- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
According to one journalist’s tally, the New York Times has run 192 stories on the subject since the debate, including 50 editorials and 142 news stories. The Washington Post, which has also gone for saturation coverage, published a resignation speech they wrote for him. Not to be outdone, the New Yorker’s editor-in-chief declared that Biden not going away “would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment” and had a staff writer suggest that Democrats should use the never-before-deployed 25th amendment.
Although the Biden administration seems to have run extremely well for three and a half years, with a strong cabinet, few scandals and little turnover, a thriving economy and some major legislative accomplishments, the narrative the punditocracy has created suggest we should ignore this record and decide on the basis of the 90-minute debate and reference to newly surfaced swarms of anonymous sources that Biden is incompetent. Quite a lot of them have been running magical-realism fantasy-football scenarios in which it is fun and easy to swap in your favorite substitute candidate. The reality is that it is hard and quite likely to be a terrible mess. Nevertheless, this pretense is supposed to mean that telling a presidential candidate in mid-campaign to get lost is fine.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
You’re right that Biden has taken tons of bribes from Israel. AIPAC has directly given him a record-breaking $5 million dollars, and that doesn’t count all of the dark money.
For my defense, I dont think I am being naive- I think I have a relatively clear eyed and nuanced view of the US political system. What I am, however, is an idealist. I cling desperately to idealism like it’s a life raft in a sea of evil.
I’m not asking for sainthood, but each president in my lifetime has the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent humans on his hands. If each US leader continues to be a mini-Hitler, I will not support any of them. And if this is truly the only outcome possible for the US system, then the only moral choice is to destroy the US system.
I find inspiration in the words of Aaron Bushnell, shortly before his heroic self-immolation in protest of the ongoing Israeli genocide:
Honest question, how are you going to justify having to kill people if you destroy the US system? Of course, it won’t be directly, but all of those safeguards for people’s lives will be gone with no money in the system. Make no mistake, people would die. How would you build it back up? I think idealism and naivety are the same thing in regards to politics.
I’ve known quite a few people in politics. You can not be a politician who is elected and have 100% clean hands. You’re going to make mistakes and things will go wrong or have outcomes you didn’t predict. The only other option for the size of the US would be fascism and I am not a fan.
Edit: I should add, I’m not saying don’t try and fix our system. I think everyone should put in as much energy as they can to fix what we have. There are many great democracies we can learn from. Fixing our SCOTUS would be a great start.
Well I’m not at the “destroy the US system” stage yet, I do believe the system can be reformed.
But if it would get to that point, then the justification is simple utilitarianism. If a million people are going to die, and you pull the trolley lever and half a million die instead, then you’ve done a noble thing.
I agree that politics is dirty, no one is going to have 100% clean hands. But this logic is dangerous, it can be used to justify anything. This logic can be used to justify mistakes and minor corruption, and it can also be used to justify the Holocaust. We have to draw a moral line somewhere. Committing genocide cannot be the cost of doing business.
Isn’t that what Biden is doing though? He is saying that he needs to get elected and he has the best chance historically, so he can keep most of America (legal or not) from dying from pandemics, Muslim bans, border cages, etc. So he’s saying, I have to do what it takes to get into power because I know, and have done, what it takes to what is best for America. That includes sucking up to Israel and that perfect spot of not losing Americans and not losing Israel and the war machine’s support. Our best presidents usually have the goal of utilitarianism, but none of them would be called perfect in every way. Lots of people died on their watch due to one thing or another.
100% agree, that moral line is why everyone argues about politics, we all have different moral set points. I guess I’m at the “work hard at what you can change” stage. The pressure from everyone on Isreal has been helping and everyone should keep it up. Trump would be much, much worse and it would happen inside our country.
I used to think that once everything was kind of peaceful, that things would only get better. That we would build off of the good things and keep improving everyone’s lives. I forgot, and tbf most people forgot, that there are truly evil people that just want power and to hoard money. During those peaceful times, people were building the backbone to take over our country. Democracy at its best, is boring for the most part. At its worst, is trumpism and authoritarianism.
If theres only two tracks, the full-on genocide Trump track, and the slightly slower genocide Biden track, then yes the moral choice is the Biden track. But in the real world there are infinite tracks.
Biden can choose a track where he stops sending American weapons. Biden can choose a track where the US stops vetoing UN peace plans. He can choose a track where his state department doesn’t repeat false Israeli propaganda to the American people.
This idea that US politicians must be subservient to Israel or be voted out is from a bygone era. The modern electorate is much less Zionist than it used to be, and the voices of Palestinians are finally starting to gain traction. Now is the time when a principled leader could end the genocide with popular support, but unfortunately Biden is neither principled nor a leader.
Doing a genocide in order to prevent Muslim bans and border cages is not a principled stance, it is not realpolitik morality; instead it is the banality of evil.
I mean this sincerely, you really need to run for office and then let me know how you feel. I’m not going to argue the details because I think you’ve gotten quite a bit wrong, but I think we agree overall. Being close to politics changes people. I wish we lived in a country where a Bernie could get elected as president. I hope we all fight for this country to be that way.
I haven’t personally run for office, but I have volunteered for a few campaigns, both local and national, and the experience really radicalized me.
I used to have faith in the Democratic party. I used to believe they were interested in serious policy. I used to believe the party had a moral compass. After seeing it from the inside, I no longer believe these things.
The people used to run the Democratic Party, but now corporations are in control. The final straw was the Clinton administration, since then the Democratic Party is just Republican-lite.
One of the biggest issues for the Bernie campaign was that the DNC was actively working against him. But on this subject I may be more hopeful than you- I believe Bernie was extremely close to the presidency, and I believe the next person to seriously take up the Bernie mantle will have a great chance at winning.
I don’t have faith in the dem party, I have faith in some of the people in there. It’s just like I do for any other party but the r’s right now. If they get back to their roots of trying to do the most for all Americans with a smaller government, I’ll believe in some of them too. They’ve 99% lost their way.
I hope that’s true.