughout our government. It's an intentional thing, of course, and Trump is a willing partner in the destruction of the federal government.

Our next President will either start correcting this or continue the destruction. I know which I want. It will take an experienced, steady hand to accomplish that restoration. Once that's done, we can begin to make long-needed changes, but not before, I think.

[Hortensis]

33. +1000. Of course, repairing the Repubs' destruction

should offer -- where possible -- exciting opportunities to make needed changes and advances. But you're right, we have to be realistic. Most of the best things we do will not be big-ticket items on the wish lists.

We're going to be taking over a nation in crisis with many neglected and growing fires, and we're going to have to triage our efforts. With what we are able to scrounge from our gutted national pocketbook.

But, you know, like the ACA, I think we're going to be surprised at the resilience of our systems and what survives in spite of barbarian sacking. Many people believe in the value of their work. I imagine if I were one of the surviving pre- Trump era federal employees my demoralization would vanish with return of purpose. I'd have been hanging on for that, not just my pension.

You have to be right that the loss of thousands of experienced, dedicated managers and staff at all levels will be a huge, immediate problem.

Rooting out the kleptocratic corruption that has become entrenched may be a larger, more intransigent problem, though, one intertwined with restoring good management. Those it serves are very powerful and will fight to keep their people and institutionalized corruption in place.

But likely some of our best who left will return, eager, along with many new people, to be part of what needs to be done. Even with intransigent corruption, if we have the political power needed, I'm guessing it'll take much less time than we are afraid it will to restore principle and function, even if not optimally.

[MineralMan]

34. Yes. That's How We'll Do It!

[prodigitalson]

22. Your arguments are compelling

I was trying to decide between Biden and Harris and am supporting the latter. But it was a close choice.

[ancianita]

23. In total agreement. First things first. Solidly ground DOJ, SCOTUS, before transformation proceeds.

We'd better fight hard to win the Senate. 22 Republican senators are up for re-election.

The ideal is that we win it, and that Biden knows how to get Repubs to work with him.

Win two states and we have a 48-48 with a VP.

Not so worst case is that if we don't, he'll still be able to twist arms of Repub Senators who are up in 2020.

[Beartracks]

24. "promises things he cannot deliver" - And yet...

... my Trump-supporting family members claim he has delivered on all his promises.

I mean, I agree with you *you*, but his followers are operating under a different perception, and perception is reality.

===============

[PatrickforO]

25. You make a really compelling case.

We'll see how it turns out.

Biden does remember the days when our government was much more genteel, more able to work 'across the aisle.' I'll have to think at length about this.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

35. Wish you'd stated something like that for a Hillary/Obama ticket years ago..

...and we could still be enjoying the ride.

[PatrickforO]

36. Well, I did not join here until 2014.

In 2008, I supported Obama over Clinton, and actually volunteered for Obama in the general.

In 2012, I volunteered for Obama's campaign.

In 2016, I supported Bernie over Clinton in the primaries, but supported Clinton in the main race. I did not volunteer for her campaign.

My issue has always been health care. I am a healthcare voter. I also strongly support Social Security. As an economist, I supported many of Bernie's platforms because measures that favor a strong middle class build a better and more just society. Now, happily, many of the things Bernie advocated are in fact in the Democratic platform. I am on my county Democratic platform committee.

Clinton lost me on healthcare when she refused to back single payer in 1993, saying, "You make a very convincing case that single-payer would be a good reform, but is there any force on the face of the earth that would counter the money the insurance industry would spend to defeat it?"

While her observation was (and still is) quite true, I want some change, and specifically that change is this: I'm sick of politicians telling me what they think I want to hear in order to get my vote, and then not doing those things when elected. The way I see it is that if this is truly a government 'of, by and for' the people, as Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg Address, then the taxes I pay in should be used for programs that benefit me and my family.

This is why I'm supporting Pete at this point, because he has often stated this.

Now, Clinton is a good person. She really is. When I studied her life in depth after she defeated Bernie in the primary, I saw that. She is worthy of tremendous respect. And she would have made a much, much better president than Trump.

I vote straight blue in the general, but in the primaries I am unapologetically progressive, and usually have facts and figures to back up my so-called 'liberal' positions.

I should also note that at this point, as a grandparent, I'm also insisting that candidates have some plan to address climate change aggressively.

[spin]

26. Trump was born on June 14, 1946, Joe Biden on November 20, 1942.

WWII started on September 1, 1939 and ended on September 2, 1945.

Therefore Trump was born after WWII while Biden was born during WWII. Trump is one of the first baby boomers who are defined as being born between 1946 to 1964.

Biden might well be the best candidate to run against Trump. Time will tell as first he has to defeat a large field of other potential candidates. That is the first test he has to pass.

[MarianJack]

27. While I'm supporting Amy Klobuchar at this early point,...

..I like your reasoning. Maybe Biden/ Klobuchar will be our winning ticket.

RESIST!

[Beatleman]

37. We can only hope....

that the next one to take office makes a good #2 choice

[nolabear]

38. Excellent post. Not only war but alliances have been very different.

The younger generations (and I’m a younger Boomer, born at the end of 54) have seen a rash of wars none of which were draft wars. We kids of WWII vets and Korean War vets faced the first war that we rightly saw as a betrayal of the people. We faced dying in vain, resisting on a massive level, shifting from wars of alliance for a tangible good to those where we were largely isolated from our old allies and the wars were often civil ones, where we had no business. We’ve bridged that divide and I think our perspective vis a vis what alliances mean is a valuable one.

And we led the fight for civil rights for so many people who are now ready to lead. It’s wonderful! But I would caution those whose rights we fought for not to eschew what we can give and teach, and our continuing relationships with the older leaders we fought beside and build with over the last seventy years. Not to mention having lived with the real threat of nuclear annihilation from the very governments 45 is so sure are his great friends.

[The Liberal Lion]

39. I like Joe, although I'm still in the Harris camp

But I'm writing because of the sentiment you expressed, namely that the next president (because we ARE going to get that lousy, orange POS out of our white house) will be transitional. I've been alive since Nixon and aware of politics since Carter. Let me tell you this, every democratic president I've lived through has had to transition America away from the disasters that are republicans. Why does America do this to it's self? I am in the camp that trump is an impostor who knowing conspired with the Russian to not only influence the election, but as well alter vote totals. I know I am in the minority here with that belief, but no matter. It is with this belief that I move forward knowing America did not elect that orange, assclown. Nevertheless, when we dispose of him, once again a democrat will have to just get us back to baseline, and not move our country forward like it's supposed to go. I'm sick of it personally.

[doompatrol39]

41. Unless we can guarantee 2 terms and a Dem house and Senate...

..we don't need "transitional". We need a hard, vigorous yank to get back to something even close to normalcy.

A nice, pleasant transition after what the Republicans have done isn't going to do anything for this country.

We've had more than 3 decades of 5 steps forward under a Democrat and then 10 steps backwards under a Republican. Only with Trump it's been 30 steps backwards and we can't have someone whose approach is going to be to play nice and get all nostalgic for the way things used to be. Those days are long gone and we need to move forward with our foot on the gas pedal, not meandering around telling stories about the good old days.

Even assuming we need a moderate (which I still don't think is the case), I'd rather it be a younger moderate like Beto or a female moderate like Amy. Going back to old white guys (and I am an old white guy) is a slap in the face to the groups that have kept this party alive during hard times (women, minorities, young people).

[MineralMan]

42. Who said anything about a "nice, pleasant transition?"

Not me.

[doompatrol39]

43. I didn't say you did....

...but does anyone disagree that is the type of guy Joe Biden is? He's nice, he's friendly, he has buddies across the aisle who he has nice things to say about. He's very measured and safe and middle of the road. We won't need that after Trump. We'll need someone who is going to yank us hard in the other direction and personally speaking Joe is not even close to the guy for that (you obviously disagree, and that is fine).

Obama was a transitional President and represented growth and change. Going back to an old white guy who represents "the good old days" is not what we'll need after the Trump Presidency.