Trump's Coming Back

Notes on denial & the debate

Back in February, I wrote something about the obvious mental decline of the (notionally) most powerful man in the world – Joe Biden – but never published it. The piece wasn’t so much about his decline – significant as it is – as the cult of denialism that surrounded it. And, equally, the denialism about the other major issue for Americans that will now almost certainly ensure Trump’s return to the White House – immigration, and, specifically, the extraordinary numbers of people crossing the southern border.

After this morning’s debate offered more evidence that the current president is aggressively brain-damaged, it seems the moment to publish it. My simple belief being that the left indulge in powerful and self-defeating denial – denial that’s obvious to everyone but themselves.

I’m sure the following will be read by some with this internal chatter: But Trump’s a convicted criminal, etc. And sure, yes, Trump is a convicted criminal. He’s also unstable, shamelessly ignorant, and almost certainly clinically narcissistic. He helped inspire a fatal siege of Congress. He should not be the President of the United States.

But that’s not what interests me here. What does interest me are some of the things that those vehemently opposed to the return of Trump have done or thought. How hatred for Trump – and a vain belief that expressing it would be sufficient for denying his return – have not worked. At all. What interests me is what interests the majority of Americans who’ll decide November’s election.

*  

For years now, I’ve passionately heard that President Biden is “sharp”. That his focus, stamina and memory is undiminished. That he’s bright, engaged, can parse complexity. That any inarticulacy can be attributed to Biden’s life-long logorrhoea and his stutter – his clumsily improvised avoidance of certain words that can trigger it. You could make a very long montage of such assurances from Democrat hacks. In fact, I’ve heard more than a few from Labor ones here.

From last year, here’s former Obama speechwriter and Pod Save America host Jon Favreau, speaking to Ezra Klein about meeting Biden in the White House:

He was incredibly kind, gracious with his time, very sharp, like remembered everything, was talking about stuff. And then he was also telling us stories about the Robert Bork confirmation to my father-in-law that just lasted a long, long time… His tendency to gaffe has always been there. I think as he gets older, and now that age is an issue, all of these other sort of issues that he has had over the years as a politician – sometimes being long-winded, the stutter, saying things that he’s not supposed to say – those all get magnified by the age.

But I came away thinking, the guy’s still pretty sharp. He didn’t seem like he lost a step. He does shuffle a little more. His voice is a little quieter. But as far as mental acuity, I did not see any reason for concern.

This is the same Favreau who once hosted Keepin’ It 1600, a podcast roundtable with three other former Obama advisors (continued today as Pod Save America), and who laughingly predicted a humiliating loss for Trump on the eve of the 2016 election. I remember the episode well – the smugness was as unbearable as it was misplaced.

But then, if you needed any further proof for the alarming decline of the President, came an extraordinary report from the Department of Justice. It was shocking. Having investigated Biden for the illegal removal of classified documents from the White House, Special Prosecutor Ben Hur wrote:

In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (“if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?”), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (“in 2009, am I still Vice President?”). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he “had a real difference” of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Eiden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.

Amazing. The report went on:

In a case where the government must prove that Mr. Biden knew he had possession of the classified Afghanistan documents after the vice presidency and chose to keep those documents, knowing he was violating the law, we expect that at trial, his attorneys would emphasize these limitations in his recall.

Do you want a taste of progressive media’s denialism? Here, on Slate’s very popular Political Gabfest podcast – a personal favourite of Stephen Colbert’s – were the three hosts: journalists David Plotz of City Cast, Emily Bazelon of the New York Times, and John Dickerson of CBS, discussing the report. First, here’s Bazelon:

This has all the hallmarks of over-covered problems. Because it’s already an issue that speaks to a perceived weakness of Biden, right? It’s a news event that goes to something that’s already part of the narrative. And it’s also something that everyone has an opinion on and it’s easy to grasp… It catches fire in this way.

Ahh, the “narrative”. Well, sure, I suppose the alarming amnesia and frequent incoherence of the US President is “easy to grasp”.

Now here’s Bazelon’s colleague, David Plotz:

Do you guys think that age and decline matter in this way? It’s not like he’s going to ride a horse into battle. He’s not King Richard III. He doesn’t have to fight at Agincourt. He mostly has to make a bunch of decisions based on experience, and take counsel on that, and appoint people and understand when their advice is good and when it is bad.

Incredible. And finally, John Dickerson: “The age-obsession is a part of the obsession with the performative aspects of the presidency.” What, like thinking and speaking?     

When avoidance and denial become a central political strategy – or the unacknowledged instinct of many journalists – the inevitable cost is the patronisation of a public who will quickly turn that into contempt.

And so, a note for campaigners (and media): It is offensive to hear, so frequently, arguments which deny your very own fucking senses.

When you’ve passionately boiled things down to either/or, you may view those with more complicated views as the enemy – even those who simply insist, in good faith, upon certain nuances (“nuance bro”, by the way, has emerged as a fashionable – and witless – online criticism). But this contemptuous dismissiveness will only reinforce in others the very decision you hope to dissuade. In other words, keep pretending that Biden’s fine and there’ll be more than a few folks who commit to Trump. Not only do you condescend the public, you poison your own credibility.

Criticism or scepticism about Biden is now routinely dismissed as “ageism” which is grimly comical. But it’s not his age that’s concerning, as the fact that he’s severely diminished. Indelicate, sure, but it happens to be true – and we’re not talking about your grandfather here, but the man wanting to renew his term as the leader of the free world.

And if we’re talking simply about what might influence November’s election, pointing out the fact that Trump isn’t much younger, suffers from more severe verbal diarrhoea and often mistakes the names of global leaders himself won’t matter. Trump remains, like it or not, a freakish force of nature: it won’t matter to those who will decide the election that he’s only four years younger. What will matter is that, in his pungent charisma, he seems 20 years younger. The man projects a fearsome energy, part mob boss, part extreme poster, part demented Rodney Dangerfield.   

It might help to ease the anxiety of Democrats to consider that their dubious assurances over the years about Biden’s capacity have been made for a noble cause – but it won’t matter to those who feel they’ve been lied to or condescended or accused of ageism.

Was anything learnt from 2016? I don’t think so. Arguments are still made with staggering sanctimony – and an unwillingness to accept how poisonous this is to the alleged goal of winning over moderates/normies/undecideds.

Consider the reaction to Jon Stewart’s first Daily Show monologue after a nine-year absence. Stewart expressed dismay that the man between Trump and the White House is, well, less than convincing. And because the stakes were so high, he said, Biden deserves more scrutiny – not less. “If the barbarians are at the gate, you want Conan standing on the ramparts, not chocolate chip cookie guy.”

The online reaction was hysterical. Thousands of tweets derided Stewart as reckless, or worse: of being a fascist-sympathiser or enabler. Here’s unctuous blowhard Keith Olbermann: “Well after nine years away, there's nothing else to say to the bothsidesist fraud Jon Stewart bashing Biden, except: Please make it another nine years.”

And here’s Trump’s niece Mary, who (understandably) loathes her uncle: “Not only is Stewart’s ‘both sides are the same’ rhetoric not funny, it’s a potential disaster for democracy.”

The allegation of “bothsiderism” was rampant on X/Twitter, and that precise word was ubiquitous. “Bothsiderism” is a member of progressive online vocabulary, and when you see jargon like this repeated it’s a sure sign that tribalism, and not thinking, is being signalled. What’s more, Stewart did no such thing:

“Joe Biden isn’t Donald Trump. He hasn’t been indicted as many times, hasn’t had as many fraudulent businesses, or been convicted in a civil trial for sexual assault, or been ordered to pay defamation, had his charities disbanded, or stiffed a shit-ton of blue-collar tradesmen he’d hired. Should we even get to the ‘grab the pussy’ stuff? Probably not.”

What no-one will say, but which is obvious, is that for those that view Trump as nothing less than an existential threat to US democracy, then doing and saying and forgetting anything to help the re-election of Biden is permitted – and if you don’t agree, well, you’re a “fascist”. Again, this undermines your credibility – and will not help persuade those who need persuading (hint: it’s not your progressive friends.)  

Deception, denial and hyperbolic shaming aren’t sustainable strategies. They’re destructive. If you happen to think that Trump is an existential threat, then you don’t need persuading to vote for Biden. But if you’re unlikely to vote – if you think your choice stinks and is unworthy of your effort – then deception, denial and hyperbolic shaming is unlikely to make you reconsider in favour of the incumbent.

And that’s where the election will be won or lost: amongst those who spend more time thinking about the cost of living rather than the future of democracy; those who are nervous about Biden and think Trump’s slightly mad – and may simply just not bother voting. Ignore, condescend or belittle those folks at your peril (or, to put it another way, if you are someone who spends a lot of time considering the future of democracy, then you might also spend some time considering the concerns of those who comprise it.)   

Finally, leaning upon denial – and making a habit of getting angry at journalists for saying true things – is spectacularly childish, and has helped the Democrats solidify its status quo: that is, to muddle through with Biden with no contingency plan for a replacement. It’s maddening.  

You can appeal to rationality all you like. You can keep invoking Trump’s criminal convictions. His serial lies. His narcissism. His demagoguery. His appeal to alt-right creeps. The weird horror of January 6. And on and on and on. But there will still be plenty of folks more motivated by the left’s smug denialism and will take vindictive pleasure in registering it at the ballot box.

When Trump’s re-elected in November, as I’m sure he will be, I can only hope that hysterical objectors will this time occupy the headquarters of the DNC – and not, as they did in 2016, Californian freeways. There should have been a Plan B, but denial and pretentious faith was preferred.

*

There’s another major factor in this election – that more than four million undocumented migrants have crossed the southern border in the past two years.

That’s wild and it’s unprecedented. The US Border Patrol recorded 250,000 crossings in December alone – and that’s only what’s recorded. These numbers are unprecedented, but this seems another issue that the left have denied the importance of – preferring instead to insist that any public concern is mere racism. (Compare this with ever declining support for the Democrats amongst Black and Hispanic voters – a bleeding which defies progressive assumptions about the almighty power of identity politics. The results of Pew’s latest polling on Hispanic voters’ views about immigration are nuanced, but there’s one thing that stood out for me: “A majority of U.S. Hispanics (75%) describe the recent increase in the number of migrants seeking to enter the United States at its border with Mexico as a major problem or a crisis.”)

I’m constantly reading liberal columnists who are baffled and appalled by Trump’s popularity, and while their fear and exasperation is real, it also seems self-fulfilling when they only frame the election around the issues that they care about. Elections aren’t won that way – anymore than England win Test matches with their aesthetic and moral superiority.

It amazes me that, eight years after Trump was elected president, liberal columnists still think that expressing their personal repulsion with the man is sufficient or serious or vote-changing.  

For years now, the historic numbers of border crossings have been ignored or diminished by liberal commentators/advisors/politicians. This avoidance is deeply unserious. It’s happening, and the voters know it’s happening. And it’s not racist to suggest that upwards of two million folks crossing the border each year is a major problem – one that’s not entirely Biden’s fault, to be sure, but one that’s intensified by pretending that it doesn’t exist.

And, by the way, if you’re pretending that it’s not happening, or if you choose to automatically dismiss any concern with it as racist – then you are not helping Biden’s re-election either. You’re in denial, and that denial is smug, unserious and self-defeating. It solves nothing, alienates many, and gives those swinging voters yet another reason to vote for Trump. It is a profound arrogance, and a political disaster, to either ignore issues that folks care about, or to dismiss them as proof of bigotry. You only accelerate the divisions you profess to abhor.

But, sure: let’s Instagram AOC’s latest cringe-inducing impersonation of Flavor Flav. That’ll do it.

As I thought a year ago, Trump’s coming back. But it still amazes me that the dynamic country that defied the British, lead the Normandy landing, and birthed jazz and the skyscraper – all before globally asserting its political and cultural primacy – might yield the same two very old and damaged men to prospectively lead the country of the brave.

But so it is. Buckle up.