The moral imperative of voting for Biden

May 3, 2024

President Biden addressed the student protests taking place on college campuses across the nation. President Biden’s remarks were carefully chosen and deserve careful review. In his remarks, Biden drew a distinction between peaceful and violent protests—an eminently reasonable and logical distinction that satisfied almost no one. See, for example, Washington Post, Trump, GOP seize on campus protests to depict chaos under Biden; Common Dreams, Biden Condemned for Ahistorical and 'Politically Suicidal' Attack on Campus Protests; and Mediate.com, Major College Democrats Organization Warns Biden: Our ‘Votes Are Not to Be Taken for Granted’

Biden said, in part (edited for brevity):

We’ve all seen the images (of campus protests). And they put to the test two fundamental American principles.

The first is the right to free speech and for people to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard. The second is the rule of law. Both must be upheld.

We are not an authoritarian nation where we silence people or squash dissent.  The American people are heard. In fact, peaceful protest is in the best tradition of how Americans respond to consequential issues.

But — but neither are we a lawless country. We are a civil society, and order must prevail.

So, let me be clear. . . . violent protest is not protected; peaceful protest is. [¶]

Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not peaceful protest.  It’s against the law.

Dissent is essential to democracy.  But dissent must never lead to disorder or to denying the rights of others so students can finish the semester and their college education.

People have the right to get an education, the right to get a degree, the right to walk across the campus safely without fear of being attacked.

. . . . There should be no place on any campus, no place in America for antisemitism or threats of violence against Jewish students.  There is no place for hate speech or violence of any kind, whether it’s antisemitism, Islamophobia, or discrimination against Arab Americans or Palestinian Americans.

On careful reading, Biden’s remarks are measured, balanced, and incontestably true.

But the remarks became a vessel of discontent into which opposing parties poured their dissatisfaction, frustration, and anger. That reaction is understandable—up to a point. The president is always the lightning rod for the nation’s angst. It comes with the job and is no ground for complaint.

But the natural tendency to “blame” the president for events over which he has no control has been converted into a cudgel by every side in a polygonal dispute that has endured for millennia.

Criticisms of President Biden’s position in support of or opposition to almost every issue relating to the Middle East is quickly transformed into an oblique threat: “If Biden doesn’t do or say XYZ, he will lose the support of (fill in the blank _____): Young voters, college students, Muslims, Jews, centrists, independents, law and order voters, persuadable Republicans, and anti-war protesters from the 1960s.

Threats to abandon Biden are unfair, wrong, and dangerous for four reasons, at least.

First, Biden is acting in good faith in addressing a situation that has confounded and defeated every president and world leader who has ever confronted the conflict. Biden has shown himself to be open to argument, persuasion, and changed circumstances. Threatening to pull support for Biden over his policies regarding the Middle East is a nuclear option that is disproportionate and unjustified in the circumstances.

Second, threatening to abandon Biden over his Middle East policies implies a willingness to abandon support for

• women’s reproductive liberty and equality,

• the right of Black voters to equal access to the ballot box,

• protection of the environment,

• protection of healthcare and retirement for Americans on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,

• continuation of affordable healthcare for all Americans,

• due process for ten million immigrants who will be “rounded up” and placed in camps before summary deportation,

• Muslims who will be denied free transit to and from countries where family and friends reside,

• LGBTQ people whose right to marriage and civil rights equality is under attack;

• scientists and teachers who want to pursue knowledge and educate others free from political retribution and more.

Threatening to turn our backs on our fellow citizens and urgent issues is, in the words of Josh Marshall at TPM, a “burn it all down” strategy that will injure hundreds of millions of Americans.

Third, threatening to abandon Biden is an implicit promise to support Trump. Like it or not, we face a binary choice: democracy or tyranny, liberty or subjugation, dignity or degradation, equality or injustice, order or chaos. No other election in our lifetime will demand that we make a choice between morality and depravity, but here we are. We should not threaten to support depravity, even indirectly, as a pressure tactic.

Finally, in suggesting that our support for Biden is contingent or begrudging, we grant permission to those who may be on the fence and looking for a reason to support Trump. Again, supporting Joe Biden in 2024 is a moral imperative—whether we like it or not.

The last time I made similar points in a newsletter (several months ago), a reader posted an angry note in the Comment section that said, “So, you are telling us to sit down and shut up. We won’t do it.”

To be clear, I am not telling anyone to do anything. It is fair and reasonable to criticize Biden. I am, instead, trying to highlight the consequences of turning every dispute with Biden into a threat to abandon him. Voters are free to make such threats, but they are not free to pretend those threats are consequence-free. They are not.

Joe Biden deserves our support because he has been a good president during a difficult time in our nation’s history. He has not been perfect. No president has been or will be. He deserves our support even if we have profound disagreements about his Middle East policies or his statement regarding campus protests.

To paraphrase Biden’s remarks today, protesting his policies is consistent with the finest traditions of American democracy; threatening to abandon democracy because of policy disagreements is not.

---

Update on Trump's trial for election interference

Trump's trial began with another contempt hearing in which it became clear that Judge Merchan would again find Trump in contempt for violating the gag order. Judge Merchan seemed most disturbed by references to the jury. But perhaps the most significant development emerging from the argument was Judge Merchan’s apparent recognition that Trump's lawyer, Todd Blanche, has finally lost all credibility with the court by making specious arguments to defend Trump. See Salon, "Shaking his head": Trump "in disbelief" as lawyer admits he went out of his way to bash witnesses.

At trial, the prosecution made major progress in connecting Trump to the scheme to pay and conceal the hush money given to Karen McDougal. The prosecution did so by playing a previously undisclosed tape of a conversation between Michael Cohen and Trump. Per The Hill,

In it, the attorney is discussing with Trump the deal with McDougal. According to The New York Times, the tape also features a voice resembling that of Trump aide Hope Hicks in the background.

Trump is heard asking about how much the agreement is going to cost, asking “one-fifty? —apparently meaning $150,000.

There is also a brief exchange between Trump and Cohen over whether to pay by cash or check. Trump wants to pay cash but Cohen demurs.

Even though the details are brief, the power of hearing Trump discuss the deal could be significant for jurors.

The tape proves that Trump was aware of payments to Karen McDougal, even though he publicly stated that he did not know who McDougal and Daniels were. The tape will also corroborate Michael Cohen’s testimony that Trump was involved.

Much more occurred in the trial on Thursday. For a complete summary, see The Guardian, Prosecution plays Michael Cohen’s recording of conversation with Donald Trump – as it happened.

Here’s the main takeaway: The prosecution is putting on a credible, professional case against Trump. The jury will be able to make a fair decision based on solid evidence. We can’t ask for more.

---

Opportunities for reader engagement

Here is a note from Dems Make Life Better about new website devoted to better messaging about Democratic accomplishments:

Dear Friends of Dems Make Life Better,

We are excited to announce the launch of a new dedicated website for the Dems Make Life Better campaign. With a dedicated virtual home base, the campaign will be able to build significantly more momentum than was possible in our earlier pilot project.

Average citizens who are willing to spread Democratic messaging in their daily lives can have a huge impact on the outcome of the 2024 elections! Wearing Dems Make Life Better apparel is more than just putting on a piece of clothing - it's a statement of support for your values and those of Democrats everywhere. It will give you opportunities to spark conversations, raise awareness, and inspire others to learn more about the positive impact of electing Democrats to lead our country.

Join us in spreading the word and getting out the vote in the most visible way possible - by wearing your Dems Make Life Better apparel with pride. www.demsmakelifebetter.org

Swing Left San Gabriel Valley has created a “quick action” guide to help direct volunteers looking for ways to become involved.

Unsure of what you can do personally to prevent an unthinkable second Trump term?  The "Well then, do something!” Guide, created by Swing Left San Gabriel Valley's leadership, offers a lightning quick and refreshingly simple summary of opportunities so even the busiest among us can make a contribution in stifling Trump's bid for authoritarianism. Give the guide three minutes, and it will ensure you won't wake up on November 6 regretting you didn't do more.

---

Concluding Thoughts

The war in Gaza and protests on US campuses have unnerved many readers who were feeling confident about Joe Biden’s chances in November. While those developments are unexpected challenges that should be taken seriously, no one should panic. We are six months away from the election, and there is growing hope of a deal for a ceasefire and hostage release. Netanyahu's political situation is fluid and deteriorating. So, there is sound reason to believe the situation will look much different in November.

Moreover, the ever-optimistic and consistently analytical Simon Rosenberg remains confident about support for Biden among younger voters. The campus protests should be taken seriously, but the images dominating the airwaves do not invariably translate into automatic opposition to Biden or support for Trump.

The election will come down to turnout. In 2020, more than 77 million eligible voters “did not vote”—as compared to 81 million who voted for Biden and 74 million who voted for Trump. We should focus our efforts on registration and get out the vote campaigns. There is plenty of ground to be made up among the population of voters who stayed home in 2020. While that decision was mystifying in 2020, we now have more evidence about the urgent need to show up in 2024. Our job is to increase voter turnout—and there is plenty of opportunity to make that happen.

In other words, we have every reason to be hopeful but no reason to be complacent!

Talk to you tomorrow!