The Thomas O. Falk article is indented. My comment: outdented and purple. I don’t often do this, but this article got me with its unintended ironies and flat-out nonsense.
It’s interesting that on the Left they talk of “right-wing bubbles” which are not denied. But the Left never talk about, or if the do, deny, that there are “left-wing bubbles”. Why? Because all the mainstream media, the legacy media -- the BBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post -- surround us all, like the water fish swim in, we, the Left, think that’s all there is. Not that it’s a bubble, with only a part of the news, but that it’s the news. They’d be wrong about that. As this article shows.
From Thomas Falk:
If I had to give one sentence to provide my takeaway for Joe Biden’s State of the Union address last Thursday, it would be: There is life in the old dog, yet!
My comment: Or, alternatively, my one sentence takeaway would be: “angry old man shouting at the sky”.
For far too long, Biden’s public appearances have had the character of a solar eclipse – seldom and short. Indeed, he has given the fewest news conferences of any American president since Ronald Reagan.
The reasons for Biden’s rather sporadic appearances are apparent. He is not a great public speaker and he never has been, even in his younger years. He is a gaffe machine. Recent moments of confusion and a rather suboptimal special counsel’s report only added further fuel to the idea that Biden has lost a step – one that could be decisive in the race against Donald Trump.
Not that he’s “not a great public speaker”. Or not just that. It’s also that his mental decline has become too apparent. You can easily find clips of old Joe back when he was a younger man and sure, he’s not the most eloquent, but he was far better than he is today. These days he’s as likely to stop mid sentence and stare into space.
One rightfully wonders why Biden’s staff thought that this approach of limited exposure and risk could ever work. It certainly did the trick during the 2020 election cycle but the circumstances differ significantly this time around and it shows. If the election were held tomorrow, Trump would likely win.
My comment: Any thoughts as to why it might be that Trump would win if election were held now? Nah….
I have also been very dubious about Biden’s chances so far though not because of his political record. If I were to provide Biden’s résumé without his name on it, most politically astute observers would concur that he has perhaps been the most consequential first-term president since Reagan.
My comment: “...the most consequential first-term president”. Well, “consequential” can be positive or negative. I know that Falk means positive, but is it really? Here are some “consequential” on the downside: Telling Putin that invading just on the eastern borders of Ukraine would be fine; bombing the Gazprom pipeline; disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan; all which encouraged Putin to attack Ukraine. And encouraged Iran, by money and rhetoric, to promoted Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. Domestically: shoving boatloads of money to tackling Covid, leading to record inflation; unconstitutional Covid mandates, pushing the radical Trans agenda, supporting all sorts of intersectional politics. All up, many “political astute observers” would see his presidency as being a disaster.
But perception is reality in modern politics. Thanks to unfortunate public mishaps and the inability to communicate his success effectively thus far, Biden is not perceived as a modern Reagan but rather as Jimmy Carter 2.0 and he faces the same fate as the latter.
My comment: Correctly perceived as Jimmy Carter.
This is why Biden’s State of the Union address was so important. Granted, there are two ways of looking at the address, which was – outside the right-wing echo chamber – widely perceived as positive. One can surely argue that, for many Americans, the bar was set incredibly low. For as long as Biden did not fall offstage, it would have constituted a successful speech in many people’s eyes.
My comment: talking the “right-wing echo chamber” without ever acknowledging that there’s a left-wing echo chamber. In any case, the SOTU was not considered successful by Independents, which are around 20% of the electorate and are critical to any election. The figures from a HarrisX-Forbes poll are that 73% thought the speech was “divisive” and 65% thought that it did not deal with immigration or the economy well enough.
But while the bar was certainly low, Biden did an outstanding job and showed the United States and the world that he still has what it takes to beat Trump again in November.
My comment: “outstanding job” in the eye of the beholder. “One screen, two movies”. For those most important Independents it was not seen as “outstanding” at all.
He was alive and in attack mode. He addressed the issues Americans care about, such as the economy, immigration, and freedom. He called out the threat his predecessor poses, sparred with heckling Republicans, felt comfortable and was fully in charge during the entire speech.However, the key now is to use the State of the Union as a springboard. Biden must go out there and be on the attack constantly. He is not facing a conventional challenger so a conventional style cannot be the answer. He must embrace his age as well as the wisdom and experience that come with it.
My comment: embrace his age?? the “wisdom and experience”?? More like the stuttering and stumbling.
He must address the press regularly no matter what mistakes he might make, particularly since his opponent is Trump, whose public appearances are not exactly Shakespearean either, to put it mildly.
This reality will only become more apparent to Americans again with the race gaining national attention now that the primaries have effectively wrapped up. Most Americans do not follow politics that closely. Many will have forgotten about how abysmal the Trump presidency was and perhaps even how he was willing to overthrow a fair election to stay in power.
My comment: “the abysmal Trump presidency”?? Many people are recalling the Trump presidency as one without a single new war, with the Iranian threat contained, with domestic real wage increases and minimal inflation. In short, many recall things as much better than now. And that’s why, that’s why they are now polling more for Trump. Fact.
One can thus assume that the hotter this race becomes, the more Americans will be reminded of the carnage between 2016 and 2020. Biden can be the beneficiary if he presents himself as a strong and reliable leader – just like he did on Thursday – and the current subpar polls could soon reflect this.
My comment: “carnage”?? between 2016 and 2020? See my comment immediately above. The reason Trump is polling so well is that people recall the opposite of “carnage”.
However, to be successful, Biden’s message going forward must be more than about saving democracy and beating Russia. While both points are pivotal, he will have to produce something more tangible that makes a difference to average Americans in rural areas across the republic.Issues such as the economy, crime or immigration are among the deciding factors with voters. These issues have to be addressed accordingly. Biden recently visited the border to make a stand and not leave the scene to Trump, which was a welcoming sign we are moving in that direction.There is yet another opening for Biden. He even made it clear during his speech that he is inclined to take full advantage of it when he passionately pledged that he’ll restore Roe vs Wade.Ever since the US Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion, the Republican Party faces a major self-made election liability that was already witnessed during the previous midterm elections.
My comment: Biden visited the border (for the first time, mind) to “make a stand”?? As in walking along, gingerly, like an old man, asking the odd question, licking the odd ice cream, is somehow “making a stand”?? Irony, oh irony. As in: you gotta be kidding me, mate!
What seemed like a win for Trump – appointing three conservative Supreme Court justices – could now backfire, particularly since Trump has always struggled to attract women voters. The Supreme Court’s decision will cast an even bigger shadow on the prospects of attracting them this time around, especially if the alternative is a Democratic president who vows to restore abortion rights.
My comment: Contra the above, the polls show that women are trending Trump. As are minorities, the African-Americans and Latinos, especially, strong swinging to Trump. The abortion issue should always have been one legislated for, not part of the Constitution, to be decided by SCOTUS.
The election is by no means over. If Biden has it in him to become a risk-taker, to take the gloves off and to show Americans that he is not merely the lesser evil but a formidable commander-in-chief, he can and will beat Trump again.
My comment: I refute the “lesser evil” idea. From this perspective in Hong Kong, it’s not that we in this family are Trump supporters. We’ve never been. But we see what Biden has done, what Trump did in his first term, and the safer bet seems to us to Trump. We’re far from alone.
Thomas O. Falk is a journalist and political analyst who writes about German, British, and US politics.
