Here is a thought experiment. At lunch on April 14, 1912, what might Edward Smith, Captain of RMS Titanic, and Chief Officer Henry Wilde have been discussing? Reports of icebergs had not yet been received. And colliding with one later that night probably never entered the conversation.
As we know now, catastrophe struck. Now consider a provocative thought experiment regarding the ship of state and the two likely contenders seeking to become or remain captain.
What metaphorical “icebergs” should President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump be considering that in a year’s time could determine the election and threaten the ship of state?
For this experiment, three potential “icebergs” are arbitrarily chosen, the first two dealing with the election and the third the ship of state. Human factors and the economy may control the election. And a “black swan” event could threaten the ship of state.
Biden must contend with concerns about his age, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is largely denigrated as his vice president, and the misdeeds of his son Hunter, all of which will be fodder for Republican attack ads.
Trump must deal with his alleged illegal conduct and pending indictments, plus one guilty verdict in a civil case. The trial on wrongful possession of classified materials and obstruction of justice is scheduled for May. Will that trial affect the Republican convention in Milwaukee in mid-July 2024? What about other pending indictments related to election interference in Georgia and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot?
Parts of the human factor include whether or not a third-party candidate will run and the nature of the electorate. The turnout of Gen Z (born between 1996 and 2010) might be decisive whether or not Trump faces further convictions. This cohort votes on policy and not ideological grounds that would favor Biden.
Despite today’s polling, how a “No Labels” or third presidential candidate will help or hurt Biden and Trump is unknowable. Conventional wisdom suggests that it benefits Trump. However, Republicans who cannot support Trump may be inclined to vote for the third choice in greater numbers than Democratic defectors. No matter, the human factor is a looming iceberg for both candidates.
The economy can determine the election. Enormous amounts of money have been pumped into the economy by the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act, plus residual funding leftover from COVID. If that takes hold, the economy will be strong and possibly booming.
One shorthand metric for determining the winner in 2024 is the Dow Jones Index. If it’s above 35,000, it is likely to be Biden. If the Dow is in the low 30,000s, Trump will be advantaged. Another iceberg?
Last is the most speculative of icebergs — a foreign policy black swan. China, Russia, North Korea and Iran — along with environmental catastrophes — cannot be discounted as black swans. In July 2024, the 75th anniversary of NATO will be celebrated at the summit in Washington marking the signing of the treaty creating the alliance. If the war in Ukraine is still ongoing, it will be a potential and menacing black swan.
The foundation of the NATO alliance is found in Article 5, which states: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”
But Article 5 is not an automatic guarantee that all NATO members will go to war, although the only time it was invoked was on Sept. 12, 2001. War requires the approval of all members.
Membership for Ukraine and Georgia was promised at the 2008 NATO Bucharest summit. In 2024, will all NATO members be prepared to go to war against Russia over Ukraine? That is dubious. Hence, the alternative is to have a coalition of the willing to take up arms for Ukraine.
Yet that could be the alliance’s death knell. Article 5 had never been challenged before. The assumption was that alliance members could count on Article 5 should war break out during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union imploded and before Russia seized Crimea in 2014, the likelihood of war was de minimis.
That has changed. Ukrainian membership could put NATO’s future in grave doubt and challenge the centerpiece of U.S. security for decades. Why would Russian President Vladimir Putin not attempt to manufacture a putative iceberg? And Trump once threatened to leave NATO. If elected would he follow through?
Will these first two icebergs sink either Biden or Trump? And will the third create a catastrophe for the ship of state far worse than April 15th, 1912? Some things to ponder.
Harlan Ullman, Ph.D. is a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.’s Atlantic Council and the prime author of the “shock and awe” military doctrine. His 12th book, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large,” is available on Amazon. He can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.