The question of the day is not “What makes President Joe Biden run?” but rather ‘Should Biden run?”
Both Democrats and Republicans will be confronting a similar problem in 2024. Should their leading presidential candidates – Republican former President Donald Trump and Democrat President Joe Biden withdraw from their races? Just now, national polls are screaming they should withdraw, according to The Hill: Majorities don’t want Biden, Trump to run in 2024: survey.
No less a liberal eminence than Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, not a MAGA supporter, has argued that Biden should bid us all a fond farewell. And National Review magazine appears to be dusting off its old bromide in time for the upcoming elections. To its credit, National Review -- which devoted a whole issue of its magazine, “Never Trump”, to a stern warning that conservatives should not support Trump -- later allowed dissent and published, among others, a repentant piece by Dan McLaughlin, I Was ‘Never Trump’ in 2016. I’m Still a Conservative. Here’s How I’m Voting, pointing out that the real world choice in 2020 was between Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton and Trump, the sounder choice being Trump.
Joe Biden, McLaughlin writes, “a notorious fabulist… is at best a mediocre man, well past his prime, whose ideas are bad, without the courage or strength of character to stand up to a party chock-full of far worse people with far worse ideas and a pitiless contempt for constitutional limitations or elementary respect for their fellow Americans in implementing them.”
The swelling anti-Trump, anti-Biden crowds plausibly argue that campaigns revolving around personal vindication are not what the nation needs at the moment. The presidential baton, they advise, should be passed to a new generation.
Not at all oddly, far left revolutionists such as New York U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have thrown their support to Biden, though it must grieve them that Biden, if he can be persuaded to engage in meaningful debate at all, appears to be marketing his present campaign as a traditional left of center Democrat.
At this point, the far left has been pressed into service because there is no place else they may go to relieve their leftist itch for more – more government, more spending, more empathy, more Bidenomics.
To be sure, Hunter Biden, Joe’s prodigal son, appears to be a drag on his father’s lofty ambitions, but presidents have always relied on the administrative state to pull their chestnuts from the fire.
Traditional moralists, citing a bill of particulars, would argue that Hunter has shown himself to be a scoundrel of the first water. But Democrat marketing is in the process of tagging the beleaguered Hunter as a “victim,” and we all know that the angels presiding over our politics unreservedly support victims, except when they are the illegitimate wastrels of Hunter Biden who, having consulted with his father, has decided not to sully the Biden escutcheon through a formal and honorable admission of fatherhood, thus incurring the disfavor of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd: NY Times columnist rebukes Biden’s ‘cold' heart for denying existence of granddaughter: ‘It’s seven grandkids’.
The Bidens have decided to cast Hunter’s illegitimate child into the ousted darkness by refusing to bestow on her the Biden name, though she has been given several of Hunter Biden’s overpriced paintings.
Hunter, though, may be the least of Biden’s problems. A true neo-progressive politician, Biden has concluded that there is no problem on earth, or in the heavens, that cannot be settled through vigorous executive action. And if one must cross the great divide between our three branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial – to right a perceived wrong, it would be immoral not to do so.
Moral claims, pagan or Christian, must be paramount. U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, heavily indebted to abortion facilitators for campaign contributions and assistance, has declared, rather in the manner of a Pope ruling on matters of faith and morals, that any resistance to abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, however reasonable, is immoral.
The notion that the pristine purity of the environment must at all costs be maintained – and the costs, including massive restrictions on the production of natural gas, are considerable – is an ipse dixit of the burgeoning environmental movement, at least on this side of the oceans that divide the U.S. from, say, China, India or Russia, all notorious pollutant states.
The national border of the United States may be penetrated with impunity.
The judiciary may be used with impunity by in-office neo-progressive legislators to spare themselves the necessity of writing laws that may be unpopular among their constituents. Lately such appeals have fallen out of favor with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has argued in recent decisions that political matters should, in keeping with the constitutional “separation of powers” doctrine, be decided by legislators rather than justices.
The above operational strategies are all part of our new neo-progressive movement, embraced passionately if not morally by an emerging secular priesthood for whom political restraints on the centralization of power in an increasingly autocratic executive department are ruinously unnecessary.
Caesarism, the bane and ruination of small “r” republican government will always reject those who reject the accumulation of political power in the hands of a “moral” autocrat.
The neo-progressive Biden, implausibly claiming to be a centrist Democrat, unexposed and hidden by our media in the nation’s centrist woodwork, is the perfect executive Caesar for our unreflective and robotic age.