Joe Biden has become a major distraction. Much like Donald Trump, he’s demanding far too much attention.
As genocide continues in Gaza, as war continues to rage in Ukraine, as America continues to pursue militarism both at home and abroad, all the press can talk about is whether Biden should stay or go.
The answer is obvious: he should go.
Sure, Biden remains capable of having a “good” day in the sense of doing OK at a rally while reading prepared remarks from a teleprompter. Yet it’s impossible to ignore brain glitches where he introduces Zelensky of Ukraine as President Putin and suggests his vice president’s name is Trump instead of Harris.
America faces serious issues, especially working- and middle-class Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Their stories are rarely told in the corporate-owned media as Biden’s flubs and stubbornness and Trump’s lies and showboating grab nearly all the attention.
A new (and desperate) ploy I’ve seen on Twitter/X is Biden supporters arguing that a failing older man is better than a lying one as president. That argument assumes Biden has a strong record as a truth-teller when it was gratuitous lies and flagrant plagiarism that ended his presidential campaign in 1988. Besides, is it really true that Biden, a man visibly in mental and physical decline, is the only choice Democrats can muster to defeat Trump in 2024?
Let’s look at one chart that shows Biden’s record. Since he became President, military spending has soared as social spending has dipped.
And this man, Democrats say in reverent tones, is the new FDR?
I suppose their counter would be: Trump will be worse! So, it’s the old “lesser of two evils” argument.
Biden and Harris continue to run a campaign devoid of any message other than vote for us because Trump will be worse. That empty message, and Biden’s visible decline, produce images like this:
Exactly. Which “job” is the Biden/Harris team so intent on finishing? No one knows since they’re not saying. Vague messaging and a confused candidate are almost certain to lead to a Trump victory in November.
And if that happens, those to blame will be clear, starting with Biden, the DNC, and all the scheming powerbrokers behind the scenes like the Obamas and the Clintons.
Why are progressives so powerless in America? Is there any hope for radical reforms here that favor the 99%? Stimulated by a question from Jeff Moebus, here’s some thoughts on this crucial issue, lightly edited from the comments section of a previous article:
As a kid, I loved to collect stamps, and I still have a small collection
I’m curious, Bill: What do you think the RNC’s Main Goal is?
In any event, given that that is the DNC’s Main Goal [suppressing progressive voices and power within the Democratic Party], why haven’t the Principled Progressives of America formed their own political party so as to give Americans that choice for Systemic Reform come election time?
Is at least part of the problem that a significant number of Americans disagree with and, in some cases, categorically reject the principles, policy proposals, and promises of Progressivism? Which may explain why there are no “Progressives” in Washington, eh?
Jeff, the RNC seems content to ride the Trump wave, knowing that Trump can be controlled and perhaps coopted as well.
Trump lacks core principles, so I think the RNC’s main goal is to shove Trump in directions that are consistent with RNC imperatives, such as lower taxes on corporations, financial deregulation, and the dismantling of the welfare state and anything that smacks of socialism.
I agree completely with your assessment of the RNC, Bill. Especially the part about Trump being controllable and cooptable. If he wasn’t, he would have never become a President who completed a full term in office.
In any event: Do you have any thoughts as to why the Principled Progressives of America have not formed their own political party so as to give Americans that choice for “Systemic Reform” come election time?
My guess: lack of money. Corporate cash isn’t flowing to progressives. Plus some progressives have been coerced, manipulated, or otherwise propagandized to believe they can “push” Biden (or Harris etc.) in progressive ways. Of course, it’s total BS.
Recognize as well that progressives were burned by both Obama and Bernie. Finally, progressive energy is sapped by “woke” cultural issues rather than focusing on class issues and an antiwar agenda that would also prove attractive to some on the Right as well.
That’s my quick take. Of course, the other part is the corporate media that smears progressives as “far left,” Putin puppets, and therefore untrustworthy and unelectable.
So the problem, basically, is that there are not enough Americans ~ especially those with money to spend on politics ~ who agree enough with the proposals of Progressivism to actively support it and actually work to make it happen.
Strangely, Jeff, I wrote a reply and it disappeared on my own site!
Here’s what I think I wrote: What we need, as Bernie said, is a political revolution, but then Bernie decided not to lead it.
How do you effect this “progressive” revolution? It’s extremely hard because so many powerful forces are arrayed against it:
1. Both major political parties in America are against progressive reforms.
2. Corporate elites are against them.
3. Corporate media is against them.
4. Coercive forces such as police forces of all stripes are against them.
What is required is a mass movement willing to be disobedient organized along class interests. A movement of left, right, and center. A movement of the 99% against the 1% (and the .1 -.01%).
Rich and powerful “citizens” (and recall that corporations are citizens now) will not simply hand over power. They will have to be persuaded, convinced, and possibly coerced.
Also, the rich and powerful know how to divide, distract, and demobilize the masses, while keeping the many as downtrodden and debilitated as possible. Hence all the “unhoused” people we see, all the immigrants, all the poor people suffering. Those poor unfortunate souls are partly there to scare the rest of us.
Thomas Jefferson famously opined that “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (That’s from memory.) Who is willing to bleed, and how much blood must flow, and even then, will it get any better?
It’s easy to be cynical and pessimistic here, but those are paralyzing forces. Instead, we have to be optimistic or at least determined, else the USS America will continue to slip under the waves of mass corruption and bottomless bankruptcy. And by “bankruptcy” I mean spiritual and moral as much as financial.
What say you? Is there any hope for meaningful change in the USA, and how can that be implemented without violence?
******
Rather than putting the onus on Jeff Moebus, what about you, loyal readers? Can meaningful change be effected in America that actually helps the 99%? That moves the country into less militaristic waters? That restores liberty and power to the people? If so, how, and at what price?
One essential step: campaign finance reform. A country where money=speech is by definition a plutocracy. Another essential step: a radical downsizing of empire and a Pentagon budget reduced by 50%. But with a corrupt Congress that loves money and the military, how are these changes to be made?
All my life, the punditocracy has told me that being President of the United States (POTUS) is the world’s toughest job, making enormous demands on physical fitness and mental stamina. And now the Democrats are telling me that Joe Biden is and remains the fittest candidate to serve as POTUS for another four years.
Since Donald Trump emerged as a candidate in 2015, the punditocracy has told me he’s a menace to democracy. That he must be stopped at all costs, else America faces authoritarian fascism. And now the Democrats are telling me that Joe Biden is and remains the fittest candidate to stop Trump and the Republican march of fascism.
Well, I have some faith in my lying eyes, and based on them, I know Biden isn’t up to the challenge of being POTUS for another four years, nor is he the fittest man to stop Trump and “fascism.”
The Democrats’ decision to stick with Joe Biden suggests the person who serves as POTUS really doesn’t matter: a cardboard cutout would suffice. It also suggests Democratic powerbrokers really aren’t that worried about Trump being a fascistic dictator, nor will Rachel Maddow end up in a gulag for dissidents.
But let’s assume for the moment that Trump really represents fascism on the march in America. Who’s the best person to defeat him?
He’s ready! Clooney, I mean, shown on the left with then-VP Joe Biden
In what passes for politics in America today, why not a celebrity with name recognition and charisma? George Clooney, anyone? He’s handsome, a relatively young 63, and smarter than your average bear. He can act too, not a disqualification for the position of POTUS.
Alternatively, why not Dolly Parton? Or someone like her? Sadly, Dolly’s husband is suffering from Alzheimer’s and she’s curtailing her schedule to be with him, but she’s got the looks, the business savvy, and the sass to take on Trump.
Assuming Democrats smarten up and stop believing their own BS, they should seek unconventional candidates with the mettle to challenge Trump. Heck, why not Susan Sarandon? The Democrats blame her activism whenever they lose, as in 2016, so why not run her as a candidate? At least there’d be some validity to blaming her for Trump’s victory if he should win again in 2024.
What say you, readers? Who’s the unconventional Democratic candidate who might, just might, hand Trump his lunch while protecting what’s left of U.S. democracy?
(A mason’s assistant who was working on my chimney a few weeks ago suggested Keanu Reeves. If he saved humanity from Agent Smith and the machines in “The Matrix” trilogy, surely he can save America from Trump. Keanu seems like a good dude, but he’s Canadian, so he can’t run. Sigh.)
P.S. Just kidding. We all know Bibi Netanyahu is the best candidate. Talk about bipartisan Red and Blue love. No wonder Bibi wears the imperial purple!
Being President of the United States (POTUS) is not a part-time job.
Apologists for Joe Biden suggest that he’s capable of doing the job during normal office hours. Say roughly 10AM to 4PM. But sadly last week’s debate started at 9PM and Biden was tired, he had a cold, and he just couldn’t think and speak clearly and coherently.
So, let’s remind America’s rivals that if they are to launch any attack that might, just might, activate nuclear contingency plans in the Biden administration, they had best do it when the president is capable of clear thinking, which apparently means a six-hour window, Monday through Friday, 10AM-4PM EST.
Seriously, as an American, all my life I’ve been told that being POTUS is the toughest, most demanding, job in the world. That POTUS has in his charge the nuclear “football,” the codes that would unleash America’s awesome, possibly world-destroying, nuclear arsenal, and that therefore the president had to be a person of sound body and of soundest mind. And now I’m being told that Joe Biden, a man in obvious decline, is exactly that person of sound body and of soundest mind to serve another four years as president and commander-in-chief.
The nuclear “football” is actually a briefcase containing the codes needed to authorize and authenticate a nuclear attack
The nuclear football is not something to fumble. Once those missiles are unleashed, there will be no redo.
Joe Biden’s recent debate performance featured sustained moments where he stared blankly into space, where he was obviously confused, where he spoke nonsense. Put bluntly, there were times when he quite literally didn’t know what he was saying.
Sure, Biden isn’t always confused, muddled, or whatever term you care to use to describe obvious mental compromise. But no POTUS can afford to be mentally muddled or compromised because you never know when he or she may be needed to make a decision (under the severest pressure and in a matter of minutes) involving nuclear weapons. It’s an awesome, almost unimaginable responsibility that requires the most stringent vetting of America’s candidates for POTUS.
Today’s Joe Biden is not up to that responsibility. Anyone who says otherwise is denying the evidence of their own eyes and ears.
Standard Disclaimer: This is not in any way an argument for Trump. It’s an argument for a fitter president, right now, and for the Democrats to nominate someone other than Biden to run against Trump this November.
Last night’s political debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was a sad spectacle. Clearly, Biden performed poorly. Trump, I suppose, was Trump. The CNN post-debate commentators were universal in saying the Democratic Party is panicking after Biden’s appearance and performance, almost as if they were reading from the same script. It’s finally OK in the mainstream media to state what’s been obvious for years: that Biden is simply too old and infirm to serve as president for another four years. Look for Biden to be replaced as the Democratic candidate, though how gracefully remains to be seen.
Neither candidate did well in last night’s debate
Biden started poorly and never fully recovered. He walked out haltingly. His voice was raspy. He was arguably over-prepared, talking too fast, spouting too much detail, looking confused. A low point came when he lost his train of thought and then concluded by saying “We finally beat Medicare.” Trump pounced. If this had been a fight, the referee would have stopped it then and there.
There’s a catchphrase from a Clint Eastwood movie that “A man’s got to know his limitations.” Biden doesn’t know them, not anymore, and the people around him are doing him a grave disservice in continuing to push him forwards, in continuing to prop him up. It’s time for Biden to retire, to be a one-term president, which was initially the plan when he ran and won in 2020.
After the debate, Trump walked grumpily off the stage. Biden stood there, seemingly at a loss, until Jill Biden came and guided him carefully down a few steps to greet the moderators.
The debate itself was a charisma-free zone. Both men spent most of their time bashing the other. It was a house of frowns. As I watched and took notes, I wrote this: Biden and Trump trade insults while America burns.
In a rare burst of pseudo-agreement, Trump and Biden both said their opponent was the worst president in U.S. history. Both also had surprisingly weak and inept closing statements.
That being said, Biden and Trump did offer a sharp contrast. Biden continues to assert America is the envy of the world, the best country bar none, with the finest military in all of human history. For Trump, America is a failing state, a “sick” country, akin to a “rat’s nest,” overrun with illegal immigrants.
Turning to foreign affairs, both men eagerly supported Israel, with Trump going the extra mile in saying he wants Israel to finish the job in Gaza, the job being genocide of the Palestinians there. Interestingly, Dana Bash, the CNN moderator, said only that Israel’s massive offensive in Gaza had killed “thousands” of Palestinians. She, of course, said nothing of ethnic cleansing or genocide, and neither did the candidates. Pro-Palestinian protests went unmentioned.
“We’re a seriously failing nation,” Trump said, and he’s right about that. The problem is that Biden is too old to run again and Trump remains temperamentally unfit to serve as a public servant at any level. Both men toward the end got into an argument about their respective golf handicaps. It was really that bad—and that out of touch with the needs and concerns of workers and families across America.
American foreign policy remains in the grip of heretics. They believe that the Prince of Peace is actually a god of war. They believe America is strengthened by entangling alliances (think here of our so-called alliance with Israel). They believe in constant war as a recipe both for dominant power and greater freedom and democracy throughout the world. They believe that spending roughly a trillion dollars each year on weapons and war is a wise “investment.” And they believe they are the toughest and truest of patriots, the ones who see further, the ones with the guts to get things done, no matter how poorly America’s wars have gone from Korea and Vietnam through Afghanistan, Iraq, and today’s proxy wars.
There used to be a different America, a much less militaristic and bellicose one. The American tradition is rich and complex; it contains multitudes, as Walt Whitman might say. Why are we so stuck on warmongers, thieves, and vainglorious simps of empire?
As an American, I’m very much a part of my country’s complexity and richness. And the America that speaks to me contains elements and lessons such as these:
George Washington’s prescient warning about the dangers of entangling alliances with foreign powers.
James Madison’s warning that constant warfare is the direst of enemies of liberty, freedom, and democracy in America.
General Smedley Butler’s confession that “war is a racket” and that he had often served as a “gangster for capitalism.”
The Nye Commission in the U.S. Senate that investigated arms manufacturers and weapons makers as “Merchants of Death” that profited greatly from war.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “cross of iron” speech and his warning about the growing power and insidious nature of the military-industrial complex.
President John F. Kennedy’s powerful peace speech in which he extended an olive branch to the Soviet Union.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s powerful speech against the Vietnam War and the perils of militarism, racism, and materialism in America.
Of course, America has always had its dark side, with slavery and the genocidal treatment of Native Americans being at the top of the list. Yet America also has had its triumphs of wisdom and goodness. That is the America we should be embracing and celebrating. I believe it’s captured in the words of Washington, Madison, JFK, MLK, and so many others who’ve fought for peace and sanity, people like Dorothy Day, the Catholic activist who fought against war and all its awful excesses.
All that said, sometimes cartoons can express truths in ways that are as powerful as they are simple. In the cartoon below, the heretics of U.S. foreign policy are so many Calvins, spreading destruction and employing nukes in the name of manly seriousness. They are wrong. They are heretics. And if we continue to allow them to rule, they will surely lead America (as they already are in Gaza) to mass graves.
These are strange times in America. Today the New York Times is telling me there’s already a movement afoot to resist Donald Trump if he wins the election, in the cause of defending democracy, naturally. Here’s the blurb:
Now, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, I won’t be voting for Trump or Biden. I’m not a Trump supporter and I hope he loses. Yet, assuming the election isn’t “rigged,” as Trump likes to say whenever he loses, I’m prepared to accept the result as an expression of democracy, or at least as much “democracy” as the electoral college in America permits us to express.
I’m glad an “emerging coalition” is planning something, apparently, to curb the worst excesses of Trump and the Republicans. I hope this coalition will act to end Israel’s genocide in Gaza, pursue diplomacy to end the Russia-Ukraine War, pursue peace wherever and whenever possible, lower the threat of nuclear war on the planet, and cut the Pentagon budget while rebuilding America. How about fighting for America’s workers, raising the minimum wage, providing affordable health care for all that’s untied to employment, and similar steps that put the health and welfare of people first.
Or, is this “emerging coalition” motivated purely by animus against Trump and his followers? Is it still going to fully fund the Pentagon and wage war across the globe? In which case I’m not so excited.
Again, I come back to this question: If an “emerging coalition” is so worried about a Trump victory, why not put forward a candidate more fit to beat Trump than Joe Biden? Don’t “resist” Trump after he’s already won again—defeat him at the polls by putting forth a dynamic candidate with a populist worker-first platform.
I’m with James Madison that the biggest threat to liberty and freedom in America is perpetual war. War breeds authoritarianism and weapons built in the name of war represent, as Dwight D. Eisenhower famously said in 1953, a theft from the people. Weapons do not represent an “investment”; quite the reverse. And incessant preparations for war are not a recipe for peace.
If you truly want to defend democracy, resist war and the authoritarianism it breeds. Make major cuts to the Pentagon budget and invest in education and health rather than death and destruction. That’s the “emerging coalition” I’d like to see.
If you have to kill 274 people to free four others being held hostage, is that a “successful” military operation? According to the Israeli and U.S. governments, it is.
Israel, apparently with some U.S. help, attacked the Nuseirat Camp in Gaza and freed four hostages seized by Hamas. In doing so, however, Israeli forces killed and wounded hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children.
It’s a brutal calculus that sees Palestinians as being “in the way” and essentially worthless and therefore expendable. Put differently, Israel sees all Palestinians in Gaza as “guilty,” as “terrorists,” therefore there are no innocent Palestinians and Israel can kill as many as they need to, without guilt or remorse, to achieve a desired end.
Coverage by the mainstream media in the West generally has been glowing, praising Israel for rescuing four hostages while downplaying the Palestinian dead as collateral damage that’s hardly worth noticing.
Here’s an example from the BBC:
You see a happy young woman freed by Israeli forces, but you don’t see any images of the more than 200 Palestinians killed by Israel in this “special military operation.” And note how the Palestinian dead are consigned to a sub-heading and a smaller font, using the passive voice (“were killed”), as if it’s unclear who killed them and why.
Yes, it’s good to see four hostages freed. But if hundreds of other innocent people must die or suffer grievous wounds in the process, that’s not a “successful” operation. It’s a massacre.
The vacuity of Democratic strategy is astonishing if you take at face value the claim that a Trump victory this November will “end democracy.” Apparently, Trump paying Stormy Daniels $130K in hush money, after which some creative accounting obscured the source of the payoff, renders him “unfit for office.” And that claim is now a “top 2024 issue” for Democrats, as The New York Times notes here:
Democrats Push Biden to Make Trump’s Felonies a Top 2024 Issue
Interviews with dozens of Democrats reveal a party hungry to tell voters that Donald Trump’s conviction makes him unfit for office, and hopeful that President Biden will lead the way.
Meanwhile, this was the lead headline in the NYT “top news” send-out this morning:
A Felon in the Oval Office Would Test the American System
Some are wondering how the Constitution’s checks and balances, meant to hold presidents accountable, would work if the next president elected were already a felon.
“Some are wondering”: What a vapid phrase!
I think there are more severe “tests” of the “American system.” How about a president enabling a genocide in Gaza, for example?
If you want to beat Donald Trump this November, how about running a more attractive, more dynamic, more charismatic, more populist and popular, candidate? Whatever else Biden is, he is very much lacking in dynamism even as his actions render him increasingly unpopular among key segments of the Democratic base.
My wife jokingly said today: Just what we need, another election featuring two tired and seriously old white guys. She has a point. It’s not that Trump is now a felon that renders him allegedly unfit. Trump is, in my view, constitutionally unsuited for the presidency. Biden, in contrast, is a fading political hack who will be 82 years of age at the end of this year. Yet, this is what the “American system” produces. Maybe that “system” needs an overhaul?
So, which tired and seriously old white guy do you want to vote for this year?
JFK in 1963. Read his famous “peace speech” at American University
It seems hard to believe that in my lifetime we had a young, dynamic, and visionary president, JFK, who was 43 years of age when elected. A president who grew in office, rather than fading. A president who in 1963 made a commitment to pursuing peace with the Soviet Union. A man with flaws, but also one with potential.
Of course, the DNC with its superdelegates has created a system to deny anyone like a JFK (or even RFK Jr.) any chance at securing the nomination. Only corporate stooges need apply. That has allowed a populist-fraud like Trump to emerge from the right, a billionaire who poses as a man of the people. That Trump’s claim is plausible to so many is a measure of how far the Democratic Party has fallen.
It’s already been a very long election cycle, and it’s only early June. Five more months of total BS to go, America.
Suella Braverman is a Tory MP in Britain. Here she debates a student about Gaza and the ongoing genocide there.
Watching this interview exposes the playbook of Western politicians and the media. It’s about accusing student protesters of antisemitism; of getting them to denounce Hamas; of asking them about Israel’s “right to exist”; of starting the debate with the Hamas attacks on October 7th. Those are the “facts” that matter to the Western media and politicians like Suella Braverman.
Fiona Lali, the student here, does a superb job of focusing on the facts that matter: the roughly 40,000 Palestinians already killed by Israel, the more than 100,000 wounded, the millions displaced from their homes, together with the Western policy of covering for Israel while sending them more weaponry to kill more Palestinians. Those facts don’t seem to matter to the mainstream media, and politicians are careful to ignore them or to dismiss them as “necessary” since Israel has “a right to defend itself.”
Apparently, Fiona Lali is associated with “the revolutionary communist party” and is a critic of capitalism. Perhaps the British establishment believed that she’d come across as a crazy radical. As you watch the interview, you realize Lali is the rational “conservative” in that she’s trying to conserve the lives of Palestinians while arguing for free speech and a system that doesn’t exploit the many for the benefit of a few.
I hope Lali is correct that the majority of Britons are against sending more weapons to Israel, though I doubt the Tories in Britain care here.
It’s rather incredible that this Tory MP argues there is no evidence of genocide in Gaza and that the real issue is antisemitism and Israel’s right to exist.
Bracing Views 