After reading a few days worth of carping about Joe Biden’s performance, I decided enough’s enough and responded at New York:
Joe Biden has been president of the United States for 43 days. He inherited power from a predecessor who was trying to overturn the 2020 election results via insurrection just two weeks before Inaugural Day, and whose appointees refused the kind of routine transition cooperation other administrations took for granted. His party has a four-vote margin of control in the House, and only controls the Senate via the vice presidential tie-breaking vote (along with a power-sharing arrangement with Republicans). Democratic control of the Senate was not assured until the wee hours of January 6 when the results of the Georgia runoff were clear. Biden took office in the midst of a COVID-19 winter surge, a national crisis over vaccine distribution, and flagging economic indicators.
Biden named all his major appointees well before taking office, and as recommended by every expert, pushed for early confirmation of his national security team, which he quickly secured. After some preliminary discussions with Republicans that demonstrated no real possibility of GOP support for anything like the emergency $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief and stimulus package he had promised, and noting the votes weren’t there in the Senate for significant filibuster reform, Biden took the only avenue open to him. He instructed his congressional allies to pursue the budget reconciliation vehicle to enact his COVID package, with the goal of enacting it by mid-March, when federal supplemental unemployment insurance would run out. Going the reconciliation route meant exposing the package to scrutiny by the Senate parliamentarian, It also virtually guaranteed total opposition from congressional Republicans, which in turn meant Senate Democratic unanimity would be essential.
The House passed the massive and complex reconciliation bill on February 27, right on schedule, with just two Democratic defections, around the same time as the Senate parliamentarian, to no one’s great surprise, deemed a $15 minimum wage provision (already opposed by two Senate Democrats) out of bounds for reconciliation. The Senate is moving ahead with a modified reconciliation bill, and the confirmation of Biden’s Cabinet is chugging ahead slowly but steadily. Like every recent president, he’s had to withdraw at least one nominee – in his case Neera Tanden for the Office of Management and Budget, though the administration’s pick for deputy OMB director is winning bipartisan praise and may be substituted smoothly for Tanden.
Add in his efforts to goose vaccine distribution — which has more than doubled since he took office — and any fair assessment of Biden’s first 43 days should be very positive. But the man is currently being beset by criticism from multiple directions. Republicans, of course, have united in denouncing Biden’s refusal to surrender his agenda in order to secure bipartisan “unity” as a sign that he’s indeed the radical socialist – or perhaps the stooge of radical socialists – that Donald Trump always said he was. Progressives are incensed by what happened on the minimum wage, though it was very predictable. And media critics are treating his confirmation record as a rolling disaster rather than a mild annoyance, given the context of a federal executive branch that was all but running itself for much of the last four years.
To be clear, I found fault with Biden’s presidential candidacy early and often. I didn’t vote for him in California’s 2020 primary. I worried a lot about Biden’s fetish for bipartisanship. I support a $15 minimum wage, and as a former Senate employee, have minimal respect for the upper chamber’s self-important traditions. But c’mon: what, specifically, is the alternative path he could have pursued the last 43 days? Republican criticism is not worthy of any serious attention: the GOP is playing the same old tapes it recorded in 2009 when Barack Obama (and his sidekick Biden) spent far too much time chasing Republican senators around Washington in search of compromises they never intended to make. While they are entitled to oppose Biden’s agenda, they are not entitled to kill it.
Progressive criticism of Biden feels formulaic. Years and years of investment in the rhetoric of the eternal “fight” and the belief that outrage shapes outcomes in politics and government have led to the habit of seeing anything other than total subscription to the left’s views as a sell-out. Yes, Kamala Harris could theoretically overrule the Senate parliamentarian on the minimum wage issue, but to what end? So long as Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema oppose the $15 minimum wage, any Harris power play could easily be countered by a successful Republican amendment to strike the language in question, and perhaps other items as well. And if the idea is to play chicken with dissident Democrats over the fate of the entire reconciliation bill, is a $15 minimum wage really worth risking a $1.9 trillion package absolutely stuffed with subsidies for struggling low-income Americans? Are Fight for 15 hardliners perhaps conflating ends and means here?
Media carping about Biden’s legislative record so far is frankly just ridiculous. Presumably writing about the obscure and complicated details of reconciliation bills is hard and unexciting work that readers may find uninteresting, while treating Tanden’s travails as an existential crisis for the Biden administration provides drama, but isn’t at all true. The reality is that Biden’s Cabinet nominees are rolling through the Senate with strong confirmation votes (all but one received at least 64 votes), despite a steadily more partisan atmosphere for confirmations in recent presidencies. The COVID-19 bill is actually getting through Congress at a breakneck pace despite its unprecedented size and complexity. Trump’s first reconciliation bill (which was principally aimed at repealing Obamacare) didn’t pass the House until May 4, 2017, and never got through the Senate. Yes, Obama got a stimulus bill through Congress in February 2009, but it was less than half the size, much simpler, and more to the point, there were 59 Senate Democrats in office when it passed, which meant he didn’t even have to use reconciliation.
There’s really no exact precedent for Biden’s situation, particularly given the atmosphere of partisanship in Washington and the whole country right now, and the narrow window he and his party possess – in terms of political capital and time – to get important things done. He should not be judged on any one legislative provision or any one Cabinet nomination. So far the wins far outweigh the losses and omissions. Give the 46th president a break.
When republicans lie and misrepresent us, all we can do is speak to each lie – that puts us on the defensive and talking about specific issues that do not carry the weight that “country first” and patriotism does.
I think we should attempt to redefine patriotism – it’s not just about fighting and dying for your country – it could mean making your country a better place for future americans. The man or woman who works two jobs to give their children more opportunities than they had is equally as heroic and patriotic as a kid who goes to war to fight for what he/she thinks their country believes in.
I think Obama should give a speech that addresses the footprint or the legacy of our country – A speech that harkens to America’s past as a benevolent world leader – an indicate that we could be that again – It’s not that we care about what the French think of us – we should care about what future generations of americans think about us – we want our children to know that we saw policies that were wrong and we stopped doing them.
So I’m thinking you play the Iraq card – most of the country believes that Iraq was a mistake – the architects of it can not own up to it – but that doesn’t mean we as a people can’t own up to it – Barack should spell out the mistake – point to that “mission accomplished” moment and say that it was the one thing Bush got right. We had indeed overthrown the evil Saddam – and we should have left – The republicans who continue to believe that the war in Iraq can still be won have somehow forgotten that their leader had already declared it over and won five years ago – They’ve kept calling an occupation a war because it’s good for business – That should be our theme – Everything the republicans do is “good for business.”
“…they passed this bill and gave out that contract because it was… good for business.” Repeat and rinse several times and then finish with… “in fact for the last 8 years they’ve been giving us… THE BUSINESS!
Point out that people were the ones that benefitted the least – and then jam “People first” down their republican throats.
People are no more perfectly rational in their political decisions than they are in their economic ones. Issues, character, narrative and emotion all play a role, in infinite combination of importance, making it all but impossible to know what truly motivates an individual voter in any given election. Last week, issues took a back seat to biography and curiosity. I agree with Ed that issues are still a key variable in voter decision-making this year. But issues are being strongly challenged by character and narrative. McCain’s greatest strength is his biography; Obama’s advantage is issues. Going after McCain and Palin’s character won’t be as effective as attacking them on issues. Obama just doesn’t have the “character brand strength” that McCain does; his experience lacks a convincing and seamless arc, and, unfortunately, many voters find him “different.” But he’s savvy, smart and dead-on aligned with voters on the main issues of this election. I believe that if Obama can, as Ed said, recapture the narrative, as well as continue his success in mastering the fundamentals of voter turnout, then Obama can win. I’m optimistic. My guess is that McCain and Palin have hit their apex; I just don’t see how they go up from here. It’s highly doubtful that Obama will self-destruct, and he still has a lot of upside potential.
Good point: “Unless we are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, we can do what you want and what I want, and in fact, we should.” But who said the voting public can walk and chew gum at the same time? Driving through Pennsylvania last month, I saw this message spray painted on the back of an 18-wheeler: “Shut up and drill.” Or today, this bumper sticker was stuck on the back of a pickup in my town: “Liberals s**k.” Last night, I spoke with a labor organizer who called to urge me to vote for a Democratic candidate running in a primary for state office. He was knocking on doors for Kerry in NH in 2004 and met another union member who told him he would never vote for Kerry because of what he heard from the swiftboaters. In other words, this union member was going to vote against his own interests! I hope you’re right that American voters can walk and chew gum at the same time. Too bad so many people seem to want to “keep it simple and stupid.” I believe that most Americans want to “Bring on the passionate wonkery, the compelling talking points, the policy debates wrapped in narrative and the needs of ‘real people!'” At least, I hope they do.
I strongly disagree. The McCain bump happened because the GOP oonvention shifted the playing ground from issues to those vague substitutes for issues, the “maverick” pose.
We need to shift it back, and if we don’t, we’ll lose. As my post indicated, I believe it’s a false choice to suggest that we have to reject issue appeals in order to maintain what you call a “fighting image.” Fights can be over policy, you know. Unless we are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, we can do what you want and what I want, and in fact, we should.
Ed Kilgore
“But voters do have concrete concerns that are connected to specific needs, for themselves and their country, and specific grievances about the performance of those in power today.”
They do. And they voted AGAINST their own said issues in 2004 to give Bush the White house again. Why?
BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT THE FIGHTING IMAGE!
Bring on the policy wonkery? Bring out the initiatives and numbers? You forgot to add one thing to your list..bring out the loss!
Democrats, and out numbers, and figures, and ideas are not, not, NOT sexy enough to win elections against war heroes and beauty queens that lie and fight ugly. Policy will not work, because it has not worked. We went from 7 points up to for down..ine ONE WEEK. One week people! An eleven point drop in one week, why? Because the country dissaproves of Barack’s health plan? No! It is because of IMAGE…because of the MILF on the ticket.
As long as we continue to actually believe the voting public has enough energy or intelligence to make a decision based on numbers and policies, (despite all eveidence to the contrary…2004, the low approval rating of the Democratic Congress), we will continue to be beaten badly, as we are well on our way to being this year.