Paragraph 1:Paragraph 1: The author expresses concerns about the Democratic Party’s handling of President Biden’s cognitive decline, highlighting their failure to adequately address the risks to the country and their own electoral prospects. Paragraph 2: The author questions the Republican Party’s support for Trump, emphasizing his unsuitability for the presidency due to his behavior and policies. They argue that his presence as de facto party leader has resulted in electoral defeats. Paragraph 3: The author criticizes the media for failing to inform the public about Biden’s cognitive decline in a timely manner. They suggest that this failure stems from either a lack of knowledge or a deliberate decision to withhold information. Paragraph 4: The author discusses the lack of significant consequences for Trump despite his convictions and ongoing legal challenges. They attribute this to a loss of faith in the justice system or a perception that it is being used politically. Paragraph 5: The author posits that the current political problems cannot be solely attributed to the personal flaws of Biden and Trump. They suggest that deeper issues within the constitutional system, such as the shift towards primaries and media homogeneity, may be contributing factors. Paragraph 6: The author concludes by emphasizing the need for solutions that transcend the current candidates and election cycle. They acknowledge the difficulty in diagnosing and addressing the problems but express hope for a way forward.
The debate and its aftermath crystallized a few things in my mind and I thought I would make a note of them. This topic is outside my academic area of expertise, so I realize I may be wrong with most or all of my observations. I also expect that others have expressed all this much better than I have. But I thought I would pass on my thoughts, like an American to others.
(* * *)
(1.) It seems to me that the current situation highlights the major problems with the Democratic Party. Many Democrats must have been aware of Biden’s cognitive decline. They must have been aware that it is a danger to the country, and a danger to their own electoral prospects.
They had ample opportunity to pressure the president to step aside in time for a replacement candidate who could exploit Trump’s enormous political weaknesses. To the extent that they worried that Harris would be the obvious replacement and that she would be a losing candidate, it was not a master of political chess to foresee in 2020 that this might be a problem. And while it is clearly difficult to get a president to resign—and even though it is difficult to get most people to acknowledge their own cognitive decline—it is the job of a well-functioning party to be able to accomplish such tasks.
(2.) The current situation highlights the major problems with the Republican Party. Even if you support Trump and agree with his policies, answer honestly: Would you have wanted someone like him as your candidate twenty years ago? Put aside whether you think he is the lesser evil: Do you trust him to remain calm and collected in a foreign policy crisis? Do you find him an inspiring leader? Do you think he is a worthy heir to the presidents you admire (whether Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Coolidge or anyone else)?
Even if you think his behavior on January 6, 2021 isn’t as bad as it was portrayed, do you think it’s actually good for his character and his trustworthiness? Do you believe what he’s telling you?
And even if you just want to stop the Democrats, how well has Trump done that? During his time as de facto leader of the Republican Party, he achieved one victory (2016), followed by three defeats (2018, 2020, 2022). A large part of the public, including not only far-left voters but also many swing voters (and even some Republicans), views him extremely negatively – certainly not a great quality for a political candidate.
Suppose Democrats convince Biden to step aside, and convince Harris to do so as well, and that the Democratic Convention elects a successful Democratic governor or senator in the purple state. How confident are you that Trump will win? Might there not be some Republican candidates who would have been more effective at capitalizing on Biden’s historically disastrous debate performance?
(3.) Now let us turn to the media. The job of the media should be to inform the public about what is actually going on in government. This should certainly be the case when it comes to the cognitive capacities of the president.
Did the media do a good job of informing the public honestly about this? Did they report the problems well (or at least predict them accurately, if you believe Biden has taken a sharp turn in recent months) when the reporting would still have been relevant to the Democratic primaries?
Either the media (not just the few media outlets that diligently covered this issue, but the media in general) learned about Biden’s decline the night of the debate, when the rest of us already did, or they knew it all along. If they learned it that night, what does that say about them? If they knew it all along, what does that say? Is either answer good?
(4.) Finally, let’s look at the criminal justice system. Trump was convicted of crimes. He is being prosecuted for other crimes.
But as a result, his position in the polls has not changed significantly. Perhaps you could partly blame that on his militant supporters, but Trump also continues to enjoy significant support among independents. Even polls that conclude he has lost some ground among independents suggest the loss is relatively small and that many independents do not see the convictions as resulting from a “fair and impartial trial.” (For example, according to Politico, “a majority of (independents) said they thought the verdict (in the New York criminal case) was the result of a fair and impartial trial (46 percent), while others disagreed (27 percent) or said they didn’t know (24 percent).)
Again, if you were asked twenty years ago, “What would be the consequences for a presidential candidate if he were convicted of felonies and tried for other crimes, all in the middle of an election campaign?” I suspect you would have said, “Disastrous.” Either people have lost a lot of faith in the justice system in general. Or they have come to the conclusion that the criminal justice system in these situations is being used as a political weapon rather than a real tool to protect the public from criminals. Both answers are bad.
So what’s the problem? One answer is bad people. But there have always been bad people.
Our constitutional system, not just the written constitution but also the structures we have developed over the centuries, is designed to deal with bad people. Ambition is supposed to counteract ambition. Broad national institutions are supposed to curb the excesses of narrow factions. The egos of individual candidates are meant to be limited by those institutions – even if those institutions themselves are made up of flawed individuals with egos of their own.
One way to think about this is to imagine it happening abroad. Imagine that we Americans, unexpectedly, started paying attention to an election campaign in another country. That campaign pitted an 81-year-old incumbent president, clearly in cognitive decline, against a 78-year-old candidate who had been convicted of crimes, was being tried for other crimes, and was at the very least behaving in a very unpresidential way in response to a previous electoral defeat. Would we think that the foreign country had healthy political institutions?
I can’t tell you what’s causing these problems. Is the shift to primaries part of the reason? (Was the old smoke-filled chamber system better?) Is the ideological homogeneity among much of the media part of the reason? Is the growth of social media part of the reason? Is it something else? Even if we can diagnose the problem, is there a realistic path to a solution?
I just think there’s more going on here than two particularly weak candidates. And to find a way forward, we must create solutions that transcend these candidates and this election cycle.
