This op-ed was published by The National on July 16, 2024
The only good news for the Democrats is that this year’s presidential election is being held in November and not tomorrow. US President Joe Biden is stubbornly pressing forward with his candidacy despite continuing doubts about his acuity and vigour. Meanwhile, the presumptive Republican nominee, former president and convicted felon Donald Trump, has pocketed a set of shocking and largely unanticipated victories.
The US Supreme Court ruled that, contrary to all precedent, the plain language of the Constitution and stated intentions of its framers, plus simple common sense, both current and former presidents are broadly shielded from criminal prosecution, or even investigation, for any act that falls within the “outer perimeters” of their official duties. That’s not everything, but it’s awfully close.
The appalling ruling jeopardises much, though not all, of the federal case regarding Mr Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election result. But it seems more designed to free his hand in a potential second term.
No president before Mr. Trump, with the exception of Richard Nixon, required or sought extensive executive criminal immunity, because they didn’t commit egregious, self-serving crimes. This ruling seems designed to protect an exceptionally lawless president because it anticipates the return of just such a figure from their own Republican partisan camp.
If effectively freeing Mr. Trump from the rule of law in preparation for a second term wasn’t bad enough, Florida federal judge Aileen Cannon invalidated the entire case wherein he has no plausible defence for having purloined hundreds of top-secret government documents, refused to return them, and hid them from the FBI and even his own lawyers.
She ruled that special prosecutor Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed, a baffling claim already essentially rejected by many courts, including the Supreme Court. She will almost certainly be yet again roundly and derisively overturned by appellate courts, but long after the election. If Mr Trump wins, the case goes away. If not, she will probably be overruled and replaced on the grounds of palpable bias and gross incompetence.
Mr Trump even narrowly survived an appalling assassination attempt, which left him slightly bloodied but also framed one of the most potent political photographs in US history.
It depicts him bleeding for his people and cause, punching his fist into the air in defiance. Amid an array of red, white and blue, waving US flags, and security officials, he effectively signalled bravery, power and authority. It is his core appeal to his supporters concentrated with astonishing graphic precision in a single arresting image.
That photo alone won’t return him to power. But Mr. Trump isn’t just incredibly lucky to have survived the heinous attack. Instead of being badly wounded or killed, he emerged as the central figure in one of the most potentially inspiring and impressive images in recent memory.
Mr. Biden by contrast continues to struggle in the polls, in which Mr. Trump seems to have developed a small national lead that’s more pronounced in some key swing states. Many Democrats fear it’s going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for Mr. Biden to demonstrate his own vigor and valor, avoid further senior meltdowns as during last month’s debate, and eventually win.
All this has left the Democrats petrified of the next shoe to drop. Mr. Trump is getting unexpected and largely unearned great news from all directions, although being shot by a crazed assassin is surely a horrible experience.
Even the most cynical legal observers thought the two recent rulings beyond implausible. And as Mr Trump boasts about divine intervention, and seems even more messianic to the faithful now gathered at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, many Democrats see little hope and are bracing for the next brutal blow.
Mr. Trump has selected Ohio Senator JD Vance as his running mate. This decision could prove a mistake, as it doubles down on the Trump-inflected extremism that Mr. Vance used to denounce and ridicule but now passionately promotes.
Mr Trump might have better strengthened his hand by choosing a woman or a more traditional Republican such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio. But he can rest assured that Mr Vance, unlike former vice president Mike Pence, would have tried to use non-existent vice-presidential powers on January 6, 2021 to try to overturn the election results – because Mr Vance has repeatedly said so.
With several months to go, the Democrats still have time to reverse the momentum, especially since polling still shows a close race.
But they have little to work with. They’re more anxious about another pronounced senior moment from Mr Biden than excited by him. He must do something highly significant to change the emerging equation – or allow Vice President Kamala Harris to inherit the nomination. Theoretically, he could do this any time before the election, citing ill health. But the longer it takes, the riskier that gambit becomes.
After the shooting, both candidates called for calm and unity.
But Mr Trump, in particular, is already back on the extreme rhetorical warpath. He can benefit from surviving the attack with defiance, but risks being further associated with violence and chaos.
Mr Biden will seek to reinforce his 2020 election pitch that he is the voice of calm, regular order, non-violent and centrist politics, and the antidote to polarisation and extremism.
He can cite an extensive record of bipartisan legislative achievements, greatly overshadowing Mr Trump’s legislation, which was mainly a huge tax cut for the wealthy. But the President faces accusations that he failed to unite or calm anyone and even contributed to the polarisation that led to the shooting.
Last week, Mr Biden started emphasising an aggressively populist economic agenda. The contrast is potentially powerful: he wants to tax the rich, Mr Trump wants to tax the poor; he wants to create more jobs, Mr Trump wants more tariffs; he wants to invest more in society and human capital, Mr Trump wants to cut social services and public investments.
The Democrats planned to ensure that the election is effectively a referendum on Mr Trump’s felonious character. It still can be.
Indeed, the news cycle is all about him. But it’s almost all good news for the former president and terrible for the paralyzed, bewildered and rudderless Democrats. They urgently need something dramatic to revive their faith and hope, and change the emerging election narrative and momentum before it’s too late.