The controversy and its aftermath crystallized something in my mind and I thought I should write them down. As this topic is outside my academic expertise, I understand that most or all of my observations may be wrong. I also expect that other people have captured all this much better than I have. But I thought I would convey my thoughts as one American would convey them to another.
[* * *]
[1.] The current situation seems to highlight a major problem for the Democratic Party. Many Democrats must have known about Biden’s cognitive decline. They must have known that it was dangerous to the country and dangerous to their own electoral prospects.
They had ample opportunity to pressure the president to step down politely in favor of a replacement candidate who could exploit Trump's vast political weaknesses. As much as they worried that Harris would be the obvious replacement and that she would be the losing candidate, it didn't take a brilliant political chess player to foresee that this could be a problem in 2020. And while it is certainly difficult to get a president to step down, in fact it is also difficult for most people to acknowledge their own cognitive decline, the job of a well-functioning political party is to be able to accomplish that task.
[2.] The current situation highlights a major problem for the Republican Party. Even if you support Trump and agree with his policies, answer honestly. Would you have wanted someone like him as your candidate 20 years ago? Put aside whether you think he is the lesser of evils. Do you believe he would be calm and collected in a foreign policy crisis? Do you think he is an inspirational leader? Do you think he is a worthy successor to the presidents you admire (Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, Coolidge, etc.)?
Even if you don't think his actions are as bad as they are portrayed, do you think it really shows his character and trustworthiness? Do you believe what he tells you?
And even if he just wanted to block the Democrats, how well has Trump done that? As the de facto leader of the Republican Party, he won once (2016) and lost three times (2018, 2020, 2022). He is viewed extremely negatively by many in the public, including the far left and many swing voters (even some Republicans). Certainly not a good candidate for politics.
Let's say the Democrats convince Biden to resign, convince Harris to do the same, and the Democratic National Convention chooses a successful purple state Democratic governor or senator. So how confident are you that Trump will win? Wouldn't there be a Republican candidate who would have been more effective in capitalizing on Biden's historically disastrous debate performance?
[3.] Now let's move on to the media. The role of the media is to inform the public about what is really going on in government. It certainly should do so in relation to the cognitive abilities of the president.
Has the media done a good job of honestly informing the public about this? Has the media done a good job of reporting the problem (or at least accurately predicting it, given that Biden has deteriorated sharply over the past few months)? When this reporting was still relevant to the Democratic primary?
The media (not just the few outlets that have reported diligently on this question, but the media in general) either knew of Biden's decline the night of the debate when the rest of us did, or they knew about it from the beginning. If they found out that night, what would that say about them? If they knew that from the beginning, what would that tell you? Are both answers good?
[4.] Finally, let's look at the criminal justice system. Trump was convicted of a felony. He is being charged with other felonies.
But that left his standing in the polls virtually unchanged. Perhaps partly to blame on his militant partisans, Trump continues to enjoy significant support even among independents. Polls that conclude he has lost some ground among independents also show that the loss is relatively small, and that many independents do not see the conviction as resulting from a “fair and equitable process.” (For example, according to Politico, “many [independents said] They thought the verdict was so [in the New York criminal case] While 46% of respondents said it was the result of a fair and equitable process, 27% disagreed or did not know (24%).
Again, if you had asked me 20 years ago, “What would happen if a presidential candidate were convicted of a felony and tried for another felony, and that happened in the middle of a campaign?” your answer would have been “catastrophic.” People would have either lost a great deal of faith in the criminal justice system in general, or they would have concluded that the criminal justice system was being used as a political weapon rather than a real tool to protect the public from criminals. Both answers are bad.
[* * *]
So what's the problem? One answer is bad people. But there have always been bad people.
Our constitutional system, not just the written constitution, but the structures we have developed over the centuries are designed to deal with bad people. Ambition must be met with ambition. Broad state institutions must check the excesses of narrow factions. The ego of the individual candidate is meant to be limited by the institution. Even when the institution itself is made up of flawed individuals with egos of their own.
One way to think about this is to imagine this happening in a foreign country. Imagine that we Americans, unexpectedly, start paying attention to a campaign in another country where an 81-year-old incumbent, who is clearly in cognitive decline, is running against a 78-year-old candidate who has been convicted of a crime, is on trial for another crime, and has at least acted unpresidentially in response to a previous election loss. Do we think that foreign country has a healthy political system?
I can’t tell you what’s causing these problems. Could the shift to primary elections be part of the reason? (Was the old smoke-filled room system better?) Could the ideological homogeneity of many media outlets be part of the reason? Could the rise of social media be part of the reason? Or is it something else? Even if we can diagnose the problem, is there a realistic path to a solution?
I think there's more going on here than two particularly weak candidates. And to find a way forward, we need to figure out some solutions that transcend these candidates and this election cycle.