The United States is split in two. On the one hand are Donald Trump’s supporters and on the other side are Joe Biden’s. America is an increasingly polarized and divided country. In the effort to better understand what is happening in America — and beyond — InsideOver interviewed Gabriele Segre, director of the Lugano-based Vittorio Dan Segre Foundation, which seeks to extend and promote a culture of political and social coexistence.

Is coexistence still possible for the American people?

It’s very simple. What is happening at present repeats what happened during the months of the election campaign, when the opponent was delegitimized, refusing to recognize his values and intrinsic dignity. But this goes far beyond America. It is the same dynamic that appears in any competition, whether political, social or in human relationships.

Could you clarify that point?

When you delegitimize the other’s ability to manifest their identity, to express it fully, you create a rupture. When you delegitimise this ability, you are removing the basic conditions for coexistence. We see it in every type of identitarian manifestation: identities are multiple, mutating, they change over time. So each of us is the bearer of dozens and dozens of identities on an individual level, let alone on the social level. Our identities are religious, social, gender, political and so forth. When we refuse to recognize some of them rather than others, we’re playing a very dangerous game. We’re creating the need to legitimize our identity by the negation of the other’s. Moreover, historically, identities have also been affirmed through conflict.

Could you explain that?

Most conflicts, including wars, are the result of social interaction. When it is internal to a society, it takes on the terms of civil war, riots, protests, upheavals. We see it in America today, without reaching the extreme consequences of a civil war that hopefully will be avoided. When there is a confrontation between identities, historically, either there is a clash and war breaks out and whoever wins has a supremacy of identity deligitimization or, to overcome the conflict or clash of identities, a space is created above identity that encompasses all other identities. These two forms of identity relationships are unstable and inevitably create social instability, a level of disagreement at first individual and then collective that leads to a clash. Because as an individual you feel lost in a society that doesn’t keep you safe, that fails to acknowledge your needs. This is what is happening in America.

Speaking of coexistence, there is a phrase from Terence, the Latin playwright, which I believe is pertinent: “Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.” It means “I am a man, I do not consider anything human alien to me.” Is it on this basis that coexistence is founded?

It certainly is. Humanism is another of the main factors in the culture of coexistence. There is a mistaken interpretation of humanism in the conventional wisdom. We’re all human and so being members of the human race is sufficient to guarantee coexistence. That isn’t the case. Coexistence is based on three principles. First: the dignity of a specific identity. Second: the mutual recognition of the dignity of the other. Third: humanism. Humanism is fundamental, it is central, but be careful not to identify humanism with human identity. Human identity is one of many identities.

The fact that I am human must not downgrade whatever else I am, man or woman, Italian or American, Democrat rather than Republican. Each of these identities is at least as valid as my human identity. This understanding of humanism is fundamental to recognizing that there is a lowest common denominator, but that it should not detract from everything else. Which is a bit of a risk when we talk about human rights. A problem is created which is equal to that of the non-recognition of humanism. It becomes an ideal totalitarianism that must be avoided.

How can we live together in the time of COVID-19?

The virus has hit the nodes of relationships in society. We had built an ecosystem that had its own logic and balance, certainly fallacious and perfectible, but it was still in place. The cultural, social, educational, generational and political dynamics that existed in society have been undermined by the infiltration of the virus. The related connections and relationships have also become unhinged. Intervention on one element had a domino effect on all the others.

So we find ourselves in a completely new reality in the making, in which we ask ourselves how we can strike a balance between the different parts of the system? This concerns first of all identities, with the ability to read and understand which parts and positions are at stake, and then to understand their relationships. Promoting a coexistence between them, the ability to find an ecosystem balance, is a task that lies with the public institution, the state, and we knew this before. But the state alone is not enough. We have developed the concept of the economy of impact, which existed even before the virus. The virus, in this case, acted as a catalyst for a dynamic that was already taking place.

And what happened next?

The state is no longer able to shoulder the agenda of total public interest, meaning the relations between different identities. It is no longer able to create a system of sustainable coexistence. Therefore each identity has to shoulder its own piece of responsibility, not as a passive subject, but as an active player in the relationship between identities. In the sense that the world of economics must no longer be irreconcilable with the private interest, it is necessary to develop a vision of the state in which the private interest coincides with the public interest.

Please note, we are not talking about socialism: the segment of corporate activism has to take charge of what the state is no longer able to take responsibility for. This is true of the third sector, schools, corporations and trade unions — whatever the type of representation.

Does this mean that private individuals have to replace the state to some extent?

Private interest as such no longer exists. Under the principle of coexistence, the virus has removed the possibility of watertight compartments, it has removed the correlation of private interest with someone else’s private interest. This today determines a new level of symbiosis, of interdependence that has to be faced differently.

What are the biggest risks for coexistence?

That there is no discussion. This is because coexistence is first of all culture. There is no appropriate recipe in terms of living together. There is the possibility of understanding the reasons for living together and interpreting them in specific areas of action. The first thing to do would be to look at people through the lens of the culture of coexistence so that they engage in coexistence, but this is not happening.

Are there examples of coexistence around us?

Yes. In the business world, for example, coexistence is becoming an increasingly important concept. There is greater attention to the role that has to be played in internal relations. Companies are also taking care of the needs of their workers, obviously as far as possible, where the state fails to offer its assistance, say. Companies are now increasingly taking responsibility for the community in which they operate. I am not speaking only of the environment, but also of society.

The world of finance itself is developing a new understanding of what is profitable. If we think that three years ago the president of BlackRock said to all its subsidiaries: “It is not enough for us that you are sustainable from an economic or environmental point of view. We need to see that our business has a positive impact on society.”

This completely changes the dynamics of relations between work and the impact it has. So there is a direct interest of the company to do something good within society. Good not in Christian terms, but in terms of a positive impact on the public interest. This is because this is the way business models are measured. That’s how they get their investments.

Before the coronavirus emergency exploded, there was a lot of talk about the relationship between people and the environment, about coexistence between nature and humanity. Is this also a form of coexistence?

Definitely. But be careful not to confuse the culture of coexistence. Coexistence with the environment should not be confused with coexistence in the environment. Because the concept of coexistence presupposes mutual understanding. And in the relationship with nature there is no understanding and so no coexistence.

There is coexistence between human beings within nature, as well as within the context of the virus. We have to start thinking of our relationship with nature in these terms. If I pollute the air I’m not usurping the air, I’m usurping someone else’s ability to breathe clean air because I have polluted it. So it’s always a human relationship, but in different contexts.

Action can be taken to develop an awareness of the environment from the Paris Accords on. It has to be done, but it needs to be accompanied by a strong investment in the culture of coexistence. It is not just about saving the planet, but about saving the planet to save the coexistence between us.

L'articolo Coexistence: a Possible Lesson from the Recent US Election proviene da InsideOver.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is facing the reality that his American experiment will likely come to an end on Jan. 20. The leader who orchestrated the subversion of the US political system by undermining the 2016 American electoral process, will have to contend with a new counterpart if pollsters are correct about next month’s election.

A Lesson in Geopolitics

Putin pulled off what his predecessors only dreamed of: throwing Washington into chaos, sowing doubt of democracy among voters, and pushing American off-balance as the global power broker. Under Putin — and largely due to the 2016 election of Trump — the Kremlin has achieved many of the ambitions laid forth in Aleksandr Dugin’s book Foundations of Geopolitics, which acts as a guidebook for returning glory to Moscow and is studied in some levels of the Russian military.

In short, it calls for alienating the UK, the creation of a France-German bloc, annexing Ukraine and other territories, causing rifts with Turkey, and most importantly, fueling instability in the US. One way it suggests carrying out the final point is by stoking racial tensions.

If Putin were to be judged by Dugin’s book alone, he would be considered a widely successful Russian president. However, the joyride seems to be coming to an end with the Trump administration unfurling in what could be the final months of his tenure in the Oval Office.

A Familiar Adversary in Biden

Without Trump, Putin will be back to dealing with a familiar foe in Democratic nominee Joe Biden. As vice president, Biden was involved in a “reset” of Washington-Moscow relations. The idea by former President Barack Obama was to bring the two states closer together. Before Obama, fundamental disagreements over missiles and regional issues caused division between the two states. Former President George W. Bush, like Trump, withdrew the US from an arms control treaty in pursuit of an amplified American military strategy in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 

Biden, while critical of Putin’s goal of reuniting the USSR (by force if needed), supported a thawing of relations. Some analysts agree with the idea of engaging Russia rather than making moves seemingly to spite the Kremlin, such as deploying missiles, canceling treaties, and levying sanctions.

“If all we do is moral outrage and sanction them, we aren’t going to make much progress,” said Fiona Hill, a former Russia policy specialist on the National Security Council. Hill was among those called in to testify against Trump in his impeachment trial.

Putin Weighs-In on Election

The Trump administration had become too close with Russia, and as a bulk of evidence suggests, even owes its 2016 victory to the Kremlin. Disinformation campaigns, prescribed in the Foundations of Geopolitics continue to play a role in influencing American voters. 

What worked in 2016 isn’t cutting it now, although that is not for the White House’s lack of trying. The Trump administration has done little in the way of stopping Russian aggression with the president himself even encouraging the Kremlin to hack the Democratic National Committee and leak Hillary Clinton’s emails. 

Therefore, with a Biden presidency, the Kremlin will be brought back to reality and Putin offered some sobering thoughts on that idea. Speaking on Russian state television on Wednesday, the Russian leader weighed-in on the 2020 US election, The Associated Press reported.

He condemned Biden’s “sharp anti-Russian rhetoric,” but admitted that those views are held by many in Washington, which has led to an impasse in smoothing the Washington-Moscow relation. The sentiment is largely the result of the Kremlin’s interference in US elections, but Putin of course denied having a hand in it.

During the first presidential debate, Biden referred to Trump as “Putin’s puppy,” and the Russia leader enjoyed that saying it “actually enhances our prestige, because they are talking about our incredible influence and power.”

Reaching Common Ground on Arms

Although Biden has pledged to punish Russia for its election interference, Putin sees an upside to dealing with Biden over Trump. Namely, the Trump administration has wrecked nearly every arms treaty it can, including the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces agreement with Moscow. Another treaty is set to expire Feb. 5 and the Trump administration is only now reversing its stance on renewing the deal. Previously, Trump was opposed to agreeing to an extension, however he is now pushing for an agreement before the Nov. 3 election.

On arms control, Putin is the much more grounded option if Putin has to choose one candidate to deal with. Biden brings with him decades of experience and as senator, even pushed the George W. Bush administration to bring new agreements with the Kremlin before the Senate so it could be worked on by the legislative body.

For the Russian leader, arms control agreements and treaties are of great political benefit. By negotiating and signing them with governments such as the US, the Kremlin earns goodwill from the international community. They can also be used as bargaining chips to reduce sanctions and win trade deals.

Essentially, arms agreements are political capital to Putin and now that Trump has cancelled the INF and Open Skies treaties, with the threat of another expiring, Moscow has plenty of leverage to bend a Biden White House to its will.

“This is a very serious element of our potential collaboration in the future,” Putin said, speaking about Biden’s willingness to negotiate with Russia.

Finding a New Card to Play

For Putin, a reckoning could be on the way if Biden wins in November, as Bloomberg reported.

“If Biden is elected, we will confront a consolidation of the West on an anti-Russian platform,” said Andrey Kortunov, head of the Kremlin-founded Russian International Affairs Council.

A refreshed Washington would waste no time rallying allies to unite against Moscow. Already, the mere prospect of sanctions has forced the ruble to its lowest value since April.

If Putin is to preserve the influence he has built for Moscow on the international stage, he must find a way to counter a new American president, one who operates much more pragmatically and intelligently.

To do so, the Russian president will need to practice negotiating instead of manipulating. That requires being grounded in the reality of the situation and working from there. For Putin, the reality is that Trump is losing with American voters, Biden and his Democratic Party want to punish Russia, and Biden will go harder on Moscow. Now, Putin is counting his chips and seeing what cards he can play. Arms control will be a major one and by putting it into play, Putin will lessen the negative effects of a new administration in January.

L'articolo Putin Looks to Possible Missile Treaties with Biden as He Faces Reality of 2020 Election proviene da InsideOver.

Seldom has a first presidential debate been anticipated so eagerly. One expected a tempestuous night, but what the American people witnessed was a final goodbye to decorum and decency, and a hello to no-holds bared reality TV for the presidency of the United States.

Carnage From the Outset

This did not exactly come as a surprise. Joe Biden compared the president to Nazi Germany’s propaganda minister Goebbels prior to the debate while Trump demanded a drug test for Biden.

Moreover, any hope that moderator Chris Wallace could somehow steady the ship went overboard quickly. It left the American people with almost zero substance but arguably the worst presidential debate to date — and one for which the main takeaways are not based on policies but purely the participants.

Standard Talking-Points, no Substance

The debate’s start was supposed to focus on Trump’s approach to filling the Supreme Court’s vacant position, but the topic changed swiftly towards the coronavirus pandemic. Trump claimed that instead of more than 200,000 corona deaths, there would be two million victims if Biden were president.

Biden, in turn, accused Trump of “having no plan.” He called on the president to get out of his “bunker” and his golf course and save lives. Trump countered that China was to blame for the virus. If Biden had been listened to, the United States would have been “wide open” according to Trump. However, Trump had “closed” the country and did a “great job” dealing with the pandemic.

During these exchanges, the president interrupted Biden repeatedly and called him, among other things, “a disaster.” Biden accused Trump of having been entirely irresponsible, lying and “panicking” in the face of the pandemic, while also telling him to “shut up, man” and calling him “a clown.”

The Debate’s Rapid Digressions

Border closings, supporters, willingness to vaccinate, social distancing, masks — the debate jumped from one to the other controversial topic of the corona crisis accompanied by several more interruptions by the president, to Wallace’s dismay.

Another central point of contention related to medical care in the United States. Trump accused Biden of seeking socialist health insurance for his Democratic Party. Regarding the health care introduced by former President Barack Obama, Trump said: “Obamacare is a disaster, it is too expensive.” Biden countered the debate with a frontal attack against Trump, accusing him of lies and saying that Trump is of no help to the many people who depend on affordable health care. Most importantly, however, he distanced himself from Bernie Sanders’ health care ideas.

Racial Topics

Biden also called Trump a racist, who attempted to “generate racist hatred, racist division” via continuous dog-whistle politics. Trump responded by slamming Biden for his 1994 crime bill, treating the black community worse than anyone else, and calling them “super-predators.” Biden called for children of whatever skin color to be given comprehensive equal opportunities and assured the audience that “we can overcome racism in America.”

One of the most critical moments came towards the end of the debate when Chris Wallace asked Trump to condemn white supremacists. The president did not express a commitment towards doing this.

Despite the variety of topics, substance on policy or coherent exchanges of thoughts were nonexistent throughout the debate. And yet, a few crucial points could play a significant role until November 3, including the president’s strategic approach.

Key Takeaways

Chris Wallace had a difficult night. Wallace, one of the US’ premier journalists, too often appeared overpowered by Trump, who simply attempted to steamroll everyone, including Wallace. At times both appeared to be debating each other.

Biden Dismantled Accusations of Socialism

While the socialist attacks the Trump team had worked out for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren never stuck on Biden, to begin with, his decisive answers today will have even surprised the president. Trump attempted to equate Biden repeatedly with the Democrat’s hard left.

However, tonight Biden made clear that he was the Democratic Party, that he had beaten Bernie Sanders, that he is in favor of “Law and Order,” that he does not seek to defund the police, and that he does not support the Green New Deal.

The New Standard?

What was more shocking than the lack of policies discussed was the lack of decorum displayed by both participants. Since the 2016 debates, one knew about Trump’s proclivity for turning presidential debates into a reality TV show. He did not disappoint this time, either.

His continuous interruptions and quasi-side debates with Wallace, paired with plenty of conspiracy theories (e.g., mail-in vote fraud, Hunter Biden), were hard to watch. However, the challenger calling the president a clown and telling him to “shut up” was equally a new all-time low for the format.

With these precedents, future presidential debates will likely be anything but presidential. And while 2016 ruined the format, it was buried alive tonight.

The Trump Campaign’s Miscalculation

Biden confirmed what one knew all along: he is not a great candidate. One can easily make the case he would have lost a debate against the majority of the previous 10 Republican nominees. But Biden did not need to be great nor Shakespearean. By continuously portraying Biden as a stumbling, senile old fool, who is drooling all over himself, the Trump campaign had set the standards so low that, as long as he did not collapse on stage, Biden would do well. He succeeded.

On the other hand, Trump conducted himself as a man with little to lose, a role generally reserved for a challenger, not an incumbent. His strategy of not allowing for a real discussion on policies — for obvious reasons — but instead attempt to goad Biden into costly mistakes, failed.

And with the incumbent’s back against the wall, Tuesday’s debate is unlikely to remain the apogee of ugliness between Trump and Biden in the next five weeks before election day.

L'articolo The First Presidential Debate: Carnage, Zero Substance and a Failed Strategy proviene da InsideOver.

In law, boilerplate is copy-paste legal language that’s often used as the basis for drawing up standard contracts and other documents. In politics, boilerplate is the current state of the major American political parties: the Republicans and Democrats.

Miracle Economy Spring Water and Fighting Internalized Whiteness

Nowithstanding the obvious changes brought about by COVID-19 restrictions and the ensuing virtual nature of this year, the conventions were both oddly fake in their own ways, with political rhetoric spouted like ads from an all night infomercial or a Scientology grand world conference of some kind (Karen Bass might have been into it if Biden hadn’t gone for Kamala Harris instead).

Whether it’s miracle healing water that will fix anything under the sun and make the economy dance a jig or pious sermons on how to heal from whiteness and offer boilerplate pseudo-compassion-talk it all just seems like products trying to force a new market to exist.

You wake up with a headache and you don’t buy the product. All you want to forget is that it ever existed or that other people still buy it.

The word we’re looking for here is cringe.

Republican Rebranding

Still, there have been noticeable shifts in messaging. The GOP is clearly aimed at branding itself the new party that cares about working people and hitting Biden’s strong points of coming from a working class family and being from a less technocratic and older wing of the Democratic party.

And it could definitely work for them to score a repeat of 2016’s success in breaking the Democrats’ blue wall.

Still, though. It’s just so transparent.

One more infomercial about steelworkers or small farmers screwed over by the Obama Administration and you could form a new Republican film genre: Blue Collar-sploitation. “Hey, uh, Jim? Can you get the mood a bit more down, but like also determined? Turn your face more in profile.”

Calluses on hands, check. Hard-won, wry smile, check. Reluctance to get into politics but conviction that Donald Trump will still save us all from greedy Chinese people and deranged Democrats by saying provocative things, check.

Please, Just No

Between Kimberley Guilfoyle breaking the glass ceiling of volume in a speech to a bizarre, hyper-speed speech from Don Trump Jr. and boilerplate rhetoric from many other suave suits it was Alice in Republican-land. What new actual policies will be put in place or efforts to improve the country from the Republicans? The main focus instead was on socialism and saying the word socialism as many times as possible in a menacing tone of voice like you were just burning the cover of a covert spy overseas (oops, Trump already did that last year).

The convention advanced a fake version of Trump’s response to the coronavirus and overall seemed like a CPAC convention more than a political convention.

Nonetheless, the President pulled off a speech that will fire up the base despite its rambling, utopian boasts and there were also some powerful messages from pro-life activist Abby Johnson and Cuban escapee Maximo Alvarez. There was also a message from hounded Covington Catholic School student Nick Sandmann who brought up some important points while managing to look and sound like a robot or a character from a Lifetime movie that replays every night at 3 a.m.

In a seeming dig at Trump, who is often mocked by the mainstream media for bringing up how important ratings are, the New York Times noted that the first night of the GOP convention had lower viewership than the Democratic convention’s first night.

Democratic Dabbling

The Democrats, for their part, have a mottled platform that dabbles in some democratic socialism but caters more to Wall Street. Their convention showcased a party that is full of words and grand statements with little actual substance apart from keeping donors happy and spending and making sure Bill Clinton can talk about ethics with a straight face.

While candidate Joe Biden received praise for an energized and well-delivered speech that made some tough claims and bristled with emotion and conviction, the majority of other remarks and speakers were entirely forgettable, with former President Barack Obama using his abilities as a gifted orator to deliver a hypocritical, annoyingly unctuous speech.

Indeed, the slickly produced Democratic convention was full of the kind of virtue signalling pablum that is just a mirror image of Republican “freedom and liberty” rhetoric. For the Democrats the bad guys are all racist, hate-filled or religious wackos. They hold their convention using Biden as a pretext to inhale their own rhetorical flatulence and pat each other on the back in their rarefied party world of mock solidarity and pretend change.

Dullards Acting Out

The Democrats desperately want to pretend to be for the “little guy.” They are a Broadway Show live-staged on Pennsylvania Avenue full of pomp and circumstance that ultimately means next to nothing and is more like a surrender to cultural degeneration and political inertia.

“We’re the rebels,” they insist, while collecting checks from Goldman Sachs and rubbing shoulders with large, suddenly very woke corporations. They bring up all the old Iraq War boosters like John Kerry and Colin Powell to talk about “decency” and line up their new Republican muppets onstage to say some version or other of “my goodness, how horrid.” They buy full page newspaper ads of all the national security officials who support Biden.

This doesn’t win elections, to say the least, although focusing on how the “establishment” supported Clinton was one of the big ways that Trump managed to seize victory in 2016 despite his dire lack of experience or readiness.

The Script is Getting Old

For the Republicans, the Democrats are comprised of self-satisfied hypocrites and elitists as well as manipulated minorities and nagging nobodies who are obsessed with policing language, being offended and eating vegan food while talking about socialism. On the Republican side they compare Biden to Fidel Castro (seriously, what?) and have this shiny apple version of bowtie conservatism whose time has already come and gone.

Rightist politics is orange now because people didn’t want that polished schoolboy image anymore. Leftist politics is Bernie now because people didn’t want the neoliberal veneer. Both sides will do their best to talk about their embrace of their activist bases while making sure not to implement many of the major policies.

More voters will lose interest in the coming years and eventually split off from the national populist right and democratic socialist left. It’s a neverending cycle.

Drive-Thru Politics

I call it drive-thru politics. You pick a buzzword and a color and you munch down on the delicious political pickles and extra mustard and talk about how lame the other guy’s burger tastes. You get a momentary jolt of satisfaction: “I’m right and they’re wrong! Forget those idiots!” Then in a few hours you’re hungry again, however. The meal you ate had no substance, it just gave you a temporary food buzz.

You crave more high sugars and a delicious industrial sized bucket of freedom fries to fill the hole you just created by drinking a bunch of Coke and scarfing fries, so you let Nikki Haley fill you with puerile neoconservative political propaganda and Hillary Clinton whine about her disapproval of the electoral college system and how unfair the 2016 election was.

You try to feel that jolt of righteous anger. How dare they say that! But soon it dies down and you need a new jolt (this is not an energy drink endorsement of Jolt).

People are Smarter Than This

The truth is that people are smarter than this. Some of them, anyway.

A growing number of Americans are politically unaffiliated for a reason. They know the fix is in and that politicians are mostly heavily compromised. These “forgotten men and women” often turned up to vote for Trump, or Bernie Sanders, or any politician they felt could shake things up in the past. Boilerplate political conventions and signalling from both sides while American cities like Kenosha are engulfed in chaos and racial tensions are at a vicious high won’t bring over many new voters.

The new virtual era we’re in exposes a drive-thru politics that’s always – in some form – been a drive through politics. A veneer on real life and a self-stylized representation of scripted empathy that spiked even further after the introduction of television into politics in the 1960s. In fact, Richard Nixon was even convinced he lost his first race to JFK because of the latter looking better on TV in their debate, and it could be partly true.

Zooming Towards the Digitized Virtual Horizon

It’s a time of screens as we Zoom towards ever more fake virtual horizons, trying to drum up some inspiration from a broken system by legions of the people who helped break it. Many on the left will say Biden may not be perfect but he is much better than Trump; many on the right will say the exact same thing about Trump vs. Biden.

Then there’s everyone else.

The voters who aren’t a fan of either party and don’t feel represented or convinced by drive-thru politics may indeed show up to cast a ballot for Trump this November, but for many it will be because they don’t know what else to do other than stay home. The same will be true for many who show up to say yes to a Biden-Harris presidency.

The upcoming election will be like a kid being picked for a sports team because nobody else is left to pick, except this is picking the next most powerful person in the world.

Is it just me or is a telephone book selection system looking mighty tempting right about now?

L'articolo A Tale of Two Conventions proviene da InsideOver.

This week’s Democratic National Convention grabbed media attention for two key reasons: it was the first time in history that a black woman — California’s former attorney general Kamala Harris — won the nomination to become the Democrats’ vice presidential candidate, and secondly, it had a selection of well-known speakers such as the Obamas, the Clintons and Bernie Sanders.

Obama’s speech caught viewers’ attention in particular, as he tore into US President Donald Trump for “tearing down democracy,” and referred to Trump as “lazy, corrupt and self-obsessed.” He put aside presidential precedent of not criticizing other presidents to paint a grim vision of a second term under the current commander-in-chief.

Past Precedent: Clinton Saved Obama’s Campaign in 2012

Considering Biden’s campaign has been uninspiring so far due to this year’s election being overshadowed by the coronavirus, former President Obama could be the spark that the Democrats need to mobilize voter turnout in November. It’s conceivable that Obama could win the election for the former vice president.

It is a trick that the Democrats have used before. When Obama’s own re-election campaign was in trouble in 2012, he recruited Bill Clinton, who had a 69 percent approval rating that year, to appear on a TV ad that was played 16,000 times in swing states.

Another, featuring a clip of Clinton’s address at the 2012 Democratic convention, triggered a sense of nostalgia among Democratic voters about the 1990s, a time when the Democrats enjoyed balanced budgets and record employment rates, and provided them with the impression that this could happen again under Obama in 2013-17. John Heilemann of New York Magazine wrote that Clinton saved Obama’s 2012 campaign. And now, a charismatic former president with high approval ratings might have to do the same for Biden.

Obama Has Major Political Star Power

Trump, however, has no such advantage. George W. Bush is the only surviving former Republican president and although his last approval rating stood at 61 percent, he has publicly said that he will not endorse Trump. Therefore, the sitting President lacks political star power — and media supporters — on anywhere near the same level as Obama.

Obama enjoys a 55 percent average approval rating according to YouGov, with 64 percent of millennials, a key voter group for the Democrats, approving of the job he did as president. Furthermore, data collected by Public Policy Polling in 2017 discovered that 52 percent of Americans wished Obama was still their president, and it would be interesting to see if there is any recent data available to see if those views still hold true following the recent Democratic National Convention. These strong approval ratings could help Biden as he was Obama’s former vice president.

The latest poll shows that Biden has an eight-point advantage over Trump, and although a lot could change before November, this is not a bad lead coming out of the recent convention.

Trump Hasn’t Lost Yet

Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton also had the exact same advantage Biden did four years ago. NPR predicted that she would win 273 electoral votes in August 2016, and she then went on to lose three months later. The former first lady also had Obama’s endorsement and still lost.

A study reported on by Vox in 2018 revealed that between 6.7 million and 9.2 million Americans switched from voting for Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. No one knows how those key electors will vote this year, but considering disappointment in Obama appeared to be their biggest reason for switching, it is unlikely rolling out the former president will cause them to vote for the Democrats this year.

Which Way Will Swing Voters Turn This Year?

Although Trump should be worried that 11 percent of Republican voters plan to switch to Biden this year, the latter should be concerned about the possibility of 8 percent of Democratic voters intending to cast their ballot for the current President in November. This is according to a national survey conducted by The Hill and HarrisX. The truth of these findings — along with voter turnout — will determine who wins in 2020.

Trump must also repeat his performance four years ago in rural states such as Pennsylvania, where he won 71 percent of the vote in 2016. In other good news for the current President, his approval rating is also gradually increasing, with his popularity rising by two percentage points to 40.1 percent as of Wednesday evening.

The Obama factor could work two ways for Biden: the former president could either mobilize Trump’s base as he represents everything the latter’s electors voted against in 2016, or he could mobilize the Democratic base as he could remind Democrats of a time when a president was more “eloquent” and “presidential” than Trump arguably is right now.

But if Obama fails to rescue Biden in the same way Clinton saved Obama in 2012, then it is clear that in the future, the Democrats cannot keep rolling out former presidents to mobilize their bases.

Both parties need fresh talent.

L'articolo Could Obama Win the 2020 Election for Biden? proviene da InsideOver.

The Democratic Party is stuck with Joe Biden. They are forced to support a candidate who lacks charisma, energy, ideas and frankly scruples, as proven by the Burisma debacle.

Where Does Obama Stand on Joe?

It is no secret that Barack Obama did not want Biden to run for President. According to the New York Times, the former President told his VP “You don’t have to do this Joe, you really don’t.” Even Biden himself wrote that in 2016 it was his former boss who discouraged him from running. The NYT a few months ago had a report saying Obama was secretly encouraging donors to choose Elizabeth Warren, the far-left Massachusetts Senator ⁠— instead of Biden. Last year, as the Washington Times reports,Obama told a gathering in Singapore that it would be a significant improvement if women were to lead and that “old men should get out of the way.”

Is Joe Biden Mentally OK?

Biden’s frequent gaffes led President Obama to tell Biden’s staff to “make sure he did not embarrass himself”, according to a report by CNN and later by the Washington Times. Many Democratic officials and associates have also voiced their concerns on the former Vice President’s ability to lead. Several public figures have even called Biden’s mental health in question.

DNC Decision: Anybody But Bernie

Nevertheless, the Democratic establishment did not want Bernie Sanders. They fought him in 2016 and they rallied against him during this campaign. Nobody believed he would win against Donald Trump. Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist, who defends Fidel Castro, does not condemn the communist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro and wants to transform America into a socialist country.

For decades, Sanders has been a staunch attacker of millionaires, even after becoming one and owning three houses. He went on to turn his attacks towards billionaires, while aiming to remake the United States in Cuba’s image. In this context, everyone knew that his odds of defeating the incumbent President were the same as Obama endorsing Trump. Therefore, the establishment had to choose a more reliable ⁠— albeit still bad ⁠— nominee.

Sanders Drags Dems Through the Mud

Bernie Sanders, as many Marxists before him, managed to rally ⁠— through deception ⁠— a considerable amount of people to his cause. In Europe, few know that within the Democratic Party there is an ongoing war heating back up. There are the moderates in the vein of Bill Clinton, and the far-left figures inspired by Senator Sanders represented by Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Elizabeth Warren and many others. Their aim is to take over the Democratic Party and transform it into a grouping that supports massive nationalization, increasing substantially taxes, forgiving all student loans, making university tuition free, medicare for all and climate change related frenetic spending.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Bernie Sanders’ policies would cost $40 trillion over a decade and would include all the policies backed by the progressives, listed above. The WSJ reports that his proposed tax increases would top $30 trillion over a decade, more than 10% of the American GDP. It would constitute not only a massive expansion of federal government, but also a definite destruction of the American economy. Even the Progressive Policy Institute, a left-wing organization, estimates that spending in a Sanders Administration would exceed revenue by $25 trillion.

Sanders’ catastrophic program is important to be discussed, understood and diffused by everybody and to everyone, because even though he has dropped out the race, he and his colleagues hold a considerable influence over the party and Sanders will still seek to shape the platform at the upcoming convention. Biden may have already essentially won the nomination, but Sanders is slowly winning the control of the Democratic Party. Obama’s endorsement of Biden as a nominee but Sanders in terms of ideas is the proof of this.

Obama and Biden Give in to the Aggressive Socialists

The former President knows that his party’s far-left group is aggressive and has a take no prisoner policy. He and Biden also know they are unable to defeat the rising socialist voices in their Party. Even after Sanders’ endorsement of Biden, there were members of the Sanders campaign who did not follow the example of their boss.

Thus, Obama found himself disavowing his own Presidency, in order to please Senator Sanders’ base. His decision not to endorse his friend Biden earlier was noticed by many. Nevertheless, it was a smart move aimed at giving the appearance of impartiality. However, it came late also due to Obama’s lack of enthusiasm about Biden.

What Does Obama’s Endorsement Tell Us?

There were several things of note during Obama’s endorsement video. First, he emphasized Biden’s role in the economic recovery that came after 2008. Considering it was one of the weakest recoveries in American history, I am not sure Biden was that pleased by the emphasis. Secondly, Obama criticized his own signature bill, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, considering it to be insufficient and inadequate for this day and age. Thirdly, he claimed that Biden was the most progressive nominee in the Party’s history and “repented for not having been a more left-wing President himself,” as Karl Rove noted in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. This mea culpa was directed at Sanders’ base who can now declare victory in the ideological battle over the fate of their party. Obama also said Senator Sanders was an “American original”, championing ideas critical in moving America in a direction of progress and hope. It will be the first time in history that the winner of a race is forced to campaign with the loser’s ideas.

There Have Always Been Two Paths for the Democrats

Before Biden, there have always been two paths for the Democrats. With all his wishful thinking, Biden can only choose one and abandon the other. The catch is that choosing either prevents him from unifying the Party and that puts the VP in a dangerous predicament. The first path would represent a continuation of the Obama Presidency. The former VP made several attempts during the campaign to defend various aspects of his administration and to associate his name as much as possible with Obama, knowing the popularity of Obama with party ranks. However, voters rejected this when Hillary Clinton ran for president using this same path. The former Secretary of State’s bid for presidency was seen as a third Obama term. She lost in part because she was perceived as corrupt and unlikable, and in part, because she assured everyone she would follow Obama’s footsteps. Why should Biden think that this time will be any different?

The second path means adopting more left-wing policies. While this may be a step in the right direction to appease twitter mobs and the far-left sect of the Democratic Party, it will alienate many more. Perhaps, in their haste to unify the party by bringing progressives into the fold, Biden and Obama have taken for granted moderates and independents who may prefer the unconventional but well-meaning style of Trump to the siren song of socialism.

Biden’s Choice

It is becoming clear that Joe Biden is choosing the second path and Obama is approving it, even if it means attacking his own record. Biden’s new program already incorporates student debt cancellations of up to $10,000 for each debtor, cancellation of all federal undergraduate tuition debt for borrows earning up to $125,000, who went to public schools, more climate change spending, expanding Obamacare with a public option and will for sure include many more far-left policies that would lead to economic ruin. Foreign Policy expects Biden to adopt policies such as conditional aid to Israel and defense-spending cuts. Even before Sanders’ endorsement of him, Biden favored raising taxes and reversing President Trump’s deregulations and tax cuts.

The pressure from the left will undoubtedly continue, making Biden the most left-wing nominee since Michael Dukakis. This will be coupled with Biden’s lack of enthusiasm, energy and leadership, as he has proven during the campaign. No matter what he does now, whichever way he decides to run his campaign will be a lose-lose scenario.

This will become more evident as he goes up against Trump’s energy, charisma, raucous campaign rallies, popular economic policies, and actual record.

L'articolo Barack Obama ‘Endorsed’ Bernie Sanders and Disavowed His Own Presidency proviene da InsideOver.

Since it first started spreading at the end of 2019, Covid-19 has become a global pandemic in only the past several months. In the past weeks the United States has become the world’s coronavirus worst coronavirus hotspot. The pandemic has started to penetrate American life day by day with a worsening death toll that now stands at more than 5,100.

Soon, the crisis started to become the most important political topic in the United States as the death toll and number of cases continued to rise without any signs of stopping. The pandemic spawned on the eve of a critical political juncture in the United States as the country is set to elect a president in November. But how is the Covid-19 pandemic expected to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Covid-19 tests Trump’s Leadership Skills

In the beginning of the Republican primary vote, the re-election of President Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate was almost certain and he was banking on a strong economy to put him back in office. The real struggle during this process for Trump became the Covid-19 pandemic. The slow spread in the beginning was a relief for the United States and even Trump downplayed it. As the spread started to pick up at a faster pace, Trump’s handling of the issue became a key question for many Americans. His controversial comments over the pandemic, combined with the deteriorating U.S. economy, were criticized by many voters and analysts.

However, Trump’s acts radically changed once the pandemic started to become a really big problem for the United States. It is questionable whether Trump’s plans were too little or too late, but he called himself a “wartime President,” as the pandemic was becoming more deadly day by day to indicate that he was taking it seriously. Trump’s tone changed drastically in mid-March and since then he started to activate all the necessary tools to tackle it. The Trump administration quickly issued new guidelines to tackle the virus and restricted large gatherings.

The Trump administration also signed an unprecedented economic stimulus package to tackle the disease called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The $2 trillion stimulus plan shows both the dangers and the need for such a huge measure to tackle the issue. As we can see from his moves, President Trump is aware that this may cost him his presidency and now he is changing his strategy to secure his re-election in November 2020.

Democrats Hope for Breakthrough

Former Vice President Joe Biden was the clear favorite to face Donald Trump in November and had been winning most of the states during the primaries. With increasing support from the moderate wing of the Democrats, Biden started to emerge as the favorite candidate to win the Democratic primaries ahead of competitor Bernie Sanders.

Biden started to focus on Covid-19 early on and he stressed during his debate against Sanders on March 16 that this was “a war to face.” Since then, Biden has criticized the Trump administration, saying that it lacks the necessary measures to slow the number of cases in the US. Despite Biden’s early and decisive stance on the pandemic, the former Vice President has faced criticism for remaining out of sight during the outbreak apart from several underwhelming and somewhat bizarre television appearances. His absence is even being mocked on social media with a new hashtag #WhereIsJoe. In the coming days, Biden needs to show his determination and leadership abilities if he wants to prove that he is the right man to guide the country at this difficult time.

Sanders was experiencing a troublesome primary period when the Covid-19 outbreak became a real problem for the United States. He was losing almost all the primary votes despite his strong fundraising numbers. Most of the commentators were considering this to be the end of Sanders’ campaign. His last debate against Biden in Washington wasn’t enough to change voters’ minds amid the coronavirus crisis. Sanders repeatedly pushed for his Medicare for All plan during the debate, stressing that the American healthcare system needs a radical change. Biden slammed Sanders’ plans by saying “people are looking for results, not a revolution.”

However, Sanders has remained relatively more active than Biden during the outbreak. Of course, after accumulating so many losses, it would be difficult for Sanders to obtain a comeback, but his ideas and vision may be an important tool in making a breakthrough during this moment of crisis.

Running for the White House During Covid-19

It is still difficult to say whether the ongoing pandemic may be more favorable for Republicans or Democrats. Many uncertainties remain ahead of November’s presidential election. It may be appropriate to say that Trump’s continuous appearances in front of the public provides him the opportunity to prove his leadership skills. Trump’s fight against Covid-19 may have started in a way that attracted a lot of criticism, but it is clear that his way of handling the issue completely changed over time and polls show him performing very strongly against the Democrats in the upcoming election.

It is important to remember that Trump’s surging popularity is also closely linked to the absence of both Biden and Sanders as both of them fail to remain front-and-center during this crisis. In Biden’s case, his failure to find a way to effectively communicate with voters may even cause him to struggle in his party’s primary despite his advantage over Sanders. The Democrats need to regain their visibility — and fast — or this will be Trump’s year.

L'articolo How Will the Covid-19 Pandemic Influence the US Presidential Election? proviene da InsideOver.

The latest US unemployment figures make for grim reading for US President Donald Trump as the 2020 US presidential election approaches quickly around the corner. Nearly 3.3 million Americans applied for jobless benefits during the week ending March 21, according to the Department of Labor. 

The main factor behind this surge in jobless numbers is the coronavirus epidemic that is spreading throughout the US. At least 93,151 people are known to have been infected with Covid-19 in the United States and the country has witnessed 1,382 die of the pandemic, as well as 2,424 recoveries. America now has more cases than China and Italy. 

Needless to say, these statistics could not come at a worse time for Trump as his opponents prepare to mount political pressure on him to do more to combat the deadly virus.

Biden Has Called on Trump to Act More Like a Real Wartime President

In some ways, the Trump administration’s response to the virus has left the President politically vulnerable. Although CNN, Fox News and MSNBC did not air a speech that the presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden made in which he launched a stinging attack against Trump for his response to the coronavirus, the Democrats have gone one step further and launched a campaign ad criticizing the President’s complacency over this issue.

Biden has called on Trump to act more like a wartime president and mocked his past remarks like “it’s going to disappear, one day it’s like a miracle it will disappear.” It also criticized the President for providing himself with a 10/10 score in the way he has handled the pandemic so far. Priorities USA Action, the largest Democratic Super Pac, says it will continue to run the ad.

A Crashing Economy and Testing Gap Will Hurt Trump

Furthermore, if the US economy does not reopen by Easter, which the President is hoping for, it will also provide his opponents with even more ammunition. Some media outlets have also attacked the Trump administration for its failure to provide broad testing for the virus that left the nation paralyzed to the extent of the crisis, and a dire shortage of masks and protective gear to guard doctors and nurses battling this virus on the front lines, as well as ventilators to keep the critically ill alive.

Despite this, the President has a lot to be happy about. Politico reported on an ABC/Washington Post poll that found whilst 58 per cent of Americans believe he was slow to respond to the pandemic, they generally approve of the job he has done so far.

Has Trump Been Too Relaxed?

Trump has responded to the coronavirus in a relaxed manner. His intention is not to spook investors at a time when the economy was surging before the epidemic shattered America’s economic growth. But as the rate of unemployment grows, the President’s electoral and economic fortunes now depend upon the $2 trillion stimulus package he has supported.

The bill provides four months of unemployment benefits. The maximum unemployment benefit would be increased by $600.

In order to combat the number of rising coronavirus cases, the legislation includes $100 billion for hospitals. According to The Hill, it will boost medical supplies in the Strategic National Stockpile as the country is facing a shortfall of ventilators, masks and swabs.

The Role of Health Insurance Companies

Health insurance companies will have to pay for coronavirus testing and increase funding for community health centers. It remains yet to be seen whether this bill will relieve the American economy and help those infected by the coronavirus, but it is the biggest financial gamble the President has made during his tenure so far. If it works his strategy will have proven to be successful: the higher the risk, the higher the reward.

The Trump administration’s response to Covid-19 has been slow and complacent. Unfortunately for him, Biden has plenty of ammunition to use against him. But all that will not matter as long as the President continues to score well in opinion polls. His electoral fortunes will also depend upon whether the number of coronavirus cases starts to slow and whether the stimulus rescues the economy. coronavirus or not, this will be an interesting year for American politics.

L'articolo Will US Unemployment Figures Damage Trump’s Re-election Chances? proviene da InsideOver.

While Joe Biden continues his victory tour, the coronavirus is wreaking havoc worldwide and could ultimately have an impact not only on the campaigns between President Donald Trump and Biden but, in the worst case, also have a severe impact on election night proceedings.

What is Happening in American Politics?

Only this past Monday America witnessed what effects the current crisis can have on elections. A day before the Ohio primary, the state’s governor Mike DeWine canceled the vote due to the crisis. Primary staffers, as well as voters, would have been exposed to “unacceptable risk” to their health, he said. Besides Ohio, upcoming primaries have also been postponed in Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Maryland.

Trump praised DeWine’s decision. The Republican governor “knows what he is doing” and had done a ”good job,” Trump said. Previously, Trump had said that canceling or postponing an election was “not a good thing” and also “not necessary.”

Trump’s Latest Unfounded Statement: Coronavirus Will Only Last Until August at the Latest

When asked how he could ensure the November presidential election, Trump stated on Tuesday that the virus would be rid of by then. Getting rid of it was “the best thing” one could do. In any case, the crisis would only last until August at the latest, according to the president. A Trump classic.

However the reality is far different. There are currently over 100 deaths and over 6,000 confirmed cases in the United States – while increased testing is only just about to begin now.

If Coronavirus is Still Hitting Hard by Election Time What Happens?

This raises the question: what happens if the crisis lasted significantly longer than currently anticipated? Can the election take place, or could Trump even postpone or cancel it?

In theory, it is entirely possible to postpone an election. However, the President alone is not authorized to make this decision. Congress would have to vote in favor of it, meaning the effort needed to be bipartisan. However, the likelihood of Democrats sabotaging themselves by providing Trump a pass seems not only inconceivable but utterly grotesque at this point.

How Hard is it To Postpone an American Election?

The hurdle to postpone an election remains exceptionally high. Federal law regulates the date: the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. It has been the case since 1845. Historically, a president was also elected in times of war, for example, during the Civil War or in the final phase of the Second World War in November,1944. Despite all their wisdom, the founding fathers did not implement a virus clause in the Constitution, either.

However, even if Congress could agree in a bipartisan effort, a postponement would only be possible for a few weeks. The new term of a President begins on January 20, 2021, according to the Constitution. Moreover, it is not only the president who is elected on November 3, but also parts of Congress and several governors. These logistics and constitutional guidelines cannot merely be overlooked nor easily worked around.

It adds insult to injury for the Trump administration, for which — depending on these next months — a postponed or canceled election could be a blessing in disguise. With the stock market tumbling, even Trump now believes a recession is possible, while Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin states that an unemployment rate of 20 percent is not inconceivable. Trump’s most potent weapon — a booming economy — is currently being disarmed, and it hurts his re-election prospects significantly.

Nevertheless, the virus will at least very likely affect the course of the election in the meantime. It currently does not look as if both parties will be able to officially elect their candidates at the July and August Conventions. Besides, postal voting is only possible in two-thirds of the states.

Currently, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have had to accept the reality of the virus in terms of their campaigns. Campaign events are canceled and home visits by staffers are unthinkable. It will be an election year like no other, but an election year nonetheless.

L'articolo Donald Trump is Unlikely to Postpone the Election Due to Coronavirus proviene da InsideOver.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) to marshal the might of American manufacturing. The law, though used periodically for non-wartime endeavors, was passed in 1950 to aid America during the Korean War. At the time, US troops lacked supplies and resources. Through the DPA, Washington was able to provide loans, materials, and workers for companies in their new wartime duties.

‘Wartime President’

Trump himself previously used part of the DPA in June, 2017 to create the US Space Force. His predecessor, President Barack Obama, also leveraged the DPA to force telecommunication businesses to reveal the sources of their hardware and software in an effort to prevent foreign states from spying on US networks. 

Trump’s use of the DPA this week was part of a larger effort by the American leader to portray himself as a grand leader. During a press conference, he referred to himself as, “in a sense, a wartime president.” Those words came after he opened the briefing by declaring the US is waging “war against the Chinese virus.”

As one show of force against the enemy, he announced the deployment of two Navy hospital vessels, one of which will be dispatched to New York. 

Economic Woes Sparked the Change

Trump’s base is his base: MAGA hat-wearing, flag-toting conservatives and nationalist populists who stand by him through thick and thin.The new coronavirus has changed that, though. Under Trump, unemployment reached record lows and the stock market hit record highs, and he took credit for it all, but now he is eight months away from an election and all those gains since he took office have been wiped away within a two-month span.

The economy was always Trump’s bread and butter ⁠— or so he claimed. By Trump’s accounts, he is a successful businessman and reality TV host. He knew how to make America win again by renegotiating trade deals and putting American businesses back to work. It is no exaggeration to say that the Republican Party since Reagan has been a sort of economic cult believing in trickle down economics and big business without government regulations. Indeed, that belief has been a tent-pole feature of the Republican brand.

Trump’s Re-election Campaign is in Deep Trouble

With a failing economy, what can Trump hang his hat on in November? He built a wall that military families have paid for, not Mexico. He removed the US from the Iranian Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) that a majority of Americans supported. He started a trade war with China that hurt American farmers so badly the administration spent $16 billion bailing them out.

Trump has the answer: war, and in true Trump fashion, it’s the best war America has ever seen because no US troops are in danger. The coronavirus has given Trump a new reason to rally his supporters. 

“Every generation of Americans has been called to make shared sacrifices for the good of the nation,” Trump said. “Now it’s our time. We must sacrifice together, because we are all in this together, and we will come through together.”

He didn’t need to mention World War II (although he did) to invoke the image of a wartime president. As Gabby Orr and Lara Seligman observed for Politico, both the White House and the Trump campaign changed their tones overnight to adopt a more warlike posture.

Vice President Mike Pence also joined Trump’s call for sacrifice to ensure the safety of all Americans and the Republican National Committee commended the new “wartime footing.” Undoubtedly they believe the war line of messaging can benefit Trump in the election. Sure, any form of cohesive messaging is better than the chaotic way the administration began handling the crisis at the onset. Wartime presidents, in particular, have proven themselves invincible when running for reelection — no wartime president has ever lost.

Is Covid-19 Really Equivalent to a World War?

The jury is out on this because we simply haven’t encountered such a scenario before. Obama didn’t market himself as a wartime president after fighting the H1N1 virus, for example. The differences between H1N1 and Covid-19 are rather stark, for obvious reasons. However, if it Covid-19 is to be compared to war, it is a war on the home front, something the US has not witnessed in nearly 200 years. 

It is also difficult to conjure up a wartime image without putting a face on the enemy. Perhaps that is why Trump is insistent on labeling it the “Chinese virus.” 

But Americans aren’t reacting to the Chinese like they did with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. Their anger can’t be conjured up and directed at a virus they can’t see. And Trump’s survival depends on Americans getting stoked up and turning up at polls ready to vote for their commander-in-chief. That won’t happen with Covid-19.

The best case scenario for Trump is that he establishes himself as presidential — a quality some might argue he has never embodied. If he does that, then his chances of victory increase, but he didn’t need a war to accomplish that.

L'articolo Trump Brands Himself as a ‘Wartime President’ proviene da InsideOver.