Could Someone Please Get Maureen Dowd a Dictionary?
Or maybe a gift certificate to some online poli sci courses?
For some time I have avoided reading Maureen Dowd’s columns. Indeed, it occurs to me that the last time I found them amusing was when Bill Clinton was still in office and her style was appropriate for the moment. Of course, if Wikipedia is to be believed that would be roughly when she started as a columnist, and therefore her particular voice was fresh at the time.
But when I saw this headline on DougJ’s New York Times Pitchbot feed (which I recommend), The Dems Are Delighted. But a Coup Is Still a Coup*, I was weak and allowed myself to give it a read.
We head to Chicago on a wave of euphoria, exuberance, exultation, excitement and even, you might say, ecstasy.
It’s going to be a glorious coronation — except that everyone’s mad at one another.
Top Democrats are bristling with resentments even as they are about to try to put on a united front at the United Center in the Windy City.
I first read this on Sunday, but only now have the chance to write this. It sounded absurd when I read it–as if she had written this column in the 5 minutes between Biden pulling out and before he endorsed Harris and then it was sealed in a mayonnaise jar buried in the backyard to be taken out and published the week of the convention because Dowd was going already be on vacation.
While I am sure that there are some Democrats upset about the switch, the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary. Certainly, I have seen no evidence of “bristling” Top Democrats and certainly none that “everyone’s mad at one another.” Is this a missive from Earth-2?
And all of the above reads as even more absurd after the glimpses I caught of day one of the DNC, which kind of shouted “unity” at anyone who was listening.
A coterie of powerful Democrats maneuvered behind the scenes to push an incumbent president out of the race.
I dunno. It seems fairly out in the open as I recall.
And here is where we get to the need for the dictionary (emphases mine).
Even though it was the right thing to do, because Joe Biden was not going to be able to campaign, much less serve as president for another four years, in a fully vital way, it was a jaw-dropping putsch.
[…]
Party leaders whitewashed the coup by ornately extolling Biden.
[…]
One of the most ruthless and successful tacticians in congressional history seemed sheepish about knifing her pal, and conflicted over whether to take credit. Et tu, Nancy? Biden must have thought.
[…]
Bidenworld’s feelings about the Jacquerie heard round the world.
So, a coup (or putsch in German) is an extralegal removal toppling of a government. The literary reference to Julius Ceasar was about a betrayal and successful assassination, and the Jacquerie was a peasant rebellion.
While all of this fits into Dowd’s snarky, often overwrought, intellectualized prose, it is also all rather imprecise.
So, in order, a coup is an extralegal overthrow of power. There was no coup against Biden. For one thing, being the presumptive nominee of your party is not an official office of government. And no one marched him in his pajamas to a plane that flew him to Costa Rica (as happened to Honduran President Mel Zelaya in 2009). No one bombed the White House leading to his suicide (as happened to Chile’s Salvador Allende in 1973). Heck, no one stormed the Capitol to try and stop the Electoral Vote count (I think you all are familiar with that one–which I still consider more an insurrection than a coup attempt, but you get the point).
No, there were meetings, some poll and fundraising numbers were provided, and some public pressure was applied.
And the person making that decision was Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. The power was his. Maybe we could talk about a metaphorical coup if Democratic “Mandarins” (to use one of Dowd’s terms) had plotted in secret to cause a floor fight that was sprung in the moment. But this was all above board and, I have to stress, within the rules of the game. It was decidedly not a “coup.”
Do I think that Biden felt betrayed by some of his allies? Probably.
Did it feel like a rebellion? I am sure it did to him.
But, I must stress, that this was a political calculation of a political party trying to win an election in terms of what candidate they wanted to field. This is not a nefarious attempt to put a body double in the Oral Office or to have the Vice President certify fake electors.
This was about candidate selection.
Further, I cannot stress enough that Biden had to choose to go. And unless that was some kind of blackmail involved that we are unaware of, that choice was his to make.
I would note that the sole bit of evidence for the column for all this talk of coups, betrayals, and rebellions (at least that she shared) was this:
“I think it was unfortunate because I think that the president had won the nomination fair and square,” Klain said. “Fourteen million people had voted for him and the vice president as vice president.” He added: “I do think, you know, the president was pushed by public calls from elected officials for him to drop out, from donors calling for him to drop out. And I think that was wrong.”
So, is anyone surprised that some members of Biden’s team would be disappointed in this turn of events? (Note to Dowd, while “putsch” and “pushed” sound the same, they are not synonyms).
I would also note that after all the overwrought language and allusions she ends up here:
Those who pushed out Biden should be proud. They saved him and their party from a likely crushing defeat, letting Trump snake back in and soil democracy.
So if she feels this way, I am not sure (except for the clicks and pressure to get a column out) what the point of the piece is supposed to be. One guesses that Dowd sees Trump as a threat, so it is kind of odd to me for her to feed one of Trump’s narratives on the eve of the DNC. Perhaps she just wants to feel relevant and edgy?
And if there is any doubt that TrumpWorld didn’t notice, I saw this headline at Fox News on Sunday: ‘Powerful Democrats’ pushed President Biden out in ‘coup’.
To be clear: I don’t expect Dowd to support Harris over Trump. My point is that I suspect that she does and so writing propaganda (I see a lot of speculation and not much reporting in the column) that helps Trump’s position is a weird flex in my view. Plus, long-time readers know how much I love it when terms of political analysis are misused and abused. Whatever you want to call what happened to Biden, a “coup” ain’t it.
To be boring and clear let me point out that the process to nominate a presidential candidate has many steps. Biden had completed the primary process but was not yet the nominee. By stepping aside voluntarily and releasing the delegates he was operating within the rules. There was nothing illegal nor extralegal about it. Unless he did all this under threat of violence or some other coercive force (e.g., blackmail) then this wasn’t a coup by any stretch of the imagination.
Further, if one believes that a Trump presidency is a threat to American democracy (which, as I recall, the NYT editorial board does–you know, the ones who told Biden he needed to step down after the debate) then maybe choices about which wild arguments one wants to publish are in order. To be clear, I don’t think Dowd’s piece is going to change votes, but I still find it factually wrong, poorly argued, and simply an odd thing to write at this juncture.
*I would note that the online version of the piece notes that the print title of the piece was “After Biden Bloodletting, Time for Fun!”
Maybe she doesn’t understand that Joe Biden is still the President USA.
The other day Politico referred to the move to get Biden to step aside as a putsch.”
It really reads like she just enjoys flex her vocab in front of hoi polloi. Stay tuned for quincunx, gnomon, fistula, and threnody in her next piece. Actual meaning is clearly secondary, if that.
@DrDaveT:
EDIT KEY, WHERE ARE YOU?
“flexing”
Imagine that Trump had succeeded in his efforts to retain power in 2021 despite losing the election. What would have happened then? I think it’s self-evident there would have been mass protests around the country, most likely leading to significant bloodshed after King Trump sicced the police and military on them, just like we’re seeing now in Venezuela. Even in countries that crush dissent, people are very willing to risk life, limb, and freedom to express their views.
The question is, where are the mass protests against the Kamala Harris “coup” now? Hell, even the predicted protests outside the convention, which mainly concerned Gaza and were planned well before Biden stepped aside, have largely fizzled–despite the media’s incessant attempt to hype it as a rerun of 1968.
The people calling it a coup are speaking on behalf of voters who, from all available evidence, don’t seem all that upset.
While I’m more troubled by the way the transition was handled than you are, I fully agree that Dowd’s position here is nuts. And, yes, it’s been decades since her analysis was regularly worth reading.
@James Joyner: I have to confess that I find little that is troubling about it.
And I say that as someone who was one the record as being skeptical that it was a good idea.
I see nothing wrong with pressure and evidence being brought to Biden and then him stepping aside within the bounds of the rules.
That Trump doesn’t like it both understandable and irrelevant.
For all the complaints about Trump’s narcissism, certain pundits also seem addicted to narcissistic behavior as well.
Maureen, get a clue. The world does not revolve around you. I’m sure you had great fun writing this “edgy interpretation” of what the Democratic Party has just done, and that you really, really want this election to be a down-to-the-wire horse race, but maybe you should have thought a bit more before dumping a load of political ammunition out to the Toddler-in-Chief party?
@Steven L. Taylor:
And that’s a bonus feature, not a bug!
Exhibit A for the thesis that some people in the press want to invent drama in the election that’s not really there.
Time marches on, and we all lose some of our skills along the way. We all have to get off the stage, pass the baton, fade away, etc. If we accept that the time has come for Biden, then it follows that Trump’s time is also passing. The trumpistas can not accept defeat-he didn’t lose the election in 2020, it was stolen. Biden isn’t over the hill, this is a coup. Otherwise, they would have to look at the hourglass for Trump.
I would be interested in Ms. Dowd’s take on childless cat ladies.
@Argon:
On this note, how has he been talking the fact that his Biden Fan Fiction didn’t happen?
In common usage, coup can also apply to a change in leadership in any organization, done outside regular channels, or against the wishes of the current leadership.
The major big difference, is that there are still some norms and procedures that need be followed, the whole thing isn’t against the law, and ultimately in most cases the consent, or acceptance, of the people being replaced is obtained in some way.
So, technically it was a coup. But not much different from, say, the board of directors replacing the CEO of a company.
@Kingdaddy:
Anyone who has to invent drama in this election is clearly not paying attention.
Dowd always reminds me that there are a lot of people who live in a world that is moderately divorced from reality and still manage to mostly function. If she had more imagination, her delusions would be better. Or she would be following QAnon.
@Kingdaddy: 100%
@Kathy: I am going to disagree because he wasn’t ousted. He had to jump of his own accord. I think that matters both in terms of the narrative and the terms that should be applied.
@Kingdaddy:
Bingo. Dowd didn’t oppose thus supposed “coup.” It’s just ex post facto concern trolling. Astounding to see the same folks who piled on Biden now faking concern about said pile on. Who are they kidding?
Some in the media wanted a big brokered convention and Democrats in disarray meltdown. They didn’t get it, so now all of sudden they’re just askin’ questions about the undemocratic nature of the process and citing “unnamed sources” about Biden’s supposed sadness and anger. It’s all so fake.
The pundit class is full of gutless imposter who don’t what to do with Biden’s fundamental decency, humanity, and almost divinely-inspired ability to move from strength-to-strength. Traits which expose their childishness and bankrupt cynicism. It reeks of jealousy, tbh.
Another reason why the media salivates over Trump coverage. He’s just as petty, unserious, and churlish as many of them are.
@DK: I was listening to today’s The Daily while I was getting out my lunch, and while the coverage is decent, you can’t help but note how hard they are trying to make the story about how Biden resents being ousted and not getting to be the nominee. (They even ignore the line, which you hear in the piece, where Biden says he is not mad and criticizing the stories that say he is–granted, I think he may be fibbing a bit, but it is also a counter-narrative statement that is utterly ignored).
@Steven L. Taylor:
I mean yes, but also, no. This strikes me as too clever by half. The context that prompted Biden’s jump also matters. It didn’t just happen out of thin air.
It would be a little like claiming James VII and II wasn’t “ousted” in England’s Glorious Revolution, because he made an affirmative decision to flee the country before William and Mary arrived in London.
Okay, yeah, William of Orange never had to physically push his predecessor off the throne and throw him in the Tower, or kill James on the battlefield — as was typically the case in prior hostile takeovers of the British throne. But the reasons why James felt compelled to flee in the first place cannot just be glossed over and downplayed.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Yup, exactly. I mean, they could at least try to be less gossipy and melodramatic. Their obviousness is unseemly.
Dowd et al. aren’t observers, they’re performers.
That’s all you need to know about those who regularly write for the NYT op-ed page.
Maureen Dowd exemplifies all the reasons I have such scorn for major media pundits.
She has no insights into politics, nothing interesting to say and yet somehow continues to occupy the most coveted media real estate in journalism. I would say she must have kompromat on someone in the Sulzberger family, but she isn’t unique- in fact she is fairly typical of the Broders, Brookses, et. al. who offer stale Beltway conventional wisdom with equal parts smug superiority and cluelessness.
Maybe the readers should get dictionaries. Just because a dictionary would be more fun and informative of a read than a Dowd column.
Sounds like (most) everything she’s written (at least that I’ve had the misfortune to read) since Clinton’s sax playing days.
I think it’s possible that Biden realized that both campaigning and being president would possibly kill him and so he needed to dial back somehow. Remember how he got COVID?
I think that Dowd and others of her bill are very unhappy that they don’t get to dance on the grave of the Dems 2024 campaign and say “we told you he was too old”.
I’m finding all if this kvetching about improper process annoying.
The other day in another post, I relayed a story about a former MO Republican congressman, who passed away in between the close of filing and the state primary. He had cancer, and decided to run for reelection because Republicans were concerned about holding the seat if it became open. Since this well-known and well-liked member of the Missouri delegation was running, his primary competition was basically the usual collection of colorful characters (meaning, no one serious and certainly no one who could win in the general election). By passing away after anyone else could throw their hat in the ring, the local Republican committee was thrown into a mess. There were a number of very qualified people who had dutifully sat on the sidelines, respecting the Party Elder/existing seat stuff, and they all wanted a crack at the seat.
The committee selected his widow to fill out his term, and she ran as an independent in the general election. Was this fair? Probably not. Did it avoid a messy bare-knuckle fight between potential candidates? Yes. Did they hold the seat? Also yes–which was all that really mattered.
When you enter politics, you need to understand stuff like this happens all. the. time.
Honestly, I think we all should be surprised that nothing like this has happened before at the Presidential level.
The question that comes to my mind is how the term “Jacquerie” applies. Wikipedia tells me that a Jacquerie is a revolt of the peasantry to overthrow a ruler. Since when do major players and officer holders in Democratic Party politics count as peasants?
And I think you’re more skeptical than you need to be about this having been written in the 5 minute interval between Biden’s initial announcement and his endorsement of Harris and then filed away for future use. Occam’s Razor and all that.
On one hand. On the other, given that only Democrats have agency in our political process, it’s fully fitting (maybe even “indeed right and salutary”) for them to be held to imaginary codes of conduct that breakage of presents as an assault on precedent (also imaginary, just sayin’) and dirty pool while the actions of the party that has no agency are viewed as properly shrewd manipulations of the a system that has revealed gaps in it’s processes.
Not offered to justify either Trump or Dowd. Merely making an observation of situations on the ground. The game is rigged, kids. Even more than we realize.
And “no” it wouldn’t be interesting at all to find out how never married, childless Maureen feels about childless cat ladies. She’d make some windy disavowal of how that only matters in the case of Vice Presidents usurping the post from their bosses.
And how Fluffy, Snowball, and Prittie Kitttie agree with her (and that people don’t realize that Vance, like his political benefactor, needs to be taken seriously but not literally).
What I think is that Dowd woke up one day, realizing this was a historical moment, and decided she wanted to shape the historical record of it so that she could feel important. But she’s not, so her mission failed. Still presumably got paid, though, so there’s that.
@DK:
I find the comparison to be quite flawed.
@Steven L. Taylor: Indeed, I would absolutely say James II was ousted. He had no real choice
Biden did.
I don’t know why anyone is trying to do mental gymnastics to come up with an explanation/excuse for NYT columns.
NYT is conservative because the owner team always wants Republicans to win.
That organization is in no way liberal, left-wing, or even remotely aligned with the Democratic party.
The assertion that “the media is liberal” comes from a Republican presidential campaign… and it wasn’t true then just like it’s not true now.
Guess who’s still President? Joseph Robinette Biden. It was not a coup, a putsch or Jacquerie (which is so similar to my given name, I wish my parents had been just a LITTLE bit cooler in the revolution field and named me that 😉 )
Thank you for writing this piece. I was a devoted Dowd reader for years, but stopped some years ago when she went on hiatus to write a book and then found I hadn’t missed her as much as thought when she returned. We used to email back and forth occasionally when I was stationed in New York and read her religiously. But now I see it’s not just me–you have made a succinct case for her increasing irrelevance.
On the coup business–if anything, it demonstrates just how committed the Democrats are to beating Trump this time around. They seem ruthless as a party, which must scare the hell out of some in the GOP who cannot bring themselves to abandon the aging windbag rehearsing old grievances over and over into what I desperately hope will be political irrelevance. Sadly, we need a true opposition party in the US, and whatever is left of the GOP will be a mess, unable to fulfill that role, after losing the November election. Even Spencer Cox has succumbed.