Reblogged:A Biden Exit Strategy

[Gus Van Horn blog]

Writing at the Atlantic, Graeme Wood offers a way for President Biden to preserve his dignity, demonstrate that his horrible debate performance was a fluke, and offer his party a way out if he can't do the second:

Image by BOOM, via Pexels, license.

Having harvested enough delegates for the nomination, he now has sole authority to release them and let them choose another nominee at or before the Democratic National Convention in August. To release them and glide toward retirement would invite speculation about whether being unfit to run for president means he is also unfit to serve as president for the rest of his term. Failure to release them would feel a lot like Biden is holding the party hostage, and forcing its members to defend his debility with such preposterous vigor that no one will believe anything they say ever again.

The dignity-preserving option is to release the delegates and run in an open convention. Asking the country to trust him is no longer a credible option. But inviting delegates to witness his continued vigor and competence, and his superiority to other candidates, is a possible path forward -- indeed, the likeliest one to end in another Biden term. He would have to give a speech to explain this choice. It might go something like this: You saw me looking old. For the next month you'll see much younger Democrats and Republicans eating my dust. And if in August, my party thinks this old man is ready for retirement, I'll be thrilled to finish my term, support the nominee, and work on my golf handicap come January. [emphasis in original]

It is with great relief I read this piece: It reminds me somewhat of the one Charles Krauthammer wrote back in '05 when Bush II's nomination of the manifestly unqualified Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court looked like an unstoppable train wreck.

Back then, Krauthammer offered a way out that spared everyone's blushes and led to the less-bad Samuel Alito being appointed to the Supreme Court.

Obviously, I am of the mind that Biden's poor performance was no fluke, and that the Democrats need to replace him, hopefully with someone who isn't Kamala Harris.

I am no Democrat, but with the Republicans becoming just another big government party under Trump, I cannot help but cheer the following sentiment at the close of Wood's column:

And Biden will either continue or conclude his career with a fight. I predict he will lose it, and badly. In some ways that would be the ideal outcome for him, too: to lose by invigorating his party; to lose by picking a fight instead of dodging one; to avoid the fate of winning and then spending the next few years being publicly monitored for drooling and signs of disorientation. Dignity is a choice, but not a choice that remains available forever. [bold added]

I am pessimistic that a reinvigorated Democratic Party would necessarily be a good thing in and of itself, although it's not impossible.

My best hope would be for a candidate capable of walloping Trump, a weak candidate, and causing the GOP to do some real soul-searching.

Both of our political parties are under the thumbs of their worst, anti-liberty factions. A shakeup of one or both just about can't help but result in an improvement.

-- CAV

Link to Original

[Reidy]

Tracinski has put forth a similar suggestion: that Biden pull out in favor of a stronger Democrat and make himself a forever model of magnanimity and patriotism. Tracinski invokes the examples of Washington refusing to pull a military coup and refusing a third term, and Burr ceding to his enemy Jefferson in order to keep Burr out of the presidency.

One problem is that the Democrats don't have anybody who'd be sure to beat Trump. In the polls I've seen, the usual backups - Newsom, Whitmer, Buttigeig and so on - all come in at least five points behind. Michelle Obama is the only one who beats him, and she isn't available.

[tadmjones]

I can see the arguments that make this idea a possible plus for Biden, pluses he would need to get even a positive let alone superlative rating as far as history is concerned about his 'career'. But I remain flummoxed on the assertions that Trump is/was a threat to the Republic( to say nothing for good reason about 'the' democracy).

There is no O'ist Republic or economy , so as standard Trump not meeting those types are unwarranted, I just would like one example of this obvious and apparent threat. My suspicions are that 'anti' Trumpism is an effect of the same cause that lead to seemingly intelligent people being able to swallow all the covid bs. Surely the explanation for the correlation isn't as simple as emotional responses to propaganda, but it certainly looks that way.

[Reidy]

Correction to my previous: Hamilton, not Burr, stepped aside for Jefferson.

[DavidOdden]

4 hours ago, tadmjones said:

There is no O'ist Republic or economy , so as standard Trump not meeting those types are unwarranted, I just would like one example of this obvious and apparent threat.

There isn’t any serious doubt that Trump is a threat to the American way of life, the best counter-argument in his favor would be that he is no more of a threat than Biden or Harris. By comparison to previous Republican nominees for president, Trump is so bad that he is at least as bad as the previously-presumptive Democrat nominee and current occupant of the office, and then the argument can proceed to the effect that he is actually worse.

This is where it matters what you think the job of POTUS is. Would Trump be better at running the country? Is that what the president is actually supposed to do? Will he increase oil and gas production in the US, and is that what POTUS is supposed to do? Is it good for the US to impose trade restrictions on China and in general to return to a tariff-driven anti-import economy?

A few things stand out as significant w.r.t. a Trump re-presidency. He has a certifiably xenophobic anti-immigration agenda, and will clearly pursue a policy of blocking foreigners from entering the US. This is a flagrantly un-American stance, moreover, his earlier failed Muslim ban was plainly unconstitutional, which goes to the question of whether he is tempermentally suited to be the chief custodian of US law. In balancing the interests of the US in terms of foreign policy, he has demonstrated an unthinkable level of support for the fascist dictators of Russia and North Korea and a shocking animosity towards our allies in NATO, who would be vital to defending the interests of the US against aggressor nations.

Although I do not believe that his weak efforts to engineer a coup d’etat on January 6 rise to the level of crime, his actions unambiguously show his contempt for the law. Paired with the recent court ruling that POTUS is above the law in a special way, we can not assume that he will act in accordance with the law, if his whims tell him to act differently. Which brings us to another potential threat of a Trump presidency.

POTUS appoints new Supreme Court justices, and there is some possibility that Thomas will need replacing under the next president (especially from a voluntary retirement based on Thomas’ assessment that the subsequent POTUS will be a hard-left extremist, so better to fall on a sword held by a softer-left president like Trump than… Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or AOC. For some reason, Democrat presidents have been better at figuring out which jurists are more in-line with their own legal and political theories (e.g. O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter). The only thing worse than a 4-year POTUS with Trump’s view of the law would be a lifetime appointment of a Trump-like justice. The most we could hope for would be (1) he doesn’t get the opportunity or (2) he is as wrong in is assessment of judicial candidates as Bush I was about Souter.

It is a crap shoot especially since the pig in the other poke might turn out to be a goat, or a rabid dog. Whereas previous presidents (at least in my lifetime) have had the moral character that precludes them overthrowing the government, I see no positive moral character inside Trump, no restraint that keeps the American government on track as an American government. If, in addition, he takes the House and Senate, no forces of government can constrain his desire to rule America the way he sees fit.

 

[tadmjones]

Congress sets the immigration 'agenda' and the chief executive is responsible for carrying out the strictures. Trump's political rhetoric around the immigration issue was/is in response to how executive branch administrations prosecute or fail to prosecute what the legislature has defined as legal implementation of immigration policy.

"Muslim ban" is pure political rhetoric about a policy regarding different classes of visa holders. The EO was in response to things like the San Bernardino attack and the subsequent Florida nightclub attack, grounded in the idea that perpetrators of such attacks were able to manipulate lax vetting procedures centered around certain countries to gain entrance into the country. It only called for a temporary halt of certain visas. The charges of 'xenophobia' were successful social media and broadcast media campaigns. Get a hashtag to trend and boom actual protesters show up at airports, it was a proof of concept test, really seemed like a an organic public response didn't it?

Tracinski's defense of Biden's initial candidacy as a response to "Charlottesville" is proof that he is one of those taken in by the propaganda, the 'fine people' hoax was proven to be a hoax based on highly editted footage of Trump. The same type of people who thought Trump could be beholden to Russia if 'they got him elected', that very idea is ridiculous yet 'credible' people assigned undue credence.

In his article he cites 'un-named' former Trump officials opining on the SCOTUS 'immunity' ruling as granting Trump and future presidents the ability to use the DoJ to target individuals for political purposes and get away with it, he doesn't mention that the same ruling just saved Biden's ass 'and' any officials within the DoJ who participated, not to mention Obama's for droning US citizens ex-country.

The same "thinking" has people believing themselves that Trump is a Nazi and wants to rule as King. But do they reconcile that with the idea that he is a buffoon who can't even successfully orchestrate a coup? Why didn't he just postpone the election? Any self respecting would be dictator that could install himself leader of the world's largest power would have, no ?

  He had demonstrable public support, the 'ramble' came out in the midst of the plague in tens of thousands for rallies all over the country , but 81 million votes cast for Biden in the midst of unprecedented election procedural changes won the day? lol

Safe and effective! Slava Ukrani! Some women have penises! Rioting and burning are as American as writing your congressman! lol

Mask up and roll up your sleeve, it's what the intellectuals do ,lol

 

[DavidOdden]

I’m glad to see that you agree that the best interpretation of Trump is “just as bad as the alternative(s)”, and that there is nothing good about another Trump term. It is true that “Muslim ban” is political rhetoric which Trump first created and which was essential to his first election “success”. Remember 2015: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on”. Everyone then adopted his term. It’s political rhetoric just as “Stop the Steal”, “MAGA”, “Buy American, Hire American”, “Drain the Swamp”, “Build the Wall and Crime Will Fall”, “I will make Mexico pay for that wall” and his various “hoax” memes are all political rhetoric.

I am also glad that you acknowledge that the SCOTUS immunity ruling is an existential threat to individual rights (you didn’t mention that it was enabled by the tragedy that Trump appointed three ‘justices’ who bear responsibility for that expansion of presidential power. It is good that you recognize that Trump is a buffoon, but that is not the problematic fact. The problem is that he is a totally unprincipled and unthinking buffoon.

[tadmjones]

Congress legislates laws, the Executive prosecutes the laws and the Court discriminates the adjudication of the laws. Are you claiming the rivalrous system of 'checks and balances' is insufficient to thwart assigning of ex-legal power to any one branch?

This Court's decision found 'more' power for the executive by an erroneous reading of the Constitution, or that the Court was manipulated into creating a power that doesn't exist in any reading of the Constitution? ( would this be an example of the dangers of unprincipled unthinking buffoons whose actions just happen to fall in their favor by coincidence?)

Edited July 10, 2024 by tadmjones

[tadmjones]

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

In his article he cites 'un-named' former Trump officials opining on the SCOTUS 'immunity' ruling as granting Trump and future presidents the ability to use the DoJ to target individuals for political purposes and get away with it, he doesn't mention that the same ruling just saved Biden's ass 'and' any officials within the DoJ who participated, not to mention Obama's for droning US citizens ex-country.

 

 

OOps forgot, Bush and Clinton too ! Sorry didn't mean 'dis' Carter but his seems to be the least jeopardy

Edited July 10, 2024 by tadmjones

[necrovore]

18 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Will he increase oil and gas production in the US, and is that what POTUS is supposed to do?

This seems like a curious inversion. Trump's goal here is to lift the regulations that are preventing people from producing oil and gas. (He should be able to do that, since the regulations were created by the executive branch under Biden in the first place, and not by Congress.) Is that now "interventionism," where "laissez-faire" would now consist of leaving the regulations as they are?

The bureaucracy under Biden has tried everything to ban the use of oil and gas, on ideological grounds alone, and that somehow is what the POTUS is supposed to do? Seems like worse than a double-standard here: if the administration puts in senseless regulations, that's just to be expected, but if another administration tries to take them out, that's "not what the POTUS is supposed to do!"

18 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Although I do not believe that his weak efforts to engineer a coup d’etat on January 6 rise to the level of crime

I've said before that this was not a plan organized by Trump or his supporters; it was set up by the Democrats in order to help them consolidate their power. Although I don't regard this idea as proved, there's still enough evidence for it to regard it as likely -- and importantly, there is nothing against it, nothing that would prevent it (or would have prevented it) from being true. The fake Congressional "show trial" committee and the way it was run is further evidence, and the cases against Trump in the justice system now are even more evidence.

18 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

his earlier failed Muslim ban was plainly unconstitutional, which goes to the question of whether he is temperamentally suited to be the chief custodian of US law.

It seems like most of the policies Trump supports are typical "conservative" policies (which is not to say they are correct), and attributing his policies to his personality seems like veering into psychologizing. If someone else had the exact same policies, or if a whole political party had them, wouldn't that make them "temperamentally unsuitable" too?

It also seems strange that Biden's "temperament" isn't subject to any condemnation, no matter what he does. For example, if he uses the Department of Justice to go after anybody who dares to support his opponent for President.

----

Some people, including Supreme Court Justices, seem to think that if something bad about the government cannot be proven true, it must therefore be false, and there is no room for the "possible" or the "probable." They think that if a claim cannot be proven true, it has to be rejected, along with all the actual evidence that suggests it's "possible." So in essence they are claiming that "possible" and "arbitrary" are synonyms.

Some people go further and say that, if you have an emotion about the "possible," such as righteous indignation about an injustice that is likely to be occurring, the conclusion must have come from your emotions, and should also be rejected to avoid "emotionalism." [This "emotionalism" claim is the opposite of the truth, since the emotion actually came from the "possible" conclusion, which was prior, and the recognition of its implications].

That kind of thinking is bad epistemology and leads to bad outcomes. In cases where tyranny is possible, it makes sense to take appropriate action that would make it not possible; this is exactly the kind of logic that caused the Constitution to be written in the first place, and why the Constitution seeks to prevent injustices even without proving specifically that those injustices have actually occurred. However, nobody in the establishment wants to take action against "possible" abuses of power, because they are the ones in power and they don't want any limitations on it.

On the other hand they see nothing wrong with limiting what sort of action is "possible" to private citizens (or Trump, whom they regard as a private citizen who "isn't one of them" and therefore shouldn't be President). With private citizens, the opposite logic is used; any hint of a possible crime or even an error on the part of a private citizen is enough grounds to take that citizen's freedom away and also the freedom of anybody else who might have that capability.

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

Edited July 10, 2024 by necrovore

[DavidOdden]

50 minutes ago, necrovore said:

This seems like a curious inversion. Trump's goal here is to lift the regulations that are preventing people from producing oil and gas. (He should be able to do that, since the regulations were created by the executive branch under Biden in the first place, and not by Congress.) Is that now "interventionism," where "laissez-faire" would now consist of leaving the regulations as they are?

The role of the government is to protect rights, not to increase domestic protection of products by economic intervention. Taking government hands off the economy is a virtue, increasing domestic production is not. I assume you understand the difference. Laissez-faire means removing the regulations, I’m looking for the evidence that Trump supports laissez faire capitalism and not “anti-foreign interventionism”. Name the specific regulation, show me how it is not a direct implementation of what Congress mandated. Show me the evidence that Trump will only address restriction on capitalism, rather than direct support of US businesses.

There is a separate question that spins off from your support of Trump’s executive behavior. Fortunately, SCOTUS already handed him his ass over his interventionism in the economy, regarding his order to force herring fishermen to pay for their own economic deaths. The demise of Chevron does potentially restore individual rights which he would otherwise infringe. The other more subtle yet important question for Objectivists is how great a virtue objective law is. Although many Objectivists support the rule of law over arbitrary individual dictates, we generally support only laws that protect individual rights, and as far as I can see, Congress has passed no laws that protect individual rights for over a half century. So is it okay to ignore the law if it is for a just cause? Should POTUS be given the power to write laws, ignoring what Congress does (NB that is the definition of a dictatorship)? What we need is not a president who plans to ignore the law, we need a Congress that is willing to correct errors of law.

Trumps policies are indeed “just typical conservative ideology”, but not even traditional Reagan conservatism, it is patently un-American neocon policy. And yes, we are rapidly approaching that ultimate inversion, where the government can do anything it wants, under the orders of the Glorious Leader, who rules by brute force. The last vestiges of rule-by-law are being constantly eroded, and Trump is most eager to accelerate this obliteration of rule-by-law in favor of his brilliant executive insights.

[tadmjones]

"Chevron" argh those Trump justices only out to help US business individuals by cutting unjust regulatory practices, what menaces, the madness needs to end before it begins again.

[Boydstun]

The US Supreme Court in 2023 firmed up the bridle on the rising Republican tide to override elections as determined by the voters in this one, but dropped the reins on Presidental power in this one. 

It is quite possible, I'd estimate, for Pres. Biden to continue to make informed and deliberated decisions in the Presidency so long as he is still in good listening to advisors and getting help with assists from people close to him in ferrying him through failures of working memory such as were on chronic display at his debate with Mr. Trump. At the national convention, if not sooner, he needs to withdraw from the contest and throw his support to his VP, who was being also voted for by those who were voting for him in the primary elections. Harris and her running mate might very well defeat Trump and his and to a clear degree (if you win by 5% in the popular vote, you will have enough electoral votes to win for sure). For all I can see. I don't mean to make a prediction of such a race: for all I know, either side might win by a landslide on the order of Nixon v. McGovern. Moral character of the candidates (and hopefully, policies) would still be issues getting attention in the race, but cognitive decline of the Democratic candidate for President would fall to the floor.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

At least Wilson's and Reagan's administrations had the decency to hide it from view. King FDR had better and excusable reason.

[DavidOdden]

On the contrary, SCOTUS did not care whether the Trump restrictions on trade were unfair or anti-capitalist, they only cared that Trump invented a trade restriction that was not authorized by Congress, and they said “You cannot do that”, moreover of greater significnce thy affirmed a principle, that POTUS is not entitled to write his own laws. Sometimes SCOTUS makes a correct ruling, sometimes it is wrong. I can’t say the same about Trump’s regulations. As I said, Trump is the bigger menace, I didn’t say that there are no other menaces.

[Jon Letendre]

56 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

It is quite possible, I'd estimate, for Pres. Biden to continue to make informed and deliberated decisions in the Presidency so long as he is still in good listening to advisors and getting help with assists from people close to him in ferrying him through failures of working memory such as were on chronic display at his debate with Mr. Trump. 

I.e., it is possible for Biden to continue and everything be fine so long as people not he (who no one voted for) do all the information, deliberation and memory stuff.

Edited July 10, 2024 by Jon Letendre

[tadmjones]

36 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

On the contrary, SCOTUS did not care whether the Trump restrictions on trade were unfair or anti-capitalist, they only cared that Trump invented a trade restriction that was not authorized by Congress, and they said “You cannot do that”, moreover of greater significnce thy affirmed a principle, that POTUS is not entitled to write his own laws. Sometimes SCOTUS makes a correct ruling, sometimes it is wrong. I can’t say the same about Trump’s regulations. As I said, Trump is the bigger menace, I didn’t say that there are no other menaces.

Are you talking about a legal challenge to Trump's import tariff on steel ?

The recent "Chevron" ruling was a knock against regulatory authority of the administrative state, but from what I think I remember the Court refused to hear a challenge to steel tariff, so not sure what you mean ?

[DavidOdden]

1 minute ago, tadmjones said:

Are you talking about a legal challenge to Trump's import tariff on steel ?

I am talking of the successful challenge to Trump's decision to impose a cost of enforcing restrictions on free enterprise, without Congressional authorization, on herring fishermen.

[tadmjones]

The Loper Bright Enterprise v Raimondo suit ? Isn't she Biden's Sec of Commerce ?

[necrovore]

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

I am talking of the successful challenge to Trump's decision to impose a cost of enforcing restrictions on free enterprise, without Congressional authorization, on herring fishermen.

Did Trump personally authorize this? Or was it somebody further down in the administration?

[DavidOdden]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

The Loper Bright Enterprise v Raimondo suit ? Isn't she Biden's Sec of Commerce ?

When you sue the government, the defendant is always the current enforcing cabinet member, the regulation was created by the Trump administration effective 2020. POTUS always bears responsibility for the actions of his secretaries. As Truman said, the buck stops there.

[necrovore]

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

POTUS always bears responsibility for the actions of his secretaries. As Truman said, the buck stops there.

Yeah, but if the President has thousands of secretaries who take actions every day, and they have to do so without asking about those actions (since the President is only one person and there are a great many secretaries and actions), and one of those actions proves to be wrong, that's hardly indicative of the President's "temperament."

This bureaucracy is something the President inherited, and he will of course inherit it again. I hope he can do something to reduce its size and/or power, and it seems in general that he wants to do that, at least some.

Biden on the other hand seems disinclined to do that at all. Quite the contrary.

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

When you sue the government, the defendant is always the current enforcing cabinet member, the regulation was created by the Trump administration effective 2020. POTUS always bears responsibility for the actions of his secretaries. As Truman said, the buck stops there.

Theoretic responsibility, POTUS controls State? Lol

[Jon Letendre]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/more-soul-crushing-news-dems-musk-enters-2024-fight-sizable-gift-trump-super-pac

Elon Musk has committed an undisclosed “sizable amount” to a Trump super PAC.

Meanwhile, “Completing something of a Black Friday for Democrats, the story broke just hours after the New York Times reported that major donors had frozen $90 million pledged donations commitments to Biden's top super PAC, having concluded that Biden is a dead man walking -- politically if not otherwise.”

Too bad how they can’t get Biden to leave.

Remember being told not to vote for Trump because if we let him be President he would never leave?

[Jon Letendre]

Let’s see if it is still funny in early ‘25 when everyone can see they cheated again, and he still won’t leave.