A STARK AND BINARY REALITY

 Last Thursday’s presidential debate demonstratively brought home the grim reality of the decision facing US voters this coming November: Do we vote for a serial liar-sexual predator-insurrectionist-felon, or do we vote for an incumbent who has devoted his entire life to public service, but who is now suffering the effects of old age to such an extent that it has become impossible to ignore his increasing incapacity to serve effectively.

The outcome of the debate was a huge win for former president and convicted felon Donald Trump’s blindly loyal base—the Trump or die cult. But it left independents twisting in the wind and Democrats in a state of shock. Joe Biden, the savvy career politician with a half-century trajectory, twelve years in the vice-presidency and presidency, and a well-earned level of respect in Washington, appeared frail, confused, and at times at a complete loss. It was clear that his train of thought was consistently broken and he appeared uncomfortable and ill.     

The lame excuse of President Biden’s closest collaborators was that he “had a cold”. It was also later reported that he had been tested for COVID. But the responsible response to this is that, if the president was sick enough to be weak, fevered and disoriented, then the debate should have been postponed or called off. He, octogenarian that he is, should have been home in bed. Failing that, if he was “good to go”, then a cold is no excuse for the horrifying performance that he put in. He is, after all, the president of the United States, and it is utterly ludicrous and disingenuous to cite “a cold” as justification for what was, by all accounts, the political train wreck that was his delivery during the ninety-minute debate.

Former President Trump, meanwhile, appeared well-coached, and physically strong. But there were no pleasant surprises in his performance either. He was as unrepentant as ever about the January Sixth Insurrection. He failed to commit to accepting the results of a free and fair election. He repeated lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election that he lost, and contended that felony convictions and criminal charges remaining against him were part of a political witch-hunt orchestrated by Biden’s administration to keep him from running.

Overall, fact-checkers were able to demonstrate that Trump told thirty lies over the course of the event, which works out to about a lie every minute and a half, since only half the time was his. In other words, the former president lied just about every time he opened his mouth.

But what seemed most alarming was that the current president was incapable of a coherent comeback against any of those lies. President Biden’s first answers to questions from impeccable moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash were halting and confused and given in a hoarse murmur. It was painful to watch, especially for anyone who likes the president and considers him a decent man and a sound statesman.

The entire debate was, in fact, a bit like seeing your favorite fighter caught off-guard by a stunning blow in the first round, kissing the canvas, managing to struggle to his feet before the count of ten, but never fully recovering for the rest of the twelve rounds. He might manage to stay on his feet, with knees wobbling, for the entire bout, but throughout the twelve rounds, you tensely watch him teetering on the brink, fighting desperately on the defensive, and you know that one well-placed glove to the head or liver will lay him low for good. Even though, after he struggles through to go the distance and the other fighter has to win on points, you can’t feel okay about the outcome. You have to ask yourself if it isn’t time for your one-time champ to step down from the ring and retire with dignity.

And that was precisely what happened to even Biden’s most avid fans—like The New York Times editorial board, which advised that “to serve his country, President Biden should leave the race.” Earlier, one of Biden’s staunchest supporters, columnist Thomas Friedman, also of The New York Times, told Biden in an opinion piece that it was time for him to step aside. Said Friedman, “Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election.”

Friedman described himself as a friend of Joe Biden’s. Indeed, he has long been known as a Biden confidant. He said he had watched the debate alone, “and it made me weep.” I too watched the debate alone, and although President Biden doesn’t know me from Adam, his performance made me feel the same way. Seeing the one-time firebrand who, back in the day, was criticized in Congress for being too young and too brash, or the later experienced statesman brokering across-the-aisle deals that led to some epic legislation, it was heart-rending to watch him mutter, stammer and struggle to recall what he was talking about.

While Friedman, specifically, and The New York Times as an institution couldn’t have been blunter, there is a very real problem with that advice. It comes extremely late in the game—perhaps too late. So does that of so many Democrat politicians, who flew into a panic last Thursday after (during) the debate. More irresponsible still is the inner circle of Biden’s administration and campaign, as well as Democratic members of Congress who have been dealing with the president for the past three and a half years, and who also knew him for decades before that as vice-president and as a high-profile senator. While they might have sought to convince the public that the president’s mind was as sharp as it had ever been, they can’t have helped but notice in private government and diplomatic dealings with him that he had grown elderly and that his health, both mental and physical, was failing him.

In short, the time to tell the president that he should refrain from standing for a second term would have been midway through this one, when it started to become apparent, even to those of us who tried hard to believe that it wasn’t, that the president’s capacity to continue to lead the country for another four years was fading fast. This is especially true because the possible need to replace the president should have been obvious to his inner circle from the outset, considering his advanced age, and contingency plans should have been quietly created. That would have been an act of political realism considering that the average life expectancy for males in the US is slightly under seventy-five years, and the stark truth is that those of us who have reached that point in life are, therefore, living on borrowed time. It is also an awful truth that while many elderly people remain lucid to the end, a large percentage do not. And when someone is in a position of worldwide power, as is anyone holding the office of president of the United States, that is, indeed, something that must be taken into account.

Does that mean that there should be a cutoff age for presidential candidates? No. But it does mean that the inner circle and campaign managers of those who run in their “golden years” need to be aware of the increased inherent risks and have plans to deal with them. It’s clear that this has not been the case with the Democratic hierarchy.

Is it too late for something to be done to save the Democratic election campaign from the aftermath of the debate debacle? Maybe not, but if not, just barely. For the Democrats, there are only two choices. One, get the president to immediately say that he will not be the candidate this November so that another candidate can be chosen and promoted, or, go on as planned, campaigning hard on the premise of democracy.

Considering his criminally seditious behavior under his first presidency, it is clear to any realist that Donald Trump poses an imminent and existential threat to American democracy, one that would only be heightened in a second term, when he would, literally, have nothing to lose. And in the post-debate public perception of far too many Americans, that might be the sole reason to continue to plan to vote for the incumbent—namely, to deny an autocrat who sought to overthrow democracy a second bite at the apple.

If the president were to announce right now that he is stepping down, it could—though not certainly would, depending on how it’s handled—have an unexpectedly positive influence on Democratic election results. Clearly, polls tend to show that the vast majority of Americans are incensed about once again having to choose between Trump and Biden, neither of whom, they feel, is fit for office—President Biden because of his age and mental health, Trump because of his immorality, seditious nature and criminal behavior. The right Democratic candidate could well spark new enthusiasm and optimism among Democrats and Independents alike.

It’s not like the Democrats have no choice. They have several, all sound politicians and honest potential candidates. Vice-President Kamala Harris, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar all spring to mind. But the fact that we are now just four months away from the general election makes it imperative that any decision to change horses midstream be made with the greatest of celerity, and that the positive momentum of doing so be exploited to the maximum.

For that to happen, President Biden, in the spirit of service to the United States that has carried him through his half-century of government, should listen to Tom Friedman and other friends who are wisely encouraging him to step aside. Otherwise, this November, in perhaps the most consequential election in history, Americans will be confronted with a disheartening binary choice—between decency or criminality, between democracy or autocracy, and the end of the traditions that have set the US apart for the past two and a half centuries.