Circling the Wagons: Democrats and Biden
Stephen Eric Bronner Reader Supported NewsBut why an anointed substitute like Vice-President Kamala Harris, or some product of a bitterly brokered August 2024 Democratic Convention, is more likely to win the presidential race remains somewhat sketchy. For all the bluster, there are few specifics about choosing a substitute in the space of a month. How should the substitution occur? Who might best unify the party? Who would prove the most appealing standard-bearer? Who offers the Democratic Party the best chance to win?
Letters to the New York Times identified Vice-President Kamala Harris, Governor J.B. Pritzker (Illinois), Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), ex-Senator Joe Manchin (WV), Senator Governor Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan), Governor Gavin Newsome (CA), and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. The former first lady, Michelle Obama, is apparently the only candidate who can beat Trump in a hypothetical matchup (50% to 39&). Up to now, however, she doesn’t seem interested though, should Ms. .Obama change her mind, all bets are off.
As for the rest: Schumer or Manchin would undoubtedly drive left-wing Democrats into a frenzy; no one has ever heard of Pritzker, Buttigieg has no constituency, and Newsom faced a recall, handled COVID poorly, and has personal baggage. Biden is currently garnering support from 45% of likely voters as against Trump’s 48%. Harris is 1-2% higher in the popular vote, but her chance of winning the Electoral College is 31-100 whereas Biden has a 48-100 chance. The rest of the pack has support from 44-43% of voters. It also remains unclear from whom Robert Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, and Cornel West will take the most votes, which is important in what will probably prove a very tight election.
Of course, Democratic Party insiders are quick to say that Biden was a fine, perhaps even an excellent, president –after all, they supported him as the mainstream candidate in 2020 when he was about 78 years old. They admit that the president knows how to delegate authority, lead a remarkably scandal-free administration, push through controversial legislation, and retain the respect of foreign leaders. Interestingly none of the critics actually dealt with any of Biden’s past policies or future proposals. Objective points of support or legitimate criticism about the man’s politics vanished in favor of subjective opinions about the optics! Biden is portrayed as a “good man” and a “decent man,” but they say he is old, frail, forgetful, and often inarticulate. Many claim that he is suffering from dementia without having medical evidence to prove it. But, no matter: we can safely trust the expert hearsay of television pundits, celebrity donors like George Clooney, and (very!) highly principled politicians concerned with the country’s fate. That this chorus of self-described insiders actually create the optics, set expectations, and provide ammunition for those Democrats circling the wagons, is seemingly irrelevant. Their fangs were already out when Biden misspoke by referring to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy when he meant President Putin and then later Vice-President Trump rather than Vice-President Harris –before quickly catching himself. Never mind that President Biden answered complex questions about NATO, Chinese trade policies, the Middle East, and geo-political alliances between authoritarian regimes in his July 11th press conference. Trump might suffer a nervous breakdown if forced to answer them –but then, of course, he would undoubtedly change the subject and enter into one of his infuriating digressions. Letter writers to “The Daily New,” recalled that Trump confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, called Hungarian President Viktor Orbán the leader of Turkey, spoke of “nuking” the eye of a hurricane, suggested injecting bleach to cure covid, hurled countless racist epithets, molested women, and insisted that the Continental Army “took over the airports” during the Revolutionary War. The optics might change were there more specific emphasis placed on the blatantly fascist elements of the MAGA “Project 2025” presidential transition manifesto, Trump’s pathological lying, the unprecedented corruption tainting his administration, and his own behavior at the debate.
No one knows which candidate will run the best campaign; we are gambling without knowing the actual odds. Some alternative candidate to Biden might come out of nowhere and turn into the frontrunner. Under those circumstances, reasonable anti-fascists will need to shift their allegiance to Biden’s replacement. But that does not appear to be the case. Time is growing short, any substitute candidate will need to organize an entirely new campaign infrastructure in a heartbeat, and rancor will fester among his or her rivals. The Democrats cannot afford a convention floor fight and -- most importantly – whoever runs will do so on Biden’s record not his or her own. There are reasons why no candidate coming out of a brokered convention, other than FDR, has won a presidential election in over a century.
Maybe it’s time that we learned something from the Republicans and FOX News about unifying behind their candidate. Liberal creators of media “optics” should also show some responsibility by enumerating and explaining Biden’s policies. They also might focus more on the “leadership” –using the term loosely –Trump exhibited during his time in office by interviewing some former officials in his administration who broke with it. There is still time to take control of the narrative and shift the optics—but that is only possible by disarming those circling the wagons.
*Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of The International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University. Among his many works is The Bitter Taste of Hope: Ideas, Ideologies, and Interests in the Age of Obama.