The US Presidential Election: Two Questions From Canada

I promised myself that once I’d written what I really felt and learned about Trump and posted it on my new blog (which I did in May) that I wouldn’t write any more about this man. But two things have changed. Firstly the disgraceful presidential debate on September 29 occurred. Secondly, a question has been posed to me regarding what right did I as a Canadian have in pontificating about US politics and the presidential election. 

I therefore have two questions that I am honestly trying to answer.

The first is why do around 35 to 40% of Americans continue to believe, either in Trump, and/or believe that the Republican, and not the Democratic, party should guide the country? While the debate highlighted all that I find reprehensible about Trump, it did have me challenge myself to try and understand and describe this voting rationale. I then will provide some counter arguments, as would be expected.

The second question, one that I will answer myself, is why do Canadians care about the coming US presidential election? The corollary to this question is, do we (I) have a right to comment? (Obviously this is written in the context of my status as a Canadian who cannot vote in the US.) 

Writing this piece, I have tried not to dismiss the views of either side (tempting, when considering Trump). I am also conscious of accuracy, seemingly a daily struggle now for all of us. I’ve avoided using potentially biased sources and unsubstantiated references. 

Before I try and answer these two questions, I want to comment on the September 29 Trump/Biden “debate”, the October 7 Pence/Harris encounter and then the final presidential debate on October 22..

To the first:

* Trump’s approach reminded me of an all-in wrestling competitor: be as combative as possible, don’t obey any of the rules agreed upon before hand, trash talk, say/do outrageous things, exaggerate, lie, cheat, be pugilistic, pugnacious and populist. He mocked the intelligence of Biden and accused him of being a stooge for socialists and attacked his son. He used techniques that are known to disrupt individuals with a tendency to stutter (constant interruption; falsehoods, etc.) He also refused to denounce white supremacists (giving a troubling message to one of those groups, the Proud Boys). Finally he exhibited a characteristic that I am fearful of, and that is anger; that becomes dangerous when combined with another of his traits, revenge

* as the Globe & Mail TV columnist John Doyle said after the debate, he looked “grim, scarily sour and sweaty, oozing desperation. Fact is Trump has lost his flair and aptitude for dominating in TV. What served him well, that savvy for blustery, bickering animosity, has evaporated. The name-calling and mud-slinging that was once novel and decorum destroying and, somewhat authentic to some voters, has been replaced by bitter and banal petulance.”

* Trump stepped farther into a dangerous area: throwing a punch at the validity of the electoral process itself

* Trump came across as the leader of a faction, not a nation

* I was disappointed that Biden occasionally took the bait and responded in kind, using words like “liar”, “racist” (regardless of their accuracy) and telling him to “shut up, man”. Biden did try occasionally to speak rationally and directly to the camera, but was afforded little opportunity. I was disappointed that he didn’t attempt that more and try and get across his vision of what a Biden-led America would look like (as opposed to just not being Trump). He certainly wasn’t, however, any senile stumblebum 

* around the world, American allies look to the US for leadership, and this is what they got. I feel it diminished the office of the president; it degraded the position. More importantly it diminished the democratic process. The two obvious challengers for world leadership, Russia and China, are smiling. Hu Xijin, editor of the Global Times (a Chinese propaganda sheet) said “Such a chaos at the top of US politics reflects division, anxiety of US society and the accelerating loss of advantage of the US political system”

* I kept thinking, what kind of skills do the American people want to have in their supreme leader. I hoped that it wasn’t the ones on display that night in Trump. The overwhelming characteristic he continued to display, one that we should never get used to, ever, is his lying. However, there may be some evidence that a certain kind of person thinks that’s what the country needs – a disrupter

* to top this crazy story off, subsequent to the debate (or maybe even prior to it, we don’t know), Trump gets COVID-19 (a good number of White House and Pentagon officials were also infected) and spent three days in hospital. He then breaks quarantine for a quick drive past throngs of supporters resulting in all the people in his vehicle having to be isolated for 14 days

The Pence/Harris debate was comparatively benign:

• * Pence constantly spoke on, after his allotted time, with an ineffective moderator not willing to intrude. He refused to say whether climate change was an existential threat or whether Trump would accept the election results if he should lose. He promised millions of doses of a yet-to-be-announced treatment for the virus before the end of the year
• * Harris was offered many openings but generally backed away from them, perhaps not wanting to be seen as a pushy female (certainly not like her rather aggressive attack of Biden when she was debating during the Democratic presidential nominating process)

* one of the points she did not make (I’m sure she was being guided by professionals to avoid real controversy as they are leading in the polls) was asking why Pence, an evangelical Christian, wants to be on a ticket with a president so morally flawed (known liar; caught with a porn star, etc.). Remember this when you get to my conclusion

• * she did strongly dissect the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic

The second presidential debate on October 22 was, as everyone agrees, more civilized; that this was a surprise says a lot about Trump, as he was almost tame. The famously gaffe-prone Biden mostly stood his ground and was mentally sharp and sincere. He likely lost on his remarks (in Texas and Pennsylvania, certainly) that the oil industry will be phased out (his theme of long-term transition to a green economy was not articulated clearly and was walloped by Trump). The COVID exchange was revealing, with Trump’s “We’re learning to live with it” and Biden’s retort, “We’re learning to die with it.” 

Biden stuck to the issues while Trump still propounds on right-wing narratives, and Biden’s son and extended clan, along with his obnoxious “I’m the least racist person in the room” comment. Trump failed to give a good answer on health care. He also continued to lie shamelessly. Trump probably continues to impact a certain type of voter with his “not being a politician and Biden has been doing this for his whole life” line. Biden was strong on his line about him being president of all Americans, even if they didn’t vote for him. The contrast was obvious regarding the issue of separating children from their parents at the border, with no remorse from Trump and compassion from Biden. If measured on character, decency and values, as I do, Biden won.

Having said the above, it’s important to realize that the debates probably won’t make a lot of difference. Apparently only between 3 and 5 percent of the voters are undecided.

So, to my first question – “why do people vote Republican?” The following is a mixture of what Trump brings to the picture along with the party philosophy/strategy. Many can be found in the long “to do” list he gave out in rapid-fire late in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last August.

Trump lovers.This is a category of people that like his bombastic, outlandish, disruptive style. They love his simple, and clever, slogans that feed their own fears and prejudices: “Make America Great” feeds the worry that American exceptionalism is declining.  “Drain the swamp” has become a coda for anti-politics and to some, it is appealing that Trump has little political affections or even allegiances, and that he is an outsider and possibly authentic (even retaining his Queens borough accent).

His rallies are everything and his fans love it. His disturbing personality, while even appearing to appeal to some, is being overlooked by others, in favour of getting the other things he stands for and proposes.

Trump’s business skills. Trump has positioned himself as a successful businessman, not an old, stuffy, scheming political hack, and that he brings his business skills to the art of getting things done. (The famous “art of the deal”). It should be noted that this is in the climate of public discontent; over the past several decades the public perception of politicians continues to decline (of their honesty, their effectiveness, their values). 

Regarding Trump’s tax situation, it can be argued that the tax breaks he has taken advantage of were devised by Congress and are those generally enjoyed by the real estate sector and investors with capital gains.

Prosperity; the economy. This isRepublicanism 101. They present themselves as the party of the free enterprise system, supporting the market economy, and they paint Democrats in the opposite corner.Polls consistently show Trump’s handling of the economy is his strongest issue with voters.While the COVID-19 has blasted the finances of the country, Trump has always been able to say that, up until he got blind-sided, he was engineering great economic miracles. There was record-high stock market gains with near-record unemployment lows. Certainly the rich got richer with the tax breaks. The stock market has withstood the coronavirus crisis better than the economy as a whole. The S & P 500 index has jumped 59% since the 2016 presidential election, recovering all the ground lost during the March plunge.

His 2nd-term agenda includes job creation (10 million in 10 months), tax cuts, fair trade deals, “Made in America” tax credits and opportunity zones expansion.

Philosophical. There exists in the US a fear of the word socialism. Trump flings it around like a weapon. The Democratic party has flirted with Bernie Sanders version of “democratic socialism” and the ideas still have solid weight in the party. They go beyond advocating for policies like Canada’s universal public health system. Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren are radicals in US political terms and have proposed significant expansion of government power into the private sector.

Peace, internationally. Trumps policy initiatives have avoided major military conflict. “Great nations do not fight endless wars. The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world.” He has tightened border security, disposed of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and got NATO allies to pay more of the freight for collective security. This non-interventionism seems to align with the mood of the country.

Foreign affairs. Trump wants US allies to pay their fair share. He wants reduced leadership and international obligations. He wants to reduce US funding for both the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO). He has revoked America’s status as a signatory of the arms trade treaty regulating conventional weapons. Trump has challenged US commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military spending. There is a feeling for some that trade deals have hurt the average American; Trump wants better trade deals.

COVID-19. Trump closed the border to travel from Chinese early in pandemic (labelling it the “Chinese virus”). He says he is balancing controls with freedom. Vast number of tests have been completed. He is encouraging the opening up of the country.

Health care. Trump continues his intention to get rid of Obamacare. His 2nd-term agenda includes “putting patients and doctors back in charge of our healthcare system; lowering healthcare insurance premiums; ending surprise billing; covering all pre-existing conditions (that’s what their agenda document says!); cutting prescription drug costs and protecting social security and Medicare”.

Religious non-negotiables. Trump is anti-abortion and conservative on sexual politics. One very important one for the pro-life camp is the future possibility of getting rid of Roe vs Wade and the bringing back of strong anti-abortion legislation. Thus the enthusiasm for getting their Supreme Court candidate, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, approved (whether or not Trump exits the scene). This perhaps explains one of the reasons the religious right support a man so devoid of principles as Trump; it’s a deal breaker and they would forgo their values to obtain it. The direction of sexual orientation policies can also be wrapped into this mentality.

Law and order; gun ownership. Trump is proclaiming law and order as a strength. In the debate he landed an effective blow on Biden, challenging him to name one law enforcement group that supports him. When talk of defunding police forces occurs, he opposes it. Justice Barrett also has an expansive view of the Second Amendment that is the basis of widespread gun ownership.

Race. Trump claims he is “the least racist” person in America. He has portrayed the protests against racial injustice as “riots” and vandalism, as he calls for law and order. Yes, it is clear that America has a history of racism that lives on in its darker corners, but progress has been made in providing equal opportunity to its citizens, and removing the barriers that remain is not as simple as defunding the police.

Energy and the environment. Trump will continue his deregulatory agenda for energy independence. He supports the oil industry. He has agreed to approve the Keystone pipeline. He supports fracking and the use of shale gas near Pittsburgh to be made into plastics at Shell’s huge petrochemical complex currently under construction. In September he issued a border crossing permit for an Alaska-Alberta railway to transport oil and other resources. His platform suggests partnering with other nations to clean up the planet’s oceans plus lead the world in access to clean drinking water and air.

Trump is trying to walk the line between investing in carbon reduction and economic growth. He remains evasive on his beliefs in the efficacy of the environmental movement. Young Republicans are searching for climate change proposals that are rooted in market-based solutions and limited, not overreaching, government. (Interestingly, research by the Pew Research Centre suggests that over half of young Republicans believe Washington is doing too little to combat global warming.)

Immigration. Trump has, and proposes, harsh restrictions on immigration. He has slashed refugee admissions every year since taking office, resettling less than 12,000 last fiscal year and setting a 15,000 target for 2021. There is a feeling in some areas (the Rust Belt states, for example) that people here illegally have more benefits than they do. He wants to block illegal immigrants from becoming eligible for taxpayer-funded welfare, healthcare and college tuition. He intends to end sanctuary cities. He will prohibit American companies from replacing US citizens with lower-cost foreign workers. 

China.Trump has taken some aggressive stances to reign in China; for example imposing selected tariffs, supporting Taiwan with military hardware, penalizing certain individuals for their roles in the South China Sea situation, etc. 

His 2nd-term agenda promises to “end US reliance on China”. This includes bringing back jobs from China (tax credits, expense deductions for essential industries, refusing federal contracts for companies who outsource to China).

Anti-Biden. The former VP has been painted in uncomplimentary terms: old, slow, not bright, not up to the task, “cognitive decline”. 

Trump’s 2nd-term agenda is a canny document, laced with wonderful objectives with roughly three dozen specific goals (job creation, COVID-19 eradication, ending reliance on China, healthcare and education initiatives, “draining the swamp” actions, defending police, ending illegal immigration and protecting America workers, innovating for the future and an America First foreign policy). It’s quite a series of promises.

Counters to the above. I have dealt with some of them in my May Trump blog, but a few need to be dealt with again:

Trump lovers (and the rest of the US) still have to deal with knowing that, along with his many distasteful qualities, he just can’t speak the truth. Former Director of national intelligence, Dan Coats (a onetime Republican senator), was quoted in Bob Woodward’s recent book, Rage, that “to Trump, a lie is not a lie. It’s just what he thinks. He doesn’t know the difference between the truth and a lie”. Solid evidence has measured the scale of his lying and it’s incredible – over 23 lies per day in 2020!

Trump’s distasteful characteristics are numerous, and serious: a racist, a misogynist, a bully, a poor manager and judge of character, short attention span, self-centred, megalomaniac. He doesn’t respect past loyalties; he demands people to toe the line; he lacks decorum; his naked nepotism; his mocking; his nastiness and lack of civility. He has no sense of humour, charm, compassion, honour, warmth, humility, sensitivity, self-awareness, depth (he’s all surface/shallow); he’s animated by anger, hyperbole, vanity and revenge; he creates his own “fake news”. His niece Mary Trump talked about the family soap opera in her book Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man. She defines him as a serious narcissist and that he “is not simply weak; his ego is a fragile thing that must be bolstered every moment.”

He displays his traits for all to see. In a recent interview with Fox Business, calling Harris a “communist” and “a monster’ is beyond words. It is vile behaviour you wouldn’t want a child to follow. His unwillingness to condemn hate groups is almost a rallying cry. Why any women would support him given his misogynist behaviour and attitudes is beyond comprehension. 

So much recently has been written and spoken unfavourably about Trump, that the sheer magnitude of the evidence is overwhelming. Examples include books (Woodward, I mentioned) and Michael Cohen, his former attorney who, in Disloyal – a Memoir, a devastating book, paints Trump as an outright racist, among other things. General John Kelly, Trump’s former chief of staff, stated recently that Trump was the “most flawed person I’ve ever met”. An historian has stated that he is “the most divisive president, ever”. Former secretary of state John Kerry, a Vietnam-era Navy officer said, “This President has no understanding of what service is, no understanding of the military he purports to command”.  

It’s impossible to find anyone in my circle that has any respect for him. (One said that “having promised to drain the swamp, he has become the swamp”.) This seems to be the case around the world. Two-thirds of Canadians want Biden as president, compared with 15% for Trump. Macleans magazine published October 6 an astonishing list of “things Trump has done during his presidency”. No wonder respect for him in Canada is so low. Find it at: https://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/donald-trumps-presidency-a-shocking-list-of-things-hes-done/

It’s important to consider the sick truth, as suggested by the author Phoebe Bovy, that “the more overtly awful Trump’s behaviour, the more egregious the revelations about his past, the better he does. He can’t be called out for political incorrectness. For his admirers, this is a feature, not a bug. He is uncancellable.” 

A question for the Democrats, however, will certainly be how much more blood can be drawn from Trump on the matter of his personality.

Trump is a poor businessman and likely is in serious financial straits; there are hints of dishonest actions. This image of him being a clever businessman and financially sound appears to be collapsing around him. The New York Times recently revealed that he paid no income tax in 10 of the past 15 years. 

There is strong evidence that he is in serious financial trouble. One of my impeccable sources (he’s a member of my book club and is well plugged in!) is connected with an insider who has seen Trump’s tax return. To summarize his response: “he lost $350 million over 10 years on his golf operations; he owes $456 million, which is due 2022, to the Deutsche Bank. This loan is from not the real estate lending arm as you would expect but the private banking arm. This bank is the main bank used by the Russian oligarchs. No US bank would lend to him. If he wins the election…it would be rolled over but if he loses he could be facing bankruptcy. He is desperate to win and therefore will do what is necessary to win and then is motivated to get rid of his debt. This is not the TV host worth $8 billion but an unsuccessful blowhard that has lost the $200 million he started with from his father.” 

Former president Obama (breaking the informal code of not speaking out against past incumbents) claimed recently that Trump continues to do business in China plus has a secret Chinese bank account. He also made a critical point – behaviour and character matter when one contemplates selecting a president, and Trump doesn’t pass muster.

Trump essentially admitted this loan size in his Oct 15 town hall, but responded that it was small as a percent of his net worth. James Attwood, a managing director of the Carlyle Group and a former investment banker, put it directly in a Globe & Mail interview, “For people who are in the business of hiring and firing CEOs, Donald Trump should have been fired a while ago.” There are many other examples indicating that, in fact, Trump isn’t a very good businessman.

Now, having said all sorts of things about Trump that are bad, this may go for naught. There is a category of voter out there that agrees he is distasteful, and perhaps even incompetent, but that they are prepared to ignore all that for the policies and programs he promotes under the banner of the Republican party. So to them I submit the following critique of the reasons to vote Republican that I described above…

American economic prosperity will diminish in a future with Trump. There is a factual argument that US prosperity began well before Trump became president; eight years of economic growth and falling unemployment under Barak Obama continued under Trump, so let’s get that one out first, although who gets credit for it now is really irrelevant.

Partly owing to the pandemic, Trump’s economic shortcomings have become clear. In recent government employment data can be seen a jobs crisis that penetrates deeply into the economy; there are patterns akin to a severe recession. According to the Oct 1 Economist, “long term problems have festered, including crumbling infrastructure and a patchy social safety-net. The underlining dynamism of business remains weak. Investment is muted and fewer firms have been created even as big ones gain clout. Mr. Trump’s chaotic style, involving the public shaming of firms and attacks on the rule of law, is a tax on growth. Deregulation has turned into a careless bonfire of rules”. Again, this is the Economist I am quoting. 

To add further emphasis, in their October 29 issue, The Economist have formally endorsed Biden. They state, “After almost four years of his leadership, politics is angrier than it was and partisanship even less constrained… Mr Biden is Mr Trump’s antithesis. He is not a miracle cure for what ails America. But he is a good man who would restore steadiness and civility to the presidency.”

I continue to fear the consequences of total US debt which grew to over $24 trillion (from 19.6 trillion in 2016) – and this was before COVID-19! Trump’s tax loopholes and reductions for the very rich continue to increase the annual deficits. 

By the way, Biden’s tax plans seem reasonable and are being supported by the business community. Yes, the rich will pay more (the top 1% of earners by up to 14%) and studies suggest corporate profits after tax might drop by up to 12%. Wall Street is recognizing his voting record in the business sector, providing a measure of ease with the prospect of a Biden administration. Furthermore, some are being quite candid. “I’ve seen a meaningful number of people put aside what would appear to be their short-term economic interest because they value being citizens in a democracy,” said Seth Klarman, founder of the huge hedge fund Baupost.

International peace initiatives are flawed and potentially dangerous under a leader who has no moral compass. While reducing foreign conflicts is admirable, Trump’s results don’t line up with his rhetoric, and ironically he has, hypocritically, been feeding the Pentagon beast with major defence-budget increases since coming to office. His withdrawal of troops from northern Syria created chaos. His promised major Afghan troop withdrawal hasn’t happened. There’s no deal with North Korea and no progress on peace in the Middle East. Mexico has refused to pay for Trump’s famous “wall” on the border; the US has built by October 360 miles, the bulk of it being replacement of existing barriers. 

In 2018 Trump cancelled the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal. Since then Iran has ramped up its enrichment of low-grade uranium and increased its stockpile beyond the limitations outlined in the original deal. It has since announced that it was lifting all limits on research and development and that it would no longer comply with any of the limits of the deal. This move can be perceived as the country taking a big step toward obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Importantly, Bob Woodward’s book opens people’s eyes to the dangers of renewed nuclear threats. Trump has bragged about building “a nuclear weapons system that nobody’s ever had in this country before”. He is considering resuming nuclear tests after almost 30 years – in contravention of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty – as a bargaining chip. Woodward quotes General James Mattis, the former US secretary of defence, who states that Trump had “no moral compass” and whose decisions were “random, impulsive and unthoughtful”. Not the kind of man you want holding the world’s fate in your hands.

The well respected UCLA professor and author, Jared Diamond, said in a Globe & Mail opinion piece, “In recent years, the US has abrogated its role as world leader. A US that continues to be polarized will not only fail to solve US problems. It won’t contribute to solving the world’s most pressing problems.”

Biden has pledged to pursue an extension of the New START Treaty (between Russia and the US). He’s even made noises about rethinking the US first-use policy on nuclear weapons and he “believes the sole purpose of the US nuclear arsenal should be deterring – and if necessary retaliating against – a nuclear attack”.

Without a global co-operative approach, foreign affairs will continue to deteriorate, reducing US influence. Trump has isolated the US from the rest of the world, reducing its influence and power. Former national security advisor, John Bolton, in his recent book called The Room Where It Happened, quoted Trump re NATO, “We will walk out, and not defend those who have not paid”. Trump has angered his NATO allies; it will take years for a mutually beneficial relationship to return.

In a thoughtful opinion piece for the Globe & Mail, Kevin Lynch and Paul Deegan asked “what will the IMF, World Bank, WTO and other multilateral organizations look like in five years if there is another Trump administration?” (They also asked “will Trumpism – with its tribalism, nationalism and protectionism – outlast Donald Trump even with a Biden administration?”) They go on to suggest that the future should be not one of barriers and borders but more effective global co-operation, that the US under Trump doesn’t appreciate that multinational organizations further American as well as global interests. 

American standing around the world (from a September Pew survey) has plummeted to a record low. Trump’s own approval ratings are abysmal. On whether the US has done a good job handling the pandemic, only 15% of America’s allies agree.

The health care system will serve fewer people, less efficiently and effectively under Trump. In an unprecedented move on October 1 Scientific American have endorsed Biden. They state, “We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history – until now”. Going beyond the virus (mentioned next) they state the following: “Trump has repeatedly tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act while offering no alternative; comprehensive medical insurance is essential to reduce illness.” 

The LA Times wrote, after Trump’s acceptance speech, that his “biggest woppers were his promises to ‘protect patients with preexisting conditions’ and to ‘further reduce’ health insurance premiums. In his first term, every effort Trump made to cut premiums came at the expense of patients with preexisting conditions. That’s because Trump has saught to give healthy people more ways to avoid costs imposed by higher risk Americans.” 

Trump has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that increase scientific knowledge and strengthen the country for future challenges. 

Trump will withdraw from the World Health Organization. He keeps pushing to eliminate health rules from the Environmental Protection Agency, putting people at more risk for heart and lung disease caused by pollution. He has replaced scientists on agency advisory boards with industry representatives. 

Trump essentially has no health care plan. It’s an oppositional one – scrap Obamacare. The week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case, backed by Trump, that seeks to scrap the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). If the Supreme Court gets a 6-3 conservative majority with the appointment of Justice Barrett, this act could be scrapped. This would end health care coverage for pre-existing medical conditions for an estimated 100 million people and could deprive 20 million of all health insurance.

Biden, in contrast, comes prepared with plans to control COVID-19, improve health care, reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policy making. Most importantly, the Democrats value health care as a human right, and believe it should be available to all.

COVID-19 will be managed more effectively with a top down, collaborative approach, not a continuation of Trump’s flawed approach. It’s apparent that the US approach to managing this crisis has been inadequate and the blame can be placed on Trump and his Republican supporters across the states. He certainly did not respond quickly enough, dismissing it early as “a hoax” and even offering absurd remedies. Woodward’s book clearly points out that Trump in early 2020 understood how deadly the virus was but refused to relay that to the country. The very latest data indicate US deaths per population are two and one-half times that of Canada.

Trump continues to downplay the threat and compares it to the seasonal flu (which is seriously inaccurate). He continues to hold large campaign rallies with little physical distancing, rarely wears a mask in public (he himself, plus his minions, are spreaders!) and favours lifting containment measures. A poll conducted after the President’s COVID-19 diagnosis found that 60% of respondents disapproved of his handling of the pandemic, 63% believed that he had been irresponsible with his own infection and 69% said that they did not trust information from the White House about his health.

David Brooks, a US conservative commentator, has observed, in a prescient and disturbing article (a must read) in The Atlantic on Oct 5, that Americans have moved from being, yes, clearly individualistic, but sharing common ideas and values, to the point now where their values have eroded and are being replaced by a value system that puts personal freedom above every other value. By August, most Americans understood this failure. 72% of Danes said they felt more united after the COVID-19 outbreak. Only 18% of Americans felt the same.

One thing that hasn’t been talked about much is this: Trump has pinned his hope on a vaccine. But his whole anti-science argument means that even fewer people than expected would actually trust or take a vaccine if one were developed. Vaccines only work if a critical mass take them. That’s how “herd immunity” is achieved – through everyone taking it (like polio), not by letting it ravage a population. It’s hard to believe enough Americans in this climate would take one, such that they actually eliminate the virus in society as a whole. (This will be a negative consequence when I refer to the impact of Trump on we Canadians, when I answer my second question.) 

Wade Davis, an anthropologist and esteemed author framed his feelings in a broad fashion (in the August 6 issue of Rolling Stone), “In a dark season of pestilence, COVID has reduced to tatters the illusion of American exceptionalism. At the height of the crisis, with more than 2,000 dying each day, Americans found themselves members of a failed state, ruled by a dysfunctional and incompetent government largely responsible for death rates that added a tragic coda to America’s claim to supremacy in the world.”

Biden states (correctly, according to the Scientific American editorial) that “it is wrong to talk about ‘choosing’ between our public health and our economy… If we don’t beat the virus, we’ll never get back to full economic strength.” He plans to ramp up a national testing board; he will establish a Public Health Job Corps of 100,000 people, many of whom have been laid off during the crisis, to serve as contact tracers and in other health jobs. He wants to spend $34 billion to help schools conduct safe in-person instruction as well as remote learning. Biden’s co-operative approach, rather than transactional, to foreign relations would make global distribution of a vaccine easier and allow borders to reopen and trade to recover faster. 

In another extraordinary move, on October 7 the New England Journal of Medicine (one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world) has published a blistering editorial taking President Trump and his administration to task over their handling of the pandemic. The journal broke the nonpartisan position it has held since 1812 with an editorial urging voters to oust Trump over his administration’s failures. “Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions,” said the piece, which was signed by 34 of the journal’s editors. “But this election gives us the power to render judgement.” They wrote “Our leaders have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy.” The US “leads the world in COVID-19 cases and in deaths due to the disease…The magnitude of this failure is astonishing…Our current leaders have undercut trust in science and in government, causing damage that will certainly outlast them. Instead of relying on expertise, the administration has turned to uninformed ‘opinion leaders’ and charlatans who obscure the truth and facilitate the promulgation of outright lies.” It finished off by stating “our current political leaders are dangerously incompetent.”

Scientific American, in the editorial I just mentioned, wrote caustically and devastatingly about how Trump has “badly damaged the US and its people – because he rejects evidence and science”. They clearly lay out his errors, lies and misjudgements, saying “we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment.” I repeat again, Scientific American has endorsed Biden.

Hard edge religious non-negotiables will be tempered under Biden. As a pro choice individual, along with supporting women’s rights and freedom of sexual orientation (in a manner that the recently deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did), I find no common ground with the religious right. This one can be argued on either side, depending on your beliefs and values.

Law and order will deteriorate under Trump; gun ownership will continue to increase. Trump’s rants do not convey someone able to exert calm and order. As the Washington Post said in July, “Trump, every day reminds us that he is the instigator of violence, the source of chaos, the man indifferent to our well-being and a president who disdains the law and order. It is his opponent who offers the promise of calm, sober and competent leadership.” 

Regarding gun laws, Trump and the Republican Party are Second Amendment fanciers, which portends more clashes with state and local gun control efforts. Gun sales in June were 145% higher than the previous year. The Democrats will tighten the laws; finally a start.

Race relations will deteriorate with Trump; improve with Biden. Many think Trump has made racial conflict worse. Trump’s positions stoke racial divides, not calms them. He has a long record as a provocateur on matters of race and ethnicity. This is a great irony as the Republicans (the “Party of Lincoln”) were the original civil-rights party.

The environment will continue under siege wth Trump. Trump is a climate change denier. He has argued for an increase in coal use and suggested that he would withdraw the US from the Paris climate treaty, a landmark agreement meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions. He replaced Obama’s Clean Power Plan. He has taken steps to weaken fuel economy standards for cars. As soon as he took office he issued a sweeping executive order directing all departments to target for elimination of any rules that restrict US production of energy. He set guidance to make it more difficult to put future regulations on fossil fuel industries, and he moved to discard the use of a rigorous “social cost of carbon”, a regulatory measurement that puts a price on the future damage society will pay for every ton of carbon emitted. He has opened up oil lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. 

“It’s the number one issue facing humanity, and it’s a number one issue for me,” says Biden. The Democrats are targeting net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in all areas of the nation’s economy by 2050, reaching net negative emissions beyond that. He would ban new gas and oil permits – including fracking – on federal lands only (the vast majority of oil and gas does not come from federal lands). Biden has stated he would not approve the Keystone pipeline. (I feel this is a mistake and have argued that the route to carbon emissions reduction is reducing demand; you won’t get there by restricting a pipeline or two, as product will always get to the consumer if he demands it.)

The Democrats envisage building green-power grids and charging networks but Biden shies away from an important tool – a carbon tax. (Even the Business Roundtable, representing corporate America, said it supported carbon pricing!). Part of their recovery bill envisages a giant, climate-friendly infrastructure boom to correct decades of underinvestment. Other policy proposals that would need bipartisan support include the establishment of a new government research agency focused solely on solutions to climate change; a mandate for the federal government to purchase hybrid and electric vehicles; and a measure to promote the widespread use of farm equipment that captures planet-warming methane emissions from manure.

Immigration strategies will find a better balance between restrictions, need and historical values under Biden. There is strong evidence that Trump’s harsh restrictions are a threat to American competitiveness. They are also counter to America’s historic role in refugee resettlement and rights – back to the roots of America’s history. (Recall the words inscribed on a bronze plaque mounted in the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”)

As a country that like to think of itself as a defender of human rights, it should give pause that the Canadian-US Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) was ruled invalid by Canada…because it felt that US immigration violates human rights. Why? Because the “US does not qualify as a ‘safe’ country under President Donald Trump.”

Biden would revise the admissions targets to 125,000 per year (up from the 15,000 Trump ceiling). He would make more channels (higher education visas, etc.), repeal the Muslim ban, restore asylum laws (including separating families at the border). He’d support safe haven paths for the persecuted (Uighurs, those from Hong Kong), etc.

Dealing with China needs an aggressive plan that’s a bi-partisan mix. Trump is not capable of working across the floor to develop such a plan. Democrats have developed legislation that would provide more than $350 billion over a decade to build the United States’ industrial capacity and challenge Beijing. The intention is to shore up the nation’s manufacturing capabilities and infrastructure in an attempt to unwind it from China’s economy and increase American firms’ competitiveness. They want to break China’s chokehold on global supply chains, and would require the Pentagon to buy certain items from the United States and so-called friendly nations, rather than China.

According to The Economist, Trump’s confrontation with China has yielded few concessions, while destabilizing the global trading system. Having said that, I feel Trump has been appropriately aggressive towards China in a number of areas as I have described. Both parties should find some sensible common ground on this one. 

Biden will be a unifier and a pragmatist; Trump is divisive and not collaborative. In Biden, Trump ran into his worst nightmare. As the Globe & Mail said in a recent editorial, “The former vice-president is the candidate for a return to normalcy. He is promising not revolutionary change, but modest improvements, accompanied by a soothing press of the mute button. He is no left wing radical. He hasn’t a radical bone in his body.”

Let’s be clear, Biden has rejected the Utopian ideas of the left of his party. The Economist on Oct 1 stated that “his tax and spending proposals are reasonable – an order of magnitude smaller than those of, say Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. They imply only a slightly bigger state and attempt to deal with genuine problems facing America, including shoddy infrastructure, climate change and the travails of small business. If anything, the flaw in Mr. Biden’s plans is that in some areas they are not far reaching enough.”

It again is the Economist’s opinion that Biden “would alleviate some of the problems simply by being a competent administrator who believes in institutions, heeds advice and cares about outcomes”. He has been positioned as a unifier. He is determined to rise above faction in a polarized country. He would build a cabinet that reflects the various wings of the party that’s increasingly estranged from itself. He’ll also find room for Republicans (Romney?). He’ll most certainly place a lot of competent and high profile people in his cabinet, senior staff positions and the top layers of the administration. (Trump, according to a devastating critique in Michael Lewis’s book, The Fifth Risk, almost ignored the transition process in 2016.)

On October 19, Rolling Stone magazine endorsed Biden for president, saying that the US has lived “under a man categorically unfit to be president” for the past four years. “Fortunately for America, Joe Biden is Donald Trump’s opposite in nearly every category. The Democratic presidential nominee evinces competence, compassion, steadiness, integrity, and restraint.”

In his August 20 acceptance speech to the Democratic convention, Biden offered a non ideological, reasoned and very presidential tone. “This is not a partisan moment”, he said. “This is an American moment… Character and compassion are on the ballot.” Biden will prove he is a pragmatist and will work collaboratively.

Trump has been anything but a unifier; he has shown little ability or inclination to reach across the floor for consensus. Neither are his Republican Party enablers. Trump has brought out the ugly side of the party; they have lost their moral compass  – just to stay in power. Supine in the face of Trumps grossest acts, Republicans will accept almost anything.

Harris will be a complementary and more visible VP. This was a wise choice for VP, both female and black – and young and clever. Making Harris his running mate fits the party brand. She is centrist, a moderate on many major issues. She has shown consistently throughout her career that she will not be cowed. “She thinks what’s good for business should be and can be good for the country” said Charles Phillips, co-chair of the Black Economic Alliance. She will be however, a racist target.

Purge the party, the country and the world of Trump: What ever pluses for one party or another, and for Biden in particular, this election is more about getting rid of one man. It’s unfortunate that it has to come down to a negative reason to vote, but it has.

George W. Bush just 20 years ago in his acceptance speech, spoke of the GOP’s “sense of community” and introduced the term “compassionate conservatism”. He said, “I will not attack a part of this country because I want to lead the whole of it.” This version of the Republican party is not recognizable today.

As Trump leads an outlaw version of the Republican party, key questions in my mind include how much can the party veer from its heritage? At what point do individual Republicans react to Trump’s behaviour and test their conscience in deciding that enough is enough? How many more lies does he have to tell; how much more insulting behaviour can one tolerate; how much lack of leadership and presidential norms; how much more encouragement to dangerous factions before the values of American voters take over. Hopefully those values have more to do with the increase in their 401(k)s.

So to the second question. Canadians, the closest neighbours and allies of the US, have real skin in the game when it comes to the outcome of the US election so we have a right to voice our opinions. The outcome affects us in the following areas:

1. Democracy (is in decline and under siege). It’s not too exaggerated to suggest that Trump’s style of leadership is bad for democracy as we now know it.

John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of The Economist wrote “In America, there is nothing particularly democratic about the ascent of money politics, the arcane blocking procedures of Congress or the gerrymandering of district boundaries. Indeed they are all reminiscent of the rotten boroughs of 18th century England that infuriated the Founding Fathers.” This observation goes straight to the core of America’s existence, it’s raison d’etre.

Trump is personally and openly leading the attack on free and fair elections, on the exercise of the right of all citizens to vote. It’s a despicable tactic: inhibit citizens to exercise such a right in order to win! He has called on his supporters to vote twice. He has withheld funding from the US postal service explicitly in order to prevent mail-in voting (though he and his family have voted by mail for years). His campaign is fighting state election agencies in courts across the country. And on a regular basis, Trump threatens not to abide by the election outcome, claiming, “the only way we are going to lose …is if the election is rigged”, even refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

Other fundamentals of democracy are under siege: freedom of the press, a legitimate independent justice system (e.g. Trump interference in judicial decisions) and the idea that government is accountable to the people and not above the law.

After the presidential debate, reaction from around the world was unanimously negative. An analyst with the German Marshall Fund said that “this debate is an indicator of the bad shape of the American democracy.” A French-American historian said “European leaders are thinking, the American leadership is over… the European leaders feel alone because they know that what Trump has dismantled cannot be rebuilt so quickly and easily. As to the others, Putin, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, they must be telling themselves what we already knew: They can do anything, because the US isn’t a leader anymore.”

David Brooks wrote recently in The Atlantic article I quoted from earlier, “Trump is in the process of shredding every norm of decent behaviour and wrecking every institution he touches. He threatens to undermine the legitimacy of our democracy… and incite a vicious national conflagration that would leave us a charred and shattered nation.” He goes on, “For centuries, America was the greatest success story on earth, a nation of steady progress, dazzling achievement and growing international power. That story threatens to end on our watch, crushed by the collapse of our institutions and the implosion of social trust.”`

Consequence for Canada: Serious political upheavals south of the border will affect Canada economically and socially. When a world leader thumbs his nose at democratic ideals, it is of significant concern to all democratic countries and gives strength to despots. 

2. World leadership (“me first” attitude is reducing global co-operation and opening space for China, Russia, etc.). After the Second World War, the US took a leadership role in world affairs. The world owes a great debt to the US as a result of the Marshall Plan. Rather than reducing Europe to an imperial dependency it restored her as a major trading partner. Further, as a result of the Breton Woods Conference in 1944 it was apparent to the US that the most effective way to protect national interests was through international co-operation. 

That conference led to the establishment of some important multilateral institutions that created common rules, regardless of national power or politics, e.g. the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organization) and subsequently the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The US was a leader in crafting this liberal economic order that balanced the need for international co-operation with demands for national autonomy. This enabled a sustained expansion in global trade, helped curb aggressive nationalist tendencies in parts of Europe and pushed back against Soviet expansionism.

But the US under Trump seeks to refute, rather than reform, these bodies. Not so China as they see a greater role in these institutions. The Lynch/Deegan opinion piece I mentioned earlier also posed, “Will China move to fill the international leadership void created by American retrenchment and what might that mean for the global order?” And what would multinationalism “with Chinese characteristics” look like, particularly while the US continues to reject the value and leverage that international alliances can offer? This is a serious dynamic for the future of the free world.

There are other challenges facing the world that need a steady hand and collaborative approach: Putin aims to restore Russia’s imperial pretensions (in Ukraine, Syria, Belarus, the Baltics); the islamic State is resurgent in the Middle East; Iran’s nuclear I mentioned; North Korea continues to expand its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities; the Taliban in Afghanistan; Putin’s determination for a more dominant role for Russia, etc.

Consequences for Canada: “American First” attitude is risky for Canada from an economic, social and security standpoint. The US refuting these international bodies (accompanied by hollow triumphalism about making America great again) and allowing China to play a leadership role in them would not be in the best interests of Canada. (My September blog article on China makes my feelings clear about this country.)

3. Trade (uncertainties and restrictions will have broad repercussions). Trump has in the past imposed unfair tariffs on Canadian goods and services (he pushed again on aluminum and steel until Canadian retaliatory levies convinced him otherwise) and will do so in the future. Canada depends on cross border trade for its economic health. Trump has shown he is unstable in his capricious rulings in this area. He withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Canada and 10 other states went ahead, but without the US, the TPP is a shadow of what it might have been. 

Biden also will be restrictive in his own version of America First, but has shown himself, along with his party, as being one with whom to reason. He will restore harmony with Canada and US allies.

Consequence for Canada: reduced US trade will hurt Canada economically. Trade disputes drive up prices (for both countries) and affect availability of products.

4. Journalism (is under fire; a danger for democracy). Trump degrades the press, calling it “the enemy of the people” or “crooked media…fake news.” Qualities such as truth, objectivity, balance and fairness are critical to quality journalism. This denigrating rubs off and is catching. Ironically, Trump has a strangely incestuous relationship with Fox News, and in particular a co-dependency relationship with Sean Hannity, who he talks with weekly and often daily. This has been well documented in Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth by Brian Stelter.

Consequence for Canada. This is a dangerous position for all free world societies, not just Canada. A free and objective press is a cornerstone of democracy. 

5. Environment (risking reaching accepted carbon targets). Trump has rejected the Paris Accord and is taking the US along a path I cannot support as a passionate believer in restricting carbon emissions. There is a great irony here: it was the Republican party under whose leadership the US Environmental Protection Agency was formed.

One concerning area for Canada is protection of our north. In the past, when fears of Chinese of Russia interference arose, the US would have our back; we’re not so sure anymore.

Consequence: without the US on board, the world will not meet the carbon emissions targets. That’s bad for Canada, regardless of what actions we take ourselves.

6. Security (declining, with significant concern having Trump in absolute control over US nuclear capability). One question that does not often come up, but is critical to the human race: how does the military know that an order to launch missiles came from a sane president? The Atlantic, in their October 22 endorsement for Biden wrote that “Only in one crucial area does the president resemble…an absolute monarch – his control of nuclear weapons.” Their editorial eviscerates Trump more thoroughly than any I have yet seen (see: https://apple.news/AVbtIj80pTdekjIEXFdv_rQ), but more critically, they state, “Compelling evidence suggests that his countless sins and defects are rooted in mental instability, pathological narcissism, and profound moral and cognitive impairment.” The Atlantic have endorsed only three candidates in its 163-year history. They finish their editorial with the following, “Two men are running for president. One is a terrible man; the other is a decent man. Vote for the decent man.”

In other areas of security, we in Canada watch in horror the riots brought on by various causes, whether they be Black Lives Matter demonstrators or whatever. The “law and order” path that Trump is pursuing could possibly end up with less law and order, as it stirs people up. 

In recent months there have been record sales of firearms in the US, almost as if people are expecting further trouble, or some version of anarchy. Deaths by guns per capita in the US are the highest of first world countries.

Post the debate when Trump refused to promise he would accept the results on Nov. 3, preparation has been taking place on a “Doomsday Scenario”. As the result may favour Trump that night, until the mail-in ballots are counted which, it is speculated. would likely lean in favour of the Democrats, Trump could just declare victory and ask Canada (and the world) to recognize him as president. Putin, Bolsonaro, Erdogan and Duterte would.

Consequence for Canada: no need to make any comment about the “nuclear button” point; the concern is obvious. But further, most of the guns used unlawfully in Canada are imported from south of the border. Civil insurrection, a possibility posed by a number of observers, can’t help encouraging like-minded believers in the US. Canada will not be insulated; we have our own highly influenceables. 

7. Financial (some real future challenges). Trump claims this as a strength, that of managing an economy. The facts don’t support him. Debt levels have reached new highs under his leadership, with a great deal of that debt held in Chinese hands. Further, his strategy of America First and ripping everyone else off, will over the long haul bite the country. It’s natural that the bully will be tackled and restrained.

(I don’t give Trump much credit for stock market performance, by the way. The stock market gains may or may not hold, but it’s important to remember a basic fact: the economic value of a business is simply all off its future profits discounted to today. At todays interest rates, that discount is modest. Given that today’s low rates, something he doesn’t control, will remain for some time, the market appears to be within the range of reasonable valuation.)

Consequence for Canada: it will be difficult to insulate the Canadian financial impact from the US.

8. COVID-19 (increased risks and economic consequences from US mismanagement). The poor US performance affects Canada. As more and more restrictions need to be imposed to prevent an inevitable second wave, Trump seems oblivious. He is betting on a vaccine that according to most of the experts, won’t be readily available until mid 2021 while implying it is just around the corner. He displays cavalier attitudes and habits to normal safety protocols – wearing masks, social distancing and avoiding large crowds being the obvious examples. In fact, he has politicized mask wearing and encouraged people to treat science as science fiction. And now he is criticizing Dr. Fauci, calling him a “disaster” and referred to him and other health officials as “idiots”!

There is a serious clash in the US between an individual’s right for protection and an individual’s right to engage and do as they desire. Trump is for the latter. Basically Trump (and Pence) has provided very poor and inconsistent leadership. This will result not just in more deaths than necessary, but severe economic consequences.

Consequence for Canada: further continued closure of the border hurts both economies. As 70% of Canadian GDP is generated by cross-border income, this will continue to have a huge financial impact. As I mentioned, the US could remain fenced off as a dangerous pariah, not welcome until they realize they have to take a vaccine. As well, Trump’s attitudes tend to be picked up by certain segments of society that are influenceable by such leaders; there is some risk those sentiments could infect Canada.

9. US/Canada Travel (diminished along with further restrictions). Many Canadians love to travel into the US, whether just for a road trip through some of the unique places that exist or as, say, snow birds heading south for the winter in Florida, Arizona or California. 

In turn, American travellers to Canada are the number one source of tourists to Canada. US visitors account for two thirds of arrivals, or 15 million tourists. As my son Brendan says, “It could be quite likely that Americans aren’t welcome (in most countries) as the virus continues to rage through an untrusting, ant-science population convinced it’s all a plot by Bill Gates to sterilize and track them.” 

Consequence for Canada: what happens politically is important in such areas as health care (can one obtain coverage), safety (the surfeit of weapons) and the actions of law enforcement. What happens under Trump’s leadership will negatively affect Canadians in all of those areas. If tensions exist, this travel will be diminished. 

There is another rather sad observation: many Canadians are changing their attitudes to things American, whether it’s travel plans (with or without the COVID-19 reality) or purchase habits. Anecdotally, people are revising whether they’re avoiding “going south” or even purchasing American-made products.

10. Biden as president (is more aligned with Canadian values). The tenor of bilateral relations will improve. On a visit to Ottawa in 2016, he spoke of his family’s “long, deep ties with Canada” and described the countries’ relationship as “like family.” A very large portion of Canadians absolutely reject the Trump brand and have respect instead for the Biden version.

Many of his pledges align with Canadian priorities. Some examples: rejoin the Paris climate accord, defend democracy and human rights at home and abroad, treat immigrants in a “fair and humane” manner, recommit to NATO, and while it doesn’t affects us directly, he would make Roe v. Wade into a law rather than Supreme Court precedent. 

All won’t be rosy. The US is becoming more protectionist and Canada risks being sideswiped by new policies privileging US companies and workers. Biden’s US$2-trillion plan for a “green recovery” represents the biggest “Buy America” proposal in US history. He would likely be more amenable to working together in the task of “reshoring” international supply chains; Canada must just convince Biden that we share the same “shore”.

What I would conclude if I was a voter in the United States.

After reviewing the positions of the two parties, my simple conclusion is vote for the Democratic party. 

There are some “deal breakers” for me in the above list that steer me in this direction. They include the link between American values of democracy (plus the important role of the press) and leadership in the free world. Environment protection, financial and physical health and security follow closely.

However, in the long run, never mind all the reasons for voting this way or that, decisions of the magnitude that Americans will make on Nov. 3 should be based on one’s value system, ones principles:

• not whether one believes in more or less government, or higher or lower taxes
• not on how to operate a health care system
• and not whether you do or don’t have a religion, or even a certain kind of God

It’s not the old Clinton adage regarding political success that was stated as, “It’s the economy, stupid”. For me the Republicans, because they have such a flawed and morally bankrupt leader who is doing almost irreparable harm to the United States and democracy in general, do not meet my values test. Yes, it’s simply one of values.

Canadian/American Differences

I have prepared a primer on the differences between Canada and the United States in a variety of areas (economics/size/trade, geography, history, political structure, party system, elections, the judiciary, culture/values, demographics/immigration, media, health care, education, incomes/taxes, crime and guns, defence, energy, religion). This might help explain why Canadians think and behave a certain way and further, why I, and most Canadians, wish Biden success. I’ve loaded this on my blog as well.