Why I Am Now Deeply Worried for America
The frenzy over President Biden's age is a very bad sign.
Wherein I disagree with Paul Krugman.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Damon Winter/The New York Times
Until a few days ago , I was feeling fairly sanguine about America’s prospects. Economically, we’ve had a year of strong growth and plunging inflation — and aside from committed Republicans, who see no good, hear no good and speak no good when a Democrat is president, Americans appear to be recognizing this progress. It has seemed increasingly likely that the nation’s good sense would prevail and democracy would survive.
But watching the frenzy over President Biden’s age, I am, for the first time, profoundly concerned about the nation’s future. It now seems entirely possible that within the next year, American democracy could be irretrievably altered.
And the final blow won’t be the rise of political extremism — that rise certainly created the preconditions for disaster, but it has been part of the landscape for some time now. No, what may turn this menace into catastrophe is the way the hand-wringing over Biden’s age has overshadowed the real stakes in the 2024 election. It reminds me, as it reminds everyone I know, of the 2016 furor over Hillary Clinton’s email server, which was a minor issue that may well have wound up swinging the election to Donald Trump.
As most people know by now, Robert Hur, a special counsel appointed to look into allegations of wrongdoing on Biden’s part, concluded that the president shouldn’t be charged. But his report included an uncalled-for and completely unprofessional swipe at Biden’s mental acuity, apparently based on the president’s difficulty in remembering specific dates — difficulty that, as I wrote on Friday, everyone confronts at whatever age. Hur’s gratuitous treatment of Biden echoed James Comey’s gratuitous treatment of Clinton — Hur and Comey both seemed to want to take political stands when that was not their duty.
It's a case of bureaucrats overstepping their bounds in a way that's at best careless and at worst malicious.
Yes, it's true that Biden is old, and will be even older if he wins re-election and serves out a second term. I wish that Democrats had been able to settle on a consensus successor a year or two ago and that Biden had been able to step aside in that successor's favor without setting off an intraparty free-for-all. But speculating about whether that could have happened is beside the point now. It didn't happen, and Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee.
It’s also true that many voters think the president’s age is an issue. But there’s perception and there’s reality: As anyone who has recently spent time with Biden (and I have) can tell you, he is in full possession of his faculties — completely lucid and with excellent grasp of detail. Of course, most voters don’t get to see him up close, and it’s on Biden’s team to address that. And yes, he speaks quietly and a bit slowly, although this is in part because of his lifetime struggle with stuttering. He also, by the way, has a sense of humor, which I think is important.
Most important is that Biden has been a remarkably effective president. Trump spent four years claiming that a major infrastructure initiative was just around the corner, to the point that “It’s infrastructure week!” became a running joke; Biden actually got legislation passed . Trump promised to revive American manufacturing, but didn’t. Biden’s technology and climate policies — the latter passed against heavy odds — have produced a surge in manufacturing investment. His enhancement of Obamacare has brought health insurance coverage to millions .
If you ask me, these achievements say a lot more about Biden’s capacity than his occasional verbal slips.
And what about his opponent, who is only four years younger? Maybe some people are impressed by the fact that Trump talks loud and mean. But what about what he’s actually saying in his speeches? They’re frequently rambling word salads, full of bizarre claims like his assertion on Friday that if he loses in November, “they’re going to change the name of Pennsylvania.”
Not to mention confusing Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi and mistaking E. Jean Carroll for one of his ex-wives.
As I also wrote last week, Trump’s speeches make me remember my father’s awful last year, when he suffered from sundowning — bouts of incoherence and belligerence after dark. And we’re supposed to be worried about Biden’s mental state?
Over the past few days, while the national discussion has been dominated by talk about Biden’s age, Trump declared that he wouldn’t intervene to help “ delinquent ” NATO members if Russia were to attack them, even suggesting that he might encourage such an attack. He seems to regard NATO as nothing more than a protection racket and after all this time still has no idea how the alliance works. By the way, Lithuania, the NATO member that Trump singled out, has spent a larger percentage of its G.D.P. on aid to Ukraine than any other nation.
Again, I wish this election weren’t a contest between two elderly men and worry in general about American gerontocracy. But like it or not, this is going to be a race between Biden and Trump — and somehow the lucid, well-informed candidate is getting more heat over his age than his ranting, factually challenged opponent.
As I said, until just the other day I was feeling somewhat optimistic. But now I’m deeply troubled about our nation’s future.
Like airline pilots, we need a method... a check-list...
Ordinary, everyday conversation is pretty much free form: "One thing leads to another!" There is nothing more natural than to let one's mind drift from one idea to the next. But... we cannot seriously examine a topic if we leave it.
Staying on topic requires effort:
Read the article... carefully.
Skimming won't do.
Find the OA's intent.
Reply to the OA
or to a previous Comment.
Cite the words to which you are Replying.
Citing avoids going "just a bit" astray... over and over... until the conversation has nothing to do with the Original Article.
The CoC applies!
Interpersonal Codes (essentially: 'be polite')
1. No direct or indirect derogatory references to other members
2. No taunting or bullying
3. Be civil
Content Codes (essentially: ‘thoughtful, relevant contribution’)
4. Stay on topic per the article
5. No dishonest, unethical or illegal content
6. No repugnant or harmful content
For The Beacon, "be polite" is interpreted as "do not insult anything ", in particular another Member's ideas. We ( homo sapiens ) identify intimately with our ideas - insulting our ideas is the same thing as insulting our person. If you do not agree with a post, then quote it and present your argument.
- Contribute! Agree or disagree... that's not a problem, as long as you supply your thinking .
- Do not perturb.
- Ask for clarification: "Do you mean..." rather than putting words in others' mouths.
- Ask questions rather than insulting others' ideas: "Does that mean that you don't think a woman is as competent as a man, in a leadership role?" rather than "That's misogynist!". My ideas are me; when you insult my ideas, you insult me. That makes me mad, and everything goes south.
- A nasty meme reflects on the person who posts it. Do not post nasty memes.
- Name-calling is childish.
- Help yourself to stay on-topic by constantly returning to the article to make citations from it.
Obviously, I expect NT Mods to apply these rules - after all, they're just strict application of the CoC. Just because it usually is not enforced is no reason to never enforce it.
Krugman hasn’t been right about much for a long long time.
As some remember, he predicted in 2016 that the election of Donald Trump would usher in a global recession, “with no end in sight.”
Doh!
As others remember, he retracted the next day, recognizing that he had let his emotions cloud his reasoning.
It one of the main reasons why I trust Krugman:
He'll tell when he has been wrong,
He'll explain why he was wrong,
He'll tell you what he's going to do to try to avoid making the same mistake twice.
I understand that a Tribe that has never made a mistake, following and adoring a Great Leader who has never made a mistake, has no need for such a process.
Krugman is a partisan hack. That said, one wonders what emotional rant will he retract next? How this guy won a Pulitzer is beyond reason.
I don't do others' homework.
I'm s-o-o-o-o surprised...
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It’s out there but no sane person really believed it. Then or now. He had to walk it back because he got hammered by virtually everyone.
He’s just a partisan hack. Nothing more.
I realize that it's very, very hard to research anything on the Internet.
May I suggest something very hard to understand: try googling "krugman retraction". Eight years after the fact, the result may not be at the top of the page, so you may have to scroll down a bit.
Google is s-o-o-o-o-o hard to use.
You made the claim, if you can’t back it up we will understand.
Yes and I understand how hard it is to follow a short conversation here so let me see if I can help.
I never denied he walked that comment back. That was someone else. That much is crystal clear.
Doh!
I suspect that Paul Krugman rarely encounters genuine MAGAs. He certainly sees some on TV and Internet, but I doubt he has much close and dirty contact with them. So I forgive him for misunderstanding the situation.
While many liberals would like to believe that MAGAs are generally similar to the people Jordan Klepper lights up on YouTube, that simply isn't true. I think NewsTalkers has a far more representative sample of exactly who MAGAs are.
There are different types of MAGA.
There are other kinds of MAGA, less active on NT. Notably the Evangelists. NT may have a few Militia-gonna-beat-the-Regular-Army, but they don't announce themselves.
Here is what Paul Krugman doesn't understand:
There is one unifying characteristic for all the MAGAs: they all want a dictatorship in America .
Their rationalizations are diverse: some are straightforward fascists; some are theocrats; some are driven by racism; some have no political bent at all but are only in it for the money. I've probably missed some.
What we do not have in quantity is what Krugman suggests is the primary cause: naivety. No.
They will never admit it because wanting a Great Leader who will lift the awful burdens of thinking and deciding... is shameful in a nation that shouts "freedom" at every occasion. But that is what's really driving the MAGAs: they want someone else to run their lives for them.
Real MAGAs want retribution for imagined slights.
Nah, that’s a progressives job …
I don't know for sure. So much of what MAGAs say is intentional nonsense.
So many of "their imagined slights" are so ridiculous that it's hard to believe that the MAGAs are serious. Then again... they seem to get so very serious about trivialities...
As opposed to democrats already having a dictatorship in America.
When did you drop that "Special Council
" as your avatar?
Before you left and came back 4 times.
That is some funny stuff. Thanks
Funny is a nice way to put it. I’d say it’s a fat blob of brainless bullshit, but i’m not very nice.
Lol ….. wrong.
Krugman has a point in a strange way. If you are a progressive, you have to love what "Biden" did in the past 3 years. Let me put it another way: somebody put those policies into effect and Biden was the face of it. I don't think his age is important since he isn't important. The coming election is about those policies that will continue even if Biden goes into a coma. That is the only issue.
There are now 20 Comments. I think it's pretty clear who are "Intellectuals" and "Enforcers".
They swarm.
And who can’t back up their comments.
[deleted]
[deleted]
removed for context
I'll start with two off topic comments that the NT poster of the seed can delete if he sees fit.
Welcome back, Bob, as far as I'm concerned you've been missed.
It can take a person almost as long to work through your RED BOX RULES as it may take to read and process the seed you posted.
Since the main theme of the article appears (to me, at least) to be a matter of age and concern for the consequences thereof, especially noting the two frontrunners, more so Biden, is it really necessary for me to post citations I intend to address?
My opinion: Age itself is not necessarily consequential. Concerns have been voiced that Biden will be 86 at the end of a 4 year renewal. I am presently 87 years old. I do not need or use 'Depends'. I do not need or use a wheelchair. I can remember many personal experiences of my life going as far back as my being 2 years old. I am capable of reading, comprehending, speaking and writing English correctly, which is not surprising since I majored in English Literature for my B.A., was editor-in-Chief of my university's prize-winning weekly student newspaper for almost 2 years, spent 37 years as a successful commercial lawyer, taught English for 6 years at a private high school and then privately thereafter until the Covid pandemic and then finally retired. I have contributed in many ways first to Newsvine, and now to TheNewsTalkers policing every new member signup to delete spammers, contributing originally drafted articles such as movie quizzes, and seeds in which I have found some interest, commented at least most of the time intelligently on other's seeds and articles, have the integrity to admit my errors and apologize publicly when I have been wrong about something ("Holy mother of Jesus, that's something you won't see every day" a quote from the movie The Accountant). And so I ask all of you, do you believe that I am senile, suffering from dementia, Alzheimer's Disease? Am I still mentally competent at the age of 87? Is it not possible that Biden could be competent, being my junior? As I began this paragraph, age itself is not necessarily consequential.
I like you Buzz but, no I wouldn't vote for you either...
Being something I would NEVER want to do, being POTUS would rank as the winner of that contest. And besides, not being an American, I wouldn't qualify anyway.
We wouldn't wish it on you either Buzz.
It seems only the worst people can get elected president these days.
Once elected they they up the rancor on both sides to unprecedented heights.
How did this ever happen?
I'm not really back. I saw this Krugman article, and for once I don't agree with him. The seed is getting roughly the Comments to be expected: off-topic, intended to sabotage. I wanted to see if my saying Krugman is wrong would be so shocking to the MAGAs that they'd post something unexpected. Nope. They're impervious.
The subject is America wanting a dictatorship. Krugman thinks MAGAs are blundering into fascism. That's true for some of them, the ones I call " Infantry " in Comment 2 . But those are not the majority of NT MAGAs. "Intellectuals" and "Enforcers" make up most of NT's MAGAs, and they all are perfectly aware that they're working to transform the US into a dictatorship.
"Age" is a phony topic, used to distract from the only important thing in the election. They're both old. Neither is senile.
Well, if I missed the point of the article, maybe I should delete my comment instead of embarrassing myself.
Buzz, you comment was fine, and speaking for myself, absolutely nothing indicates any senility on your part, your movie quiz’s seem very detailed and well thought out, I just don’t watch movies, but I do look at them, maybe one day I will try one, if you promise not to laugh at how badly I do.
I also agree age isn’t the deciding factor, you may lose a step as you age, but it isn’t the number 1 indicator. My grandfather started to slip in his early 70’s my grandmother could still remember every detail of events from 50 years ago and the name and family members names of the new cashier at her favorite restaurant into her 90’s.
Thank you George. Try the quiz and if you don't do well I won't mention you among the results.
Once again, Paul Krugman complains about elephants while ignoring the elephant in the room. Joe Biden's reelection presents a real and imminent threat of a Kamala Harris Presidency. The question really isn't Biden's age. The worry is that Biden won't finish his term and Kamala Harris will become President.
The concern is about the Biden/Harris ticket.
At present Biden, Democrats, and Paul Krugman can get away with throwing elephant crap at the wall because Trump has not chosen (or, at least, publicly announced) who will be on the ticket as his Vice President. Trump poses the same real and imminent threat as Biden, the Vice President will likely be required to fulfill 25th amendment obligations.
For the 2024 election, voters will be required to choose between the shittiest of shitty Presidents. And both parties will make political hay by forcing that choice on voters. But the reality that Paul Krugman wants to avoid discussing is that the candidates for Vice President may be the deciding factor for voter's choice.
Rational people would not ignore that the 2024 election may well be a contest between successors. Ignoring the elephant in the room won't hide its presence.