The Pragmatic Roots of Bidens Incoherence – The New Republic

But Bidens gaffes, as The New Yorkers Eric Lach wrote earlier this spring, often center around the question of race. During the 2008 primary, he famously referred to his future boss as being clean and articulate. His 2020 campaign has been marked by a series of unforced errors when discussing racial issues, including an instance earlier this year when he said poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.

Many of Bidens slips point to a blindspot on race that has rightfully drawn significant attention over the last year. But his incoherence is not limited to speech that the political media labels as gaffes, but instead extends to much of what he says on basic questions about policy. The section in last Thursdays debate covering health care ended with a smirking Biden defending, in patriotic terms, a system that kills tens of thousands a year. His economic platform is that no one should be punisheda not-so-subtle message to billionaires that he isnt interested in wealth redistribution. The best case he can make on health care and the economy, the two biggest issues in the primary, is that he will improve systems that already exist, which barely qualifies as a platform. Bidens incoherence comes not from some charming Washington-esque inability to tell a lie, but from a lack of real ideas about how the government should work.

In his piece about how Biden can find a platform that extends beyond reminding people that he once worked for Obama, Klein pointed to Bidens political style as the thing that makes the former vice president different. Bidens approach to politicswhether its foreign leaders, congressional negotiations, or the Iowa State Fairis relational, Klein writes. Biden was often deployed to do the in-person work Obama dismissed. In a piece arguing that the Democratic primary has been a debacle, New Yorks Jonathan Chait made a similar point. It seems just as likely that many of Bidens supporters have a positive appreciation for compromise and pluralism, Chait wrote, designing policies that appeal to wide social and economic swaths of the country, rather than those that draw sharp cleavages between winners and losers.

The idea here is that Bidens appeal is as a dealmaker. This is something that Biden has run on himself, both in 1988, when he dropped out after being accused of plagiarism, and in 2008, when he quit the race after finishing fifth in Iowa. In the latter campaign, Bidens signature idea was to essentially make a new Sykes-Picot agreement, dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous territories. (It was, and continues to be, a bad idea.) In fact, Bidens entire 2008 campaign was premised on a series of similar pragmatic-seeming compromises, on issues like Social Security (he promoted a plan that would involve bipartisan negotiations on a number of issues, including the retirement age and trumpeted his past work with Republican senators, including Bob Dole) and health care.

There is nothing wrong with making the case that being a back-slapping dealmaker is what America needs to cut through the Gordian knot at the center of our politics. (Theres also not much right about it.) But its not an idea and it certainly doesnt rise to the level of policy. This was, importantly, the basis of Bidens last, not-at-all successful campaign, when he ran as the candidate for those who wanted compromise and ended up getting crushed. But this approachof premising deal-making over ideascontinues to define Bidens approach to politics.

It also continues to undercut this presidential campaign. One reason why Biden was so incoherent in Thursdays debate is that he doesnt have an ideological foundation to rely on when pressed. His instinct is to cut deals, not to find the best policy or solution. But that also means that Biden has little of substance to offer on most big policy questions. And, while it may very well be true that what voters are looking for is someone willing to compromise, Biden has run on that idea before, with disastrous results.

Its not exactly surprising that Biden, as true a creature of the Senate as there ever was, would think about politics this way. And there is an argument to be made that it does have its place in the White House, given the foreign policy-heavy responsibilities of the executive branch. But that means that Bidens struggles to make sense do not stem from his inability to get out from under Barack Obamas shadow or from his age. Theyre grounded in a shallow approach to policy thats more rooted in backroom deals than in real world consequences.

Read more from the original source:
The Pragmatic Roots of Bidens Incoherence - The New Republic