The same New York Times focus group I cited yesterday apparently caught Andrew Sullivan’s attention as well. Here’s a telling passage from his remarks:
Now imagine these people watching Biden’s press conference on Wednesday.
It would have said absolutely nothing to them. It would show that the president doesn’t share their priorities, that he sees no reason to change course, that he has no real solution to inflation, and that his priority now is a massive voting rights bill that represents a Christmas tree of Dem wishes, opposition to which he categorized as racist as Bull Connor. Biden was, as usual, appealing as a human being: fallible, calm, reasonable, and more “with it†than I expected. I can’t help but like him and want the best for his administration.
But the sheer gulf between the coalition that voted for him and the way he has governed became even wider as the time went by. Joe Biden can say a million times that he’s not Bernie Sanders. But when his priority has been to force through two massive bills full of utopian leftist dreams, and conspicuously failed to pass either, while also embracing every minor woke incursion in American life, he’s just a Bernie Sanders without the conviction or mandate. Which is … well, not great.
and this is an important observation:
And Biden did something truly dumb this week: he cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election in November now that his proposal for a federal overhaul has failed: “I’m not going to say it’s going to be legit.†No sitting president should do this, ever. But when one party is still insisting that the entire election system was rigged last time in a massive conspiracy to overturn a landslide victory for Trump, the other party absolutely needs to draw a sharp line. Biden fatefully blurred that distinction, and took the public focus off the real danger: not voter suppression but election subversion, of the kind we are now discovering Trump, Giuliani and many others plotted during the transition period. Reforming the Electoral Count Act could, in fact, help lower the likelihood of a repeat of last time. And if the Dems had made that their centerpiece, they would have kept the legitimacy argument and kept the focus on Trump’s astonishing contempt for the rules of the republic.
So why didn’t they? For that matter, why did the Democrats design massive cumbersome bills in 2021 — like BBB and the voting rights legislation — which are so larded up with proposals they are impossible to describe in simple terms? Why did they not break out smaller, simpler bills — such as the child tax credit — and campaign on one thing at a time?
That hearkens back to a point I’ve made here from time to time. The way to show your commitment to a principle is by modelling it in your own behavior. If you support democracy, support it in your own state and those of your allies rather than focusing only on the lack of democracy in your political opponents’ states. “How wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?” If you are opposed to authoritarianism you can’t govern by edict. If you are dedicated to the rule of law, enforce the law when that’s your responsibility. Otherwise democracy, opposition to authoritarianism, and the rule of law are not principles for you—they’re expedient tactics for achieving your political objectives.
Here’s Mr. Sullivan’s conclusion:
Maybe a huge Republican wave this November will force Biden to recalibrate, as happened with Bill Clinton. But Biden, one is increasingly reminded, is a party man, and his party has moved so far to the left in the past five years there is no way he can pull a Sister Souljah moment without splitting the Democrats in two.
So he may well become a transitional figure like Jimmy Carter — a response to a criminal president, as Carter was, but too isolated, partisan and controlled by left interest groups to build a coalition for the future. Instead, a growing backlash including many Latinos, black voters, a slice of Asian-Americans, and suburban parents could create a viable and resilient multiracial coalition for the center right. We just have to pray that Trump is not the man who leads it.
His advice to President Biden is that he should observe a focus group from behind a one-way mirror on a regular basis. While I think that the ability to observe and analyze the behavior of others dispassionately and without interjecting yourself into the conversation is a great gift, it’s not generally one that leads to the presidency.
“Trump: We should subvert the elections.
Biden: If we fail to pass voting protection laws to stop him, the elections may be subverted.
Wise columnists (and bloggers): These are the same thing.
Steve
This is going to get angry responses; and lots of whataboutism.
“So why didn’t they?â€
Because what Trump attempted was the climax (hopefully) of a 2 decade trend; of contesting elections via the law to the very edges of the law; of denigrating your opponents legitimacy by any means; of using one’s responsibilities to further partisan interests even if the responsibilities are of a ministerial nature.
Just some examples; objections to electoral count in 2004, 2016. Objections to Georgia results in 2018. The faithless elector scheme in 2016 (remember that?). Birtherism, and Russia. The Medicare part D vote; the arbitrary delay in Trumps first impeachment.
As the saying goes; habits die hard.
“Why weren’t the bills split?â€
Senate filibuster; the rules of reconciliation means only 1 omnibus bill can qualify for filibuster-proof treatment per year.
If Democrats don’t go through reconciliation; they would have to throw out much of the partisan wish list and they have to compromise with Republicans on their wish list. Take the child care credit; Romney says he is interested in extended the increased benefit; but to do so he wants to axe the SALT deduction entirely(!). That means you are trading Romney for the SALT caucus; without the SALT caucus that means Democrats need House Republican votes(!). You do that enough times and you get complaints why one bothers electing Democrats in the first place.
Challenges in 2000, 2004, and 2016 are all part of the slippery slope I’ve been talking about. It began with Gore/Lieberman.
How about a contrarian take?
Perhaps, now that consecutive sitting presidents of both major parties have expressed doubts about the integrity of our elections, space has opened for a bipartisan push toward more transparent security.
After all, elections only work if the losing party accepts the results. Right? So a massive opportunity is sitting right there on the bipartisan table, just waiting for someone to pick it up, AND this is increasingly obvious to all of the players.
Something good might actually come of all this.
See? Contrarian.
You can’t be shrill, partisan, prosecutorial and build trust among adversaries at the same time.
Partisans speak different languages from each other.
One might use “subvert†to describe an event, while another would say “protect,†in defining the action behind an event. The same group using subvert would also be inclined to color the actions of people disagreeing with an “outcome of importance†as an “insurrection,†actions those attempting to protect the legitimacy of an election would describe as a “protest.†Ironically, the subvert and insurrection crowd has dialed back the usage of insurrection to “protest†when it explains the hundreds of BLM disturbances raging across the country, involving government buildings being breached and burned, injuries and lives lost many fold over the J6 event, costing billions, rather than the $1.5 million estimated during the Capitol ruckus.
BTW, it’s not a bunch of crazies who question the 2020 election results. In fact approximately 40% of voters think Biden is illegitimate, with over 50% saying they believe something fraudulent took place in that election. Furthermore, serious efforts continue, in WI, PA, GA, and AZ, to reappraise and sort through all the election irregularities poll officials noted, and followed up on by signing thousands of affidavits to back up their claims.
And that’s a basic problem. He’s legitimate. He was elected by the Electoral College.
That process took place. Therefore he is legitimate (unless you mean something else by the word). I presume you mean that the Electoral College should not have elected Biden. But they did and that makes him legitimate.
Just out of curiosity why dont you cite the 1960 POTUS election? There were a lot of claims that JFK won due to cheating by Daley. May actually have been true.
Steve
Maybe because Nixon conceded immediately following that election and the Nixon/Lodge campaign didn’t take the doubts to court.
Nixon also did not persist in saying the 1960 election was stolen from him. If Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump had followed Nixon’s example we wouldn’t have the problem we have now.
I think it is because it took a while to find out. We didnt have instant communications like we do now. However, I can tell you that in conservative circles it has long been held that Democrats stole that election.
Did Clinton take the election to court or file lawsuits? I missed that.
Steve
â€And that’s a basic problem. He’s legitimate. He was elected by the Electoral College.â€
Biden was able to collect enough electoral votes to win the presidency. What many, many people are questioning is the legitimacy of the means by which this was done. You appear to cite the ends – who has the greater number of electoral votes – to be an unquestionable win. However, if the process implemented, to achieve this result, is mired in too many unorthodox practices, our elections will be muddied in continuing controversy and distrust in the election process, going forward. People will, deservedly, wonder if casting their one legal vote won’t be cancelled by tactics such as ballot/granny harvesting, ballot box stuffing, outdated registration rolls by which ballots are mailed out like confetti, little to no signature verification on mail-in ballots, canvassing showing multitudes of discrepancies in illegitimate addresses used by voters. In one AZ canvassing effort alone, 35% of matching some 700 ballots to valid addresses came up with voters that did not exist. That’s troubling. Unfortunately, there are many more holes that have been discovered, during the past year, indicating a very imperfect election took place in 2020.