Waiting for Joe Biden’s speech to a joint session of Congress to begin this week, I observed at New York that Republicans were struggling to define him consistently, which felt like a familiar problem for them:
When Bill Clinton was at the pre-Lewinsky peak of his powers, he drove Republicans nuts. They alternated between accusing him of “stealing our issues” with his triangulating pitches on welfare reform and crime and the size of government, and of being “liberal, liberal, liberal!” — a sort of boomer love child of George McGovern and Janis Joplin in a deceptive deep-fried southern packaging. Eventually the opportunity to depict him as a lying sexual predator solved the conservative dilemma, though you could argue he never stopped throwing them off-balance.
Republicans are similarly having problems getting a clear focus on Joe Biden, as the Los Angeles Times’ Noah Bierman observes:
“Alex Conant, a Republican consultant who has advised Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, [says] that his party’s two main messages about Biden are at odds with each other, blunting their impact. ‘The thing you hear Republicans say most is that he’s too old for the job, which isn’t consistent with saying he’s doing too much,’ Conant said. ‘You can’t effectively argue that he’s incompetent and that he’s too effective.'”
This dual framing of Biden was evident during the 2020 campaign, when Trump called him “Sleepy Joe” and with his usual lack of subtlety suggested his opponent was senile, even as he assailed Biden’s party of radical socialist aims. The 45th president and his surrogates squared the circle by treating Biden as the half-there puppet of the real powers, particularly the “communist” Kamala Harris.
But now, 100 days into the Biden-Harris administration, even though the new president has kept an unusually low profile, there are no signs of Harris or anyone else manipulating him. Indeed, so far his White House has been remarkably free of the factionalism that often undermines clear presidential leadership. With Clinton as president you had a White House staff famously divided (ironically, given the later reputations of the First Lady and the veep) into progressive “Rodhams” and centrist “Gores” who jockeyed for position and placed their varying stamps on administration policies. George W. Bush’s presidency was also marked by competing power centers (e.g., his terrifying vice-president and the “Boy Genius” Karl Rove); to a lesser extent, so was Obama’s. As for Donald Trump, hardly a week passed without someone — particularly his rotating cast of chiefs-of-staff — being described by “insiders” as the real power behind the throne or perhaps as the wild man’s lion-tamer.
Trump, of course, created some of the same problems for Democrats that Clinton — and now Biden — posed for Republicans. Was he the “toddler president” who ran a hollowed-out administration with no real core of convictions or goals? Or was he a putative Il Duce craftily planning an authoritarian takeover of the country? Up until the day he left office there was evidence for both descriptions. Indeed, the coda of his presidency, the January 6 Capitol riot, was variously regarded as a fascist coup attempt and a clown show.
Trump’s successor will have an opportunity in his first address to a joint session of Congress to add to the impression that he is quietly but firmly in charge of the executive branch, and has imposed order on his fractious party as he unveils yet another massive proposal. Kamala Harris will be sitting (and often standing and applauding) behind him, likely looking more like an adoring protégée than any sort of puppet-master. But if he stumbles at all, or looks tired, or says things that supposedly centrist Democrats like him don’t believe, the knees of many elephants will jerk and out will come the mockery of the old man who is a reassuring front for the Marxists actually running the country.
Such confusion if it continues will be of great service to Biden, much like the current Republican tendency to focus on irrelevant culture-war themes while a mostly united Democratic Party enacts legislative initiatives of a magnitude we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan’s first year in office. For all their political gifts, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — who, lest we forget, both had a much more firmly Democratic Senate and House the first two years of their presidencies — couldn’t come close to the mastery of Congress Biden has exhibited up until now. As Republicans watch Biden’s speech, they should soberly realize that before long it may not matter that much if they bust up the Democratic trifecta in 2022. The damage to GOP policies and priorities wrought by “Uncle Joe” and his “senile socialist regime” could be too large to reverse by then. While Republicans fret about Trump and rage about “cancel culture,” Biden is eating their lunch.
I can’t think of any man in America with whom the gap between his desserts and his reward is so wide. The American people owe him a huge debt of gratitude, but the way the Republicans vilified him in 2004 has made it possible for Democrats in Florida to vilify him for consequences of defying the (unanimously passed) party rules about primary dates. It has made it possible for people like Emmanuel and Schumer to vilify him in 2006 for carrying out a different set of priorities and not making himself their lackey. And now the Obama campaign officials want to gather unto themselves all credit for every political success everywhere. It’s bad enough that Dean is a prophet without honor in his own party, but a lot of dedicated (and probably not especially well-paid) people who have been preparing the ground and planting the seed are not being permitted to gather the harvest. What’s more, it looks as if the land is going to be left fallow now.
Democrats will never change: Form a circular firing squad.
Perhaps Obama feels he can do it better, but firing all these folks two weeks after the election is foolish. They learned things that just might be valuable two years from now. But then I haven’t heard Obama say one word of thanks to Dean.
Bob Griendling
This is very distressing, but Rahm Emmanuel hates Howard Dean and hated the 50 state strategy, preferring that every dime spent on grassroots party-building in off-years instead be hoarded for the DSCC and DHCC. The party apparatus will now be in the White House’s hands, and that will probably be that.
This is indeed distressing news, what I feared and extremely short sighted. I seem to remember that the State chairs wanted this process to continue and wanted Dean to remain as the leader of the DNC (though I could be wrong). There has seemed to me to be a tension between the DCCC and the DNC. Frankly, as a non-insider to the workings the workings of the upper echelon of the Democratic Party, the existence of these two independent groups makes little sense. If we are to have a unified and ongoing strategy, there should be one direction. Also, I understand that the President is the “leader” of the party. But, I would feel more comfortable with a DNC that was more independent – one that had the good of the party as a whole as its primary concern. Candidates must have massive ego strength to run. And this strength can so easily become egocentrism. It occurs to me (and as a progressive I am somewhat appalled with myself) that I would like a professional, Democratic Party machine.