‘We’ll teach them how to say goodbye.’ A dramatic way for Joe Biden to demonstrate his strength, and the nation’s. An imagined speech, with 120 days to go until the election.
I've just re-read this in light of the events of the past few days—and it's remarkably close to the humility and sentiments expressed by Biden as he has stepped aside and endorsed Kamala Harris. I don't think anyone could have wished for a better handling of the issue at the time you wrote it, James. Much work still to be done, but the palpable shift in energy and hope is quite something.
For some reason, had not been able to comment on this powerful, moving letter. I'm writing this as Biden digs in deeper, and opposition to his continued candidacy spreads from the 'pundit' class to the political class, i.e., Congress. I'm skeptical of whether the Democrats will unite around a replacement candidate, but the "he must step down" chants are relentless and drowning out Trump, the Supreme Court, and Project 2025, all of which must be reaching every voter in the days ahead.
Shortly after the debate I made the largest donation to a political campaign - Biden for President - ever. And now I think he needs to step down. Biden is a fundamentally decent and caring human being who has withstood and triumphed in the face of great personal adversity. He has been a transformational president. I think the bottom line, however, is that he will not be able to sell his accomplishments to the American people. His approval rating has always been under water, and he never has gotten the credit for all he has accomplished. I think his ability to break through this "credit conundrum" is now impossible, and someone else will need to sell his and the Democratic Party's approach to governance, which has succeeded, I would say, spectacularly in the past four years. As I said above, however, I do not know who this 'someone else' will be or how the Party will choose that someone else.
It's only the first week of July - that is my sole consolation.
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.
Thanks, James. You're wrong. Elegantly so. But still wrong. And this explanation makes it so much worse, especially 6. "I don't know what the answer is but I will give one anyway"? That's just bad politics and worse punditry.
I've put my 2 cents into the comments enough that I am not going to rehash them once again. You've lost a longtime fan.
The mind boggles on punting over number 6. How can we say Biden must go and leave the next step to fate? Especially where the answer is clear. Thus, I assume that advocates for Biden's departure believe the obvious successor, the one elected in the Democratic primaries, is inadequate by some measure. I am not going to speculate on what measure is being applied. But I must insist that those who want Biden gone have an obligation, in logic, to explain why the person elected by the voters to be Biden's successor should not succeed him.
I am just starting to go through all these comments in their entirety. I very clearly get the message that you are sure I am wrong and you are right.
I have no reason to express anything other than my actual observations and conclusions. Based on what I had seen **in public** from Joe Biden until about a month ago, I believed not only (a) that he has been a very effective president, which I think most people here agree on, but also (b) that he had everything going for him as the strongest opponent to Trump. So I am on record as saying "Enough, already, with the 'Biden is too old' " articles and op-eds.
But based on what I have seen, in public, in the past month — and what we have *not* seen from Biden in that time--I have changed my mind. Making a change at this point is by definition disruptive. That is why I have been against it over the past year. But my conclusion is that things have changed, when it comes to the most effective vehicle against Trump. I know that you disagree.
James, thank you for this. Perfect message for this historic moment. And I so hope Biden delivers it, more or less, as soon as possible. Because this will give the Party leaders and the obvious contenders time to negotiate an open and transparent process to produce the strongest replacement ticket possible, even prior to the convention. I still like Anne Applebaum's "strategic plan" solution she posted on July 3rd on The Atlantic.
In the ~24 hours since I posted this, especially given Biden's letter and statement this morning (Monday), a worst-of-all-worlds possibility is emerging: that Biden will set this up as a *convention fight.* Rather than him going out on top (which is what I was trying to set up with this draft.) At the moment, virtually every Democrat is united in gratitude to and admiration for Biden. God save us indeed, if that gets burned away.
Jim, you're displaying your prodigious speech writing credentials here. The problem with your posting it here is that Biden can't use it without attribution (although he did that in the past), and he (and his speech writers) surely can't write a better one....
Thank you. I resist most comparisons to 1968, for obvious reasons. ("Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln...:") My view is that it is very far from "too late" for Biden to make it likely that he'll be seen as one of history's heroes. Rather than the complicated legacy of RBG.
(Side note: Back in 2013, I said in a radio broadcast that the capstone decision of her illustrious legal career would be to step down from SCOTUS and allow the newly re-elected Obama to appoint her successor. The blowback to that — "how DARE you tell her what to do" — way outshadowed, in bitterness, disagreements now about the best course for Biden.)
Well written, James, as we have come to expect from you. Thank you for it. We can only pray that President Biden delivers it, or something like it, as soon as possible.
Appreciate it; thanks. I gather, from looking at the news just now (Biden's letter to Democrats in Congress) that it's not exactly working out that way...
Thank you, James. I'm sure that wasn't easy to write.
It is easy to recognize when one has left their field of expertise. I watched the debate in a panic -- not knowing what to do. Or think. But I knew who I could rely on to guide me. Thanks for being there.
Don, thank you. And I'll pick up on the "easy to write" point:
As I mention in a mega-reply higher in this thread, in a way I've always found speeches to be the only kind of writing that is actually "easy." You just start giving the speech in your head, and type it down. I think many/most people who end up as speechwriters feel or think the same way. Writing for the page is "hard"; writing for the ear is much easier.
The part that is hard, and is what you're referring to, is taking a side in an issue that is so bitterly divisive among people who share an enormous, history-changing goal: that of avoiding the return of Donald Trump to a position of power. But my mind has changed in these past few weeks. I appreciate your attention and support.
I think it is a mistake to refer to the outcome of such an action as a "brokered" convention, as some in the press are doing. If Biden releases his delegates it becomes an "open" convention. There could be several ballots. It would be democracy in action. People would be glued to their TV's. I certainly believe Biden has been a good and consequential President, but we have a future to think about ...
Joe, good point. In the post-Boss Tweed era, no one likes the sound of a "brokered" convention. You and I have both been around to see the chaos that can occur in wide-open conventions. So I would be wary of it — unless the risk of *not* opening things up seemed greater, as I think it has become. And the possible positive aspects, as you say, could be considerable.
Eloquent as it should be, but yet decisive, unapologetic and brave. This is what a true leader must due when the risks are too grave. Despite his own confidence, he and his closest confidants must realize that to continue in the face of the recent developments would be pure hubris and bordering on unpatriotic. His legacy has already been etched in stone as a predominantly accomplished Presidency. It can only be chiseled away into dust if he doesn't do as you suggest, James. I appreciate the care and bravery it takes to make such a statement as you have done here, knowing how much you respect the office and the man.
It's important for Biden to emphasize that he is not stepping down from the Presidency, but only from the 2024 nomination. He still has nearly six months of his term left, and there's a lot he can do in that time.
I know that, Mr. Fallows, and I appreciate and respect your point of view and all your writings. But - historically - changing candidates at this point leads to election loss - 1968 comes to mind. If President Biden decides to step back, that's one thing. But having the media dwell on it - the ABC hit piece which they called an "interview" - even NPR obsessing over this, early today - That keeps Biden in the headlines for the wrong reasons, and in the meantime Trump is unmentioned and unnoticed and he is a far worse candidate than Joe Biden.
Changing at this point is obviously a risk. And the least-tumultuous way to do it is of course for Biden to go out on top — which is more or less what I was trying to outline. Anything that involves forcing him out would compound the disaster.
I was outlining the path I (have come to) hope that he will take.
I totally understand your viewpoint; before the debate, I was highly skeptical of the Biden doubters. But I was deeply shaken by his performance, and by his subsequent appearances. Biden's age diminishment goes only in one direction, and so does any potential for excitement about his candidacy.
It is a risk, certainly. But if the Dems can put together a ticket with a breath of fresh air at this point, that youth and people of color and all other Democrats can rally around, the potential for excitement can only go up. I'm kind of partial to a Harris-Buttigieg ticket. Both a First and a Second Gentleman! 1968 was a very very different time- Viet Nam, etc.
As Will Rogers says, I don’t belong to any organized political party, I’m a Democrat. Given that this is an inflection point and the disgraceful aura surrounding TFOG with so much more to come in the near future, a brokered convention could be a strong positive message for our system of government. Beautiful writing!
I've just re-read this in light of the events of the past few days—and it's remarkably close to the humility and sentiments expressed by Biden as he has stepped aside and endorsed Kamala Harris. I don't think anyone could have wished for a better handling of the issue at the time you wrote it, James. Much work still to be done, but the palpable shift in energy and hope is quite something.
A wonderful letter. And so glad to see you stress the importance of a democratic process to pick a new nominee.
Thank you.
For some reason, had not been able to comment on this powerful, moving letter. I'm writing this as Biden digs in deeper, and opposition to his continued candidacy spreads from the 'pundit' class to the political class, i.e., Congress. I'm skeptical of whether the Democrats will unite around a replacement candidate, but the "he must step down" chants are relentless and drowning out Trump, the Supreme Court, and Project 2025, all of which must be reaching every voter in the days ahead.
Shortly after the debate I made the largest donation to a political campaign - Biden for President - ever. And now I think he needs to step down. Biden is a fundamentally decent and caring human being who has withstood and triumphed in the face of great personal adversity. He has been a transformational president. I think the bottom line, however, is that he will not be able to sell his accomplishments to the American people. His approval rating has always been under water, and he never has gotten the credit for all he has accomplished. I think his ability to break through this "credit conundrum" is now impossible, and someone else will need to sell his and the Democratic Party's approach to governance, which has succeeded, I would say, spectacularly in the past four years. As I said above, however, I do not know who this 'someone else' will be or how the Party will choose that someone else.
It's only the first week of July - that is my sole consolation.
Agreed. I think Robert Hur effectively—and probably by design—put paid to any chance of Biden drawing on the considerable equity of his record.
What you describe in your second paragraph parallels what I have been thinking about.
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.
Thanks, James. You're wrong. Elegantly so. But still wrong. And this explanation makes it so much worse, especially 6. "I don't know what the answer is but I will give one anyway"? That's just bad politics and worse punditry.
I've put my 2 cents into the comments enough that I am not going to rehash them once again. You've lost a longtime fan.
The mind boggles on punting over number 6. How can we say Biden must go and leave the next step to fate? Especially where the answer is clear. Thus, I assume that advocates for Biden's departure believe the obvious successor, the one elected in the Democratic primaries, is inadequate by some measure. I am not going to speculate on what measure is being applied. But I must insist that those who want Biden gone have an obligation, in logic, to explain why the person elected by the voters to be Biden's successor should not succeed him.
I am just starting to go through all these comments in their entirety. I very clearly get the message that you are sure I am wrong and you are right.
I have no reason to express anything other than my actual observations and conclusions. Based on what I had seen **in public** from Joe Biden until about a month ago, I believed not only (a) that he has been a very effective president, which I think most people here agree on, but also (b) that he had everything going for him as the strongest opponent to Trump. So I am on record as saying "Enough, already, with the 'Biden is too old' " articles and op-eds.
But based on what I have seen, in public, in the past month — and what we have *not* seen from Biden in that time--I have changed my mind. Making a change at this point is by definition disruptive. That is why I have been against it over the past year. But my conclusion is that things have changed, when it comes to the most effective vehicle against Trump. I know that you disagree.
Thanks for the response. Respectfully, I dissent.
James, thank you for this. Perfect message for this historic moment. And I so hope Biden delivers it, more or less, as soon as possible. Because this will give the Party leaders and the obvious contenders time to negotiate an open and transparent process to produce the strongest replacement ticket possible, even prior to the convention. I still like Anne Applebaum's "strategic plan" solution she posted on July 3rd on The Atlantic.
Thank you Frank.
In the ~24 hours since I posted this, especially given Biden's letter and statement this morning (Monday), a worst-of-all-worlds possibility is emerging: that Biden will set this up as a *convention fight.* Rather than him going out on top (which is what I was trying to set up with this draft.) At the moment, virtually every Democrat is united in gratitude to and admiration for Biden. God save us indeed, if that gets burned away.
One more time. Please check the headline and then check your consciences. Good night and God bless.
Biden Narrows Trump's Election Lead in Key States After Debate - Bloomberg News
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-07-06/biden-narrows-trump-s-election-lead-in-key-states-after-debate-poll?embedded-checkout=true
Jim, you're displaying your prodigious speech writing credentials here. The problem with your posting it here is that Biden can't use it without attribution (although he did that in the past), and he (and his speech writers) surely can't write a better one....
Thank you. If I had an inside channel to "his people," I might have sent it that way! (Though I go into this in my omnibus reply-all note, above.)
Jim --
Brilliant, as usual. If March 31 wasn't too late for LBJ, m-dJuly isn't too late forBiden.
Thank you. I resist most comparisons to 1968, for obvious reasons. ("Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln...:") My view is that it is very far from "too late" for Biden to make it likely that he'll be seen as one of history's heroes. Rather than the complicated legacy of RBG.
(Side note: Back in 2013, I said in a radio broadcast that the capstone decision of her illustrious legal career would be to step down from SCOTUS and allow the newly re-elected Obama to appoint her successor. The blowback to that — "how DARE you tell her what to do" — way outshadowed, in bitterness, disagreements now about the best course for Biden.)
Well written, James, as we have come to expect from you. Thank you for it. We can only pray that President Biden delivers it, or something like it, as soon as possible.
Thank you.
From your pen to President Biden’s ears…
Appreciate it; thanks. I gather, from looking at the news just now (Biden's letter to Democrats in Congress) that it's not exactly working out that way...
Thank you, James. I'm sure that wasn't easy to write.
It is easy to recognize when one has left their field of expertise. I watched the debate in a panic -- not knowing what to do. Or think. But I knew who I could rely on to guide me. Thanks for being there.
Don
Don, thank you. And I'll pick up on the "easy to write" point:
As I mention in a mega-reply higher in this thread, in a way I've always found speeches to be the only kind of writing that is actually "easy." You just start giving the speech in your head, and type it down. I think many/most people who end up as speechwriters feel or think the same way. Writing for the page is "hard"; writing for the ear is much easier.
The part that is hard, and is what you're referring to, is taking a side in an issue that is so bitterly divisive among people who share an enormous, history-changing goal: that of avoiding the return of Donald Trump to a position of power. But my mind has changed in these past few weeks. I appreciate your attention and support.
I think it is a mistake to refer to the outcome of such an action as a "brokered" convention, as some in the press are doing. If Biden releases his delegates it becomes an "open" convention. There could be several ballots. It would be democracy in action. People would be glued to their TV's. I certainly believe Biden has been a good and consequential President, but we have a future to think about ...
Joe, good point. In the post-Boss Tweed era, no one likes the sound of a "brokered" convention. You and I have both been around to see the chaos that can occur in wide-open conventions. So I would be wary of it — unless the risk of *not* opening things up seemed greater, as I think it has become. And the possible positive aspects, as you say, could be considerable.
Eloquent as it should be, but yet decisive, unapologetic and brave. This is what a true leader must due when the risks are too grave. Despite his own confidence, he and his closest confidants must realize that to continue in the face of the recent developments would be pure hubris and bordering on unpatriotic. His legacy has already been etched in stone as a predominantly accomplished Presidency. It can only be chiseled away into dust if he doesn't do as you suggest, James. I appreciate the care and bravery it takes to make such a statement as you have done here, knowing how much you respect the office and the man.
That is very gracious; thank you.
It's important for Biden to emphasize that he is not stepping down from the Presidency, but only from the 2024 nomination. He still has nearly six months of his term left, and there's a lot he can do in that time.
Yes, agree.
If you think President Biden can step down now and another candidate can win, you are delusional.
I wouldn't have come to this conclusion if I didn't think that the risks of *not* making a change were greater. I realize that we disagree on this.
I know that, Mr. Fallows, and I appreciate and respect your point of view and all your writings. But - historically - changing candidates at this point leads to election loss - 1968 comes to mind. If President Biden decides to step back, that's one thing. But having the media dwell on it - the ABC hit piece which they called an "interview" - even NPR obsessing over this, early today - That keeps Biden in the headlines for the wrong reasons, and in the meantime Trump is unmentioned and unnoticed and he is a far worse candidate than Joe Biden.
Changing at this point is obviously a risk. And the least-tumultuous way to do it is of course for Biden to go out on top — which is more or less what I was trying to outline. Anything that involves forcing him out would compound the disaster.
I was outlining the path I (have come to) hope that he will take.
Thank you. And I apologize for my intemperate first comment.
I totally understand your viewpoint; before the debate, I was highly skeptical of the Biden doubters. But I was deeply shaken by his performance, and by his subsequent appearances. Biden's age diminishment goes only in one direction, and so does any potential for excitement about his candidacy.
It is a risk, certainly. But if the Dems can put together a ticket with a breath of fresh air at this point, that youth and people of color and all other Democrats can rally around, the potential for excitement can only go up. I'm kind of partial to a Harris-Buttigieg ticket. Both a First and a Second Gentleman! 1968 was a very very different time- Viet Nam, etc.
As Will Rogers says, I don’t belong to any organized political party, I’m a Democrat. Given that this is an inflection point and the disgraceful aura surrounding TFOG with so much more to come in the near future, a brokered convention could be a strong positive message for our system of government. Beautiful writing!
Thank you. We're all just trying to figure out the most sensible path ahead.