The Democratic Party Will Not Be a United Dinner Party

By Michelle Naranjo

My grandmother would always make Sunday dinner for my extended family, and she always made sure to cook specific dishes for every member of the family. Fried chicken for me, chicken fried steak for my brother, glazed green beans for my mother, and so on. Weekly, she spent hours in the kitchen, making all of these dishes, and in the end, we all ate together.

The Democratic Party, for the most part, appeared to unify behind Joe Biden for president. But in the days following Nov. 3, 2020, the cracks began to show. It would seem that the party was holding a collective breath to keep up appearances before exhaling the deep-seated division that has been grumbling under the seams for years.

While former Democratic presidential candidates Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang threw their weight behind the Biden/Harris ticket, hitting campaign rallies (many of which were on Zoom because of concerns about COVID-19), their supporters mostly followed along. They decided that unification mattered, and a career moderate politician was the direction that the Left needed to go to defeat President Trump.

But there are still echoes of “Me! Me! Me! Pick me!”, resounding among the diverse voters.

During an era when people choose to support by how a candidate’s platform appeals to the individual themselves as a voter -- which insinuates more of an emotional commitment to a candidate than one that is pragmatic for the greater good -- it is no surprise that “true feelings” built up to an almost explosive level post-election.

Add to that equation the Republicans who came into the Biden fold through The Lincoln Project, and the fire gets even more fuel.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the Squad immediately began to criticize the former Republican operatives that founded The Lincoln Project for collecting funds that supported their anti-Trump state-targeted advertising campaigns instead of funding their own Democratic campaigns. Many of The Lincoln Project supporters -- some of whom do not qualify as Republicans but tend to be voters who don’t vote party lines every election -- fought back that The Squad is anti-Semitic because of their human rights for Palestine stance.

Black allies don’t like Pete Buttigieg because of his hiring record. Progressives complained that there wasn’t enough recognition given to women, Black people, the Latinx, and Native American voters in Biden’s success. Moderates Democrats thought that the “abolish the police” slogan lost support for state and local candidates. And progressive parties like the Working Families Party are beginning to run their own candidates, sometimes as Democrats, and increasingly under their own party name.

As Chuck Rocha, a Texas-raised Democratic strategist who runs Nuestro PAC, a super PAC focused on Latino outreach, stated to NBC, “Biden won, and that’s great, but everything underneath Biden was a huge catastrophe.” [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/huge-catastrophe-democrats-grapple-congressional-state-election-losses-n1248529]

Will Joe Biden be able to pull together all of the disparity, especially when the Democratic party performed so poorly down-ballot? With so many trying to raise their individualized voices, it appears that Biden will have an ongoing struggle with pleasing all of the people all of the time. Is this going to be a family-style dinner with a seat for everyone?

Beyond a strategy to combat the coronavirus and affected economy, Biden’s top initiative is climate change. Despite the currently divided rhetoric about the yet to be announced presidential cabinet, issues like this will be the grounding displays that will surely win some unity.

Boston Consulting Group (BCG), one of the three largest strategy consulting firms globally, sees Biden as capable of making headway in leading the shift required to address climate change. BCG states, “President-elect Biden campaigned on the most ambitious climate platform of any presidential candidate in history—and he has indicated that his administration will move quickly to pursue that policy. A transition to a low-carbon economy can have enormous benefits for U.S. businesses, creating thousands of jobs across the country while positioning the U.S. to be a driving force and innovation leader both domestically and abroad. Companies that are prepared to participate in the green recovery can reap substantial rewards.” [https://www.bcg.com/publications/2020/new-course-for-climate-in-united-states]

That’s possible only if Biden can successfully and positively affect special interest groups, even those across the aisle, with initiatives that address the plethora of issues at hand.

Will this stop splinter groups from trying to build a new third party? Or even a fourth and fifth? Unlikely.

But as a collective restaurant under a President Biden, multiple dinners for the many “party of one” at least gets everyone in the same room.

—–

Can Biden Work with The Squad and Centrist Republicans?

By Todd Lassa

As moderates and traditionalists continue to wrestle the Republican Party from the hands of President Trump and his most faithful populist followers, the Democratic Party is mirroring its cross-aisle rivals with a similar struggle. President-elect Joe Biden and his transition team, though hobbled by Trump’s aversion to conceding the election, are working hard to take the middle road and avoid concessions to The Squad led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., as well as voters who would rather have voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as the Democratic Party’s nominee.

Democrats this election season have been uncharacteristically low-key compared with the GOP about infighting between centrists and their respective hardline wings. Biden’s record 79-million-plus votes Nov. 3 certainly includes both an unknown number of centrist Republicans who never would have voted for Sanders, or for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for that matter, as well as young Democrats who would have preferred Sanders.

But the 2020 “Blue Wave” never happened. Biden must govern from the White House with Republicans increasing their minority in the House of Representatives by at least six seats and with Senate leadership depending on Georgia’s special January runoff elections for both of its seats. Democratic candidates must win both runoffs for a 50-50 count in the Senate, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris to serve as the tie-breaker. Even if that long-shot happens, Biden will face a recalcitrant Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who infamously vowed 12 years ago to make Barack Obama a one-term president and will undoubtedly lead his fellow Republican senators in key filibusters.

Already, Capitol Hills pundits are talking about how Biden will have to rule by executive order, where he can, to reverse some of the policies that Trump is rushing to implement in his waning time as president, including efforts to begin the final process of leasing parts of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies.

The future of the fossil fuel industry and potential for alternatives to gain prominence is central to both sides, of course, including traditional pro-business Republicans and Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez, who with Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the Green New Deal shortly after she took office in early 2019.

At presstime, President-elect Biden’s cabinet picks were beginning to emerge and they are largely considered centrists. Anthony Blinken will be nominated for secretary of state according to Bloomberg, Linda Greenfield-Thomas will be tapped for United Nations ambassador and Jake Sullivan, former aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will be national security advisor. The Biden transition team already has confirmed that longtime advisor Ron Klain will be the 46^th president’s chief of staff.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Whither the Democrats? The Answer Doesn’t Matter

By Stephen Macaulay

The question of what does the Democratic Party do now is a rather premature one, I think, as Trump has yet (as of this writing) to admit that he didn’t win another landslide.

But let’s face it: Pundits have to write about something political because we like to think that nature abhors a vacuum of pithy observations.

The question is one that breaks down this way: Who runs the show? It would seem that the obvious answer to that is Joe Biden, based on his proclamation during the first debate with Trump: “I am the Democratic Party right now.” A centrist. An institutionalist. A regular Joe.

But then there is the counter to that, one that has it that the more progressive wing of the Party ought to take flight and lead efforts to create what they presume is a more equitable society, not one that gives, as the slogan has it with surprising accuracy, “tax breaks to the rich.”

This would include the likes of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, and the members of The Squad—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) —who aren’t going to take any guff from anyone. Biden, presumably, included.

That there was no “Blue Wave” is generally attributed to the idea that “Defund the Police” and the word socialism played so broadly in the campaign runup.

What I find to be rather remarkable is that for presumably being the party of smart, pointy-headed people (or so it is widely presumed in many places across the country, both rural and otherwise), a party where there are top-notch marketers and professorial linguists, the Democrats surely do a—dare I say?—crappy job when it comes to language. (Trump has used more extreme language, so I am hopeful this passes muster at The Hustings.)

Consider “Defund the Police.” That is a scary thought for many urbanites and suburbanites, especially the latter, who are afraid that there are going to be marauders coming into their cul de sacs.

The term is the audible version of “bad optics.”

Why isn’t there some clever Democrat who comes up with an explanation that people might be able to understand? Like the Nathan Fillion TV show “Castle”, where a mystery writer partners with an NYPD detective and manages to solve cases. In the case of “Defund the Police,” it could be on calls where there are undoubtedly mental health issues, joining the police might be a mental health professional. The funding is shifted.

Seem like a stupid example? Maybe. But it is something that regular people can understand. Regardless of party affiliation. (“Hey, Dot, did you hear they’re pulling a ‘Castle’ at the police department? Now they’re getting somewhere.”)

As for the socialist* charge: Let’s face it, there are a whole lot of Boomers who might fondly remember their days in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s when they knew of people in the SDS but who have now 401Ks that they’re concerned with and the notion of wealth distribution is something that is now anathema to them. Given that there are Democrats who openly self-define as socialist, this is going to be a tough one to shift.

But here’s the thing: none of this may matter. If McConnell maintains control of the Senate, there is going to be very little happening that isn’t caused by executive order.

After all, as Biden might say (though in English): l'état c'est moi.

*One of the missed opportunities that the Democrats had was to brand Trump a “Stalinist.” Seriously. Stalin created a cult of personality. Check. Stalin wanted to concentrate power within the state, including the separation from other countries. Check.Stalin called those who weren’t with him “enemies of the people.” Check. Stalin purged high-ranking officials who didn’t hew to his line. Check. And there are several more examples. This is not to say that the real Donald Trump is a murderous thug who was responsible for the deaths of millions as Stalin was (although when history is written, there are going to be numbers of deaths from COVID-19 that will be ascribed to Trump’s behavior). It is to say that in a world that seems to be defined by unreality (“The election was rigged!”), simple labels can have consequences.

—–

End of the Republican Party?

By Stephen Macaulay

In the early 1980s I worked at a conservative think tank. I spoke at Hillsdale College. I got published in The Wall Street Journal. I attended an Adam Smith meeting. So I have some bona fides in that space.

And I am mystified as to why anyone thinks that Donald Trump is in any way, shape or form a conservative.

Among the things that conservatives believe in are family values. The comments he made to Howard Stern about his older daughter or the “Access Hollywood” tape invalidate that one. As does his administration’s treatment of children who were taken from their parents as part of his immigration program. While borders and national identity are important to conservatives, does anyone think that if the sanctity of the family is an essential aspect of Judeo-Christian existence there couldn’t have been a better way of dealing with those families?

Another aspect of conservatism is a belief in free markets. Given the tariffs that Trump seemingly willy-nilly applied on our allies (e.g., does anyone think that Canada’s aluminum capacity is in some way a threat to our national security: Were we to go to war with a country in Europe or Asia, what is the likelihood that our strong ally to the north would say, “Naw, you can’t have our aluminum?”), the aforementioned Smith would have been rolling in his grave were he an American. Yes, there is general consensus among conservatives and liberals that something must be done with regard to Chinese trade policies, yet Trump’s alleged deal-making prowess isn’t working out so well. While during phase one of a trade deal China was supposed to buy more than $200 billion in goods and services, it is way behind; during the first eight months of 2020 China purchased $69.5-billion of farm and manufactured goods, or $10.7-billion less than the same period in 2017.

Of course, fiscal restraint, or responsibility, is certainly a bulwark of conservatism. So how is that working out? According to the Treasury department, on September 30, 2017 (the first year of his presidency) the debt was $20.2 trillion. The same date in 2018, $21.5-trillion. 2019, $22.7-trillion. And September 30, 2020: $26.9-trillion. Seems like that one doesn’t fly, either.

There is the question of “what does the Republican Party do?” post-Trump.

I have a question as to “what is” the Republican Party.

To quote from its 2020 platform:

“RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda;

RESOLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention. . . .

RESOLVED, That any motion to amend the 2016 Platform or to adopt a new platform, including any motion to suspend the procedures that will allow doing so, will be ruled out of order.”

It is the party of Trump, not a party of conservativism. What it once was and what it has devolved into are two different things. It once had principles. It now seems to have nothing more than blind obedience.

—–

It’s Trump’s GOP, but is it Still the Conservative Party?

By Todd Lassa

The Lincoln Project and its followers have been agonizing over the future of the heart and mind of the GOP since the Democrats first had comparative moderates running for the nomination such as Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and of course, Joe Biden.

What if Republican stalwarts, they wondered, helped propel one of those people to victory?

After such a victory, what happens to the Republican Party? Does it revert to its Mitt Romney-esque roots, thus rejecting such erstwhile party leaders as Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham, who quickly turned from profoundly anti-Trump to enthusiastic supporter-enablers by November 2016? Or does it continue to be the Trump Party?

Anti-Trump Republicans now find themselves at a fork in the road with especially sharp tines. When (or if) President Trump vacates the White House, the Grand Old Party could revert to its pre-populist ways and welcome back the “never-Trumpers.” Or the party, such as it is, could shun those who have been associated with people from John McCain to George W. Bush.

The struggle has been playing itself out among Republicans inside its Washington power structure, where potential candidates for its 2024 presidential nomination have been lining up.

That struggle hinges at first on whether Donald J. Trump himself chooses to run again in ’24 (the 22^nd Amendment limits presidencies to two terms, but they do not need to be consecutive), or whether his son, Donald Jr. or daughter Ivanka gains more traction within the party. If not, the first Trump loyalists already on the short-list include former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas), Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and even Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Alternatively, never-Trumpers who espouse traditional conservative values, have been getting behind Govs. Larry Hogan (Md.), Charlie Baker (Mass.) and Phil Scott (Vt.), all from Democratic-leaning states, former Ohio Gov. John Kasich or Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who gained notoriety before the Nov. 3 election for the leaked (wink, wink) recording of a call to his supporters in which he said Trump “kisses dictators’ butts” and spends like a “drunken sailor.”

Sasse had warned of a “Republican bloodbath” in that recording, predicting a Nov. 3 “Blue Wave” would give Democrats a big Senate majority. That didn’t happen, but questions of Trump’s authenticity as a conservative and whether he and his family can maintain control of the GOP remain.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Trump is the Most Conservative Republican President of Our Time

By Andrew Boyd

The question at hand, is Trump a conservative, is an interesting one for sure. Stephen argues first and foremost that it’s family values and fiscal conservatism. It’s certainly arguable that the conservative movement put a lot of its eggs in these two baskets over the past several decades and has largely failed to deliver on either. But I think there are greater fundamental issues at play. More on that later. Let’s first unpack the stuff in Stephen’s argument.

In character, I'd agree that Trump is not a conservative. In his deeds, he most certainly is.

On the fiscal front, Trump is a mixed bag. He’s not taken on the systemic issues of government bloat and out-of-control federal spending (yes, it’s a spending issue), but he has installed pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that led to a booming post-Obama, pre-COVID economy the likes we’ve never seen. Sadly, I’m not sure there’s a serious political player on the national stage who’s willing to go to bat for a balanced federal budget or the reeling in of the welfare state. These are cans virtually everyone seems happy just to kick down the road. I’d say that, systemically, our body politic is in something akin to a persistent vegetative state on the debt and deficit thingy, which is certainly not ideal from this conservative’s point of view, but not something particularly attributable to Trump.

But what about free and fair trade? asks Stephen. Yes, it could be argued that Trump stepped over the line on the Canadian aluminum tariffs, but I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent in a conservative’s appreciation for the free exchange of goods at home and nationalistic international economic policy. Trump was elected to represent the people of Peoria, nor Paris, after all, and I’m mostly down with that. Tariffs are lousy, long-term structural tools, but they can come in handy at the negotiating table, which is by and large how the administration has used them, in my estimation.

But what about family values? Seriously, in Washington, Stephen? Surely you jest. Personal peccadillos of the Trumpian sort have been baked into the swamp cake since the dawn of the republic. Do I wish he was less like JFK and more like Obama in the category of marital fidelity? For sure. But you work with what you’ve got. And in the new age of a leftist, socialist-slouching Democratic party, I think an increasing number of conservatives are inclined to take a more macro view.

At the macro level, Trump, I would argue, is the most conservative president in my lifetime. Drawing down the 15-year Afghanistan fiasco, taking the hard line with China, appointing textualist Supreme Court justices, delivering American energy independence and leveraging the same in foreign policy, supporting Israel, the Middle East’s only functioning Democracy, putting Hezbollah and the Iran mullahs on their heels and calling out the leftist media establishment for their gross journalistic malfeasance.

The only blind obedience I’m aware of within my Republican circles is to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and the ideals these documents embody. Trump isn’t perfect by a long shot, but he’s drawn the party back toward its genuine center of gravity, motivating its base and drawing a stark contrast with the socialist, globalist, identity politics dogma of the unhinged left.

If time and space weren’t issues, I’d take another thousand words to explain how Obama was, by contrast, the least traditionally liberal, least inclusive president in my lifetime, by a long shot, but that’s a column for another day.

—–

An Agenda for Uncle Joe

By Jim McCraw

Come January, when the 46^th president takes office, we have a few words of advice for Uncle Joe. Herewith, assuming a majority in the House, a recommended agenda.

First, bring COVID-19 to a halt by example and by force of will, which President Trump never did. A quick and thorough response may shut down businesses hard in the short-term but will pay off in stemming outbreaks in the U.S. more quickly allowing us to open up again. The new president has to be in charge of this effort, has to wear a mask at every appearance, and has to coerce Americans to socially distance properly.

If we could get General Motors and Ford Motor Company to build respirators and make masks in a revival of the “Arsenal of Democracy,” why can’t we get Americans to wear masks and avoid crowding in a World War II-era display of patriotic citizenship?

Next, undo all the harm that Trump did in terms of environmental deregulation. We need, within reasonable limits, to protect our clean water, our clean air, our natural resources, our national parks from commercialization in all its forms. It’s still our country, every cubic inch of it, and we need to protect it.

We need to have a very serious look at our defense spending, which has, over the last 50 years, become a gigantic, self-sustaining pork barrel. The Defense department and the federal government have presided over a system where communities in every state count on contributing something to the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us of 60 years ago, to the point where defense accounts for almost 60 percent of the federal budget. We already own enough weaponry to dominate every other country on Earth. This is ridiculous.

And, Joe, since you’re a center-left Democrat, why not some policy that would please center-right Republicans? Dismantle the Department of Education, send all those people back to real, productive jobs, and leave education to the states, counties, cities, towns and school systems.

If you have some free time, how about bringing together Treasury and Congress and figure out a new tax system that shuts the hundreds of loopholes in the current system and gives money for nothing to huge corporations. Be the new Democratic party of smaller, more effective spending and fair taxation.

And have a good look at the Department of Energy, confine its role to the original intent, and let the rest of the 108,000 direct and contract employees go out and compete for real jobs.

Now that you’re in, start talking up term limits. You may not get re-elected over this, but you will be doing a great service to your country by giving government back to the people and dismantling the Washington oligarchy. While you’re at it, have a good look at lobbying and the damage it does to the democratic process.

And, as Justice Kavanaugh said, Roe v. Wade is settled law. Let’s hope the Supreme Court keeps it that way. [McCraw is not interested in having Biden “stack the court” beyond nine justices. -Ed.]

Election spending limitation also deserves a hard look now that you’re back in office, and it’s time for a re-write of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) as a run-around to restore portions of the legislation that were dismantled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

Oh, and how about taking In God We Trust off the money and "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance? Trump doesn’t believe in God, so why should the rest of us?

Thanks, Joe. Appreciate you taking the time to listen.

Jim McCraw is a semi-retired writer and columnist. He has been a resident of The Villages for nearly five years.

—–

Biden’s Short Coattails Predict Two More Years of Split Government

By Todd Lassa

As of Monday morning, 97-percent of the presidential election vote is in and Democrat Joe Biden leads Republican incumbent Donald Trump, 50.9 percent to 47.3 percent, according to the latest count by NBC News. The pertinent number, of course, is 306 to 232, the Electoral College advantage for former Vice President Biden, who has matched the count President Trump had when he beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race.

Biden’s 50.9-percent most certainly is not a “mandate,” though historians say it is the highest share against an incumbent candidate since Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt beat Republican Herbert Hoover in 1932.

What’s certain about the first half, at least, of Biden’s term as president is that he will not have much success pushing an aggressive, potentially progressive agenda through the 117^th Congress. Though Democrats hold on to the House of Representatives, retaining Nancy Pelosi as speaker, the margin has shrunk by eight seats to 224 Democratic to 211 Republican. In the Senate, Democrats must win both January runoffs in Georgia to acquire a 50-50 split and take the majority vote from Republicans, with Vice President-elect Harris providing the tie-breaker.

If Georgia doesn't chose both Democratic candidates over the Republicans in January's Senate race runoffs, Senate Majority Leader McConnell will potentially have as much power in Washington as the president. Followers of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and The Squad are not likely to gain much legislative traction in this scenario.

The “blue wave” many expected this year has been largely restricted to the presidential race, with Republicans making many down-ballot gains, including in state governments.

It is appropriate, then, that left-column pundit Jim McCraw, a centrist living in The Villages, Florida who supported Biden in the Nov. 3 election provides a recommended agenda for the president-elect. Equally appropriate that right-column pundit Bryan Williams, a former GOP operative in Southern California counters McCraw’s proposals without much serious disagreement. While Williams supported the populist-nationalist Trump in the 2020 election (though not the 2016 election), his own pro-business, laissez-fair agenda is more reminiscent of old-fashioned Mitt Romney conservatism.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

An ‘Agenda’ Filled With Executive Orders

By Bryan Williams

Copious amounts of ink have been spilled since Joe Biden became president-elect about his vision for the country. Some have even said he has a mandate based on the record 78.7 million people who voted for him. Really? 50.9 percent is a mandate?

I expect a lot of Joe's first 100 days -- or even the first two years of his term -- will be government by executive order. We have a divided government, and that will most likely still be the case after Georgia choses its two U.S. Senators in its runoff elections in early January. Divided government is good in that no one person or party can steamroll through a partisan agenda. Look at what the Democrats did with Obamacare when they owned the White House and the Capitol building, or what the Republicans did with the tax cuts early in President Trump's term.

I think we too often look towards the government to define American life and history when we should look more towards our people: no government told Henry Ford to build a car, no government told Jeff Bezos to sell books online, and no government told Andy Warhol to paint.

Joe Biden will most likely be a caretaker president and won’t make any sea changes. One area he may have a slight effect is in foreign affairs. There is a lot of work to do to re-engage America in the world after Trump's retrenchment. I am a bit fearful of what Biden may do regarding foreign affairs. I mean, he advised against sending in the strike team that killed Osama bin Laden. I'm sure he'll bring the US back into the Paris Accords, but last time I checked, the skies in my neighborhood wasn't so much polluted by CO2 released by humans as it was by massive forest fires that no international accord could account for.

Here's to governmental gridlock. May Joe Biden's term shift the focus to the innovators and people that fill our great fruited plain with ideas, hard work, and hopes and dreams.

Williams is a mental health professional and former Republican party official in California.

—–

Trump Won’t Celebrate National Pancake Day

By Michelle Naranjo

“Denial is a save now, pay later scheme.”

― Gavin de Becker, "The Gift of Fear"

If you were to look at TikTok, Instagram, or Twitter, you would think it is National Pancake Day. But, alas, it is a passive-aggressive collective statement from sarcastic users to Trump supporters promoting a Million MAGA March, focused on their conclusion that there was widespread voter fraud in the recent presidential election. President Trump keeps claiming there was fraud committed, so they believe it. There are a lot of JPGs and GIFs of pancakes out there.

After 18 failed lawsuits filed in the key states that Trump would have liked to have won, the projected tally is 306 electoral votes for Biden, with Trump receiving 232: Ironically, the exact margin Trump got when he triumphed over Hillary Clinton. Like Biden, she won the popular vote, while Trump didn’t in 2016, or 2020.

Even as the law firms representing Trump in his court battles to regain electoral votes resign from their duties, Trump has committed to proceed with his desperate battle; most recently, appointing Rudy Giuliani to be in charge of the lawsuits. Both Democratic and Republican election leaders in swings states have stated that there is no evidence. They refuse to follow Trump’s last gasp that he doesn’t have to leave office because they will not change their process for selecting state electors. International election observers also stated that there were no significant irregularities.

Super Trump supporter Sheldon Adelson’s Nevada newspaper, The Las Vegas Review-Journal, even told the president that it was time to pack his bags, stating, “Mr. Trump lost this election because he ultimately didn’t attract enough votes and failed to win a handful of swing states that broke his way in 2016.”

A group of two-dozen chief officers of major U.S. companies met and determined that should Trump try to prevent a transition to the Biden team, they would consider stopping donations to political action committees and even relocate their corporate headquarters.

And yet, Trump refuses to concede the election with all of the mounting lack of fraud evidence. This decision not to give in is not denial: He knows that he lost and is acting the sore loser. However, it is a decision that widens the division in the United States and makes the transition of power very difficult for the Biden/Harris team.

If not for the headlines and bizarre tweets proclaiming victory from the accounts of Trump, his children, his press secretary, a few Republican politicians who must have no desire to be re-elected, and a bunch of angry people on Parler, Biden and his team keep marching forward. The week began with a meeting of the president-elect and a Covid-19 response team. Biden may not be getting daily briefings, as is customary by this time post-election, but he is steadfast in getting to Jan. 20, 2021, also known as inauguration day.

The official Biden/Harris Transition Team website has listed the priorities:

Covid-19
Economic recovery
Racial equity
Climate change

Clearly, Biden is determined not to acknowledge the Shrek in the room because that would give it legitimacy. What he is addressing are the issues affecting all Americans. He may not officially take office until Jan. 20, but he is already leading the way. And there will be pancakes.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

― Gavin de Becker, "The Gift of Fear"

Naranjo is a freelance writer living in rural Pennsylvania.

—–

Still No Concession from Trump

By Nic Woods

Some important members of the Trump administration – including Donald J. Trump himself – are in denial over last week’s election result and so America must suffer the consequences of rejecting four more years of him.

In just one 24-hour post-election news cycle the week after former Vice President Biden was declared winner:

• News organizations had to cover not one, but two, press conferences where ranking administration officials acted like an election never happened, much less that their boss lost.

• Attorney General William Barr handed to Justice department prosecutors the authority to investigate claims of voter fraud.

• Emily Murphy, head of the General Services Administration, refused to sign papers to release to Biden $6.3 million of $10 million set aside for his transition because it’s unclear to her who had won.

•Federal agencies have been told to proceed with Trump’s fiscal 2022 budget.

•Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper and demoted Federal Energy Regulatory Committee Chairman Neil Chatterjee in a spree of administration figures deemed not sufficiently loyal.

•Installed Mike Ellis as general counsel to the National Security Agency, making him more difficult to fire (except Trump may not remember issuing an executive order that would, in fact, make him easier to fire).

There are many more examples that seem like random individual meltdowns, but they all matter – they are as complex a power play the Trump administration can muster in its three-pronged strategy, along with fighting math in the courts and working up the base with baseless claims of voter fraud.

This strategy – using the war on election math to hinder Biden’s transition as much as bureaucratically possible – is what is left if the other two don’t work and it offers valuable insight into the administration and what they really think of their opponent, Joe Biden.

About this time four years ago. Chris Christie, then the governor of New Jersey and a late-to-the-bandwagon Trump supporter, volunteered for the thankless task of heading the transition team of the newly elected Donald J. Trump.

It was an offer Trump initially rejected because, according to Michael Lewis, author of “The Fifth Risk,” which talks about the missed opportunities of Trump’s own transition, “why did anyone need to plan anything before he actually became president?”

Well, Christie said, it was required.

The Presidential Transition Act, which Congress first passed in 1963 and has been amended four times -- as recently as 2019 – to “recognize the increasing complexities of presidential transitions” was passed to ease and promote the orderly transfer of power because “any disruption occasioned by the transfer of executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.”

The act has key national security implications as well that involve background checks for the high-level members of the new administration so they could be done by the inauguration. The president-elect, under the act, is required to be given a classified summary as soon as possible after the election on national security threats, covert military operations and pending decisions on possible uses of military force.

So yes, the transition is a big deal and while Trump didn’t know that four years ago, he knows it enough now to try to impede Biden’s administration by pretending there remains some way the courts can shake out a few votes that Joe Biden will just give up and leave. And, if Biden’s stubborn enough to stay, well, he’ll be behind the eight-ball, won’t get anything accomplished and half the country will be against him.

But Biden isn’t some outsider who doesn’t know how Washington works. He’s spent 36 years in the Senate and ran for president one time more than Trump has. He has connections, including Trump’s predecessor, many of whom are experts in their field.

Unlike Trump four years ago, Biden knows the act and what he should be getting from it. Biden will listen to the experts, though they are being purged from the Trump administration at a rapid rate.

Joe Biden also has the resources and knowledge base to still have a functional government and a peaceful transfer of power the third week of January, regardless of what Trump does.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

There are Legitimate Issues Dangling in This Election, Too

By Andrew Boyd

Enough with all the pearl clutching, my Democrat friends. You've got no room to talk. Hillary has been crying in her Chablis for the past four years, claiming the 2016 presidential election was stolen by a Russian cat's paw, cheered on relentlessly by a complicit, nakedly partisan media establishment.

Was it not she who said Joe shouldn't concede under any circumstances? Care to explain? And how about Stacey Abrams, who is regularly held up as the real Georgia governor despite a 50,000-vote loss? Gore vs. Bush went on for 37 days, for God's sake. Mass mail-in balloting was certain to be problematic, more open to fraud and solicitous of malfeasance. You know that as well as Jimmy Carter did just 15 years ago, when he led a bi-partisan commission that concluded mail-in absentee balloting was susceptible to fraud (he backed off that conclusion earlier this year, suggesting states had “evolved” their systems).

And enough, please, with all the holier-than-thou talk of respect for American institutions, thee who threatens to pack the courts and eliminate the electoral college. You claim virtue in the name of expedience, and I ain't buying.

Now, there are legitimate issues to be resolved through established, legal means including recounts, recanvassing and adjudication of legal filings. It accrues to the benefit of all Americans that we have faith in the outcomes of our elections, which necessarily requires they hold up to rigorous political, social and legal scrutiny. When it's all said and done, we'll have a winner and a peaceful transition of power. Then, we can move on to the Georgia runoffs for U.S. Senate, where I'd hope no one takes the advice of columnist Thomas Friedman and seeks to commit election fraud. Any of my Democratic friends want to stand up in opposition to that one? I hope so.

In the meantime, please enjoy the rebounding economy, a resurgent U.S. manufacturing sector, American energy independence, burgeoning hope for peace in the Middle-East, China at the bargaining table, and the relative calm in our streets. It may be the last you see of all these things for a good long while.

Boyd is a public relations and communications professional with 30-years experience. He lives with his wife and three daughters in Charlotte, N.C.

—–

Campaign Finance Reform, Then Third-Party Success

By Chase Wheaton

Sentiment that the current political system in the United States is extremely flawed and broken is not new to true progressives. Progressive Democrats have been advocating for serious campaign reform for many years, saying our current political system does not benefit the majority of people in our country in the way that it was meant to, but instead favors wealthy elites and upper-class folks who can use their wealth to influence the platforms and positions of the candidates that run for office and get elected.

Often, political candidates who lose elections can’t blame their party affiliation or their policy positions, but instead lost because they lack the finances and fundraising required to run a legitimately successful campaign in this country’s political system. Perfect examples are the third-party candidates who run for president every four years. Millions of Americans probably identify more closely with such candidates than with either of the two major party candidates, but sadly these third parties do not have the cross-country fundraising efforts necessary to promote their platforms, positions, and ideas, and therefore they struggle to recruit voters to support their candidacy.

I believe that a multi-party system could improve voter turnout and overall engagement within our democratic process and create much more significant and tangible change in our country than we’ve seen from any previous major party candidate. However, I also believe we need to reform our political process before we can have a successful multi-party system that doesn’t simply reward the wealthiest candidates who outspend their opponents on the way to victory. Unfortunately, the Democratic and Republican party establishments are powerful entities that benefit from this current system, which is why it should be no surprise that the only major candidate in the last two presidential primaries who has fought for serious campaign finance reform is Bernie Sanders, a registered independent.

Serious political reform will only happen when a substantial number of our officials are elected after spending grassroots donations, and not massive donations from millionaires and billionaires, as these are the only politicians that will be willing to push and vote for campaign finance reform. Once campaign finance laws are changed, I don’t think it’ll be long before we see other major changes to our political process, including allowing for a multi-party system. Sadly, until that happens, some of the fiercest advocates for a multi-party system that I personally know are in the greatest peril of having their human rights stripped away under another Trump or GOP presidency.

While some voted for third party candidates in 2016 when they were more confident Trump would lose, this year, the need to vote for a viable presidential candidate who doesn’t disregard basic human rights was more important than the desire to make their vote a statement about the country’s political process.

Wheaton is a higher education professional working in university housing, based in Greenville, N.C.

-30-

Why Just Two?

By Stephen Macaulay

A friend of mine said to me yesterday that he’d cast his ballot some weeks earlier. He said, “I didn’t vote for either of those two. As the father of a daughter I couldn’t vote for Trump. As the owner of a small business I couldn’t vote for Biden.”

He voted for Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian candidate for president. Not that he had any illusion that she would win. He just wanted to participate in our democracy.

He told me that this is the second presidential cycle he’s done that.

Mind you he is a well-educated owner of a profitable, family-owned business. Twenty years ago he might have been a Democrat. Now that he is in his 50s, I would have guessed Republican.

His position isn’t exactly “a pox on both of your houses.”

It is more of “I can’t see how either of these people is going to help me.”

As we wait for the results, there is undoubted feeling of rancor among both sides.

Many Trump supporters undoubtedly think that Biden supporters are a bunch of latte-sipping snowflakes who don’t understand the meaning of the word freedom.

And on the Biden side they’re seeing a gang of overweight patrons of outlet malls.

Neither is correct.

Both sides are Americans. Both sides are participating in the electoral process. Both sides think their guy is the right one for the country.

One side is going to be pissed when the last ballot has been counted. Or the last lawsuit settled.

If one wins with the majority of the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, there will be an outcry to abolish that mechanism. Undoubtedly there will be some action.

But is that enough?

Why is it that people like Jo Jorgensen don’t have a snowball’s chance?

Why is it that there are just two parties that seem to matter?

Maybe instead of just going for direct voting there should be more adjustments made to the system as it exists.

Perhaps we should take a page from the British system, which has campaigns running for four weeks. People and parties that are less well-funded than the Republicans and Democrats would not be at the huge disadvantage that they are now. While some would say that the wealthy candidate would just pour it on for those 30 or so days, let’s look at it this way: If you have a glass that you fill with water, at some point it is full and no matter how much more you put in it there won’t be more. Arguably the same could be said for political ads.

You won’t be happy today.

I won’t be happy today.

But do you know who won’t be unhappy?

My friend who voted Libertarian.

Macaulay is The Hustings’ pundit-at-large.

—–

In the Opera of Presidential Elections, No Need for Third Parties

By Bryan Williams

It has been eight days since the election and it appears most of the media and country have accepted that Joseph Robinette Biden will be our 46th president. However, Arizona and a few other states are still counting, and recounts are inevitable either by law or by the Trump campaign’s request. The plump lady hasn’t sung yet, if you ask me. There was no political violence after the election as feared, and the nearly 72 million Americans who voted for President Trump peacefully heard the results and have so far doggedly remained steadfast with a glimmer of hope that Trump will win.

And yet, I sympathize with the center column writer. In 2016 I was dubious of both candidates Clinton and Trump and voted for a third party. Even I, a grizzled Republican vet, bought into the media narrative that Trump would be a disaster as president, so I made a protest vote. I was a bit scared of what Trump meant for our country’s future, but the past four years has been a surprise. Like many, I don’t care for the president’s more acidic behaviors, but for the most part the Trump presidency has been just fine for America and has not led to her ruin. I feel like America won’t be ruined either if or when Biden is certified as the winner, and not just because it looks as if the GOP will keep the Senate. I have more faith than that in the American people and believe one-party rule would be our own worst enemy – just look at California.

Elections, even those not held during an unprecedented global pandemic and with nearly universal mail-in balloting, take time. Give the poll workers time. Give the lawyers some time. Give the judges some time. We live in an age that is ever more used to instantaneous results and gratification. We have to get this election right, and as Sen. Mitch McConnell said, President Trump is well within his rights to challenge everything he legally can.

So let’s wait to hear the singing from the plump lady, shall we? Remember whatever the outcome, we all appeal to the better angels of our nature and act as responsible, dignified American voters. We will get up the next day and go to work and love and care for our children. And we will hope. Hope the best for America no matter who is elected president. I won’t be unhappy either. But I am willing to wait for that singing.

Williams is a mental health professional and former Republican party official in California.

-30-