Friday, October 23, 2020 - Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. & Kamala Devis Harris 2020

There were several moments last night when chills came over me as I was watching the presidential debate between former Vice President Joe Biden and President (for now) Donald Trump.

One of those moments happened when Vice President Biden offered that the United States has a good relationship with the North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un, in a similar fashion as the United States had a good relationship with Adolf Hitler before Germany invaded Poland in 1939, which by most accounts, marked the beginning of World War II.

I can’t say whether the comparison is fair. I haven’t studied the history of WWII thoroughly, and I wasn’t there to experience the political and social climate in the United States toward the end of the 1930s. However, I can say that the temperature in my body must have dropped by five to ten degrees as Vice President Biden made this remark.

What I picked up on in that moment, as well as when Vice President Biden said that any foreign governments who interfere with elections in the United States –––– with our sovereignty ––– will pay, “they will pay,” was the great weight, power, and importance of holding office as the President of the United States. How easy it has been to forget that gravity over the last four years.

Without the outbreak of a lethal virus, the nation may not have been forced to deeply consider the importance and weight of the office once more; however, that opportunity is here now –––– and by the reports of the early voting numbers, a response is already being made.

I don’t know who will be elected ten days from now, or whether it may take even longer to find out the results from the election. I do know that I am voting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Here’s why:

There’s a passage from The New Yorker’s Talk of the Town section from September 2nd, 1939 below, which is followed by a look back at how the election of Herbert Hoover in 1928, followed by the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, provides the framework for what’s at stake here and now, in 2020.

“There was a time when the mere nonexistence of war was enough. Not any more. The world is in the odd position of being intellectually opposed to war, spiritually committed to it. That is the leaden note. If war comes, it will be war, and no one wants that. If peace is restored, it will be another arrangement enlarging not simply the German boundary but the Hitler Dream. The world knows it can’t win.”

The President of the United States in 1939 was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who during the first term of his three term presidency (he was the last to hold office for three terms), ushered in the New Deal in 1933. With the new deal came forward-thinking economic protections which helped lift the country out of the Great Depression. Protections which, at the time were considered revolutionary, and by some accounts, unthinkable: unemployment relief, social security, and the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which monitored (and still monitors) publicly traded firms’ compliance with reporting requirements established by the Securities Act of 1933.

Although these sweeping changes didn’t make an impact right away –––– there would be a Second New Deal in 1935 –––– they did change the direction of the nation, and created the framework for many of the most pivotal functions of the United States’ Federal government and economy that are still active today.

But it didn’t have to be this way; it could have been different. Franklin D. Roosevelt was voted into office in 1932. And he ran as a Democrat against an incumbent Republican, Herbert Hoover. Here’s what the Electoral College’s map looked like on November 8th, 1932:

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Forty-two states, which added up to four hundred and seventy-two electoral votes.
Herbert Hoover: Six states, totaling fifty-nine electoral votes.

Roosevelt’s trouncing of Hoover is a reflection of the county during the Great Depression. Americans had had enough; and it was evident that Hoover wasn’t getting the job done, and a change needed to be made. Thus, they voted accordingly.

But look at the map from 1928, wherein Hoover, who was then serving as the country’s Secretary of Commerce, and who had gained esteem for exhibiting exceptional business acumen, defeated New York’s Governor, the affable, slightly hardscrabble, though certainty honorable man for the people, Al Smith.

Herbert Hoover: Forty states, which added up to four hundred and forty-four electoral votes.
Al Smith: Eight states, totaling eighty-seven electoral votes.

The similarities between the 1928 election of the Republican, Hoover as President and the 2016 election of Donald Trump are easy to track. Both candidates ran campaigns as insurgents; decrying the ills of having career politicians in power, and particularly, those who had formerly held office in the State of New York –––Hillary Clinton as a senator and Al Smith as the governor –––– and emphasizing the need for a change.

Hoover, moreover, had the advantage of a historically solid economy –––– one famously regarded as the Roaring Twenties –––– which had not yet sunk into the Great Depression. And Americans voted accordingly, with Hoover winning in a landslide. Yet, look at these semblances between Hoover and Trump, with a debt owed to Wikipedia:

––––––––––––––––––––

Before the election:

“Hoover focused much of his attention on raising money, restructuring corporate organizations, and financing new ventures.[39] He specialized in rejuvenating troubled mining operations, taking a share of the profits in exchange for his technical and financial expertise.[40] Hoover thought of himself and his associates as "engineering doctors to sick concerns", and he earned a reputation as a "doctor of sick mines".[41] He made investments on every continent and had offices in San Francisco; London; New York City; Paris; Petrograd; and Mandalay, British Burma.[42] By 1914, Hoover was a very wealthy man, with an estimated personal fortune of $4 million (equivalent to $102.1 million in 2019).[43]”

Division based upon race:

“In the South, Hoover and the national party pursued a "lily-white" strategy, removing black Republicans from leadership positions in an attempt to curry favor with white Southerners.[132]”

After the election, and during Hoover’s Presidency:

“He appointed a Cabinet consisting largely of wealthy, business-oriented conservatives,[142] including Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon.”

Muddied foreign relations:

“Over the objection of many economists, Hoover signed the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act into law in June 1930.[162] Canada, France, and other nations retaliated by raising tariffs, resulting in a contraction of international trade and a worsening of the economy.”

Shifting blame:

“Hoover viewed the weak European economy as a major cause of economic troubles in the United States.”

––––––––––––––––––––

Were the United States not deeply entrenched in a pandemic, it’s uncertain whether Vice-President Biden and Senator Harris would have established the lead that they’ve built so far, yet, at least this much is clear: a nation of voters who have had enough of a tycoon who glorifies the breadth and depth of his business dealings (“I have bank accounts in a lot of places, including China”); divides people based on race (“stand back and stand by”); and shifts blame for a failing domestic economy based on foreign influences (“blame China”); have already demonstrated their ability to vote accordingly –––– and to swiftly, end emphatically, vote for change. Again, these were the numbers from 1932: Roosevelt -––– four hundred and seventy-two; Hoover: fifty-nine.

Can Vice President Biden and Senator Harris usher in sweeping economic and social changes at a level and to a degree that’s equivalent with the New Deal? It’s possible. Biden has made clear his commitment to transition away from fossil fuels and has emphasized the importance of green energy in order to create more jobs for the future; has hinted at significant relief for debt from student loans; and has called for an increase in the monitoring of and accountably for police departments all across the country. Also, he listens.

During last night’s debate, when he was asked whether he understood why parents of African-Americans have “the talk” about race relations in this country, he narrated the nuances and fine points of those conversations, and did so quite thoroughly, and accurately. His opponent then glossed over them. When asked the same question, his response was this: “Yes,” the President (for now) said, before comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln.

But what was about that moment during the debate, when Vice President Biden’s words gave me chills; when his invocation of Hitler’s Germany in 1939 felt within the realm of possibility. There must have been some reason why I felt those words so deftly; however, at present, I can’t trace the connection.

It’s true, World War II began with Germany’s invasion of Poland, in the autumn of 1939, which was six years into Roosevelt’s presidency. Hence, the historical tether between Hoover and Trump in this respect doesn’t quite take. But it doesn’t have to.

One man who is running for President of the United States this year has demonstrated that he has, and that he will, protect and honor the lives of Americans, as well as those who are new to the United States, and work to restore the nation’s reputation and standing in the world. And that man is Joe Biden.

And in a running mate and Vice President (in three months’ time) Kamala Harris, he has chosen a woman with vision, determination, heart, and perhaps, the ability to lead this country through the second half of this century’s revival of the Roaring Twenties.

All of this is to say, (1) Enough is enough; and (2) Give ‘em hell, Joe and Kamala!

Godspeed, and all of our best,
Curlew Quarterly