All presidential elections are consequential, some more than others. The 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln; the 1932 election of FDR; the 2008 election of Barack Obama, our first African-American president; and the 2016 election of Donald Trump, who, to the applause of some and dismay of others, broke countless norms and traditions, were all of significant consequence. The election of 2020 is billed as most consequential ever, but not in the way portrayed by the media.
This election is not about the false choice portrayed by Republicans as “capitalism vs. socialism.” Nor is it about a related false choice, “big government vs. small government.”
We’re all, including Bernie Sanders, basically capitalists. The government is not about to do away with private property or abandon the price and market system for basic decisions on what and how to produce. Nor is government going to go away, becoming “small enough to flush down the drain,” as some conservatives claim to wish for. That is, until they come to the government for help.
The legitimate debate is over the proper role of government, regardless of size. When and how should government step in to achieve goals not achieved through the market system? Goals such as economic growth in which all workers share the fruits, equal opportunities for education, clean water and air, public health and safety — all common goals. The legitimate debate is over how we achieve them.
In a broader sense, this election comes down to values. What kind of leadership do we want, a president for only his supporters — or a president who is president for all? In short, it’s about us, who we are and what we as a nation want to become.
With his unparalleled divisiveness the Trump presidency, for better or worse, has forced this nation to take a hard look at itself, and decide what we want to become. This experiment in democracy has provided the much heralded opportunities for individuals in all walks of life. During the “American Century,” the 1900s, the nation ascended to undisputed world leadership with its role in fighting tyranny and establishing international institutions.
But it is neither un-American, nor un-patriotic, to acknowledge, face up to, and attempt to remedy where this nation has fallen short in achieving its stated ideals. The legacy of America’s “original sin,” slavery and its aftermath, persists. America’s checkered treatment of immigrants goes back a long way, including early prejudice against Irish and Italians, Eastern Europeans who worked the mines, and Chinese who built the railroads. Today it’s those from Mexico, and Central America who work the meat packing plants, perform the hand labor to harvest fruits and vegetables, and much else.
Some immigrants, such as Andrew Carnegie, became fabulously wealthy. This was seen as the reward for hard work and ability. Tremendous income inequality during the Gilded Age was seen as the natural result of capitalism. If vast numbers of workers lived in slums and big city tenements, it was dismissed as “economic Darwinism,” nothing government could, or should, do about it. It was a flamboyant “winner takes all” economy.
It took the near-failure, and possible demise, of American capitalism during the Great Depression to usher in reforms, some of which exist to this day, and “do something” to make American capitalism work for more people. Post-WWII prosperity was more widely shared, with the caveat that minorities and women did not share equally. With the fall of the Soviet Union, America’s world leadership was unchallenged.
Near century’s end, several factors contributed to resumption of inequality of wealth and income. Income inequality is not new, but after more widely shared prosperity of post WWII, many people were left behind, creating discount and anger, conditions ripe for a demagogic phony populist. The slogan, “Make America Great Again,” referring back to days when manufacturing jobs were a route to Middle Class status, resonated. And, let’s face it, for some, the slogan was identified with days when straight, white, males were in charge, and the nation enjoyed unchallenged world power.
Oscar Wilde once observed, “Youth is this country’s oldest tradition.” As individuals, we tend to resist aging and change. Similarly, as our nation ages, change is resisted, with a longing to return to what we remember as “good old days,” even while ignoring what was not so good about those days, and that the “good old days´ were not so good for a lot of people.
The American Century is over, and we face multiple challenges for this “New American Century.” In one sense, it may be that that an “aging,” candidate like Biden is perfectly appropriate for these times, as indicated by David Brooks. Yes, Brooks, the conservative columnist that I would not usually be inclined to cite, except to criticize.
Brooks writes, “Today, being 77 doesn’t have to be a time of wrapping things up; it’s just the moment you’re in, still moving to something better. Maybe this can be America—not in decline, but moving with maturity to new strength.”
Biden’s age and experience, including apparent “mistakes,” can be his strength. For example, Biden acknowledges and regrets the unintended consequences of the infamous crime bill that he, along with every other politician, including African-American politicians, supported at the time.
Such humility is unusual for a politician. Mistakes after the fact, yes. In contrast to Trump, a mature Biden admits and learns from them. And, Biden has a record of successes, including working with a president to get us out of the Great Recession, and implementing the ACA that has benefitted many, though being initially trashed by the media, much of the public, and Republican politicians to this day.
Biden knows personal tragedy and is empathetic with that of others. Experience and the tendency to face reality, combined with a well-qualified running mate of Asian and African-American ethnicity representing a new generation, presents a starkly different vision than that of our current arrogant president who thrives on divisiveness and demagoguery.
This election is not about Trump so much as about us, what we want to become.
— John Waelti’s column appears every Saturday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
