Biden: “Is Democracy Still America’s Sacred Cause?”
Making 2024 about 2021 and 1777.
WaPo (“Biden, in Valley Forge speech, hits Trump hard as threat to democracy“):
President Biden on Friday delivered his first campaign speech of this election year, attempting to define the 2024 presidential race as a battle for the future of American democracy and portray former president Donald Trump as its chief antagonist.
In remarks that cast the future of the country in stark and dire terms — focusing more tightly on his predecessor than perhaps in any other speech in his presidency — Biden framed his campaign in sweeping language. “Today we’re here to answer the most important of questions: Is democracy still America’s sacred cause?” he said. “It’s what the 2024 election is all about.”
Biden spoke at a community college about 10 miles from Valley Forge National Historical Park, where George Washington mobilized troops during the Revolutionary War to fight for democracy some 250 years ago. The president’s remarks came on the eve of the anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, when a Trump-inspired mob stormed the U.S. Capitol and attempted to prevent Biden from taking office despite his clear victory in the 2020 election.
In a speech that stretched some 30 minutes, Biden mentioned Trump’s name at least 44 times, referring to him in the beginning, middle and end — a clear signal that he is pivoting to campaign mode and sees his predecessor as his all-but-certain challenger. “I won the election,” Biden said of 2020. “And he was a loser.”
He said other world leaders have approached him with concerns about the impact of another Trump term, and he recounted in detail Trump’s encouragement of the Jan. 6 rioters, calling it “among the worst derelictions of duty by a president in American history.” He added, “He still doesn’t understand a basic truth, and that is you can’t love your country only when you win.”
He also asked voters to step up to support democracy. “We all know who Donald Trump is. The question we have to answer is, ‘Who are we?’”
Biden spent considerable time describing details of what occurred three years ago — calling Jan. 6 a day “that we nearly lost America” — and took aim at the way Trump is now attempting to recast the events of that day. “Trump is trying to steal history the same way he tried to steal the election,” he said. “We saw it with our own eyes. Trump’s mob wasn’t a peaceful protest. It was a violent assault. They were insurrectionists, not patriots.”
Biden advisers said the speech was intended as “the opening salvo for this campaign,” depicting events that occurred three centuries ago as well as three years ago to tie Biden’s reelection run to the sweep of American history, while depicting Trump’s comeback bid as a rebellion against that history.
[…]
“When the attack on January 6th happened, there was no doubt about the truth,” Biden said. “As time has gone on, politics, fear, money — all have intervened. And now these MAGA voices who know the truth about Trump on January 6th have abandoned the truth and abandoned democracy. They made their choice. Now the rest of us — Democrats, independents, mainstream Republicans — we have to make our choice.”
Trump in recent months has increasingly cast the assault on the Capitol as a heroic action intended to upend an unfair election, a portrait that is not based in reality. He has also sought, without foundation, to blame Biden for the numerous criminal charges Trump now faces, saying the current president is the true threat to democracy.
In a speech on Friday evening in Sioux Center, Iowa, Trump called Biden’s earlier speech a “pathetic, fearmongering campaign event.” Referencing a speaking impediment Biden had as a child, Trump said incorrectly that Biden “was stuttering through the whole thing.”
“He’s saying I’m a threat to democracy,” Trump said. “‘He’s a threat to d-d-democracy.’ Couldn’t read the word.”
Later in the speech, Trump expressed sympathy for Jan. 6 rioters, calling their imprisonment “one of the saddest things in the history of our country.”
NYT (“Biden Condemns Trump as Dire Threat to Democracy in a Blistering Speech“):
President Biden on Friday delivered a ferocious condemnation of Donald J. Trump, his likely 2024 opponent, warning in searing language that the former president had directed an insurrection and would aim to undo the nation’s bedrock democracy if he returned to power.
On the eve of the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by Mr. Trump’s supporters, Mr. Biden framed the coming election as a choice between a candidate devoted to upholding America’s centuries-old ideals and a chaos agent willing to discard them for his personal benefit.
“There’s no confusion about who Trump is or what he intends to do,” Mr. Biden warned in a speech at a community college not far from Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, where George Washington commanded troops during the Revolutionary War. Exhorting supporters to prepare to vote this fall, he said: “We all know who Donald Trump is. The question is: Who are we?”
In an intensely personal address that at one point nearly led Mr. Biden to curse Mr. Trump by name, the president compared his rival to foreign autocrats who rule by fiat and lies. He said Mr. Trump had failed the basic test of American leaders, to trust the people to choose their elected officials and abide by their decisions.
“We must be clear,” Mr. Biden said. “Democracy is on the ballot. Your freedom is on the ballot.”
The harshness of Mr. Biden’s attack on his rival illustrated both what his campaign believes to be the stakes of the 2024 election and his perilous political standing. Confronted with low approval ratings, bad head-to-head polling against Mr. Trump, worries about his age and lingering unease with the economy, Mr. Biden is turning increasingly to the figure who has proved to be Democrats’ single best motivator.
Mr. Trump, speaking at a campaign rally in Iowa soon after Mr. Biden’s appearance, quickly lashed back, calling the president’s comments “pathetic fearmongering” and accusing him of “abusing George Washington’s legacy.”
BBC (“Biden slams Trump for Capitol riot in 2024 campaign speech“):
In his first campaign speech of 2024, President Joe Biden cast his likely election opponent, Donald Trump, as a fundamental threat to American democracy.
“Whether democracy is still America’s sacred cause is the most urgent question of our time,” Mr Biden said.
“It’s what the 2024 election is all about,” he added.
Mr Trump labelled the speech “pathetic fear mongering” and called Mr Biden the threat to democracy.
“Biden’s record is an unbroken streak of weakness, incompetence, corruption and failure,” said the former president at a rally in the state of Iowa.
Mr Biden’s speech saw him returning to a theme he has invoked over and over in recent years.
This time, he explicitly drew a line to the 6 January 2021 attack on the US Capitol to make his case.
That day, Mr Trump’s supporters violently stormed Congress to stop lawmakers from certifying the presidential election results for Mr Biden, just weeks before he was set to take office.
Mr Trump, the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, frequently repeats the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
The former president has also attempted to reframe the 6 January attack as a “beautiful day.” He has referred to the individuals who participated as “patriots” and political prisoners, and vowed to pardon them if he returns to the White House.
Taking direct aim at this rhetoric, Mr Biden accused Mr Trump of trying to “steal history”, attacking his rival by name repeatedly.
“Trump’s mob wasn’t a peaceful protest, it was a violent assault,” Mr Biden said. “They were insurrectionists, not patriots. They were not there to uphold the Constitution, they were there to destroy the Constitution.”
“He calls those who oppose him vermin. He talks about the blood of Americans being poisoned, echoing the same exact language used in Nazi Germany,” Mr Biden said.
I haven’t watched the speech and can’t comment on its delivery. I’ve read several reports on it and the transcription. It’s well-crafted, tying the sacrifices of the Continental Army at Valley Forge to the Capitol Riots and the future of American democracy. It pointedly contrasts George Washington’s patriotism and courage with Trump’s fecklessness and cowardice. And Biden’s concern for his country and its future with Trump’s self-centeredness and obsession with the past.
It’s a powerful statement of the stark choice voters face in November.
Alas, I’m skeptical that it will resonate with the undecided voters in swing states who will decide the election. Granting that most of them have not been paying anything like the degree of attention to the political news that those reading this and I have over the last three years, it’s hard to imagine the sentient citizen who has yet to form a strong opinion about who won the 2020 election or about the events of January 6, 2021, much less will have the scales fall from their eyes because of this speech.
Now, I can imagine the Democratic voter who is disillusioned with Biden and flirting with voting for a third party candidate being somewhat galvanized by this reminder of the stakes. Even there, though, I suspect it would be more effective to remind them of the sort of policies Trump would enact in a second term than making this an election about democracy itself.
Then again, this is the most unusual election in any of our lifetimes.
Historically, Americans have been unusual compared to citizens of other Western democracies, tending to vote retrospectively rather than prospectively. Under ordinary circumstances, this puts Biden at a severe disadvantage, in that he’s been quite unpopular for most of his term and Americans are particularly unhappy with the economy. But, as AEI’s Matthew Continetti reminds us, 2024 will be the first election since 1888 pitting an incumbent President against a former President. (He terms this a “two-incumbent election.”)
The precedent of 1892 is so distant that it hardly seems relevant. Our two-incumbent election is a genuine novelty. It pits a twice-impeached, criminally charged Republican against a deeply unpopular Democrat who faces his own impeachment inquiry and whose adult son is under federal indictment. All set against the backdrop of collapsing public trust, deteriorating world order, resurgent antisemitism, the interpenetration of the judicial system with domestic elections, myriad connections between former and current national-security personnel and the major media “echo chamber,” America’s aggressive and cunning strategic adversaries, the legitimation of political violence, and a likelihood of constitutional crisis and domestic unrest. Harrison-Cleveland was placid by comparison. Even boring.
[…]
If this were a one-incumbent race that pitted Biden against a fresh Republican, Biden would be on his way to a landslide defeat. He begins 2024 with the lowest approval ratings of any modern president. Voters say that he is too old for the job, that things are “out of control,” and that he has made their lives worse. The Biden campaign has spent tens of millions of dollars in television advertising across swing states to counter these negative attitudes. The ads have had no effect. On the contrary: Biden’s position has worsened. Core Democratic constituencies — Hispanic voters, black voters, and 18- to 35-year-old voters — have turned against him.
Yet Biden has a chance. The Democratic coalition may be fracturing, but its pieces are not joining the GOP. Instead, disaffected Democrats are saying that they will stay home or that they will support RFK Jr. or Cornel West — if either man makes it onto state ballots.
Normally, a splintered electorate and a collapse in enthusiasm for the incumbent benefits the challenger. Not when the challenger is another incumbent. Not when that other incumbent is Donald Trump. The former president may be ahead, but his lead is narrow and within the margin of error.
Pollster Bill McInturff found that, unlike recent presidential contests, 2024 will be more about the challenger than the incumbent. In 2004, 61 percent of voters said their votes were more about George W. Bush than John Kerry. In 2012, 66 percent said their votes were more about Barack Obama than Mitt Romney. The 2020 election was more about Trump than about Biden, who was in his basement. And yet 57 percent of voters say their vote in 2024 will be more about Trump than about President Biden.
If that’s right—and it strikes me as plausible—then Biden’s strategy here may well be sound. Even so, I think focusing on Trump’s cowardice and dangerous rhetoric during this campaign cycle is likely to be more persuasive than vague talk about “democracy.”
Last night, I watched PBS Newshour (normally I don’t watch TV news at all except for local news). Biden’s speech was placed third. After the Supreme Court piece on taking on the Colorado ballot case (important), and the resignation of NRA’s Lapierre (not important). I don’t know what the other news services did but those are choices. And I question them.
PaulCampos at LGM notes that a) the Supremes will find some technicality to decide states can’t keep Trump off the ballot without addressing the substance and b) the election will be decided by low information voters in a few swing states.
I sometimes think of politics as a junior high cafeteria. But Trump is doing a grade school playground, ‘I’m not the threat to democracy, Biden is the threat to democracy.”
But, a hopeful caveat – is it really going to be determined by low info swing voters or by turnout? Fear for democracy may not convince the rubes, but it may get Ds to the polls.
This was a powerful message and will motivate a certain type of voter. It doesn’t have to be the campaign’s only message, and I desperately hope it isn’t. That was the mistake Hillary Clinton made, where she kept thinking if she could only get people to realize how bad Trump was it would be enough. You need different messages for different interest groups.
Maybe the target isn’t the undecided voters in swing states – maybe for the first speech of his campaign it’s a rallying call to Democrats and a reminder to wavering Biden supporters what the stakes are so they don’t stay home. Maybe there will be later speeches – maybe next week, even – that address undecided swing state voters.
P.S. Re RFK Jr.: maybe it would be helpful if some of the other members of the huge Kennedy clan come out and criticize him. I’ve kind of been waiting for that to happen. Surely there are some members of the family, maybe even siblings, who can put country ahead of trust fund?
Disclosure: I have not read or watched the speech. And I don’t intend to.
My impression is that this is considered an important speech. “Finally Biden has come out swinging… We’ve been waiting for this type of forceful messaging for a long time…”
If that is indeed the case, I question the timing of this speech.* Are we not still in the “early” phase of the election season? When only political junkies (whose voting preferences and intentions are not up for grabs) are engaged?
One might reply by saying: “Biden is not limited to this single instance or this one speech. He can give more speeches and repeat these themes as we get closer to November.”
This is no doubt true. And, yet, the principle of diminishing returns seems to apply here. The themes of this speech will lose impact upon repetition. And will garner less and less attention from media, professional commenters, and hobbyists alike.
Conclusion**: Biden should not have given this speech. He should have waited until we have entered the “timely” phase of the election season when normies are “engaged.”
*Assumption: The primary purpose of the speech was to increase his re-election prospects.
**Keep in mind that I’m an outlier on OTB in that I am not an expert in political messaging. 😉
ETA: I am aware that repeat and effective messaging can “brand” one’s political opponent. Candidate X is corrupt. Candidate Y is stupid. Candidate Z is a [ ]ist. I just question how well that holds for the current situation involving Biden messaging against Trump.
The election is 10 months away. Plenty of time and opportunities to address all the other issues, not to mention the gift that keeps on giving, namely trump’s mouth.
@Mimai: I also didn’t watch and won’t read the speech. Don’t know if their timing works or not, but there do seem to be reasons for it. We’re within a year of the election. It seemed to me that Obama governed for three years then campaigned for a year, and it worked. And the speech was timed to be in the papers on the J6 anniversary.
@OzarkHillbilly:
@Mimai:
I watched both speeches last night. I wish someone would do a side by side of the speeches by Trump and Biden. One was a knowledgeable, fact based, focused, powerful speech about important national poliy. The other was a meandering, incoherent, word salad of conspiracies, lies, and non-sensical attacks. It was sad. Compared to Trump, Biden’s speech was stellar oratory.
The old man is going to be fine. The more people start paying attention to who Trump actually is now, the better it will be for Biden. Last night showed that Trump is mentally disintegrating much quicker than Biden.
As Anthony Scaramucci said this week, “If the choice is between demented and dementia, I’m going with dementia.”
‘Cognitive decline’: Trump brutally mocked for baffling comment about how magnets work
I’m trying to find the article now, but last night I came across a story/essay by a pretty conservative Republican, whose main thesis (paraphrased) was…
Trump is ahead now because people aren’t paying attention. But the more he speaks, the more rallies he has, the worse he will do. Why? Because he’s not fit to be president again, and that will become obvious to everyone, EXCEPT the 20% hardcore MAGA base, very soon.
I happen to agree with this. Each speech is getting just a touch more unhinged, a touch more conspiratorial, a touch more dark. Compare any speech in the last month to those a year ago. There is very little optimism or hope in his speeches now. The speeches are dystopian. Meanwhile, Biden has the economy humming along, he’s trying to negotiate with the house on various issues, and he’s keeping the world order together – somehow – despite being pilloried by many in his own party.
The old man is gonna be fine.
Calling democracy America’s sacred cause is like a Santa Claus-level of fiction and it’s condescending to people who want actual optimism and who get the obvious threat of Trump.
To me, Biden sounds like he’s flailing. He has no vision, no reality. And if it was just me, that would be fine. But his poll numbers are terrible. Partly because Trump has been muted in a way, and that will change as he’s everywhere the next year (or not, in which case kicking him off Twitter/X may have been a terrible error). But partly because he’s just not connecting and this speech is 100% evidence of why.
@Mimai: @gVOR10: Re the speech, Kevin Drum posted on it.
Drum points out that one, count it, one, George Washington school in CA was renamed over being a slave owner, although a second was renamed after an alumnus. (Is a female who went there an alumnus or an alumna?)
@Modulo Myself:
Could not disagree more.
@EddieInCA:
I don’t listen to (or read or watch) Trump’s speeches, but I trust your impressions. Let us not forget, however, the starting point. American Carnage.
Bookends?
@gVOR10:
Oh, I am confident that there are reasons. Good ones at that. Indeed, your point about the J6 anniversary is keen. Too bad for the Biden camp that J6 falls on a Saturday and during a time of year when news consumption is historically low.
@Modulo Myself: also cannot disagree with you more.
@EddieInCA: I’m soooo relieved! If Biden is “gonna be fine,” that means that Dems don’t really need to show up if they don’wanna, right?
One of my professional irritations as an author is people who whine that I spend too much time laying foundations – and then go on to praise what I built on that carefully-laid foundation. The character you love in Chapter 12? You love him because you know him from the earlier chapters you were so impatient with.
This speech is an opening chapter. I don’t know if Biden’s team will go on to pay it off successfully, but give them a minute.
@Mimai:
The timing was linked to the three year anniversary of the January 6th attack on the Capitol, so there is a clear logic for it to have been given when given.
And I think there is some efficacy in making Trump be the defender of the insurrection (which he is doing) and this speech helps in that regard.
And to James’ point this speech is unlikely to change minds, I would say that that is probably true in the now, but it sets the stage for a year-long contrast with Trump over Jan 6th.
@Michael Reynolds:
I concur.
@Modulo Myself:
Granting that YMMV, I don’t agree.
@gVOR10: Alumna.
I thought the speech was excellent. And I consider it the opening salvo in the campaign. While I have been concerned about the polls, I also knew that the game hadn’t really begun yet. Unlike the typical cable news pundits, I don’t consider Biden’s chances hopeless at all. I remember many of those same pundits who said Hillary had the nomination all locked up in December 2007.
@Modulo Myself: Honest question, because I am trying to fit your assessment into our broader interchanges on this topic.
Is it fair to say that you yourself relegate democracy, as a value, below issues of policy output/success? Because as I think back to various arguments, that seems to me, especially after the comment above, to be the case.
@Mimai:
Out of curiosity, why? You seem to be making a statement here, but I don’t understand what it is.
@Steven L. Taylor: In addition, January of the election year is the norm for when a sitting President starts paying attention to the campaign. At least serious ones. Trump, of course, was an exception. But then again, all he has ever been capable of is bloviating to an audience. He never actually stopped campaigning and started governing.
@Michael Reynolds: What I want him to do is to finally crowd out the breathless reporting on Trump & company trying to outdo each other being bigoted assholes, with shoulder no mention that they are, in fact, being bigoted assholes.
This is a decent first plank. Call the man out, don’t shy away, make it clear what people not wearing MAGA-colored goggles should be able to see.
@MarkedMan: Good point.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’m not sure if I understand what you are asking. As far as I can tell, I think that talking about democracy as a sacred value is just propaganda. It would be one thing if it’s working, but I don’t think it’s really working.
Personally, I think values are dumb. Democracy is an ethic: it involves solidarity and not just following the rules of status quo, which is why we have blowback against the advances of democracy in the last 30-40 years in America. It’s really easy to say ‘I love democracy’ and then to attack the people who are practicing democracy. It is easy, it happens every day, and it pays well if you can climb your way up the ladder.
I would just add that treating Trump as if he was breaking with an American norm is insulting to people who have experienced many American norms. I mean, January 6th had never happened before. But Trump as a person and MAGA as a whole is as American as apple pie. I grew up being taught about endless overreaches by the left, as if there was wisdom involved in compromise and not going too far. And maybe there was, but you can’t be like democracy is sacred, and also it made a whole lot of sense to cut deals with angry whites in the nearly 70s who fought integration. I mean, you could be like that maybe 20-30 years ago. But not in 2024.
@Modulo Myself:
What a bizarrely precious and prim egg-head reaction.
The speech is appealing to a certain kind of audience that reacts to such appeals – and trying to set a foundation. … and ha I notice after writing that set a foundation, Reynolds evokes this @Michael Reynolds
More than one communication mode will be needed and it is really strange to regard using different rhetorical tools for various audiences as some how condescending…
@Michael Reynolds: Indeed a foundational opening chapter. I myself listened, not my cup of tea but insofar as even were I voting in the USA, not the audience, that is hardly the good basis of judgement.
It rather seems to me that a rather signficant percentage of the audience here have reactions based on “does it appeal to me” – themselves being a queer and unrepresentative demographic of politics obsessed intello types (as likely any reader here), and even their political action desires revolve around what appeals to them, largely urbane and urban intello-Left. Which of course may well be quite valid and good policy (or may not), but may be equally rather rubbish shit retail politics in terms of the USA electoral map.
Ever since the lesson of 2016, it seems to me analysis and comment on National basis is a way of self-deception. Specific appeal to flippable percentages in Swing States, for those elecotral votes, notably amonst the best propensity for mobilisation and actual follow-through to vote.
Here in Rural Red Oregon, I think the only people who watched the speech were likely extremely partisan or have a habit of watching the nightly news.
My reasoning: Many know by now that, if Trump is elected, we will live in an authoritarian country. This is an outcome that some relish in the hopes of wielding power and making money and others look forward to as sport. The only ones persuadable at this point are faithful Republican who still can’t fathom that the national GOP no longer represents the values of the country at the time of the Civil War or who accepted Trump’s menace to achieve a socially conservative Supreme Court. This persuadable group, I hope and pray, will privately support a non-Trump candidate, but not advertise it.
On a personal level, I don’t watch because it hurts too much to be reminded of the stakes and feel extremely disappointed that the Democrats can’t field better candidates.
As for the news outlets, I believe the ones who are trying to be professional and non-partisan can’t figure out how report on a candidate who’s a despot but can’t be described as such in plain language.
I might add that I think the dark horse voters are the youth. If they can be persuaded to vote and not check out, they could make a huge difference. I hope Biden is successful in communicating with them.
@Modulo Myself:
Ah yes, the ever successful preachy “Evil [sinners/Bourgeousie/capitalists] must realise its sins ” approach.
That’s going to be so very successful as a route of appeal to the Swing States – yes, the Left uni-educated hair-shirt rhetoric, We Are Evil and Must Reform as a well known rhetorical hook to get the non-Believers in the Church / Party / Voting booth and on your side.
Obviously the way to split off such Voters is to actually tell them “oh yes America is really Trump and White Priviledge and must be reformed” – that won’t in the least actually have the exact opposite effect.
If you think the “wrong” person winning an election imperils democracy, you don’t actually believe in democracy or want to live in one.
I have to say, I’m looking forward to visiting this place after the first assassination attempt against Trump just to see who here truly thought through what they were writing and endorsing and who were just mindlessly repeating the narrative.
@MarkedMan:
Thanks for asking me to clarify. I wrote that to be transparent about not having consumed the speech. Hence, my subsequent comments should be considered in that light.
As a general matter, allowing for some exceptions, I do not consume politicians’ speeches. Attention and time are zero sum. And I tend to prioritize other things in my limited “free” time. (h/t Sly Stone)
@Skookum: As for the news outlets, I believe the ones who are trying to be professional and non-partisan can’t figure out how report on a candidate who’s a despot but can’t be described as such in plain language.
The problem is, these national outlets are being partisan by refusing to call a spade a spade. They’re staking out a position that says “both sides have valid things to contribute” without pointing out that one side has absolutely no agenda beyond “libs/queers/immigrants baaaaad!”
But large media reports on his juvenile schtick like they’ve just come across a mysterious fire at a factory, even when they know that the factory owner has been convicted repeatedly of insurance fraud via arson.
@TheRyGuy:
Absolutely no one here is arguing that. Nor is Biden.
@Skookum:
As I have argued for years, it is neve about how many people watched a given speech. It is always about what sound bites emerge/how the speech is covered.
@Steven L. Taylor:
This is well reasoned. And compelling. My initial take did not appropriately weight the J6 context.
@Steven L. Taylor:
But people are indeed arguing that. OTB commenters and Biden are arguing that. Repeatedly.
To most OTB commenters and Biden, the “wrong” person = Trump. And Trump’s election is indeed considered a threat (if not the death knell) to US democracy.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your comment.
@TheRyGuy:
The problem of course, is your are pulling for the person who already demonstrated that he will refuse to admit he *lost* the election (which to this day he still claims was *stolen*) and then go to major anti-democratic and anti-Constitutional lengths to overthrow said results. And you also think it’s pro-American to vote for that person again.
Then again, from what I can tell you choose to immerse yourself in a Right Wing Media Ecosystem that has been making exactly those sorts of claims for years about every Democratic candidate for President.
BTW, do you think Donald Trump lost in 2020? Or was that a “stolen election.”
@Mimai: I can’t remember the last time I watched or read a speech or a debate. All that matters is the press reaction, which I look for the next day. Reaction to Biden’s speech seems low key, but constructive.
@Mimai:
This is an interesting point.
And to some degree this is correct. And it’s an example of the “Flight 93 Election” rhetoric that has been with us on both sides for years.
And at the same time, we have honestly never had a candidate with such a literal proven track record of anti-Constitutional activity before–to the point that said candidate’s legal team is literally advancing the argument that the President is literally above all criminal law while in office.
That moves this entire discussion into a new arena.
Going into semantics for a sec, one can definitely make the argument that “Donald Trump is the wrong person to lead this country if your care about democracy and Constitutional order.” And that is definitely an opinion.
That said, wrong can also be a statement of fact (a binary). And I’m also not sure that use of “wrong” works with our electoral model. Instead of being a value judgment, in the statement of fact mode it suggests a mistake was made in the process. Even though he lost the popular vote in 2016, Donald Trump was the right–as in duly elected–winner of the Presidency under our system.
If Trump has successfully overthrown the 2020 election results, you could argue that the wrong person won (or rather stole) that election.
@TheRyGuy: In some instances this can be true. As the Italians in 1924 or Germans in 1933 learned.
That said, it is overdone to present Trump as an end to American democracy. Damaging and degrading but not an end.
On the other side a broad range of the US Left rather reminds one of the European Left of the 30s, more interested in its own virtue signaling and self-regarding messaging, in a Uni student activist type mode of communication, than broad politics.
@Mimai: Well, I’m happy to make that statement outright: Trump being elected is a threat to democracy. This should be non-controversial as both history and present day is replete with people who were democratically elected and then proceeded to dismantle the democratic institutions of their country. Putin. Orban. Ortega. And dozens of others.
Democracy is not magic, where once it is instituted it can never be pulled down from within. It most certainly can.
@MarkedMan: I never watch speeches, I read them when necessary and of them when not. The reason is pretty simple: I have an audio comprehension condition. It took me years to realize this and years more to first hear it was a known medical issue (I forget what it’s called). By the time I get one sentence straight in my head, a speaker is liable to be another full sentence past it and I haven’t heard a word of it.
@TheRyGuy:
Neofascist sore loser Trump couldn’t accept losing to Biden by 7 million votes. So he sent a mob of terrorists screaming “Hang Mike Pence!” to the US Capitol on Jan. 6 — erecting a gallows to kill lawmakers prepared to certify Biden’s win.
If you think any sane American will take seriously Trump cultists’ phony lectures about belief in democracy or assasination attempts, you’re delusional.
You tried it tho lol
Dammit, another village idiot to shit in the middle of the sidewalk.
@Mimai:
The problem is in a confusion between specific cases and general principles. Nobody is arguing that any time the “wrong” candidate wins, that’s a threat to democracy (or a failure of democracy). Of course, we haven’t agreed on what “wrong” means here, either — does it have some objective meaning, or does it just mean “not the one I favor”? I read RyGuy as meaning the latter in his accusation. Thus the scare quotes.
Trump winning would be a threat to democracy, not because Trump isn’t the candidate I prefer, or even because Trump didn’t win the popular vote. It would be a threat to democracy because Trump has announced plans to assume autocratic powers, weaponize the federal bureaucracy against his political foes, and systematically discriminate against specific groups.
The threat to democracy is unique to Trump (and his various wanna-bes), not to whoever runs against a Democrat. John McCain was not a threat to democracy in America. W, for all his flaws and despite never actually being elected, was not a threat to democracy in America. Chris Christie, in an alternative universe where he could win a Presidential election, would not be a threat to democracy in America.
So yes, Trump is the wrong man for the job, and a win by Trump would put democracy in America at risk. That’s part of why he’s the wrong man. But it doesn’t follow that a win by the wrong man for the job (always) poses a threat to democracy. You can reason from the general to the specific, but not the other way around.
@MarkedMan:
Hillary was right. It’s the American people that screwed up.
I don’t need Hillary to tell me Trump sucks. If the Americans want better lives, then far more Americans need to grow up and stop being selfish and stupid, especially in swing states and districts. I am not optimistic on that, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised before. We’ll see.
@just nutha:
I mean…the answer is yes. If Americans want to suffer under Trump — more forced birth and more women dying from by pregnancy complications, more tax cuts for billionaires, less of a safety net, less climate change mitigation, more book bans, etc. — then, yes, the American people literally don’t have to show up.
It’s empirically true that folks like Biden and Hillary will largely be fine, no matter what. The super rich and powerful can flee if things really go south. The rest of us will collectively get what our — or our countrymen’s — indifference or unintelligence has wrought.
Biden’s message in this speech is that this election is ultimately about us and what kind of nation we want, not about him. This is right message, and it’s also just the truth. Do we want abortion rights or not? Do we want more extremist rightwing judges or not? Do we want democracy, justice, domestic tranquility or not? Not do we want Biden or Trump.
If American voters screw this up again, that’s on us.
@Mimai: And not merely OTB commentors; indeed, at least in my take, the whole “stolen election” narrative is about democracy in peril because the “wrong” person got into office without having actually been elected.
@Matt Bernius:
Well one might, but it isn’t likely because in the aftermath of a successful putsch, many state-level partisans would discover that “By golly, Biden’s people DID try to steal the election here. And it’s a dam fine thing that they didn’t get away with it, too.”
Or am I being too cynical?
@DrDaveT:
People like RyGuy are not confused: they’re being actively dishonest, to muddy the waters.
They know Trumpism is the specific anti-democratic threat referenced by Biden, Democrats, and sane Republicans. The generalizing is deliberate bad faith, to argue a strawman and further normalize Trump’s unhinged, Hitleresque rhetoric.
@DK:
“Once again, Freddy, you have inadvertently stumbled upon the truth.”
[Or in this case, the point that Cracker was trying to make–“the old man’s” not “gonna do just fine” unless all his supporters and partisans show up at the polls. Biden and his fanboiz need to make sure they don’t make the same mistakes that some still say Hillary did. 🙁 ]
@Just nutha ignint cracker: That’s inagurable and goes without saying. But we all keep missing the point, like most horserace analysis — which is the noise Biden’s speech attempts to cut through.
The American people need to stop making the mistake of focusing on what election results mean for Biden and Hillary and Democrats, and on their supposed mistakes, instead of on our own mistakes and what election results mean for their own lives — unless Americans enjoy suffering.
Rich and powerful Democrats like Biden and Hillary are not suffering and not likely to. They good.
@DK:
This has always been the disconnect between rich and poor, though. Being poor is always the chump’s game and neither party’s leadership is as on the side of the poor as they are against being strung up when the poor finally come for them. America has been resistant to the burn-the-suckah-to-the-ground forces so far. These days, I think it’s good to be old. I may get to miss seeing the resilience fail.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Bothsidesism is a chump’s game, too.
Democrats are not trying to force poor women to birth babies they cannot afford, they are fighting for women to be able to plan their families as they choose — given that childrearing is typically life’s most costly endeavor. Only
Democrats are trying to protect and expand Medicare, Social Security, SCHIP, and Obamacare. Democrats cut child poverty in half with childcare tax credits; Republicans + Manchin and Sinema killed it.
Very Democratic Los Angeles County California is now doing a final round of rent relief to keep its working and middle class renters housed, up to $30,000 per eligible unit. What Republican county would ever even consider it? What Republican county has the economic engine to even afford it?
Even smart Americans who should know better look it all this and pedal lazy chilches like ‘Democrats don’t care about the poor.’ And if more Americans do not wake up and stop falling for these lame smears of Biden, Hillary, and Democrats, then Americans are going to get what they deserve (except, again, in wealthy Democratic enclaves).
I’m glad I’m still young and well-off enough to move partially or fully to a country where the stupids don’t have as much power, should the need arise.
The single thing that bothers me most, other than threats to our actual system of government, is what a Trump return would look like to the world. A lot of people lost a lot of confidence in us, not just as a government, but as a people. They know how get past bad American presidents, but the world is not ready for the collapse of the American people. In the end it’s the character of the American people as expressed in our stable democracy, that makes it possible for other nations to trust our vast power.
People inveigh against the idea of a world policeman, but we have been the closest thing the world has to a keeper of law and order, and the world sometimes needs a cop. We are very far from perfect – and any rando in any European café can give you chapter and verse – but we have used our power much better than we might have. But if the sole superpower, the military, technological, diplomatic, economic numero uno appears to have been taken over by cretins, opinion will shift. China will start looking better to a lot of countries, and that’s just a part of what would come down the pike. We built this world order. Our power but also our fundamental decency as a people, have kept this world as together as it is. We may blow your shit up, and not always with good cause, but we’re also the first place you look when Mordor threatens. We may be a mixed bag, but most of the world still believes in us.
Mexicans have a favorable view of us. 63% to 30. We stole half their country, are responsible for the cartels, and generally treat them like unwelcome guests, and still. In Japan it’s 73 to 25. We burned their country to the ground not 80 years ago. It’s not Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush or Joe Biden these people believe in, it’s us. Our culture, our values, our creations. I happened to be driving in Italy in 2008, with an Obama sticker on my car. The day he won we were waved at and saluted by every motorist that saw us. They were proud of us.
No. “We’Re A RePuBLiC NoT A DeMoCrAcY” being a common comment from the right shows that — complete misunderstanding of political terms aside — a large chunk of American’s are really not interested in the idea of democracy. “If we had a popular vote for President, NYC, Chicago and SF would determine the President…” arguments also show that.
As a country, we’ve really only played at being a (flawed) democracy a few times — restricting the vote from Blacks, Women, non-property-owners, etc. for nearly the first 200 years. And given the imbalances in the Senate and Electoral College (and gerrymandering), democracy has always been more of an aspiration than a reality.
But now a large number of people are rejecting it even as an aspiration. If Biden believes otherwise, then he really is senile.
There’s also a longstanding law of questions in headlines always being answered no. Betteridge’s Law of Headlines
There is, however, one known exception, from Gizmodo:
Should You Bring A Llama To Your Wedding?
——
The link button isn’t working for me on my iPad. I wonder how many times I will need to edit this.
Answer: many times. Smart quotes will doom me.
@TheRyGuy:
Dr. Joyner will likely state the stochastic terrorism isn’t a thing, and the rest of us will lament that the right wing has been making it a thing for years, with a division between the Karma crowd and the FAFO crowd.
When everyone from poll workers to Anthony Fauci to Mike Pence is getting death threats that can be traced back to Trump’s own words… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So, no real reason for you to come back.
Biden chose to open the 2024 campaign by demonizing 40+% of the voters. Implying another 4 years of Democrat “rule” will mean more of them being targeted for wrongthink. But his speech was preaching to the faithful in an effort to stem the dissipation of the disillusioned.
He did a good job at trying to instill fear in non-Trump people but he also instilled the fear of retribution if Democrats win in 2024 in Trump supporters. The question is, which fear is greater?
@JKB: Biden emphatically does not need to woo Trump supporters. His target audience is people who aren’t really supporting anyone, with the goal of reminding them the consequences of inaction and the stakes for thinking “both sides are the same”.
That you somehow think he was speaking to you is telling. The pro-Trump demo is so reality-challenged that they think they’re the make-or-break team. Nope, the make-or-break teams are disaffected progs who might not vote and halfway Republicans who dislike Trump. Trump isn’t trying to attract new partisans, he’s entrenching his base to maximize his take. His message has no appeal outside the “ra ra schoolyard bully” crowd of sycophants – he’s banking on Biden being uninspiring enough that he can skate.
Remember that fundamentally Donald Trump is a lazy m-f’er who believes that he’s entitledto the presidency.
I think that 1/6 and “stolen election” is the place where Trump is weakest among Republicans.
There may be Dominionists who would be happy to drive a stake through the heart of democracy, but there are other Republicans, too.
I note that most of the rejoinders I see to mentions of 1/6 are mostly deflections these days, there’s a lot of whataboutism. This is a weakness for Trump. It’s shocking that it’s not an outright disqualifier, but it’s definitely a weakness.
@Mimai: My interpretation of RyGuy was that we are upset that the other party’s candidate will win, and hence democracy is threatened (i.e., the “wrong” guy).
He is hard to understand, so perhaps I am missing what he means, but the problem is not that our/my preferred candidate might not win, which is what I thought he was inferring. The problem is that a specific and clearly authoritarian, if not fascist, candidate might win (Trump).
@DrDaveT:
This was my interpretation as well.
@MarkedMan: Including to have a crowd of J6ers that are out of the pen behind him as a visual of how much Trump loves the poorly educated.
The reformed apostate meme is very persuasive to non- skeptical people
@ptfe: This is wrong. Biden can not win the hard core MAGA but that does not mean that a fraction of the broader Trump supporting demographics notably those that once were historically reliable Democratic Party voters can and should not be addressed – MAGA marginal if one may.
The Left tendancy here really is startling close to the manner and mode of how the democratic fraction of the European Left talked and acted politically in the late 20s and 30s, unable to differentiate in their self-referential appeals and discourse between the real right radicals and the centrist conservative they put-off with their self-regarding appeal to their (numerically narrow) base, to use a modern term. And that ended in disaster, and you look to me rather dangerously in line to be doing a Marxian Brumerairian repetition.
Biden must and can in the Swing State peel off a certain percentage of potential Trump voters – which will necessitate taking a Trade Union organiser view and building outside of the identarian Uni Campus Activist and bohemian bourgeouisie left political lines.
The bleeding to MAGA of voting intention and support within historically Democratic Party voting demographics, and a response that resolves in practically reality to “we don’t like the uncultured prols with the wrong values anyway” is examplar of Uni Campus Activist politics
JKB of course is wrong relative to that speech (but then no matter what Biden says or does will be so characterised) but the appeal challenge is not a false one.