As American voters start to pay greater attention to what is expected to be a very close presidential election in 2024, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party need to read a recent posting by Ruy Teixeira on The Liberal Patriot. The headline is of his post is: 

It’s Official! The Democrats Have a Nonwhite Voter Problem

What makes this post especially noteworthy is that Teixeira is the coauthor of “The Emerging Democratic Majority” a book that suggested that demography was destiny for the Democratic Party. It suggested that by extrapolating demographic trends, the total number of nonwhite voters in America would eventually make up nearly a quarter of the electorate. It further suggested if these voters voted solidly Democratic, they would provide a formidable advantage for Democratic candidates, especially, but not limited to Democratic presidential candidates. As a result, it predicted the Democratic Party could dominate American politics for the foreseeable future. 

The key words are: if these voters voted solidly Democratic. 

Recently polling of nonwhite voters suggests they are not likely to vote solidly Democratic in the 2024 presidential election and perhaps beyond. 

A recent survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and the American Enterprise Institute’s Survey Center on American Life reports the following:  57% of nonwhite voters say President Biden has accomplished little or nothing during his time in office. Close to 50% consider the Democratic Party too extreme, think it bases decisions more on politics than common sense and supports policies that interfere too much in people’s lives. Over two-fifths do not see the Democrats as sharing their values. And over a third think Democrats look down on people like them, do not value hard work and aren’t patriotic.

In The Liberal Patriot’s recent survey of American voters conducted by YouGov, most nonwhite voters believe the Democratic Party has moved too far left on both economic and cultural/social issues. On economic issues, 57% of these voters say Democrats have moved too far left. On cultural and social issues, 56% say the same.

All these numbers lead one to ask what is next?

It all depends on if or how the Republican Party and the Democratic Party adjust their election strategies going forward. 

Democrats could win back support from disgruntled nonwhite and select disgruntled white voters with two strategies. The first is addressing a growing perception by nonwhite voters that their longtime and solid support of Democratic candidates has been and is taken for granted. The second is embracing more moderate positions and actions on a wide range of economic and social issues. 

Republicans could recruit and retain support from disgruntled nonwhite voters with two strategies. The first strategy is addressing a perception that the GOP is an exclusive club that does not understand or care about nonwhite voters. The second is working more effectively on engaging, energizing, and mobilizing nonwhite voters whose views are in sync with Republican positions and actions on public policy issues to vote Republican. 

For both parties, pursuing these strategies have significant risks. Democrats risk alienating younger progressives who by nature are resistant to compromise and who are a steadily growing number of voters within the Democratic Party. 

Republicans risk alienating older conservatives who by nature are resistant to change like expanded voter outreach and get out the vote efforts with nonwhite voters.

Between now and November 2024 it will be interesting to see if or how each party (assuming no third parties are viable) may maximize their opportunities and minimize their risks to accomplish the two goals of every political party – win elections and then govern in such a way to avoid the consequences of “buyer’s remorse” in subsequent elections.  

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

 

With great shock and even greater sadness I read media accounts of protestors disrupting a recent presentation at Washington College in Chestertown.

The presentation featured Dr. Robert George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. While Professor George has deeply held conservative beliefs which he does not shy away from expressing, he is also a frequent conversation partner with Cornel West, a progressive professor and political activist. They have appeared together at colleges and universities around the country, arguing for civil dialogue and a broad conception of campus freedom of speech as essential to the truth-seeking mission of academic institutions. Of his longtime friend West has said — “Robby and I struggle over many issues, but at the deepest human level, it’s hard to find anyone with his kind of integrity and genuine concern for others.” 

Progressive Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has said this about Professor George — “He is one of the nation’s most respected legal theorists and the respect he has gained is due to his sheer brilliance, the analytic power of his arguments, the range of his knowledge, a deeply principled conviction, and a profound and enduring integrity.”

No stranger to threats of bodily harm, Professor George was once targeted with death threats for views on abortion.

So how was Professor George treated during his presentation at Washington College? Extremely poorly is an understatement.

The protesters at his presentation did not quietly carry signs and engage in civil dialogue with Professor George following his remarks. Instead, media at the event reported the following: “The protesters marched in, with campus security allowing them passage. Shouting from the protesters started right away, breaking up the professor’s talk.” The media also reported the protesters waved flags, waved signs, blew whistles, played music, and danced. They did not stand down until Professor George’s presentation ended prematurely and he [George] was escorted from the room.

 After this shameful treatment Professor George observed that in all his years visiting numerous colleges and universities including Berkeley, Yale, and Harvard (hardly bastions of conservatism), he never had this happen before. After this event, he observed that “When intimidation works, they’ll continue to do it,”

 Indeed, they will. Intimidation at this event did work and there is no reason to believe the protestors will not do it again with anyone who does not embrace their views or asks them to consider other views.

 That being the case the following questions need to be addressed by the leadership of Washington College.

What has been or will be the college’s response to the protestors willful disregard for the following Washington College core values? “We share these values of our founding patron, George Washington: integrity, determination, curiosity, civility, leadership, and moral courage. We develop in our students’ habits of analytic thought and clear communication, aesthetic insight, ethical sensitivity, and civic responsibility.

What has been or will be the college’s response to the following comment by one protestor at the event after an email was sent to all students reminding them that it would be a violation of the Student Honor Code to disrupt a speaker? “Are you going to tell me that WAC (Washington College) can expel every single one of us? Absolutely (expletive) not!”.

Why did campus security decide not to intervene with timely and appropriate steps to deal with the protesters well before their disruptive behavior resulted in a premature end of the event?

Post event a college spokesperson said, “the protesters took issue with homophobic and transphobic statements that Professor George has made in the past.” Is the spokesperson implying that Washington College agrees with the protester’s interpretations of and opinions on statements made by Professor George in the past?

How committed is Washington College to free speech, civil discourse, and ensuring students are exposed to a wide range of views that may challenge how they think and what they think?

One can hope that going forward Washington College will walk their talk on their core principles and student honor code to help ensure this recent tyranny of the loud will never happen again.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

 

Twenty-two years ago, today the unthinkable happened when terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners in a sinister coordinated attack on America. 

In that attack, two of the hijacked planes were flown into the World Trade Center buildings in New York City, one was flown into the Pentagon in Arlington Virginia, and one was flown into a field in Pennsylvania that was only 20 minutes in flying time from Washington DC. It is widely assumed the hijackers intended to fly that plane into the U.S. Capitol.

The exact number of victims—particularly the number of those who died at the World Trade Center—is not definitively known. However, the total official 9.11 death toll, after numerous revisions is 2,977 people. At the World Trade Center, 2,753 people died, 344 of whom were first responders. The death toll at the Pentagon was 184 people and the death toll in Pennsylvania was 40 people. They were all innocent people who woke up on a Monday morning thinking it would be just another early autumn day at work or in travel. Simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time resulted in them never returning to their homes and their loved ones.

Beyond the death toll, we will never know the exact number of those individuals who were scarred for life from losing their loved ones. We do know it must include countless children who grew into adulthood after losing at least one of their parents. Post 9.11, public health officials in New York City continue to track premature deaths of first responders who were at the World Trade Center crash sites on search and rescue missions and who were exposed to toxic chemicals that blanketed the ground where the twin towers collapsed. 

As the news about the attacks spread across America on 9.11 and the somber days afterward American truly became the UNITED States of America. Citizens of every age, skin color, ethnicity, political persuasion, place of residence, and religious beliefs (or no religious beliefs) came together as one in sharing our disbelief this event could have happened, sharing grief that it did happen, and our firm resolve to Never Forget.

Sadly, I fear our resolve to never forget is now a distant memory as is our unity. Our country is more divided today than it was following a war between the states that ended more than 150 years ago.

This commentary is not the place to discuss what has caused this division in America over the past 22 years since 9.11. This commentary is not to cast blame on who may be responsible for this division. Most importantly. this commentary is not intended to chastise any of us (myself included) who may not be faithful honoring our commitment to Never Forget. 

We all live in a world where we are bombarded with never ending reports of tragedies and horrible events. While we cannot live dwelling on the past, there are events in our history that merit much more than a casual almost perfunctory moment of remembrance. 9.11 is one such event. 

The very least we can do is pause and reflect on how we are doing on every anniversary of 9.11 in honoring the solemn commitment we made as a united America made 22 years ago to “NEVER FORGET”. In doing so maybe we will also a rekindle a spirit of unity that we so desperately need today. That unity would a most fitting tribute to all those directly impacted by 9.11 and would be a giant step forward in restoring a sense of greater unity for America.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

 

There is ongoing widespread speculation on whether President Biden will be impeached, how many articles of impeachment may be filed in the U.S. House of Representatives, if or when the House Judiciary Committee and the full House may approve any articles of impeachment; and if or when the U.S. Senate may hold an impeachment trial and vote on any House articles of impeachment.

While these questions are interesting, they are not the most important.

The most important is: Will any Biden articles of impeachment that may be approved by the House muster the two thirds vote in the Senate (currently sixty-seven votes) necessary to convict him?

The answer is no. The reasons are simple.

Impeachment is less a judicial process and is more a political process.

Constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky says “The framers of the Constitution knew that ultimately this would be a political process. And so, none of us should be shocked or upset that it’s a political process today.”

Currently no political party has a two thirds majority in the U.S. Senate. There are 48 Democratic Senators, 49 Republican Senators, 3 independent Senators, 2 of whom are members of the Democratic Caucus and 1 of whom is a member of the Democratic Caucus for committee assignments.

This close partisan split in the Senate is expected to be the norm for the foreseeable future so any future Senate votes to convict an impeached president will need a bipartisan coalition to reach the two thirds majority threshold.

Compounding that political math, Article II, Section 4 of the U.S Constitution says, “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The constitution does not define “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The U.S. Supreme Court has never defined “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Even constitutional scholars disagree on a definition for “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Former longtime member of Congress, former vice president and former President Gerald Ford once said, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

At no given moment in history has the Senate voted to convict a president based on the offenses included in House impeachment articles.

That was the case when the Senate did not convict Andrew Johnson on 11 House impeachment articles in 1868; did not convict Bill Clinton on 2 House impeachment articles in 1999; and did not convict Donald Trump on 2 House impeachment articles in 2020 and another 1 in 2021.

Some maintain Richard Nixon would have been the first president to be convicted by the Senate based on House impeachment articles. We will never know as Nixon resigned from the presidency before the House approved articles of impeachment and before a Senate trial could be held.

If Joe Biden is impeached in the House (a big if), the result of a Senate trial will very likely be acquittal just as it was with A. Johnson, Clinton, and Trump.

Going forward Americans need and deserve the following actions from every member of Congress, especially those in leadership positions.

A commitment to hit the pause button on all future presidential impeachments unless there is bipartisan consensus on them being more a judicial process and less a political process focused on blatantly advancing  a political agenda.

A commitment to focus their full attention to working together in addressing the many challenges facing America.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

Leadership guru James Collins says organizations striving for sustained success embrace the concept of “first who, then where.” He uses a bus analogy to demonstrate that concept.

Collins says before a decision is made where to take a bus, you must get the wrong people off the bus, the right people on the bus, and the right people in the right seats on the bus. Then, and only then, are decisions made on where to take the bus. Political parties can use Collin’s “first who, then where” concept to win elections, which is how they define sustained success. 

I believe the Democrat Party will do exactly that in gearing up for the 2024 presidential election.

While White House spin doctors regularly maintain Joe Biden’s policies and performance are popular with the public; I suggest Democrat party leaders privately realize his policies and performance are not. I further suggest they know his re- election probability is in deep trouble. 

Accordingly, I suggest they will take steps to get the wrong person (Biden) off the 2024 campaign bus, the right person (to be determined) on that bus, and the right persons in the right seats on that bus. Then they will decide where to take that bus. I suggest they know while there are loyal Democratic voters who will support Biden’s reelection no matter what; they also know they need to keep independent voters on board in 2024. These voters are not loyal to either party and may respond with a resounding no to one simple question from whomever the Republicans nominate. That question is: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Ronald Reagan used it early and often for his landslide victory over incumbent Democrat president Jimmy Carter. Reagan affirmed that “buyer’s remorse” is a powerful force in elections. 

While getting Biden off the campaign bus will not be easy, the Democrat party has powerful allies with a common goal. Those allies are progressive media outlets. That common goal is a Democrat as president for at least four years starting in January 2025. I suggest progressive media outlets are already doing what they can to help get Biden off the 2024 campaign bus. Look no further than a major pivot in their interest in and coverage of Hunter Biden’s business dealings by progressive media bastions CNN and The Washington Post. During the 2020 debates, Donald Trump said Hunter Biden was receiving large payments from foreign governments and business entities. Joe Biden forcefully rejected these allegations, stating, “None of that is true.” Progressive media outlets accepted that reply without question or further investigation. 

Now Hunter Biden’s business dealings are getting much greater scrutiny, including questions about what did Joe know and when did he know it?

Recently, CNN’s Jake Tapper said this about the 2020 debates “Trump was right. I mean, he [Hunter Biden] did make a fortune from China and Joe Biden was wrong,” Tapper said that after reading reports by Glenn Kessler, the chief fact- checker at The Washington Post who wrote “Hunter Biden reported nearly $2.4 million in income in 2017 and $2.2 million in income in 2018, most of which came from Chinese or Ukrainian interests”. Kessler in turn gave Joe Biden four Pinocchio’s, the worst negative rating assigned by the Post to call out candidates and elected officials who issue “false or misleading statements repeated so often that they became a form of propaganda.”  

Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen also recently wrote that Biden’s involvement in Hunter’s business dealings “deserves a serious investigation.,” Olsen wrote further that he “long dismissed” stories regarding Hunter Biden, but “recent revelations” changed his mind. 

Earlier this month, The Washington Post editorial board acknowledged that critics were “justified” to believe that Hunter received preferential consideration on a plea deal that was ultimately rejected by a federal judge. The editorial board wrote “Initially appearing reasonable, the deal turned out to include peculiar details suggesting critics might have been justified to suspect that Mr. Biden was being given special treatment.”

These pivots are not coincidental, nor do they result from a newfound commitment by two bastions of progressive media outlets to truth, justice, and the America way. 

It is a strategy to help Democrat power brokers replace Joe Biden as their standard bearer for president in 2024. Who that replacement is not as important as winning.

In 2020 progressive media outlets helped Joe Biden by advancing a narrative that along with him being a moderate; Joe would be transparent, open, and could be trusted to do the right thing in the right way. Now as Biden’s reelection is uncertain at best, their narrative is completely different. 

CNN and The Washington Post are now saying that by his words and his actions, Joe Biden is not transparent nor open and cannot always be trusted to do the right thing in the right way. Students of political history will recall Richard Nixon was impeached by the U.S. House and resigned the presidency in disgrace prior to a U.S. Senate impeachment trial. Nixon concluded he did not have political support in the Senate to survive that trial. This lack of political support occurred after Nixon was reelected less than two years earlier with 60% of the popular vote.

I fully expect the Democrat Party will soon conclude that Joe Biden will not have sufficient political support to be reelected in 2024. Between now and then they will thank him for his party loyalty and for stepping up to be branded as a viable alternative to Donald Trump. Then they will privately tell him there is no seat for you on the 2024 presidential campaign bus.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.