To my American friends let me start by saying, I feel your pain. I lived in your country for several years, worked there for many, have seen much of it, met hundreds of you and still feel a kinship to the place and people. That you are faced with the two main presidential candidates as presented in the recent debate is demoralizing for even this Canadian observer.
Regular readers will know this channel digs deep into Canadian politics and public policy, and goodness knows we have no shortage of issues and craziness happening in our own country to keep me forever writing. In fact we share numerous social, political and economic problems with the US though in differing ways and degrees.
But despite my keen interest and hope for the United States’ best outcomes I confess to now being an outside observer without a hands-on sense of the country, since I no longer spend time there. So, pardon me while I will dip a toe into your political world with some observations – driven by no partisanship but hopefully the pragmatism of some distance.
The handwringing and spin that’s occurred since the exposure of President Biden’s cognitive decline during the CNN debate, strikes me as surreal as the event itself. For anyone with interest to watch a handful of videos of him in action the past months, you would have to either be utterly unaware or willfully blind to not see Joe Biden is struggling with his faculties. And no amount of tarting up by media or spin doctors has been believable over the past year. So, the post-debate shock displayed by supporters and media was jarring – either they’ve been living in a reality distortion field, suffer a shocking lack of awareness or were outright lying. The popular term gaslighting seems custom made for this situation.
Joe Biden has always seemed a man of character and substance, despite that substance now badly faded. But my opinion on a number of his key policies particularly around immigration, tuition relief, debt growth and select social issues are not what I consider sensible or sustainable – particularly since we face some similar problems in Canada.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump was bombastic as expected in the debate, riffing on whatever was in his chaotic mind, often unfettered by reality. Given a lack of structured policy statements from Trump we often need to read the tea leaves to surmise his potential legislation. But his rhetoric on some policy issues including immigration and energy, resonates with many Americans and I understand why – with Canada also experiencing an immigration breakdown and demonizing of our fossil fuels. An honest assessment of Trump’s past presidency must acknowledge there were some policy winners. But his questionable character, looming self-interest and lack of discipline tears many voters between his policies which they might prefer and the person which they may not.
So, I sympathize with the choice you must make…except these two men aren’t your only available options.
Against this backdrop of complicated policy issues and sub-par candidates, one question keeps running through my head the past six months and most recently during the debate - Why is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. not seriously in this discussion?
I ask this rhetorically, knowing the given explanation about his not meeting debate participation criteria. But that is thin cover for the reality that the parties simply didn’t want him involved and ensured he was not included in the democratic (small D intended) mix.
As a lifelong Democrat coming from the most iconic US political family, RFK tried desperately to vie for that party’s ticket. He was thwarted at every turn, so reluctantly declared himself an independent candidate.
A recent large poll done by Zogby shows Kennedy would beat Donald Trump in a head-to-head race and would roundly thump Joe Biden head-on. Meanwhile, he has reached 15% approval in recent national polls for a three-way contest despite virtually no mainstream media coverage, largely being still unknown and with a political machine and money amassed against his involvement. Further to that, the Democratic party is suing him in multiple states, and the privilege of a funded security detail has been withheld by the President despite strong precedent of his qualification and a family history that we all know too well. Basic decency would afford him the courtesy.
To say he has worked his way into a shockingly positive position despite the odds stacked against him is a gross understatement.
Having watched multiple long form interviews of RFK, several hours of his speaking at rallies, read of his career in environmental and health protection, having read through his website and read one of his books (The Real Anthony Fauci - a shocking read on so many levels) - I come away impressed and encouraged. He is no saint and is open about a flawed past. But he is undoubtedly a man of substance and intellect, with strong historical perspective, solid policy ideas, a measured demeanor and a realistic view about the strong forces at play within and behind the US political system.
And it appears the last one may be his biggest Achilles heel.
To openly discuss topics that few will touch – military, health, food/agriculture and pharma among them – has earned him powerful enemies.
To have won multiple lawsuits against pharmaceutical and agriculture companies while implicating them in the current American health epidemic, has not endeared him to powerful money interests with a strong hand in today’s politics. And his illumination of pharma’s control of key government agencies adds to the strong push against him from that influential sector.
His vigorous criticism of the Covid vaccine’s lack of proper testing and related mandates particularly for children, have earned him anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist labels – neither being accurate if you spend just a few minutes listening to him speak on the topic.
Finally, his position on how and where to engage the US military is not winning him votes among that powerful constituency, though I suspect his position would resonate with many Americans preferring to divert some of the billions into strengthening their homeland, while still taking a responsible leadership position abroad.
He makes a point of not speaking personally ill of Donald Trump or Joe Biden, though he does of course note their differences. If Americans are serious about a change in tone RFK is leading by example.
It is another understatement to point out the mainstream media have treated him shabbily, in the rare instances they even make mention. Search the New York Times website for example and you will find only a handful of articles, and they mostly cast him in ill or mocking light. Most columnists and political commentators simply pretend he doesn’t exist, even when topics should naturally include discussion of this most influential independent candidate since Ross Perot. It’s like he’s invisible.
I suffered through the CNN political panel discussion after the debate and only John King attempted to bring RFK into the discussion. If the group of eight other commentators had sung la-la-la while plugging their ears and covering their eyes I would not have been surprised, as it went over like a fart in church and died without acknowledgement.
On debate night, RFK held a parallel event on X where he answered the same questions as Biden/Trump, under the same time limit rules, amidst the live CNN event running on play/pause. It was a unique event that was effective in highlighting policy, tone and substance differences of considerable degrees, and presented as far more presidential than the main debate - if such things matter to you. It apparently attracted eleven million views for an event neither publicized nor promoted in mainstream media. If those numbers don’t at least pique your curiosity, I don’t know what will.
I suggest watching a recent ninety-minute interview conducted by Dr. Phil (yes, I was also surprised by this interviewer who proved to be an effective and measured host). In a world of misleading headlines and five-second poorly contextualized clips, longform journalism is badly needed and such sessions amongst others such as from News Nation and Breaking Points are substantive, informative and will give you a real sense of the man - with few other platforms yet giving him fair hearing.
Politics is not simple.
People’s issues and concerns are not simple.
Policy fixes are not simple.
RFK should be heard in full if only to raise the quality and IQ of national discussion – but certainly to partake of his ideas and reasoning.
Many of his policies strike me as fiscally and socially centrist, though that term is nearly useless these days given the warped political spectrum. He presents strong foundational democratic ideas from an age gone by - focused on fiscal balance, constitutional freedoms, sensible immigration, health and education fixes and a reduction of the industrial military complex.
RFK’s discussion of issues that matter sound decidedly different than Biden and Trump.
For instance, he speaks regularly of prioritizing health (not just healthcare), which may seem unusual for a presidential candidate until you acknowledge that 2022 healthcare spend was $4.4 trillion, a whopping 17% of GDP - and that more than 85% of Americans are now considered metabolically unhealthy. This discussion alone, particularly when including the issue of opioid deaths (more than 81,000 last year) correlates to issues of affordability, housing, child welfare, crime and more. Most issues do not live in a vacuum and are complicated by trade offs.
Perhaps because he spent a large portion of his professional life in service of environmental protection, he also presents a more balanced view of environment health - recognizing the world does not begin and end with carbon dioxide reduction, but with a more holistic perspective on clean air and water. Rather than jump on the carbon crusade bandwagon, it appears he favors free market solutions over government regulation.
These are just two examples of many where Kennedy seems to look at the country with different eyes.
In the main, his ideas contain a healthy dose of reality along with a serving of pragmatism and rooted in concern for American citizens. They are not formulaic and will be seen as disruptive by some, including those who welcome them and those who fear them. And they may not appeal to certain entrenched partisan positions that offer no nuance nor to single issue voters. But I suspect many Americans will have a hmmm moment when they take time to listen, even if they still place their vote elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the national discussion seems only about which of two old warriors can beat the other. And most recently, about who can best replace Biden to beat Trump. Absent in almost all commentary are discussions of policy - only whose face can be imprinted on the ticket to win.
Meanwhile, RFK admits to a perception problem and asks to be given a fair hearing. By my own assessment he seems in step with what are euphemistically called Main Street concerns - perhaps surprising given his blue blood family yet not so if you’ve followed his career often in service of the underdog. But he is offside of powerful industry and party interests with significant influence and big money, particularly since he argues that some of those interests are partly to blame for America’s woes.
If online comments offer even the slightest indication of the underlying zeitgeist, the hundreds I’ve scrolled through after RFK’s videos and articles tell a story of bristling support - once viewers hear him directly and not through a media filter. The primary sentiments revolve around him offering a sensible option, and an appreciation for his common sense and understanding of the real issues at stake – not an angry and embattled self-interest. And he draws from both parties’ supporters claiming they would vote Kennedy, were he on the ticket.
But this is where he fights the biggest battle - against the charge of spoiler, particularly from Democrats who fear him stripping votes and coronating Donald Trump. But as RFK himself notes, the true definition of spoiler is someone in a race with no chance of winning – while his current polling and trajectory tell a different story.
Were he to replace Joe Biden, for instance, with the power of the Democratic party behind him he could likely beat Donald Trump, though this scenario is far-fetched as the party won’t even utter his name and powers behind the scenes might prefer self-immolation to RFK on their ticket.
Meanwhile data also shows him pulling away Trump supporters which would be helpful to the Democrats in a three-way race and likely concerns many Republicans.
RFK himself believes he has a chance to win outright against both men if given a fair shake, and I’m starting to wonder if it might be possible.
Whether Kennedy would be a good President, I think so - and he has the potential to be transformative.
Whether he is a man for the current times - it appears so.
Whether he would be able to navigate the byzantine world of Washington and tackle the US political machine - I don’t know.
Whether he is a superior choice in terms of intellect, capacity and real ideas - of this I have no doubt.
I certainly believe he’s earned the right to a fair hearing and would surprise many, if so given. He should surely be on the next debate stage and on the ballot in November.
Perhaps a more important point is that involving Kennedy would change the substance and tone of discussion - shifting the conversation toward issues that matter and how to address them beyond just flinging more money at a broken system or the battle of aged candidates. The United States is badly fractured and suffering on many fronts. Everyone talks about wanting a way out but that comes only from confronting harsh realities and dealing with them. It doesn’t currently feel like the two main parties are working in the interest of the country, just single-mindedly slugging it out to beat the other guy no matter the consequences - each claiming the other will destroy the Republic.
And it is always average citizens who become collateral damage in such a brawl.
I have limited faith in most predictions so will not make any here. I suggest only to give Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a serious look. He may emerge from dark horse territory over the coming months, possibly even buoyed by the very debate he was shamefully barred from joining, as Americans ask themselves - do I really have to choose between these two? And the answer seems to be - no you don’t.
Challenging times ahead for our friends south of the border, while we battle our own demons above the 49th parallel, though we must wait until October 2025 to get some relief from our own considerable woes.
Stay tuned and stay pragmatic.
Awesome piece I will share with many US friends. Personally, I had no idea about RFK … only passing clips of him that seemed he was a cuckoo … now I need to watch and listen closer. Thanks again for my Sat morning fix of inisghts.
I agree completely with your points. For every reason you offer, RFK Jr. would easily be my first choice. My Democratic leaning American friends roll their eyes. Getting people to change their minds is near impossible. If more people actually listened to him their minds might open.