An Open Letter to President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

 

Dear President Biden,

 

                Like many Americans I have watched the disarray in the Democratic Party and in your campaign with dismay. You know that the stakes in this election are enormously high. If Donald Trump is elected in November, democracy in America will end, and our nation will careen toward catastrophe. I do not understand why the millions of Americans who plan to vote for Donald Trump do not understand this, but facts past and present make it clear.

                In that light, I would expect you to show more urgency than you have. You have been negligent in your duty to the voters, and that negligence continues. If the performance that you gave in the debate was the best that you possibly could have given, you should not have gotten on stage at all. It would have been better for you to plead illness, and let Donald Trump crow about how you were too old or sick to face him, than to present the image of fear and frailty we all saw on our television sets on June 27th.

The debate was an enormous opportunity. If you had appeared relaxed and jovial, it would not have mattered what you said. If the transcript of the debate were unchanged, but your demeanor had remained cheerful and your voice confident throughout, you would have been perceived as the winner, and Donald Trump’s campaign would be in freefall now. Instead, you handed him free corroboration of all the preposterous lies he has been telling about your health and fitness, so that now every time you misspeak the media seizes upon it as “proof” of your incapacitation. That is a trap of your own making, and it will not be easy to escape. Shame on you!

As disappointing as your debate performance was, your conduct since has arguably been just as bad, or worse. You have not in any way given the appearance of a man who knows how much trouble he has put the country in. An interview with George Stephanopoulos? A press conference? Those efforts at damage control were feeble. If you want to undo the harm of the debate, you must create an event that will draw as much viewership and media attention as it did, which will be almost impossible. Perhaps an open town hall in which you fielded questions from voters would create the right atmosphere of spectacle, but even that might prove inadequate.

The way that you have been communicating with the public makes you seem obtuse. Telling people that you will not withdraw from the race because “you have to finish the job you started” is simply not acceptable. This is not about you. This is about the country. The only reason anyone would want you to stay in the race is if they think it presents the best possibility of defeating Donald Trump. If you can make that case to the people (“anyone who might replace me would not be able to raise money fast enough,” “a fight over my replacement would split the Party”), fine. If not, you should withdraw.

In all honesty, from where I sit it seems too late for you to redeem your campaign. So many leading Democrats are showing such overt signs of demoralization. It appears that you have lost the confidence of your Party, and you cannot get it back.

While the case for your withdrawal grows ever stronger, it must be admitted that your withdrawal from the race will inevitably cause as many problems as it solves. If you do withdraw, you must do so quickly, and in a way that preserves the unity of the Party and lays the groundwork for victory in November. The most important principle to underscore is that you are not withdrawing because of Donald Trump. You were, you are, and you will ALWAYS be a better choice than Donald Trump. As a matter of plain fact, the people of the United States would be better served by leaving the office of the presidency vacant for four years than by electing Donald Trump, and it behooves you to say as much to the American people whether you withdraw from the race or not.

But if you do withdraw, it is vital that you stress the fundamental merit of your administration. Your health might prevent you from campaigning effectively, but the record of your accomplishments is clear. Vice President Kamala Harris is thus the only legitimate candidate who can replace you on the ballot. To pass her over in favor of anyone else would be to lend credence to the lies that Donald Trump persistently tells about your tenure in office. This should be your forceful message to the Democratic Party, in the event that you decide to withdraw.

Please think carefully about this, Mr. President. If you are going to stay in the race, start acting and talking as if you understand the emergency you have created. If you are going to leave the race, do so soon, and in a way that unifies and energizes the Democratic Party for the struggle to save our democracy.

Thank you for your attention to this letter. I hope that it finds you well.

 

Sincerely,

 

Andrew Meyer

 

Once Upon a Time, in an Alternate (and Sane) Universe

Jake Tapper:  Ladies and gentleman, good evening and welcome to the first presidential debate of the 2024 election. President Biden, first question to you. Inflation has slowed, but prices remain high. What would you say to voters who feel they are worse off under your presidency?

Joe Biden: That’s a good question, Jake, but before I answer it there is business to clear up.

(Turns to Trump)

Donald, will you finally tell the truth and admit that you lost the 2024 election fair and square?

Trump:  What? Huh? That’s against the rules! He’s not allowed to ask me any direct questions!

Joe Biden: Rules? You are gonna give a lecture about rules? What a bunch of malarkey! Answer the question, Donald! It is long past time that you told the truth!

Trump:  You know that election was rigged!

Joe Biden: Don’t tell me what I know, asshole. I know that you are a disgrace to the office you once held.

(Turns to Tapper)

Jake, there is no point debating a man whose whole candidacy is premised on a lie. I’ll be back at the White House if anybody needs me.

(Walks off stage)

Tapper: Wait! Uh….ladies and gentlemen….uh…..

****FIVE MONTHS LATER*******

Tapper:  Ladies and gentlemen, the polls have only just closed in California, but our projection desk is ready to call this a landslide for the Biden-Harris campaign. It was close until June, but after Biden simply spanked Trump in June’s debate, the country seemed to wake up from its walking coma and realize that Trump is just a worthless sack of…..

Stale Bread vs. Cyanide

 

It was a stunning debate last Thursday, June 27. But its aftermath was even more shocking. For 90 minutes we heard one of the candidates lie breathlessly and repeatedly, declaring (to name just a few examples) that constitutional scholars universally desired the repeal of Roe v. Wade, Nancy Pelosi confessed to responsibility for the January 6 terrorist attacks, and undocumented workers are receiving social security. In the wake of such monstrous assaults on reason and decency by Donald Trump, an authority as venerable as The New York Times editorial board called upon his opponent to withdraw from the race. What an age of wonders we live in.

What did Joe Biden do that so offended The New York Times? He looked old and tired. He had trouble rushing to finish his thoughts in two minutes, and was unprepared for the sheer level of poisonous bullshit that spewed from his opponent's mouth. 

Still, for a man who had to overcome a childhood stutter and has always been prone to gaffes, Biden got off some impressively coherent assertions. He pulled out a campaign staple: the 400 billionaires who live in the US pay an effective tax rate of 8.2%, If that could be raised to be on par with the 25% effective tax rate most people bear, the US could raise $500 billion in revenue. You can disagree with those numbers (and many economists do), but you must admit that anyone who can recite them from memory under hot lights and enormous pressure looks like he has pretty good command of his faculties. 

The cable news shows have continuously  replayed the end of the segment I cited in the last paragraph. In that snippet, Biden mumbles something about "when we broke Medicare" and trails off as his time runs out. But that is not the effects of age or dementia. That's just Joe Biden. The guy who back in the 1980's was such a poor public speaker that he had to plagiarize the speeches of Neil Kinnock, head of the UK Labor Party.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is waging an all-out assault on the foundations of our democracy. That is clear from many signs ("Find me 11,000 votes," January 6, "Project 2025," "I will be a dictator on day one...," etc.), but was reinforced during the last debate. Some of his lies were not viciously toxic, just totally disqualifying. Any person who doesn't understand that the principle of "the buck stops here" precludes shunting responsibility for January 6 onto Nancy Pelosi doesn't belong anywhere near the Resolute Desk. But all of the toxic horseshit about how undocumented immigrants are bankrupting Social Security and Medicare is pure fascism. Trump needs one half of the country to feel it is at war with the other half. Otherwise Trump's fecklessness and lies would not stand a chance against anyone with any knowledge, experience, or sense of decency. 

 What The New York Times and others don't seem to understand is that Trump is not waging a campaign against any particular candidate. He is waging a campaign against our system of democracy itself. That is why his story about Joe Biden now is the same as his story about Hilary Clinton then: "S/he is crooked! S/he serves a rigged system! Oh, and by the way s/he is unwell and not up to the job of serving a crooked system!" 

People find it difficult to believe that Trump is campaigning against democracy itself because he is such a boorish character. How could such a clown have any ideological beliefs? But one doesn't have to believe that Trump is ideological to understand that he is out to break the system. Whatever his personal beliefs may be (and I am not inclined to think that he has any), he is smart enough to see that he does not have the knowledge, skills or temperament to be the president of a democracy. So he must break the democratic system. He set out to do it in 2020, and he will finish the job beginning in 2025 if he is re-elected.

Trump's followers by and large know that the destruction of the system is the end game. They have various reasons for wanting to see the system destroyed. Some want a theocracy in place of our secular democracy. Some want to see white supremacy written into law. Some have endured brutal economic hardship (seeing their local economies destroyed by technology or globalization) and believe that any system would be better than the one we have now. Whatever their grievance, they will never trust anyone who speaks against Trump, who has become the embodiment of their rage. Biden could have done handsprings and recited Jabberwocky from memory and Trump's supporters would still deem him too old, and crooked to boot.

The idea that replacing Biden will increase the Democrats' chances against Trump is dubious. Trump will begin to tell lies about his new opponent. He is not very imaginative, so many of these lies will be the same. It will be interesting to learn how someone 30-40 years Biden's junior is nonetheless too infirm to be president, but Fox News will find the footage to demonstrate that. Moreover, because it was never about Biden, it was about the system, all of the lies that Trump tells about that new opponent will land with virtually the same impact as those he is telling now.

What can the Democrats do? Biden is still their best candidate. He may look old, but the choice between him and Trump is like the choice between a stale piece of bread and a cyanide tablet. Anyone who prefers the cyanide tablet to the stale bread is going to be dubiously persuadable even if you offer them a nice fresh croissant. 

The strangest thing in the wake of this debate is the enthusiasm for the candidacy of someone like Gavin Newsom. The impulse to appease Trump's voters is shockingly resilient. Never mind that the Democrats nominated a conservative white man in 2020 who the Trumpkins proceeded to paint as the devil incarnate, if we only give them a slightly younger version this time, they will be mollified!

The only person who could possibly replace Biden on the ticket is Kamala Harris. If Biden withdraws in favor of Harris, the story that he did so only because of his age remains plausible. If Biden withdraws in favor of anyone else, the Trump campaign and the right wing media will crow continuously (and until November) about how Biden's withdrawal constitutes a "confession" that his was the "worst, most corrupt administration of all time." 

This is not to suggest that Trump would not say the same thing about Biden withdrawing in favor of Harris. He will say that and other lies, and  a Harris campaign (as would be so in a Newsom campaign, or any other)  would find itself struggling in the polls just as Biden is now. Such difficulties might be partly offset if Harris made a bold choice for her running mate, like Gretchen Whitmer. Watching Trump try to run against two women might almost be worth the risk of seeing Biden withdraw. But in any case, the idea that Biden's age poses a greater threat to the Republic than the walking tornado of toxic shit named Donald Trump is patently ridiculous.

An Open Letter to Students Protesting the Gaza War

 

Dear Students,

 

      I am a middle-aged college professor now, but I was an undergraduate like you once, and passionately involved in student activism. In my day there were two issues that moved us most to action: the campaigns to divest from South Africa and to oppose the US government’s sponsorship of the Nicaraguan “Contras.” I participated in both, and in one protest during my freshman year was arrested for sitting in at the office of the Governor of Rhode Island (who had ordered a contingent of the Rhode Island Air National Guard to Honduras, to participate in military exercises widely perceived as an act of intimidation against the Nicaraguan government).

       I respect your passion, and I sympathize with your cause. Like you I feel that there should be a cease fire in Gaza. I understand and admire your efforts to put pressure on those in power to achieve that goal.

       Much of what I see in your movement, however, distresses me. The rhetoric being used by some of the leaders of your movement is offensive (for example, “Burn Tel Aviv to the ground,” a chant that I saw on video being intoned by a crowd of students outside of the gate to Columbia University). But if the problem were purely rhetorical, I would not be so concerned.

       There are substantive complexities of the situation for which your movement as a whole is not, to the extent that I can see, accounting. The fight for divestment in South Africa and against “Contra Aid,” respectively, put my generation of activists at least tacitly on the side of the African National Congress and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. This was a moral choice that we made with open eyes. Both the ANC and the Sandinistas had engaged in political violence, but neither group, from the perspective of their international supporters, had forfeited the authority to advocate for the people of South Africa and Nicaragua against those who oppressed them.

        The same cannot be said about Hamas. The atrocities of 10/7 involved a level of nihilistic cruelty and gratuitously obscene violence that cannot be justified by any appeal to the rights or interests of “the people.”  Hamas are among the worst kinds of criminals: those who justify their obscenities in the name of God. The people of Gaza themselves know this. In surveys only 38% of Gazans express support for the continued leadership of Hamas when this war finally ends. It is truly remarkable, given all the Gazans have suffered, that Hamas enjoys less support in Gaza than either major political party does here in the US.

                These facts are crucial for you to consider, because your movement has no hopes of making a positive impact if you are in any way “pro-Hamas.” This does not operate as a matter of perception…I am not asking you to consider what politicians or university administrators or even the general public “thinks” of you. Hamas is at the root of the problem that you are confronting. The people of Gaza need to be free of Hamas as much or more than the citizens of Israel do. Unless your movement is as much “anti-Hamas” as it is “pro-cease fire” or “anti-Netanyahu government (a conviction that I share with you most ardently),” your chances of aiding the people of Gaza are very slim.

                Another problem I perceive in your movement is the use of the word “Zionist.” It is very common to hear those speaking on behalf of the movement characterize their opponents as “Zionists.” This is a mistake. For example, I am a Zionist, and I am not your opponent. But the problem runs deeper than that.

                Much attention is paid to the question of what will happen to the people of Palestine in the wake of this war. That concern is absolutely legitimate, and advocates of a cease fire are right to point out that the lack of any plan for the future of the Palestinian people has delegitimized the campaign being conducted by Israel in Gaza. But such questions apply equally to everyone concerned with this problem. What will happen to the Jews of Israel-Palestine in the wake of this war?

                Such a question might seem odd, but it arises naturally from any contention that the opponents of your movement include all “Zionists.” Do you see a future in which the more than seven million Jews who live in Israel-Palestine continue to live there? If so, you are effectively a “Zionist.”  There is as much diversity of political opinion among Zionists as one may find among “Democrats” or “Republicans.” Some Zionists have insisted that Jews must have a sovereign state in which they are the majority. But other Zionists (such as Albert Einstein or Henrietta Szold, the founder of Hadassah) have advocated only for a Jewish “homeland” in Israel-Palestine, where Jews would gather in large numbers but in which they would share power equally with the non-Jewish Arabs who would be their co-citizens. Though such Zionists are in the minority in Israel today, they continue to participate in Israeli politics. Thus, any scenario in which Jews remain in their current homes is effectively a “Zionist” future…the only question being “Zionism of which kind?”

                 This is important because anyone who says that they oppose all Zionists risks being interpreted as advocating for the expulsion of all Jews from Israel-Palestine, which of course would be a form of obscene antisemitism. A movement built on such shaky foundations stands little chance of political success. For your efforts to really bear fruit for the people of Gaza, it is imperative to clarify that you do not support Hamas, and you do not view all Zionists as your opponents.

                I am left in an ambivalent position. I have seen counter-protestors waving Israeli flags in opposition to your movement. I cannot join them, because like you I believe that the Netanyahu government has forfeited all legitimacy in their conduct of this war. At the same time, however, I cannot in good conscience come stand with you. Until it is made clear that you stand against Hamas, and do not view all Zionists as your opponents, I cannot add my voice to yours. Instead I offer this letter as my contribution to your cause. I hope, if you read it, that you perceive in it my earnest hope to be of help to your work.

 

                                            Sincerely,

 

                                            Andrew Meyer

                                            Professor of History

                                       Brooklyn College

MAGA Extremists Will Become MUCH More Violent if Trump Wins

 

A new movie, Civil War, purports to explore a potential future in which the United States dissolves into fratricidal violence. All indications are that the film (which I have not seen) is critically sophisticated and thought-provoking. Michelle Goldberg, writing in the New York Times, notes that “it’s not a stretch to interpret the film as a premonition of how a seething, entropic country could collapse...”

 

As Goldberg is right to point out, the specter of political violence hangs heavily over the US. It is no longer an abstraction or hypothetical. Assaults such as those on Stephen Scalise and Paul Pelosi, to say nothing of the terrorist attacks of January 6, 2021, have engendered a climate of tension and fear.

 

But for all the very real tragedy that has already transpired and the genuine cause for apprehension as we face the future, it is important that we remain clearly analytical about what is likely to happen moving forward. There is a real danger that political violence will escalate, but the general sense of how and why that would occur is misguided. Most people worry about the potential for violence by MAGA extremists if Donald Trump loses the election this coming November. But a sharp escalation of political violence in the event of Trump’s defeat is highly unlikely. Rather, a surge of political violence by MAGA extremists is almost certain in the event of Trump’s victory.

 

Predicting what violence is likely to occur if Trump loses does not require occult powers or mysterious calculations. We only have to consult the record of what happened the last time that Trump lost an election. For all of Trump’s warnings of a “bloodbath” in the event of his defeat in 2024, the aftermath of the 2020 election all but proves that such dire prognostications are not likely to pay out.

 

There was violence after November 2020, but it peaked on January 6, 2021. The terrorist mobs that stormed the Capitol wounded police officers and suffered fatalities, and in the immediate wake of that awful day a frenzy of expectation developed among the fascist militias who had been most instrumental in the atrocities of January 6. Posters appeared everywhere calling for Trump’s supporters to “refuse to be silenced” and to join an “armed march on the Capitol and on all state capitals” scheduled for January 17, 2021.

 

Initially there seemed to be real reason to fear that January 17 would be another terrible day. But in the wake of the ratification of Joe Biden as President Elect it became clear that all of our sovereign institutions, from the Congress to the military to governors' mansions in all fifty states, would stand firm in support of the legitimate transfer of power. Knowing that any armed provocation would be met with a lethal response, fascist terrorists took the better part of valor on January 17, 2021. The day was not “silent,” but the loudest sounds of protest came from crickets.

 

What is most important to note in using January 17, 2021 as a gauge to predict what will happen after the election of 2024 is the fact that at that time Donald Trump was still president of the United States. Despite the fact that their Dear Leader was still Commander-in-Chief and possessed of the full powers of the presidency, fascist extremists remained in their hidey-holes on the single day when their violent assaults might have made the biggest impact on the nation’s psyche. If they did not go on the rampage then, how likely is it that they will do so while Joe Biden is not only the sitting President, but has been given another four years in office?

 

Any fears that violence will attend Trump’s defeat are rooted in an exaggerated estimation of his supporters' political convictions. Even the most extreme fascists in Trump’s coalition know that he is an utterly corrupt and incompetent clown. Dying to keep that man in office while he was still there was not worthwhile. Dying for the slim chance that you could somehow force him back into office over the will of the voters will be even less motivating.

 

If Trump wins the 2024 election, however, the entire motivational structure of Trump’s most extreme supporters changes. With Trump coming into office the impetus for fascist extremists to engage in acts of terror will be irresistible. Again, this is predictable because the fascists themselves are not fools. They know exactly what kind of venal grifter they are dealing with in Trump.

 

Committing acts of terror (say, assaulting a Planned Parenthood Clinic or a meeting of Campus Democrats) as Joe Biden is leaving office (or shortly after Trump has been sworn in) will force Trump to choose. Will he uphold the “rule of law” and risk alienating his base supporters, or will he remain true to the “war of us versus them” rhetoric that has propelled his political rise since 2015, and use his power to help effect “retribution” on “those animals” as he consistently promises on the campaign trail? Trump himself has little interest in any questions of governance, so the only way that fascists can guarantee that government power will be used against the “wrong people” will be to begin assaulting those people in the early stages of Trump’s second term, and force him to show the world where he stands.

 

That is the juncture at which we here in the US have arrived as a nation. If Joe Biden is elected, the specter of political violence may not go away immediately, but it will begin to recede. If Trump is elected, the political violence we have seen until now will barely qualify as a beginning. In that event, everyone should watch closely and take heed. If the full power of the US government falls into the hands of the fascist terrorists who engineered January 6, this country will not be a safe place for anyone possessed of an independent mind or a decent civic conscience.