The biggest news is that Putin and Trump met at Anchorage in Alaska. They apparently did not come to any resolution if four elements are taken into consideration. First there was the brevity of the conference: three hours instead of the planned six or seven. Secondly, Putin and Trump had a brief press conference that did not allow questions. This is usually taken to be a sign that little progress was made in the negotiations. Thirdly, and most importantly, Zelensky was not invited but his warnings regarding the faith to be put into Putin’s declarations sounded loud and clear. Zelensky’s warnings were probably taken too hard by many people: what looked like a warming relationship between Russia and the US did not go very far and could not. Or at least not yet, as Trump the RICO has made us expect. The fourth point is that the Ukraine hardly figured in the post conference conversations. Is it a sign that Putin and Trump made some “progress” on the issue of Ukraine? That is, Trump would be in the process of selling the national soul in return for access to precious minerals, rare earths, and the continuation of gas and oil contracts in Europe and especially in India. One must not forget that the main source of Russian capital for military expenditures in the war οn Ukraine is oil and minerals.

Tonight, vice-president candidates Waltz and Vance had a fairly solid discussion in which Waltz in particular could showcase his experience and more importantly how and why he cares about democracy, the rule of law, and the role of regulations. He struck me as a very practical person who believes in good will and is more than willing to negotiate pretty much everything. It will be interesting to see how independent voters and particularly women who are eager to defend abortion rights will vote in November. I was particularly interested by the performance of Vance, his frequent need to mask his recently acquired hypocrisy, and his repeated attempts to turn Trump into an acceptable politician. I wonder if deep inside he did not regret not to be on Waltz’s team. It would certainly suit better his recent Catholic faith, acquired at the knees of Dominican fathers and placed under the patronage of Augustine of Hippo.

Coda: tonight’s NATO-related press conference, in spite of Biden’s knowledge of foreign policy, was a difficult, nerve-racking moment, with its share of confusions. It made me wonder all along if he was going to implode. The fact that he wants “to finish the job,” as he likes to say, and his professed belief that he is the best qualified candidate to run and to win, no matter the polls, made me cringe. I could barely watch. And what about his numerous trailing “anyways,” after answers that were often too specific ? Or when he pretended for a moment to be open to a classic, competitive convention, only to say in hushed, confidential, stilted tones that “it’s not going to happen”? His age, he says, is an unparalleled source of wisdom. The gap between his feeble answers to questions and his majestic claims seemed increasingly foolish.

Today’s New York Times devotes nearly a whole opinion page—with a title across the four columns—, to the urgent need for the Democratic Party leaders to speak the truth to the president: in a sentence, Mr. Biden should leave the race and make room for an open competition at the convention. He is not the best qualified candidate to run against Trump, in spite of the image he repeatedly projects.

The urgency comes from the danger presented by Donald Trump to democracy, to the country and to the world. Doubts have continued to mount regarding Mr. Biden‘s performance and capacities. The country is at great risk if Biden keeps insisting that he is the best and only person to challenge Trump. The polls tell another story: 74% of voters think that Mr. Biden is too old. As for the catastrophic debate, short interview to Stephanopoulos, and few scripted speeches, they feel to most people like a disaster continuing to happen in slow motion. On top of it, to have the White House blame mega-donors and the elite of the party may have soothed Biden’s ego but is failing because it does not serve the country at its moment of great need. It actually seemed borrowed from the Trumpian play-book.

Both Biden and the leadership of the party must cooperate to prevent a 1933-style Trump election. It begins by paying attention to the polls instead of fantasizing a Trumpian world in which one could still function. To repeat: the leaders of the Democratic Party must speak the plain truth to Mr. Biden instead of stalling. It has become clear that Mr. Biden is not only not willing to confront reality, but that he is counting on a sort of stalemate in which he is the nominee by default.

So, the only question is whether Biden can defeat Trump in November. To all appearances, the answer is no. But it turns out that this outcome is a fantastic opportunity to have the convention become once more a true moment of choice between outstanding alternatives. It is very likely that the country would become most excited by the race and this reborn display of democracy at work. It might even shrink Trump’s access to media dramatically. The danger is too grave for letting this critical election become a battle between two entrenched personalities and not be a competition between one reasonable vision of the nation’s future and a lying autocratic leader surrounded by paying sycophants. So, please, Mr. Biden, quit the race, release your delegates, and let your name be inscribed in history, not in shame.

Last night I heard a very interesting discussion on the Rassemblement national, which is the recent new name adopted by M. Le Pen for her political party. A movement, therefore, rather than the limited membership that the precedent name of Front national implied. This defunct name took its energy from the communist movement of the thirties, the Front populaire. What is now remarkable is that Le Pen has abandoned not only her father’s antisemitism, at least in its crude forms, but even the notion of a frexit, at least superficially. She has been making steady progress among the electors for the past fifteen years or so. The major and powerful argument for electing her party to govern France is the steadily growing perception among blue collar and service class—the less educated—that they have been abandoned and left behind without any collective means to restore security and dignity. They are angry about a neglect that feels like a betrayal, The anger is fed by a deep concern about their own survival as well as that of their children. So, Le Pen retools the word national to mean a community of culturally defined members whose shared identity will guarante that social programs like public schooling, pension systems and national healthcare will be competently maintained (to be seen) under her and only under her. It would be the only way to prevent their dissolution and destruction by global financial interests (mezzo voce, Jewish) for which Europe is a Trojan horse.

The big and urgent political problem created by this view, aside from its more subtle antisemitism, is that a guaranteed social welfare becomes indelibly linked in the mind of her voters, including the potential ones, to the rejection of immigration and more generally to the hate of the foreigner and a return to restrictive, narrow-minded, competitive nations. More to follow.

L’Associated Press a publié le résultat des élections. En voici les détails, plus quelques calculs que j’ai faits pour voir si certains états qui ont choisi Biden l’ont fait de gaîté de cœur. Les chiffres:

1. Vote populaire (plurality) très clair pour la présidence: 75 215 431M (50.6%) pour Biden, 70 812 515M (47.7%) pour Trump. Différence: 4 402 916 voix sur 146M. Le dépouillement n’est pas terminé et les recomptages seront à prendre en considération également. Je cite ici les résulats donnés par la AP à 10h00 PST.
2. Traduction de ces résultats en tranches du collège électoral: 290 électeurs pour Biden, 214 pour Trump. Le total est de 538, la majorité absolue 270.
3. Pour les états qui étaient en ballotage, les chiffres sont:
   

   État	grands électeurs	Marge (Biden)	total votes	Commentaire
   Michigan	16	146 123	5,4M	net avantage
   Wisconsin	10	20 540	3,24M	de justesse
   Georgia	16	10 195	4,9M	très juste
   Arizona	11	18 610	3,2M	juste
   Pennsylvania	20	41 223	6,6M	assez juste

4. La Floride, le Texas, la Caroline du Sud, le Iowa, étaient clairement pour Trump.
5. Pour le sénat, pas de tsunami bleu démocrate mais une tension paralysante au contraire: 46 démocrates, 2 indépendants (qui vont avoir beaucoup de pouvoir, pratiquement), deux sièges en Géorgie qui seront disputés en janvier, contre 50 républicains (dont 2 sont en voie d’être confirmés en Caroline du Nord et en Alaska). Même si deux démocrates y sont élus, aucun grand dossier ne pourra être passé à la majorité sans faire appel au vote de la vice-présidente. Les tensions seront très fortes dès la mise en place du nouveau gouvernement.

Résultats, de mon point de vue: les contrepoids constitutionnels du collège électoral et du sénat continuent à jouer leur rôle de base, soixante-quinze ans après la seconde guerre mondiale. Ce rôle est de protéger les institutions de la république mais aussi d’assurer que l’accumulation de richesse profite davantage à une large minorité—certes capable et méritante—mais souvent héritière de culture et de pouvoir. L’existence du collège électoral et le choix de deux sénateurs par état—que ce soit l’Alaska (pop.: 731 000) ou la Californie (pop.: 39,5M)—constituent des choix fondamentaux. Rien de solide ne peut se faire sans le sénat, par exemple, alors que plus de 40M de citoyens n’y sont pas représentés. Cela s’ajoute à la sur-représentation de la droite conservatrice dans une majorité des états (gouverneurs, sénats, et chambres des députés). Cette sur-représentation est le fruit de divisions politiques que le parti républicain a encouragées depuis au moins Nixon, disons les années soixante-dix. La guerre culturelle et morale (religion et avortement), ainsi que l’immigration et le racisme larvé, ont servi de couverture à des progremmes anti-sociaux beaucoup plus coûteux pour la société et particulièrement pour ceux qui votent à droite: baisse des impôts sur les bénéfices et augmentation des inégalités, politique de sécurité intérieure et étrangère très conservatrice, restrictions budgétaires avec pour but la destruction de la sécurité sociale (pensions) et Medicare/Medicaid, impossibilité de montage d’un programme de santé universel.

Étant donné la structure de la république américaine et les divisions économiques, sociales, culturelles, et morales qui existent, que peuvent Biden, la chambre démocrate, et un sénat divisé?

Pensons donc au possible, rêvons. Heureusement, certains éléments de la conjoncture sont favorables. Les trésors publics peuvent emprunter des sommes énormes à coût très bas. Du moins c’est ce qu’on nous dit. Donc Biden pourrait bien financer à la fois les victimes de la pandémie et son programme d’industrialisation climatologique et de création d’emplois. Le GOP prendrait peut-être ce tournant avec lui. Peut-être aussi un effort réel sur les lois sociales (congé de maternité ou paternité, congé maladie, et surtout le relèvement urgent du salaire minimum): j’en doute fort, quand on voit que l’idéologie mensongère du “contractant libre” continue de faire des ravages en Californie (Je pense à Uber et la proposition de loi 22 qui a passé facilement). Quant à un programme de santé universelle, ou du moins avec une option publique, je lui vois peu de chances maintenant, surtout que Biden a souvent cherché le milieu introuvable et montré qu’il ne voulait pas s’opposer aux grandes compagnies d’assurances ou de financement. Régulation des banques de dépôt et de la grande banque d’investissement? Je n’y crois pas trop non plus, bien qu’il puisse y avoir éventuellement une ou des commissions d’études… Retour sur la loi d’imposition votée en 2017 (Tax Law and Jobs Act) et désavantageuse à long terme pour la grande majorité des Américains? Je n’y crois pas non plus, l’opposition sera trop forte. Quant à la politique étrangère, du positif: soutien de l’OTAN, réintégration à la World Health Organization, re-signature pour l’accord de Paris sur le climat, peut-être aussi la reprise des négotiations sur le traité du Pacifique (stratégie de “containment” de la Chine, si ce n’est pas trop tard). Quant à l’Iran, espérons que Biden sera fidèle au projet d’Obama, mais je pense que l’opposition d’Israël et des deux partis sera très forte. Biden lui-même s’est réjoui de voir les “traités” passés entre les émirats et Israël, et n’a pas dit un mot, que je sache, sur l’abandon des Palestiniens ou sur l’absence totale de contreparties…

It doesn’t seem appropriate at all to even think of singing the exultet hymn of praise at this coming resurrection mass. Exultet iam angelica turba caelorum… More adequate for our times would be to continue Lent and rogations for another year and keep asking: a peste fame et bello libera me domine…

There were times — in 541 under Justinian, or in 1347-48, the Black Plague, as recalled by Walter Scheidel in his article in yesterday’s NYT— when the demographic loss was so severe that the survivors could free themselves for a generation or two from the pressure exerted on them by the political or religious elites. Salaries doubled or trebled, no matter the early efforts by kings or aristocracy to reestablish the old order of hierarchical division and labor exploitation. Land redistribution happened by default.

We are unlikely to see the same redistribution of wealth happen this time. The limited size of human losses, from a global perspective, and the solid integration of the economic and political machinery make it unlikely. No matter our efforts to move towards a more just and sharing world, and in particular the generosity and courage shown by all workers in the pandemic, it seems that deregulated market capitalism will continue to dominate our lives during and after this catastrophe. The support given by a Democratic majority to Biden rather than to Sanders shows that most Americans are not ready (or were not ready, a few weeks ago) to reject the present capitalist disorder and its myths. Disorder in the USA: no insurance or security for workers, some seventeen million of whom, to date, have lost their jobs, contracts, and wages (that is about 11% of the non-farm work force, which totaled about 155M recently, according to the department of labor figures). More will lose their jobs, and with them their so often endorsed employers’ health plan. A one-time temporary help has been granted ($1200 per individual, $2400 per couple), but what is that in regard to the coming months of food bills, rent contracts, car payments, heating expenses, and especially eventual health insurance? What is that for people whose sense of isolation and abandonment will only grow? Tax payments have been delayed, but no sick leave, or so little, no insurance in the event of job loss, no affordable universal health insurance in sight, except perhaps some adjustments that will not threaten the income of insurance companies, hospital groups, pharmaceutical companies, or manufacturers of medical instruments. Congress is devising new financial packages to support large and small employers, but what happens if about a third of the total economy cannot restart because many people will have no income for several months?

Financial values went back up somewhat in reaction to the Federal Reserve’s resolve to inject up to 1.5 trillion dollars into the banking system and in reaction to the White House’s Rose Garden show Friday March 13. Trump was awful in his emcee role: health authorities were paraded before the microphone, and so were Pence and a number of CEOs of some large pharmaceutical companies and distributors like Walmart, Target-CVS, Roche, etc… They spent much of their time thanking a president who managed to get a number of facts wrong. He uttered a few lies. And he didn’t own up of course to terrible decisions made by his government, like the dismantling of the National Security Council’s global-health office. At least, small consolation, he didn’t talk anymore about a “foreign” virus. The take away from this Rose Garden exhibition was a belated recognition of the seriousness of the situation. And more practically, access to testing would ramp up by next week although Trump managed to still claim that it is not really necessary! No mention of course that a preliminary test had been developed by the end of January, about a week after China identified the gene structure, that the World Health Organization recommended this test for now, and that it was broadly distributed and used systematically in countries like South Korea but not in the US.

Other news that are diagnostic of the social chaos in our country: the democratic majority in the House voted for a package last night that was meant to support workers if they or their family members get sick. We learn today that the main provision—universal right to sick pay for ten days for any sick employee—will apply only to about 20% of workers, strictly speaking. It will exempt small and large companies. This was apparently the price that the House Democrats had to pay for getting Republicans and the White House on board, though about forty of the Republican representatives did not see the wisdom of such a watered down version of the law and still voted no. Today’s NYT editorial said that the Democrats should have pushed for the universal plan and forced the Republicans to explain their opposition to paid sick leave. But perhaps the most important thing was to get any legal package, no matter how imperfect and unjust, to be approved by a chaotic White House and a servile Senate. One may also think that not only Republicans but a number of Democrats worry about the economic cost of a protective, fairer, less exploitative labor law?. It looks like the Democrats wasted an opportunity to make some real progress in support of labor. This decision means that too many employees will show up for work even if they are sick, and that the virus will spread at a greater rate than would have occurred otherwise. I hope that our leaders are not choosing the economy over life.