Another presidential debate? Now, or never?

 

Nancy Pelosi was right when she said that former Vice-President Joe Biden should not debate President Trump, for what viewers, and listeners heard, was an attempt by both the moderator, Chris Wallace and Biden to have a substantive discussion of the issues that were important to the American electorate, only to have Trump bully the proceedings in a manner that was embarrassing to watch, and a sad example to our foreign allies of the world’s foremost democracy.

Now that the president has emerged from his treatment for COVID-19 at Walter Reed Hospital, his carefully staged entry to the South Portico of the White House, and the dramatic removal of his mask, with glimpses of unmasked people in the Blue Room, it’s a sign that it is business as usual, for Trump,despite what seems to have been an urgent airlift from the White House, and dozens of staffer, allies and personnel who have shown to be positive for the virus.

Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley has called the first debate “a grotesque carnival” and it’s a safe bet that the second debate would have been much the same, since the commission tasked with the debates has considered cutting off the microphone of the candidate, if they go on too long. This, of course, would have not stopped Trump, who might have stomped around the stage, much like he did when debating Hillary Clinton in 2016.

That is all a moot point since the debate on Oct. 15 has been cancelled since the president, on Fox News berated a virtual format, and that his mic might have been turned off, and in his words:that's "not what debating's all about" and "they cut you off whenever they want."

While no one expected a replay of the Lincoln-Douglas debates or even the Kennedy-Nixon debates, what was expected was a view of  Biden and Trump’s positions facing America at this critical juncture.

It’s become commonplace to acknowledge that the American electorate is largely uninformed on the issues, and that most make a gut reaction, often based on ephemeral impressions; but, at best prudential debates, in the 21st century, can help either candidate win over undecided, and or independent voters. And, in this contest, that is critical.

We appreciated what Bonnie Kristian had to say in her article for This Week: “Both latest campaign statements express the farcical notion that another debate is a needful exercise in accountability to the American people, as if these 90 minutes will expose some truth two literal lifetimes in the public eye haven't revealed. But the disagreement over format offers Trump and Biden an option of refusing to debate while insisting their hearts have no greater desire. Tuesday's veep debate could be the last we'll see this year.”

We think that she might have been on a keener and more welcome level when she noted that, “A few tough interviews or unvetted town hall questions would give voters more insight into a candidate's positions and governing skills than the debates do now.”

In our graduate school we saw a video reenactment of the Lincoln Douglas debates and the oratory aside, what impressed us most was the command of the issues of the day, and that the candidates had actually prepared for the debate, and an electorate that was educated to the issues of the day, and while the video had its drawbacks, (with the arrival of a Ford Mustang hovering in the background), the points that that the actors made, reading the actual words of these men gave credence to being informed voters.

Even a look back at John Kennedy being interviewed on the old Jack Paar show revealed a mind, and an audience that was better read, and actually cared for what the nation could look like under the direction of a future executive.

In the 21st century, debates seem more like fights in the Roman Colosseum with people cheering for and rooting and hooting over each other’s positions, and while not dissimilar of late night broadcasts of British parliamentary sessions, the latter are at least intelligible, if not amusing, with such erudite put downs that offer both humor and intelligence, where across the pond, it’s a ratings game, where blood seems to be sought after.

Then again, our unequalled namesake had this to say to ABC7 in Amarillo, Texas, "I don't ever see the debate going away. A, there's too much tradition. B, I think there is a lot of utility in it that both voters and the candidates see," said said Dr. Darrell Lovell, assistant professor of political science at West Texas A&M University

Speaking of Kennedy, it was Newton Minow, later his FCC chief, is the architect of the debates, and is the author of “Inside the Presidential Debates: Their Improbable Past and Promising Future.”

NPR News noted that “In a 1955 memo to his boss, attorney Newton Minow first suggested the idea of presidential debates. In the decades since, these debates have become some of the biggest and most influential moments in political history. And Newt, who serves on the commission that sponsors them, has watched them evolve first-hand.”

And, it is worthwhile noting that he “currently serves on the board of the Commission on Presidential Debates. He has been chairman of PBS and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama in 2016.”

In separate interviews he had this to say about Biden and Trump in their wrestling match, ““This is the first time that the candidates have not obeyed the rules,” Minow said. “They have made this opportunity to educate and serve the voters, and turned it into a totally disgusting performance in the exercise of the Democratic process.”

“I was not only distressed, I was disgusted because our purpose in having the debates is to serve the viewer, to give the viewer some valuable information before the viewer votes and instead we got a wrestling match,” he said.

With due respect to the old guard, we’d say,pull the plug, but one cannot help admire this older school of gentlemanly thought when he opined:

“Still, Minow believes in the importance of debates. They allow voters to evaluate a candidate’s ability, intellect and personality, he said, and live television creates a unique opportunity to show how candidates think on their feet and deal with the situation.”

Still a believer in the ideals of The New Frontier, it gave us pause when we read this, ““We’re not going to give up because we feel that our purpose is a very valuable purpose in a democracy and that is to give the voter the information about their choice, and that’s essential in a democracy.”

Can it be? Or do we need to wait another decade, or two?

Harris v. Pence: It's still about the pandemic

 

With their orders “in-hand” and “in-head”, Sen. Kamala Harris, vice-presidential candidate for Joe Biden and Mike Pence, Vice-President for incumbent president, Donald Trump stepped onto the stage at the arts center of the University of Utah Wednesday night, they represented their bosses, and had tasks at hand: for Harris to define, and identity, who she was to an audience that mostly does not know her, and for Pence to hit the reset button, for an Administration that has slipped badly in the polls, mostly for the way that it has mishandled the COVID-19 crisis, and may lose the election,as evidenced by Biden subsequently capturing in a recent CNN poll a good chunk of possible electoral votes.

Hitting that button proved difficult for Pence as he faced the former California prosecutor as she attacked both he and the president, for their mishandling of the pandemic, after an early warning, and the many foreign policy fumbles that cost America confidence from foreign allies and friends.

Harris’s “straight out of the gate” tactic was well-timed with criticism flowing across the media about not simply the missteps made early on when the president had the data, but the way in which the president’s positivity and hospitalization for the virus was handled, with information that was kept from the public by his personal physician, and others at the Walter Reed Hospital.

While many supporters were pleased with her opening salvo, some were surprised that she did not follow through with a fastball focusing on the president’s positivity as a symptom of the White House response to the pandemic.

Since this was a “one-shot affair” (there is only one vicepresidencial debate) Harris could have been saving it for Biden, but regardless, she left viewers with this one memorable line: "The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country.”

Predictably, Pence’s answer was scripted, and said that early action from the administration saved lives, but the record does not show that.

The civil tone of the debate was a welcome contrast to the one between Biden and Trump last week, but it’s clear from the numbers that the Trump camp has a lot to worry about.

An example is the CNN poll where, “the Democratic presidential nominee crosses the 270 threshold for the first time this year. If you add up the states that are currently rated as solidly in his camp (203 electoral votes) and those leaning in his direction (87 electoral votes), it brings his total to 290 electoral votes.”

The singular issue that is at work here is the administration's weak response to the pandemic, and as we noted in May: “President Trump’s early statements were positive and reassuring, but quickly devolved into a series of questionable statements that made many anxious, as if he was dismissing the threat to Americans, and some observers, and critics, said that this was done, in order to preserve his major reelection plank: that the economy was strong stable and secure.”

At the debate, Harris, in full prosecutorial style, gave her opening statement, and then followed it up with a direct appeal to the jury: "I want to ask the American people: How calm were you when you were panicked about where you were going to get your next roll of toilet paper?" and then, "How calm were you when your kids were sent home from school and you didn't know when they could go back? How calm were you when your children couldn't see your parents because you were afraid they could kill them?"

Trump, while on a state visit to India, at that time, said that it was all under control. 

What the evening offered was a more substantive discussion, despite the well-rehearsed lines, and gave showed that not only was the U.S. facing a national emergency of its own, but its moral compass, with a leader who remarkably and routinely verbally attacks men and women in the armed forces by calling them  “suckers”.

In one remarkable moment, last year, Trump asked aides what had happened at Pearl Harbor to merit his presence at a memorial service.

Yet, it was the presence of the pandemic, the third “person” in the room that gave credence to the sharp differences between not only Harris and Pence, and by turn the direction that America could turn to.

It was revealing that Pence, sidestepped a direct answer towards the administration and said instead, “"When you say what the American people have done over these last eight months hasn't worked, that's a great disservice to the sacrifices the American people have made," the vice president said. "The reality is, Dr. Fauci said everything that he told the president in the Oval Office the president told the American people."

This side step is emblematic of recent White House actions, the most notable being the Sept. 26t “superspreader” event in the White House Rose Garden when Trump introduced Amy Coney Barrett, his Supreme Court nominee, an occasion where almost no one was wearing masks, including Barrett herself, and was followed by a reception in the Blue Room, where again, few masks were in evidence and the White House butlers (almost all of whom are Black) were exposed to the virus, and also the invited guests, staff, and the Marine Guards.

The response has been that, like the fundraiser at the Trump golf resort in Bedminster, N.J., shortly after he was diagnosed as positive for Covid, was that there was rapid testing done, which has not shown reliability, and can also lead to false positives.

While no political observers can state that any debate will change voters' minds, this one was notable for its general tone of civility, and only a few interruptions, (that were quickly squashed by Harris) but it also gave viewers, and listeners the opportunity to see two possible future presidents whose bosses are septuagenarians, and that was well worth the price of admission.

September Jobs Report shows U.S. economy sliding fast

September’s jobs report from the U.S. Labor Department, released on Friday - the last before the election - is not one to be praised, despite some bright spots, and shows the pending doom for much of America’s workforce, who with the loss of the extension of $600.00 in unemployment benefits, among  other factors, has threatened their ability to  pay rent, and put food on the table. 

The gain of only 661 non-farm jobs hit economists, and observers hard, since they expected 800,000, gave earnest looks to Congress for relief, since the pattern that September has shown, despite net job gains over the last five months, has had the side effect of decreased consumer spending; and the looming spectre of permanent job loss, for some, makes for a bleak outlook.

CNBC reported that, “The decline in the unemployment rate came along with a 0.3 percentage point drop in the labor force participation rate to 61.4%, representing a decline of nearly 700,000.”

“However, a separate, more encompassing measure [the household survey] that counts discouraged workers and those working part-time for economic reasons also saw a notable decline, falling from 14.2% to 12.8%,” they added.

On the political side, the news also pokes a hole in the firm hope from President Trump that a strong economy would keep him in office another four years.

Notably, lower wage workers have yet been called back to work, while the higher wage earners are on the front burner, giving an even further push downwards to low end wage workers.

Of equal importance are the type of jobs that have been part of the rebound, and some have questioned both their value and the effect on wages, "The jobs being added aren't the jobs that were lost, because we're still in an uncontrolled pandemic -- people are going back to worse-quality jobs without increased pay," said Kate Bahn, director of labor market policy and economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, to CNN.com.

With many of them working in restaurants, now facing cooler weather, and a dearth of outdoor diners, those in the East and North, owners may see a further decline in their ability to stay open, and make their obligatory rent payment, and close behind that, their payroll, especially for their servers, kitchen help and bus people.

For some, the good news was that the numbers fell for those stuck in part-time jobs, seemed to be an omen of good fortune, but that’s not the linchpin of a recovering economy, especially one firmly ruled by the COVID-19 virus which has severely hampered even the best of a laissez-faire economy.

As the Report noted, this, “declined by 1.3 million to 6.3 million,reflecting a decrease in the number of persons whose hours were cut due to slack work or business conditions. The number of involuntary part-time workers is 2.0 million higher than in February. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs.”

Help from Washington is in order, says Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell, but House Democrats and the Senate GOP majority may be talking again, but the conversations have not led to a resolution, and with Trump’s recent diagnosis of having the virus (and a growing number of lawmakers also becoming positive), it seems that any gatherings of elected officials, for a vote, may be eliminated, even if there is an agreement between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin.

The New York Times reported, “House Democrats on Thursday pushed through a $2.2 trillion stimulus plan that would provide aid to families, schools, restaurants, businesses and airline workers, and on Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed fresh optimism that a bipartisan deal for a broad coronavirus package could emerge out of her talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.”

That might change with the Senate anxious to confirm Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, and there were rumors, on Sunday, that there would be virtual votes, for that purpose.

With many in the media being quoted as seeing the economy in a”free fall”, or “losing momentum”, or “steam”, all have become commonplace adjectives, yet it’s clear that the American economy is, at best, in the first instance: a free fall, and that the only salvation lies in an agreement between Pelosi and Mnuchin, with the final word from Leader Mitch McConnell in the Senate.

Diane Swonk, chief economist for the accounting firm  Grant Thornton in Chicago,was quoted from The New York Times saying, “It’s  disturbing that we’re seeing such a dramatic slowdown in employment gains as we head into the Fall,” and added, “This is a red flag, we need aid now.”

Job loss, permanent job loss, is becoming a reality for many, and those losses are not only in the private sector, but the public as well, that began with the Spring shutdowns that slowed the revenue stream.

“Permanent jobs losses rose by more than 300,000. That’s not a good thing. The labor force participation rate declined, which pulled the overall unemployment rate down. That’s not a good sign, either,” said Kathy Jones, head of fixed income at Charles Schwab. “We’re looking at state and local government layoffs, we’re looking at a higher level of permanent job losses and more people leaving the workforce. None of that is good for the long run,” she told CNBC.

While job loss on this level is neither desired, nor welcome, it’s as sure as rain that it will come; especially for large cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, showing at average a possible loss of 2.5 million jobs with a net loss of 345,000.

For women who had been making employment gains over the last several months there was a decrease in participation in the labor market from 56.1 in August to 55.6 in September reflecting the need to either cut hours, or quit altogether to take care of, and or, teach children, alongside remote learning.

Close on the heels of losses and participation rates are job cuts, and Challenger, Gray and Christmas reported that cuts for September of 2020 were 186 percent higher than a year ago, in the same month.

“We are setting new records for job cuts even though things have improved since the earliest days of the pandemic,” said Andrew Challenger, Senior Vice President of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

“These are uncertain times for everyone, as many states are experiencing an uptick in the number of COVID-19 cases. It is clear we still have a long way to go before many industries can return to normal.”

 “Year to date, the reason cited for the most announced cuts is COVID-19, which has caused 1,091,923 cuts in 2020. In September, market conditions caused 45,213 of the announced cuts, followed by 33,713 job cuts due to demand downturn, and 11,562 cuts due to restructuring. COVID-19 is the reason for 8,529 cuts last month.”

The most outstanding of the cuts were those from airlines and the announcement from American airlines  and United that they would cut more than 32,000 workers if a deal was not reached by Congress was a spur for negotiations.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California on Friday called for airlines to delay laying off or furloughing tens of thousands of airline workers, promising that the House would act in some accord to address the expiration of a program that has kept airline workers employed,” also said the Times.

We’ve noted before, that it’s all over but for the fighting, and it seems that Congress, especially with the Senate, that this begins, as America faces tragic consequences, including homelessness and food insecurity, in the coming months without Congressional help.