Donald Trump is relishing his most recent “relative” rise in polling (notably in swing states) after Joe Biden’s horrific debate performance, Biden’s subsequent failed efforts to relegate that appearance as “one bad day,” leaked stories about the numerous White House visits of a doctor specializing in Parkinson’s, the resulting and growing mistrust in the public that there are Biden medical realities that are not being released to the public, his refusal to have a complete neurological exam (results to be made public), Biden’s lowest approval ratings since this election cycle began, Democratic Congress people publicly asking Biden to step down, a revolt among serious Biden donors backing off additional contributions, Biden’s rabid double-down, etc., etc.
What seems to have crossed Trump’s mind is that all this represents a genuine opportunity to take a number of independent votes, perhaps even some outraged Democrats, but that effort just might require that he moderate some his extreme rhetoric and name-calling, if this is even possible given his undisciplined, reactive personality. This could impact his selection of a running mate at the GOP convention in Milwaukee. Trump’s inner circle of extremists, from Steve “I’m in jail now” Banon to the litany of former White House senior advisors and operatives, mostly lawyers, who took careful notes of Trump rally pledges.
Many of those dedicated White House Trumpers translated those harangues into a massive policy document, totally tracking each and every Trumpian pronouncement with implementing directives and vetted personnel. Over 900 pages dutifully prepared under the aegis of the very conservative Heritage Foundation. Project 2025, they call it. But to anyone but a rightwing, autocracy-yearning zealot, that tome reads somewhere between Mein Kampf and any number of books about the “Deep State that secretly runs America.” It does seem to be the MAGAcarta.
That Trump has always supported and been supported by the Heritage Foundation (look carefully at the background in the above photograph) and that lots of those who drafted that policy book are very likely to return to a Trump White House notwithstanding, Trump seems to have made two observations after reveling in the existence of that massive blueprint. First, it is extreme and likely turnoff to those who most oppose Trump as a man who might do away with democracy entirely, but otherwise embrace his policies; his base doesn’t need more convincing. And second – are you listening Trump operatives? – this cadre of Project 2025 authors was getting too big for its collective britches; they were acting as if they had power in a future White House… and we know in Trumpland, only Trump has the power! And so, Trump made it clear that Project 2025 was not his approved creation.
Heritage humbly responded with this Tweet on July 5th: “As we’ve been saying for more than two years now, Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy & personnel recommendations for the next conservative president.”
But another opportunity seemed to have fallen into Trump’s lap: a potential attitudinal shift among NATO countries that have been hinting that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for NATO, global trade and European interests. As reported in the July 8th Wall Street Journal, there is a growing feeling among those allies that since Biden may not be electable if he stays in the race, they better make nice-nice with Trump. The NATO meeting in Washington, D.C. in the second week of July created a bit of back channeling by NATO ministers to the Trump campaign.
One particular leader stands out, a conservative darling and a bit on the outs with many EU nations for his trade, immigration and internal rising autocratic policies vis-à-vis the media, his opponents and his critics, plus his increasing leaning in Vladimir Putin’s direction. “Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán, an enfant terrible of the [NATO] alliance. has bucked long-standing diplomatic tradition by taking sides in the U.S. presidential race. He’s openly backing Republican Donald Trump and dramatically expanding his ties to the U.S. right.
“American conservatives, meanwhile, are flocking to Hungary for conferences. Some are saying Orbán’s increasingly dictatorial rule — he calls it ‘illiberal democracy’ — should be a model for America… Given incumbent President Joe Biden’s recent debate debacle, Orbán is likely pleased with his bet. But is it really smart for him, or any foreign leader, to take the risk of favoring one political party when dealing with the United States?
“The prevailing wisdom in most capitals, including Washington, has long been that it’s best to stay neutral in other nations’ political contests. After all, in the end, you need to get along with whoever wins… But as America’s political polarization deepens, more foreign leaders may decide the best way to protect their country’s interests, or their own, is to cozy up to a single U.S. party.
“If a foreign leader sides with the U.S. party that wins the White House, the benefits are obvious. Even if that party loses, its partisan animus will likely drive it to block many administrative or legislative actions from the other side, including ones targeting their friends abroad… Some leaders may decide to curry favor with one party only on some divisive issues. But in a more partisan environment — where even foreign policy, once an area of broad consensus, is no longer immune from acrimony — there will be more areas where Democrats and Republicans will refuse to compromise.” Politico, July 8th. But all those nasty statements about Trump, while justified, have already taken too many European leaders out of even a neutral track.
I’m Peter Dekom, and if Biden stays in the race long enough, there may no way for the Dems to mount, fully and effectively, the program of policy directives that were the most compelling aspects of their platform.
No comments:
Post a Comment