Bye bye Biden.

[Dr. Medulla]

1. Even by the standards of recent times, the past couple of weeks have been utterly crazy. I don't blame anybody, regardless of how close to events, for struggling to get their head around it. The sense of (cautious) optimism seems very encouraging, though.

I'm not sure I can say that I've previously experienced such a rollercoaster of emotions based on global events (not even something like the Berlin Wall coming down). The Labour landslide wasn't a shock and I expect them to Blair themselves, but it was still satisfying seeing the Tories get kicked to the curb. France seemed like it was going to go to the far right and then seemingly out of nowhere disaster was averted. Then Biden's debate performance and Trump's near assassination made it seem like the election was all but done, and then Biden drops out and it feels like a light got switched on. From a mix of despair and resignation to genuine hope. And if the Democrats can stem the tide in November, maybe Canada's own loony right movement can be stymied in next year's election. (They're polling in massive landslide territory right now, but pollsters suggest that their support is somewhat soft.)

Oh fuck, yes. By any standard these have been turbulent times. Not that it has the capacity to create even a minor ripple, but we've had our own trials with the far right making a load of noise here in Ireland but failing to make even a mild dent in two recent significant elections. So that was heartening too. I don't kid myself that some great left wizard could ever come along and steer us all into a secure, green future, so I'm just about ok with a solid, boring centrist. But I'd appreciate it if said solid, boring centrist maybe tipped the cap leftwards once every so often rather than purges and crackdowns just to placate the right. Don't really ask anymore than that tbh.

We reach. The absolute horrorshow of what the right has become has made basic centrism rooted in maintaining institutions more than acceptable, even if I know that the climate crisis requires much more radical effort. My loss of faith in ideology more generally has pretty much made me a pragmatist by default, and I'll happily accept corrupt and compromising liberals over arsonist radicals.

Plus, let's not delude ourselves that any radical alternative could somehow slip through and be allowed to implement measures that would make very wealthy and powerful people even a tiny bit less wealthy and powerful. Tanks outside parliament building before the week is out!

I'm more hopeful on this count, but, deep down, yeah.

[Kimmelweck]

I miss Clashy, too.

I think I remember Clashy from my lurking days. Is he the guy that gave Matey some shit about his drumming or something, and then everyone came to Matey's defense, like white blood cells to an infection, and Clashy was soon history? Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Yep! It's like the pledges in Animal House. Only WE can make fun of Hoy!

I don't even feel like I've been around long enough to refer to Mr. 'Dog as "Hoy". So I use the slightly more formal "Matey".

[Dr. Medulla]

I miss Clashy, too.

I think I remember Clashy from my lurking days. Is he the guy that gave Matey some shit about his drumming or something, and then everyone came to Matey's defense, like white blood cells to an infection, and Clashy was soon history? Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Yep! It's like the pledges in Animal House. Only WE can make fun of Hoy!

I don't even feel like I've been around long enough to refer to Mr. 'Dog as "Hoy". So I use the slightly more formal "Matey".

Tep has never accepted my name change. It's been, like, fifteen years.

[Kimmelweck]

I miss Clashy, too.

I think I remember Clashy from my lurking days. Is he the guy that gave Matey some shit about his drumming or something, and then everyone came to Matey's defense, like white blood cells to an infection, and Clashy was soon history? Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Yep! It's like the pledges in Animal House. Only WE can make fun of Hoy!

I don't even feel like I've been around long enough to refer to Mr. 'Dog as "Hoy". So I use the slightly more formal "Matey".

Tep has never accepted my name change. It's been, like, fifteen years.

That's ok, we all love ya Hookie.

(I've been lurking here longer than you know. )

[Dr. Medulla]

I think I remember Clashy from my lurking days. Is he the guy that gave Matey some shit about his drumming or something, and then everyone came to Matey's defense, like white blood cells to an infection, and Clashy was soon history? Maybe I'm confusing him with someone else.

Yep! It's like the pledges in Animal House. Only WE can make fun of Hoy!

I don't even feel like I've been around long enough to refer to Mr. 'Dog as "Hoy". So I use the slightly more formal "Matey".

Tep has never accepted my name change. It's been, like, fifteen years.

That's ok, we all love ya Hookie.

(I've been lurking here longer than you know. )

I'm not that person anymore. Once I accepted Jesus, I became someone new.

[Flex]

Here's an interesting thread on Biden and fits in well with a lot of the noodling I've been doing about the role and character of American parties. If this characterization is accurate, I think it helps explain why Biden had a better-than-anticipated (from a left perspective, at least) domestic record in office and also why he ultimately bowed out of the presidential race:


Addendum: text of the full thread-

One importance difference between Biden/Trump is Biden is very much a creature of his party---even more than most modern Dem POTUS---and Trump is very much not, way more so than any modern POTUS. And that difference IMO is key to understanding a lot of current political dynamics.

The basic story is that Biden's interests are aligned with Dems in way Trump's are not with GOP, and Biden cares about the future of his party in ways Trump almost certainly does not. You see that in almost everything. But I think there's more than that.

Biden really did build and depend on a coalition instead of a cult of personality, to a greater degree than almost any modern POTUS. He's just not beloved the way Obama or Clinton or Reagan or, well, Trump was.

That comes across in his approach to policy making, his approach to public relations, and his relationship with the factions of the party. He was always going to be a negotiator/deal cutter more than agoing public style POTUS.

Trump was never a party guy, never saw his political strength as being derived from the party, and much of the time found himself at odds with the party. A fair story is that, the first time around, he defeated the party for the nom, and lost to them on the policymaking.

Trump has built more party support this time around, but it's still an open question where the party goes after him. Biden quite clearly moved the ball forward on behalf of his party, a hired CEO who did well.

Once the Dems grew very wary of Biden as a candidate, he had no chance to survive without their support. But once he was ousted, he remained a party loyalist, working to party ends even after being shoved aside.

Trump would never do that. The GOP might or might not have been able to shove him aside in 2024, but he had a credible threat to kick over the chessboard and screw the party if they did. Biden really didn't have that threat.

And while almost every POTUS of the modern age is somewhere between Biden and Trump on this spectrum---part party creature, part independent cult of personality---I actually think Biden is as much an outlier in his direction as Trump is in his.

As someone who is wary of the modern presidency, I welcome Biden-style candidates, constrained by their coalitions and ultimately deriving their political support from the party.

Trump, generically, is very much the nightmare version of the modern president, the office empowered and unconstrained by Congress, the occupant unconstrained by party.

I suspect that Biden is going to become more popular after he leaves office, and from an institutional POV, I think that would be good. His presidency offers a model of how to more safely constrain powerful modern presidency.

Of course. It's silly to pretend you can easily gin up more Bidens. It doesn't work that way, and we are likely to get more cults of personalities if not outright Trumps. Biden really fit a time and place perfectly in 2020. /end

[Dr. Medulla]

Here's an interesting thread on Biden and fits in well with a lot of the noodling I've been doing about the role and character of American parties. If this characterization is accurate, I think it helps explain why Biden had a better-than-anticipated (from a left perspective, at least) domestic record in office and also why he ultimately bowed out of the presidential race:


Addendum: text of the full thread-

One importance difference between Biden/Trump is Biden is very much a creature of his party---even more than most modern Dem POTUS---and Trump is very much not, way more so than any modern POTUS. And that difference IMO is key to understanding a lot of current political dynamics.

The basic story is that Biden's interests are aligned with Dems in way Trump's are not with GOP, and Biden cares about the future of his party in ways Trump almost certainly does not. You see that in almost everything. But I think there's more than that.

Biden really did build and depend on a coalition instead of a cult of personality, to a greater degree than almost any modern POTUS. He's just not beloved the way Obama or Clinton or Reagan or, well, Trump was.

That comes across in his approach to policy making, his approach to public relations, and his relationship with the factions of the party. He was always going to be a negotiator/deal cutter more than agoing public style POTUS.

Trump was never a party guy, never saw his political strength as being derived from the party, and much of the time found himself at odds with the party. A fair story is that, the first time around, he defeated the party for the nom, and lost to them on the policymaking.

Trump has built more party support this time around, but it's still an open question where the party goes after him. Biden quite clearly moved the ball forward on behalf of his party, a hired CEO who did well.

Once the Dems grew very wary of Biden as a candidate, he had no chance to survive without their support. But once he was ousted, he remained a party loyalist, working to party ends even after being shoved aside.

Trump would never do that. The GOP might or might not have been able to shove him aside in 2024, but he had a credible threat to kick over the chessboard and screw the party if they did. Biden really didn't have that threat.

And while almost every POTUS of the modern age is somewhere between Biden and Trump on this spectrum---part party creature, part independent cult of personality---I actually think Biden is as much an outlier in his direction as Trump is in his.

As someone who is wary of the modern presidency, I welcome Biden-style candidates, constrained by their coalitions and ultimately deriving their political support from the party.

Trump, generically, is very much the nightmare version of the modern president, the office empowered and unconstrained by Congress, the occupant unconstrained by party.

I suspect that Biden is going to become more popular after he leaves office, and from an institutional POV, I think that would be good. His presidency offers a model of how to more safely constrain powerful modern presidency.

Of course. It's silly to pretend you can easily gin up more Bidens. It doesn't work that way, and we are likely to get more cults of personalities if not outright Trumps. Biden really fit a time and place perfectly in 2020. /end

This election year has so many freaky echoes to 1968, a few of which I've mentioned before. This strikes me, too, as having that kind of echo. Not just that LBJ, like Biden, was pretty much forced to step aside, but that each was aware that they could have still had the nomination if they wanted it, but that it would have been ruinous for the party to do so. LBJ, like Biden, was a creature of consensus politics—it was the system he came up thru, of making deals so that everyone feels they've gotten something and remains invested in the system—but the politics of 1968 was not conducive to that anymore. He correctly understood that his way of doing politics—his immense talent—wouldn't work even if he won because dealmaking was no longer de rigeur in a polarized atmosphere. And, appropriately, the guy who won in 1968 was notably suspicious of his party (and it of him). So much so that in 1972, Nixon's re-election campaign severely downplayed the Republican Party (I can't remember the details, but he and Haldeman had mused about running as sort of an ersatz party with the GOP apparatus). Nixon, like Trump, never regarded party as anything more than a vehicle to his personal interests.