2024 US Presidential Election Speculation

[WeiWenDi]

I don’t know that his record is against him on these counts. He just lacks the necessary power to affect profound change (as a president who is generally respecting the democratic process). He is not going to be able to put an end to dark money, nor is a divisive Congress going to take meaningful steps to curtail it. On the other hand, he has generally been working to maintain and expand (let’s call any expansion small steps toward restoration for now) regulation.

It's been a long week, I'm tired and more than a little cranky, so it may be unwise for me to post right now. But here goes. I'll press delete if I see myself getting too polemical.

Biden has done three things as President that in my view are unambiguously good and for which he deserves immense credit.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The infrastructure bill he passed has already done immense and measurable good for the country. It's provided clean drinking water for dozens of cities across the country; it's promoted cheaper public transit; it's committed much-needed funds to things like highway repair and energy infrastructure modernisation which have been badly needed for, I'm going to conservatively go with years, but decades might actually come closer to the truth.

Withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan. Even though this is broadly considered a 'failure' on Biden's part even within his own party, my take is that it was an incredible act of political courage on Biden's part that required him to take a stand against 20 years of failed policy. It also exposed him to a hailstorm of attacks from the media. Even though the withdrawal caused some immediate problems, particularly for the Afghan government, it was ultimately better (IMHO) to rip off the bandage all at once rather than slowly by degrees.

Repealing DoMA. This has been to the immense benefit of LGBTQ+ people all around the country, stabilising their legal status, as well as to numerous other families whose status has been up in the air for years. Likewise a major act of political courage on Biden's part, reversing a previous mistake.

Now, specifically addressing your point about Biden's political power and ability, I think there are several specific areas of critique that need to be made. The first is where and how he has chosen to use his 'bully pulpit' and position as Democratic Party leader to forward a specific legislative agenda. We saw him do this specifically with the IIJA--again, very much to his credit.

Missed opportunities with Build Back Better. He could have used the same tactics with the BBBA, particularly in its original form with funds marked for a broad variety of much needed social supports aimed at bolstering the working and middle classes (like school lunches, child tax credits, earned income tax credits, affordable housing, Medicare expansion). As the head of the executive branch, he could have directed the DOJ to put pressure on Manchin (investigation into credible corruption claims, for example) if he didn't get on board with BBBA, or he could have used a similar carrot-and-stick approach with Synema. He didn't do either, and I think that shows the limits of his political will, rather than political ability.

There's another set of missed opportunities that Biden could have availed himself of, with regard to use of executive orders. To give one example: he could have cancelled $50,000 of student debt per borrower by executive order. He refused to do that for a long time. If I'm remembering right, he ultimately signed an executive order remitting up to $20,000 in student debt per borrower, means-tested to borrowers of low-income backgrounds... but that's still less than a year's in-state tuition at most public research universities.

My biggest 'executive' gripes with Biden right now, though, are that he threw federal rail workers under the bus in December last year by making it illegal for them to go on strike; that he completely punted on his promise of blocking military support to the Saudis against Yemen with his 'defensive weapons' loophole; and of course that he continued Trump's ludicrous policy of sending weapons aid into the Ukraine, with the predictable results we've seen.

On the other hand, I think the attempts to blame the current rate of inflation and rising prices on Biden are... illogical. I'll just leave it at that.

This is a game the Republican Party knows how to play well. While they do not have power to enact their agenda, they focus all of their efforts on sabotaging and undermining the Democratic Party. And Biden also gets to deal with, to the extent possible, stabilizing things after the damage Trump inflicted during his presidency (and continues to inflict) along with COVID and a generally rough time period. So even if Biden specifically wanted to slash the wealth divide, it isn’t so simple as issuing a decree. I am sure there are others who would be more passionate about the topic—some are easy enough to name—but it is hard to take issue with someone (for me, in this age) for positions which are “decent.”

Even someone who would want to aggressively curtail such things, like, say, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren on things like regulatory oversight, would not be a great deal more effectual without corresponding legislative and judiciary support. Outside the extent to which they may be a bit more effective by choosing where to focus the bulk of their energy and efforts.

You're certainly right that the Republican Party's strategy at least since the Obama years has been one of total obstruction of the entire Democratic legislative agenda; but we have to ask why this is. There's been a significant move toward red-meat pandering to the most stridently reactionary elements of the voter base at least since John McCain chose Sarah Palin as a running-mate in 2008. And I think there's a significant sense that the old Tea Party strategies against Obama worked from the standpoint of individual candidates for seats. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is responding to a specific voter impulse. My take is that is the obstructionist voter impulse needs to be short-circuited at the level of grassroots discourse and action.

I'd say you're also right that Biden inherited a huge mess to clean up. As I said above, he deserves massive credit for IIJA, which was a successful and indeed heroic attempt to do just that. But it's possible to imagine tactical choices he could have made, to advance more of the legislative agenda that he claimed to stand behind. With regard to more specific policies, I kind of outlined those above.

On that later note… Trump (and the Republican Party) did a lot of damage to the judiciary by specifically seeking out and promoting activist judges. Including and beyond the more obvious Supreme Court example.

Yeah, not gonna disagree with you on this one. I've long been critical of Clinton and Gore for 'hollowing out' government apparatuses and regulatory bodies by outsourcing their functions to the private sector. Trump, though, didn't just hollow them out, he planted mines under them and exploded them. Putting the pieces back together is going to be at least 20 years' work.

That said, if you wanted to be critical of Gorski on the count of Kennedy, you’d probably want to document missteps in his reporting on Kennedy. I have been following information sources which include him and a range of others for a while, now, and Gorski has an excellent track-record on accuracy. That said, I am not familiar with his exchanges with Ted Kaptchuk on the placebo effect, nor am I particularly familiar with Ted Kaptchuk. Not even sure when those exchanges date. So it is hard to weigh it. I would need to do research.

That's just what I'm familiar with Gorski from.

As I said, Gorski is correct in his criticisms of Kennedy, and I have no desire to defend Kennedy on an issue where he is clearly wrong. I'm more comfortable defending Kaptchuk's work on placebo effect because it was part of the curriculum in my bio class.

I could agree with Kennedy on some issues if it wasn’t for his utter failure to apply critical thinking in so many other areas. On a positive note, I have a hard time imagining him to be the sort that would actually want to dismantle democracy (speaking of said low bar), but I don’t feel like he would be doing a lot of good for the country, either. I sure would like someone in there who can promote and champion, through example, critical thinking. And on the heels of COVID I admit I am even more sensitive than usual to things like the anti-vaccination nuttery.

All fair points. And all fair reasons to not like Kennedy. I know I tend to have different priorities.

I wonder what curious version of the US we would have in that outcome.
I have trouble imagining something resembling a normalish US these days…

Hard to imagine anything specific, as the radicalization would still need to be played through.

Yeah... unfortunately, we're on the historical path that we've collectively chosen. What was 'normal' before 2019, or even before 2016, is now a past that it will be impossible to recover or restore.

[James]

It's been a long week, I'm tired and more than a little cranky, so it may be unwise for me to post right now. But here goes. I'll press delete if I see myself getting too polemical.

Your post seemed measured.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The infrastructure bill he passed has already done immense and measurable good for the country. It's provided clean drinking water for dozens of cities across the country; it's promoted cheaper public transit; it's committed much-needed funds to things like highway repair and energy infrastructure modernisation which have been badly needed for, I'm going to conservatively go with years, but decades might actually come closer to the truth.

Withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan. Even though this is broadly considered a 'failure' on Biden's part even within his own party, my take is that it was an incredible act of political courage on Biden's part that required him to take a stand against 20 years of failed policy. It also exposed him to a hailstorm of attacks from the media. Even though the withdrawal caused some immediate problems, particularly for the Afghan government, it was ultimately better (IMHO) to rip off the bandage all at once rather than slowly by degrees.

Repealing DoMA. This has been to the immense benefit of LGBTQ+ people all around the country, stabilising their legal status, as well as to numerous other families whose status has been up in the air for years. Likewise a major act of political courage on Biden's part, reversing a previous mistake.

No real disagreement on these counts. Even the withdrawal of troops. It was heartbreaking to watch because it seemed to be rushed and poorly handled in many regards, which makes me think keeping to certain timelines and the lead-up under an administration which did not care about the troops or what was happening there complicated things. It seemed like many people were jeopardized, endangered, and killed needlessly as part of the withdrawal. But I do think the withdrawal needed to happen. I can’t imagine any long-term success for that sort of occupation effort, plenty of ongoing harm, and despite the former comment, there was no way the withdrawal was going to go smoothly.

Now, specifically addressing your point about Biden's political power and ability, I think there are several specific areas of critique that need to be made. The first is where and how he has chosen to use his 'bully pulpit' and position as Democratic Party leader to forward a specific legislative agenda. We saw him do this specifically with the IIJA--again, very much to his credit.

Missed opportunities with Build Back Better. He could have used the same tactics with the BBBA, particularly in its original form with funds marked for a broad variety of much needed social supports aimed at bolstering the working and middle classes (like school lunches, child tax credits, earned income tax credits, affordable housing, Medicare expansion). As the head of the executive branch, he could have directed the DOJ to put pressure on Manchin (investigation into credible corruption claims, for example) if he didn't get on board with BBBA, or he could have used a similar carrot-and-stick approach with Synema. He didn't do either, and I think that shows the limits of his political will, rather than political ability.

There's another set of missed opportunities that Biden could have availed himself of, with regard to use of executive orders. To give one example: he could have cancelled $50,000 of student debt per borrower by executive order. He refused to do that for a long time. If I'm remembering right, he ultimately signed an executive order remitting up to $20,000 in student debt per borrower, means-tested to borrowers of low-income backgrounds... but that's still less than a year's in-state tuition at most public research universities.

My biggest 'executive' gripes with Biden right now, though, are that he threw federal rail workers under the bus in December last year by making it illegal for them to go on strike; that he completely punted on his promise of blocking military support to the Saudis against Yemen with his 'defensive weapons' loophole; and of course that he continued Trump's ludicrous policy of sending weapons aid into the Ukraine, with the predictable results we've seen.

I don’t know enough about the strike point to comment on it. I have read a lot, and have opinions on it, but it seems like a subject which deserves more attention than I have given it.

There is also not much point of disagreement from me on most of these other points, but I do think they (and some other points made) run directly against the concerns I described prior. The president is not (should not be, at least, despite some efforts to the contrary) a dictatorial role, so they have to work within the confines of the system in place, balancing many needs, negotiating, etc. It makes it complicated to do something like the student loan forgiveness (which I fully supported in an aggressive form) without expending considerable political capital and creating issues in balancing support needed to pass other legislation. And that includes something which can be done via executive order (albeit with limitations that exist as a product of a hostile and broken components of the judiciary branch). About all I can really do is hope to see an effort that feels reasonable, but I do not expect to deeply understand the ins and outs of why something was challenging or why focus seemed to be somewhere else. And this makes it hard to see the good and the bad in many cases (unless the bad is just predictable).

It boggles my mind, for example, why greater priority has not been extended to pushing certain appointments through. And the cynical part of me wonders if lobbyists have too much power in certain areas across the board or if there are other reasons for it. Meanwhile some challenging points seem to get addressed more aggressively.

So at the end of the day, it is the broader progress I hope for. Which leaves me in the position where I am generally happy with what he has done, even if it isn’t the more progressive sort of scenarios I want to see happening in many cases. My greatest hope is that whatever it is they are doing, it is doing whatever can reasonably be done to at least take steps in preserving democracy, and I am not often very optimistic of it.

It has been frustrating, for example, to see how shamelessly Republicans will twist and contort every sense of protocol and decency to do something like control a Supreme Court nomination, and sometimes those points seem so critical to the future of the country that you wonder why they weren’t met with vicious, no-holds-barred opposition.

The point I mainly disagree on is Ukraine, but that’s to be expected, I suppose. I think Biden has handled a complicated situation rather well.

You're certainly right that the Republican Party's strategy at least since the Obama years has been one of total obstruction of the entire Democratic legislative agenda; but we have to ask why this is. There's been a significant move toward red-meat pandering to the most stridently reactionary elements of the voter base at least since John McCain chose Sarah Palin as a running-mate in 2008. And I think there's a significant sense that the old Tea Party strategies against Obama worked from the standpoint of individual candidates for seats. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is responding to a specific voter impulse. My take is that is the obstructionist voter impulse needs to be short-circuited at the level of grassroots discourse and action.

I'd say you're also right that Biden inherited a huge mess to clean up. As I said above, he deserves massive credit for IIJA, which was a successful and indeed heroic attempt to do just that. But it's possible to imagine tactical choices he could have made, to advance more of the legislative agenda that he claimed to stand behind. With regard to more specific policies, I kind of outlined those above.

Does “why this is?” have to have a deep and meaningful answer? Can it just be because the Republican Party is split between anything it once represented and whatever it is the Tea Party/MAGA has evolved into, and it seems plenty of them are quite willing to sacrifice all principles for the sake of furthering their careers. And, rather than maneuver in a way that makes the party viable on a popular scale and viable for future generations, focus on undermining democracy, voting, access, etc. so they don’t need to rely on the traditional voting systems.

Yeah, not gonna disagree with you on this one. I've long been critical of Clinton and Gore for 'hollowing out' government apparatuses and regulatory bodies by outsourcing their functions to the private sector. Trump, though, didn't just hollow them out, he planted mines under them and exploded them. Putting the pieces back together is going to be at least 20 years' work.

Yep...