Supporting Joe Biden is hard. Doing the right thing always is.

March 7, 2024

Supporting Joe Biden for president is hard. Not because Biden is a poor candidate (he is not) or because has failed to deliver on his promises (he has) or because he is being opposed by members of his own party at a moment when unity is the hinge between democracy and autocracy.

Today, I have felt the weight of supporting Joe Biden because of two factors that leave me stupefied. Both are predictable and common responses to the rise of fascism and strongmen everywhere: The indolent surrender of the press to the demi-god of false equivalencies and the moral collapse of politicians who never cared about country or cause but pursued personal power to the exclusion of all else.

---

The surrender of the press.

As we approach the State of the Union, the press has abandoned truth and morality for a make-believe world of false equivalency lubricated by equal parts cynicism and condescension. Journalists act as though their veiled editorial biases are consequence-free prerogatives of a free press—a luxury that exists only because their readers fought and died for the Fourth Estate’s right to speak the truth in the face of tyrants and dictators.

And yet, they repay that sacrifice with disdain and scorn when their readers raise the alarm about the next tyrant waiting in the wings. Rather than heed the alarm, they respond, “Tut-tut, tsk-tsk! Do not deign to tell us what stories to cover. We will tell you what is important.” Criticism of coverage is squashed by invocation of the Dogma of Journalistic Infallibility—“If we say it, it must be true. If we don’t, it doesn’t exist.” Not the Pope speaking “ex cathedra,” but the press speaking “ex tabula.”

The tipping point for me today was not the latest outrage to deface the front page of the NYTimes. It was, instead, an article in Politico that perfectly captures the arrogance of a free press that has replaced reporting on facts with a preference for “bread and circuses.” See Jack Shafer in Politico, The Press is All Over Biden Right Now. And They Should Be.

Given such an alarming headline, I expected to read about a grave policy failing that Shafer believes Biden should address in the State of the Union. Sadly, no. Mr. Shafer wants Biden to address the fact that he is 81 years old.

Shafer writes,

Thanks to the stream of memory lapses that burble from the president’s lips like a Rocky Mountain stream, his stiff gait, his falls, his use of the shorter and sturdier set of stairs on Air Force One and even his own self-effacing jokes about his age, Biden has effortlessly attracted the volume of attention that makes him the envy of previous presidents. Unfortunately for Joe, it’s the wrong sort of attention because it makes him look infirm — veering into inept. . . .

The amount of media and social media scrutiny that the [State of the Union] address will blast at Biden will likely exceed the power of a billion suns.

Of the “billion sun” wattage of media attention on Biden’s age, Shafer writes:

And it’s only fair. Biden is asking for another term, and the press is tasked with vetting the candidates the best they can.

Bingo! The press is tasked with “vetting the candidates the best they can.”

So, what does Shafer say about Trump’s multitude of crimes and corruption in comparison to concerns about Biden’s age?

Nothing.

As in, “Nothing,” spelled “n-o-t-h-i-n-g.”

Well, okay, I am exaggerating. He writes,

Trump voters, on the other hand, are fine with their 77-year-old, even though he gaffes, too, and has less footwork prowess than most retirees on the pickleball court. Less than 1 percent of them say his age should be disqualifying.

“Less footwork prowess than most retirees on a pickleball court?” Really?? Not a word about Trump being a failed coup plotter who incited an insurrection, attempted a coup, sexually assaulted one woman, paid to cover up an affair with a second woman, retained defense secrets, excluded Muslims from our country, tried to bribe Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election, excused white supremacists as “fine people,” botched the response to COVID, and increased the national debt by $2.5 trillion to give millionaires and corporations another tax break. Not to mention Trump's promise that he will be a “dictator for a day” on the first day in office—a threat that should be taken as deadly serious after the events of January 6.

No, Shafer said none of those things in an article where he was praising and defending the press’s creepy obsession with Biden’s age—an obsession that is (for many) designed to conceal their fear that a Black woman may become president if Biden does not complete a second term.

The reasons that “media attention” on President Biden’s age will “exceed the power of a billion suns” is because the press is filled with vapid and shallow commentators like Shafer who care not a whit about Biden’s policies—or the existential threat to democracy presented by Trump. Instead, Shafer traffics in ageism and oblique racism to worry about Joe Biden’s “stiff gait” and use of sensible stairs designed to avoid falls while entering a jet that stands sixteen feet above the ground. (Let’s check in on the 66-year-old Mr. Shafer when he is 81 to see what he thinks about avoiding falls. Will he still be mocking such efforts then?)

Here's my point: Shafer has a moral obligation to help avoid the takeover of American democracy by a fascist. He cannot escape that moral obligation by claiming he is a member of the press with unfettered freedom to write about whatever he wants. That is both true and irrelevant.

Shafer’s insistence on emphasizing the single factor of Biden’s age in a contest between democracy and tyranny is morally irresponsible—and an abdication of Shafer’s privileged status as a journalist protected by the First Amendment, a privilege purchased for him with the blood, sweat, and tears of Americans over 230 years.

But to be fair to Shafer, he is only one example of tens of thousands of journalists who are eagerly emulating his snappy, dishy coverage that ignores issues of substance as we face one of the most important elections in our nation’s history. (I note also that Shafer has written articles critical of Trump, but as early as 2016, Shafer wrote that people should “not blame the media for creating Trump.”)

Supporting Joe Biden in the face of such casual recklessness is hard. That’s how I feel today. And if you feel the same way, you are not alone. But doing the right thing is always hard. We must accept that doing the right thing comes with an emotional burden. It impels us to want others to do the right thing; it increases our sense of disappointment when they don’t.

Which brings me to my second point.

---

The moral collapse of the Republican Party.

The moral collapse of the Republican Party has been an unfolding, slow-motion debacle ever since the Tea Party emerged in a racist convulsion after the election of a Black president. It is futile to attempt to locate the moment of collapse; it is an ongoing act of self-loathing and degradation that is difficult to watch.

We should no longer be surprised when the latest Republican surrenders in abject humiliation to Trump. But each new collapse is not only surprising, it is confounding and inexplicable. And when it happens, it makes supporters of Biden wonder—“How can it be that some Democrats are opposing one of the most successful, decent presidents in our history while Republicans are falling over themselves to pay tribute to a monster?”

The serial surrenders of holdouts in the GOP make it hard for those who support Biden because it feels like there is something unholy and perverse fueling support for a failed insurrectionist and aspiring dictator.

Speaking of unholy and perverse, Senator Mitch McConnell announced on Wednesday that he is endorsing Donald Trump for president.

McConnell is a vile person with a heart of coal. For his entire career, he worked to deny the citizens of Kentucky the healthcare, retirement, food security, safe working conditions, relief from poverty, education, and clean environment they deserve. No one should be surprised that McConnell has no moral compass or backbone. Still, even his surrender to Trump is difficult to take.

Trump used racially tinged insults to mock the Chinese heritage of McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, who served as Secretary of Transportation in Trump's administration. McConnell cannot rouse himself to defend his wife’s honor and heritage.

After voting to exonerate Trump of the charge of inciting insurrection on January 6, McConnell said the following of Trump:

Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the vice president. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth because he was angry he lost an election.

There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President.

And yet, Mitch McConnell just endorsed the man he said was “morally responsible” for the January 6 insurrection to be the next president.

In comparison, Joe Biden must plead with Democrats to show him the loyalty he deserves for having delivered on his promises—except where he has been blocked by the bad faith of Republicans in Congress or the Supreme Court.

It is hard to support Joe Biden for president in an environment where there seems to be a double standard that applies to him but not the indicted, coup-plotting, adjudicated sexual assaulter who brags that he will be a dictator on the first day in office.

And yet, we must do so without hesitation or reservation. Such support is hard because many Democrats—including me—disagree with some aspects of Biden’s policies and performance. But the only path forward for changing those policies is to keep Joe Biden in the job with a unified Democratic Congress.

It shouldn’t feel so difficult, so contentious, so thankless to be doing the right thing. But it almost always is. If that were a deterrent, we would never do the right thing.

So, my resolution today is to look past the surrender of the press to the demi-god of false equivalencies and the moral collapse of the GOP. Both will be on full display after the State of the Union. It will be hard to take. But that is a small sacrifice in support of a man who stands as the surrogate for democracy and decency in 2024.

---

More on Trump's underperformance in the primaries.

Professor Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan posted the following summary of Trump's underperformance in the primaries versus FiveThirtyEight final polling averages:

Percentage underperformance by Trump vs 538 polling averages:

0-5%: AL, IA, TX

6-10%: CA, ME, NH, SC

10-15%: MA, MI, OK, TN, UT

16-20%: [None]

20% or more: MN, VA, VT

That’s fifteen(!) states in which Trump underperformed average polling expectations. And he lost his second primary on Super Tuesday. You would expect that would be a major story, no?

You would be wrong.

On Wednesday, Newsweek ran the following headline: Biden Is First Incumbent to Lose Primary in 44 Years. That shocking headline relates to Biden’s loss in the primary in American Samoa, where a total of 91 votes were cast. Biden won 40 of the votes, and an American investment banker who campaigned in American Samoa won 51 votes—a difference of 11 votes. Newsweek felt that 11 vote difference was worthy of a headline, but not the fact that Trump has underperformed in fifteen primaries and lost Vermont by 4 percentage points while underperforming by 34 percentage points!

---

Beware results from “opt-in” online polls.

Given that fewer than 1 in 100 people surveyed by professional pollsters answer their phones, some consultants resort to “opt-in” online surveys. Such surveys are ripe for manipulation. A study by Pew Research shows just how unreliable online surveys can be—especially among young voters. See Online opt-in polls can produce misleading results about young adults’, Hispanics’ views | Pew Research Center

Per Pew Research:

[R]ecent studies have documented large errors in online opt-in surveys due to the presence of so-called “bogus respondents.” These respondents do not answer questions sincerely; instead, they attempt to complete surveys with as little effort as possible to earn money or other rewards. [¶] . . .

[O]verreporting tends to be especially concentrated in estimates for adults under 30, as well as Hispanic adults.

Pew notes one particularly egregious example of the unreliability of online surveys:

For example, in a February 2022 survey experiment, we asked opt-in respondents if they were licensed to operate a class SSGN (nuclear) submarine. In the opt-in survey, 12% of adults under 30 claimed this qualification, significantly higher than the share among older respondents. In reality, the share of Americans with this type of submarine license rounds to 0%.

The problem was even worse for Hispanic estimates. About a quarter (24%) of opt-in cases claiming to be Hispanic said they were licensed to operate a nuclear sub, versus 2% of non-Hispanics.

The Pew article relates only to online opt-in surveys. But the phenomenon of respondents answering questions in an insincere fashion cannot be limited to online surveys. As Elliot Morris of FiveThirtyEight.com wrote about the “misses” in primary polling averages,

Remember that fewer than one percent of people called for a poll actually complete the interview. That means the ones that do are statistical "weirdos" . . . . [¶]

Additionally, we know that people who are highly motivated to participate in polls (the "weirdos") also happen to be the most politically and ideologically extreme Americans. That's a recipe for polling bias in primaries . . . .

The quoted paragraphs above deserve to be re-read and internalized. They may explain the persistent bias in the polls favoring Trump. And let me add an unscientific “intuition,” i.e., that MAGA extremists are likely overrepresented in the “weirdos” of the 1-in-100 cohort of voters who pick up a phone to speak to a pollster.

---

Opportunity for reader engagement.

Join me as I moderate a discussion with North Carolina Democratic nominee for Attorney General Jeff Jackson

Thank you to everyone who supported the North Carolina Voter Registration Drive!

For more on North Carolina, please join me next Tuesday, March 12 at 6:00 p.m. Eastern / 3:00 p.m. Pacific, as I moderate a conversation with North Carolina Democratic nominee for Attorney General Jeff Jackson, who if elected will defend the right to vote.

Jeff’s a Congressman, veteran, former prosecutor, and major in the Army National Guard. He’s also a top Democratic communicator on social media and Substack.  He writes his own weekly emails, which many enjoy to learn what’s happened in Washington. He also does his own videos, such as his launch video here:

https://twitter.com/JeffJacksonNC/status/1717541579404038249

 His AG opponent is MAGA Congressman Dan Bishop, infamous for authoring the anti-LGBTQ North Carolina bathroom bill.

On the Zoom conversation, bring your questions about what to expect in the general election: the polling, strategy, opponent, and the North Carolina political landscape. We will also discuss Substack and other newer ways to reach voters and build community. 

Please donate any amount to register for the Zoom at 6pm ET/5pm CT/4pm MT/3pm PT

REGISTER HERE.

The States Project / Giving Circles.

If you have ever wondered about The States Project or its Giving Circles, I invite you to watch this short video that explains how The States Project is making a difference where it matters most—in state legislatures. Especially in 2024, having control in state legislatures can help to protect the integrity of the 2024 election. See 2024 Where Do We Go From Here (youtube.com)

---

Concluding Thoughts

I hope my opening reflection did not demotivate or dispirit anyone. It was meant to motivate and inspire you! The fact that supporting Biden is hard is a sign that we are on the right track. Surrendering to a wannabe dictator is easy; resisting him is hard—and that is what we are doing when we support Joe Biden.

When I wrote the opening reflection, I had in the back of my mind President Kennedy's (1962) comments about why America was planning to go to the moon. I had forgotten his precise words, but when I looked them up for these concluding thoughts, they seemed more apt than I had recalled.

President Kennedy said,

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.

Supporting Joe Biden is hard. Doing the right thing always is.

Talk to you tomorrow!