Joe Biden cannot be the Democrats’ nominee for president. The world is overflowing with hairy decisions and subtle topics, but the issue of whether Joe Biden is mentally equipped for re-election is no longer among them.1 Some of the Biden apologists are trying to wedge daylight between his fumbling, unsteady debating and his mental fitness for the presidency, like maybe he isn’t a wisecracking or intellectually nimble guy, but he’s still a capable executive underneath all the faltering and slip-ups. But I don’t buy this claim that his deficiencies are merely superficial. His speech and mannerisms evince cognitive degradation rather than mere inelegant deliveries or awkwardness, and how can these Biden-whisperers decipher that these external traits are misleading? They don’t have special access to his psychological interior to know whether he’s merely struggling to effectively relay his sound judgments (a nontrivial facet of being president anyway).
Some are portraying the idea of re-routing the nomination as a venturesome strategy that merits deliberation and reluctance, but there’s no defensible way to reconcile preserving Biden’s candidacy with that abysmal debate—hell, there’s no defensible justification for the hesitancy about axing it. The situation is unambiguous, and pretending otherwise—whether out of sympathy or misguided strategizing—risks scuttling the only chance to avoid reinstalling a vengeful despot-imitator as President of the United States.
Now the Biden loyalists are stuck playing defense, even with Trump as the opposition: being a good President isn’t really about being a good debater, the Biden hangers-on suddenly claim, just after requesting a debate to showcase their candidate’s superior fitness for the office. It’s not good. They’re pettifogging about the appropriate criteria for a President, tacitly admitting that Biden is a suspiciously unpromising candidate on several aspects you might normally think are pretty important. Further, they’re trying to shift focus from brainpower and mental endurance to the issue of moral character (where Trump is also vulnerable). But, would a man of such unimpeachable character have sought re-nomination in this condition? Would he cling to power while claiming that democracy hangs in the balance? The tactic is self-defeating: now his refusing to step aside will straightforwardly disprove his supposed virtuousness.
All the talk among Dems right now is about weighing risks—comparing the (newly elevated) risk of Biden losing with the risk of proffering a less established candidate. But what about the risk of Biden—an increasingly spavined and crumbly-brained octogenarian—actually being re-elected? Beyond that, I’m totally dumbfounded by the widespread presupposition that these risks require patient comparison. Biden was optimistically prepping for a nail-biter election already, and he sought out that debate to jump-start a sketchy, uphill campaign. Moreover, he’s not getting younger, so the issue will continue worsening, and you can’t rely on frantically politicking your way out from this hole when your candidate just showcased how unreliable his political faculties are these days—his lackluster toolkit is the cause of the problem, not the solution. Viewing his re-election as anything besides an inadvisable long shot (and also a dangerous embarrassment, regardless of Trump) borders on partisan delusion.
Superior Alternatives
Additionally, is Biden really an irreplaceable, specially gifted Trump-beater? This is arguably too flattering of Trump, who initially walked to a Republican nomination on name ID, an overcrowded field, and sheer airtime. He now has a stranglehold on some fraction of berserk partisans who can’t locate the integrity to climb down, but the poisonous internal dynamics of the Republican party don’t translate to general elections. Chris Christie was right: the guy is a political loser.
The only Democrat Trump beat was Hillary Clinton, a historically unlikable candidate, who was running to secure a third consecutive presidential term for the same party (very rare), and who still won the popular vote, so framing Biden as an exceptional politician because he outperformed that scenario is unconvincing. In reality, Biden might have been a poor selection even before the debate meltdown: he was underperforming down-ballot Democrats in crucial states. Voters already doubted his future dynamism and sharpness, and he’s (unfairly) suffering headwinds from inflation (many Americans probably don’t even realize inflation has been worse in other countries).
According to some Biden defenders, he can’t cede the nomination because Kamala Harris can’t win either, and nominating anyone besides her would splinter allegiances, generate bad blood, and spoil the winner’s impending campaign, particularly because she’s a female minority VP. I’m pretty doubtful about this. Even if there’s some elusive clique of die-hard Harris fangirls out there, wouldn’t their misplaced allegiance still be a problem in the next election, anyway? Also, haven’t Dems endured enough blowback from handing former VPs first dibs on the nomination—they can’t wise up? And they’re all sitting around gauging the political risks of Biden alternatives right now, but then the clear-eyed evaluations will vanish whenever Kamala is up at bat? She had become such an obvious political dud that I already doubted this theory when suggesting replacing her as VP:
The prevailing opinion is that this maneuver would alienate base voters too much, but her popularity is so abysmal that it’s difficult to picture such a wave of pro-Kamala backlash materializing. Won’t those people vote against Trump anyway? Plus, it’s not like the Biden camp has to backpedal entirely on whatever misguided identity politics drove the Harris selection: why not team up with Gretchen Whitmer or Gina Raimondo? Again, I think Biden should probably hang up the old blazer and flag pin and open an ice cream parlor in Rehoboth Beach, but if he’s determined to saddle up for one last ride, people need to kick the tires on this kind of emergency maneuvering.
Others claim that alternative candidates (like Whitmer and Raimondo) are too untested and could blow up on the launchpad. This sometimes happens in primaries (see Howard Dean, Rick Perry, etc.) But what Trump revealed back in 2016 (and we’re seeing this right now with Biden) is that once they’re nominated for the presidency, candidates are basically invulnerable to this kind of wholesale implosion. Given the stakes and how abandoning their candidate would be tantamount to supporting the opposition, folks will endure head-spinning logical gymnastics to justify sticking with someone who’s already nominated these days. But also, Biden just blew up on the launchpad himself! There’s little chance that a new candidate produces such fatal missteps or exhibits such indefensible flaws that they exceed the blunder of Biden’s debate. The options right now are between a nominee who could unexpectedly struggle to transition into campaigning at the presidential level and a nominee who’s downright guaranteed to struggle campaigning at the presidential level, despite having done it before (sort of). Even ignoring the debate, Biden’s capabilities have diminished, and this version of Biden should be regarded as equally untested as the alternatives.
We Shouldn’t be Weighing Risks
So, I think the chronic Dem pussyfooting is unwarranted: they’re exaggerating the risks of a non-Biden candidate like Whitmer or Raimondo, overestimating the likelihood of a Biden campaign unleashing such a masterful closing stretch of electioneering that the contest becomes winnable, and they’re flatly ignoring the downsides of Biden somehow miraculously succeeding. But even if their calculations were more accurate, I still reject this exclusively risk-focused decision-making procedure. Even if we supposed that he could be re-elected, Joe Biden shouldn’t be president, and scheming about how to protect that possibility is a contemptible enterprise.
I wouldn't argue that considering electability is totally illegitimate, but candidates should at least surpass some minimum cognitive threshold before you even start worrying about their odds of success—prioritizing a win over basic competency is exactly how Republicans got entangled with Trump, and I don’t see how propping up post-debate Biden would generate any less culpability. Front-loading Trump comparisons can muddy the analysis, but choosing between unfit candidates isn’t necessary yet: the question of whether Biden should step down and provide the opportunity to support someone more capable isn’t tricky, and to insist that Biden can be president is to admit the office is so neutered and valueless that freaking out about Trump wouldn’t make much sense.
Likewise, some commentators have been excoriating Biden’s staff, claiming they shouldn’t have let him debate, given him so much info to remember, etc. It’s a pretty scummy perspective. If you think your candidate is that incapable, then you shouldn’t be facilitating their election. Remember, someone thought this debate was necessary, and if the candidate is unable to successfully campaign, then can you really expect them to win? The appropriate response is to endorse somebody else, not to mask your candidates’ flaws until you lose. At some point, that crosses over from politicking to hoodwinking the electorate. The best campaigner doesn’t necessarily make the best president, but you at least need to be able to campaign.
Whether Biden Remains
Despite all of this, Biden probably won’t step down. The expert commentary has largely agreed that forcing his hand is probably impossible, and the two avenues for persuading him are (1) the tough conversation scenario, where Biden discovers a new wellspring of humility (maybe via close advisors being unusually frank with him) and he understands that he ought to cede the nomination for the sake of the Republic, or (2) circumstances clarify that ceding the nomination is in his self interest.
Richard Hanania contends that Biden is unlikely to step aside simply because being an ex-president is just less cool than being president, and he presents these sociopathic calculations with disquieting skill. But seriously, he’s right: most people cherish being important and respected, and relinquishing a shot at the presidency (however remote) is probably tough, and I agree with Hanania’s presumption that we can’t depend on Biden or his insular crew to sacrifice for the public good. We already went through this, and some thought Biden would choose the honorable path several months ago. Here’s what I wrote back in November:
The crowd of brainy people who suspected Biden might locate the humility needed to close up shop by himself always puzzled me—Democratic insiders should have publicly pressured him not to run long before they became so pot-committed. Instead, they trusted a career politician who ran for president several times to voluntarily abandon an opportunity for reelection. People with that kind of humility don’t launch a presidential campaign when they’re 76 to begin with. It’s like everyone was completely relying on a politician to do this very anti-politician behavior; I remain bewildered by the misplaced optimism and naivete about that.
If Hanania is right that Biden will choose selfishly, someone needs to re-frame the options for him. People need to explain that his choice isn’t just whether to surrender another opportunity to be president; it’s between being known as someone who rescued the country from Trump or a direct reversal of that legacy: someone who—in a striking act of self-concern and egomania—handed the presidency back to Trump. Commentators should be plain about this: Biden won’t just tarnish his legacy by losing after this—he’ll obliterate it. And the journey will be littered with embarrassment and floundering. On the flipside, ceding the nomination will preserve his legacy or even enhance his reputation.
Maybe Biden was innocently self-deluded/overconfident enough to run again even though it was a predictably bad idea, and maybe he was convinced that he was especially well-positioned to beat Trump, but the debate has crystallized beyond doubt that pressing forward now would be an ignominious project, jeopardizing the nation’s fate to insulate his overinflated ego. Our most likely future looks something like this: loyalists provide coverfire that allows Biden to try waiting out the storm; the polling will show a substantial dent rather than an undeniable cratering; the Biden team will convince themselves that they can play catch-up; the damage proves indelible, especially given Biden’s reduced skill set, and ultimately he loses to Trump.
There’s a political reflex to use polls to adjudicate between strategies, but that’s only sensible in a moral vacuum. Biden shouldn’t be president even if it were still possible. Biden hasn’t just “lost his fastball” or become more predisposed to harmless rhetorical missteps: his mental faculties are observably fading, and they’ve eroded far enough that continuing to support his candidacy is morally akin to Republicans publicly supporting Trump after they privately gossip about how he’s a loathsome imbecile. I don’t understand the inclination towards dithering and lack of celerity: hoping enough voters are—like you and your friends—so radically anti-Trump that they’ll knowingly vote for someone who’s manifestly unfit to serve isn’t an acceptable game plan: Biden has to step down, but he probably won’t.
If anyone doubts this, please compare his recent showing with, like, any random thirty seconds from his 2012 VP debate with Paul Ryan.