Somewhere in the blizzard of comments during the week that I was hors de combat, there was, I believe, a question about my views concerning Joe Biden’s age and its relation to the prospects for a second Biden presidential term. Since from my perspective Biden is just a young whippersnapper, I suspect I see it differently from those who are a mere 50 or 60 years old. But I will have a go at the question while I wait for the arrangements to be made for the reduced version of my formal methods lectures.
The presidency has never struck me as a particularly taxing
job. You are surrounded by people whose entire function it is to give you what you
want the moment you ask for it. When you travel, as soon as you get on the
plane or in the bus or in the car, it leaves. If you need a book or paper or
fact, you just say so and somebody brings it to you. All that is required of
the job is that you make wise, thoughtful, knowledgeable, politically shrewd
decisions over and over and over again. Extraordinarily
difficult, but not very tiring.
My first choice among the available 2020 candidates was of
course Bernie, who is I think only a few years younger than Biden. In my own
lifetime, I think Roosevelt was a good president, Eisenhower was a fair
president, Kennedy was a disaster as a president, Reagan was worse than a
disaster – not much there to tell one whether age is a factor for good or evil.
Biden has been, in my view, a quite astonishingly successful
president despite having to deal with marginal majorities in the House and
Senate and a combination of pandemic and economic crisis. I do not think Bernie
would have done as well nor do I think any of the other candidates for the
nomination would have done as well. What is more, despite Jerry Fresia’s understandable
objections, I have been cheered by Biden’s direct and repeated championing of
non-college-educated union workers, something I have not seen from a Democratic
president in 50 years.
I think Biden will run again and I think he will win,
because whether Trump actually gets the nomination or not, he will weigh so
heavily on the Republican ticket that he will bring it down. Unless Biden starts to go the way of Diane
Feinstein therefore I think he ought to run again.
43 comments:
I think it's a bit unfair to call JFK a disaster as Pres., partly bc his time in office was fairly short. But as the kids say, whatever.
I too enjoy the game of "rank the presidents" and I'm largely in agreement with this. FDR is the clear number one, Trump dead last. JFK and Obama -- hugely disappointing. Maybe the most interesting is LBJ ... quite a mixed bag. The civil rights act of 1964 was an achievement of world-historical proportion, followed immediately by a disaster, also of world-historical proportion. W/r/t the work (or "work") that Presidents actually do, I once came across Bill Clinton's official schedule for the week, and it was a real eye-opener. Remember that W was in a kindergarten somewhere reading a picture book on 9/11? That's a lot (maybe even most) of what the modern president does--he goes around acting "presidential". It's a good argument for a constitutional monarchy, I'm afraid. If there were a crown prince doing all this silly (but apparently necessary?) stuff, it would free up the president's time for actually governing.
Being president must be very tiring. You are constantly acting, in the public eye.
Now there are, to be sure, lots of jobs where you are constantly acting, but if I sell shoes and I have to put on a smile and feign concern each time a new customer enters the store and I from time to time frown at a customer and even show how bored I am, I may lose a customer, but no one else cares much.
If the president shows how bored he or she is by the whole show of rites with the flag, clichés about democracy, faked concern about problems he or she doesn't give a shit about, journalists note that, the stock exchange may crash, his party may lose the next election, some bellicose dictator may see that as a sign he can invade his neighbors, etc.
However, I'll take your word (Professor Wolff) for it that Biden is a good president on domestic issues. He's been a bit aggressive in his foreign policy though.
"He's been a bit aggressive in his foreign policy though."
Like strongly supporting Ukraine in its fight against naked aggression?... and in warning off China in the face of its provocations?
Where does the "though" come from in this assessment?
I think in substance Biden's age would not matter much in his governing. However as S. Wallerstein alludes, the public nature of the job is what would be revealing of his age. It is easily noticeable that his motor and verbal skills have deteriorated in the last 8 years or so. The republican clowns will definitely use as they did before Biden's public accidents (and fabricate more)against him.
Bernie is a year older then Biden. Recently Biden took off from D.C. at 3 or 4 AM and flew to Poland, longish motorcade to the train, ten hour train ride followed by various public actions in Kiev, train back to Poland and a successful public speech, etc. then back to DC and dealing with Trump's Ohio legacy. East - west travel can be exhausting. A mentally demanding job will also usually be physically tiring.
I don't know s.w. Sabotaging a key alliance, starting (and losing) a trade war, falling in love with a brutal dictator, and extorting an ally in an attempt to harm a likely domestic opponent (and aiding an enemy in the process) seems pretty aggressive to moi. On the other hand, if aiding a ally against an imperialist fascist state's invasion is being a bit aggressive then...
What puzzles me about the East Palestine thing is that the people there got what they voted for and now they are unhappy. I checked the county elections board and the state's and county info is available back to 1986. That county has voted Republican in federal and state elections every cycle and by serious margins. They voted for right neoliberalism and deregulation and that's what they got. They were all in for "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." Now they cry hard times, go figure.
Since the topic keeps on rearing its head--and why not, since the tragedy is ongoing?-- those more inclined to analysis than rhetoric or propaganda may find the following of interest:
https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/26765/Lang_2021_FPA_RemakingAmericasImage_AAM.pdf?sequence=1
Since I've only read it once to get the gist of it, I'm not praising or condemning it. (I am. to be sure, coming at it from a non-American position.)
PS. I think there's a typo somewhere in the following sentence/reference:
"Largely dominant in U.S. foreign relations throughout the eighteenth century, this approach has been described as “imperial anti-colonialism” (Williams 2009)."
PPS. there are many more typos.
aaall
This is a non-substantive point, but you consistently type "then" when you mean "than."
LFC, thanks, must proof better.
In line with what I said above about the President always being on stage. Here's a photo of Biden supposedly reading over his speech about the first anniversary of the war on the train.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/24/how-ukraine-railways-keeps-people-and-presidents-moving
First of all, who the hell on a long train trip keeps his coat and tie on? All of us would take them off and relax. But Biden can't, at least not for the photo, which seems faked to me. After all, Biden is 80 and doesn't use glasses to read? Maybe he has contact lenses.
All of that is extremely tiring. I'm almost Biden's age and as aaall says above, at our age mentally taxing work, including constantly acting a part, is physically tiring.
I believe most recent presidents have used reading glasses but are rarely photographed wearing them. Joe has used contacts and was photographed wearing glasses at the 2013 SOTU. He may or may not have been wearing reading glasses and removed them for the photo or was wearing contacts or the speech was printed in a size, spacing, and style type that he could read without glasses. My need for glasses depends on the style (Arial please!), light level, and type size. Recent cataract surgery removed the need for glasses for driving and totally changed my night vision. Teleprompters are also adjustable.
"Faked" seems way strong a term for putting on a coat and tie and (maybe) taking off ones glasses for a photo. Acting is part of being president (or a candidate). Grover Cleveland had secret cancer surgery, TR gave a campaign speech with a bullet in his chest, WWII allowed a dying FDR to fake it through the 1944 campaign and the press refrained during his three full terms from showing the wheelchair/braces he used since he contracted polio in the 1920s, Kennedy really should have used the bubble in Dallas, etc. My experience with friends and family regarding dementia leads me to believe that Reagan was afflicted before 1980.
aaall,
I know that acting is prt of being president and I stated that above.
The discussion is not about whether Biden acts or not, but about whether a man of his age has the energy to play the role effectively.
I don't have it, but maybe I never did.
If Biden is the only Democrat capable of beating Trump or DeSantis, ok, then it hardly matters whether he stumbles (as I might too) trotting down the steps.
https://poetryarchive.org/poem/you-are-old-father-william/
That's a fair consideration s.w. but there is no evidence that he lacks the energy which is more mental then physical anyway (e.g. FDR and Kennedy). As near as I can determine from news reports that wasn't Biden tripping down the steps (on leaving Poland he did stumble going up but quickly recovered so NBD).
As far as 2024 goes, all Biden needs to do is get past December 16, 2024 (or Jan. 6, 2025 depending on the composition of the Congress). Besides, it's likely the only way the U.S. initially gets a woman in the office will be through succession and, IMO, Harris is up to the job.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/25/business/dilbert-comic-strip-racist-tirade/index.html
“Adams took Dale Carnegie Training and called it ‘life changing’” (from Wikipedia article)
Apparently, he needs to retake the course, or he wasn’t paying total attention the first time.
Since Marc regularly posts links from cnn.com that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'll mention something that has nothing to do w the topic at hand.
It's a long piece in NYT magazine by C.J. Chivers about someone I'd not heard of -- a U.S. Army veteran and West Pt grad, the late Ian Fishback, who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and publicly exposed abuses committed by some of his fellow soldiers. He went to grad school in philosophy at U Michigan, focusing on just-war theory, and taught at West Point. He developed mental-health problems, prob linked to his time in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the piece, which I pretty much half skimmed and half read bc it's so long, is largely about how he was failed by a dysfunctional health-care system. There's a link to the piece in the left-hand sidebar at the blog Daily Nous.
There was an article about the Scott Adams thing in the Guardian today too.
It was stupid of him to post his racist thoughts in Youtube.
I haven't bought a physical newspaper in years, but one Chilean paper carries or used to carry Dilbert, translated into Spanish, in the business section, as I recall.
It was amusing and my son, Pablo, enjoyed it and even bought me a book of collected Dilbert cartoons when he traveled to the U.S. with his mother.
I don't see why they had to eliminate the cartoon from the newspapers as long as the cartoon itself did not carry a racist message, but I long ago gave up trying to understand the mentality which governs such moments of false or true (I'm not sure which) indignation.
LFC,
I would not say regularly. I'd say periodically. I haven't posted any comment referring to any article outside the scope of the original post since February 21, when I referred to an article describing the torture of Iranian protesters. Moreover, please don't use my lapses in judgement and self-control to justify your own transgressions.
@LFC
Even more than a diagnosis and maybe even the right meds, to recover from a mental illness someone trusted to guide you through the system and through your recovery is essential.
Fishback was fiercely independent and I bet the Army cared less about his condition and his family and friends might not have been up to crisis
@ Howie
Actually the piece indicates that his family and friends did make efforts on his behalf.
Here's the link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/magazine/ian-fishback.html
@LFC
It is a very hard thing to do effectively. You can't blame them. You have to be (don't ask me where I saw this Greek word) a phronemon, to get the right help. It's like you need a Phd to help someone that mentally ill. In my experience it is almost impossible for ordinary mortals and it requires the trust and cooperation of the afflicted, which means at the least that someone had to have a strong relationship with Fishback.
He had help, maybe it would be enough but it was too late.
I think Fishback's case was very challenging because of his strong spirit
At least that's my experience
I haven't read the links about the Fishback case, but in my experience with family members,
the medication for mental illness these days is incredibly effective, but you have to go from psychiatrist to psychiatrist to find one who prescribes the right cocktail of drugs because no two mental illnesses are exactly the same. That psychiatrist also needs to talk to the patient fairly frequently in order to adjust the cocktail to changing circumstances.
Psychiatrists are expensive and some of the newer drugs are too. But it's worth the money if you have it.
My apologies to LFC for this unrelated and unsolicited comment, but yesterday I was referred by a friend to an essay which Mark Twain had written with which I was not familiar. It was an essay he wrote in order to dispel an interpretation of a statement he had made that some regarded as anti-Semitic. He denied that he harbored any such sentiment, and in the course of so doing he made the following observation, which I thought many who read this blog – particularly s. wallerstein – would find amusing.
“I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being - that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show.
“All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but the evidence for the prosecution, and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my mind, this is irregular. It is un-English; it is un-American; it is French. Without this precedent Dreyfus could not have been condemned.
“Of course Satan has some kind of a case, it goes without saying. It may be a poor one, but that is nothing; that can be said about any of us. As soon as I can get at the facts I will undertake his rehabilitation myself, if I can find an unpolitic publisher. It is a thing which we ought to be willing to do for any one who is under a cloud. We may not pay him reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents.
“A person who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of spiritual head of four-fifths of the human race, and political head of the whole of it, must be granted the possession of executive abilities of the loftiest order. In his large presence the other popes and politicians shrink to midges for the microscope. I would like to see him. I would rather see him and shake him by the tail than any other member of the European Concert.”
Thanks, Marc.
Wise words. As he says, "a man is a human being".
Satan changes with the times. For a long time Satan was Communism, then he or she was Islamic Fundamentalism and now he or she is Putin and the Chinese.
For some Satan is woke theory and for others it's racist cops.
It's wise to remember that we're all human beings and we all obey the same basic psychological mechanisms and to try to understand where the other is coming from rather than to satanize him or her.
That rarely occurs. It's easier and more pleasurable to satanize.
There are real enemies and threats to the peace in this world, to be sure, but they are never satan except in our imaginations.
You’re welcome.
Aside from the perspicacity of his observation, Twain’s writing and turn of phrase are superb. His satire is better than anything I have seen or read by any comic or political pundit in years. I have not read him for a long time, but maybe I should go back and reread Huckleberry Finn.
In high school I read Twain's essay on the literary sins (as he saw them) of James Fenimore Cooper. Don't remember it well except that it's brilliant and funny, even if you think it's a bit unfair to the target.
In suggesting that Satan never gets a fair hearing, does Mark Twain imply that he never read "Paradise Lost," in which Satan "gets all the best lines"?
David,
Interesting point. I am neither a Twain nor a Milton scholar (and, in truth, have never read Paradise Lost, or Regained), so I am not in a position to say, but I would be surprised if Twain had not read Paradise Lost. Perhaps a literary scholar who reads this blog may have an answer. The only answer which comes to mind is that Twain, if asked, may have responded with the adage that anyone who legally represents him/herself, even Satan, has a fool for a client.
So he went "pro Satan".
David,
I have a different take on Twain’s comments. I would not say that he went “pro-Satan.” Rather, he went anti-anti-Satan, which is not quite endorsing Satan’s methods, but advocating that he should get a fair hearing, life any accused defendant, who is presumed innocent until proved guilty (except in France).
I take Twain to be neither pro nor anti Satan, but rather laughing at the way we divide humanity and in this case, even Heaven into absolute Good and absolute Evil.
I believe that s. wallerstein is making a valid point. Re-reading the last paragraph of Twain’s comment, it appears he is mocking those who condemn Satan as being hypocrites, that they are, in reality, no better nor more virtuous than Satan, whom they condemn. Which reminds me of the following lines from King Lear, Act IV, Scene VII:
“Through tatter’d clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and and furr’d gowns hides all. Plate sins with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;
Arm it in rags, a pigmy’s straw does pierce it.”
I take the reference to “robes” to refer to judicial robes. I am, of late, becoming more and more sympathetic to this accusation of judicial hypocrisy.
Sorry, folks--- I was making a bad pun, not raising questions about Satan's position in the moral scheme of "Paradise Lost".
I meant going "pro Satan" as a play on going "pro se", i.e. serving as one's own lawyer.
Milton may have given Satan the best lines, but the painter Cabanel, in The Fallen Angel, depicted him as a dude who has really been hitting the gym. Would you rather have a silver tongue or a great physique? ;)
Choices.... choices.
I thought you were going to say "both." ;)
By the way, I doubt that Milton intended to give all the good lines to Satan.
From what I know (I took a course in Milton in graduate school), he was a very devout Protestant and he went on to write Paradise Regained, about Jesus.
I don't remember anything from Paradise Regained, but I do remember "Evil be thou my good"
from Paradise Lost.
Just as in any introductory course to Western Literature, one reads Dante's Hell rather than his Paradise, so too Paradise Lost is more entrancing than Paradise Regained.
I recall the words to the Rolling Stones song, Sympathy for the Devil, in more detail than the Beatles's roughly contemporary song, All you need is Love.
Words of wisdom from Bill Maher. (Many will particularly like his comment about Christianity.)
https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2023/03/01/bill-maher-prediction-2024-election-trump-republicans-vpx.cnn
Going out on a limb:
The 2024 Republican candidate for President will be Donald Trump, and his running mate will be - Nikki Haley.
Speaking of Satan and lest we forget the others:
https://brownstone.org/articles/have-the-ancient-gods-returned/
93
Post a Comment