During his interview on Monday with NBC News’s Lester Holt, President Biden said much the same thing. “Focus on what he’s doing. Focus on — on his — on his policies. Focus on the number of lies he told in the debate,” he said. When Holt continued to needle Biden for saying “bull’s eye,” Biden responded: “How do you talk about the threat to democracy, which is real, when a president says things like he says? Do you just not say anything ’cause it may incite somebody?”
Both Ben-Ghiat and Biden hit upon a critical point in combating authoritarian ideas and politicians who undermine democratic norms. The pro-democracy message must not be diluted. The choice of words should be precise (“threat to democracy”). The admonition to resolve differences at the ballot box must be stressed, but the intensity of the argument against authoritarianism cannot let up.
To “turn down the temperature,” as Margaret Sullivan wrote in the Guardian, “shouldn’t mean silencing criticism of [Donald] Trump in this extremely consequential election season. It shouldn’t mean transforming him into some mythic combination of martyr and hero. And it certainly shouldn’t mean that he gets a pass — a literal get-out-of-jail-free card — for his innumerable past misdeeds.”
Democrats, however, cannot prevail solely by pointing to Trump’s flaws and the danger of MAGA extremism — or even to Biden’s record of accomplishment. Democrats need a strategic plan for turning around the campaign in swing states. So far, Trump’s unfitness, Biden’s legislative record, millions in ad buys and the remarkably strong economy have not done the trick. Insisting that Biden needs to repeat the same message — but more loudly! — has not assuaged nervous Democrats on the Hill or many activists. Nor should it.
Democrats are not a cult. They want facts and data. How does the Biden campaign plan to turn around swing-state voters? Plainly, the campaign has not provided it.
The result: a planned early roll call vote to nominate Biden was pushed back to August, and prominent Democrats such as Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.) continue to call for Biden to step aside. Plainly, Biden still has some convincing to do. (His public performances seem not to have done the trick. A strong NAACP speech was followed by an interview on BET that was weaker than his Holt interview.)
Is there a way to shake up the race with Biden still at the top of the ticket? One approach would be to focus much more intently on Project 2025, which would undermine professional government, politicize the judiciary, deal a blow to Medicaid, abrogate civil rights, undermine voting rights, render the tax code even more regressive, eliminate Head Start, raise drug prices, recall abortion drugs and largely erase the separation of church (Christian fundamentalism, in particular) and state. If the campaign shifts from “Biden-Harris vs. Trump-Vance” to “democracy vs. right-wing authoritarianism,” pushes that message intently in critical states, and provides voters with concrete examples of the harm that would flow from the 2025 game plan, perhaps Democrats would feel more hopeful.
Another option (not that these are mutually exclusive messages) is to run against the out-of-control Supreme Court. “President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans,” The Post reports. “He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.” Given that the Supreme Court’s standing has dropped to new lows and more than 3 in 4 Americans want term limits, according to a Fox News poll, such proposals would be very popular across the ideological spectrum. To make a difference, Biden would need to argue emphatically that the court is as much a threat to our constitutional system as his opponent. Fixing the court through legislation and/or a constitutional amendment would then be front and center.
In sum, the Biden team must show it can get off the back foot and effectively drive their message in swing states. If Democrats are not convinced he has such a plan and can sell it, they have an obligation to level with the president and push for a change at the top of the ticket. Our democracy might hinge on it.
Distinguished person of the week
Rarely does a politician so perfectly model the behavior he is advocating for as did Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro following the assassination attempt on Trump last Saturday. Not only did Shapiro speak calmly and stick to the facts, but also, more importantly, he lauded a fellow human being whose politics were radically opposed to his own.
“We lost a fellow Pennsylvanian last night: Corey Comperatore,” Shapiro said at a news conference. “Corey was a girl dad. Corey was a firefighter. Corey went to church every Sunday. Corey loved his community. And most especially, Corey loved his family.” He added, “Corey died a hero. … Corey dove on his family to protect them last night at this rally. Corey was the very best of us. May his memory be a blessing.”
Shapiro recognized Comperatore as someone excited by politics; however, Shapiro refused to reduce or define Comperatore by political labels. In celebrating a citizen’s vigorous participation in a campaign rally of someone whose politics he deeply objects to, Shapiro embodied the spirit of the First Amendment, an essential part of our democracy. And Shapiro, thereby, showed the very best of us.
Something different
Professional sports is generally a young person’s game. And last weekend, we saw a changing of the guard in two different sports. In the Copa América soccer finals, 37-year-old Argentine superstar Lionel Messi, battered and bruised, had to leave the field with the score tied 0-0. He broke down sobbing, unable to lead his teammates to yet another championship. His team pulled out a 1-0 victory, turning his sorrow into joy.
His early exit from the field was a poignant reminder that he might have finished his career for his national team. Those in attendance might be able to boast they saw his last game in a blue-and-white-striped jersey. In the future, Messi’s teammates at some point must carry on entirely without his presence on the field.
Meanwhile, at Wimbledon, Novak Djokovic, also 37 years old and holder of more Grand Slam singles titles than any other men’s player, met someone who might one day top that record. Without dropping a set, Carlos Alcaraz, just 21, swiftly dispensed with Djokovic. Alcaraz modestly said he was not yet a champion in the same league as Djokovic or other greats such as Roger Federer. “Yet” is the operative word. He already has four Grand Slams to his name. Djokovic, a famously prickly personality, is often not the crowd favorite (especially this year), but during the match, he periodically recognized Alcaraz’s remarkable shot-making. At the end, he handled the loss with equanimity.
The two championships were a reminder that even illustrious, enduring careers come to an end, leaving the aging champion a shadow of his former self. We should enjoy the greats while we have them. Such athletes are far and few between.
Every other Wednesday at noon, I host a Q&A with readers. Submit a question for the next one.
Credit: Source link
