Over several decades of reporting on and analyzing
U.S. presidential elections, I have with some
frequency attempted to call attention to little known
political figures who would later emerge as serious
contenders to occupy the White House. Some of
them actually became president, including the
present occupant — although my prediction about
him was thirty-five years premature!
In 1975, writing in my own newspaper, I noted the
emerging Jimmy Carter. In 1982, I wrote about the
then-unknown Gary Hart. In 1985, it was the already
mentioned Joe Biden. In 1990, I predicted the rise
of Bill Clinton. Finally, in 2016 I said Donald Trump
would win, but only after initially dismissing his
chances. In between, I missed the success of
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and his son
George W. Bush were already well-known. I also
did not foresee the emergence of Barack Obama.
In 2012, I as wrong when I predicted Mitt Romney
would win in 2012. The prediction business, it must
be said, is a mixed bag.
The prospect of Joe Biden running against Donald
Trump again has made me reluctant to make any
predictions this cycle, especially since so many in the
two political parties prefer another nominee. I have said
that Mr. Biden will eventually retire and not run in 2024,
but time is running out for the Democrats to replace
him. As for Mr. Trump, his lead in the polls is very
large, and only Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis have
any chance to be the Republican nominee instead of
him — but at least for now they are far behind.
So I am at present not going to make any predictions
about 2024, other than to say that the insistence of
both party establishments on two aging and
controversial nominees is venturing into uncharted
political territory that risks all kinds of electoral
surprises from the voters.
I have also written that, unlike the GOP, the
Democrats have a weak candidate “bench” this cycle.
But nothing prevents me from looking forward to the
next presidential election cycle, and to see if, particularly
in the case of the Democrats, there is anyone who
shows clear potential to be a future president.
I have heard and read about various recently-elected or
appointed liberal party figures who might emerge in the
next cycle, such as current Secretary of Commerce,
and former Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo and
current Maryland Governor Wes Moore, and I think they
might have some potential.
But a recent political controversy demonstrated the
exceptional promise of a third figure, the current
governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, a Democrat.
Shapiro has a law degree from Georgetown University,
practiced law, and served as a chief of staff for a member
of Congress. He was then elected to the Pennsylvania
legislature. After subsequently serving as a county
commissioner, he was elected for two terms as the
attorney general of the Keystone State. In 2022, he won
the governorship by a landslide.
Recent polls show he is a popular incumbent.
As the governor of a large state that is considered
competitive between the two major parties, Shapiro was
more or less automatically considered a political figure
with a national future, but it was the recent controversy
with three prominent university presidents that suddenly
demonstrated his significant skills.
One of those presidents was Liz Magill of the University
of Pennsylvania (full disclosure: my alma mater). She,
like the presidents of Harvard and M.I.T. had testified
before Congress, and all three ignited a political
firestorm when they failed to state clearly that expressions
of anti-semitism were unacceptable on their campuses.
Instead, they took the position that their campuses
allowed for free speech, even if it was sometimes extremist.
However, at Penn, Harvard and M.I.T. — and many other
college campuses across the nation — there had been
recent demonstrations and protests that went far beyond
expression of free speech. These had routinely prevented
students to hear conservative speakers, and they frequently
harassed professors and fellow students with whom they
disagreed. These incidents were not isolated, but had
become routine, and when they occurred, university
officials had done little or nothing in response.
The three university presidents answered questions at
the congressional hearing as if they were only about free
speech, and not about their responsibility to protect their
students and maintain the well-being of their campuses.
This fundamental misreading of public concern about
activities on college campuses ignited a firestorm of
public criticism. Elected officials of both parties denounced
the three presidents, as did the White House. Alumnae of
the three institutions did as well, and some of those who
contributed most to their endowments withdrew previously
announced gifts of millions of dollars. In the case of Penn,
the trustees of the University withheld their support of
Magill, and the board of its prestigious Wharton Business
School demanded her resignation.
At this point, Governor Shapiro made a visit to a Philadelphia
restaurant which had been a target of demonstrations to
show his support, and leaving the restaurant, he held an
impromptu press conference. His initial statement and
his answers to press questions were so eloquent and
clarifying that the video of the press conference went viral.
Shapiro said that the statements of President Magill were
unacceptable, that the actions of the recent protests on the
campus and at the restaurant were more reminiscent of
Nazi Germany in the 1930s than they were simply
expressions of free speech. He said her role, and the
role of her fellow presidents, was not just presiding over
technical rules, but to protect their students. Stating his
own strong opposition to antisemitism, islamophobia,
homophobia and all other prejudices, Shapiro said that
the issue was not the right for anyone to hold controversial
views, and to express them, but the attempt to prevent
others from expressing and practicing their own views.
In short, Governor Shapiro was saying that too many of
the campus demonstrations were, in effect, “free speech
for me, but not for you.”
Combined with a strong criticism of Magill by Pennsylvania
U.S. Senator Bob Casey, also a Democrat, as well as by
several state members of Congress and the state
legislatures, the reaction was locally bipartisan as it was
across the nation.
President Magill soon resigned.
Many persons expressed themselves during this
controversy. Some spoke of their concerns for academic
freedom, a legitimate issue, but it was Governor Shapiro
who so effectively made it clear that academic freedom
and free speech were not at stake in this controversy;
rather that the specter of intimidation and harassment was
the real issue.
Showing similar depth on other issues in his state, Josh
Shapiro is already someone to listen to and watch in the
years ahead.
_______________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2023 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment