One of things most people know about Biden is that he stammers in certain situations, and that he rambles when telling a story. And he loves to tell stories that are exaggerated and embellished. I can empathize with all of those traits. Anyone who has heard me speak publicly would probably agree that I'm a fairly articulate and engaging speaker. But catch me without a script, and I'll ramble and repeat myself, losing the thread sometimes. If I'm in a meeting and have to address issues that I am not up to speed on, or don't have all the facts lined up, I'll stammer a little. To compensate I'll speak slowly, with frequent pauses, in order to make my point, sometimes causing others to interrupt and finish my thoughts. But give me a script (even in Spanish!), or even good notes, and I'm as polished and articulate as the next guy. Biden has always rambled, he has always embellished his stories, and he has never been a great public speaker.
The debate with Trump is looked upon as the proof that he had lost it -- he looked terrible, acted confused, and gave rambling answers to questions. His slacked-jawed expression (as one anti-Trump friend of mine described it) made him look "out of it". Defenses from his allies that the debate was a one-time problem were not believed and led to his withdrawal from the presidential race. But I look at other appearances that same year -- notably a speech that same week, as well as the State of the Union speech where he dealt masterfully with Republican hecklers, and agree that the debate could be looked at as the exemption, not the rule. I look back at the notes that I took during that debate and what I observed at the time was that although Biden looked bad, he answered most of the questions about policy clearly. There was one answer that rambled a bit and ended with him petering off in a mumble that was not understood, and there was he and Trump arguing about golf handicaps, but, unlike Trump, he actually answered the questions. Trump was as rambling and incoherent, but he did it in a loud voice and a smirk on his face, and was not held to the same standard.
There's a saying: "perception is reality". It's really not, but people's perception guides how they think and act. If people perceive that the president is weak and mentally debilitated, they will not have confidence in his ability to lead. The MAGA Cult believes that Trump is a strong leader, despite all evidence to the contrary, so that's the "reality" that they act upon. After that debate the suspicion that Biden wasn't up to the task became the perception that he wasn't which became the reality.
The job of the president is like and unlike other management jobs. He isn't micromanaging all aspects of the government, but is providing leadership and guidance for his appointees to turn his vision into reality. The president might have to make life or death decisions quickly on the basis of incomplete or contradictory information in some situations, but most of the job involves the slow and plodding business of legislation, and the minutia of governing. The president shouldn't be, and can't be an expert on all things. The president's staff, including cabinet secretaries and agency heads, are doing all the work. (Does anyone think Trump is personally writing all of those executive orders?) Conservatives and other Republicans might disagree about whether Biden's agenda was right for the country, but no one can argue that he wasn't effective as president. He got things done. His biggest failure was his lack of an effective border policy. His decades in the Senate convinced him that it was the job of Congress to legislate the border policy, but unfortunately he was blind to how hyper partisan the legislative branch had become. His executive order to secure the border was effective, but too late to benefit him politically.
So far it sounds like I'm arguing that Biden was fine and the concerns were unfounded. Not at all. Biden was not my first choice during the 2020 Democratic primaries -- then-Senator Kamala Harris was. But the majority of Democratic primary voters disagreed. (Sit down Sanders fans) Biden was the consensus choice, possibly viewed as the safe choice, to defeat Trump in the 2020 general election -- which he did. My opinion was that we needed a younger candidate -- I thought at the time that Biden's age would mean that he would be a one-term president, gracefully declining to run for re-election to make room for his Vice President, or encouraging an open primary. My age-related objection to Biden in the first place, and my hope that he would voluntarily limit himself to one term might be interpreted as ageism, but it's inarguable that people's faculties deteriorate with age. I thought it was too much of a gamble to bet that Biden would retain enough sharpness to be the leader we needed. And it's not just Joe Biden. Senator Grassley is 90 years old and frequently fails to make sense in his public pronouncements. Mitch McConnell, on two occasions froze, staring mutely for almost a full minute while his aids panicked. And does anyone really believe that Trump is in his right mind? Or makes any sense in his rambling, incoherent speeches or Truth Social posts? I'm going to be 67 next month, and even at my age I feel less sharp than I did ten years ago, and someone my age would be considered young running for president or sitting on the Supreme Court bench.
The thing about power is that once you have it, you are loath to give it up. Trump whines about how the presidency is such a burden to him him, that he gave up his "beautiful life" to run for president. Yet, instead of gracefully walking away when defeated he fought to tooth and nail to pretend he really hadn't lost, and he here is, back in office. Joe Biden had his eye on the White House for a long time. He'd entered the primaries many times without getting very far. He served honorably as Vice President under President Obama, but was disappointed when Obama supported Secretary of State Clinton as his successor. I believe he could have beaten Trump -- as much as I thought Clinton would have made a great president, the irrational hatred that many had for her doomed her run -- but since he wasn't the nominee he should have just rested on his laurels as a lifetime public servant and enjoyed retirement as an elder statesman. But he decided to hang on to power past its sell-by date, leaving us with the chaos of of Democratic leadership having no choice but to endorse Harris, with Democratic primary voters being effectively disenfranchised. If Biden had dropped out even seven months earlier, there could have been an open primary season and a candidate that the Democratic electorate was clearly supportive of. It's possible that inflation and the border would have tanked any Democrat's chances, but as close as the election was, it could have gone the other way.
Democratic leadership, one way or the other, is going to have to take ownership of the whole debacle if they're ever going to get back in control of Congress, let alone the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment