How bad a President is Donald Trump?  Is he a good but misunderstood President?  Depending on your politics and where you get your news, he is dishonest, incompetent and perhaps insane, or he is the crafty businessman, courageous in reversing long-standing but counter-productive policies, and someone who has brought us three years of peace and prosperity.  Where is the truth?  How do you get  people in each camp to a common vision of the President?

Taking on this perhaps impossible mission requires a willingness to set aside one’s political preferences, be as unemotional as possible, and research a few statistics. It’s not easy. Five minutes of discussion on impeachment can result in F-bombs and broken friendships.  And it will only get worse as the House proceeds with impeachment proceedings this fall.

The question of assessing Trump is not an assessment of whether he committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” or criminal offenses. Rather, it involves looking at his record in a larger context and including things cited as evidence of a successful Presidency.

Here are a few things to consider:

Record low unemployment rates.  Few would have imagined the current rate of 3.5 percent possible.  For African Americans, it’s 5.5 percent, still too high, but a record low worth celebrating.

A healthy economy.  The economy, as evidenced in a positive GDP growth and a robust stock market, is doing well for most of us. Some have been predicting a recession for the last two years, but it hasn’t come.  Does Trump get the credit because of his tax and regulatory policies? 

Trade. Perhaps in no other area has Trump broken more with his predecessors than in the area of trade. His efforts to address trade imbalances and protect American intellectual property are well documented. The fact that Bernie Sanders, among others, has suggested that something needs to be done to re-invigorate American industry tells you something.  You may disagree with the trade war that has resulted and fear its long-term consequences, but it’s impossible to dismiss the fact Chinese imports are down.

Peace.  While some may argue that as long as any U.S. troops are in harm’s way the country is not at peace, the fact is that no new wars have been initiated despite, and perhaps because of, Trump’s often belligerent tones with North Korea, Iran, and others. Teddy Roosevelt is praised for his “Speak softly but carry a big stick” foreign policy. Trump rarely speaks softly, but he is carrying a big stick and is perceived by adversaries as willing to use it. 

Resetting America’s relationship with our allies. While some believe Trump is jeopardizing the long-standing relationships with allies like Germany, his call for NATO members to pay “their fair share” of the cost of the military alliance has produced results. Were allies like Germany and Japan taking American support for their defense for granted?  If so, they are not doing that now.

Loss of World Leadership.  America is no longer seen as a world leader by many of our allies. The best example is the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords. If you believe climate change is a global threat, withdrawal from this agreement, whatever its flaws, must be seen as a negative.  In addition, Trump’s practice of making world-impacting decisions unilaterally has hurt.

Undermining civility in political debate.  For this one, there are more than a thousand actions that may be cited as evidence.  Should Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff be tried for treason? Should Mitt Romney be impeached?  Should any President use foul language at rallies or anywhere else?

Racism.  Is calling Mexicans rapists and criminals evidence of racism?  What about enhanced immigration policies?  Please note that some view the restrictive immigration policies as a positive, does anyone really support splitting up families and some of the other harsh practices documented in the last two years on the border?

Appointment of incompetent or corrupt officials to public offices.  Pruitt, Perry, Carson, Ross and DeVos, are but five examples.  There are dozens more.  And are you okay with nepotism?

Unstable executive leadership. No, despite claims by some to the contrary, I’m not talking about Trump himself.  Rather, it’s the endless resignations, firings, and acting appointments to dozens of positions, including 2 of 15 cabinet offices, and 11 others to senior appointments, including the director of OMB and National Intelligence, as well as the President’s own chief of staff. Why can’t this administration vet officials before appointing them?

Russia.  Is Russia our friend or ally?  While proof of their interference in the 2016 elections is dispositive, Trump has appeared beholden to Putin. What is going on?

The National Debt.  Did Trump let the National debt get “out of control?”  The $22.6 trillion National Debt is indeed increasing, notwithstanding campaign promises to the contrary, but Trump is arguably no worse than other recent Presidents.  Clinton, aided by a strong economy, is an exception.

Private inurement.  The allegation is that Trump is using the Presidency for his personal gain. This allegation is supported by the military using one of his golf resorts in Ireland during refueling stops and, of course, the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Are these things illegal?  That is currently under investigation/resolution. Until then, the jury is out.

Corruption. Some argue Trump is no more corrupt than the Clintons, Obama, or, most recently, Joe Biden. Do two wrongs make a right?   

Tweeting. Trump’s tweets are hated by many but, in fact, represent a new chapter in Presidential transparency. Although his writings are highly selective, few would argue that this President speaks more to the American public, and more directly, than any President before him.

Supreme Court nominees. The bruising battle over Judge Kavanaugh is now behind us but calls for his impeachment continue. Depending on your politics, you will like or dislike Trump’s two appointments to date. Both have proven to be exactly what he promised, conservative votes on the Nation’s highest court.

Okay, so where does this leave us?  For this writer, the negatives far outweigh the positives.  Despite the positives, the negatives, most of them resulting from Trump’s volatility, disdain for expert advice, racism, and his New York real estate world view, render him a disaster. More importantly, I fear what Trump may do in coming months as the impeachment process proceeds. 

We live in troubled times. Trump’s problems are not going away.  It will get worse. Stay tuned.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.

President Trump will be impeached, possibly before Christmas. This sobering reality is setting in as the evidence against Trump builds.  His request for a favor from Ukrainian President Zelensky, bolstered by the withholding of American military assistance, is widely viewed as an illegal impeachable offense.  News as October starts includes involvement by Attorney General Barr and Secretary of State Pompeo in the scandal.  Trump’s response to the whistleblower, his imprudent tweets, attempting to cover up evidence, suggesting a civil war will break out if he is removed from office and accusing a Member of Congress of treason, is perhaps worse.

Trump’s Presidency is in jeopardy and he knows it. His response is that of a shady New York real estate developer in trouble with the regulators—deny everything, throw up a smokescreen, accuse the accuser, and fight back with everything you got. That approach is not likely to work in Washington, especially now that the evidence against him is overwhelming and growing. Urgency has replaced hesitancy as Democrats are no longer afraid to take Trump on. Impeachment seems inevitable.

As this sad story unfolds, we will come to understand Trump better. Among the insights on the horizon is that he did not realize that asking the Ukrainian President for a favor was wrong, that hiding evidence of his conversation with Zelensky was illegal, and that, of course, lying is not okay, even if you believe all politicians lie.  If you are “the most powerful man in the world,” can’t you do whatever you want?  Isn’t it true that the President is immune from criminal prosecution?  And can’t he just pardon himself?

Trump is a believer in the adage that all is fair in love and politics. His rise to the Presidency reinforced his belief that to win you must fight.  What many see as moral failings or worse, he sees as evidence of his strength and leadership.  And given his belief that his political opponents, including the press, are out to get him, he no doubt feels justified in hitting back, hard.

Better understanding Trump, or thinking that you do, doesn’t make what is happening any less unsettling. In many ways, it makes it worse. Damage has been done, and more is coming.  The impeachment process itself will be ugly. And Trump’s reactions if the Senate removes him from office could be worse.  Would he leave or would he claim the process was rigged and refuse to exit? 

Many of the President’s opponents are expressing relief that the Trump era may soon be over. If he goes, that relief may be short lived.  A President Pence would trigger a year of world-wide confusion about who is running the country.  He is unknown to most, here and abroad, and his extreme views on many matters preclude his ability to reunify the country in the way Gerald Ford did after Nixon. Even worse, Trump’s departure is likely to leave the Republican party in irreparable shambles.  The party has been tarred with the racism, incompetence, and greed of Trump and the cowardly responses of Congressional Republicans to it.  Many believe the brand has been permanently destroyed. And until a new party emerges to represent limited government, balanced budgets, free trade, and neutrality on social issues, we may effectively have one-party rule in most of the country.

These are unsettling times for America. As citizens, we can only hope that the nightmare ends soon and that a rebuilding process begins.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy. He is the former chairman of the National College Access Network (NCAN), a group promoting success in higher education among underrepresented groups, and KnowledgeWorks Foundation, a national leader in strategic foresight and education innovation.   

Donald Trump’s dream is that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination for President. Recent polls, while documenting Bernie’s slow fade from the national stage, also shows Biden continuing to lose support. The emerging winner may be Senator Warren. If this happens, Trump’s dream may become real. He may get to run against a Democrat susceptible to ridicule and who scares many independent voters.  

Why is Warren doing so well? What is her appeal? It seems to be her anger, her certainty on who the enemy is, and her cornucopia of big promises. At least for now, this formula appears to be a winner, especially when you suggest your new programs won’t cost average taxpayers a dime.

If this sounds good, why not take it up a notch? Despite a generally good economy, why not suggest the country is on the threshold of economic doom?  Many voters are halfway there already. Polls show voters, especially younger ones, uneasy about Trump, climate change and their own future. They are ready for Warren. She’s giving them the message they want to hear.

For good or for ill, the voters most receptive to Warren are not those who will determine who gets inaugurated in 2021.  The possibility of a Warren campaign on steroids should make anyone nervous. Unfortunately, however, appealing to moderate voters to date has been a ticket to irrelevance for everyone in the race except Joe Biden.  Because of this Warren, hoping to build momentum, and other candidates, hoping to replace Warren as the emerging front-runner, we are likely to see more “big plans.” But what could be promised that has not already been offered by one of the progressives in the race?

Here are a few examples, not things that a moderate would propose, but which would not surprise anyone if proposed in coming weeks by either Senator Warren or Bernie Sanders:

“Cars for all.” Just as healthcare is arguably a basic human right that must be reflected in a plan, so too is transportation.  People without cars or other easy means to get from one place to another are handicapped. They can’t accept many jobs because they can’t get to them. They frequently can’t go to school or job training for the same reason. And they may not be able to access healthcare because patients go to doctors rather than doctors to patients.  The cost would be more than $15 billion a year, one might guess, but the beauty of this idea is that you can claim it will pay for itself. The people who get cars or “transportation vouchers” under the program would become more productive. And more productive people pay more taxes. These taxes would pay for the program. It’s like magic.  Also, cars provided would be electric, something that would help combat climate change and create new green jobs.

A National Workers’ Holiday Month.  Instead of unimaginatively adding a new national holiday or two, why not mandate a full month?  And why not name it after those citizens who, under the current system, will never be able to take a full month off work?  The month would be August, just like France, and not only would non-essential federal offices close, but most private sector business would also be required to shut down. The month off would be a definite crowd pleaser, but, more importantly, climate changing pollution would decrease dramatically for a month and, because the economy would have to make up the production lost to the holiday, unemployment would drop.  With less unemployment comes less welfare, which would save the government lots of money. Businesses would also save on air conditioning costs and, well, you know the rest. Advocates of this proposal are likely to argue that it would not adversely impact the economy because people would work harder in September when they returned to work. They would also argue that the shut-down would save the government and business overhead costs. 

Free Cable /Streaming TV for All.  Many low-income Americans do not have access to HBO, Showtime, Netflix, Amazon Prime or even the Cartoon Network.  This is creating a cultural elite of one class of citizens getting premium channels and networks and others stuck with the legacy networks of NBC, ABC, PBS, CBS, and Fox.  This is not fair. The solution is to require all media companies to make their programming available for free on a broadcast channel. If a consumer still wants to pay for cable TV, it would be their right to do so.  But those without $200 a month to spend on television would no longer have to pretend they don’t like Game of Thrones and other TV.  This proposal would cost the government nothing because the “donation” of the programming would be required as a condition of being licensed by the federal government.  The government would also benefit by being able to include sponsored messages on its new channels. More anti-smoking public service announcements, for example, would reduce government-paid healthcare costs.  The money saved here could be used to provide Smart TVs to those citizens who will need one to tune into their free programming. 

I could go on, but I suspect you get where this is headed.  We haven’t seen the worst of the “big ideas” that some candidates may be working on even as I write this.  Please also know that I am most definitely not proposing any of these “impossible dreams.”  The three examples offered here are not intended as thought-starters for Warren, Bernie, or some other candidate hoping to jump-start a moribund campaign.

America needs a moderate candidate to get the Democratic nomination and to win the Presidency in 2020.  Some might like some of my tongue-in-cheek “impossible dreams.” But defeating Trump requires not alienating swing voters and being a good President means not bankrupting the country by nationalizing anything not nailed down.  Elections should not be run on the candy store model with candidates tripping over themselves to win voters with the biggest promises. 

Donald Trump is dreaming about a candidate he can call a socialist.  We owe it to ourselves not to let that happen.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy. He is the former chairman of the National College Access Network (NCAN), a group promoting success in higher education among underrepresented groups, and KnowledgeWorks Foundation, a national leader in strategic foresight and education innovation.

Did you remember Bill Maher calling President Trump “more of a gross creep than Harvey Weinstein”?  How about Jimmy Kimmel saying that the President “has the memory and the skin tone of a goldfish” after he remarked that he’d never heard of a Category 5 hurricane?  And John Oliver of Last Week Tonight, not wanting to miss out on the fun, mocked Melania Trump in a piece on Trump’s proposal to buy Greenland.  He described Greenland as “icy, distant, and semi-autonomous” and added, “It’s exactly Trump’s type” while showing a picture of Trump and First Lady Melania. Nice. Were you rolling around on the floor in laughter? Are you secretly dreading the end of the Trump era because Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, or Amy Klobuchar are tougher material for comedians to work with?

If you are among the millions of Americans who get much of their news through shows originally developed as comedy such as  Last Week Tonight and The Daily Show, or who have chosen to get your news through outlets with a focused bias, such as Fox or MSNBC, you are in the mainstream. Only about 10 percent of Americans rely primarily on newspapers for news today. Is this a good thing? In 1816, Thomas Jefferson said “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”  Would Jefferson consider voters who got most of their news in the form of political satire well informed? I doubt it.  

A friend recently suggested that “politics as comedy” unintentionally aids the re-election of Trump.  Heaven forbid! The suggestion is that the Trump base, like Trump himself, is thin-skinned and rises to defend the President when he is under attack. What better way to voice your rejection of the anti-Trump media than to vote for him?

Political comedy is nothing new. A reading of Aristophanes will tell you that the treatment of Trump is not much different than that afforded to various Greek politicians of ancient times.  Political comedy also has been with us throughout our history. Remember those skits of Gerald Ford falling down the stairs of Air Force One on SNL? Or Tina Fey’s ridicule of Sarah Palin?  What about Al Gore and his social security lockbox or the ridicule that ensued when he claimed to invent the Internet? No major political figure has been spared. If anything is different with Trump, maybe it stems from his propensity to do and say ridiculous things.  

Today we are witnessing an endless flow of political satire, most of it directed at Trump, his family, or his policies. The audience, presumed by many to consist of Democrats and “Trump-haters” continues to grow, suggesting that voters’ understanding of Trump is growing.  But is it? And is my friend right in suggesting that political satire may work to Trump’s benefit in 2020?  

The theory of the resolution of cognitive dissonance suggests that once voters make a choice, as 61.9 million did in 2016, attacks on their choice prompt them to defend it.  Thus, when a comedian calls Trump a “Nazi” for his immigration policy, Trump voters see it as an attack on themselves. The effect can also extend to policies, such as immigration or even climate change denial, and lead to new support for Trump, if voters see attacks on Trump for his positions on these issues as attacks on themselves.   

If comedy targeting Trump is working to his benefit, what can or should be done?   The answer is probably nothing beyond encouraging awareness of the role of comedy in politics today.  Any attempt to censor comedians not only violates the Constitution, it would also fail. Also, sympathy may be created for Trump because the attempt to silence the comedians would unintentionally “confirm” that the “attacks” on Trump were wrong.  Most comedians and most commenters on news programs would also, correctly, ignore the unconstitutional attempts to stop the ridicule.  

Thus, those of us who would like to see a more disciplined, issue and fact-based campaign, need to resign ourselves to more political satire.  Better yet, enjoy the satire, but remember that it is not news. Watch Fox or MSNBC but remind yourself that what you are hearing is anything but fair and balanced.  Perhaps we should encourage friends and neighbors to diversify their information sources and encourage discussion of real issues. Perhaps most importantly, we should remind ourselves that the ridicule of Trump that often seems ubiquitous is not a sign of his impending political demise. If Trump is to be defeated, it will take more than a few jokes from Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Fallon to make it happen.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy. He is the former chairman of the National College Access Network (NCAN), a group promoting success in higher education among underrepresented groups, and KnowledgeWorks Foundation, a national leader in strategic foresight and education innovation. 

Now that the field has been set for September 12, we are likely to witness the first real event of the 2020 primary season.  The debate will feature only 10 candidates, arguably still too many, and, more importantly, only one night of debate with all the candidates on the same stage.  Each candidate will have more time to talk and comment on the remarks of other debaters. This will work to the benefit of some candidates and to the detriment of others.

The ten candidates we will see on the 12th are Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Sanders, Warren and Yang.  Pundits suggest the focus of the debate will move left due to the failure of several moderates to qualify, including Senators Gillibrand and Bennet, Montana Governor Bullock, Maryland’s own John Delaney, Governors Hickenlooper and Inslee, and Rep. Ryan.

Because the major left-leaning candidates qualified, a hard-fought scrum with some candidates seeking to out-bid others on the “boldness” of their proposals with others seeking to destroy others with “got-ya” type ambushes, is likely.  

With regret, I’m prepared for the worst, especially from candidates for which anything less than a stellar performance will likely mean the end of their campaign. Beto O’Rourke comes to mind. He’s re-tooled his campaign to be more serious.  Right. Maybe some righteous indignation highlighted by flailing arms for effect. Kamala Harris will most likely attempt to reprise her attack on Biden, possibly shifting the target to Warren or Sanders if she’s feeling feisty. Bernie will be, let me be clear, Bernie.   Shouting, he will imply that anyone failing to join “his” revolution is betraying the 99 percent. Elizabeth Warren, steadily climbing in the polls and attracting larger and larger crowds at rallies, will stick to her currently winning script. She has a plan for everything, which makes sense for those who have concluded that both the government and the economy are fundamentally corrupt.  I am not in that camp.

All these performances, should they come to pass, most likely will share one thing:  They will fail the civility test. It should not be this way. Directly attacking other debaters, questioning their motives, or mischaracterizing their records ought to disqualify a candidate from participating in future debates.  That’s not realistic but imagine a special panel of three credentialed Democrats could serve as judges and render an opinion after the debate. Candidates would have to agree to be subject to the rule as a condition of participating.

Of course, don’t expect anything remotely like this attempt at discipline to happen. Unfortunately, any performance not failing the civility test is likely to generate little notice and a drop in the polls. Loud and rude all too frequently, including in 2016, works. Civil and intelligent, often, doesn’t. 

In a worst-case scenario, all ten candidates would be disqualified for future debates and the party would have to retroactively cancel the rule. That won’t happen in the next debate because at least four of candidates have practiced civility, at least to date:  Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Yang. Some would add O’Rourke, Castro and even Booker to the list, but are they really in the same class as the other four candidates in terms of civility?

Given the unlikelihood of a disciplined, civil debate, on the 12th, it will be up to viewers to hold individual candidates accountable. Does the debater portray a basic decency that would make them a model for young people? Does their debate performance suggest an ability to work effectively with others that might not buy into their programs or vision for the country? Will the candidate raise the level of debate nationally out of the gutter to focus on what is good for America and its future?

Most engaged voters already have a perspective and preferences among the candidates on policies and electability. They are less sure on civility. Many believe that only a bully can out bully Trump. These voters like Harris, Warren and Sanders.  Others are looking for the opposite of Trump: Someone evidencing a predisposition to listen rather than shout and who talks to their opponents they way voters like to be talked to themselves. So far Biden, Buttigieg, Yang and Klobuchar best fit this description. 

I will be focusing on candidates’ civility on September 12.  Let’s hope for a civil a debate. The future of our country may not depend on it, but it’s a step in the right direction. 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy. He is the former chairman of the National College Access Network (NCAN), a group promoting success in higher education among underrepresented groups, and KnowledgeWorks Foundation, a national leader in strategic foresight and education innovation.   

Are we in “irreversible decline” as a nation, something exemplified in the Trump Presidency?  That’s a legitimate question to ask, especially when you look at the bigger picture, including things happening that cannot in all fairness be blamed on the President.    

The news this month raises the question of just how healthy America is today.  Media focus on hate-inspired mass shootings has started to subside with few signs of new legislation or answers anywhere on the horizon.  The President’s bizarre tweeting has grown worse. He’s advising Jews that if they vote Democratic, they’re “disloyal.” He proposed the purchase of Greenland, escalated the trade war, and pondered whether the Chairman of the Federal Reserve or Chinese Premier Xi was “the bigger enemy.”  This latter rant, widely described as an “explosion,” sent the Dow down 600 points in a single day, escalating the wild volatility already plaguing the stock market and prompting some pundits to predict a recession.

Then came the news that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was again treated for pancreatic cancer.  Apparently, the prognosis is good. Regardless of your politics, let’s hope for a quick recovery.  The prospect of another brutal confirmation fight, one that might take place in the Senate while the House considers Articles of Impeachment, is something all should dread.

This list of negative news could go on. I could have mentioned the fires in the Amazon rain forest, the depressing 2020 Presidential campaigns, or the continuing misadventures of Boeing and its 737 MAX.  I won’t because as the summer draws to a close, a little hope, a little optimism, and a short vacation from insanity is needed. So, are we headed for a Constitutional crisis, a severe recession, political stalemate, and ecological disaster?  Let’s hope not.   

Here’s why there is hope:

First, with a little luck, Trump may be entering his late innings.  While about 40 percent of Americans still support him, the rest of us seem to have his number.  One of my closest friends told me to chill out because “everyone, including his supporters, knows to ignore everything he says.”  If my friend is correct, we have only about 15 months before a new President is elected. And as election day gets closer and if it appears he is headed for defeat, it will become harder for him to act on the irrational thoughts that seem to enter his head daily.  One also hopes that he will get tired of tweeting, immigration, and foreign policy and play a little more golf. Past failed Presidents have semi-hibernated during the last year in office. With a little luck, Trump will do the same. 

Second is the economy. Many economists believe Trump’s trade war could have a calamitous long-term impact on the economy.  So far, the economy appears to be more robust than many fear. American innovation, as well as low interest rates may be reasons for hope.  One must be grateful for low unemployment rates. And because Trump appears to equate stock market health to that of the entire country, one can hope he will back off economic policies, such as the disastrous trade war with China, if he concludes permanent harm will be done to markets.  His motivations here may be questionable, but if it curtails his trade war, there is a good chance a severe recession could be avoided. It should also be noted that there are those who claim that the US could withstand a brief recession far better than four more years of Trump.   

Third, Republicans may wake up. It is incredible that so few Republicans are willing to call out Trump when he makes an ostensibly racist or outrageous statement.  That could change as election day nears. I don’t believe mainstream Republicans are ready to go down with the Trump ship. Former Rep. Joe Walsh, for example, has announced he will challenge Trump in the primaries.  Will Kasich and Romney follow? And if the Mooch is willing to call out Trump as unfit for office, it is not unreasonable to hope other Republicans may join the bandwagon.

Fourth, it is important to remember that America has weathered other dark periods. The 1960s saw incredible division over the Vietnam War and a brutal battle over civil rights.  In the 70’s there was Watergate. In the 90’s we had the Great Recession. Arguably, America is stronger because of this history. The lessons of Vietnam, for example, while not always followed since, have not yet been forgotten.  And the struggles for civil rights of today clearly build on those of the 1960s, representing progress for the quest for “a more perfect union.” And the demise of Nixon taught us that America can survive a Constitutional crisis or a failed Presidency. 

Not everyone will agree with my analysis.  Good friends tell me the s__tstorm is just starting. I hope not, but, all told, succumbing to hopelessness is not an option. It also is not justified on the facts.  Things will get better. This, however, will not be automatic. Citizen engagement is required. Many candidates for President are looking beyond the Trump era, focusing on the future rather than the past.  Many voters are responding by turning their attention on what can be rather than on what’s wrong today. The current mess has reminded many of us how important our vote is and that there is a lot more to America than just politics. This bodes well for 2020.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy. He is the former chairman of the National College Access Network (NCAN), a group promoting success in higher education among underrepresented groups, and KnowledgeWorks Foundation, a national leader in strategic foresight and education innovation

Should political candidates be given a pass if they make a misstatement or contradict themselves? The question is not as easy as it seems.   Many of us unhappy with the current President cite offensive tweets and comments as evidence of his unfitness for office or his mental decline.  Other candidates appear to be subject to a different standard. For example, I’m ready to overlook Biden’s stumbles, at least for now, because I find them inoffensive.  Apparently, Biden gets a pass while Trump is held accountable.

Dozens of documented statements by the President are offered as proof of his racism. These comments, many of them included in the more than 17,000 tweets Trump has made since January 2017, are damning.   He maligned Latinos as rapists on the day he announced for President and suggested African American neighborhoods are “infested” with crime. Yet last month Trump announced, “I am the least racist person anywhere in the world.”  He also condemned racism and hate crime in a speech after the Charlottesville incidents in 2017, albeit while also observing that there were “very fine people on both sides.”

The number of troubling statements by Trump, many intentional but others apparently inadvertent, is in the hundreds.  Should he be called on it? Or should he get a pass like the one I extend to Biden? Common sense suggests that Trump should be held accountable for his racism to the same extent the rest of us are.  More simply put, Trump’s comments in some cases would get you fired from your job or arrested. Biden’s miscues, while concerning, are benign. 

Earlier this month, the gaffe-prone former Vice President commented that “Poor kids are just as bright, just as talented, as white kids.”  He also suggested he was VP during the 2018 Parkland shootings. Biden corrected both misstatements, but he’s been making similar misstatements or objectionable comments for years.  In 2006, for example, he commented on diversity about his home state: “In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.  I’m not joking.”

Should Biden get a pass because he is a nice guy?  None other than President Trump doesn’t think so. Trump commented, “Joe is not playing with a full deck.”  He added, “This is not someone you can have as your President, . . .“ If Trump is right, maybe Biden should get out of the race.  But Trump himself commented on successful military attacks on airports during the Revolutionary War. And in 2016 he confused 9/11 with 7/11 in a speech about the 9/11 attack on New York when he said, “Because I was down there and watched our police and our firemen down at 7/11, down at the World Trade Center right after it came down…” These and dozens of other comments suggest he may have fewer cards in his deck than Biden.

Should there be a double standard or some sort of attempt to define some gaffes as benign and others not?  Maybe, but should candidates, or any other public figure, be given a set of free passes that exonerate their first 10 or 15 mistakes?  

There is no easy solution that sets a standard for holding leaders accountable for their words.  Any attempt will justifiably be condemned as biased by one side or the other. Given this, maybe a judicial precedent should be looked to as a guide.  In 1964, Justice Potter Steward suggested a movie under review as pornography was not obscene. He commented, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”   

This “standard,” as squishy as it is, will not end the debate on whether Trump is a racist or whether Biden is too old to run for President, but it is a step in the right direction.  It suggests that we need to hold candidates accountable for their words but reflects the inherent difficulty in doing so. I’m ready to condemn Trump for his statement and, for the time being, give Biden a pass, at least for now.  My rationale: Biden is gaffe-prone but is no racist. I also believe it is premature and ageist to say he is “too old.” His repeated misstatements, however, should be a concern for all. Nobody should get a blanket- free pass. If Biden continues to fumble, like a good football coach, I will reconsider whether he should be in the game. In the meantime, I hope he finds a coach to train him to think first, talk second. Stay tuned.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy. He is the former chairman of the National College Access Network (NCAN), a group promoting success in higher education among underrepresented groups, and KnowledgeWorks Foundation, a national leader in strategic foresight and education innovation.

It’s too early to suggest that the El Paso and Dayton mass shootings will change the debate on guns or anything else, but one can hope.  On Monday, President Trump surprised many by condemning white supremacy. Various leaders, led by politicians but also athletes, entertainers, and businessmen, are speaking out.  The media is devoting entire programs to the issue of gun violence and the need for action. I’m encouraged. 

Dozens of pundits have commented that it takes a crisis to bring a community together.  The implication is that without a crisis, a community may be unable to form the type of consensus necessary to act. Skillful politicians know when a crisis has occurred and how to exploit it. Memorably, Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, commented that, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.  And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Emanuel is right. Obama used the Great Recession to enact Obamacare. But only the next few weeks will tell whether the recent mass murders and the universal expectation that more will follow is enough of a crisis to build a national consensus to do something about gun violence. Hopefully it is.

For the time being, hundreds of thousands of people are demanding that something be done to end the epidemic of mass shootings. The ideas are familiar to many of us:  Expanded background checks, banning certain weapons, taking guns away from the documented mentally ill, registering guns, and things like requiring gun owners to maintain liability insurance to pay for the harm their gun might do. It can, of course, be questioned whether any or all these actions would prevent the next mass shooting, but it would be a start.  Whether the political will exists for those in the community who fear gun legislation to change their views is another question. Historically, calls for action after a shooting are loud but short-lived. After the shock of seeing pictures of murdered victims, especially children, things seem to go back to normal.   

Will this time be different?  Hopefully it will, but it won’t happen automatically. Legislators need to hear from enough constituents to become convinced that their jobs are in jeopardy if they “vote wrong.”  Legislators themselves need to demonstrate political courage by addressing those who are skeptical about new gun laws. Trusted legislators telling hunters and other gun owners that banning assault weapons and making it harder to buy a gun is not a forerunner to seizure of all guns will help a consensus to emerge. It can be done.

The drafting of legislation that gives us the best chance of reducing gun violence won’t be written if Democrats focus too much on blaming President Trump and racists for the most recent tragedies.   Progress requires civil discourse. Can Republicans and Democrats set aside the name calling and focus on find the common ground? It’s out there. It may not be everyone’s first choice for a solution, but it also may be our best shot at getting something done.  

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor.  For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy. He is the former chairman of the National College Access Network (NCAN), a group promoting success in higher education among underrepresented groups, and KnowledgeWorks Foundation, a national leader in strategic foresight and education innovation.