Since the settlement, Australians have always lived in a world in which the dominant but benevolent power, first Britain and then the United States, has shared the same language and similar values and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
The 2020 presidential election is crucial not only for the US but also for the West, including Australia. Rather than the Obama -Biden policy of managing decline and transferring significant parts of manufacturing and intellectual property to Beijing, vainly hoping that the regime will reform and become another benevolent power, Donald Trump is different. He is committed to a world in which it is acknowledged that, in the words of the Declaration of Independence “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Notwithstanding reports in much of the American mainstream media, which has become the propaganda arm of a Democratic Party captured by the far Left, the first presidential debate was a success―for Trump.
Biden, while describing the terrorist group Antifa as ‘only an idea’, could not bring himself to give an unqualified endorsement of the fundamental, civilised requirement of ‘law and order’. Imagine the impact on those not enjoying the high walls and security detail of bolshevik billionaires like George Soros and millionaire politicians like Speaker Pelosi.
Then, as an on-and-off supporter of police defunding, Biden could not name one police union which had endorsed him. Repeating the pathetic lie that Trump had abused soldiers killed in war as ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’, only drew attention to the fact that the Obama-Biden administration had run down the armed forces and seriously failed veterans while Trump had done the opposite.
Nor could Biden deny his threat to close down the economy again if told to do so by ‘experts’. His disowning support for the far-left agenda, the Green New Deal, invites Republicans to remind voters of the fact that this was the price paid to Bernie Sanders and the far-left for support for his nomination.
Refusing to answer questions about the substantial sum Hunter Biden received from the Mayor of Moscow’s wife only reminded electors that the Biden family was so generously enriched by foreign oligarchs during his vice-presidency.
Refusing to name potential appointees to the Supreme Court or discuss its packing ensured everyone assumes they are all far-left activists and he’ll most certainly pack the Court and not only to preserve previous outrages such as the invention of a constitutional right to abortion. There would be a constantly radical agenda to breach natural law, such as the legalisation of the beginnings of infanticide, already introduced in some left-wing Democrat-controlled states.
As for the debate itself , the format is a failure. It encourages a moderator to make himself a co-equal centre of attention at an event, like Speaker Bercow during Brexit or Bishop Curry at Harry and Meghan’s wedding.
Worse, moderator Christopher Wallace seemed to come with an agenda, in particular this question which was clearly designed to portray the President as a racist : “Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland?”
Apart from implying that Trump has not yet condemned supremacists, when everyone informed knows he has, this question denies the facts. These are that what seems to have become if not the Democrats’ mobile and very well-funded military arm. Its allies, BLM and Antifa, are responsible for almost all of the looting, burning, assaulting and killing in the Democrat-governed cities. It suggests white supremacists are at least equally culpable, which is obviously untrue.
Trump replied in the affirmative more than once, to be faced with an increasingly shrill demand from Wallace, joined by Biden, that he do what he had already done. Wallace knows this. He asked much the same question when he was co-moderator for the Detroit Republican primary on 3 March 2016. He received yet another spirited condemnation from Trump, and that was four years ago
Yet following the debate the mainstream media repeated Wallace’s demand. You could almost think this was planned in advance.
Why did Wallace and the rest of the media indulge themselves in this fiction? There has been speculation that Democrat in-house polling is showing a significant leakage of male African-American votes to Trump. This already seems to be happening with the Hispanic vote.
The debate should be a series of short questions and answers between the contenders. There should be no restrictions on either, thus ensuring everything is covered. The moderator would be invisible, just watching the clock.
The result would be a lively, entertaining and above all informative debate. And there would no scope for a moderator with an agenda.
Fight fake news! The Good Sauce is bringing balance to the corporate media echo chamber. We are the first conservative source of videos and podcasts by so many independent voices from Australia. Our articles transparently distinguish between opinions and briefings: honest news without "progressive" agendas or euphemisms. Would you like to help us grow and produce more conservative new media? Become a Good Sauce supporter today and also enjoy extended interviews & bonus content.
A new episode of Take Back Your Country discussing the problems and solutions to the decay of federalism and democracy is released every Thursday morning on The Good Sauce.
Professor David Flint is an emeritus professor of law and was chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Press Council, president of the National Federation of the English Speaking Union, Associate Commissioner with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and convenor of the Committee of Australian Law Deans. He has been National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy since the 1999 referendum campaign. The author of several books, he has published widely on topics such as the media, international economic law and on the Constitution. At Barcelona in 1991, he received a World Jurist Association award as World Outstanding Legal Scholar. He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1995.