Reelection politics explain Trump’s strange stance - The Boston Globe | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Politics

Reelection politics explain Trump’s strange stance – The Boston Globe

Published

 on


Will Trump supporters trust his judgment in possible matters of life and death?

President Donald Trump speaks at the daily coronavirus briefing at the White House on April 19.Tasos Katopodis/Getty

It’s a common caricature of politicians to say they want to be on both sides of every issue. Yet when it comes to President Donald Trump and the COVID-19 crisis, that’s actually become his reelection strategy.

This pandemic would have presented a different president — John Kasich, say, or Jeb Bush, or Hillary Clinton — with an opportunity to unite the country. But that requires taking responsibility and leading.

Trump is loath to do either, and his reasons are apparent: campaign positioning.

He wants to be considered a wartime president while playing only a back-up role, to create the impression he is at the forefront of the national effort even while preserving a blame-inoculating political distance from accountability. Thus each evening he reads a long list of things the administration has done and lavishes praise on himself and his team, but when asked about actual shortfalls in the battle to contain the coronavirus, insists the principal duty lies with the states and blames them for not stocking up on critical medical equipment and material.

In an international emergency like this, the federal government needs to assume the primary role in several essential areas. One is procuring and allocating desperately needed equipment and supplies. Instead, Trump has left states competing with one another and the federal government — and sometimes having supplies whose purchases they arranged taken instead by the feds.

Advertisement



With a significant shortage of tests and ancillary items such as swabs to administer them, the federal government also needs to take the lead both in procuring those kits (and necessary accessories) and in establishing universal procedures and practices to guide testing.

But Trump insists that that, too, is up to the states. Indeed, the big intended message from Monday’s briefing was that states should be able to find that capacity themselves; thus slides displaying the testing facilities supposedly available in each state.

Advertisement



Although Trump occasionally raises constitutional objections to assuming a leadership role, his objections plainly aren’t ideological. Witness his willingness to countenance an enormous expansion of the federal government’s role in sustaining the economy.

His obvious desire is to take credit wherever he can, right down to having his name on the stimulus checks, while avoiding both accountability and blame.

There, he battles his own record. The president made one important decision — ending most travel from China — in a reasonably timely fashion. He points to that incessantly, often falsely portraying it as a crucial determination made despite heated opposition. Otherwise, his record is more one of a distracted president who dithered, downplayed, and delayed.

Once gubernatorial complaints reach a level that can’t be ignored, the administration sometimes swings into action. Even then, however, the president portrays those undertakings not as the federal government’s proper role but as a beneficent gesture, a favor for which states should personally thank him.

Now consider the contradiction between the guidelines the task force laid down for the safe reopening of economic activity and the president’s recent twitter taunts — “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!,” “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!,” “LIBERATE VIRGINIA! . . .” — targeting swing states with Democratic governors that don’t meet the reopening guidelines.

Why would the president aid and abet in any way the irrational, conspiratorialist protesters who are advocating reopenings that run counter to his own administration’s guidelines? The most benign interpretation: The troll in Trump’s soul simply can’t resist the political urge to meddle in troubled waters.

Advertisement



More ominously, however, his tweets may signal a president probing for opportunities to polarize, for reelection purposes, the emerging tensions between expert advice and populist urges.

It’s hard to know quite yet; with polls showing Americans’ big worry right now is about the health risks of reopening too soon, not the economic consequences of waiting too long, Trump has backed off, at least for the moment.

But if, as public frustration grows, Trump lends his voice to the open-now, guidelines-be-damned crowd, that obviously would go well beyond disavowing responsibility and deflecting blame.

It would raise a particular question for Trump supporters: Are you ready to bet your life or your loved ones on the proposition that this president will put the national interest over his reelection prospects?


Scot Lehigh is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at scot.lehigh@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeScotLehigh

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Politics

Gould calls Poilievre a ‘fraudster’ over his carbon price warning

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Liberal House leader Karina Gould lambasted Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre as a “fraudster” this morning after he said the federal carbon price is going to cause a “nuclear winter.”

Gould was speaking just before the House of Commons is set to reopen following the summer break.

“What I heard yesterday from Mr. Poilievre was so over the top, so irresponsible, so immature, and something that only a fraudster would do,” she said from Parliament Hill.

On Sunday Poilievre said increasing the carbon price will cause a “nuclear winter,” painting a dystopian picture of people starving and freezing because they can’t afford food or heat due the carbon price.

He said the Liberals’ obsession with carbon pricing is “an existential threat to our economy and our way of life.”

The carbon price currently adds about 17.6 cents to every litre of gasoline, but that cost is offset by carbon rebates mailed to Canadians every three months. The Parliamentary Budget Office provided analysis that showed eight in 10 households receive more from the rebates than they pay in carbon pricing, though the office also warned that long-term economic effects could harm jobs and wage growth.

Gould accused Poilievre of ignoring the rebates, and refusing to tell Canadians how he would make life more affordable while battling climate change. The Liberals have also accused the Conservatives of dismissing the expertise of more than 200 economists who wrote a letter earlier this year describing the carbon price as the least expensive, most efficient way to lower emissions.

Poilievre is pushing for the other opposition parties to vote the government down and trigger what he calls a “carbon tax election.”

The recent decision by the NDP to break its political pact with the government makes an early election more likely, but there does not seem to be an interest from either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP to have it happen immediately.

Poilievre intends to bring a non-confidence motion against the government as early as this week but would likely need both the Bloc and NDP to support it.

Gould said she has no “crystal ball” over when or how often Poilievre might try to bring down the government

“I know that the end of the supply and confidence agreement makes things a bit different, but really all it does is returns us to a normal minority parliament,” she said. “And that means that we will work case-by-case, legislation-by-legislation with whichever party wants to work with us. I have already been in touch with all of the House leaders in the opposition parties and my job now is to make Parliament work for Canadians.”

She also insisted the government has listened to the concerns raised by Canadians, and received the message when the Liberals lost a Toronto byelection in June in seat the party had held since 1997.

“We certainly got the message from Toronto-St. Paul’s and have spent the summer reflecting on what that means and are coming back to Parliament, I think, very clearly focused on ensuring that Canadians are at the centre of everything that we do moving forward,” she said.

The Liberals are bracing, however, for the possibility of another blow Monday night, in a tight race to hold a Montreal seat in a byelection there. Voters in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun are casting ballots today to replace former justice minister David Lametti, who was removed from cabinet in 2023 and resigned as an MP in January.

The Conservatives and NDP are also in a tight race in Elmwood-Transcona, a Winnipeg seat that has mostly been held by the NDP over the last several decades.

There are several key bills making their way through the legislative process, including the online harms act and the NDP-endorsed pharmacare bill, which is currently in the Senate.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Voters head to the polls for byelections in Montreal and Winnipeg

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Canadians in two federal ridings are choosing their next member of Parliament today, and political parties are closely watching the results.

Winnipeg’s Elmwood —Transcona seat has been vacant since the NDP’s Daniel Blaikie left federal politics.

The New Democrats are hoping to hold onto the riding and polls suggest the Conservatives are in the running.

The Montreal seat of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun opened up when former justice minister David Lametti left politics.

Polls suggest the race is tight between the Liberal candidate and the Bloc Québécois, but the NDP is also hopeful it can win.

The Conservatives took over a Liberal stronghold seat in another byelection in Toronto earlier this summer, a loss that sent shock waves through the governing party and intensified calls for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to step down as leader.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Next phase of federal foreign interference inquiry to begin today in Ottawa

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – The latest phase of a federal inquiry into foreign interference is set to kick off today with remarks from commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue.

Several weeks of public hearings will focus on the capacity of federal agencies to detect, deter and counter foreign interference.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and key government officials took part in hearings earlier this year as the inquiry explored allegations that Beijing tried to meddle in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

Hogue’s interim report, released in early May, said Beijing’s actions did not affect the overall results of the two general elections.

The report said while outcomes in a small number of ridings may have been affected by interference, this cannot be said with certainty.

Trudeau, members of his inner circle and senior security officials are slated to return to the inquiry in coming weeks.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version