Debate Week Thursday

A naughty idea

Since consistency is the hobgoblin of small Kleins, I hereby abrogate the rule against offering pre-debate advice I set down two days ago, because I have an idea, a naughty one, well outside the box. What if Biden began like this:

Before we get started, I wanted to say something to my opponent. I know you lost your sister this past year. That must hurt. She was a fine person, a fine judge. But I guess both of us have reached the point in life where we’re losing family and friends. It’s not easy, but it can bring wisdom and perspective and peace. So I just wanted to express my condolences for your loss.

How on earth would Trump respond? Probably just a mumbled thanks. He’s a sociopath, empathy doesn’t come easy, feelings—about anything other than himself—don’t come easy. Certainly, he would be discombobulated by the gambit, thrown off guard. And Biden would have started by addressing the ginormous issue he faces: his age. He will have established that We’re both getting old, bro. He also would establish his greatest strength—his grace and humanity.

Would the Biden advisors ever chance such a thing? Probably not. Too risky. And this has been a prohibitively risk-averse campaign team. But it would a lovely thing to see, wouldn’t it?

Not too much else to discuss in the hours before the monster jam. The Supreme Court didn’t rule on Trump this morning, which is not a surprise. But there is one other thing:

I had a cup of coffee with a Democratic Congressman last week. It was off-the-record, so I can’t say much about it…but this person was disdainful of the notion that Trump would bring the end of democracy. So is Ruy Teixeira. So am I. Trump is despicable, to be sure. He has authoritarian tendencies. But does he have the disciple, or support, to actually bring off a dictatorship? I doubt it. There are other factors: The Democrats may be heading for a victory in the House and perhaps even one in the Senate—neither is a sure thing, of course, and the results are likely to be very close, but a divided government would make it hard for Trump to impose his will. Also:

1. The U.S. military undoubtedly has some right-wing elements, but it also has a deep and profound culture of staying out of politics. General Milley apologized immediately after accompanying Trump in his stroll across Lafayette Square during the George Floyd protests. Trump would need the support of the military to bring off a coup; his furry militia bros would not suffice. There are local police union elements that might support him, but they are diffuse and poorly trained. So no, this isn’t going to be Bolivia.

2. There are platoons—scads—of candidates in both parties looking to run for President in 2028. They simply wouldn’t accept a President for Life scenario. (Although J.D. Vance, if he gets the vice presidential nod, might like to be dictator-in-waiting.) The entire elected political establishment has a strong stake in the system continuing as is.

3. This is America, folks. As Teixeira points out above, both sides—even the Trumpers—insist they are preserving democracy. And the public seems to agree with that Trump would be better at preserving it, at least in the Quinnipiace poll. We may be crude and angry and idiotic at times, but Americans are not sheep. Dictatorships require sheep. Democracy is bred in our bones.

This is not to say that Trump won’t attempt to erode our rights, and sometimes succeed. He lays waste to order as easy as he breathes. The country, and our institutions, would suffer terribly in a Trump presidency. There might vast injustices, political enemies harassed, rules bent and broken. We might never recover from it; our standing in the world would be leveled, which would be very, very bad for the world. The culture of politics might change, a tropism toward celebrities over substantive leaders—it’s already happening. But a fundamental transformation of the American way of life? The end of democracy? I doubt it.

And on that non-pessimistic note, see you on the other side of the debate.