Biden weak and divisive president, radicalized Democrats. Interview with Tom Packer
After the assault on Capitol Hill and the end of the Trump presidency, new-born President Joe Biden finds himself ruling a highly polarized country. We discussed the possible scenarios with Dr. Tom Packer ( Institute of the Americas , University College London , and Rothmere American Institute , Oxford)
ARIANNA CAPUANI: What are the prospects now for the Republican Party, after the defeat of Trump and the loss of the majority in the Senate?
TOM PACKER: Like all opposition parties, the Republicans will resist. In a sense it will not be very coherent, since American parties are not like the League or the Democratic Party in Italy, they do not have the same structure. That's why Trump became president, it is as if in Italy all right-wing voters could vote for the right-wing candidate, and the same happened for left-wing voters. Republicans are very consistent with Biden's political agenda, and reiterate their opposition to the expansion of the welfare state, and to secularism and progressivism on social issues. The majority of Biden on the other hand are so small that they will struggle to achieve their goals. In legislative terms, Biden could end up making a much more moderate version of their program.
In short, the prospects are not so bad for the Gop. You have to consider the old rule that once a president is elected, opposition begins. Congress tends to favor the opposition party. For example, when George W. Bush was elected, the House of Representatives and the Senate were Republicans, and the same happened with Obama. Right now the Democrats have a very small, one-vote majority in the Senate, and a weak majority in the House, and it won't be difficult for the Republicans to win back both.
I don't think Trump will decide to form a party, in the American system it is very difficult to make them work. He could run as a spoiler for the next election, but I don't think that's his intention. These are tasks that require persistence and the acceptance of possible defeat, which does not suit Trump's character very much.
Several parallels have been made with Ross Perot, because both are anti-globalization, anti-immigration, skeptical of free trade, real outsiders . But there are also some notable differences. Ross Perot was much more ideologically focused, besides being a billionaire. Running as an independent is very expensive. Trump could fundraise , but he couldn't spend the money on himself or his corporations, and that's why I don't think he'll stand as a third candidate. He has no intention of overspending and losing business opportunities.
AC: The new president Biden inherited a divided country. What do you think he will do to mend the tear?
TP: Biden has already taken some steps in what he considers the right direction to mend the tear of the Trump years, he tends to avoid personal confrontation. It seems not to bear a grudge, just think of the choice of Kamala Harris. During the primary campaign, Harris claimed that Biden was racist because of his stance against "bussing," but that didn't stop Biden from putting it in his ticket after he defeated her in the primary. However, the division in America today does not come out of nowhere, the anger behind Trump has been caused by the fear of social progressivism, extreme secularism and the fear of too deep a transformation of society by mass immigration, which Joe Biden intends to accelerate. If he succeeds in his intent, this will cause a reaction, as always happens in a democracy, as in Italy in the 1950s, a country polarized on the fundamental ideas of nation and God. Biden will therefore be divisive, but I don't think he will behave in mean way.
The question of the new anti-terrorism law is interesting. Simplifying, it could simply mean that anyone who commits political crimes can be arrested and legally prosecuted at the federal level instead of by individual states and, therefore, to give an example, that you become prosecutable whether you burn a shop by writing “Trump is the real president ”(Which still does not appear to have ever happened, ed ), whether it is done by writing Black Lives Matter . Of course, targeting other people's property is already illegal, but making it a federal crime would create a criminal offense if the stake were made for political purposes. It could seriously break the spiral of violence in America, but if on the other hand it was aimed only at punishing right-wing extremists, it would only exacerbate the divisions that already exist. Not to mention that, due to the second amendment, such a measure would be declared unconstitutional.
Basically, Biden doesn't have a strong majority in Congress. I know I'm repetitive, but it's very similar to the Italian situation – without a real majority, there are serious limits to the action of a president. Among other things, parties are internally divided and accountable to their constituents at the level of individual states. Take as an example Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the most right-leaning Democrat in the Senate right now. West Virginia voted for Trump by a 40-point margin, and therefore is particularly interested in not upsetting supporters of the outgoing president. And that also limits Biden's powers.
And then, of course, the Supreme Court. The new conservative majority is a major counterweight to Biden. Conservative American judges take religious freedom very seriously – it is not possible for them to discriminate on the basis of religious belief, even if it favors a disadvantaged minority. If Biden were to support the immediate expulsion from universities of those accused of rape without trial, or if he were to force the hand of religious organizations, for example by forcing them to hire staff whose lifestyles do not align with their principles, the measures could be declared unconstitutional.
Parties, meanwhile, have become much more identitarian, and today those who profess a religious faith tend to vote on the right, and the less religious on the left, with the exception of African Americans, who are quite religious but almost all sided with the Democratic Party. . In 1950, Americans were shocked by the political polarization in Italy, and now they find themselves in exactly the same situation. More and more Americans would find themselves uncomfortable if their children marry someone from the opposite political faction, and this is not because the political involvement of ordinary people has increased, but because political identity is now part of the social one.
For example, President Biden has supported a law that would keep abortion legal until birth, protecting it from individual state interventions and subsidizing it, thereby tying hands to employers and insurance companies. But I don't believe, in fact, he will try to implement his intent. Similarly, Trump claims he wants to ban abortion in almost all cases, but Roe vs Wade cannot be overturned in Congress, and many Americans would be scared of illegal abortion, especially in extreme cases. Republicans and Democrats tend to live in different places: just as Southern Italy was very Christian Democrat, rural and suburban areas tend to be Republican majority, while ethnic minorities and city dwellers tend to vote Democrat. I think Biden has tried to position himself as a figure capable of restoring unity to the country, but at the moment the Democrats are decidedly radicalized, ready to consider Trump, if not a fascist tout court , a pseudo-fascist.
AC: What will the Biden administration's relations be with the European Union and with the UK post-Brexit?
TP: Obviously Biden will be more pro-EU than the outgoing president, Democrats tend to weave better relations with European leaders (with the exception perhaps of Viktor Orban). But I also don't think there will be many differences with Trump, who has not tried to undermine European interests apart from imposing tariffs. While he has often talked about troop withdrawal, this has not actually happened – and Biden, by the way, would like Europe to spend more on defense. It would have been interesting if we had opted for a hard Brexit , but it seems unlikely now. In general, I believe Biden conceives of himself a more conciliatory role with the allies that Trump had turned away (even if the UK was not among them). Cultural, military and intelligence ties will certainly not fail. In short, I do not believe that there will be any significant changes in the link between the United Kingdom and the United States. Even the only detail that could have put it in crisis, the Northern Irish border, is a more or less solved problem.
AC: Are there any emerging figures in the Republican Party who could reap Trump's legacy?
TP: This is a very interesting question. There are a lot of potential candidates, and if Trump decides to run again I doubt he would win the nomination , but it wouldn't surprise me if you had to choose between him and another candidate. Looking at the polls, Pence is in an extremely favorable position. After Trump, he is the character Republicans place the most trust in. While he has been loyal to Trump, he lacks some of his questionable aspects, and he certainly cannot be accused of inspiring the Capitol Hill uprising. Among others, some Trumpians and nationalists and Christians such as Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri, and others who were not Trumpians were on good terms with the former president, such as Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina. He will probably run, although I don't think he is a competitor of the same strength as Pence, but it is still early and the surprises could be many, as Trump was in 2016.
The post Biden weak and divisive president, radicalized Democrats. Interview with Tom Packer appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/biden-presidente-debole-e-divisivo-democratici-radicalizzati-intervista-a-tom-packer/ on Mon, 15 Feb 2021 04:57:00 +0000.