Thinking About Biden's Candidacy

Introduction

In Biden's Candidacy About Nothing, Nathan Schneider proposes that "Joe Biden’s minimalist version of the presidency could be a blessing in disguise".  Schneider makes the following points:

1. The presidency is a black hole that pulls inexorably on the public’s attention.
2. The Obama presidency was in that mold, as he modeled the use of executive orders for doing the work that Congress once did.
3. Biden offers the possibility of a presidency one can finally turn away from, a presider who will leave enough room for others to set the agenda. 
4. Biden is more likely to let experts be in the spotlight, and thus will provide room for more constructive national discourse.

I will consider these one at a time and then come to some general conclusions regarding the 2020 presidential election.

The presidency is a black hole that pulls inexorably on the public’s attention.

I agree very much that this is the case with the Trump presidency, and this is a bad thing because I don't think Trump is a good leader.  However, I don't agree that having an outspoken president is a bad thing in general.  FDR's fireside chats were probably a good thing.  George W. Bush's response to 9/11 was good until his administration went off on the wrong track in pursuit of war in Iraq.  Teddy Roosevelt's embrace of conservation of nature set a different tone for the nation with respect to the environment.  Lincoln was effective in leading the union and freeing blacks from slavery.

Moreover, I think there is a more general problem than presidential style with regard to public attention.  Before Trump, the country had already become extremely polarized with the likes of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. inflaming discourse.  With the Internet and the advent of social media, the anger and polarization has become much worse.  Political operatives and the media are rewarded (more viewers and clicks) when their base gets angry at the opposing side.  I would like the president to try to moderate the discourse and focus on what is important.

All of us have a role to play in this regard.

The Obama presidency was part of this unfortunate trend where the president is the focus of public attention.  

In support of this idea, Schneider notes that "Barack Obama modeled the use of executive orders for doing the work that Congress once did."

I don't agree that Obama was a lightning rod for the public's attention, in the same way that Trump is.  Rather, my opinion is that Obama did not use the "bully pulpit" effectively to counter the misinformation that was coming from Republicans and the Tea Party.  This was apparent to me when Obamacare was getting attacked with references to death panels, while Obama stayed above the fray.

This wasn't all Obama's fault.  The mainstream media and the Democrats did a poor job, in my opinion, of reporting the truth and highlighting the consequences.  A good example of this was the Acorn affair of 2009, shortly after Obama and the Democrats in Congress swept into power: Lesson from ACORN -- The Facts Matter.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the Democratic-controlled Senate voted 83 to 7 to block some federal grants to ACORN... On Sept. 17, the House followed suit, with 172 Democrats joining 173 Republicans in voting to defund ACORN... (this) exposed a Democratic Party establishment unprepared for dirty tricks in the Digital Age and unwilling to defend many of the black voters and activists it claimed to represent... The illegal voting accusations never panned out. But within 18 months, Lewis would be forced to close ACORN’s doors ― exhausted, short-staffed, out of money and, most important, out of allies... ACORN registered more than 865,000 voters for the 2008 election. While other groups have tried to pick up the slack, there’s a reason Republicans haven’t selected a new organization to serve as the voter fraud boogeyman: nobody is doing the same caliber work on the same scale that ACORN did.

Other battles the Dems chose not to fight included:

• Prosecution of Republicans for malfeasance (including torture) in Iraq, and in the run-up to the war.
• Letting the big banks fail.  Even the The Economist magazine thought they should be nationalized. 
• Prosecution of various financial sector firms and/or individuals for breaking the law (accounting control fraud).

Nathan Schneider, in the article being discussed here, cites Obama's use of executive orders as being part of the problem of the visible president.  But, in my opinion, the Republicans were at fault for obstructing reasonable governance and Obama was justified in issuing executive orders.  Schneider's "both sides do it" attitude toward the Obama presidency, it seems to me, is symptomatic of the failures of conventional wisdom that led to the Trump presidency.

Unfortunately, I believe that there is now much more validity to "both sides do it" than there was during the Obama presidency, as we shall see in discussion of the Biden candidacy.

Biden offers the possibility of a presidency one can finally turn away from, a presider who will leave enough room for others to set the agenda.

I don't see Biden as an Obama type mellow guy who will avoid controversy.  He says many controversial and untrue things.  He had to drop out of the 1988 presidential campaign because of plagiarism and exaggeration of his record:

In September 1987, newspaper stories stated he had plagiarized a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock. Other allegations of past law school plagiarism and exaggerating his academic record soon followed. Biden withdrew from the race later that month.

 He's got a considerable record of continued tall tales in the years since.  Here is one set of examples:

Biden literally fabricated an entire fictitious career as a civil rights activist. He told audiences he “participated in sit-ins to desegregate movie theaters,” when he did no such thing. Recently he told a black audience an extremely specific story about his involvement in the civil rights movement and his anti-segregation activism. It appears to be entirely made up. He did this over and over, as Shaun King documented. (King’s report is devastating and it’s shocking that it hasn’t gotten more media attention.) Biden said that he was arrested in South Africa on his way to see Nelson Mandela, which also wasn’t true.

So this doesn't look good for Schneider's thesis.  And it's doubly bad with regard to my opinion that we could use a president who speaks effectively on behalf of important social issues.

Biden is more likely to let experts be in the spotlight, and thus will provide room for more constructive national discourse.

This gets to the core of what I want to say.  The contention is that Biden will trust experts whereas Trump is more of a know-it-all who diverts attention from experts.  Doesn't it all depend on what one thinks about the experts?  Recall from the Political / Economic Quadrants diagram that Trump appeals to populist types who distrust the elite.  That in large part explains his ability to get 63 million votes.  Biden on the other hand appeals more to those who trust in the status quo and the experts.  Hillary won 66 million votes from those people.  (Another 100 million eligible voters did not vote in 2016.)

So the country seems fairly evenly split between those who want to trust the experts (maintain the status quo) and those who don't trust the status quo and want a president who will take on the lamestream media.  As I've noted before, I believe there are underlying principles with merit in each of the quadrants; i.e. liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist.  Using the labels too much or too loosely isn't generally constructive.  So my attitude is not that the experts (liberals) are always right, or that the populists (libertarians) are always right.  Rather, we should judge individual issues on their own merits.  In some cases, we may find that the experts have been consistently wrong and we could use a president who dares to think for him/herself.  

For example, Biden seemed to win the Democratic nomination by doubling down on conventional wisdom from "experts" with vested interests who have been proven seriously wrong.  I discussed this in Demagogues for Fiscal Responsibility:

Demagogic logic:

1. Be afraid of Bernie!! He will bankrupt the country.
2. Bernie will lose to Trump because people are afraid.

Of course, according to the demagogues, there are other reasons to be afraid of Bernie (who dares to take on some establishment interests).  For example, be afraid of Bernie because he is supported by the Russians! 

See also: Russiagate -- 3rd Annual Review:

So the FBI officials protesting anonymously were proven wrong about the specifics of the Carter Page surveillance.  And their insistence that the FISA process in general has been handled well has also been discredited...  It's become common for opponents of the mainstream Democrats to be labeled Putin lovers...  

And Robert Mueller, FBI Director in 2003, assured us that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., leading to the horrific Iraq War that Biden supported.  

On February 11, 2003, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets"

So, while I am a fan of experts in general, some of the most significant experts that Biden has supported have been very wrong about some of the most important things.

But surely Biden is better than Trump?

I am actually more concerned about Biden.  All of the mainstream media, the Democratic establishment, and many conservative Republicans are keeping a close eye on Trump.  On the other hand, I feel a McCarthyist pall (feeling of dread) surrounding the mainstream Democrats, for whom Biden is the candidate:

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.

As Chuck Schumer said:

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities. 

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
“So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.” 

There is little doubt in my mind that this is true and that, as a result, certain opinions are not acceptable in mainstream discourse solely because they go against such powerful vested interests.  Moreover, the vested interests which cannot be openly challenged have a bad track record in some of most important issues such as the rationale for war, international sanctions, international cooperation, and interference in domestic politics.  More about this here and here.

I frequently hear sentiments such as "All I care about is getting rid of Trump".  Such a sentiment is part of the dysfunctional dynamic that Schneider discusses in "Biden's Candidacy About Nothing".  There are other important things to think about and talk about.  Let's be part of the solution to the presidential black hole and focus on what is important.