The Biden Problem

Because I tuned in late and initially caught only the last half of Thursday night's Democratic debate, I was very surprised hear pundits in its immediate aftermath describe Joe Biden's performance as "strong." I had been shocked at how disastrously Biden answered questions toward the end of the evening, particularly this question posed by Linsey Davis:

Mr. Vice President, I want to talk to you about inequality in schools and race. In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation, and I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” You said that some 40 years ago, but as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country? 

 To call Biden's answer to this question "incoherent" would be charitable. He rambled out some suggestions about early childhood intervention that were vague to the point of being cryptic, managing finally only to imply that African-American parents do not know how to raise their own children (readers may examine the full transcript under the link above and judge for themselves). At the very least the moment was an alarming indication of Biden's campaign stamina- if he folds that completely at the end of several hours on stage with fellow Democrats, what will happen over weeks and months exchanging body-blows with Donald Trump? But apart from the question of endurance, the exchange between Biden and Davis pointed to a more fundamental problem that will weaken any prospective Biden bid to defeat Trump.

I am not trying to imply here that Biden is a "racist." The problem is not that simple. Democrats are attracted to Joe Biden because, whatever subconscious biases or prejudices he (like the rest of us) may have, he is manifestly a man of depth, integrity, and humanity. His obvious dedication and loyalty to friends, family, community and nation is remarkable. His capacity to form profound and enduring friendships with political opponents and his courageous endurance in the face of personal tragedy are nothing short of inspirational. But his more than forty years of public life has left a record of policies and pronouncements (like the one quoted by Davis) that are out of step with current perceptions and values.

To be sure, statements like the one quoted by Davis say as much or more about the history of American society and politics as they do about the current state of Joe Biden's character. But the problem is not that Biden's past remarks reveal flaws or prejudices. The problem is with the way they will be used by the Trump campaign.

To understand why this is so one has to be clear about the political dynamics of a national election. Democrats who favor a Biden candidacy assume that presidential contests are driven largely by identity politics. Biden is, in this view, a strong candidate to face Trump because Biden neutralizes Trump's chief advantages: those who chose Trump over Hillary because he is a white man will no longer be so motivated.

But this assessment radically overestimates the importance of raw identity politics in a national contest. Such forces are powerful, yes, but identity is not destiny. Barack Obama, for example, did not win the presidency because he is African-American. His identity no doubt attracted many voters and increased turnout in many communities. But his victories (especially his re-election in the campaign against Mitt Romney) were as much a product of what he had to say about race as the mere fact of his racial identity.

Obama was the first candidate in more than twenty-five years to win the presidency with a clear majority of the popular vote, in part, because he talked about the problems of race in a way that was more candid and incisive than virtually any candidate before him. Many examples could be cited, but the most obvious was his speech about his one-time pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright.  By acknowledging his debt to Wright even as he repudiated many of Wright's prejudices, Obama cast the problem and tragedy of race and racism in terms that most Americans could understand.

It is a measure of just how fraught the issue is that Obama never perfectly satisfied pundits on any side of the political spectrum in this regard. The outraged Republican response was perhaps predictable, but even from the left he was persistently criticized for being overly moderate and conciliatory. From the perspective of the public at large, however, Obama could be seen by most voters as someone who was earnestly grappling with the legacy of racism, even if only imperfectly. Right or wrong, Obama had put himself forward on this issue and taken political risks. His implicit message was widely appealing: "Racism is wrong, we most oppose it, but it is complicated." A vote for Obama could thus be cast as one to do something about racial injustice, even if it was never entirely clear what that something should be. The urgency of this issue in the minds of a large portion of the electorate helped deliver Obama a majority.

Unfortunately for Democrats, not all of the dynamics entailed in the issue of race cut in their favor. Strident opposition to Obama was partly rooted in simple racism, but some of the forces that Obama unleashed in the development of his own political brand contributed to the rise of Donald Trump. Obama's candor on the issue of race engendered a strongly negative reaction in some white voters. They did not see a man grappling earnestly with the complex legacy of racism, but a hypocrite dealing in double-standards (this reaction is perhaps itself a product of bias, but one less overtly and consciously malicious than outright racism). Much of Donald Trump's hardest core of support derives from Trump's skill in giving voice to and channeling this resentment.

This is where Joe Biden is most vulnerable in any attempt to unseat Donald Trump. Trump, if matched against Biden, will no doubt pursue the same strategy that succeeded in securing him a narrowly technical electoral college victory against Hillary Clinton. A perfect storm of factors helped Trump in this feat, most of which (Russian interference, the Comey letter, the Clinton camp's own missteps) were not the product of his campaign's devising. But one proactive message that Trump's people broadcast with real effect was that of Hillary's supposed equivalency to Trump. Yes, so this story went, Trump is venal and corrupt, but so is Hillary. Yes, Trump lies. But so does Hillary. Since morally they are the same in all the ways that matter, voters should feel free in choosing the candidate that they prefer politically.

Surely many (if not most) voters  did not buy this yarn. It is difficult to know how many believed it, because their numbers are almost certainly not to be found in the tally of those who voted. Anyone who cared enough about the race to cast a vote in favor of either candidate probably would not have had their opinion changed by this kind of transparent ploy. But enough Democratic voters were demoralized by the idea that "a vote against Trump doesn't really matter that much" to give Trump a 77,000 vote margin of victory in three states.

This exact message will not work in a campaign against Joe Biden- no one will ever believe that Biden is the moral equivalent of Trump (Why Biden is not vulnerable in this way when Hillary was is a question that is too complicated to address here. Suffice it to say that some of it had to do with empirical facts, some of it had to do with larger forces such as gender). But Trump will be able to run an "equivalency con" on Biden with regard to race. "However bad Trump's statements on race may be (so this line of attack will go), Joe Biden has said things almost as bad. Democratic support of Biden over Trump is thus hypocrisy of a kind with Barack Obama's friendship with Jeremiah Wright. Democrats will forgive racism in those who agree with them, but use it to bludgeon those with whom they disagree."

It is precisely because race and racism remain such a highly charged and urgent issue in the minds of voters across the political spectrum that this tactic will have broad and deep effect, even more than the equivalency campaign waged against Hillary Clinton. Anyone who doubts this can take warning from the commentary of Anand Giridharadas, which helped inspire me to write this post. During the debate, for example, he tweeted:

Joe Biden's answer on how to address the legacy of slavery was appalling -- and disqualifying. It ended in a sermon implying that black parents don't know how to raise their own children. This cannot go on.

 Democrats may disagree about whether Biden's answer was "disqualifying" (or whether, as Giridharadas asserted later in that thread, "this...[is]...one of the most explicitly racist moments of all time in a Democratic primary debate"). But they must all realize and should take note, that if Joe Biden is the nominee, this type of angry commentary is likely to follow him through the entire general election campaign.

This will not be because Democrats lack unity in their opposition to Donald Trump. Indeed, if forced to bet good money on such a contingency, I would wager virtually any sum that Anand Giridharadas had voted "Biden" in a Biden-Trump contest. Why then, can we count on pundits like Giridharadas to continue to comment in this vein? Do they not understand how much this will help Trump wage an "equivalency campaign"? Do they really think that Biden is as racist as Trump?

Those asking such questions do not understand that what really matters is not what is going on privately in the spaces of a politician's mind, but what he or she can be taken to stand for in the public square. Barack Obama was determined and able, through moments like the Jeremiah Wright speech, to skillfully establish himself as a politician  willing to publicly tackle the complex issues of race with nuance and candor. Though this did attract much heated opposition, on balance it garnered him enough support to carry him to two outstanding electoral victories.

Trump, by contrast, squeaked into the Oval Office by making himself the unreconstructed icon of white resentment. This is the key to his most diehard support and the fuel of his most vehement opposition. Anyone who hopes to defeat Trump will have to maximize the liabilities that Trump's stance on race saddles him with and minimize the positive assets that he derives from his racist rhetoric.

In this regard, Joe Biden starts from a position of real disadvantage, and seems inclined to make his position worse. Whatever one believes about the contents of Biden's heart and mind, there can be little doubt that commentators like Giridharadas are right about the catastrophic inadequacy of his answer during Thursday's debate. The very incoherence of his response suggests that he does not understand or will not give sufficient credence to the particular urgency of this issue to his campaign. If he knew how important it was to get this kind of answer right, he could never get caught so flat-footed. But beyond the flaws of style and clarity, what actual content can be gleaned from Biden's answer is at best out of touch, at worst outright offensive.

However correct Democrats at large may be in their belief that Donald Trump must be defeated at all costs, it is not fair or realistic to expect public intellectuals like Anand Giridharadas that have dedicated their lives to struggling with questions of race to carry water for Joe Biden. The issue is much too complicated in its practical dimensions and much too important in essential terms. Some pundits may "pull their punches" in deference to practical realities, but if Biden performs through the general election campaign as he did on Thursday night, he will attract great volumes of scathing criticism, much of it from commentators who would otherwise be Democratic supporters. This will lend credence to a campaign to smear Biden as "almost as racist as Trump."

Will enough voters be swayed by such a campaign to give Trump another "hail Mary" win? It is difficult to say. Ironically, the rank-and-file voters least likely to be convinced by such tactics will most probably be African-Americans. Biden earned a great fund of affection and support among many African-American voters for being such a loyal and obviously supportive member of Barack Obama's administration. But politics is won at the margins, and Biden's vulnerability on race is bound to demoralize some Democratic voters, especially if he continues to perform as badly in this regard as he did Thursday night. Democratic primary voters attracted to Joe Biden for his purported "electability" should give some thought to this problem.