PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CREATED A NATIONALIST POLITICAL PARTY

America is no longer a two party political system. Donald Trump has accomplished what no politician since our founding has been able to achieve.  He has created a third political party as strong and vibrant as the two traditional parties that have thrived since the Civil War. 40% of the voting public now support this new political party, marginalizing the Republican Party. President Trump has started labeling himself a nationalist at his political rallies. Accordingly, I will name our third political party, the Nationalist Party.

Many Americans are not familiar with nationalism as a political ideology. Because nationalist political parties have a long history in Central and Western Europe, examining these organizations gives us a reasonable method of understanding nationalism.  Generally, European nationalists are described as “right wing populists.” Historians agree that the most unifying position of Nationalist Parties until recently was antisemitism.  Within the past 20 years the unifying factor has morphed into Islamophobia. 

Nationalist Parties have thrived only when they were able to use propaganda and conspiracy theories to identify an “other” group of citizens on which to blame past economic and social disruptions.  This was most evident in three of the most notorious Nationalist Parties, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Franco’s Spain.  Nationalist Parties in their modern incarnation have been able to gain more main stream acceptance by substituting Muslims for Jews as the number one enemy of the state and by preaching “nation first” positions attractive to working class citizens still suffering economically from the last recession.

With this brief background on nationalism, we must examine the specific platform of Donald Trump’s Nationalist party.  It will be clear that this platform has little to do with traditional Republicanism.  In fact, many policy positions are so anti conservative that modern conservative political pundits have been unable to support them.  Republican politicians, on the other hand, have embraced Trump’s Nationalist Party in order to ensure reelection. Moreover, these Republicans can no longer count on their own fading traditional party apparatus to achieve tax cuts, to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or to place conservative Judges and Justices into the federal court system.

First, Trump’s Nationalist Party is vehemently against diversity. Homogenous rural communities are favored over urban multicultural ones.  Urban, diverse sections of the country are viewed as havens for providing sanctuaries for illegal immigrants and as election districts that overwhelmingly vote against the Nationalist Party’s agenda. Conversely, rural areas are valued for their attachment to authority, family and the native land.  But mostly, rural areas are valued for their votes.

 Squirrel Hill in Pittsburgh is the most diverse neighborhood in Western Pennsylvania.  While the Jewish community is the backbone of the community, many others of varied religious and ethnic backgrounds seek to live there because of this diversity.   The Trump Nationalist party views Squirrel Hill and urban areas like it as the antithesis of everything it stands for.  The fringe element of his Nationalist Party, where hate is inflamed by the President’s rhetoric, will fully embrace the message sent to the Squirrel Hill Jewish community through the recent horrific act of domestic terrorism: “only white protestant Americans are welcome here.”

Second, Trump’s Nationalist Party is against most immigration into the United States and holds an elevated dislike for Islamic and Spanish speaking immigrants from below our Southern border.  Trump began his presidential campaign by attacking Mexicans.  Among his first acts as President, were attempts to unlawfully exclude many Islamic individuals from gaining entry into the country.  His policies of “building a wall” and punishing urban areas for not utilizing their scarce resources to round up illegal aliens are more political Nationalist Party statements than actual remedies to combat illegal immigration.

Third, Trump’s Nationalist Party deplores globalism.  This often misunderstood term can best be understood as describing a world that is: “characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental distances.” Multinational Corporations, international military, economic and legal organizations, European countries banding together to form the European Union, and trade agreements are all examples of globalism.  Nationalists view globalism as placing the needs of the international community before the national interest. In fact, globalism generally promotes international cooperation and helps control economic crises.

During the presidential campaign, Trump was quoted as saying: “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. And under my administration we will never enter America into any agreements that reduce our ability to control our own affairs.” He has lived up to this pledge by canceling trade agreements; canceling the agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; threatening to canceling the agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons; and by berating our military and economic alliances around the world.

 Fourth, Trump’s Nationalist Party attacks the main stream media at every opportunity. After mocking and insulting penned-in reporters at his campaign rallies, Mr. Trump continued going after journalists the day after he was sworn in, over the size of his Inauguration Day crowd. Then came the “fake news,” “enemy of the people” Stalin like campaign against journalists who would hold him accountable for his words and actions.

By attacking the source of balanced reporting and fact checking, Trump’s Nationalist Party is able to manufacture yet another enemy and to accuse the media of working to take away his election victory and defeat his agenda.  The Nationalist Party must always be the victim, even as it controls all three houses of Congress.

Lastly, Trump’s Nationalist Party supports and admires authoritarian elected officials from around the world.  Most of these leaders have used the above elements of a nationalist platform to consolidate power and to develop illiberal democracies in their own countries.  These authoritarian countries that have received Trump’s blessing include Russia, Hungary, Poland, Egypt, Turkey, Austria and the Philippines.  I would include Saudi Arabia, which is a kingdom and not a democracy.

All of these countries have strong nationalist tendencies.  Trump would like to join their elite club by reconfiguring the principles of our constitutional democratic republic.  This would include increasing executive powers without the need to consult Congress, a reduction in the rule of law, a reduction in the economic influence of the Federal Reserve and the marginalization of the media.

It is often said that only in a democracy do people get the government they deserve.  In order to preserve our rights and liberties, we must vote.  Please keep in mind the platform of Trump’s Nationalist party when fulfilling this most sacred duty on Tuesday. Elections matter.

THE DEATH KNELL OF NEWSPAPERS

This year has been a bewildering adjustment for those of us living in Southwestern Pennsylvania who find it difficult to give up our print newspapers. Recently, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette stopped publishing print editions on Tuesdays and Saturdays and began running head scratching existentialist commercials to explain their move to digital. The finale of Pittsburgh print news seems inevitable. After all, the Tribune-Review is already a mostly ignored news source after going totally digital to avoid bankruptcy.

To add insult to injury, many of us also stopped receiving our print addition of the Wall Street Journal on Tuesdays and Saturdays because the Journal uses the Post Gazette’s delivery network.  After many weeks of promising a fix, still no Journals delivered on the off days.  Heaven help us if the stock market blows up on a Monday.

The final blow arrived when our reliable local Observer Reporter was sold to a larger network of local papers.  We had all come to rely on the Northrop Family to maintain and publish the O-R. With the sale came uncertainty and many questions: would the O-R go digital?; what would be the new editorial policy?;  would there be less coverage of local events?;  would our favorite comic strips disappear?. (So far there have been minimal changes to the paper.)

I read a great deal of internet digital news, but only those sources to which I do not subscribe.  When I was forced to tackle the Saturday WSJ online, (because of the above non-delivery issue) no section of the paper or article was where it was supposed to be.  What was an enjoyable experience in print, turned into a headache on my IPad.  Sometimes I go to a store with a newsstand and pay for a replacement printed paper.

Aside from my personal discomfort, the time has arrived to consider the once unthinkable.  What would the end of printed newspapers mean to our society and to the fabric of communities across America? Would the digital press continue to report on municipal meetings, the local theater groups, or the High School Sports teams?  Would expensive, time consuming investigative journalism be supported?

First, we must consider why newspapers are leaving print and moving online in the first place.  It is basic economics, accelerated by the recession of 2009. Major advertisers such as department stores, supermarkets, boutique retailers and car dealerships, consolidated or went out of business.  Those that survived often moved advertising and sales online to compete with Amazon. The profitable classified section of print newspapers saw listings for used cars, real estate, and employment move to Craig’s List or other dedicated online services.

Previously, print publishers could always count on young adults gravitating to the purchase of newspapers as they made their way into the world.  With millennials, who were raised getting all of their information online, this trend is over.  This guarantees that along with advertising, print readership will decline overtime, never to be replenished.

Before print newspapers (and magazines) began to disappear, they spent years getting smaller. Shrinking newsrooms, budgets, print runs and page counts all accelerated as the “cost to print” came closer to exceeding the “revenue from print.”  It is simply more cost effective to publish a digital newspaper.

What will the effect of this trend be on the news reading public? One study, supported by a research grant from the Volkswagen Foundation, has closely followed the reading habits of the British when the national British daily, The Independent, stopped print publishing and went online in 2016. It first appeared that the number of digital readers it gained basically replaced the number of print readers it lost. But many believe the explosive news events of both Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are responsible for the digital readership and make the number of new digital readers unsustainable over the long run.

The other results of the study are far more troubling. Print readers were found to spend significantly more time consuming news than digital readers, prior to the all-digital transition.  After the transition, in depth reading disappeared when the paper did. 50% of its print readers read the newspaper almost every day (37-50 minutes each day) while online visitors read one story on the average of twice a month (6 minutes a month).  The study concluded: “By going online only, The Independent decimated the attention it receives. The paper is now a thing more glanced at, it seems, than gorged on.  It has sustainability but less centrality.”

One bright result from the study was that the international English speaking readership expanded greatly with the all-digital format of this national newspaper. Of course, local papers that transition to all digital will not benefit from this overseas expansion because the readership interest in local issues is minimal.  On the other hand, one could argue that a local digital paper has a captive audience for local information, including the crime blotter, obituaries, local sports and calendar of events that will compel print readers to make the switch to digital.

Many astute observers of how digital content is prepared and distributed do not believe that the future of digital newspapers is any more intact over the long run than print journalism is today.  Vice News co-founder Shane Smith forecasts: “a bloodbath that will wipe out 30 percent of digital sites.”  Those sites that dominate the internet, Facebook and Google, lack any dedication toward original news.  They have expressed no desire to act as responsible publishers, with reporters on the ground backed up by fact checkers dedicated to balanced reporting.

If indeed, the existing model for producing unbiased original news is not profitable or sustainable in the digital format, there is a grave danger that all news on the internet will be suspected of being manufactured, fake or dissembled. Once the trust is lost, the famous mottos of the Financial Times: “Without Fear or Favor” and of the New York Times: “All the News That’s Fit to Print” will mean nothing and a fundamental democratic institution will cease to function.

While it is true that Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, who purchased the Washington Post and Philanthropist, Patrick Soon-Shiong, who now owns the Los Angeles Times are willing to absorb large losses to keep responsible journalism alive, a few billionaires preserving a few urban newspapers is not the answer. A comprehensive plan and new business models must be developed to save the Fifth Estate, with no time to waste.

Thomas Jefferson wisely made an observation on newspapers that rings true today: “This formidable censor of the public opinion functionaries, by arraigning them at the tribunal of public opinion, produces reform peacefully, which must otherwise be done by revolution.”  It is not difficult to imagine pitched battles in the streets, if balanced original news disappears and elected officials are permitted to say whatever they please to remain in office, with no reliable counter-balance.

RACE IN AMERICA

Washington County was treated to a gem of a lecture on race in America on a cool Monday evening at W&J College.  The event was well attended by students and interested citizens to hear author, journalist and academic, Jelani Cobb present the first lecture sponsored by W&J’s African American Studies Program.

The first half of the talk dealt with the importance of interpreting American History within the context of slavery and race.  The Constitution, addition of States to the Union, the Civil War and fundamental Supreme Court decisions must be studied within the framework of slavery and later, segregation in order to understand our “original sin” and its continuing influence on American society. Those who would prefer to sugarcoat the past are only making it more difficult for the nation to heal in 2018.

The lecture concluded with some of Mr. Cobb’s personal experiences with diversity.  He grew up in Queens, New York, a melting pot for established minorities and new immigrants alike.  Hundreds of languages are spoken within the Borough. As a child the speaker’s baseball team was a cornucopia of different cultures all dedicated to winning a game.

These remarks reminded me that diversity is a circumstance to be encouraged, not a problem to be managed.  My belief that Washington County needs a diversity council to explore and strengthen its ties to multiculturalism was reaffirmed by the lecture.

ELECTIONS MATTER

Two issues have dominated political journalism since the election of Donald Trump. First, how was Trump and the Republican party able to cobble together a victory in 2016?  Second, will our democratic processes and institutions survive his presidency?  By my count over 25 books have been penned to address these issues.  In addition, hundreds of essays and articles have been written by journalists weighing in with their own take on the election and its aftermath.

The books and articles that discuss the election have covered the effects of social media on the election; the lower than expected voter turnout in urban areas with Obama off the ballet; Russian interference influencing the vote count; Democrats ignoring the issues important to the working class in the rust belt; and the botched FBI investigations. 

Those books and articles that discuss the functioning of the Trump presidency over the past two years have critiqued an administration that is dedicated to deconstructing the “rules based” international order in foreign policy. Other studies have researched how the White House bases domestic policy on anti-immigration; on protectionism; on lower taxes and on fewer regulations.  Some authors have written detailed analyses explaining Trump’s support for authoritarian leaders abroad and for nativist policies at home and its effect on our democratic institutions.  Others have chronicled the dysfunction and turnover within the White House itself.

 Most recently the acclaimed writer Michael Lewis has released a deep dive well researched study that asks, who is really running the government? (The Fifth Risk) Rather than address Trump’s character defects, Lewis centers on the President’s ignorance on what the federal bureaucracy is and how it works.  Lewis exposes the dangers in ignoring the complexities of federal agencies and the need for leadership from the White House in supporting them.

All of these investigative works that uncover the limitations and degradations of the Trump presidency are illuminating and necessary, but it is time to flip the switch and to concentrate on the upcoming mid-term elections.  Elections matter and can change the future. Placing Democrats in House and Senate seats around the country is the only path that guarantees Trump will be investigated for his past actions and challenged on his new initiatives.  It is time to stop reading and complaining and to place all efforts into getting Democrats elected. Time to stop agonizing and to start organizing.

After the unexpected results in the 2016 presidential election, the Democratic “blue wave” that is predicted for the 2018 mid-term elections and the belief that Democrats will capture the House of Representatives leaves me somewhat skeptical. First, I am convinced that the 84% of registered Republicans who approve of Trump are not going to change their preference in the mid-term elections and unless there is a sea change not in 2020.  Moreover, even dissatisfied Republicans may stick with the party of their President who has kept most of his campaign promises and who is taking credit for a booming economy.

Second, while the numbers of Democratic voters in the primaries and the new voter registrations are encouraging, the Republican base tends to show up with greater frequency in off year elections. Third, I do not trust polls in the age of Trump when voters are hesitant to name their preferences.  Fourth, Trump is capable in springing an “October surprise” on the electorate in order to the hold the House of Representatives in Republican hands.

I believe that for Democrats to win the House and to have a chance in flipping the Senate, the national and state Democratic Parties must show the type of organization over these last several weeks that is typical in presidential elections.  This would include rallies in vulnerable districts headlined with well-known national figures.  Advertising funds should not be spared for those candidates who are running for the first time and who present new faces to the voting public.  The election day get out the vote effort should take nothing for granted.  The Democratic overconfidence that was on full display during the 2016 Presidential race must not take hold during the mid-terms.

Normally issues would define an election, including the upcoming House and Senate races.  But Trump has defined this election cycle and placing checks and balances on his abuses is the overriding concern.  If a democratic blue wave is successful, a base will be in place for the 2020 presidential contest when a full slate of issues can be presented to the electorate.

 Voters will then have a real choice: to reelect a demagogue who uses the twin evils of race and tribe to placate the millions of disgruntled Americans who have fallen behind; or to choose a candidate and a party dedicated to building an equitable and just society for all Americans, based on real progress rather than fear.

DIRECT MAIL SOLICITATIONS ARE FLEECING OUR ELDERLY

For those looking for a non-partisan cause to get behind, there is an underreported tragedy in this country that must to be discussed, exposed and regulated.  Our most vulnerable senior citizens are being fleeced by solicitors and advertisers out of billions of dollars.  It is a scam which many younger Americans may not have considered, unless they are involved in the day to day financial affairs of an older adult.

My initiation into this sleazy world of greed and deception began when my family received a power of attorney from a ninety something family member to assume responsibility for the mail and check writing.  In going through the stack of daily junk mail, I noticed that almost all of it was directed to our charge by a variety of political, religious, education, and disaster organizations, all seeking a contribution.

A review of our relative’s finances disclosed a long list of repeat contributions, going back years.  One payment would trigger many more solicitations, all sent with the obvious intent of causing the recipient to feel guilty if a contribution were not made.  Letters would contain small amounts of money or a negotiable check, urging a contribution. Other large envelopes arrived with pot holders, dish clothes, address labels, calendars and tee shirts.

One solicitation regularly comes in a large white envelope with the words: “Loyal Supporter” above the address.  On the front in large letters that look like they were written by a child is the word “please”.  On the back is written “help.”  Inside were pot holders and a note tablet. A quick check on the charity at Give.Org revealed that less than 5% of their collections make it to the children they are allegedly helping.

How pervasive is this problem?  A study performed by True Link Research in 2015 found that seniors lose $36.48 billion each year to elder financial abuse.  The highest proportion of these loses, 17 billion, come from deceptive but technically legal tactics, designed specifically to take advantage of older Americans. Two devastating findings from the study were: (1) Small loses in earlier years cascade into large loses as time goes on. Those who first lost small amounts to financial exploitation went on to lose an average of $2,000.00 over the next five years; (2) There are an estimated 954,000 seniors who skip meals as the result of financial abuse.

It is not difficult to determine why these deceptive practices are so widespread. Annul solicitations that are successful quickly morph into quarterly and then monthly mailings. Our elders forget they have already contributed and feel obligated to respond to free stuff, with another check. For those older Americans who live alone, the daily mail call becomes a highlight of the day and each solicitation provides an emotional lift when a check is mailed to help the less fortunate. Clearly, charities and political organizations have learned how to exploit these traits, unique to the elderly.

This commentary does not directly address telemarketing, info commercials, shopping networks and television advertising, each of which take advantage of the elderly using their own well tested delivery systems. Each of us is familiar with an older person who has purchased a closet full of items on the home shopping network to distribute to family members.  Or an elderly relative insisting on Prevagen for memory lose or Enbrel for arthritis, after being bombarded with medical commercials.  Similar tactics and marketing philosophy are common to all advertisers targeting the elderly and the deceptions are as injurious to our elders as direct mailing.

In regard to mail solicitations, what is to be done? First, charitable and political solicitations must be regulated in a fashion to deter abuse. Increasing the frequency of mailings based on a contribution should be limited or prohibited. Multiple mailings from the same source should state the date and amount of prior contributions in bold print. Solicitors should be required to flag frequent or unusual giving patterns and to report them to a third party Agency for the Elderly, for investigation.  A toll free number of a reputable consumer agency should be included with each solicitation, along with clear instructions for the recipient to call and check on the rating of each charity.

Second, each of us with older relatives and friends must make a point to do a financial review of contributions, particularly for those who are living alone on fixed budgets.  While this task may appear to the older person as an invasion of their independence and privacy, contributions can be approached in a positive way.  This would include an explanation of how charities work, why some are better than others and with preparation and review of a budget to show the giver why other obligations are more important than a particular charity or political organization.

For those elderly friends and relatives who have IRA accounts and must make required minimum distributions under the tax code, an excellent solution presents itself.  In 2018 tax deductions for charitable contributions are no longer available for many older adults who do not itemize under the new tax law. However, the law permits IRA accounts to be used to set up Qualified Charitable Distributions. This allows the elderly to “do good” while at the same time reducing taxes.

 This approach of once a year charitable planning (which can be done without access to IRA accounts) permits the older adult to choose the charities in advance he or she wants to benefit, within budget, so that no further contributions are necessary.  The rest of the direct mail “vultures” should be notified to cease and desist their solicitations, with notice also given to the state consumer protection agency.  Over time the stacks of unwanted solicitations will disappear.

To those who argue “it is their money and they should be left to spend it as they wish” I would argue that rational independent discretion decreases as we age, opening the door to fraud and abuse. Moreover, the solicitation techniques are designed to pray on older individuals and are difficult to resist.   Only reasonable regulation and concerned friends and family can put a stop to this fleecing of the elderly.

THE WORLD BELONGS TO MILLENNIALS (THEY JUST DON’T KNOW IT)

In the age of Trump not many would argue against the partisan political debates that divide the country continuing to be the greatest societal conflict facing the American polity for the next several decades.  I am going to take a contrarian position and argue that conservative/liberal partisan politics will soon take a back seat to a new conflict based on age: the interests of Baby Boomers versus the interests of Millennials. As summarized by the economist Robert Samuelson: “The essential budget question going forward is how much we allow federal spending on the elderly to crowd out other national priorities.”

The Baby Boomer generation peaked at 78.8 million in 1999 and has for decades remained the largest living adult generation. There were an estimated 74.1 million Boomers in 2016. By midcentury, the Boomer population is projected to dwindle to 16.6 million. Millennials, whom we define as ages 22 to 37 in 2018, numbered 71 million in 2016 and will soon surpass boomers as our largest population group.  This will accelerate as the older group passes on and younger talented workers are imported from abroad to fill positions in our full employment economy. Worldwide, Millennials will soon account for half of all employees (and voters).

In order to formulate my thinking on the coming economic conflict based on age, I found it helpful to think back to the period when Baby Boomers were entering adulthood in the late 60s and 70s.  Friends were transitioning from pugnacious students or stints in Vietnam to well-paying union positions and into medical, law and business school.  We continued to seek emotional and physical distance from our parents and had no desire to live with them or even reside in the same town.  Our laissez-faire parents felt the same way. (until the grandchildren started arriving)

Student loans were manageable 3% debts.  Employer backed Defined Benefit Pensions as opposed to less generous 401Ks were common.  We married in our 20s and could afford mortgages and vehicles.  As we transitioned from soldiers and students to union representatives and stockbrokers, we wanted material rewards to showcase our success. We were selfish, loud and built our futures based on our sense of economic entitlement.  Politically, we compelled elected officials to favor our economic whims at the expenses of future generations.  After all, we knew how to run a country and how to save the world.

When I place this snapshot next to today’s millennials, I get a much different view. The Millennials I know well are not as eager to break away and explore the world.  Their steps away from the familial cocoon, where parents have often placed them on a sheltered pedestal, are measured and careful. While some elders may view Millennials as disinterested, in fact they are fundamentally pragmatic. Riding a bike to work each day and taking Uber to the grocery store seems more sensible than owning a car.

Those Millennials that are beginning to take a stand politically do not demonstrate the rebellious enthusiasm of the 60s and 70s.  Decisions to delay marriage, own a home and purchase a vehicle have become lifestyle choices as much as financial decisions. Balance between work and recreation is essential. The internet and social media provide a network that seamlessly governs their employment, communications, recreation and access to news and advertising.

But at some point Millennials will realize that there is strength in numbers and that they have real political clout outside of their insular world. One day millions of young voters will look up from their phone screens and collectively ask, “where is our piece of the economic pie?”  Their minimalist lifestyle choices will become more material and biological alarm clocks will tell women it is time to start families and purchase homes.  They will realize that the industrial age is dying and that the information age is being built on their shoulders.  A full blown economic transformation will be underway.

This process started with the primary campaign of Bernie Sanders in 2016.  His campaign promises of universal health care and free college education were enough to stir the Millennial bear.  To illustrate this point, in Pennsylvania (one of the older population States in the country) the most recent voter registration totals disclose more registered voters under the age of 34 than over the age of 65 for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth.  Now that the seed has been planted, demands for economic parity will continue to be made and candidates running for office will be compelled to listen. 

These inevitable changes will come at the expense of Social Security and Medicare payments which must be pared back to accommodate the demands of Millennials. What has been true for Baby Boomers over the past 50 years, will become true for Millennials.  No serious political party, no matter what the ideological orientation, will be able to ignore their economic demands. 

Millennials have not yet given their new political power the full attention it deserves. When they do, Boomers and the AARP will have less leverage to determine policy.  This is the way a democratic republic based on pluralism works, as one large demographic interest group is replaced by another. 

As matters have turned out, Baby Boomers did not know how to run the country or how to save the world.  Millennials deserve their time at the wheel and could not possibly do any worse.

THE NEXT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

The passing of John McCain and the public discussion of his life and legacy has left me contemplating an issue that is 30 months away. What type of presidential candidate would I support for the Democratic party nomination in 2020?  If pressed, who would actually be my choice?

My view is that Trump has little chance of being impeached and will most certainly be the Republican candidate in 2020. With this in mind, there is a tendency in this age of Trump to nominate a Democrat who mirrors some of Trump’s characteristics. That is, to consider potential presidential candidates who are not career politicians, who are independently wealthy and who present out sized egos to confront the President on his own terms.

Prospective candidates who fall into this bucket now include entertainer Oprah Winfrey; Entrepreneur, TV personality and owner of the Dallas Mavericks Mark Cuban; and former President of Starbucks, Howard Schultz.  I would also place in this category former Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg because I do not consider him a career politician and attorney Michael Avenatti, who is representing porn star Stormy Daniels.  Avenatti is by no means a billionaire but he meets the other criteria.  He is becoming a recognizable face on cable news and has expressed an interest in running for president, urging democrats to: “be a party that fights fire with fire.”

 In this group of potential candidates, Michael Bloomberg would be my clear choice.  But his candidacy is problematic.  First he is a registered Independent.  Second his track record as Mayor of New York, while admirable, is not the stuff to attract progressive democrats.  Third, he would find it next to impossible to survive primary challenges from those to his left.  To his credit and to ingratiate himself with democrats, Bloomberg has spent upwards of 80 million dollars to help Democrats retake the House in 2018. Still, his best chance of becoming the candidate might be to accept the nomination at a hopelessly deadlocked Democratic Convention.

 If a candidate other than Bloomberg were to emerge from this group, it would be a clear sign that the Trump presidency has opened a new era in presidential politics.  Celebrity name recognition and personal wealth would have replaced years of earned political acumen as the ticket to the White House.

The second bucket of potential candidates I will label as the young Turks.  In this group would fall a number of possibilities, many of whom have already expressed some interest in running.  There is New Orleans Mayor, Mitch Landrieu, a dark horse to be sure.  A bit more viable in ascending order are: Ohio Senator, Sherrod Brown; New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo; Connecticut Senator, Chris Murphy; Former U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder Jr.; Former Virginia Governor, Terry McAuliffe; former Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick; New York Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand; New Jersey Senator, Corry Booker; California Senator, Kamala D. Harris; and the leader in this group, Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

My view among these candidates is that the first consideration should be to favor a qualified woman candidate.  Much of the pain of the Hillary Clinton lose would be repaired if the democratic party were to rebound four years later and be the first Party to place a woman in the White House.  This would advance Kristen Gillibrand, Kamala D. Harris and Elizabeth Warren to the top of my list.

Of these three, Elizabeth Warren has the better name recognition and national organization but is somewhat of a lightning rod.  Her sharp rhetoric and attack dog style might actually help Trump to frame the debate in the Twitter wars that would surely dominate the general election.  My feeling today is that either of the other two would make a better candidate, although neither is as dynamic as Warren.  Much would depend on how deep a following either of them could attract over the course of a congested and hard fought primary.

This brings us to the third and most likely bucket to produce the next democratic nominee for the presidency, the old political warriors.  There are two potential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.

 Sanders would seem to hold a strong grip on the leaderless Democratic Party because in 2016 he won at least 40 per cent of the primary vote in 37 States.  But in back of his dedicated, progressive young following his ceiling for support is low. I am not convinced that the country is ready for an Independent and avowed socialist to be elected president.  Moreover, his election would guarantee another four years of gridlock that would make even the Obama years seem tame.  In order for Democrats to govern, the next president must be part of a wide tent solution and not be the issue that invites partisan attacks.

Biden, on the other hand offers up a wider appeal in his liberal, but more fiscally conservative positions and voting record.  After a long Senate career and four years serving as Vice President, he is far and away the most well-traveled and knowledgeable statesman in the pack.  He knows how to campaign, he knows how to bargain with Congress and he knows how to govern.

Recent events have proven that there is no longer a McCain following of note in the Republican Party.  That is, elected Republicans are no longer inclined to follow their moral compasses or independent views rather than an uncompromising party line.  The truth is that but for McCain’s larger than life persona, he would not have won his last election to the Senate in Arizona. 

It does not follow that there is no longer a Biden following in the Democratic party.  The progressive left is more forgiving than the tea party Trumpian right. I believe the Democratic goal of recapturing the White House with the strongest unifying candidate will win out over pure ideological considerations.  If Biden were to win the nomination, Sander’s supporters would fall in line with greater urgency than they did for Hilary Clinton in 2016.

At the recent McCain memorial service in Arizona, Biden was among the last to provide a tribute. His remarks began with the words: “My name is Joe Biden.  I am a Democrat. I loved John McCain.” 

It is my view that this attitude of bipartisanship, along with Biden’s long record of service and blue collar roots is exactly what the country needs to begin the long road back from four years of turbulent tribal warfare.  Biden could enhance his candidacy by declaring he will only serve for one term in the White House (he will be 78 in 2020 as will Sanders) and by choosing early in the campaign, a progressive young Turk, to serve as his vice president. 

Joe Biden and one of the woman listed above would make an excellent ticket to ensure that Donald Trump is sent packing, back to his penthouses, golf resorts, indictments and lawsuits.