INTO THE “BIDEN ERA”

Very quickly a number of public issues pushed forward as America turned in new directions in the new Biden Era.

The rush for the American borders.  Not surprisingly, America is a very attractive destination for those Central Americans – and a huge number of Haitians – wanting to escape the poverty, crime, horrible hurricanes, and more recently the Covid-19 pandemic.  But is America itself ready to accept a flood of such people, a flood that would certainly change deeply the very social-cultural character of the nation?

Biden, in his run for the presidency, made it very clear that he and the Democratic Party were strongly in favor of opening its doors to just such a flood of people … claiming humanitarian motives in doing so.  The Republicans, backed by a strong Trump resolve, were highly opposed … advocating instead more walls and tighter restrictions designed to slow up and possibly even halt an apparent flood. 

And of course this supposedly placed Biden and the Democrats on superior moral ground as the more “humane” party … in comparison to the “inhumane” nature of the Republican position.  But in fact, those that understood the politics behind both positions in this debate also understood that the Democrats were looking forward to a grand increase in their electoral support by bringing these immigrants into the American political process – probably with quick amnesty for them as “illegals,” followed up by an equally speedy naturalization process. 

It is well understood by both parties that these immigrants come from a culture that promised welfare (socialism) in return for their support … and that these immigrants, by political instinct, would certainly be receptive to the same offering in their newly adopted homeland.  In short, they are most likely to vote Democrat if given the choice … and both parties know this. 

But one fact is inescapable, namely, that it is the supposed humane character of Central American Socialism that is the reason their economies failed, most cruelly in Honduras … but bad elsewhere in Central America.  And with this economic collapse has gone the collapse of the moral foundations of these societies… as the people scramble for whatever material support they can find, even if it comes violently.  Thus an exploding crime rate has also accompanied this economic collapse in those countries.

The rights and duties of the American voter.  Another issue which follows the lines of the immigration debate is this matter of how much discipline does the American voting process need in order to maintain its integrity (the Republicans) or the broadness of its reach (the Democrats).  It is well-known that many American residents do not vote, for various reasons.  The Democrats suspect that those non-voters would likely be Democratic Party voters if they would but just turn out.  Therefore it becomes imperative for the Democrats to make the vote as easy as possible for everyone.  And Covid-19 certainly strengthened that position, with the sending out of ballots that could simply be mailed in, well ahead of voting day, and even in some cases in an allotted time period after that date.  The Republicans fought this move, claiming that mailed-in votes have no way of being authenticated as to who it was that actually voted … and how many times they might have voted, and what ultimately happened to those mailed-in ballots. 

Trump even went on to claim that he had lost the vote in a number of states because of the ease by which fraud was brought into the new voting dynamic … although he could offer no actual evidence for this claim.  But it did raise the question:  what can be done to preserve the integrity of the vote?

Republicans want the vote to be done the old way:  at a voting station, by a person on record as eligible to vote in that district, and with proper identification, usually just a driver’s license … although identification cards are supposedly available everywhere for non-driving adults.  Democrats answer that such restrictions are designed merely to discourage the nervous voter (supposedly a Democratic Party voter) and thus should be disallowed by law, which the Democrats are working on getting put through (again, principally by way of the federal courts).

This became such an emotional issue that even corporate America jumped in on it … with the state of Georgia finding itself at the center of a deeply emotional battle over its tightening the disciplines of voting in that state.  Georgia’s new standards were actually no more restrictive than, say for instance, New Jersey’s … except that New Jersey is generally considered to be a reliably Democratic Party state, whatever the disciplines, and Georgia is something of a critical swing state.  Thus there was a call by Democrats to boycott Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines, headquartered in Georgia … in order to bring pressure to bear on Georgia to back down on its new identification requirements for voting in that state.  Likewise the All-Star baseball games were pulled out of Georgia as punishment for the state’s new rulings … and American Airlines and Dell went on record in their loud opposition to the Georgia voting issue.

Congress of course jumped into the issue with its “For the People Act” (H.R.1), passed in the House along purely party lines, 220-210 … but held up in the Senate, not able to secure a majority there,  The idea of this bill was to take away from the states their constitutional right to determine their own voting procedures, and give that right over to a federal commission … as if federal commissions were never politically partisan!  Also, it eliminated all identity checks … making it possible for even illegal immigrants to vote.  It is easily understandable therefore why the Democrats supported this measure and the Republicans opposed it.

And ultimately, it would be yet another step in ending the checks and balances system of the American Constitution, giving federal authorities in Washington yet another major piece of power by which to govern the country.

Making Washington, D.C. a new “state.”  In early January of 2021, a bill was introduced with 202 co-sponsors (Democrats, naturally) to create a new state entitled “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth” (named after Frederick Douglass), with two voting Senators and one Representative allotted it, members of the Democratic Party to be sure.  Whether this would require amending the Constitution (changing the provisions of the 23rd Amendment) or not is debatable, and how the American voting public at large stands on this matter also seems debatable – depending of course on whose poll you consult.  Of course, Biden and Harris are also supporters of this action.

“Reforming” the Supreme Court.  There has been much anger among Democrats over the fact that Trump was able to nominate three individuals to the Supreme Court, ending the small majority that the Left-leaning justices once commanded.  Consequently, the Democrats have put forward the idea of “reforming” the Supreme Court … by adding four more justices to the bench, that is, by “packing” the Court with Biden nominees – something designed to swing the Court back to the Left politically.  Roosevelt attempted such a “reform” in 1937 … and it backfired greatly – not even Roosevelt’s Democratic Party allies willing to go down this road when it appeared clearly that the American people were convinced that such “reform” was merely another form of political authoritarianism that Roosevelt was increasingly being accused of … at a time, the 1930s, when authoritarianism seemed to be a general trend around the world.  Remembering the Roosevelt episode, Biden has moved cautiously on the matter, merely setting up a 36-member commission to “study” the issue carefully.  What comes of all this will of course depend ultimately on how the winds of politics blow in the days ahead.

The debate over High-tech’s censoring of internet communications.  Not surprising, considering the cultural power they command, some of internet’s biggest communities have jumped into the political arena.   A former president of the United States, Trump, has been banned from having any further public voice by Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, and a number of other internet biggies … for political-moral reasons of their own.  But they do have the power.  And they are most willing to use it.

This in turn raises some deeply serious questions.  As anyone should know, a person, group, society, or whatever, can easily find any reason it wants – and justify it morally any way it wants – in order to manipulate and control the public voice.  In short, these major sources of the public voice are completely free to shape and control that voice any way they want.

But such unlimited power inevitably leads to self-justifying tyranny.  And for a free society such as America has proudly seen itself to be (relatively so, anyway), such control raises all kinds of questions … and fears.  And questions and fears can go in most any direction.

What can America do to keep the public conversation open – and within bounds – and without the conversation referees (Facebook, etc.) deciding which part of the conversation they are going to allow and which part are they going to shut down? 

This is only going to be an even more important matter in the fast-developing world ahead of us.  And yet no one seems to have any good ideas on the matter.  All that is heard is just more ideology, supported by clever moral argument.  But it needs clarification and broad agreement in America … before such unashamedly authoritarian powers as China and Russia take a larger hand in the world of internet communication.

The Federal state’s growing share of the American economy.  Biden and the Democrats have pushed hard for a multi-trillion-dollar federal “infrastructure” program put forward by the Democrat-controlled House – which the Senate has done its best (complements of a Democrat and Republican balance in the number of seats each holds in the Senate) to pare down in size … to avoid a further expansion of the government’s debt – as of this writing almost $28 trillion and still climbing rapidly.

Biden claims he will bring a $3.5 trillion budget closer to a balance by enacting new corporate taxes, raising the rate from 21% to 28% of corporate earnings … with the Republicans replying that to maintain corporate profitability, companies will be required to raise the prices of their goods and services to cover the new tax expenses, thus adding to an inflation rate that is already growing.

Also, there is much contention over the word “infrastructure,” which this new programming is principally all about.  The Republicans see government infrastructure in traditional terms:  mostly just roads and bridges (that indeed to need repair), which the Republicans are willing to support.  But the Democrats see infrastructure in far broader terms, everything from a government-supported change in American lifestyles (carbon-free energy and a “greener” approach to domestic development), education of the young, and increase in welfare support … the latter quite urgent because of the flood of immigrants coming to this country.  In short, “infrastructure” is about ideology and politics … and not just about material development of the nation by the federal government – which itself had only very limited constitutional support prior to Roosevelt’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society.