Straight News: US President Joe Biden "overturned" in the first election TV debate, and there were many calls for Biden to withdraw from the election, but Biden himself clearly refused, what is your observation on this?
Special Commentator Zhang Sinan: On June 29, local time, US President Joe Biden canvassed for himself at a campaign rally in North Carolina, although Biden tried to show vitality and passion, emphasizing that he "knows how to distinguish between right and wrong, and also knows how to do a good job as president", but I believe that everyone will never forget the hoarse voice, weak and humble image of the 81-year-old man at the election televised debate less than 24 hours ago, and the embarrassment of being dazed and even a little helpless when he did not speak.
The American magazine "Foreign Policy" said that the problem is no longer how Biden should remedy it, but no matter how it is remedied, it is difficult for the outside world to believe that Biden is still capable of re-election. The American media "Wall Street Journal" wrote that letting Biden continue to shoulder the heavy responsibility of the Democratic candidate feels like "elder abuse"; The New York Times, a left-wing media outlet that has always supported the Democratic Party, also called for the time for the Democratic Party to launch a "younger generation" to compete with Trump and the Republican Party.
So why is Biden reluctant to let Xian go? The answer is simple, because the Democratic Party is not monolithic, and there are competing interests of different factions.
Biden belongs to the "New Democrats" faction of the Democratic Party, and there are also "New Democrats" such as Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, and other American politicians that we have heard of in recent years. The "New Democrats" were formed in the late '80s and early '90s, when the Democratic Party was in the midst of a total collapse: since 1968, the Democratic Party had lost five of its six presidential elections; In 1984, Republican Ronald Reagan swept the votes in 49 of the 50 states, and won the majority support of all age groups and all occupational groups, except for the unemployed. The "New Democrats" reversed the defeat of the Democratic Party: first, Clinton miraculously defeated Bush Sr. in 1992 by focusing on economic issues, knowing that Bush Sr. had both Reagan endorsement and was famous for his two "victories" in the Cold War and the Gulf War. Then there was Obama's defeat of George W. Bush in 2008, which ended the Republican Party's "Bush dynasty"; and Biden withstanding Trump's populist frenzy in 2020.
In a sense, as far as the survival of the Democratic Party is concerned, the "New Democrats" are indisputable contributors, but the success of the "New Democrats" and the defeat of the "New Democrats" - the "New Democrats" have long suppressed the "progressives" representing the young and grassroots Democrats, and prevented young young talents from coming to the fore. Historically, from Roosevelt to Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic Party has long advocated government intervention, Keynesianism, and is keen on affirmative action and social reform. However, it is a pity that since the 60s of the last century, the "progressivism" of the Democratic Party has been alienated into "radicalism", and it has soon lost the trust of the people because of its inability to solve the domestic economic stagnation and social turmoil.
This is why I just talked about the total collapse of the Democratic Party in the United States, and in fact the key to the reorganization of the Democratic Party by the "New Democrats" is to abandon excessive progressivism, follow a moderate "middle line", and try to be consistent with the middle voters. In the eyes of the "New Democrats", the future of the Democratic Party does not need radical ideology and value appeals, let alone left-wing socialism. On the other hand, however, the "progressives" unite the grassroots Democrats and the Young Democrats, and out of the interests of their own factions, the "New Democrats" continue to suppress the "progressives" and refuse to delegate power to the "progressives." Objectively, the "New Democrats" continue to lack fresh blood to enter, and the Democratic Party can be described as a dead end in "gerontocracy."
Although the "New Democrats" still dominate, they are already in turmoil. Since the 2018 midterm elections, the "progressives" have become the largest faction in the Congressional Democratic Party, and the "progressives" have openly demanded that the Democratic Party abandon the moderate "midterm line" and return to the grassroots and return to left-wing populism. Democratic Congressman Ocasio-Cortez has publicly stated that she and Biden cannot be in the same party in any other country. So in the end, back to your question, why Biden refuses to let Xian, because he is not only "who will lead the Democratic Party", but also "what is the Democratic Party". In a sense, in the case of this election, defeat is not the worst outcome for the Democratic Party, and what awaits the "New Democrats" and "progressives" may be a potential split in the party.
Straight News: So in this election, are you more optimistic about Trump?
Special Commentator Zhang Sinan: In the first debate of the U.S. election, Trump was indeed more impressive than Biden. However, according to CNN, in the debate of about 90 minutes, Trump threw out more than 30 erroneous or extreme remarks, including "Democratic states allow infanticide after birth", "there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States during his presidency", "Biden plans to increase taxes fourfold"; Trump even declared that "if Israel is not allowed to fight in Palestine, Biden is a weak and bad Palestinian"; At the same time, Trump once again publicly refused to answer whether he would "respect the election results" and downplayed the vile nature of the 2021 Capitol riot.
Clinton once said that Americans are more concerned about "who is strong and who is weak" than "who is right and who is wrong," that is to say, you can be ignorant, you can be arrogant, but as long as you are strong enough, you can win the support of American voters. In fact, I saw voters tell Reuters after the debate that between a confused old man and a lying liar, "I'd rather vote for a lying liar."
On the other hand, I would like to say that Trump has been able to get to where he is today, and his latest approval rating in June has even surpassed Biden by 3 percentage points, not only by momentum, but also by a certain inevitability of the times. Trump's success is fundamentally due to the fact that in the process of the United States' transition from an industrialized economy to a consumer economy, the interests of a large number of industrial workers have been damaged, and under the cruel capitalist system, a large number of grassroots groups have not been taken care of. People are disappointed in the establishment and cry out for fairness, for being represented, for a better life for themselves, and finally for strongman politics. At this time, Trump, who has a strong incendiary attribute, also stepped onto the stage of the times.
In a sense, Trump has even surpassed the Republican Party. Back in 2020, 54% of Republican voters identified themselves as Trump supporters first and then Republicans; Conversely, only 38 percent of Republican voters believe they support Trump based on their support for the Republican Party. Some people think that Trump created the so-called "Trumpism" and "Trump Republicans", but I don't think so, this stubborn old man in the United States is more like dividing a very conservative group of Republicans, forming a new cognitive group, and giving the name of "Trumpism" and "Trump Republicans".
It is true that Trump has united the Republican Party like never before, and his influence is even comparable to that of Reagan, but when the Republican Party gradually equates with Trump, does the equation hold in reverse? Considering that Trump is 78 years old, perhaps in the near future, how will the Republican Party respond to Trumpism without Trump? Is Trumpism sustainable and replicable? And if Trumpism cannot be replicated, will Trump Republicans risk a split in the Republican Party because of the awakening of ultra-conservatism?
So back to your question, am I bullish on Trump. If you're asking about this election, then I don't know, because Trump and Biden are still relatively tight at the moment, and in American elections, a few thousand votes in key swing states can often make the difference between success and failure. If you're asking about the longer term, I'd say Trump isn't an answer after all, he's just going to bring more questions. Just like the contradiction between the "new Democrats" and the "progressives" in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is going further and further down the road of right-wing radicalization, and it is also destined to lose its balance and stability. Perhaps soon, we will see a major change in the US party system, let's wait and see.
Author丨Zhang Sinan is a special commentator of Shenzhen Satellite TV's "Live Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan".