In the past couple days, and over the last day in particular, we’ve seen an intensification of speculation and coverage over whether President Joe Biden should step down as the Democrats’ presidential candidate. Of particular note was reporting from the New York Times, based on those who have interacted with Biden in recent months, that he has previously displayed episodes of mental disorientation similar to what we all saw on the debate stage last week. Given the seriousness of such observations, and the possibility that some of the anonymous interviewees have an axe to grind, I am taking them somewhat cautiously. However, they are given additional credence by recent episodes of confusion captured on video and described by the Times, such as the president’s difficulty recalling the name of his Homeland Security secretary at a recent event, and a couple different instances of Biden appearing confused at the G-7 meeting in mid-June. Reports that he is only reliably energetic between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. seem equally problematic, if to my mind deeply needing further corroboration.
I’m sympathetic with people who caution that the Times has long had demonstrable bias against Biden, including over questions about his age, but I don’t think this automatically leads to the conclusion that paper, or other outlets, are misreporting here. Questions as to Biden’s capacity were rightly raised by his disastrous debate performance, and are matters of great public interest. To be blunt, his issues on the debate stage were the sort of problems involving memory and cognitive abilities that many of us associate with aging. I think Zachary Carter puts it just right when he writes that, “This was not so much a bad debate as a devastating revelation.” This was not anything like President Barack Obama’s poor first debate showing against Mitt Romney in 2012, in which the president’s problems implicated not his memory or ability to think on his feet, but rather an appearance of disinterest in being there, along with a lackluster advocacy for his own reelection. And indeed, if anyone had had those doubts, they would have been put to rest by his next debate against Romney.
I wrote last time that Joe Biden needs to show the public he has a strategy for allaying their concerns. Yet, in the days since the debate, he has not adopted the obvious rebuttal strategy of putting himself out in public, in unscripted situations, in order to prove that the debate was a one-off. At a minimum, this shows a lack of sharp strategic thinking regarding his present peril; at worst, it provides more (indirect) evidence that he cannot be relied on to make less structured public appearances. Some 67% of Americans in a recent poll said they thought Biden is too old to be president; moreover, “53% of voters say they are more concerned about Biden’s age and physical and mental health, while 42% say they are more concerned about Trump’s criminal charges and threats to democracy.” This latter statistic speaks to the degree to which concerns about Biden based on his age are crowding out concerns about the true threat to America — Donald Trump and the GOP’s plans to remake the U.S. into an autocracy or dictatorship, which have now been supercharged by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling that the president is above the law, free to commit crimes without fear of prosecution.
The question I keep asking myself is a version of the one I’ve seen others expressing — how likely is it that Joe Biden will be able to dispel concerns over his age in the coming days and weeks so that he gains enough trust and space to pursue the necessary case against GOP authoritarianism, versus the likelihood that more information will come out concerning episodes of debility, or that we will witness in real time such episodes ourselves? To be blunt: I don’t see how Biden can win, even against a monster such as Trump, if the public becomes ever more concerned about his ability to do his job, particularly as such concerns will inexorably compete with coverage of Trump’s (even greater) unfitness for office. At some point, beyond all the talk of the dangers and possible chaos of the Democrats replacing Biden with another candidate, I think you need to let some common sense intrude into the discussion: Americans are rightly confused, angry, and disheartened by a choice between a dictator and a man who increasingly looks unable to do his job, including performance of the role of commander in chief. This is most definitely not a crisis that’s been created by malevolent media or back-stabbing allies (though of course all exist and play some part). Rather, people are reacting to reality, which, like it or not, encompasses how Joe Biden appears on TV during a debate as well as his stated prior interest in having such a debate and his campaign’s insistence that his appearance, contrasted with Trump’s predictably odious performance, would help shift the momentum of the race in Biden’s favor. I think Americans are probably puzzled as to why Vice President Kamala Harris couldn’t take Biden’s place as the presidential candidate, as would happen if Biden died or were otherwise incapacitated in the course of his presidency (short answer: she can).
The issue of Biden’s continued candidacy has obvious implications for the Democratic Party’s broader fortunes, but I think Democrats really need to look beyond the possible impact on the party’s ability to hold the House and Senate if they’re saddled with a presidential candidate who reaches a point of clear unelectability. The basic argument in Biden’s defense that people should disregard the evidence of their eyes and ears because people with a vested interest in protecting Biden’s interest (advisers, etc.) tell them he’s great behind closed doors swerves too close to comfort to the realm of Trumpian untruths (every rally is the biggest ever, the U.S. had the best economy ever when he was president, etc.). For me, the Democrats’ role as the sole remaining major party dedicated to protecting American democracy is deeply entwined with a fundamental commitment to the truth over lies and propaganda. Yes, politics — even democratic politics — is always about power, and there will be grey zones and compromises even in the most utopian of political systems. But the risks involved in telling the public that Biden is of sound mind and body when he is in fact not are far greater than wrecking his candidacy — they also threaten the public’s trust in the Democratic Party more generally to be relied on to tell the truth (a party which, in the most cynical telling, could be accused of propping up an octogenarian invalid as its best response to the country’s maximal point of peril since World War II or possibly even the eve of the Civil War). If they find out that Democrats lied to them about Biden’s health, would Americans be less likely to believe Democrats when they tell them that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the country? And would the damage be compounded by the Democrats’ willingness to put forward a candidate who doesn’t actually seem fit enough to defend democracy, calling into question their claims that democracy is actually under threat? I think the answer to these questions is a resounding “Yes.” As others have said, if we’re in a crisis, Democrats need to actually act like it.
Likewise, Democrats should not underestimate the democratic legitimacy peril that Biden could put them in (and potentially already has, at least to some degree). Yes, Joe Biden won the Democratic primaries; yet against this you have consistent polls showing a strong majority of Americans saying that Biden is too old for the presidency, coupled with the uncomfortable fact that many Democrats voted for him without any great enthusiasm, and, more importantly, based on the understanding that he and his team were telling the truth about his abilities. Yes, we all knew that Biden was older and slower than four years ago — but I’d bet that very few people thought they were voting for someone who would prove unable to defend himself or democracy up on that stage last week. At some point — and some would say we have already reached it — the continued Democratic elite’s support of Biden against popular opinion begins to look not very democratic at all.
The state of play as I write this, around 5:00 on July 3, shows Biden and his campaign pushing back against reports today that he has told some confidants that he comprehends the gravity of his situation, and that, in the words of the New York Times, “understands that he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he cannot convince voters that he is up to the job after a disastrous debate performance last week.” In response, the Biden campaign has stated that, “Reports suggesting they or the campaign are considering alternative scenarios are patently false.” Moreover, as the Times also reports, “In an emailed fund-raising message on Wednesday, President Biden reiterated to supporters that he’s staying in the race. ‘I’m running. I’m the Democratic Party’s nominee. No one is pushing me out.’” We’ll soon see if these statements are simply cover fire to buy the president time as he ponders his future, or the opening salvos of a campaign by the president to save his. . . campaign.