Distressing Choices

I thought Trump's election in 2016 would be the political low point of my lifetime. I underestimated by a long shot how low things could go. 

In reality US Presidents don't have nearly as much impact on the economy as they are given credit or blamed for. Which is why I always find it humorous when the economy is at the top of issues for voters during a Presidential election. Where Presidents can be immediately consequential is two main areas; foreign policy and appointments to the Supreme Court, both of which can have generational impact. In this respect, Trump was an even worse President than I imagined he would be. The fruits of his efforts to dismantle the post World War 2 global order are currently being gruesomely played out in Europe and the Middle East. In truth, it was a process that had started before Trump, but he accelerated it by openly embracing autocrats and denigrating allies, signalling that the international withdrawal of the US would create a power vacuum in the short-term that opens the field to lesser players (Russia and Iran). 

But it's his appointments to the Supreme Court that have delivered politically beyond his wildest dreams. The latest is in the immunity ruling handed down yesterday, which essentially provides to any US President a road map for criminality while in office. The upshot of the ruling is that 'official acts' of a President, however they may be defined, which is up to lower courts to determine, provide 'presumed immunity' against criminal prosecution. But it doesn't stop there. Any 'official acts' could not be used against a criminally-indicted President in a case against him for unofficial acts. So, when presented with the shocking example of whether the President could be immune from prosecution if he/she ordered Seal Team Six (a clear 'official act' of the Commander In Chief of the military) to assassinate a political rival, Trump's lawyer John Sauer's hesitating jaw-dropping response could only be, yes, we can see a case when that would be immune. Apparently it was a response that pleased the court very much, and foreshadowed how the august majority would find. The ruling has immeasurably raised the stakes of the upcoming Presidential election, and every future election, assuming there will still be Presidential elections.

But these days it's not Trump or even the Supreme Court I'm mad at: it's Biden. And this is where I think we've reached an all-time and particularly distressing low. The man is old. He is undeniably showing signs of diminished mental acuity. The only question is, how bad is it? Yes, it was painful to watch his halting incoherent responses during the debate. But I don't hold his age against him. We all know it was not a 'one-off'. We've been seeing his difficulties for a while now. Over the course of his presidency he's done fewer and fewer unscripted public events. There's a reason. What I hold against Biden is obfuscation and dishonesty. If the Democrats are going to try to gaslight the American public by denying what is obvious to everyone, how is it any different than Trump saying that he won the 2020 election? Biden claims to care about democracy. If he does, he owes it to the American public to come clean, and soon. I don't think the American electorate is as cynical, base and manipulable as the Republicans seem to think it is. The Democratic victories in 2020 and 2022 demonstrated that. The worst case scenario is not that Biden's faculties are diminished, it's that he's hiding the truth. It stretches credulity to deny that Biden is in cognitive decline. If the people around Biden who work with him are in denial that's even worse. It means they are as guilty of obfuscation as he is. As long as the issue remains cloaked in suspicion, speculation will reign, and that can not be good under any circumstances.  Any effort at distraction merely fuels the speculation and further damages the administration's credibility. The Presidency cannot withstand more deficit of trust. So far, it does not seem that Biden's diminished capacity affects his ability to deliver a speech from a teleprompter. In my view that means that his affliction is likely not significant enough to affect his capacity to competently do the job of President. I'm guessing that, if presented honestly, many people will agree with me. They will understand that to hold the most powerful office of the free world it's experience, character, and decency that are essential. If the ballot question in November is whether to elect someone who embodies moral decency and wisdom and believes with all his heart in constitutional democracy and rule of law, or a convicted felon would-be autocrat who doesn't, Biden stands a good chance of winning. Americans have voted into high office others with a disability in the past, most famously FDR, but even recently, John Fetterman (Senate). They've never elected a convicted felon to be President. This is Biden's opportunity to make his disability something to endear him even more with the American public. It's time for Biden and the Democrats to put their money where their mouth is, be open and honest, and demonstrate the faith they purport to have in the American People. Otherwise, they are no better than Trump and his enablers, and come November American voters will judge accordingly.