The editors of the Washington Post are in a celebratory mood:
Though the election did not result in the ringing repudiation that Mr. Trump deserved, voters still rejected him, the first time in 28 years that a president has been turned out after a single term. Mr. Biden and his running mate, California Sen. Kamala D. Harris, built a broad coalition of traditional Democratic voters and independents disgusted with Mr. Trump. They won the highest number of votes of any presidential ticket in history and will end with an impressive margin of victory and and strong showings in states in every region of the country.
Did you notice what I did about that second sentence? There was one group conspicuous by their absence from that list of those whose votes elected Joe Biden: Republicans. There aren’t a lot of Republicans in the city of Chicago but I know a few of them. They voted for Biden. In some cases that may be the first time they’ve ever voted for a Democrat and they may never vote for a Democrat again. Would they have voted for Kamala Harris? For whom will they vote in 2024? Does anyone really doubt that George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and many other Republicans cast their votes for Biden?
Continuing:
Instinctively optimistic, unwilling to write off any of his fellow Americans, not likely to be pushed around by hyper-partisans on either side, Mr. Biden is exceptionally qualified to heal a deeply divided nation.
I wonder what evidence they have that Mr. Biden cannot be pushed around by ideologues? He’s already inched to the left, abandoning positions he’s held for decades, presumably nudged by the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. Back in July he and Bernie Sanders produced a joint statement. How does the contents of that statement differ from being “pushed around”?
I agree with this:
He won on a promise to unify the country and to address major problems that have been neglected or aggravated over the past four years. Voters should expect him to live up to his promises — and Senate Republicans, if they do retain their majority, should accept his open hand in a spirit of decency and cooperation.
Here’s something else for which I would like to see their evidence:
If the voters elected a divided government, they may have been asking for moderation, but they were not voting for stasis.
Quite to the contrary that may be exactly what the voters cast their votes for. How else do you explain that other than Trump Republicans did a lot better than was anticipated and that we may well see the very first time in American history in which a new administration came in to a divided government.
“Instinctively optimistic, unwilling to write off any of his fellow Americans, not likely to be pushed around by hyper-partisans on either side, Mr. Biden is exceptionally qualified to heal a deeply divided nation.”
LOL Seriously, how can we take people who write this stuff seriously? Its already started. (“inched” “nudged”? My ass, Dave. Can you say Kamala Harris?) The Progressives have…….demands.
“How else do you explain that other than Trump Republicans did a lot better than was anticipated and that we may well see the very first time in American history in which a new administration came in to a divided government.”
This may be true. But a divided, minimal ability to eff things up government has always been a good thing in my mind. What serious social problems has government solved in the 40 years of my adult lifetime?? The Dems are still running on all of the same perceived problems. I guess they want to take their time………
I do not believe that Kamala Harris is a “democratic socialist” of the stamp of Bernie Sanders or a progressive of the sort that Elizabeth Warren is. Indeed, I suspect she has no political principles at all other than seeking power. I do think she knows which way the wind blows.
“He’s already inched to the left, abandoning positions he’s held for decades, presumably nudged by the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.”
How many candidates have not made promises to appease their more extreme elements? Remember “we will buildd a wall and Mexico will pay for it”? Didnt happen. Controlled House and Senate and it didnt happen. How about “everyone will have health care and it will better and cheaper. Easy too”? Didnt happen. The Progressives get lots of ink in the right wing press so they can scare the old folks who watch Fox, but dont see much if any of their wishes passing.
That said, there is no way to unify things. We are too tribal. There are too many people getting paid tons of money to make sure it does not happen.
Steve
Many of the Republicans I know personally voted for Biden, albeit reluctantly. That would not have been the case if Sanders had been nominated.
“He’s already inched to the left, abandoning positions he’s held for decades, presumably nudged by the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.”
I think that was an electoral strategy to keep progressives from staying home or voting Green.
Biden’s platform didn’t inch to the left, it was actually the most progressive platform to date for a nominated candidate and seemed specifically designed to appeal to or appease specific constituencies. Just as one example, he had $3 trillion in new taxes and $11 trillion in new spending – way above what any previous Democrat promised but also way below the Warren and Sanders proposals. I never took much of it very seriously.
And with a closely divided legislature, the opportunity for progressive legislation – assuming that’s what Biden actually wants – is nonexistent.
Of course. But it does underscore the point I have been making: what does Joe Biden mean by “unity”? Party unity?
“Don’t worry; he doesn’t mean it” is an odd statement of support.
I don’t know what he means. But I’m skeptical that after his long record on various issues that he’s now changing his tune to become a real progressive.
Regardless, there’s a limit to what he can do, especially with a Congress that will mostly be deadlocked.
Biden appoints only the very best to his coronavirus advisory board.
He appoints *blinks* the oncologist Zeke Emanuel to the board.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8930195/Joe-Biden-coronavirus-adviser-Dr-Zeke-Emanuel-argued-not-worth-living-past-75.html
“My Osler-inspired philosophy is this: At 75 and beyond, I will need a good reason to even visit the doctor and take any medical test or treatment… What about simple stuff? Flu shots are out.”
Did Biden even do simple vetting that his own advisor is on record that the population most vulnerable to the pandemic ought to skip a partially effective vaccine?
And yes, I get Emanuel’s point back in 2014. It maybe a more entertaining 4 years then we expect.
I voted for Biden — With my vote I hoped he would reassert American interests in Syria; reduce marginal tax rates for the coastal upper-middle class; export carbon emissions to China; subsidize parental spending on their children’s college; open the borders to low-skilled labor and guarantee the right to work for Uber drivers.
It’s complicated, but only one of those statements is true.
I have read the Emanuel piece before. It is well written and reasoned, but it is nuanced and meant to make people think. That means that stupid people and the ideological will twist its meaning. If you actually read it and try to understand it a lot of us would agree. He somewhat arbitrarily chose 75, but if I reach a point where I no longer contribute anything and am totally dependent upon others, unable to really enjoy life very much due to pain, illness or severe cognitive decline, I wouldn’t especially want to keep living just for the sake of staying alive.
Note that he doesnt insist others agree, and in his practice he recommends care to extend life to others when they are well over 75 to extend life if they wish. This is a general topic bioethicists and other docs deal with pretty often, especially oncologists. I have this conversation pretty often. “If you have this treatment there is a high chance of prolonged mental deterioration resulting in several months of nursing home time but it likely extends your life a bit longer. Or, forego this treatment and you probably die a bit sooner but you remain mentally intact.” Not everyone chooses to live longer.
Having a bioethicist conversant with these issues in this group is a plus as far as I am concerned. I am sure it will e distorted into death panels or something.
Steve
For some people that happens at age 20; for others it may not be until 115. So far as a society we have left those decisions up to individuals although there are those who wish to arrogate such decisions about others to themselves.
I’m curious; what qualifies Dr. Emanuel as a bioethicist? The reason for my curiosity is that I have a friend who is a bioethicist. I’ll have to go ask her for an opinion.
“although there are those who wish to arrogate such decisions about others to themselves.”
Not many people that I am aware of. Certainly not Emanuel if you actually read his piece. He makes it clear he wants to make his own decisions and retains the right to change his mind about age 75.
Steve