Last night Biden took to the podium to make a statement, coming short of claiming victory, but noting that their path to the White House appears certain. But what concerns me was that in his statement he claimed that in this anticipated victory, which we all know is by razor thing margins in battle ground states, is a "mandate for action." Biden claimed that those who voted for him have "given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, on climate change and systemic racism." Yet in the same breath he claims that he needs to heal the nation and press for unity.
With Democrats projected to lose seats in the house, not gain them, I'm wondering if that shouldn't temper this "mandate" just a bit. If other Republican gains throughout the country in more local, state-level races also should give him a moment of pause before he sets off on a certain "mandate." Some of the very things that divided those who voted in this election are still on the table, but Biden proposes to have a mandate to push through an agenda he had all along. That will not unify or heal. It will exacerbate the divide.
Obviously he doesn't tell us just what this perceived "mandate" will empower him to do once he is in the White House. Pelosi is already celebrating his win and what that means. Yet all around them is the evidence not of a "blue wave" endorsing their agenda, but unexpected projected losses. And a presidential election that was anything but a landslide, but is coming down to painstaking vote-by-vote counting with some questions remaining as to irregularities there as well.
I hope he walks back the "mandate" talk. It's not going to pull folks across the aisle to work with him in happy unity.
For many of us "action on COVID, the economy, on climate change, and systemic racism" is not a Democratic issue, but a global one. Until specific actions are presented and congress can back (or deny) them; I think actions on these issues is a global necessity for the future of life on this planet.
In broad terms, yes, one could say any of these areas concern "global" interests.
But we are talking here of policies on which Biden ran that addressed these issues.
As far as COVID is concerned we know that a vaccine is in production and expected soon. This is already in process. Biden talked a lot about a national mask mandate. But I can tell you as one in a state where the governor issued one, that these are not very enforceable. What is he going to do that will still respect the rights of states and their leaders to address this as they have? Does he want to shut down sectors of the US? That could face some backlash.
As far as the economy we know that a whole slew of new taxes are planned. We can dicker on who is impacted and affected, but taxes are not neutral. They can raise revenue, but they can also impact the profitability of businesses and how they pass on that cost. We can argue that it is only folks earning over $400,000, but do we honestly believe that taxes on the brackets above us do not ultimately impact those below? How fast and hard will he push on this? Is he willing to work with Republicans and moderate his policy goals?
Racism has been a hot topic this year. There is no denying that racism exists, but there is certainly no consensus on how deep and widespread it is from a 'systemic' perspective. In my church body I have heard accusations of institutional racism that are not all accurate or fair. The "defund the police" movement rose out of the race issue, and has received backlash from some quarters. How aggressive is Biden willing to be on this? Does he realize that there are minorities in positions of leadership and elsewhere that do not agree to the same assessment of 'systemic racism'? Is he willing to talk about this with others who do not share the same assessement?
Climate change talk has also been a hot topic, but for far longer than systemic racism. Yet, again, not all see this the same way. Not all agree with how it should be addressed. Biden was pretty open about getting rid of fracking and moving toward oil free energy production. He backed down from that when it became politically expedient. Now that he has the reigns of power will the original plans come out again, or is he prepared to talk with and work with others from that sector of the energy industry?
Yes, in broad terms they may have global interest, but within each of these, based on his published policy statements and stump rhetoric, there are a lot of specifics that are quite partisan.
If he now feels he has a "mandate" to push ahead on this even if there is Republican push back, so be it. But two years from now the elections might want to correct that.
