Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James Fallows's avatar

OPENING ROUND OF RESPONSES BY JF:

Here is a first-stab, grab-bag response to the many, many people who have written in. I won’t manage to answer every comment directly. But so many important points have been raised that I’ll try to follow up with several in the busy days ahead. The question addressed in this post – what is the right decision for Joe Biden, and for the country – obviously is not going away.

To set up a few, big overall points,

1) IS THIS PART OF THE BIG 'DUMP JOE' BANDWAGON FROM AN OUT-OF-TOUCH MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT?

I regard Joe Biden with enormous admiration and respect. (I’m just judging on his public record -- I’ve never met him). I think his administration overall is arguably the most successful Democratic presidency of my lifetime. “Arguably” because you could argue, which is not my purpose right now. “Democratic” to distinguish what he has done from administrations that have “succeeded” in doing things I consider harmful, like tax cuts skewed toward the rich, or packing the Supreme Court, with results we’re seeing now.

Also, as readers of this site are aware, I’ve posted more items that I can count about reflexive media pooh-poohing of Biden, and how often he has “defied expectations” in his legislative, diplomatic, political, and other accomplishments. His avowed self-image, as the guy who keeps “coming back” again and again, is something I believe in and one of many reasons I have been glad to have him in the White House.

My position now is similar to the one my friend EJ Dionne described in the Washington Post yesterday [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/07/biden-interview-old-age-democrats/]. As with EJ, I’ve been so impressed by the steadiness of Biden’s team that until very recently I’ve dismissed concerns about his possible frailties. I have come late, and reluctantly, to the view that he can best meet the emergency of the moment – stopping Donald Trump – but letting someone else lead that charge.

2) DOESN'T ROCKING-THE-BOAT AT THIS LATE STAGE JUST INVITE CHAOS, DISASTER, FACTIONAL FEUDING, AND DEFEAT?

That exact concern is why I have said, and written, that by the start of this year it was “too late,” in practical terms, for the Democrats to change their ticket. Unlike most of the electorate, I do remember the bitterness of the 1968 Democratic convention, and the damage it did – including to the Democrats’ prospects. I was a teenager then, but I was a recent veteran of the Carter administration during the bitter 1980 Democratic primaries and convention, and I saw all too clearly how the bitter Kennedy/Carter warfare helped doom Carter in the general election.

As I say, I’ve come reluctantly to the conclusion that the greater risk for the Democrats – and therefore for the nation, in fending off Trump – lies in not making a change. I could be wrong, but that’s what I believe now. Later I’ll try to give more details – EJ Dionne’s column lists some.

3) WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS AS A 'SPEECH'?

It’s a form I find easy and natural.

“Regular” writing, for things designed to be taken in via the eyes on a page (or screen), I view as “work.” You type out the same sentence 15 different times and then discard the 14 worst versions. Writing designed to be *heard* – a speech or a broadcast – I find much quicker and easier, usually just one-draft writing. You start giving the speech to yourself in your head. Then you type down what you hear.

Also, for me, this kind of presentation is a way to *demonstrate* (rather than describe) how Joe Biden might go out on top, and explain why something seemingly out of character – stepping aside – actually is consistent with his deepest lifetime principles and goals.

4) WHY DO THIS 'IN PUBLIC,' WHERE IT IS 'EMBARRASSING,' AND NOT BACKSTAGE TO PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

Over the years I’ve met some of the people who are closest to Biden. For better or worse I have zero ongoing contact with them or presumed ability to get their attention.

Also, the main point of being a writer is doing things “in public.” Except in rare circumstances, a writer’s job is to put views out there in general circulation. If you’re sending the messages in private, you’re a consultant or an aide. (Or a friend, but I don’t have that standing with the Biden team.)

5) DOESN'T PUBLISHING SOMETHING LIKE THIS ACTUALLY MAKEIT HARDER FOR BIDEN TO EXPRESS VIEWS LIKE THIS IN PUBLIC? BECAUSE IT COULD SEEM FOLLOW-ON, DERIVATIVE, AND BOWING TO OUTSIDE PRESSURE?

Maybe. Like everyone, I’m operating in uncharted terrain, and making judgments with limited, fluid, and incomplete information. A week ago I did a Tweet to similar effect, which I think stands up: https://x.com/JamesFallows/status/1807477278982455521

Here was its gist:

"Most decisions presidents face are no-win. All options are bad. The prez gets to choose which is least-worst. That's one reason almost all prez look 20 years older after 4 years on the job. (Not Trump, because he didn't deliberate like this.)

"The choice now facing Biden—and if he doesn't want to go, no one can push him (he has the pledged delegates)—is IMO the hardest and most important "least-worst" call any prez has faced in decades, through most Americans' lives.

"-It's bad if he stays. Bad in the way that matters: stopping Trump.

"-Would the only thing worse be if he left? Everyone has a theory; absolutely no one can be sure. But the choice has to be made, soon.

"This is an enormous-stakes, in-public demonstration of what maxims like "The Buck Stops Here" mean. A choice between bad, and perhaps even worse, that will affect all of our futures and whose rightness will be clear only in retrospect. Be wary of anyone who thinks this is an easy call."

6) WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? WHAT ABOUT KAMALA HARRIS? HOW IS SAYING 'FIND SOMEBODY NEW' ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE CLASSIC STARTUP PITCH-DECK, WHERE YOU WAVE YOUR HANDS AND MAGICALLY THERE'S PROFIT?

I don’t know. This is a very hard call with an unknowable outcome. I’m expressing my best judgment as of now.

7) WHAT ABOUT THE THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH TRUMP? WHY NOT TALK ABOUT THEM

?

I've tried. They represent the central stakes in the election. As I tried to make clear in an overnight-assessment of the fateful debate ten days ago https://fallows.substack.com/p/election-countdown-130-days-to-go , and in this latest post as well itself.

8) WHAT ABOUT COMMENTS ON THIS SITE?

I am grateful to nearly everyone who has weighed in. I have a range of actual appointments and duties and travel immediately ahead. I’ll engage as many as I can.

So far, over nearly three years, I’ve never had to police or remove any reader’s comment. If I do so in this case it will be after a note to the authors, giving them a chance to reconsider or clean things on their own.

THAT IS IT FOR NOW. Again my gratitude for your attention and engagement. This is a tough call, with enormous stakes, and we're all operating largely in the dark.

Expand full comment
Christine Barbour's avatar

Hmm. None of the smart political scientists or historians I read think a brokered convention goes well. This seems like a recipe for chaos. Why not get party leaders consensus on Harris as a condition of leaving and say “you have already voted for me and VP Harris. To release those votes to be cast for candidates you all didn’t get to choose seems wrong and undemocratic. I want to protect your vote. So I urge you all to rally behind I ticket I will no longer lead but will support with all my heart.”

Honestly, academic voices have not been loud in this mess because we admit we aren’t positive of much. But we are positive of one thing. A brokered convention, esp one that passes over Harris, is electoral poison and we can’t afford it.

Expand full comment
218 more comments...

No posts