A Critical Review of Biden's Anti-MAGA Speech

There are many ways to assess a speech that is given to inform the public of an immanent threat to the Nation. There's the content, logical coherence, reception by media and the public,and practical impact i.e. concrete policies/plans/goals to alleviate or reduce the emergency faced. Yet another important measure of significance is follow-through on the part of the speech-giver. If the president warns the country about a tropical storm that could devastate a whole region, but does so only once and then moves on and forgets it, announcing no policies to mitigate the damage, the speech is ultimately looked back on as a failure-- "talk and not action." Only time will tell whether Biden will truly address this very real crisis or go back to a stony and enigmatic silence he's maintained on the topic since his term began.

*****
 

As far as content and logical coherence go, Biden was inaccurate in maintaining the myth that MAGA are a "minority" of the Republican Party, and that he "knows this" because--supposedly-- he has "worked with mainstream Republicans." That's bullshit, sorry. There are almost no non-MAGA "mainstream" Republicans left. Trump non-loyalists (those who refuse to parrot the "Big Lie" or, at a minimum, keep their mouths shut lest they get RINO-hunted) are a tiny, ever-dwindling minority of the GOP in office. MAGA IS the mainstream GOP brand now. Rank and file Repubs mostly support it, as ultra-conservative Liz Cheney's dramatic defeat shows and a slew of other primary results has amply demonstrated (as well as opinion polls). Biden is scared to say it like it is because it appears (coming at this particular election time after saying nothing for nearly 2 years) like a self-serving partisan speech. Maybe it is.

Much of the content was actually the kind you get in campaign speeches (what he's done and how great--um, supposedly-- economic and political prospects now are ("I'm more optimistic than ever." and "this will be another American Century"). Those rosy pronouncements do not cohere logically with the message that we're on the brink if MAGA-GOP gains the upper hand in Washington (as they may). By a) articulating an emergency-level threat to our form of government and then b) offering no concrete policy remedies or changes in law (such as election reform, domestic terror laws etc.) and c) spending much of the time detailing and exaggerating his successes as a basis for optimism that the future will get better and not worse, the content is revealed as at least partly false, and basically incoherent when you try to connect the various dots of the speech logically.

Another measure of an alleged transpartisan, emergency of democracy speech is its reception. I've searched the main media outlets including NYT, WaPo, NBC, CBS etc. Most ignored-- even failed to carry it on TV. There has been little discussion in both major media outlets and even social media outlets compared to coverage and discussion of Trump, or the 1/6 hearings etc. Most people in the media covered 1/6 and Cheney's Trump denouncing concession speech, but see Biden's speech as largely unrelated to the things discussed there, and more an attempt to rally Dems during campaign season.. Partly it's because Biden comes to the topic way too late with a distorted, unduly optimistic, and supposedly "bi-partisan" approach. In that sense, their cold reception is understandable. There's just nothing new in a speech like this, which actually sounds like a very watered down version of what the 1/6 committee has put out there over the summer, and will resume investigating and broadcasting shortly. Biden is *behind* the curve, not ahead of it. He's following the media coverage and not breaking any news. He's not leading on the issue, and he is the primary target of MAGA. If he can't stand up more forcefully and frequently to his own enemies, who will?

Most damning, then, is his his own lack of commitment to *DOING SOMETHING ABOUT
THE PROBLEM* he is finally, and only in a watered down way, flagging as an existential threat to our system of government. He says, "I will not stand by." But that's exactly what he has done during his term so far, and by all indications 3 or 4 days after the "warning speech, what he is still doing. He campaigned with a promise to "put teeth into domestic terrorism laws," but has done nothing. Political violence and credible threats/intimidation have only gone up since then. Death threats are issued against officials routinely nowadays, and there have been ZERO speeches or press statements by Biden on the topic until now. He has flattered conservatives (even McConnell who got an anti-abortion judge appointed by Biden in his state this year) when all of them swear on their upside-down Trump bibles to make sure the Biden agenda fails (actually Biden's "friend" McConnell has explicitly stated as much, and yet has been rewarded for it). The deeply researched book, This Shall Not Pass, shows how obsessed Biden has been with a) bi-partisanship and b) his legacy as another FDR who gets "big things done. If he can't quite claim to be up there with FDR, he didn't shy away from comparing himself to one of the other most popular "great" US presidents who built much of the post war infrastructure (highways, suburban homes, GI Bill stuff etc.) -- i.e. Mr. "I like Ike" Dwight Eisenhower. Imagine pins that say, "I Like Joe" being worn by Dems and Repubs alike! Please. Is he making the speech to "stand up to MAGA" or boast about alleged bi-partisan smash-success stories of his first term?? And is he serious? The Eisenhower yrs were the height of "The Age of American Prosperity." Ours is the age of stagflation, new cold wars and the greatest possibility of a nuclear catastrophe since the Cuban Missile Crisis. See https://www.bbc.com/news/wo... and, as of today, https://www.nytimes.com/202...

I mean, I could keep going. I won't. We're in trouble. So far, and probably going forward, the speech is already a forgotten one most people did not discuss much or take seriously. I think the media judge it to be largely based on the politics of the election because it actually reads that way. It's weak on MAGA. He said nothing to make them uneasy because he announced no measures he will take to curtail the growth of this movement.

At the same time, the lack of interest in the speech also shows how much trouble we're in. At a minimum, it might well have served as a conversation-starter for all its weaknesses. A speech about the threat of MAGA by the President should not be met with apathy if the press really believes what they report based on the 1/6 Committee and other sources. In that sense, the reception reveals much about the denial in which even "liberal" journalists live. They're jaded, and thrive on sensationalism. Trump's statements on "Truth Social" get more attention in mainstream media than Biden's one and only denunciation of MAGA in a prime time speech. No matter how weak the speech, there's really no good excuse for underplaying the *topic*, even if Biden did approach it largely as an awkward combination of a dire warning and a jingoistic campaign speech for Dems this year.

But ultimately, the buck stops with Biden. He treats our number 1 short term existential crisis as a problem in the minority of the GOP, then says nothing about how to stop it and goes on to brag ostentatiously about the infrastructure bill etc., before saying that 'the best is yet to come" and "we're in for another American Century" blah, blah. Nah. Useless imo. He did not wake anyone up who wasn't already awake as far as I can tell. But he put some of those who are awake to sleep with his milquetoast and jingoistic presentation of a deadly serious problem.

Though I hate Liz Cheney's policies, I'd listen to her speeches on Trump and MAGA anytime before enduring more Biden speeches like this one. She has been a force for MAGA to reckon with, not a denier of the total capture of MAGA on her party. She has played a historic role in bringing the worst elements of the Trumpist coup to light. She shows insight into the dark machinations of MAGA-GOP--probably, in part, because she KNOWS the players very well and does not underestimate the problem, as when she says, flatly, "The GOP right now is in very bad shape" and doesn't pretend there are mostly good "mainstream Republicans" in Washington or the States, as Biden does.

When The Lincoln Project, and people like Liz Cheney make Biden sound like an apologist for the GOP, I think we can safely say we're up the creek without a strong and focused leader on this critical issue. We can only hope that for reasons other than this dud of a speech, Democrats surprise all of us by taking both chambers this fall. That would give us *just enough time* to take the steps we should have been taking after 1/6 and stop whistling past the graveyard of democracy. The first task (one Biden didn't even mention and hasn't been working Congress on) is passing the ECA Reform Act currently one vote short. Without that, 2024 may be the year our electoral system fails to prevent the kind of overturning Trump tried in 2020. It gets almost no attention anywhere except among specialists in constitutional law.

(Note: This was originally written as a comment in response to Germaine's OP on the speech, but since it is prohibitively long for a comment, I posted it here.)

Split partisan perceptions of the threat to democracy

Some informed, intelligent, well-meaning people continue to see limited threat to American democracy. But, recent polling indicates that solid majorities of both Democrats and Republicans see a serious threat to American democracy. In my opinion, differences in how the two groups see the threat is also part of the threat. The New York Times writes:

The good news is that deeply divided Americans agree on at least one thing. The bad news is they share the view that their nearly two-and-a-half-century-old democracy is in danger — and disagree drastically about who is threatening it.

In a remarkable consensus, a new Quinnipiac University poll found that 69 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans say that democracy is “in danger of collapse.” But one side blames former President Donald J. Trump and his “MAGA Republicans” while the other fingers President Biden and the “socialist Democrats.”

There are at least four possibilities with possible variations on all of them, the Dems are the main threat, the Repubs are the main threat, both are roughly equal threats, neither is a major threat (but one or both could be non-trivial but minor threats). 

Some conservatives are truly terrified of things like aggressive liberal intrusions in shaping the content of secular public education and liberal defenses of non-heterosexuality. Some see a deadly threat to Christianity, fearing Christians will be rounded up and put into re-education camps and converted by force into atheism and/or pedophilia. Apparently, most conservatives see a rising liberal tyranny in all of that, even the conservatives who do not believe that the 2020 election was stolen. 

Conservative fears of threats of Democrats and their socialism and liberalism drives most of the rank and file right to support the ex-president and extremist Republican politicians. For most conservatives, whatever Republican Party and dogma threat there actually is to democracy appears to recede into secondary importance, or to near or complete non-existence.

Articulating the liberal threat

Liberals and democrats do not control most rural areas, so the liberal threat there is not going to come to pass. Libs and Dems do control some cities in some red states. But the liberal threat there is not going to come to pass because the legislature and governor can put the kibosh on liberal tyranny in those places. Laws are already being passed in red states to control teaching about race and gender in public schools. Most or nearly all religious schools in America already are bastions of social conservatism, so they are not going to fall to liberal tyranny.

Socialist Democratic tyranny judges do not control the Supreme Court, so that is not a source of major threat to democracy.

Democrats fight against Republican opposition to protect and expand voting rights. So that is not a source of significant threat to democracy, unless one believes that free and fair elections are a threat to democracy, which some conservatives do believe.

Democrats in liberal areas in blue states do have significant leeway over influencing public education, so those areas could be bastions of liberal anti-democratic tyranny. In those areas, at least some conservatives retreat from public education in favor of private schools or home schooling. Others move to conservative areas or red states. Some just chafe at the situation and are fearful of creeping liberal tyranny.

So why is there such a huge divide about who the threat is from? Most democrats and conservatives apparently operate with (i) significantly different definitions or conceptions of democracy and free and fair elections[1], and (ii) different sets of true or false beliefs based on facts or reasoning that may or may not be true or sound. For the former point, the conservative conception of democracy appears to have more power reside in states and their legislatures and less with voters and the federal government. In that vision, partisan cracking and packing gerrymandering tactics aren't flaws in the system. They are the system. With that view, Republican "election integrity" laws are not significantly worrisome to conservatives even if some voters are disenfranchised. Minority rule is what most Republicans appear to support, even if they are unaware of it. 

Partisan differences in perception of facts and reality are also a major factor. That gap probably cannot be bridged. 

But, at least when people say that democracy is not threatened, one can now respond by pointing out that is not majority opinion.

Q: What is probably closest to the truth, the Dems are the main threat, the Repubs are the main threat, both are roughly equal threats, neither is a major threat? Or is the question an oxymoron because the concept of democracy is essentially contested?

Footnote: 

1. The NYT article comments:

“There is a real difference in how the parties define democracy,” said Nicole Hemmer, a historian at Vanderbilt University and author of “Partisans,” a newly published history of the rise of conservative movement figures in the 1990s and their transformation of American politics.

“The Republican Party at the moment subscribes to a much narrower definition, as is evident in their support for everything from voter suppression to extensive gerrymandering to the right of Republican officials to overturn voter preferences in the certification process,” she added. “The Democratic Party favors not only a more inclusive voting system but more robust systems to support majoritarian politics.”

Thoughts on Biden's speech on democracy

The network news media

The Washington Post writes that his speech was deemed political or not important by major TV networks. ABS aired a game show called “Press Your Luck.” WaPo writes:

As Biden spelled out his objections to former president Donald Trump and “MAGA Republicans,” NBC was broadcasting a rerun of “Law and Order.” CBS skipped the speech to show a rerun of “Young Sheldon.”

[Broadcasters] have passed on speeches that were part of campaign rallies or events, or when the subject was deemed insufficiently important or newsworthy. The networks, for example, decided not to carry a speech on immigration reform by President Barack Obama in November of 2014.

People involved in negotiations over Thursday’s address said the networks deemed Biden’s remarks as “political” in nature and therefore decided not to televise it.

Is the broadcast media off its rocker? Broadcast networks deemed a desperately needed defense of democracy speech by a sitting president to be too political and/or unimportant. That tells us that corporate news sees the threat of radical right authoritarianism as not real. Corporate lust for profit and power have subverted what integrity was left of broadcast news. 

It is fact- and reason-based to argue that (i) TV network news as a pro-democracy institution has fallen to authoritarianism and profit lust, and (ii) it is a betrayal of the American people and democracy. ABC, NBS and CBS appear to be enemies of democracy, at least by complicity, if not by quiet active subversion.

The Speech

If one believes the threat to democracy to be serious and urgent, Biden's speech was long overdue. Other than urging people to vote, the speech was generally vague about how democracy could be defended. There was no outline about how to protect civil liberties, including voting rights that are now under direct attack. The speech seemed designed to inspire, which is fine. But is that enough? 

Biden understated the threat when he asserted that most Republicans are not MAGA Republican Party (RP) extremists. Some recent polling and political facts indicate that is not true. More than half of Republicans support the ex-president. Only two Republicans in congress (Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) openly oppose RP authoritarianism. That includes alleged Senate moderates Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Essentially the entire RP leadership, its donors and elites and the radical right media are all in support of authoritarian, Christian theocratic RP extremism, election subversion, attacks on civil liberties and outright dictatorship. If one believes the threat to be serious and urgent, Biden seriously underplayed it. Maybe he did that in an attempt to be unifying and not divisive. Unfortunately, years of divisive RP propaganda has made defending democracy highly divisive. 

Divisiveness cannot be avoided under current circumstances. Simply saying that RP MAGA-style extremism is a threat to democracy is a necessary attack on the RP. Speaking truth directly attacks the RP's authoritarianism. The RP will respond as is now always does, with blasts of divisive lies, propaganda, slanders, vulgarity and crackpot conspiracy theories. Biden seems to be unaware of all of this. If not, in my opinion, he falsely believes that trying for unity will be helpful to the cause of democracy.

Qs: Was Biden's speech adequate or not? Should he give at least a couple more speeches in defense of democracy that are less vague and more accurate about the depth and scope of the RP authoritarian threat? Did the TV networks make the right call by airing reruns instead of airing the speech? Being for-profit capitalist businesses, should TV networks have any moral or other obligation to defend democracy or otherwise serve the public interest?

How democracies promote tyrants to power

Brazil's corrupt dictator and 

his corrupt offspring units

These are comments that PD left here a couple of days ago. He is commenting on a 2 hour documentary that PBS broadcast about the rise to power of Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro and his corrupt children. He is another anti-democratic demagogue-criminal-fornicator-liar like our ex-president and his corrupt offspring. The parallels between the two thug political leaders and how they rose to power are striking and depressing. PD's comments speaks for themselves. 

I saw the doc last night (googled it and streamed it). It was good, and it reaffirmed my conviction that people like Trump and Bolsonaro move from the fringes to the halls of power largely because of the convergence and interplay of 3 critical factors: 1) many idiots in society, 2) a powerful, 24/7, dumbed down media which puts idiocy (e.g. birtherism, Bolsonaro's stunts etc.) in the spotlight (began in 90s when entertainment and news merged in various cable TV outlets), and 3) recent forms of social media that allow ambitious politicians who are fringe and get in the dumbed down headlines to inflame the passions of the aforementioned idiots who quickly reciprocate by devoting all their free time to posting stupid, toxic memes, fake news, thus creating an "alternative information ecosystem" in which truth and fiction are nearly interchangeable, and crowd-sourced mass political movements upstage formerly legitimate (but more "boring") politics.

Put simply, politics is being conducted at the level of, say, the Jerry Springer Show, here and in many places (Brazil, much of Europe swept up in its own faux populists bashing minorities etc.).

Walter Lippmann was right (in his 1922 book, Public Opinion) when he said political reality is too complex for the masses to digest thoughtfully, and that confronted with it they descend to levels of idiocy that would make their input dangerous. He was WRONG to imagine that there would or should be an elite group of "experts" who socially engineer a relatively benign public consensus through think-tanks, media and the like. The more advanced media gets, the more we see educated "experts" and "pundits" happily feeding dumbed down sensationalism to the many eager consumers of idiocy.

The answer isn't Lippmann's "manufactured consensus" or the more sinister option of state-controlled media which is where all this is leading anyway. No, the educated journalists and "pundits" must stop putting idiots and their stunts online as well as on the front pages, essays and books where they are recycled and manipulated and distorted on Twitter, Facebook or whatever. When pols started getting Twitter accounts, I argued they should not have such accounts as "official" accounts. It would allow them to use legitimate government status and roles to disseminate bullshit at will. Sure enough, we got a lurid and obsessive Tweeter shortly thereafter in the WH. A president with an "official" Twitter account is like a modern-day equivalent of say Reagan or Clinton having their own TV Channels in the 80s or 90s plus having fan clubs (the equivalent of sympathetic "followers" online). Same idea.

Imagine a Reagan or Clinton skipping most press conferences in favor of controlling the flow of OFFICIAL information on TV shows they would produce themselves, and which would bear the imprimatur of the US Gov't. Unaccountable to even the press (which has become itself a Twitterized group of pundits each with their own fan-clubs and often TV shows or slots). The crass commercialization of the serious business of statecraft is really alarming when you stop and think how far it has sunk and how rapidly.

In the same way, journalists have used their increasingly glamorous status (remember when almost all journos were just schlubs who had their gigs and were mostly unknown and invisible?) to tantalize hordes of entertainment hungry consumers with gossip and lurid bullshit (Palin, birtherism, meaningless scandals etc.) to sell themselves and their product. Had they not covered Bolsonaro's idiot-stunts so much, his candidacy and even his stabbing would not have been such gigantic media feeding frenzies. If CNN and MSNBC had not given Trump SO MUCH airtime to spout out his bullshit Birther claims, he might not have run. If he had run but the media had not used footage and discussions of him and his candidacy as a go-to staple of entertainment, his success in politics would have been, imo, far less likely.

As one Republican operative said, "If you treat politics like a game show, you might end up with an unhinged star from a game show in the White House."

A quote from a 2016 book by two social scientists that I've posted here about 20 or 30 times roughly echoes what Lippman intuitively understood in 1922:

“. . . . the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. . . . cherished ideas and judgments we bring to politics are stereotypes and simplifications with little room for adjustment as the facts change. . . . . the real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. Although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage it.”