This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Granting all this is true: it's still Biden's fault and he should have stepped down.
I'm sorry, I thought he was the adult in the room? Part of being an adult is being blamed for your decisions, not acting like they're sudden currents that swept you away for no reason.
He, the grownup, chose not only an unqualified but deeply unpopular and incompetent candidate. And he did so for explicitly racial reasons. Whose fault is it? The VP's only essential duties are to break ties in the Senate and to stand as a second for the President.
I also reject the self-serving notion that Bernie is what did in Hillary. She's always been unpopular and Bernie being relevant at all was the public desperately begging Democrats to take their money. Democrats didn't lose in 2008 because someone actually challenged at a primary instead of letting the party grandee be anointed. The party could also have leaned on Kamala to allow an open primary.
So if Biden wasn't Biden it'd be okay?
Like, this is part of what drove me crazy about the media spin on this. They made it seem as if Biden's mental decline was nothing more than a campaigning issue . So I suppose, in that light, it can look as a bad roll of the dice, bad tactics, a very good but rare counter that knocked Biden out. Some sort of July Surprise? Shit happens, move on.
No, Biden was unfit, physically and mentally. The reason the debate settled the matter is that it was undeniable proof of what people were told wasn't happening (and they had to keep being told because they didn't believe it). Biden hid the extent of this for months upon months not only from the public but from some of his colleagues and the media. This likely affected not just the campaign but his administration (given all of the reporting of stage-managing) Biden then couldn't hold it together under the stress of a full campaigning season, like Democrats like Dean Phillips warned ahead of time. By the time it finally came out, it was too late.
That is still Joseph Biden's fault. Why are we talking about this stuff like it just happened to him? Even if he could have white-knuckled it, he shouldn't have. Because the office of the President is too important to be left to a convalescent. And Biden, as the adult, should know that.
All of this happened against a backdrop of voters making it absolutely clear his age was an issue. Biden pushed through, thinking some combination of his policies (both the ones he claimed and the ones he tried to row back from), Trump's legal cases and general unfavourability would all win him the day - essentially holding the voters hostage, as Silver puts it. He gambled, and lost.
It was not at all practically impossible for an old President to step down and let the party battle it out. I understand that it felt that way psychologically for Biden. But Biden's political judgment doesn't seem to be so self-evidently sound that we can take it as Gospel.
We're hearing now from Democratic insiders like PSA that his polling showed a 400 Electoral College loss and even then he had to be dragged out. What about this implies some sort of judicious weighing of the options? It's just ego. He's way more like Trump than the media hagiography has implied. Worse: Trump actually does seem to be irreplaceable to his base.
There is one main reason it's not especially Joe Biden's fault: he's not in his right mind. One of the things about senility is that it can remove your ability recognize that you are senile.
The blame should be spread far wider. This is the fault of everybody else around him, who absolutely did know the condition he was in, and lied about it anyway. Most centrally, Kamala herself had a responsibility to say something, but she covered it up on the calculation that it was better for her personally. But she's hardly alone. Obama must have known. Pelosi must have known. Surely every senior Democrats in DC who interacted with the president knew, along with staff.
They all covered it up. The only party leaders who can claim they were not involved are governors and minor House members.
More options
Context Copy link
The question is how many months. Remember, we're not talking about whether or not Biden should have dropped out earlier, but whether he should have run in the first place. He announced he was seeking a second term on April 25, at which point there were only two groups of people arguing that any kind of age or cognitive issues should keep him from running. The first was Republicans, but they had been arguing that Biden had dementia since at least 2019 and thus had no credibility on the issue. The second was people like Dean Phillips and James Carville, along with a bunch of rank and file Democrats, but their arguments were just that he was too old generally and not that he was experiencing any kind of specific decline. If he had instead announced that he wasn't seeking a second term then he would have been a lame duck immediately and all the problems I mentioned above would have come into play. Hell, his cognitive decline wouldn't have even been noticed, for precisely the same reason that no one is looking over his appearances from the past four months to find signs of further decline.
I don't know what the big deal is about this. It's not exactly a secret that running mates are chosen more due to political considerations than anything else. Hell, Trump's choice of Mike Pence over the more well-known Newt Gingrich and Chris Christie was pretty much a naked ploy to shore up his unsteady support among the Christian Right, yet I never hear criticism that he was chosen for religious reasons. By your criteria, he's an even worse choice than Harris, as his chances of winning a national election as second in line are roughly on par with Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee. Harris, for her part, chose a white guy after only considering white guys and after pretty much every commentator said she should pick a white guy, yet I never heard any criticism of her for choosing Tim Walz for racial reasons.
I agree with you there; Hillary was a bad candidate, and the Democrats should have seen that in 2008, but you go on to conclude
First, it wasn't Kamala's decision but that's not my main point. For all the talk I've heard about about having some kind of contested primary, I don't see any scenario in which it wouldn't have made the situation worse. Suppose Biden drops out immediately after that debate; what then? The convention is in less than two months and the election in just over four. The mechanics of scheduling new primaries in all 50 states less than a month after the last ones were completed is a tall order in and of itself, but even assuming the problem could be overcome it only distracts from the real issue. Who is going to jump of the couch to contend for a presidential nomination with that kind of lead time? Remember, nobody other than Biden has any fundraising apparatus or campaign staff at this point. You're asking candidates to start from scratch on short notice. And for the winner, what are the spoils, exactly? The opportunity to run an abbreviated campaign as part of a reclamation project.
Even if they were to dispense with actual elections and simply have a contested primary where candidates would lobby delegates, I doubt the party's best and brightest would be the ones signing up. Do you really think that an up and comer like Josh Sapiro or Gretchen Whitmer is going to waste political capital to take over the presidential bid of an unpopular incumbent? Why not wait a few more years to become more seasoned and make a normal bid where, if nominated, you have the time to run the campaign you want and you're going against a GOP running someone other than Trump for the first time in a dozen years? A contested primary or convention that only attracts b-listers and also-rans only makes the party look even more incompetent, in addition to exposing the internal divisions I spoke of above. Is Deval Patrick or Marianne Williamson a stronger general election candidate than Kamala Harris? Is Kamala a stronger candidate after beating one of those two? Easier to just endorse her and lobby for support rather than open up the clown car.
So the Republicans said he'd drop out (which was a "conspiracy theory") then he did but they just got lucky? Okay. Maybe. Maybe they simply have a clearer view into their opponents, unclouded by sympathy, but it's possible.
As for Philips and Carville...even if they said it that way, so what? Ezra Klein, in his little push for Biden to drop out, also said he thought Biden could do the job but couldn't campaign for the job/convince people. This seems like bullshit to me. Campaigning for a second term while juggling other balls has always been the job. People gave Obama a bit of a pass on the first debate due to the "rigors of the Presidency", but after he proved he could win on the next one.
Why frame it this way? Because, if Biden is incompetent-incompetent, the Democrats are guilty of malpractice beyond the electoral kind and that's a discussion no Democrat wants to have because it indicts some of their fellows, people they're on a first name basis with. Questions would need to be asked about how the administration runs. Better to - absurdly - pretend that Biden's condition is a merely electorally damaging one.
Long story short: I think it's absurd to believe that Dean Philips burned his rep taking the extraordinary step of primarying his President with just a generalized fear of age. It's that he's of a particular age and is showing decline enough that the voters are noticing.
Because it was a bad choice. Grownup, remember?
Biden trapped himself looking for a unicorn: a connected, nationally palatable black female because he kept stacking identity classes of who he would pander to. First it was a woman, then it was a black woman. He didn't need to lock in a woman, or then insist on a black woman afterwards.
You can pick a base-pleaser. The problem here is that it's a) unclear that Kamala was even a base pleaser. It may be what Jim Clyburn wanted but how much did it shape the general? And b) if you're old you should maybe factor in that this person may have to take your seat.
I don't think it should have come to that. He should have never run for a second term, and he should have announced that earlier. It should never have come to the debate.
Even dropping out on the day he announced (and he should have dropped out earlier) would have been better in terms of letting people dip their toe into a primary.
Remember: I think Biden was clearly declining before he admitted it/the debate utterly discredited any argument against it. He would have had good days and bad days. But he would have seen it creeping up on him. The principled thing to do would have been to drop out before.
The incumbency damage cannot be known given that they actually would be a fresh candidate, unlike Kamala. I'm inclined to think a lot more Democrats and Democrat-leaners give them some slack compared to Kamala.
They would also have an independent staff - which Kamala didn't seem to have - which would allow them more leeway in shaping their own image.
I'm picturing a longer time period than you since Biden, in my view, should have dropped out earlier. Even in the shorter view, there is an argument for putting candidates under pressure. Bernie Sanders wasn't seen as any sort of national politician before he resonated with voters. Kamala likely would have been filtered out.
Trump has high unfavorables. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that even on a narrow window ambitious Democrats get involved. It's much more likely if Biden drops out early: as much as he hates the guy, he could coordinate with party grandees like Obama to feel things out.
In many ways the last minute scramble to see someone willing to burn their turn is just another result of Biden's malpractice. Imagine if he came out early and stated he wasn't running. Imagine if he put out signals even before that. You think no one would bite? Everyone was run off because 2028 was there anyway and no one wanted the perception of having kneecapped a stubborn President. He pulls out early and it's a different ball game.
I thought he actually did at one point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For having no credibility on the issue, the Republicans seemed to have gotten it right. Maybe you are wrong and they did have credibility but you didn’t listen.
It's a fascinating setup:
R: Biden is senile!
D: How dare you to say such things without any evidence!
R: Here's evidence Biden is senile
D: Bullshit, this is just stutter.
R: Here's more evidence that Biden is senile, also he never had any stutter before
D: Bullshit, he's perfect and anybody can make a mistake. Trump said "covfefe" once!
R: Here's more evidence that Biden is senile beyond anything that anybody who is not senile have experienced
D: Well, maybe he occasionally looks imperfect, but it's just shallow looks, on the substance he's great, the best president ever
R: His every public appearance is a disaster, he can not be effective President.
D: Sure he can, and he will be for the second term too, and anyone who says otherwise is a crazy Qanon!
R: Here's more disasters from Biden
DNC+Obama: Biden, GTFO
Biden: OK, I decided to GTFO
R: Told ya so.
D: You had no credibility on the issue since when you first told us so, we did not agree with you.
More options
Context Copy link
Being eventually right isn't the same as being right. My grandmother had dementia in 2014. If I had continually said she had it beginning in 1995, I would've eventually been right, but only after nearly 20 years of being wrong. Additionally, the claims were always beyond anything that's been demonstrated thus far. While he clearly isn't as sharp as he used to be, nothing he's done publicly has shown any indication he has dementia. His debate performance was bad, but the actual answers he gave weren't anything one wouldn't expect from a garden-variety bad debate performance. The criticism was more on his energy and demeanor than anything substantive. From my experience with the disease, this is not what one would expect from someone with that kind of cognitive decline.
Or, alternatively, Democrats lived in denial for years and dismissed every evidence, until the mountain of evidence got so large it was impossible to ignore anymore, and then they decided this is the moment from which credibility is counted. Very convenient for them, except some people still have memory and can notice that there was plenty of indications and plenty of evidence.
Bigger point is it doesn't matter at which point the medical diagnosis of "dementia" is supported. Maybe he will never be medically diagnosed with it. The point is he was mentally unfit for the rigors of President's job when he was elected, and he only got worse since. And that's exactly what Republicans were saying and Democrats were denying. Pretending like Republicans just got a bit of blind luck because perfectly fit Biden suddenly became unfit in some random freak accident is just bizarre cope by this point. It is absolutely clear Republicans were right from the start and Democrats were lying from the start (those - and there were many - who knew) or were deceived by the former category and willingly accepted the deception despite the evidence in front of their own eyes.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes — in your hypo sure. But if you started mentioning grandma is slipping in 2010 you would’ve been correct. That hypo is closer to reality.
The republicans did talk about lack of energy (he did run a basement campaign after all) but pointed out he kept on making weird gaffes (eg confusing his wife with his sister, losing his train of thought). It got worse over his presidency but there was a pretty clear line.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link