Extending common ground.

October 10, 2023

          Conspiracy theorist and professional gadfly Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Monday that he will convert his vanity PR stunt into a third-party presidential campaign. Kennedy abandoned his Democratic primary bid after he made ignorant and racially tinged statements about COVID immunity, statements that caused his popularity among Democrats to plummet. Recognizing that he had no chance of disrupting the Democratic primary and could never earn a spot on the debate stage in the Republican primary, he took refuge in an independent third-party campaign.

          The development should give Democrats a measure of relief. Many Democrats were worried that Kennedy’s unnaturally youthful physique and famous name would siphon disillusioned voters away from Joe Biden. But as the Trump campaign has deduced, Kennedy is a bigger threat to conspiracy-prone, disgruntled GOP voters than Biden. Indeed, the RNC and the Trump campaign both attacked Kennedy after he announced his third-party campaign. The Trump campaign said,

Voters should not be deceived by anyone who pretends to have conservative values. [Kennedy’s campaign is] nothing more than a vanity project for a liberal Kennedy looking to cash in on his family’s name.

See Vanity Fair, Turns Out RFK Jr.’s Independent Bid Could Do Trump More Damage Than Biden. Per Vanity Fair,

Internal polling from the Trump campaign suggests that a Kennedy third-party bid would sap more votes from the ex-president than Biden in a general election matchup, according to a Semafor report published Friday. “It’s single digits, but it’s enough where it counts to make a difference,” a person familiar with the data told the outlet. The Trump campaign, in turn, is reportedly readying a messaging onslaught against Kennedy, who, despite being a member of the most iconic family in Democratic politics, is running as a pro-gun anti-vaxxer whose platform aligns much more closely with conservative populism than Biden’s progressive liberalism.

          And it can’t help RFK Jr. that his siblings issued a joint statement condemning his run for the presidency:

The decision of our brother Bobby to run as a third-party candidate against Joe Biden is dangerous to our country. Bobby might share the same name as our father, but he does not share the same values, vision or judgment. Today's announcement is deeply saddening for us. We denounce his candidacy and believe it to be perilous for our country.

          This development is less about RFK Jr. than it is about the Democratic tendency to exaggerate fears and assume the worst, especially where Joe Biden is concerned. When Kennedy was teasing his candidacy, Democrats were in a panic—a narrative that was amplified by a willing media. See, e.g., NYPost, RFK Jr. has the White House sweating, and rightly so.

          Kennedy’s reputation in the Democratic Party is already damaged after he said that COVID was bioengineered to be “ethnically targeted” and that Ashkenazi Jews were suspiciously immune. When the Trump campaign machine is done with Kennedy, he will likely drop out of the race entirely.

          I started the newsletter with this story because of another wave of Joe-Biden-is-too-old angst circulating among Democrats. Although I can’t pinpoint where the most recent angst originates, I received a half-dozen copies of an op-ed by David Brooks in NYTimes, Opinion | Can we talk about Joe Biden? (I am not going to waste one of my NYTimes gift subscriptions on this article.)

          On the one hand, Brooks is mainly sympathetic to Biden and concludes that Biden is the Democrat’s only choice. But in arriving at that conclusion, Brooks devotes a lot of NYTimes real estate to three tired premises: (a) Biden is old; (b) polling is bad for Biden; and (c) voters care about inflation more than any other issue. Those premises lead Brooks to this crescendo of handwringing:

Voters know both men very well at this point, so when I hear Democrats comforting themselves that people will flock to Biden if the alternative on the ballot is Trump, I worry they are kidding themselves.

          For a guy at the pinnacle of the opinion writer ecosphere, Brooks’ analysis is badly off-point. But rather than argue with Brooks, I will simply note that every special election in 2023 has been a national referendum on Joe Biden, and he has exceeded expectations at every opportunity. Brooks does not examine that critical fact because it undermines his analysis in two ways:

          First, “Biden” and “Trump” are surrogates and avatars for two different visions of America—authoritarian vs democratic, gun safety vs a heavily armed citizenry, reproductive liberty vs state-imposed religious regulation of women’s bodies, dignity vs discrimination against LGBTQ people, and environmental protection vs unregulated fossil fuels.  If Brooks doesn’t understand that point, he has been comatose since 2019 (at least).

          Second, Brooks simply assumes that Trump is a legitimate candidate who has not mounted a coup, incited an insurrection, unlawfully retained defense secrets, disclosed sensitive nuclear information to Russian diplomats and random guests at Mar-a-Lago, and been adjudged as a sexual abuser. Not to mention that Trump is teetering on bankruptcy as he defends 91 felony counts. Yet, to Brooks, Trump is just one of two major party candidates in the 2024 election.

          Never before in our history have we had a major presidential candidate under four criminal indictments as he runs for office and Brooks fails to mention that fact in his analysis of the election. Really?!? “But, but, but . . . inflation,” Brooks responds. Give me a break! I have more faith in the American people than does Brooks. I hope you do, too. Do not fall for facile, shallow journalism that sells American voters short.

          Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was supposed to destroy Biden’s campaign. He will now be lucky to escape with his standing in the anti-vaxxer community intact. As always, we can’t count on Republicans or independent candidates to defeat themselves, but let’s not talk ourselves into defeatism when we should be confident and hopeful.

House Republicans flail while crises demand action.

          It is dawning on House Republicans that their dysfunction has real-world consequences. During a time of multiple crises, former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy has assumed the role as spokesperson for the caucus that just fired him. Although the Acting Speaker Patrick McHenry adjourned the House until October 10, the House calendar has no business listed for Tuesday, suggesting that Republicans have no intention of reconvening the House until they agree on a successor to McCarthy. So, McCarthy has floated his name as a candidate to replace himself. See Reuters, US House Republicans plot next moves on leader, McCarthy says he would go back.  

          And a few dozen Republicans in the House are reportedly seeking to amend the “one-vote-rule” for making a motion to vacate. See The Hill, House GOP debates ditching ‘motion to vacate’ rule that unseated McCarthy.

          Although the precise path forward is not clear, external pressures may be enough to force Republicans to recognize that their majority can function only in a bipartisan coalition with Democrats. That is the obvious answer. Whether Republicans will accept that reality sooner rather than later is the question.

President Biden sits for interview with special counsel regarding classified documents.

          While Trump and many congressional Republicans have refused to comply with subpoenas issued by the J6 Committee or have asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, President Biden voluntarily participated in two days of interviews with a special counsel investigating his retention of classified documents after he left the vice presidency. See HuffPo, Biden Interviewed As Part Of Special Counsel Probe Into Classified Documents.

          See how easy that is?

Technology and communication assistance for grassroots organizations.

          Many grassroots organizations active in 2023 got their start in someone’s living room in 2017 in response to Trump's election. When activists first sat down to ask, “What can we do to help defend democracy?”, chances are that no one was thinking “And let’s onboard a tech-savvy marketing guru to help us create data-rich visually compelling communications to help us succeed.”

          Roll forward to 2023, and many of those organizations that got their start in someone’s living room now have thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of members. They need data-rich, visually compelling communications to help them maximize their reach. But, like all grassroots organizations, money is always a limiting factor.

          Last week, my wife and I met with a few dozen readers at the home of Deepak Puri. The meeting was a “mixer” to meet readers and exchange thoughts about the politics of the moment. At the end of our meeting, Deepak described his venture—The Democracy Labs—which is devoted to helping progressive groups use free tools to create data-rich, visually compelling messages and websites for volunteers and voters. Deepak publishes a Substack newsletter (Democracy Labs | Substack ) and hosts the website The Democracy Labs (thedemlabs.org).

          On the website and blog, you can check out the types of interactive graphics and communications that Democracy Labs can help your group create. The website and blog include many free resources, training videos, and case studies. Check out the newsletter and website or write to me if you would like to contact Deepak directly. (I didn’t tell him I was going to write this article, so I failed to get permission to publish his email. I will connect you with Deepak ASAP if you are interested. And, in case you are wondering, this is not a paid promotion and I have no idea if DemLabs performs any of its work on a fee basis.)

          During the meeting at Deepak’s home, I connected with readers who founded grassroots groups in the Bay Area. I will be writing about those groups later this week. I am always amazed at the talent, dedication, and fearlessness that ordinary citizens have brought to bear in the fight to defend democracy. We are blessed with millions of Americans who have responded to the call of our nation in its time of need. Thank you all!

Concluding Thoughts.

          A few thoughts about reader reaction to yesterday’s newsletter.

          While many readers were thankful for my comments about the victims of the attack on Israel by Hamas and the connection I made to rising antisemitism in the US, dozens of readers sent emails expressing emotions ranging from disappointment to anger about (a) statements I did not make in the newsletter, (b) statements readers thought I should have made in the newsletter, or (c) statements other people made in other publications that readers assumed I agreed with.

          The most common criticisms were that I should have condemned Israel’s policies toward Gaza and the West Bank, that I should have been harsher in my criticism of Hamas, and that I should have criticized “left-wing” politicians and university students for their support of Palestinians or opposition to Israel’s policies. (That’s a high-level summary; there were dozens of iterations on those themes.)

          I responded to dozens of readers (at length) who were upset. In general, I tried to make the point that I wrote on a specific topic—a terrorist attack that targeted innocent civilians. I assumed and hoped that is common ground on which we can all agree. I was wrong.

          I am about to repeat an argument that many readers made, but before I do, let me say that I disagree with their view. Many readers said in some way that it was wrong to condemn the killing of innocent civilians without pairing that condemnation with an equal condemnation of Israel for its policies toward Gaza and the West Bank. As I said in response to that argument, “Can you not see that marshaling those arguments in that order implies that the killing of innocent civilians is justified?”

          I don’t believe any reader who criticized yesterday’s newsletter truly believes that the killing of innocent civilians was justified. But that implication can be created by insisting that deaths of innocent civilians can be discussed only if we also discuss a governmental policy that the murdered civilians had no control over and may have opposed.

          These are difficult, intractable issues that will only be solved if we can talk about the problems without accusing one another of bad faith or bias. All readers of this newsletter are joined by the common hope that we can preserve and extend democracy in America. Let’s try to extend that common ground to urge our leaders to work harder toward ensuring peace and security in the Middle East.

          Talk to you tomorrow.