Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “2020 Presidential Election”

Kamala Harris as VP Shatters the Myth of the ‘Glass Ceiling’

Kamala Harris’s apparent election as vice president is historic. However, it does not represent a shattering of the “glass ceiling,” because the glass ceiling is a political myth pushed by progressives for overtly political ends.

If, as appears likely, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) has been elected Vice President of the United States, it is, indeed, historic and should be recognized as such. But can we please dispense of the tired and shopworn notion that her election breaks some “barrier” and “glass ceiling”?

Nothing could be further from the truth. In the United States of America, there is no  real “barrier” stopping women from professional achievement.

The “glass ceiling” is a political myth pushed by “progressive” or left-wing activists whose real aim is to increase the government’s control over our lives—ostensibly to end discrimination and eliminate social and economic disparities between men and women.

Female Representation. But it is 2020, not 1920 or 1820. Today in the United States, women are well represented in all walks of life and even predominant in some fields, such as pharmaceutical science (61 percent), medical and life sciences (71 percent), and public relations (63 percent).

“Women account for roughly 40% of the country’s physicians and surgeons, up from about 26% in the late 1990s,” reports Quartz “A full 57% of college degrees awarded in 2018 were given to women, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.”

Women outnumber men in law school. Three Supreme Court Justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Amy Coney Barrett—are women.

President Trump’s Ambassador to the United Nations (Nikki Haley) was a woman. Presidents Obama and George W. Bush had female Secretaries of State (Susan Rice and Condoleezza Rice, respectively).

There are a record number of women—26 senators and 101 representatives—serving in Congress.

The “glass ceiling,” if it ever existed, was shattered a long time ago. Yet, numerous commentators have been falling over themselves to laud Harris’s election as a “breakthrough” achievement that lays waste to yet  another “barrier.”

Harris herself, moreover, lauded Vice President Biden for having the “audacity to break one of the most substantial barriers that exists in our country: [by] select[ing] a woman as his vice president.”

Admittedly, this is good politics, but it’s also complete nonsense unsupported by any empirical evidence.

Disparities. It is true that women often earn less than men and that disparities still exist. But this is not because of “discrimination” and “sexism.”

Instead, it is because of professional and career choices that women sometimes make, which limit their time in the workforce and constrain their earnings and professional advancement.

For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau:

Female attorneys work full-time, year-round on average more than the average for all working women (82 percent vs. 63 percent), but less than male attorneys (85 percent).

They also are more likely to work for the government and less likely to be self-employed than their male colleagues.

All this contributes to differences in median earnings between women and men, with a female-to-male earnings ratio for full-time, year-round attorneys of 76 percent, lower than the 80 percent average across all occupations.

As a wiseman once said, “facts are stubborn things.”

Equal pay for women has been the law of the land for more than a half-century,” with a wide array of legal remedies available to litigants, writes Gerald Skoning in the Wall Street Journal.

Consequently, no one can legitimately claim women earn less than men for the same work.

Pay “disparities” between men and women generally reflect other factors such as interrupting a career to raise children, the types of jobs men and women on average choose, the type of education they have (sociology vs. engineering), etc.

Politics and History. So yes, the election of a female vice president is an historic milestone that should be duly noted. But let’s not pretend that Harris’s election represents some triumph over a genuine barrier—legal, cultural or otherwise—that she had to “break through” and “overcome.”

To the contrary: Harris surely benefited from the fact she is a woman and a woman of color, as they say, from a big and diverse state. Would Biden, after all, have selected her as his VP if she were a male senator representing, say, Montana?

Of course not.

Harris, remember, flopped in a big way during the Democratic primaries, where she failed to garner popular support—even amongst black women, who much preferred Joe Biden.

Antiquated Myth. Let us, then, retire the antiquated notion of a “glass ceiling” or “barrier” that women must “overcome.” This is a progressive political myth designed for overtly left-wing political ends.

Women today are full and equal citizens, with full and equal rights and opportunities; and the glass ceiling was shattered long, long ago. Good riddance.

Feature photo credit: Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) courtesy of Doug Mills, New York Times, published in the San Antonio Express-News.

Trump Lost Arizona—and the Presidency—in 2020 When, in 2015, He Gratuitously Attacked John McCain

Trump won Arizona in 2016, but lost the state in 2020, and it looks like this loss has cost him the presidency. Yet, Arizona was eminently winnable for Trump—if only he hadn’t made an enemy of John McCain.

As I write (at 1:30 p.m. EST, the day after the election), there are six states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina—that are in neither the Trump nor Biden column; and so, we still do not know who will be president Jan. 20, 2021.

However, barring a major counting error or other surprise, we know that Trump has lost one important state—Arizona, with 11 electoral votes—that he won in 2016. And Trump’s loss of Arizona could well be the reason Trump is denied a second term.

Electoral Math. Indeed, Trump could win Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) while losing Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), and Nevada (6), and still win reelection—but only if he retains Arizona.

Otherwise, Trump falls an excruciating three electoral votes short of the requisite 270 needed to win.

This interactive map from 270towin.com spells it all out:

Arizona matters because I believe Trump will win Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Noth Carolina while losing Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Which means that, because he lost Arizona, Trump has lost the presidency.

Yet, Arizona was completely winnable. Although it has become more competitive in recent years, the state has voted Democrat for president only one time since 1948, and that was in 1996, when Bill Clinton was cruising to reelection against a lackluster Republican opponent (Sen. Majority leader Bob Dole, R-Kansas) just as the Internet-fueled economic boom was heating up.

And why did Trump lose Arizona? In large part because he stupidly made an enemy of the late John McCain. 

Political Feud. Enmity between the two men dates back to 2015, when Trump said that McCain is “not a war hero… because he was captured” by the North Vietnamese during a bombing mission over Hanoi.

This was a stupid and wrong-headed attack. McCain, after all, spent five-and-a-half heroic years as a prisoner of war in the “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was tortured and often placed in solitary confinement.

All Americans owe McCain a debt of gratitude for his courageous wartime service on behalf of our nation. Trump should have said as much and moved on.

Instead, he lashed out at McCain. As a result, McCann’s wife, Cindy McCain, agreed to be featured in Biden campaign commercials that figured prominently in Arizona.

https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1323843582369894400?s=20
https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1323844269124313088
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1323850146069860353?s=20

Political Lessons. Trump’s loss of Arizona and its 11 critical electoral votes reminds us that in politics, as in sports, the team that makes the fewest mistakes—even if less talented—typically wins. And the team that is more focused and self-disciplined typically makes the fewest mistakes.

Trump, unfortunately, is the antithesis of focused and self-disciplined. Consequently, he made a major mental error by gratuitously going after McCain. That cost Trump Arizona, and, it looks like, a second term.

Feature photo creditCNN.

Joe Biden Is No Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. His Administration Will Be Much More Radical and Much, Much Worse.

America survived Bill Clinton and Barack Obama because the Democratic Party then was center-left. But America likely will not survive Joe Biden because the Democratic Party has become radicalized and is now a “progressive” or socialist party.

Many center-right voters who don’t like Donald Trump’s obnoxious personality and unpresidential behavior are thinking about voting for Joe Biden. Here’s why, and here’s why that would be a serious mistake.

Point. Their thinking goes like this: America survived Bill Clinton; we survived Barack Obama; and we’ll survive Joe Biden. Clinton and Obama were liberal Democrats, after all, and yet, Republicans lived to fight another day.

The republic did not end. Free-market capitalism endured. America remained free and prosperous. Surely, the same thing will happen if Biden is elected president:

Democrats and Republicans will have their policy disagreements, of course; and sometimes one party or the other will win; but we’ll return, at long last, to a state of political normalcy.

Quiet. “The first thing you’ll notice [in a Biden presidency] is the quiet,” writes New York Times columnist David Brooks.

There will be no disgraceful presidential tweets and no furious cable segments reacting to them on Inauguration Day…

It will become immediately clear that in a Biden era politics will shrink back down to normal size. It will be about government programs, not epic wars about why my sort of people are morally superior to your sort of people…

It will also become immediately clear that in a highly ideological age, America will be led by a man who is not ideological.

“I’m sure there are Republicans and independents who couldn’t imagine crossing over to support a Democrat,” said former Ohio Governor John Kasich, Republican, during his Democratic National Convention speech endorsing Biden.

They fear Joe may turn sharp left and leave them behind. I don’t believe that. Because I know the measure of the man—reasonable, faithful, respectful. And you know, no one pushes Joe around.

Counterpoint. Brooks and Kasich are wrong. The idea that a Biden Presidency would be a garden-variety, center-left Democratic administration is badly mistaken and wishful thinking.

To believe this, you have to ignore all of the political and cultural forces that, in the past decade, have been relentlessly driving the Democratic Party further and further to the left:

  • Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, George Soros;
  • Black Lives Matter, reparations, defund the police;
  • the public option, Medicare for all, amnesty, open borders;
  • end the filibuster, abolish the Electoral College, pack the Supreme Court;
  • ban fracking, end fossil fuels, enact the Green New Deal;
  • D.C. statehood, Citizens United, Modern Monetary Theory;
  • Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, the 1619 project, et al.

In short, the Democratic Party today is far more radical than it was when Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992 and significantly more radical than it was when Barack Obama ran for reelection eight years ago in 2012.

Clinton ran for election as a “New Democrat” from the South, and he eschewed the liberal fundamentalism that had dominated his party for more than a generation.

Obama, meanwhile, campaigned as a non-ideological Democrat who rejected labels while espousing “hope and change.”

More importantly, Clinton and Obama ran in a Democratic Party whose center of gravity was well to the right of where it is now.

Today, by contrast, the intellectual ferment and activist energy lies entirely within the “progressive” or socialist wing of the party.

Biden is not a socialist, but that doesn’t matter: He is a weak and physically frail politician who will accommodate the progressive left because he knows no other way and has no other choice. As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board explains:

What evidence is there today that Mr. Biden will restrain his increasingly radical party? Across his long career he has been the consummate party man, floating right or left with the political tides.

As a presidential candidate this year he has put no particular policy imprint on the Democratic Party—not one. The party has put its stamp on him.

Little wonder, then, that Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and “The Squad” are among Biden’s most fervent supporters. They know he will do their bidding.

Biden, in fact, has tacked left since winning his party’s nomination. Thus last summer he signed a 110-page “unity” manifesto with Bernie Sanders.

The manifesto “envisions the socialism of an all-encompassing welfare state, with virtually every need a right, and every right guaranteed by taxpayer funding,” writes economist (and former Texas Senator) Phil Gramm.

Sanders “may not sit in the Oval Office next year,” notes the Journal, but Mr. Biden will be implementing Bernie’s dreams.” 

If the Republicans controlled Congress, or even one branch of the Congress, they might serve as a useful check on a Biden presidency that is otherwise preordained to swerve sharply left. But the reality is that if Biden captures the White House, the Democrats almost certainly will gain control of the Senate.

Our politics have become too polarized for much split-ticket voting. And the Dems are expected to retain control of the House of Representatives.

Clinton and Obama, by contrast, had to contend with a Republican-controlled Congress for six of the eight years that they each were president.

The bottom line: if Biden wins, his administration will be staffed by hardcore progressives working in tandem with the socialist left, both in and out of Congress, to pursue what the Journal rightly calls the most left-wing policy agenda in decades.

Irreversible Socialist Change. Bad public policies, of course, typically can be changed or reversed legislatively by future presidents and future congresses. But if Biden and the Dems take over, that may not be an option.

That is because the progressive left is hellbent on instituting structural “reforms” that will make it impossible for a future Republican president or congress to reverse their radical policy agenda.

  • D.C. statehood, for instance, would add two very liberal senators to the Senate, thereby giving Democrats an all-but-guaranteed lock on that legislative body for at least a generation.
  • Ending the filibuster would mean that, unlike in our nation’s past, major reform legislation no longer would require bipartisan support and cooperation.

Instead, the Dems could steamroll the Republicans while enacting new and costly tax-and-spend redistribution schemes, including reparations.

  • Packing the Supreme Court with “progressive” justices who legislate from the bench would allow Democrats to create new and permanent “rights” for favored classes and reciprocal political and financial obligations for less favored and ostensibly “privileged” Americans.
  • Repealing Citizens United would pave the way for the worst legislative and regulatory assault on free speech in American history.

Unprecedented. That is why this election is not like past elections; and it is why electing Biden as president would yield a very different result than what happened when Clinton and Obama were elected. This time, to a real and worrisome extent, America itself is at risk.

Indeed, when the Democrats are done, there likely will be no going back: A dynamic, diverse and freewheeling commercial republic will be replaced by a sclerotic and slow-growing statist democracy with fewer jobs, less opportunity, and more bureaucratic constraints.

Basic Constitutional liberties, such as freedom of speech, religious worship, and the right to bear arms will be under sustained assault. And our national memory and understanding of our political inheritance will wither away as the activists who have toppled statues now implement bureaucratic decrees that erase our nation’s history.

A Defeated Nation. Sure, all of this may happen quietly, as Brooks and others hope or expect. There will be no juvenile, cringe-inducing tweets from a President Biden, as there are too often from President Trump.

But the quietude will reflect the dull and subdued resignation of a tired and aging nation burdened with an entitlement state that it cannot long support and lacking the economic dynamism and cultural wherewithal needed to sustain and support its people.

Moreover, far from making politics a less invasive force in our lives, as Brooks hopes, a Biden presidency instead will extend the reach and influence of Washington, D.C. That, after all, is what the Democrats’ progressive base demands: a more assertive, domineering, and activist federal government.

This will be the “new normal” ushered in by the “progressive” or socialist Democrats who will dominate a Biden presidency. Be careful whom you vote for, we just might get it.

Feature Photo Credit: Political twins Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders (Elise Amendola, Associated Press, courtesy of Citizens Times).

When Biden Says ‘Follow the Science,’ He Means ‘Ignore My Politics’

The American people have a right to know what policies a President Biden would pursue to combat COVID. A politically self-serving declaration that he will “follow the science” is pure obfuscation.

“Let’s end the politics and follow the science,” declares Joe Biden.

Biden’s declaration is politically self-serving because it suggests that, as president, his policies to address COVID will be apolitical and simply science-based. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

As Faye Flam points out at Bloomberg:

Joe Biden’s promise to “follow the science” does not amount to a strategy. It’s just a slogan.

A strategy to deal with the pandemic needs to set priorities and incorporate values that science isn’t equipped to provide. If Biden and his fans think following the science is the plan, they misunderstand the nature of science and its limitations.

Science can give insights into the nature of the pandemic, but there is no scientific formula pointing to a solution

“This year has driven home as never before the message that there is no such thing as ‘the science,'” writes Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal. “There are different scientific views on how to suppress the virus.”

Sweden. As we’ve previously noted, for instance, Swedish scientists and public health authorities have taken a strikingly different approach to combating COVID than their counterparts in the United States.

The Swedes have eschewed lockdowns and mandatory mask orders and instead, have focused their efforts on protecting the most vulnerable members of the population. Thus schools, restaurants, and fitness centers have remained open.

Early on in the pandemic, as Ridley notes, the Swedish approach looked foolish and shortsighted. “Now, with cases low and the Swedish economy in much better health than other countries,” he observes, Swedish public health authorities look prescient and wise.

“Different countries,” explains Flam, “can ‘follow the science’ to different strategies.”

Science. Yet, “follow the science” resonates with us because it appeals to our belief that politics involves opinions and value judgments about which people can and do vigorously disagree. Science, by contrast, deals with facts and empirical reality which we all must acknowledge and recognize.

If only it were that simple! In truth, our scientific understanding of the coronavirus is not fixed and settled dogma; it is developing and evolving based on new discoveries and new empirical realities.

“In 2020,”writes Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz,

science has gone from a gradual accumulation of knowledge to a train at full steam.

It’s worth remembering that what is true today will almost certainly be proven false next week, and that when people appear to change their minds it is an inherently good thing—adapting to new evidence is the cornerstone of science.

Just last week, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged for the first time that the coronavirus sometimes can spread through airborne particles “that can linger in the air for minutes to hours,” thereby infecting people “who are further than six feet apart.”

The implications of this finding, though, are a legitimate source of political debate. Is the risk of airborne infection serious enough to warrant a different public health strategy? Or is the risk sufficiently low that no change in strategy is warranted?

“The science” ought to inform how we answer these and other public health questions; but ultimately, policymakers must make value judgments that balance competing interests, assess what is most important, and determine how much risk the public should assume.

Politics. In short, the science of COVID cannot be divorced from the politics of COVID. It is, therefore, too glib and self-serving for Biden to declare that his strategy for combating the coronavirus will be simply to “follow the science.”

As Bruce Trogdon observes, this is a great political “sound-byte. But the scientists don’t even agree and the consensus is constantly shifting. Which scientist? Which study? Which day?”

We don’t know because Biden won’t say.

Bide says he’ll “follow the science,” because he wants us to ignore his politics, which mirror those of blue state governors like Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and New York’s Andrew Cuomo, who embrace lockdowns.

Joe Biden is the shutdown candidate,” explains the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Hennninger. “At last week’s presidential non-debate,” he writes,

perhaps the most consequential remark by Mr. Biden was about living with the virus. “You can’t fix the economy,” Mr. Biden said, “until you fix the Covid crisis.” Virus first, economy later.

I take that to mean Mr. Biden’s coronavirus policy would be to support reviving shutdowns if the virus-case metric goes up, and support governors who push back against openings.

As such, his policy would reflect minimal adjustment of the Democratic party’s lockdown bias, no matter the country’s experience with the virus since March.

That’s a legitimate position to take, even if it is, as I think, seriously mistaken and misguided. What is utterly illegitimate and wrong is for Biden to continue to dodge the question in an effort to deceive the American people.

Voters have a right to know precisely what the former Vice President means when he says he’ll “follow the science”: because, as he surely knows, the meaning of that phrase is anything but self-evident and self-explanatory. It is, though, politically self-serving.

Feature photo credit: The Yeshiva World.

Biden Clearly Beats Trump Even as Trump Scores Some Points

Trump needed to hit Biden on the economy and taxes. Instead, he obsessed over Hunter Biden, law and order.

Substantively and politically, Joe Biden won the first presidential debate.

Donald Trump did score some points; however, he missed many opportunities to hit Biden, especially on the economy. And, because Biden is the clear front runner, Trump’s failure to knock him off his perch means that Biden is one step closer to becoming President of these United States.

To be sure, Trump threw a lot of punches, but most of his punches failed to connect; and he too often failed to throw punches when it mattered most.

Taxes. For example, Trump said next to nothing about Biden’s $4-trillion tax plan, which threatens to sink the stock market and throw the economy into a prolonged depression.

Debate moderator Chris Wallace, in fact, asked the sharp question about Biden’s tax plan that Trump himself should have asked, but did not.

Of course, Trump partisans will plausibly spin this debate as a win for their candidate because Trump did hit Biden hard on multiple occasions.

Trump, for instance, asked Biden to name one police organization or law enforcement agency that had endorsed him for president. Biden literally had no answer.

However, the truth is that, in the aggregate, Trump did little to convince independents and undecided voters that they should vote for him.

Biden, meanwhile, seemed sharper than usual and suffered no real senior moment. And Trump may well have turned off many voters with his childish petulance, bullying, and constant interruptions in violation of the ground rules of the debate.

I suppose it’s possible that Trump may have inspired more voters already predisposed to vote for him to go to the polls on his behalf, but that, to me, seems a long shot.

The more likely outcome, I think, is that independents and undecided voters watch this debate say, “Joe’s OK. I can live with him.”

We’ll see.

Feature photo credit: New York Post.