Re: Uncle Joe
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2024 7:01 pm
The political crisis about Joe Biden is two weeks old now, an unbroken frenzy of pronouncements and speculation about whether or not the incumbent Democratic president should be replaced with someone else as the Democratic presidential nominee. So far, none of it has changed anything. On June 28, the New York Times editorial board, panicked by Biden bombing his debate against Donald Trump the night before, declared "To Serve His Country, President Biden Should Leave the Race"; on July 8, with Biden still having failed to comply, the board tried again with "The Democratic Party Must Speak the Plain Truth to the President"—upping the urgency from "should" to "must," and pleading for someone else to help them.
Behind the bold position-taking, though, was a subtle evasiveness. What was the "plain truth" that Joe Biden needed to hear? It was, the editorial board wrote, that "his defiance threatens to hand victory to Mr. Trump," and that "he is embarrassing himself and endangering his legacy," and that "he is no longer an effective spokesman for his own priorities."
None of these things were truths about Joe Biden, though, exactly. They were claims—fairly plausible claims!—about how people may perceive Joe Biden, and what the effects of those perceptions may be.
"This is about age," the actor George Clooney wrote in his own piece for the Times, speaking on his authority as a major Democratic donor. "Nothing more ... We are not going to win in November with this president." But why would age, nothing more than age, make Biden lose in November to an opponent who is barely any younger than he is?
What does "age" mean, specifically? Or "age and infirmity," as the editorial board put it in its first piece urging Biden to abandon the nomination? How diminished are the president's capacities, actually?
This is a rude and dangerous question. Right now, Biden is the most powerful person in the world. Our political machinery, with however much democratic input it can absorb, has made him one of the two currently available choices to be elected president in November. The other choice, as the Times editorial board belatedly got around to declaring, is entirely unacceptable, a mentally and emotionally unstable criminal running on a platform of destruction, corruption, and violence. Even the board's initial anti-Biden piece conceded, "If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick."
And so a set of very different ideas about Biden's fitness are collapsed into vague generalities, to prevent anyone from having to examine them too closely. Is the president decrepit, or is he senile? Does he speak haltingly because his speech isn't fluent anymore, or because his mind can't hold coherent thoughts together? Are people afraid he can't convince voters to make him president again, or are they afraid he's not capable of being president again? Do they think he's not capable of being president right now? Does Biden understand his own limits?
The closest the editorial board got to taking a real position was this:
But there, still, was a dodge: the idea that Biden is struggling because he can't handle the effort of a presidential campaign on top of the effort of being president. It's the setup for a polite, no-hard-feelings scenario in which Biden admits the campaign is too much for him, embraces his legacy as a successful one-term president, and lets someone else run on his administration's record and take the fight to Donald Trump.At times, Mr. Biden has seemed to hover on the verge of self-awareness, as when he reportedly told Democratic governors last week that he needs to sleep more, work less and avoid public events after 8 p.m. But he has resisted the obvious conclusion that a man who needs to clock out at 8 should not attempt to perform simultaneously two of the world’s most difficult and all-consuming jobs—serving as president and running for president.
This is a fundamentally cynical message: The idea isn't that Biden is unfit to be president, but that he's unfit to convince other people he's fit to be president. And what is there in it to convince Biden to quit? He's an effective president, and he has to give it up because his lifelong stutter finally got the best of him on live TV?
Alternatively, there's the premise that something new has gone wrong with Biden's health. Chasing the fumes of the right-wing press, major media outlets just had a news cycle about whether a Parkinson's expert was paying special visits to the White House—when the expert in question was the longstanding neurologist to the whole White House staff, and he turned out to be visiting the White House no more often than usual. With a Parkinson's diagnosis, it could be impartial fate that gracefully put an end to Biden's campaign, with no guilt or blame for anyone involved.
Unfortunately for that scenario, the only degenerative condition anyone can clearly assign to Biden is the human condition. He's too old and he's only getting older. Everybody knew that about him before he even entered the 2020 presidential race.
Does Biden have a worse problem than that? I have no idea. And, fairly blatantly, none of the people reporting and arguing about getting rid of him do either. None of them came up with any revelations that prevented him from winning in 2020, or from becoming the presumptive nominee in the 2024 primary season. No matter how they dress up their claims about the emergency, it only became an emergency when he blew the debate.
If Joe Biden isn't senile, there's no real reason—from his own point of view—for him to drop out of the race. And if he is senile, he wouldn't be able to judge his own condition. Which one is it? And if it's the second one, who's going to do something about it?
Personally, I would prefer not to be guessing about these things. I would prefer not to have been stuck with Biden as the candidate. I do believe that if Biden could be magically replaced with a more energetic nominee—someone with the baseline agility to hear Trump boasting about his record stock market and point out that the market is much higher now—Trump's own decrepitude and general loathsomeness would drag the Republican campaign down to defeat.
But no one is offering any magic. All they're offering are various scenarios that would blow up the entire political structure less than four months before election day, in the hopes that the rubble comes down in a less depressing arrangement. Before announcing it's time to take emergency measures, though, people need to agree about exactly what the emergency is.
There are plenty of truths, but it can be argued that if Biden's handlers hadn't so successfully sequestered him, e.g., not holding a news conference since Nov '23 until last night and inexplicably turning down an interview during the Super Bowl, of all things, there's a good chance the public either:jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 7:15 pm Good amount of truth here.
What’s The Story With Joe Biden?
https://defector.com/whats-the-story-with-joe-biden
...Does Biden have a worse problem than that? I have no idea. And, fairly blatantly, none of the people reporting and arguing about getting rid of him do either. None of them came up with any revelations that prevented him from winning in 2020, or from becoming the presumptive nominee in the 2024 primary season. No matter how they dress up their claims about the emergency, it only became an emergency when he blew the debate...
The market hit new highs again. Support the policies, not the memes.RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 7:01 pmYes, it would. Unfortunately Biden is no can of Tuna.
Agreed. They give Americans too much credit for understanding policy and the media too much space to ignore it.Shirley wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 9:18 pmThere are plenty of truths, but it can be argued that if Biden's handlers hadn't so successfully sequestered him, e.g., not holding a news conference since Nov '23 until last night and inexplicably turning down an interview during the Super Bowl, of all things, there's a good chance the public either:jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 7:15 pm Good amount of truth here.
What’s The Story With Joe Biden?
https://defector.com/whats-the-story-with-joe-biden
...Does Biden have a worse problem than that? I have no idea. And, fairly blatantly, none of the people reporting and arguing about getting rid of him do either. None of them came up with any revelations that prevented him from winning in 2020, or from becoming the presumptive nominee in the 2024 primary season. No matter how they dress up their claims about the emergency, it only became an emergency when he blew the debate...
1. Wouldn't have been questioning his mental fitness to serve another 4 years provoking the Biden campaign to feel it necessary to confront the charge by holding a debate so early and by doing so confirming the public's fears, or
2. It would have revealed his limitations ~ 6 months ago and given the party time to deal with it before it became an "emergency".
Let me try and get this straight.Sparko wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 9:26 pmThe market hit new highs again. Support the policies, not the memes.RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 7:01 pmYes, it would. Unfortunately Biden is no can of Tuna.
I'd argue that too. Or, maybe I wouldn't argue that?KUTradition wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:12 am i’d argue the president has very little to do with gas prices…not enough to blame, or give credit
Your first two questions I will respond with definitive but vague (is that possible? - kind of an oxymoron?) answers.Shirley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:20 am Is, for example, inflation Biden's fault? Or, is it due to a multiplicity of factors, including supply chains breaking down and the supply of goods cratering while the demand for "things" skyrocketed during the Covid Pandemic, along with Trump increasing the national debt more than any other president in history in a four-year term, i.e., things Biden had nothing to do with?
If you accept that premise, that the forces largely responsible for inflation were in effect prior to Biden taking over in 2021, do you think that prevents Republicans from blaming Biden and Democratic policies for inflation, nonetheless?
Not on your life. That being the case, and with homage to Nietzsche*, I think you can figure the rest of my answer out, yourself.
*“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
― Friedrich W. Nietzsche
If we’re able to learn anything at all from the long sad history of the pols bored, it’s that the pols bored is overwhelmingly the art of self-fulfilling prophecyRainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 5:59 amLet me try and get this straight.Sparko wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 9:26 pmThe market hit new highs again. Support the policies, not the memes.RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 7:01 pm
Yes, it would. Unfortunately Biden is no can of Tuna.
When "the market" does well, it's because of the President and his/her "policies" but if/when "the market" does poorly - the President has nothing to do with it. Or at least it's not his fault.
Is that depending on who the President is? Or, does who the President is not matter?
Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with your statement ("support the policies" - if the policies are good for "the market") and the way I have understood it, yes - policies can/do have an affect on "the market/s".
Here is something to ponder. Seems "the market" is important to you - and many people. Heck, myself included.
If "the market" did significantly better under Trump than it's done under Biden, would would strongly consider voting for Trump because of it?
On a semi-related side note. We have intelligent people who post on this site claiming the President has nothing to do with (or at least doesn't have any control over) gas prices (at least not when they are high and the President is Biden). Is that true?
Yes, there definitely is an air of self-fulfilling prophecy, and yes, there is an air of only believing what you want to believe, but that's true in regards to pretty much anything/everything else in life.ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:52 amIf we’re able to learn anything at all from the long sad history of the pols bored, it’s that the pols bored is overwhelmingly the art of self-fulfilling prophecyRainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2024 5:59 amLet me try and get this straight.
When "the market" does well, it's because of the President and his/her "policies" but if/when "the market" does poorly - the President has nothing to do with it. Or at least it's not his fault.
Is that depending on who the President is? Or, does who the President is not matter?
Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with your statement ("support the policies" - if the policies are good for "the market") and the way I have understood it, yes - policies can/do have an affect on "the market/s".
Here is something to ponder. Seems "the market" is important to you - and many people. Heck, myself included.
If "the market" did significantly better under Trump than it's done under Biden, would would strongly consider voting for Trump because of it?
On a semi-related side note. We have intelligent people who post on this site claiming the President has nothing to do with (or at least doesn't have any control over) gas prices (at least not when they are high and the President is Biden). Is that true?
and/or of only believing what you wanna believe