Kamala Harris has what it takes to be a good president -- Trump does not

What I hope to see come out of the 2024 election is what I have wanted in every national election since the first one I remember, and that goes way back to 1964.  A path forward to better national prosperity; improved civil rights, especially for persons who are often looked at as "those others;" enhanced national security, much of that through alliances and America being perceived as a global leader in solving problems in ways that share the benefits throughout the global community; national support for and investments in scientific advancements and innovation; and international respect for America's values and integrity.  

For this year specifically I will add this:  Dramatically less divisiveness.  A more unified social and political environment where the opposing groups will disagree respectfully and without hostility.  That's one I've never had to think about before.

I do not believe these goals to be unique to me.  I think they are shared by many, and I also think that they are part of the national heritage.  For two and one half centuries, in fits and in starts, we and our predecessors have made progress on them all.

Leadership is vital

None of these aspirations can be accomplished by any one person, but leadership counts for a lot.  Whatever progress can be made in these areas depends upon whomever becomes President in January 2025.

Kamala Harris has the temperament and the vision to make progress on these goals.  Donald Trump does not -- his temperament and vision would stifle and destroy progress, not encourage and build it.  

Kamala Harris beats Donald Trump on character (she is honest, he is a liar). She is patient and optimistic where he is revanchist and hostile.

Harris will inherit a good economy and continue the policies that have made it so.  Trump inherited a good economy in 2017; he mostly didn't screw it up until the pandemic.  That's when his basic desire for chaos asserted itself, and his chaotic mismanagement laid the groundwork for supply shortages, a primary cause of inflation.

Speaking of inflation: The Inflation Reduction Act of August 2022 -- largely a string of investments in clean energy -- coincided with an annual inflation rate of 8%; too high.  It also coincided with the beginning of a precipitous drop in inflation, now down to about 2.5%.  So, perhaps not such a bad name for that legislation.

Looking forward

Looking forward, Harris will support that set of investments and those of the Infrastructure Act of 2022 so as to continue and increase their benefits.  They would be under threat of repeal or mismanagement from a Trump presidency.  In fact, Trump's plan for deportations and tariffs are a recipe for higher inflation.  Fewer workers means less production which means (once again) higher inflation; higher tariffs are the same as a national tax on consumption (again, higher inflation).  The prices of those items that are tariffed will increase, and the prices of things in which the product contains something that is subject to higher tariff will also increase.

America's prosperity is not well-spread.  Too much goes to too few at the top.  Harris will push for higher income taxes for the wealthiest and the highest earners (a potentially dis-inflationary program), as well as for big business.  Trump's record from his presidency was to dramatically reduce those tax rates, causing a major jump in the Federal debt.  

Let's get that top bracket up a lot, maybe to 50%.  It's been higher in the past and the economy kept growing and was healthy.  When it was brought way down was when we started having the ultra-high pay disparities -- we don't need the highest paid executives making hundreds of times what the typical worker makes, that's where we are now as a legacy of the much lower tax rates for the highest earners.

Harris is for the law; Trump is for the dis-order

Harris has a successful legal background, having been a district attorney and California Attorney General.  She has read and understands the Constitution, the nation's basic set of laws and order.  Trump says he will pardon the convicted insurgents from the January 6 attempt to overturn the 2020 election. . .that's anti-law and pro-disorder.

Unlike Donald Trump, Kamala Harris has never sexually assaulted someone and been found guilty in a court of law.  She has never falsified election-related financials and so been found guilty of many counts of fraud.  Folks, Trump had a jury trial.  He and his lawyers had their say on the jury selection.  In his arrogance, he did not even testify in his own defense!

She is definitely not a bully and has not called for termination of the Constitution so that she can rule without restraint, all of which are Trump positions.  Harris has not tried to force state election officials to "find" votes for her or to change state election results, something that Trump and his legal minions spent months doing in November and December of 2020.

Upon losing the election of 2020, and then being unsuccessful in his attempts to steal the election from Joe Biden, Trump absconded with boxes of classified material.  He kept them in a public bathroom.  Who knows who has seen what, thereby possibly exposing others named in those documents to harm, even death?  And then when the FBI came to investigate and reclaim the items, he obstructed lawful actions.  Not a big deal to Trump, I suppose, following his failure to live up to his oath of office on January 6, 2021.

(Oh, Trump said, Mike Pence won't disqualify the electoral votes so that I can continue being president?  And my insurgents at the Capitol say they want to hang him?  "So what?" as revealed recently by Special Counsel Jack Smith's court filing.  And let's not overlook some other parts of that work which are showing that Trump began this process before the election.)

America will look better to the rest of the world with Harris as President

With her track record as District Attorney, Attorney General and now Vice President, it is clear that Kamala Harris is offering herself up to be in service to the nation for the nation's interests, not for her own.  She has continued to make that clear during her vice-presidency and actions as presiding officer of the Senate.  

Trump with his focus on retribution and divisiveness (signs of being a sociopath) is all about doing this for himself.  Trump's presidency owed something to Russia, a hostile foreign power, and Russia's Vladimir Putin, the man who defines Russia as hostile-to-America-and-the-West-and-all-that-they-represent.  Harris helped to achieve a variety of Federal investments in infrastructure.  The best that Trump could manage was a presidency's worth of "infrastructure weeks."

The Harris campaign is one of America is good, it needs to be better, and here's how we can make that happen.  Trump's campaign, on the other hand, has degenerated into one where, for the first time in American history, he sees those who disagree with him as "enemies within" who should be prosecuted for their political positions, perhaps even beset by U.S. armed forces.

Let me say it differently:  That. Has. Never. Happened. Before. In. American. History.

Kamala Harris is not perfect.  Nobody is.  But she is a decent, caring person who is proposing a presidency that is a much better bet to reduce domestic divisiveness than is Trump's negative, hostile, disloyal to the Constitution, un-American bullying and posturing. 

Harris is thoughtful, experienced, knowledgeable and brave.  She can provide leadership to help make progress on things that matter to Americans.  Trump cannot.  He is increasingly unable to clearly articulate policy; he is often incoherent publicly and shows no ability to act otherwise within the functioning of the government.  He is unaware of proven experiences and facts, and so is without the needed knowledge to make decisions that are in the nation's best interests.  He depends upon his character of being a cowardly bully to carry him along.  This type of presidency would cause a great loss of international respect for America's reliability and integrity.

Harris will represent America to the international community as reliable and committed to values that are the legacy of more than two centuries' worth of history and progress.  Other nations will know that the United States can be trusted to continue a heritage that, for all its flaws, is much more good than otherwise.

American needs Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for President and Vice President.

###

  

How many former U.S. Presidents want immunity from prosecution for criminal acts?

One hundred and seven justices have served on the Supreme Court of the United States prior to the current Court.  Remarkably, only this past week has it come to light that somehow, during a two century period, all 107 missed the part of the U.S. Constitution that confers absolute presidential immunity.  Can you believe that?

No, neither can I.  And that's because the Constitution does no such thing.  It has no provision for presidential immunity from prosecution for potentially criminal acts committed by a person while occupying the office of the presidency.

What we are now calling "immunity" was clearly on the minds of the members of the Constitutional convention of 1787.  A form of immunity does, in fact, appear in the Constitution, but written so that it applies only to members of Congress.  Section 6 of Article I says

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

(The emphasis is mine.)

Article I sets forth the design and responsibilities of the two Houses of Congress.  The above passage provides members of Congress with protection against prosecution for allegedly unlawful speech uttered during Congressional session.  (This privilege "flows" to congressional aides, too.  The Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School provides an extensive background analysis of Section 6 and immunity, as well as of the entire Constitution.)

In the same way that Article I describes Congress, Article II describes the presidency and "executive power."  Nowhere in Article II does any sort of analogue to Congressional immunity appear for the benefit of the President.  I am by no means a Constitutional authority, but the plain evidence of the Constitution's own text convinces me that immunity was a consideration during the Convention, and it was purposely avoided in describing the presidency even while a limited form was written in for Congress.

History and the Declaration of Independence provide us with context for why this should be so.  In 1776, executive power and authority over the thirteen English colonies was vested in the King of Great Britain.  The Declaration sets forth the reasons for independence; the preponderance of those reasons allege criminally unlawful actions taken against the colonies by King George III.  The colonies had no legal recourse because the king was immune from prosecution for these actions. 

It makes no sense to think that distrust and fear of unrestrained executive power exhibited in the work of 1776 would have no direct influence on the writing of the Constitution in 1787.  America's "basic law," the Constitution, provides no presidential immunity.

The current SCOTUS ruling -- made by the Republican-appointed majority, with dissent only from the Democratic-appointed minority (although with potentially significant disagreement from one of the majority) -- strikes me as openly partisan because it benefits former president and convicted felon Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president in this year's election.  I see no way it benefits any other president.

(No other currently-alive former president has lobbied for immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office.  Looking back into 19th century history shows that we've had some real stinkers as president, but none who committed or attempted to commit criminal activities, with the exception of 20th century Richard Nixon.)

Trump wanted this for obvious personal gain -- prosecution of his criminal offenses in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election is probably impossible now before this year's election.  The Court's decision does nothing to rebut the facts of the cases lodged against Trump, but without trial, the benefits of judicial decisions prior to the election that would be gained by the nation's voters will be denied.

But I think the Court's decision diminishes and harms the United States another way, too.

The foundation of American global leadership and influence has been the stability of its basic law.  This has given the peoples and governments of other nations confidence in aligning themselves with American policies and values, along with supporting the American financial and industrial infrastructure that makes possible those policies and values.  It has helped to maintain confidence in the ownership of Unites States bonds, helping to keep a lid on interest rates and maintaining the U.S. dollar's "reserve currency" status. 

The stability of our legal system has provided a convincing story that our policies and values are preferable to those of others, such as China's and Russia's, because it has fostered a climate of legal fairness with an aversion to favoritism.

This decision of presidential immunity is a major departure from that heritage.  It looks like favoritism.  In doing so it weakens the American argument that our system of governance is exceptionally better than those of places such as China and Russia because it makes our leadership look more like theirs, but with more internal friction and less political, institutional and social cohesion. America's formerly solid "rule of law" now looks shaky and subject to self-serving decisions by whoever occupies the White House.  

The Republican SCOTUS majority has done something that benefits those other nations that sell themselves as more dependable environments for various partnerships; at least one of those -- Russia under Vladimir Putin -- is and has been openly hostile to the United States and our American way of life.

What happens next?

As mentioned above, the facts behind the criminal cases against Trump appear to have emerged intact.  The SCOTUS decision requires the evidence be presented in lower court to determine how they adhere to the different types of presidential actions -- and so then they are categorized as immune, not immune or perhaps quasi-immune.  The decision's writing is clumsy, vague and somewhat sloppy (like its reasoning).  

Irrespective of how they fall into the different categories, the facts show that Trump incited a violent and armed mob to attack the Capitol of the United States on January 6, 2021.  Among other criminal actions, he also is proven to have deliberately failed in his duty to ". . .preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by spending that afternoon watching the violent, armed attack and taking no action to stop it and preserve, protect and defend those who were being attacked as they were trying to do their Constitutional duty.  

Lives were lost, and the United States of America was diminished that day.  He might now be immune from prosecution, but Donald J. Trump was the cause.

###