Changes if Biden wins?

As the votes are counted and it appears the election may go to former Vice-President Biden, I have begun to wonder how things might be different with a Biden administration. I am no expert on Biden or predictor of how his administration may tackle different problems, but I think one can take a reasonable guess as to how things might be different.

A lot of my objection to President Trump, stems not only from policy differences, but more because of the type of person Trump appears to be. Throughout his administration President Trump has seemed to sow fear and division rather than promoting unity and progress. If President Trump does lose this election, it will be due, in no small part, to his failure to expand his base. In fact, his actions seem to indicate, he has had no desire to do so.  A Biden administration will aim for unity; how successfully remains to be seen, but the effort I don’t think will come into question.

Where does one start with assessing the differences in a Trump and a potential Biden administration? How about with Russia? While in terms of removal from office, Trump escaped, being impeached is hardly a feather in one’s cap. But, I think the bigger question is a case of President Trump’s loyalty. Whatever one may think of former presidents, from either side of the aisle, never before has the question arisen regarding their loyalty in terms of Russia. With President Trump it has; including his famous taking Putin’s side versus U. S. intelligence agencies when discussing Russian interference in our elections. While it remains to be seen how well Biden may deal with Putin/Russia, I think it is safe to say there will be no discussion as to where Biden’s loyalties lie.

Another area is that of the current pandemic. President Trump’s handling of the pandemic, especially in light of the number cases, and more significantly, deaths, leaves his management of the crisis open to serious question. He himself, admitted to Bob Woodward that he intentionally played down the pandemic. He still seems to make light of it, even as cases and deaths again seem to be surging. Former Vice-President Biden has a plan. How successful it will be we cannot know until Biden, if elected, takes office and implements it. However, I feel it is safe to say, if nothing else, Biden will take his lead from the experts and science, not ignore or ridicule them.

On a related front; health care. President Trump has made it a goal of his administration to do away with the Affordable Care Act. He has thus far failed; though a Supreme Court date awaits. This is not a place where I will debate the merits of the ACA, but Trump’s actions beg another question. If the ACA is struck down, what will replace it? President Trump has been keen on getting rid of it, but not so keen on any substantive proposal to replace it. Recently handing 60 Minutes a thick volume purporting to be his plan, but turning out to be anything but. Again, former Vice-President Biden has a plan. Its success will have to wait for a Biden administration, but it is safe to say, Biden has a plan, something it appears the president has failed to develop in roughly four years in office.

Finally, their basic character. Gone will be the days of President Trump’s three in the morning tweets, or his viciously attacking some person or party. Gone will be the days of his inability to criticize white supremacists. Gone will be the days of duly elected members of Congress being told to go back where they came from. Nor will the New York Times likely be running an article chronicling two pages of lies, as they did with statements by President Trump. One may not agree with all the actions of a Biden administration, but character will not be the headline. That in itself will be a significant change.

Popular Vote and the Electoral College

I am writing this on Election Day, so no clue who will win or if the Electoral College will play an outsized role in the outcome. It would not be the first time the Electoral College outcome contradicted the popular vote result. Most of us are familiar with the 2016 election in which Donald Trump was elected despite losing the popular vote. Ditto the 2000 election in which George W. Bush was elected despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore. Both of these caused outcry and calls for the Electoral College to be done away with. These were not the first two elections in which the popular vote winner was denied the presidency. It occurred three other times in history, dating back to the early days of the Republic. A look back at those might be warranted.

The first occurred in 1824 in the race between Andrew Jackson, the incumbent, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and William Crawford. Jackson won the popular vote by some 11 points over Adams. However, Jackson received 99 votes in the Electoral College, 32 votes shy of the 131 needed to win. The election went to the House of Representatives as called for by the 12^th amendment, with each state getting one vote. Adams narrowly won, receiving 13 of the 24 votes and thus becoming president.

The next election in which the person winning the popular vote lost out on the presidency was in the 1876 race between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. In this election there were 20 Electoral College votes in dispute. A compromise was reached in which all 20 votes were awarded to Hayes, in exchange for his agreeing to serve for only one term, and federal troops being withdrawn from the South. This compromise effectively brought an end to Reconstruction, and allowed the South to return to something more resembling their pre-Civil War ways, including disenfranchising black voters. Fast forward to 1888 and the race between incumbent Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison.

While Cleveland received over 90,000 more votes than Harrison, Harrison was able to win in the Electoral College, in part because New York, Cleveland’s home state, was swung over to Harrison in no small part due to the influence of Tammany Hall in New York City. Cleveland wasn’t finished. He ran again four years later and won remaining, to this day, the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.

One hundred and twelve years passed before we had Bush in 2000, and then Trump in 2016. Many questioned after the 2000 election, and again after 2016, whether or not the Electoral College had outlived its purpose. Should this year’s election show another instance of the popular vote winner being denied the presidency, the debate will undoubtedly raise up again. And this time, especially if Trump wins, I suspect the roar will be too loud to be ignored.

Does Pro-Life mean voting for Trump?

Many who are pro-life feel impelled to vote for President Trump. However, though this is a somewhat natural reaction, Trump’s Pro-life stance should not serve as get out of jail free card. His record since taking office does not reflect one who places a high value on human life; or of a person who has much of a capacity for empathy.

Let’s start with his administration’s response to the Corona virus. It has, in short, been an almost complete failure. Several months into the virus and President Trump has yet to develop a clear plan and often has ridiculed or ignored science. Well over 200,000 dead, and some saying we could hit a half million by the end of the year. The virus also disproportionately affects people of color, and of course, the poor. Groups the president has made abundantly clear he has little if any sympathy for. Would his response have been different if it had adversely affected white people?

Then there is the humanitarian crisis at the border, where over 500 children still remain separated from their families, with hopes of reuniting them diminishing as time goes by. Pope Francis called President Trump’s family separation policy, “Cruelty of the highest order.” When told of the 500 plus children not yet united with their families, President Trump responded, “Good.” Many of these children are toddlers or even babies. What value do we place on their lives?

And then there is his views on racism. What value do we place on the lives of George Floyd? Ahmaud Aubery? Breonna Taylor? Are their lives not as valuable as the unborn infant? And what has the president’s reaction been? He focuses on isolated incidents of violence, failing to address at all the issues causing the protests. At Charlottesville, he refused to condemn white supremacists, stating there were many good people on both sides. In the debates when questioned about the Proud Boys he famously replied for them to “Stand back and stand by.” Was that a veiled lock and load order? Let us not forget the systemic racism to which Trump appears blind. Appearing to be more concerned about statues being removed than people of color being locked up.

Among the unfulfilled goals of his presidency is to rid America of the Affordable Care Act. He now hopes what he failed to accomplish through Congress, he can accomplish through the court. Having the ACA declared unconstitutional. Never mind that it will leave millions without insurance, or coverage for pre-existing conditions. Again, who will this primarily effect? People of color and the poor. Is it me, or does it appear some lives just aren’t valued as much as others by the current president?

So, back to our Pro-Life voter. What is he or she to do? There are other options besides voting for Trump. Voting for Biden, of course, but one could also select a third party candidate, or simply leave the presidential choice blank. It is a decision each voter must make for him or herself, but there is nothing in the current president’s record to believe he has earned another term. While he indeed may profess to be Pro-Life, once the child is born his regard for life seems to diminish considerably.