"I’ve had top Democrats say to me basically something like, ‘I don’t know why all these Democrats who think Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy are acting the way they are. But the reason I’m acting the way I am is because I don’t think that."
To me, that is how Biden got the nomination in 2020 in the first place. Those people were his constituency. The risk of rocking the boat was greater than the risk of our structural problems continuing to grow. I just don't understand why people are surprised now that that Biden is still the candidate of those people.
I guess I should be heartened that more of the party base has come around to the idea that things aren't normal and we need some real decisive action somewhere but honestly I think its way too little way to late anyway. Plus I have no faith they won't just habituate themselves to fascist America in a year or two anyway so there is no compelling reason to stick my neck out.
George Clooney: It suddenly hit me when Clooney saw Joe Biden in LA. That was the weekend following Joe's TWO trips to Europe in that week. He was in Normandy in the beginning of the week, flew back to DC, then two days later, he's back on AF1 flying to Italy for the G7 meetings. Let's see: 5-6 hours on the plane, getting off it with a 6-7 hr change in time zones. Another trip back, same time in flights and time zones. Then he does it again 2 days later, and engaged in a number of meetings IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR NIGHTS! Then another 6-7 hr flight and another 6-7hr change in time zones. The day after he gets back, he's on a plane to LA when he met Clooney and others. https://rollcall.com/factbase/biden/topic/calendar/ And people are wondering why he looked and was tired?
And then he's got the NERVE to stab Joe Biden in the back with his "look how feeble he is". Joe Biden was a superman that week.
I don’t know if others noticed the offhand reference to the Law of the Sea, but I snorted my ice tea out of my nose when I read it. Almost fifty years ago when I first started out in Washington I had the misfortune to get assigned this topic. Even then it was a never ending source of conflict and teeth gnashing. I’m assuming it is an insiders joke.
I wrote Congresswoman Gwen Moore and Senator Tammy Baldwin and said it was time for Joe Biden to retire. I also wrote the White House. Baldwin's office seemed to think the question was a political question, not a US existential question, and referred me to her campaign - huh? Now her opponent Eric Hovde is campaigning on her apparent support of a senile president. I guess since the elite Democratic Congresspeople and Democratic Senators won't tell Joe to retire, I will try the DNC next!
Yes it occurred to me. And no, I do not think the factors you cite caused what I saw. There is a distinctive set of signs that people who have lived with a person with cognitive impairment (as I have) recognize. The blank stare, the frozen features, the empty eyes, the mangled syntax, the groping for words. If what we saw in the debate is what happens to Joe Biden when he keeps the kind of schedule often required of the president of the United States and has a cold at the same time, I think that, too, should give one pause about his continued candidacy.
And where's the complaining about the Orange Snake's 4+hrs PER DAY of "executive time" and his nearly every weekend golf games on our dime?
As for groping for words, he's done that his entire life due to his stuttering. How about you actually READ the transcripts of what he said. He unlike his opponent was trying to answer the questions asked, and rebut his lies, his gibberish in 2 MINUTES.
I remember when Reagan beat Mondale in 1984 when I was 10 years old. I didn't expect to see another candidate come close to losing that badly but it really seems like Biden is heading toward that (I realize he will win more than one state). Once those states turn red, who knows when they will turn blue again.
Regardless of what you think of his performance as president, Biden is losing to the country's (apparently second) worst choice for president with no plausible way to reverse the momentum. Also, it is highly unlikely that Biden won't have another incident in the next four months. What happens then when it's too late to do anything?
I think it's a foregone conclusion at this point that he will drop out but the timing will be interesting especially with the Republican convention starting in four days.
I've written this twice before in comments to JVL's last two days' commentary (in what I think is charming prose, exquisitely put together, musically tripping off the mental tongue): IF MR. BIDEN ISN'T FIT TO RUN A CAMPAIGN FOR REELECTION AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, THEN HE IS NO LONGER FIT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. FULL STOP.
What you are missing, is that doctors who have examined Joe Biden have found that he is, overall, a healthy 81 year old man. He does not have cognitive impairment or dementia, he is simply a chronic stutterer with an 81 year old brain, who clearly cannot think as fast on his feet as he used to, and is less articulate. However, his administration has been one of the most successful in the last 60 years. The economy has recovered spectacularly well since it tanked when COVID hit under Trump. Unemployment has been <4% for the last 2 years, GDP growth is good, real wages are climbing, the stock market is at a record high, and inflation is being tamed. Biden has helped strengthen NATO and help Ukraine decimate the Russian army (inflecting over 300,000 casualties in 2.3 years). He is no longer able to debate well, against a skilled conman and pathologic liar, but I see no proof he is unable to continue to function as president for the next 6 months, or possibly longer. It appears he is simply not able to both serve as president AND successfully run for president at the same time. That's why I recommend he drop out of the race and allow a younger, more articulate Democrat such as Harris to be nominated and make the case against Donald Trump.
Mr. Steenbergen, you may be right. May. But as a physician, albeit retired, I can tell you without turning my face away, that a "chronic stutterer with with an 81 year old brain" is unlikely to be able to do ANY complex, time-consuming, emotionally-charged, risk taking job that puts the wellbeing of (about 336M) people in their control. I'd suggest strongly that ANYONE over 75, certainly over 80, is, at the very least, not the person they were at 55 or 60. And at 60, not what they were at 30. Even smart, really smart, and healthy, really healthy, people are, inevitably dimimished as they age.
I've not missed that "doctors who have examined Joe Biden have found that he is, overall, a healthy 81 year old man." I'd say that that's likely true. Mr. Biden seems to take good care of himself. But:
Physicians are quite rightly chary of violating their patients' privacy by talking about their health publicly, certainly in detail, with diagnoses. No one has spoken on the record with those practitioners and published a detailed report. You and I won't ever see such a thing. You see see a man who "does not have cognitive impairment or dementia," rather one who "clearly cannot think as fast on his feet as he used to, and is less articulate." That ain't what I see. And yes, I admit, I haven't examined him personally, and thus, no, I can't make a diagnosis for the record.
I agree with your sociopolitical analysis of the Biden administration's successes. But that he "is no longer able to debate well, against a skilled conman and pathologic liar" is a part of the indictment. The President's job is often--probably usually--routine and headachy with a lot of debate and study and taking advice of his experts. Of course. But it's also thinking and acting quickly and innovatively in crisis. It is having the "nuclear football." It is sometimes "shoot or no shoot." It's sometimes a matter of taking charge firmly and decisively and saying, "That's it, this is what is going to happen."
If it can come to that, then I really don't want the 81 year old man you describe above doing the make-or-break decisionmaking. Not in six months' time. And not now. The guy I've seen just can't do that, at least not reliably. Ergo, I applaud your recommendation that he drop out now. I'm bleak-minded enough to think that it won't make a difference in the outcome. I'm hesitant about VP Harris's abilities. But she ain't 81 years old.
I want to know who the Democrats are that don't think Trump is such a big threat. We need to out these non-serious people ASAP and get them out of leadership, because they are clearly not smart enough to be there.
Today's quiz: a handful of BB's tossed onto the floor is a metaphorical reference to: 1). A presidential candidate who is being laborishly tutored on how to finish his sentences. 2). A political party dividing into my separate parts daily. 3). A presidential candidate who promises to fire everyone he does not shoot or imprison.
4). A populace of innocents who have been shocked and awed with no end in sight.
"The failure of the Republican Party to do one of the main things a political party is supposed to do—to check truly malevolent demagogues—is a signal elite failure of the last decade. It’s been terrible to see for those of us who once had an attachment to and respect for that party. More important, it’s been terrible for the country."
I would agree with the sentiment and further acknowledge and applaud the introspection many on The Bulwark have undertaken and the courage to speak out. It is my growing belief however, that what we are seeing with today's GOP is not an "elite failure of the last decade" but the elite success of the last five+ decades.
Doubt what I just said at all our peril.
In 1970, "A Friedman Doctrine - The Social Responsibility of a Business is to Increase It's Profits" was published in the New York Times. Friedman stated that a business that “takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution” are in fact “preaching pure and unadulterated socialism”. One could actually make a case for the simplicity and/or advisability that business’s sole responsibility is profits if there is a governing body or some other mechanism that addresses those other needs. Yet we have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court who spent the past term taking a blow torch to the federal government’s mechanisms to address those very needs.
In 1971, Lewis Powell penned the Powell Memo for the Chamber of Commerce saying that the judiciary "may be the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change". The memo further stated that "other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute at exploiting judicial action than American business." Months after penning this memo, Lewis Powell became a Supreme Court justice, nominated by Republican president Richard Nixon. So began the GOP elite takeover and enhancement of judiciary power.
The Supreme Court decisions of this most recent term are part of a string of decisions that have increased the power of corporations and wealthy interests to the detriment of everyone else. Friedman said “a corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but ‘business’ as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense.” That “artificial” person now has many of the rights of the flesh and blood versions of people with financial resources that very few of those flesh and blood folks can muster.
It has been 237 years since the U.S. Constitution was signed. A critical underpinning of our Republic is that no person is above the law. It has been 47 years since former Republican president Richard Nixon, after being pardoned for breaking the law, absurdly stated that "well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal." It has been four years since the current Republican appointed super majority was established on today’s Supreme Court. Within those short four years, a second Republican former president was indicted for fomenting a coop, claimed that former presidents were immune from criminal prosecution, and was given immunity by today’s Republican super majority on the Supreme Court.
Thus the rule of law has now become the law of the ruler less than five months before we vote whether to re-elect that same indicted former Republican president. This result took five decades of focused and well financed efforts by The Federalist Society to be realized. They may not have set out to dismantle the rule of law, but at this point it would be folly to assume it was an accident.
If you are a libertarian CEO, the Supreme Court’s assault on the mechanisms federal agencies use to protect American’s is elite success. Decisions to shrink the voter pool, lock in legislative majorities through partisan gerrymandering, and allow unlimited corporate spending are all elite successes. If you are a Christian Nationalist, this court’s increasingly sympathetic jurisprudence is an elite success. Perhaps it is the prosperity gospel that binds these two odd bed fellows together. Perhaps the two decided, 50 years ago to just play nice in the same sandbox. There is no doubt though that any other Republican president would have nominated the same three or similar judges that Trump nominated. The problem is broader than Trump. The problem is the entire ROTpublican party.
No, “a signal elite failure of the last decade” is merely a single symptom of the disease. Our republic and whether we can keep it is at risk from 50 years of slowly evolving and well planned elite success.
Now, enough with the Biden Stew and Brew. Let’s get cooking on defeating Trump and the ROTpublcans behind whomever the Democrats eventually select.
Times have so changed since 1974 when the leadership of the GOP went to the White House, put a fork in Nixon and told him he was done.
Today, we have Mitch McConnell and other gutless wonders in the GOP who knew Trump needed to be impeached and could have made it happen, but couldn't do it just like he couldn't give Merritt Garland a shot at a Supreme chair, all in the name of party over country. Patriot my ass! He should have been taken out and hung on January 6 with the rest of the GOP traitors to our country.
Actually, to be fair, the GOP is not full of gutless wonders. They are politicians fighting for their lives and the lives of their families. Over the decades they have wound up, radicalized and heavily armed their supporters to the point that they now fear them as they know they are just a gunshot or two away from being taken out if they do not tow the line. Never mind losing their cushy job if they say or do the wrong thing to piss off their Orange Jesus.
Now it is the Dems turn at chaos. Hopefully it turns out better than it has for the GOP.
What if Biden and Harris swapped places on the ticket? Biden as the successful, seasoned pol in the White House and able to offer his best instincts and advice to Harris. Harris as the President offering a "new generation," good instincts of her own, and with someone experienced who could step in if she were incapacitated (G0d forbid!). Both have been vetted and accepted by primary voters as leaders. Biden essentially passes the torch as promised 4 years ago, yet still has a key role in the new Harris-Biden ticket. Neither are known as wanna-be dictators or crooks. Democracy continues for 4 more years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thank you to all at the Bulwark for good analytical thinking during these troubling times. I enjoy daily!
I usually don't feel the need to add anything, but today I want to offer a slightly different gloss into the mix.
In my view, Biden needs to abandon his re-election bid because the credibility of any Democrat will diminish if they endeavor to pretend we all didn’t see what we saw and continue to see.
Biden’s condition clearly represents a dwindling of capacity to function effectively as President for the next term, and perhaps even for the remainder of this term. No press conference or interview is going to change the obvious new reality with which we are all familiar in older people we know.
Given the narrow margins in the electoral college in recent elections (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin) it may well be, as his campaign maintained, that Biden previously represented the best chance of victory in those states. I don't agree, but I get the argument. Although it is hard to believe it is so, perhaps even after the debate, Biden would fare better than Harris or anyone else in that narrow sector of the electorate which could decide the Electoral College.
But I think the problem is that if the Democratic Party does not act to address this problem of fitness at the top of the ticket, they will lose all credibility. I think that is what could yield a landslide for Trump which sweeps along the Senate and House.
It may be a long shot for a different nominee to win in November beginning at this late date. But the credibility of other Democrats running requires that they acknowledge the problem and fix it.
I feel much more confident that anti-Trump candidates (nearly all of whom are Democrats at this point) will be far more successful and we will have a Bulwark against Trump, even if Biden’s faulty choice to run for re-election can’t be remedied at this late date. (See Ro Khanna's remarks on Pod Save America yesterday about the need for time to earn the trust of the electorate and whether a Clinton or Obama could have won if given only 4 months to earn that trust).
Anyway, I'm still feeling some faith that the Dems will make this change happen. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not sure so many Dems are quite as cynical as Tim and Ezra Klein speculated yesterday. By and large I think they are a cautious and strategic bunch. My fingers are crossed that they are methodically working it out. That's the sense I get from observing my own Senator Durbin. They are not really inclined to move fast and break things! (as M. Cottle noted this morning in the NYT).
I find it very rich that the writers on this site that are "former" Republicans (which is most of them) think they should have a say in who the Democrats choose for their leader. You people have made terrible decisions about who you shill for for decades. You are the reason we are here. The Republicans were always purveyors of Fascism lite. All you have to look at is the abortion policy they have always had. But none of you ever saw that or cared. So here we are because of you. And now you're all just so sure about what to do. You cannot be trusted to make any decisions. So how about this: You're not in the family, and you never will be, so butt out. Go make your bad decisions about something else.
Of course you can choose to have them in your family. But these "former" Republicans are not in the family of the Democratic party. They have never cared about the Democratic party until Trump came along and after he's gone they will be gone too. Bill Kristol alone has worked for terrible terrible terrible (all Republican) people and causes (so have the rest). So it isn't crazy to say that perhaps they aren't here to represent for the Democrats. They aren't Democrats and my opinion is they should butt out. That's all.
They can fight against Trump. That's fine. I do not care what you want to call the content of this website (I did not call it pro-Democratic). They are all commenting constantly about who should be the leader of the Democratic party. If they are going to do that, I am going to say this: You're not in the family, so butt out. They have caused this disaster with what they have done with their lives until Trump came along. In my opinion, that makes them the wrong people to talk about Joe Biden who has done all the right things with his life. This isn't that hard to understand.
Are you new here, Lori? Because the Bulwark community doesn't do ad hominem attacks. No one who writes for the Bulwark has ever supported trump. They are in fact ardently anti-trump and have been for the past 9 years. If you have a specific criticism about what you've read here, let's hear it (civilly). Otherwise, you might share these thoughts on a different site.
For the record, it's the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
"I’ve had top Democrats say to me basically something like, ‘I don’t know why all these Democrats who think Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy are acting the way they are. But the reason I’m acting the way I am is because I don’t think that."
To me, that is how Biden got the nomination in 2020 in the first place. Those people were his constituency. The risk of rocking the boat was greater than the risk of our structural problems continuing to grow. I just don't understand why people are surprised now that that Biden is still the candidate of those people.
I guess I should be heartened that more of the party base has come around to the idea that things aren't normal and we need some real decisive action somewhere but honestly I think its way too little way to late anyway. Plus I have no faith they won't just habituate themselves to fascist America in a year or two anyway so there is no compelling reason to stick my neck out.
George Clooney: It suddenly hit me when Clooney saw Joe Biden in LA. That was the weekend following Joe's TWO trips to Europe in that week. He was in Normandy in the beginning of the week, flew back to DC, then two days later, he's back on AF1 flying to Italy for the G7 meetings. Let's see: 5-6 hours on the plane, getting off it with a 6-7 hr change in time zones. Another trip back, same time in flights and time zones. Then he does it again 2 days later, and engaged in a number of meetings IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR NIGHTS! Then another 6-7 hr flight and another 6-7hr change in time zones. The day after he gets back, he's on a plane to LA when he met Clooney and others. https://rollcall.com/factbase/biden/topic/calendar/ And people are wondering why he looked and was tired?
And then he's got the NERVE to stab Joe Biden in the back with his "look how feeble he is". Joe Biden was a superman that week.
I don’t know if others noticed the offhand reference to the Law of the Sea, but I snorted my ice tea out of my nose when I read it. Almost fifty years ago when I first started out in Washington I had the misfortune to get assigned this topic. Even then it was a never ending source of conflict and teeth gnashing. I’m assuming it is an insiders joke.
I wrote Congresswoman Gwen Moore and Senator Tammy Baldwin and said it was time for Joe Biden to retire. I also wrote the White House. Baldwin's office seemed to think the question was a political question, not a US existential question, and referred me to her campaign - huh? Now her opponent Eric Hovde is campaigning on her apparent support of a senile president. I guess since the elite Democratic Congresspeople and Democratic Senators won't tell Joe to retire, I will try the DNC next!
"Baldwin's office seemed to think the question was a political question, not a US existential question, and referred me to her campaign - huh?"
Most congressional offices are doing that now.
The DNC is still sending me donation requests, doubt they will be of help.
I do hope you're not waiting for Gwen Moore to suggest a solution.
Yes it occurred to me. And no, I do not think the factors you cite caused what I saw. There is a distinctive set of signs that people who have lived with a person with cognitive impairment (as I have) recognize. The blank stare, the frozen features, the empty eyes, the mangled syntax, the groping for words. If what we saw in the debate is what happens to Joe Biden when he keeps the kind of schedule often required of the president of the United States and has a cold at the same time, I think that, too, should give one pause about his continued candidacy.
And where's the complaining about the Orange Snake's 4+hrs PER DAY of "executive time" and his nearly every weekend golf games on our dime?
As for groping for words, he's done that his entire life due to his stuttering. How about you actually READ the transcripts of what he said. He unlike his opponent was trying to answer the questions asked, and rebut his lies, his gibberish in 2 MINUTES.
I remember when Reagan beat Mondale in 1984 when I was 10 years old. I didn't expect to see another candidate come close to losing that badly but it really seems like Biden is heading toward that (I realize he will win more than one state). Once those states turn red, who knows when they will turn blue again.
Regardless of what you think of his performance as president, Biden is losing to the country's (apparently second) worst choice for president with no plausible way to reverse the momentum. Also, it is highly unlikely that Biden won't have another incident in the next four months. What happens then when it's too late to do anything?
He’ll get out. Soon. He has to. History will remember him poorly if he doesn’t. Even he has to see that. Right?
I think it's a foregone conclusion at this point that he will drop out but the timing will be interesting especially with the Republican convention starting in four days.
I've written this twice before in comments to JVL's last two days' commentary (in what I think is charming prose, exquisitely put together, musically tripping off the mental tongue): IF MR. BIDEN ISN'T FIT TO RUN A CAMPAIGN FOR REELECTION AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, THEN HE IS NO LONGER FIT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. FULL STOP.
THAT'S RIGHT NOW! Not in 2027.
What am I missing?
What you are missing, is that doctors who have examined Joe Biden have found that he is, overall, a healthy 81 year old man. He does not have cognitive impairment or dementia, he is simply a chronic stutterer with an 81 year old brain, who clearly cannot think as fast on his feet as he used to, and is less articulate. However, his administration has been one of the most successful in the last 60 years. The economy has recovered spectacularly well since it tanked when COVID hit under Trump. Unemployment has been <4% for the last 2 years, GDP growth is good, real wages are climbing, the stock market is at a record high, and inflation is being tamed. Biden has helped strengthen NATO and help Ukraine decimate the Russian army (inflecting over 300,000 casualties in 2.3 years). He is no longer able to debate well, against a skilled conman and pathologic liar, but I see no proof he is unable to continue to function as president for the next 6 months, or possibly longer. It appears he is simply not able to both serve as president AND successfully run for president at the same time. That's why I recommend he drop out of the race and allow a younger, more articulate Democrat such as Harris to be nominated and make the case against Donald Trump.
Mr. Steenbergen, you may be right. May. But as a physician, albeit retired, I can tell you without turning my face away, that a "chronic stutterer with with an 81 year old brain" is unlikely to be able to do ANY complex, time-consuming, emotionally-charged, risk taking job that puts the wellbeing of (about 336M) people in their control. I'd suggest strongly that ANYONE over 75, certainly over 80, is, at the very least, not the person they were at 55 or 60. And at 60, not what they were at 30. Even smart, really smart, and healthy, really healthy, people are, inevitably dimimished as they age.
I've not missed that "doctors who have examined Joe Biden have found that he is, overall, a healthy 81 year old man." I'd say that that's likely true. Mr. Biden seems to take good care of himself. But:
Physicians are quite rightly chary of violating their patients' privacy by talking about their health publicly, certainly in detail, with diagnoses. No one has spoken on the record with those practitioners and published a detailed report. You and I won't ever see such a thing. You see see a man who "does not have cognitive impairment or dementia," rather one who "clearly cannot think as fast on his feet as he used to, and is less articulate." That ain't what I see. And yes, I admit, I haven't examined him personally, and thus, no, I can't make a diagnosis for the record.
I agree with your sociopolitical analysis of the Biden administration's successes. But that he "is no longer able to debate well, against a skilled conman and pathologic liar" is a part of the indictment. The President's job is often--probably usually--routine and headachy with a lot of debate and study and taking advice of his experts. Of course. But it's also thinking and acting quickly and innovatively in crisis. It is having the "nuclear football." It is sometimes "shoot or no shoot." It's sometimes a matter of taking charge firmly and decisively and saying, "That's it, this is what is going to happen."
If it can come to that, then I really don't want the 81 year old man you describe above doing the make-or-break decisionmaking. Not in six months' time. And not now. The guy I've seen just can't do that, at least not reliably. Ergo, I applaud your recommendation that he drop out now. I'm bleak-minded enough to think that it won't make a difference in the outcome. I'm hesitant about VP Harris's abilities. But she ain't 81 years old.
You think Harris is articulate...hmmmm...interesting
I want to know who the Democrats are that don't think Trump is such a big threat. We need to out these non-serious people ASAP and get them out of leadership, because they are clearly not smart enough to be there.
I think that claim from Klein is more of a reflection of his own thinking than that of some Democrat.
Today's quiz: a handful of BB's tossed onto the floor is a metaphorical reference to: 1). A presidential candidate who is being laborishly tutored on how to finish his sentences. 2). A political party dividing into my separate parts daily. 3). A presidential candidate who promises to fire everyone he does not shoot or imprison.
4). A populace of innocents who have been shocked and awed with no end in sight.
I came across this in Kristol's article.
"The failure of the Republican Party to do one of the main things a political party is supposed to do—to check truly malevolent demagogues—is a signal elite failure of the last decade. It’s been terrible to see for those of us who once had an attachment to and respect for that party. More important, it’s been terrible for the country."
I would agree with the sentiment and further acknowledge and applaud the introspection many on The Bulwark have undertaken and the courage to speak out. It is my growing belief however, that what we are seeing with today's GOP is not an "elite failure of the last decade" but the elite success of the last five+ decades.
Doubt what I just said at all our peril.
In 1970, "A Friedman Doctrine - The Social Responsibility of a Business is to Increase It's Profits" was published in the New York Times. Friedman stated that a business that “takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution” are in fact “preaching pure and unadulterated socialism”. One could actually make a case for the simplicity and/or advisability that business’s sole responsibility is profits if there is a governing body or some other mechanism that addresses those other needs. Yet we have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court who spent the past term taking a blow torch to the federal government’s mechanisms to address those very needs.
In 1971, Lewis Powell penned the Powell Memo for the Chamber of Commerce saying that the judiciary "may be the most important instrument for social, economic, and political change". The memo further stated that "other organizations and groups, recognizing this, have been far more astute at exploiting judicial action than American business." Months after penning this memo, Lewis Powell became a Supreme Court justice, nominated by Republican president Richard Nixon. So began the GOP elite takeover and enhancement of judiciary power.
The Supreme Court decisions of this most recent term are part of a string of decisions that have increased the power of corporations and wealthy interests to the detriment of everyone else. Friedman said “a corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but ‘business’ as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense.” That “artificial” person now has many of the rights of the flesh and blood versions of people with financial resources that very few of those flesh and blood folks can muster.
It has been 237 years since the U.S. Constitution was signed. A critical underpinning of our Republic is that no person is above the law. It has been 47 years since former Republican president Richard Nixon, after being pardoned for breaking the law, absurdly stated that "well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal." It has been four years since the current Republican appointed super majority was established on today’s Supreme Court. Within those short four years, a second Republican former president was indicted for fomenting a coop, claimed that former presidents were immune from criminal prosecution, and was given immunity by today’s Republican super majority on the Supreme Court.
Thus the rule of law has now become the law of the ruler less than five months before we vote whether to re-elect that same indicted former Republican president. This result took five decades of focused and well financed efforts by The Federalist Society to be realized. They may not have set out to dismantle the rule of law, but at this point it would be folly to assume it was an accident.
If you are a libertarian CEO, the Supreme Court’s assault on the mechanisms federal agencies use to protect American’s is elite success. Decisions to shrink the voter pool, lock in legislative majorities through partisan gerrymandering, and allow unlimited corporate spending are all elite successes. If you are a Christian Nationalist, this court’s increasingly sympathetic jurisprudence is an elite success. Perhaps it is the prosperity gospel that binds these two odd bed fellows together. Perhaps the two decided, 50 years ago to just play nice in the same sandbox. There is no doubt though that any other Republican president would have nominated the same three or similar judges that Trump nominated. The problem is broader than Trump. The problem is the entire ROTpublican party.
No, “a signal elite failure of the last decade” is merely a single symptom of the disease. Our republic and whether we can keep it is at risk from 50 years of slowly evolving and well planned elite success.
Now, enough with the Biden Stew and Brew. Let’s get cooking on defeating Trump and the ROTpublcans behind whomever the Democrats eventually select.
Times have so changed since 1974 when the leadership of the GOP went to the White House, put a fork in Nixon and told him he was done.
Today, we have Mitch McConnell and other gutless wonders in the GOP who knew Trump needed to be impeached and could have made it happen, but couldn't do it just like he couldn't give Merritt Garland a shot at a Supreme chair, all in the name of party over country. Patriot my ass! He should have been taken out and hung on January 6 with the rest of the GOP traitors to our country.
Actually, to be fair, the GOP is not full of gutless wonders. They are politicians fighting for their lives and the lives of their families. Over the decades they have wound up, radicalized and heavily armed their supporters to the point that they now fear them as they know they are just a gunshot or two away from being taken out if they do not tow the line. Never mind losing their cushy job if they say or do the wrong thing to piss off their Orange Jesus.
Now it is the Dems turn at chaos. Hopefully it turns out better than it has for the GOP.
What if Biden and Harris swapped places on the ticket? Biden as the successful, seasoned pol in the White House and able to offer his best instincts and advice to Harris. Harris as the President offering a "new generation," good instincts of her own, and with someone experienced who could step in if she were incapacitated (G0d forbid!). Both have been vetted and accepted by primary voters as leaders. Biden essentially passes the torch as promised 4 years ago, yet still has a key role in the new Harris-Biden ticket. Neither are known as wanna-be dictators or crooks. Democracy continues for 4 more years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thank you to all at the Bulwark for good analytical thinking during these troubling times. I enjoy daily!
I usually don't feel the need to add anything, but today I want to offer a slightly different gloss into the mix.
In my view, Biden needs to abandon his re-election bid because the credibility of any Democrat will diminish if they endeavor to pretend we all didn’t see what we saw and continue to see.
Biden’s condition clearly represents a dwindling of capacity to function effectively as President for the next term, and perhaps even for the remainder of this term. No press conference or interview is going to change the obvious new reality with which we are all familiar in older people we know.
Given the narrow margins in the electoral college in recent elections (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin) it may well be, as his campaign maintained, that Biden previously represented the best chance of victory in those states. I don't agree, but I get the argument. Although it is hard to believe it is so, perhaps even after the debate, Biden would fare better than Harris or anyone else in that narrow sector of the electorate which could decide the Electoral College.
But I think the problem is that if the Democratic Party does not act to address this problem of fitness at the top of the ticket, they will lose all credibility. I think that is what could yield a landslide for Trump which sweeps along the Senate and House.
It may be a long shot for a different nominee to win in November beginning at this late date. But the credibility of other Democrats running requires that they acknowledge the problem and fix it.
I feel much more confident that anti-Trump candidates (nearly all of whom are Democrats at this point) will be far more successful and we will have a Bulwark against Trump, even if Biden’s faulty choice to run for re-election can’t be remedied at this late date. (See Ro Khanna's remarks on Pod Save America yesterday about the need for time to earn the trust of the electorate and whether a Clinton or Obama could have won if given only 4 months to earn that trust).
Anyway, I'm still feeling some faith that the Dems will make this change happen. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm not sure so many Dems are quite as cynical as Tim and Ezra Klein speculated yesterday. By and large I think they are a cautious and strategic bunch. My fingers are crossed that they are methodically working it out. That's the sense I get from observing my own Senator Durbin. They are not really inclined to move fast and break things! (as M. Cottle noted this morning in the NYT).
I posted late on the Next Levels comments that if Biden campaign starts dropping, it’s the final shoe drop.
Oh dear. Apparently some aren’t feeling too good about tonight’s press conference..
Biden ‘needs to drop out’ campaign official tells NBC News
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/11/biden-democrats-election-drop-out.html
I find it very rich that the writers on this site that are "former" Republicans (which is most of them) think they should have a say in who the Democrats choose for their leader. You people have made terrible decisions about who you shill for for decades. You are the reason we are here. The Republicans were always purveyors of Fascism lite. All you have to look at is the abortion policy they have always had. But none of you ever saw that or cared. So here we are because of you. And now you're all just so sure about what to do. You cannot be trusted to make any decisions. So how about this: You're not in the family, and you never will be, so butt out. Go make your bad decisions about something else.
For anyone unclear on the Bulwark's mission, here it is (quoted from the About page):
"The Bulwark was founded to provide analysis and reporting in defense of America’s liberal democracy. That’s it. "
The Bulwark --- and ~anyone capable of discussing critical issues civilly --- is in my family and always will be.
Of course you can choose to have them in your family. But these "former" Republicans are not in the family of the Democratic party. They have never cared about the Democratic party until Trump came along and after he's gone they will be gone too. Bill Kristol alone has worked for terrible terrible terrible (all Republican) people and causes (so have the rest). So it isn't crazy to say that perhaps they aren't here to represent for the Democrats. They aren't Democrats and my opinion is they should butt out. That's all.
If everyone but Democrats butts out of the fight against Trump, God help us all.
This is a pro-democracy website, not a pro-Democratic Party website.
You might as well complain that a horse is not a giraffe.
They can fight against Trump. That's fine. I do not care what you want to call the content of this website (I did not call it pro-Democratic). They are all commenting constantly about who should be the leader of the Democratic party. If they are going to do that, I am going to say this: You're not in the family, so butt out. They have caused this disaster with what they have done with their lives until Trump came along. In my opinion, that makes them the wrong people to talk about Joe Biden who has done all the right things with his life. This isn't that hard to understand.
Are you new here, Lori? Because the Bulwark community doesn't do ad hominem attacks. No one who writes for the Bulwark has ever supported trump. They are in fact ardently anti-trump and have been for the past 9 years. If you have a specific criticism about what you've read here, let's hear it (civilly). Otherwise, you might share these thoughts on a different site.
Nancy do you see the word Trump in my comment? I guess I'll share these thoughts wherever the hell I want to.