That’s the question that both Democrats and Republicans have been asking themselves. “Who is the least popular, least qualified, most obviously unacceptable candidate that we can get to run?” Or so I assume, because that’s the only explanation I can think of for why 2024 is shaping up to see a face-off between the two worst Presidential candidates in the history of the country. It’s anyone’s guess who will win (see polls:
1. Trump should have admitted he lost, but he ultimately left office peacefully. I don't think that will destroy America. Let's compare two hypothetical presidents: President T erodes democratic norms by not admitting that he lost the election. But President B is much more hawkish towards Russia and China, increasing the risk of catastrophic war. President B also has a worse domestic policy agenda than T. Both sides have some (fairly unlikely) potential to destroy America through different means. It's not clear to me that T is worse than B in this scenario.
2. It seems like there is a tension between the view that it is very bad to damage democratic norms and the view (expressed in your book "The Problem of Political Authority") that democracy should be abolished. If democracy is going to be abolished, at some point democratic norms will need to be cast off. How do you reconcile this?
Maybe Trump is guilty, maybe conviction would be warranted legally. But we all know if he were not Donald Trump, if he were instead Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton he would never have been arrested and charged, much less face actual conviction. This is a political trial, lawfare. And if anyone does not believe our country is already being destroyed by the current administration and all those of recent years--Democrat and Republican--then he or she is not paying attention or celebrates and/or participates in the ongoing corruption and perversion. I would much prefer to believe that Donald Trump is not the only hope to slow if not stop the current destruction of our country, but if not him, then whom? No one else I see.
As your own article makes clear, this is not a "both sides" issue, as you try to make it. Biden has shown no cognitive decline over his time in the most demanding of jobs. He's not in the position of Diane Feinstein or Mitch McConnell. And as you say, even if he was, his Cabinet is there to back him up. I'm very happy we have folks like Pete Buttigieg instead of Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chang.
Nor is anyone concerned that Biden would try to avoid transferring power if it were necessary. You really are scaring yourself with this fixation on Biden's health. The most important issue at this point is to prevent Trump's re-election. Biden, for better or worse, is the best-positioned person to accomplish this.
Good analysis, but you omit one important point: The root cause for the dilemma the US finds itself in for the 2024 election is that its first-past-the-post election system (in each state) is fundamentally flawed by leading to the interests of the minority being disregarded. There is no pressure for the majority to find compromises that take into account some of the political desires of a minority. This HAS to lead to ever-increasing polarization and eventual flouting of democratic norms. Add to that factors like gerrymandering, a stupid way to fill the bench of the Supreme Court, the fact that privately owned media have no obligation to separate news from commentary, and the outsized role of money (the Citizens United decision was a catastrophe for democracy!), and you have a perfect way to end the division of powers and thus democracy.
This has nothing to do with particular candidates - it is a STRUCTURAL deficiency of the democratic system in the US that is not present in most European countries.
Biden's cognitive decline was apparent in the run-up to the 2020 election from what I could see. I believe that the reason it's now being showcased is for political reasons and not due to journalistic ethics. You mentioned Democratic norms being violated by DT. I think a good case could also be made against the Biden administration. According to the election results, Joe Biden won in 2020. The people who voted for him I assume expect him to be making presidential decisions. I know that the president has a staff and cabinet members that they are relied upon to do a lot of work behind the scenes. The fact that we don't know how severe Joe's condition is means we don't know how much decision making is being done without his input. It's possible that he's making little to no decisions other than picking out what ice cream to have for dessert. If this is correct, the people who elected him to be president really elected other people to perform the more important aspect of his duties. Maybe it was believed by his staff and campaign for 2020 that he would make it mentally speaking, to the end of his first term. Now that he's running for the 2024 election the DNC, his staff, family and friends have no excuse for allowing this in my opinion. How democratic is it to elect someone who does little more than pretend to be president? The real decision makers should step out from behind the curtain and campaign themselves. But that would violate political norms.
1. Trump should have admitted he lost, but he ultimately left office peacefully. I don't think that will destroy America. Let's compare two hypothetical presidents: President T erodes democratic norms by not admitting that he lost the election. But President B is much more hawkish towards Russia and China, increasing the risk of catastrophic war. President B also has a worse domestic policy agenda than T. Both sides have some (fairly unlikely) potential to destroy America through different means. It's not clear to me that T is worse than B in this scenario.
2. It seems like there is a tension between the view that it is very bad to damage democratic norms and the view (expressed in your book "The Problem of Political Authority") that democracy should be abolished. If democracy is going to be abolished, at some point democratic norms will need to be cast off. How do you reconcile this?
Maybe Trump is guilty, maybe conviction would be warranted legally. But we all know if he were not Donald Trump, if he were instead Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton he would never have been arrested and charged, much less face actual conviction. This is a political trial, lawfare. And if anyone does not believe our country is already being destroyed by the current administration and all those of recent years--Democrat and Republican--then he or she is not paying attention or celebrates and/or participates in the ongoing corruption and perversion. I would much prefer to believe that Donald Trump is not the only hope to slow if not stop the current destruction of our country, but if not him, then whom? No one else I see.
As your own article makes clear, this is not a "both sides" issue, as you try to make it. Biden has shown no cognitive decline over his time in the most demanding of jobs. He's not in the position of Diane Feinstein or Mitch McConnell. And as you say, even if he was, his Cabinet is there to back him up. I'm very happy we have folks like Pete Buttigieg instead of Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chang.
Nor is anyone concerned that Biden would try to avoid transferring power if it were necessary. You really are scaring yourself with this fixation on Biden's health. The most important issue at this point is to prevent Trump's re-election. Biden, for better or worse, is the best-positioned person to accomplish this.
Good analysis, but you omit one important point: The root cause for the dilemma the US finds itself in for the 2024 election is that its first-past-the-post election system (in each state) is fundamentally flawed by leading to the interests of the minority being disregarded. There is no pressure for the majority to find compromises that take into account some of the political desires of a minority. This HAS to lead to ever-increasing polarization and eventual flouting of democratic norms. Add to that factors like gerrymandering, a stupid way to fill the bench of the Supreme Court, the fact that privately owned media have no obligation to separate news from commentary, and the outsized role of money (the Citizens United decision was a catastrophe for democracy!), and you have a perfect way to end the division of powers and thus democracy.
This has nothing to do with particular candidates - it is a STRUCTURAL deficiency of the democratic system in the US that is not present in most European countries.
You think trump attempted a coup. You're basically a conspiracy theorist.
Biden's cognitive decline was apparent in the run-up to the 2020 election from what I could see. I believe that the reason it's now being showcased is for political reasons and not due to journalistic ethics. You mentioned Democratic norms being violated by DT. I think a good case could also be made against the Biden administration. According to the election results, Joe Biden won in 2020. The people who voted for him I assume expect him to be making presidential decisions. I know that the president has a staff and cabinet members that they are relied upon to do a lot of work behind the scenes. The fact that we don't know how severe Joe's condition is means we don't know how much decision making is being done without his input. It's possible that he's making little to no decisions other than picking out what ice cream to have for dessert. If this is correct, the people who elected him to be president really elected other people to perform the more important aspect of his duties. Maybe it was believed by his staff and campaign for 2020 that he would make it mentally speaking, to the end of his first term. Now that he's running for the 2024 election the DNC, his staff, family and friends have no excuse for allowing this in my opinion. How democratic is it to elect someone who does little more than pretend to be president? The real decision makers should step out from behind the curtain and campaign themselves. But that would violate political norms.