Daily Times

As the election of 2024 draws closer, here are three big issues that need to be put in a declaratory form and answered by the candidates: Truth; Debt; and Defense. But as the so-called political debate continues to descend to unprecedented levels of bad taste and ignorance, this prospect is less likely than one of the candidates landing on the sun.

No matter whether one supports either of the candidates or does not, the biggest loser and victim of the 2024 electoral follies is the truth. Truth and fact simply have little impact or effect. Manufacturing one’s truth trumps the truth. It is far easier to deny truth and fact and then pivot to what the candidate would like to see and not what is seen.

While in fact and truth checking, Donald Trump is unchallenged and untied is the numbers of falsehoods, lies, misstatements and purposeful misdirection he has concocted, Kamala Harris is far from innocent. And to the acolytes and true believers, that makes little difference. Beating the other side is so crucial that the means to win dominates all.

The origins of this current condition were conceived over the Vietnam War. The war was started over a PT boat attack against two US destroyers that never occurred. The infamous Saigon “Five O’clock” follies perpetuated the lack of truth and fact as victory was always in sight of the end of the tunnel.

Without profound strategic change, the next president will preside over a less capable military.

The Watergate affair forced President Richard Nixon to resign after a failed cover-up did not prevent the truth from finding its way to public view. While many complained President Bill Clinton should never have been impeached over a sexual encounter with an intern, he lied. And with the wars in Afghanistan and then in Iraq in which evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was cherry-picked and invented to rationalize the invasion, four administrations continued to falsify conditions in both places.

So, why not press both candidates on the truth and why is it still missing in action?

Perhaps the most dangerous long-term economic threat is debt. The national debt is headed towards $36 trillion. The nation’s GDP is $25 trillion. Under Trump, $8.4 trillion of debt was added, the largest of any presidency. Under Biden, it was $5 trillion, still about a fifteen per cent increase.

Neither candidate has responded with specific actions to deal with this growing debt. Harris talks about the economic opportunity with plans to increase grants for first-time homeowners and new business start-ups. But what are her overall fiscal (budget) and monetary policies as well as productivity increases as the only way to cut debt by growth? There are none. Why?

Trump talks about large tax cuts as well as extending the cuts previously approved during his first term. Independent think tanks report the impact on debt will be significant. And Trump has not explained the total of what his fiscal, monetary and productivity policies will achieve in reducing debt. Simply put, they will not. So with both candidates, the question is not how to control debt but how much more debt will accrue.

Even with wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and conflict in the Red Sea waging, national defence has been missing in action in the debate, as has normally been the case since the end of the Cold War. Defence has been defined in terms of winning or ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in prior elections with little impact. Trump asserts that Biden-Harris has overseen a weakened, woke military. Harris has been silent.

Trump also contends that the Afghan withdrawal convinced Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine and China and Iran to take more aggressive actions against the US and its allies. Yet, most countries including Russia and China regard the US as having the most formidable military in the world. But here is the worst-kept secret neither candidate wants to raise.

Despite a defence 2025 budget once approved of nearly$900 a billion, the US military is shrinking in numbers and aggregate power. The current strategy is unachievable, unaffordable and unable to recruit sufficient military and civilian personnel. Without profound strategic change, the next president will preside over a less capable military as the number of global hot spots and crises increases in intensity.

As commander-in-chief, Trump claimed he was smarter than his generals. His senior officers held the C-in-C largely with contempt, although these views were held privately. About C-in-C Harris, who knows?

Truth, debt and defence need to see daylight. But will they? Probably not.

The writer is a senior advisor at Washington, DC’s Atlantic Council and a published author.