TRUMP’S VEEP (AND REPLACEMENT?)

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

The latest polls suggest a probable Trump victory in November based on his edge in the swing states. Assuming this holds, his Vice-Presidential pick looms large as a successor if Trump gets convicted of any of the criminal charges against him in the multiple jurisdictions in which he has been formally charged. So who will it be?

The short list, as reported, includes Sen. Tim Scott, Gov. Ron DeSantis, business guy Vivek Ramaswamy, Rep. Byron Donalds. Gov. Kristi Noem and now former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Others have been mentioned (including former Gov. Nikki Haley). All this is speculative as Trump dangles a lot of bait in many directions. If Trump suffers a criminal conviction or goes bankrupt (or both), there is a scenario where the Republican National Committee (RNC) would have to replace him, and if he has already chosen a VEEP (before or after the Republican convention in August), then the RNC (led by his hand-picked chair and his daughter-in-law) might well select his pick as the successor presidential candidate.  If recent polls are any indication, that successor might fare well against President Biden (polls during the primary showed Haley doing better against Biden than Trump did).

If Trump survives the barrage of lawsuits against him then this is a moot point and then it’s on to November. But if he takes a bad hit and is mortally (politically) wounded, then his number 2 becomes the Republicans’ number 1, and we are in a brand new ballgame.  But if the potential replacement is likely to have better numbers against Biden, then exactly what is the political rationale behind the Democrat’s massive push to remove Trump from the political landscape?

Most of the Democrats’ campaign strategy revolves around bashing Trump, so if he’s not there, what do they do?

AGEISM, THE 14th AMENDMENT AND THE BIDEN PROXY CAMPAIGN

by Ken Grossberger, PhD

At the end of the US Civil War there was a problem: approximately five and a half million African Americans were technically still slaves, still the property of their masters. So Congress passed, the president signed, and the state legislatures approved, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments the constitution. The 13th amendment abolished slavery, the 14th amendment provided the now former slaves with citizenship (among other things) and the 15th amendment gave them the right to vote (except for women). The 14th amendment contained other significant provisions, such as the protection of citizens’ “privileges and immunities”, incorporated due process into the states, and gave “equal protection” to all Americans. This last clause has become the basis of many laws since, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which have become the bedrock of defending citizens against discrimination based on so-called protected characteristics, including age. Here is where the political rubber meets the electoral road. The prejudice against President Biden comes to mind.

We reach a point in our lives where we realize we have to walk and chew gum sequentially. This apparently has not yet dawned on the president. Thus the public consternation at his decision to run for reelection. But are the objections to his age or ability? The public perception is that it’s the former, but oh yeah, it might be the latter also. His age as a disqualifier is openly discussed, ad nauseum, as if the constitution doesn’t exist. Ironically, he picked his vice president based on gender and color, another egregious violation of standing law. Any employer would be on the wrong end of a lawsuit based on such flagrant violations of the constitution and subsequent statutes. But in this era of extreme polarization, with the attendant prejudiced partisan press, these discriminatory choices and comments have become mainstream.

The long history of the civil rights movement, and numerous court cases and laws, also include the Fair Pay Act, the Bakke case, the Fair Admissions cases, and many more. Yet we see blatant age discrimination (Biden is too old to be president), gender discrimination (the selection of running mates based on sex) and racial discrimination (the selection of Harris for VP based on color).

So Biden is both a victim and a perpetrator, but as his own worst enemy, he not only continues to feed the negative narrative, his White House staff and campaign staff seem to want to replicate the hidden candidate trick of 2020. Another proxy campaign, where his surrogates, apologists and excuse makers will ignore the bad, tell the country all is well and try desperately to have everyone focus on the evil Donald Trump. Meanwhile Biden will again be on vacation, taking trips or simply back to Delaware again and again.

This will not be something akin to the 19th century back porch campaigns, not in the high speed, instant information space. The President-In-Hiding maneuver may well backfire in this cycle, age discrimination or not, yielding a reductionism of the politically neurotic – it’s always about Trump.

And we are one terrorist act away from a brand-new ballgame.