Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Biden vs. Trump: A partial voting guide, part 1

Donald Trump and Joe Biden debate
Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Corbin is professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.

This is part one of a two-part series to help voters compare and contrast Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Part one is a meta compare and contrast analysis of five major issues in hopes the review may assist voters come Nov. 5. The second part will address 13 additional topics.

An early-April poll focused on adults’ perspective as to how Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s respective presidencies have hurt America. Two issues surrounding Biden’s term are of concern: the cost of living and immigration. Five issues about Trump’s presidency are still perplexing to voters: election security, voting rights, relations with foreign countries, abortion laws and climate change.

The 2024 choice for presidency — and issues of concern — couldn’t be more different.


The opinions of two prominent and revered writers for the conservative-oriented Wall Street Journal are referenced below. First is Alan Blinder, professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. The other is William Galston, who writes the WSJ’s weekly “Politics and Issues” column. He is an expert on domestic policy, political campaigns and elections.

Immigration: On March 27, Blinder wrote: “Mr. Trump directed his followers in Congress to scuttle a `compromise’ bill to bolster the southern border — a bill Mr. Biden and many Democrats had already accepted, partially so that they could move on to other pressing matters regarding Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and the budget. Mr. Trump, by contrast, preferred to let the border crisis fester so that he could use it as a campaign issue.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Trump’s zero-tolerance policy separated thousands of migrant children from their parents, an action opposed by two-thirds of Americans. Biden ended that policy on the 13th day of his presidency. It’s ironic Trump believes immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of our country, while he and 97.1 percent of Americans are here due to immigration.

Abortion: Biden, a devout Catholic who has supported women’s rights for decades, has vowed he’ll restore the 1973 Roe v. Wade landmark decision if Democrats get control of Congress. Trump, a former pro-choice advocate, proudly boasts he was “able to terminate Roe v. Wade” and “honored” to do so by appointing three conservatives to the Supreme Court.

Trump’s most recent pronouncement that state legislatures and courts should control reproductive rights means – according to Republican Voters Against Trump – “33,360,789 women now live in a state where abortion is banned without exceptions for rape or incest.” A Gallup survey found American support of legal abortion access remains strong; 61 percent say overturning Roe v. Wade was a “bad thing.”

North Atlantic Treaty Organization: Seventy-eight percent of Americans remain committed to the NATO alliance. Galston wrote: “Donald Trump has made clear that he has no intention of honoring the commitment the U.S. made when it signed the NATO charter (April 4, 1949), including the defense of other members who come under attack. For Mr. Biden, NATO is a solemn compact based on common interest and shared values. For Mr. Trump, it’s a financial transaction.”

Ukraine: Seventy-four percent of Americans view the war between Russia and Ukraine as important to U.S. national interests. Galston made his thoughts on the conflict quite clear: “The U.S. has worked for three quarters of a century under presidents of both parties to help Europe remain safe and free. Now one ignorant, amoral demagogue has persuaded a majority of one party that this effort is a mistake. A great tragedy is in the making unless leaders in both parties can find a way to thwart him.”

Israel-Hamas war: According to an April 5 PBS report, “Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza has become a major U.S. election issue. Both President Biden and former President Trump have expressed concern with the humanitarian situation and Israel’s international standing after an airstrike killed seven aid workers.” Biden, Trump, the Democratic Party and the GOP are miffed as to what to do since, according to the Pew Research Center, “Americans’ views about the Israel-Hamas war differ widely by age, as do their perceptions about discrimination against Jewish, Muslim and Arab people in the United States.”

Part two will focus on 13 topics including education, economy, trade policy, tax policy, Jan. 6 insurrectionists, infrastructure, democracy-authoritarianism and climate change.


Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less