November 2024: Joe Biden welcomes Trump back to the White House
I am furious with President Joe Biden. Biden won the presidency in 2020 by promising to preserve our democracy. He said the purpose of his candidacy and presidency was to ensure the safety of our democracy. But Biden broke his promise. He failed to engage the fascist insurrectionists who attacked us and thus set Trump on the road to destroying our democracy. We voted for Biden to confront the fascist insurrectionists. Instead, for his term, Biden allowed his administration to normalize Trump and the fascist enemy.
Despite some groundbreaking presidential legislative victories, Biden failed to defeat fascism or even to put Democrats on a path to win the 2024 presidential election. Defeating fascism would have required reversing the electoral underperformance of Democrats over the last 30 or 40 years. But the Republican Party Biden faced was led by a convicted felon and had become highly corrupt. This corruption had become more apparent as the Republican agenda became more extreme and less centered on the welfare of the country. Biden's most fundamental mistake was choosing a strategy to defeat Trump that was highly flawed and ill-suited to the threat we faced.
The country dodged a bullet in 2020 when the January 6 insurrection, planned and carried out by Trump and a group of his loyalists, was unsuccessful. The narrowness of this escape should have been a signal to President Biden that overcoming fascist insurrectionists would require that he take robust actions to fight for democracy. Nonetheless, President Biden prioritized economic issues as the dubious strategy for fighting insurrectionists. Biden's focus on economic issues was an attempt to show the MAGA insurrectionists that the federal government could deliver legislation and achieve economic growth. Many of these economic programs targeted red states – the seat of much of the insurrectionist opinion. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) seemingly inspired Biden's focus on the economy. FDR used an economic recovery in the thirties to defeat an earlier wave of fascists.
To his credit, Biden pushed through the most progressive economic legislation since President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ). Although this legislation is admirable, the process of enacting it sent some troubling signals to some observers. Biden could not pass the crown jewel of his economic program, a $3.5 trillion Build Back Better bill. He could not persuade or coerce two Democratic Senators, Manchin and Sinema, to change the Senate filibuster rules. Without such a change, voting rights legislation could not have been passed. After almost a year of negotiations, Congress passed a $2.2 trillion program. The media reports of Democrats wrangling among themselves made Biden look weak. More importantly, because of this wrangling, the bill's impact was delayed even more than one would expect with infrastructure projects. Thus, any positive electoral for Biden and Democrats in the 2024 election was unlikely.
The positive effects of these economic programs for Biden and Democrats were also limited by the many changes that have occurred since FDR's time. The virulent racial antagonisms that existed in the thirties were hidden behind a cotton curtain in the South. Today, racial antagonism has spread throughout the country. During this same period, there has been increased immigration by people of color to the country. In part, because of these demographic changes and the efforts by the federal government to manage them, there has been an extreme decrease in trust in the federal government from 70 to 22 percent. The promise by the Biden Administration to improve the economic conditions of Americans was not believed. Most importantly, social inequality has increased over the past 50 years. Now, 36 percent of the public cannot raise $400 to meet an emergency. The indicators of improved economic conditions associated with the Biden Administration had little meaning for the 36 percent of the public that had previously been bypassed. It is unlikely that mirroring FDR's economic approach could quell a revived fascist threat.
The fascist insurrection we faced was part of a more significant political movement. Economic discontent fueled this movement, as did other discontents. Biden should have recognized that he had to confront these other discontents politically and economically. Biden failed to do this. Instead, he resorted to what he thought was the strategy that FDR used to defeat fascism in the thirties. Besides economic programs, FDR also used political action. FDR's use of economic programs to restore confidence in the federal government contributed to the defeat of fascism following the Great Depression. However, FDR also directly confronted fascism at home and abroad. Roosevelt made speeches and radio addresses educating the public and politicians about the threat fascism posed to democracy. He also supported the FBI in surveilling and monitoring organizations and individuals who espoused fascist links to Germany or Italy. Roosevelt also provided aid to the Allies despite the isolationist tendencies of the Congress. Biden did lead NATO countries in supporting Ukraine against the Russian invasion. However, fearful of escalating the war, Biden did not provide the Ukrainians with the advanced weapons needed to defeat Russia.
Domestically, Biden also did not fully follow the path set by FDR. He did not educate the public about the growing threat of fascism. Biden could not inform the public. He did not understand that the insurrections were part of a movement determined to destroy the U.S. Biden sought to recast the fascist insurrectionists as lawbreakers who may have needed to be punished for crimes rather than as ideologues who were part of a movement determined to destroy our democracy. Biden's biggest mistake was appointing a former judge, Merrick Garland, as Attorney General. Garland, like Biden, did not recognize the fascist roots of the insurrectionists. As a result, Garland timidly pursued the insurrectionists. He moved indecisively to identify and hold all the insurrectionists accountable. Garland also failed to stretch the boundaries of the law; as Attorney General, it was not his job to determine which gray areas crossed those boundaries. He did not use the powers of the Justice Department and the FBI as tools to defeat a movement that was threatening to destroy the United States. Instead, Garland sought to convince the fascist insurrectionists who were attacking the U.S. that they should stop those attacks because the Department of Justice was exercising restraint in holding them to account.
There were many things Biden could have done to fight the insurrectionists, but he chose not to do them. Biden had promised to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act but did not push it. Meanwhile, at least 19 legislatures sympathetic to the insurrectionists have passed new restrictions on voting. Political organizers and activists warned White House officials that voter turnout would be efforts would be compromised if Biden did not pass the bill. Because Blacks and other minorities were so vocal in warning about the harmful effects of not passing the voting rights legislation, the issue became identified as a minority issue. White House officials were convinced they would overcome the voter suppression and restriction with increased turnout efforts. Because Biden wanted to push his economic plan, he abandoned voting rights legislation. Ten million Democratic-leaning voters sat out the 2024 election. Other issues undoubtedly contributed to these voters staying home, but as the Democratic organizers and activists predicted, failing to push voting rights undermined a Democratic victory in 2024.
Merrick Garland should have begun criminally investigating Donald Trump and Congress members for their participation in the January 6 insurrection as soon as he was sworn in as Attorney General. Instead, he procrastinated investigating acknowledged supporters and insurrectionists until he charged many low-level participants. His announced rationale was to identify and accumulate evidence against the low-level participants. Once identified, the accumulated evidence could then be used against the leaders. However, this procedure was unnecessary when the insurrection leaders acknowledged their support for the insurrection, and the media published information about their participation. Almost two years after the January 6 insurrection, Garland appointed Jack Smith as Special Counsel. Six months later, Smith obtained an indictment against Trump. In hopes of speeding up Trump's trial, Smith did not bring indictments against other insurrection leaders. Garland's procrastination helped Trump delay the prosecution against him, although it is not certain that Trump could have obtained further delays or an acquittal.
In addition to the Biden administration delaying these investigations, it failed to take some steps against a biased and corrupt court that could have. When President Richard Nixon wanted Abe Fortas, a liberal Supreme Court justice, removed from the Supreme Court, he had his Attorney General pressure Fortas. Fortas had earned a $15,000 speaking fee that he improperly reported. Nixon's Attorney General opened an investigation into Fortas and threatened to investigate Fortas' wife if Fortas did not resign. Fortas resigned. Biden and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, chose not to investigate numerous financial windfalls Justice Clarence Thomas received. Also, Garland did not investigate Thomas' wife, who had received large sums of money from right-wing organizations and may have been involved in the January 6 insurrection. Thus, Biden did not take any action to remove a justice from the Supreme Court, which has been aligned with other justices who have shown themselves to be inimical to democracy in numerous cases.
Trump won the 2016 presidential election, in part, because of disinformation. Disinformation is a process of purposely substituting lies for facts in the public's belief by simultaneously undermining the narratives supporting those facts AND the sources propagating those facts. Using the same playbook the Russians have used to undermine governments in Eastern European countries, Trump and his fascist allies have used disinformation to gain political power in the U.S. Considering how disinformation has been used, Biden should have taken every step possible to understand and counter the disinformation. Biden took some timid steps to combat disinformation. The Department of State's Global Engagement Center led and coordinated U.S. efforts to combat foreign disinformation aimed at the U.S. The Center closed on December 23, 2024, because the Republican Congress failed to reauthorize it.
Considering the failure of Biden and Democrats to hold the presidency and the Congress partly because of disinformation, the Center was clearly too little, too late. Moreover, as FBI Director Christopher Wray testified, the greatest threat to the country is coming from domestic terrorists. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas attempted to establish a Disinformation Governance Board in April of 2022 to counter disinformation related to national security, headed by Nina Jankowicz, a renowned disinformation researcher. Almost immediately, MAGA Republicana and fascist insurrectionists were heaping criticism and threats on the Board and Jankowicz. Three weeks later, Biden and Mayorkas pulled the plug on the Board. Mayorkas said that DHS could have done a better job of communicating the purpose of the Board. Regardless of how the establishment of an instrument to counter disinformation was communicated, Biden failed to fight for a critical instrument to defend the country against a primary weapon wielded by its domestic enemies—because its enemies criticized it.
There are other examples of Biden's timidity in resisting the efforts of fascist insurrectionists. First, Justice Thomas and possibly other MAGA supporters have taken questionable tax deductions without being held accountable by the government. Second, while educational and religious organizations are tax-exempt, there have been media reports that many of these organizations engage in blatant political activities without consequence by the executive branch. Third, from media reports, several MAGA leaders associates like Barry Bennett and Douglas Watts may have acted as agents for foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Whether guilty or not, investigating these MAGA members may have soured other members on their association with MAGA. Some actions by the Biden administration might have sent a message that Biden was serious in his defense of democracy.
Many explanations have been given for Biden's failure to preserve our democracy. One reason is a worldwide rebellion against the political status quo. Politicians in many countries are being defeated because voters are displeased with the political and economic conditions. And the argument is that Biden faced the backlash of this worldwide trend. However, identifying a trend does not mean understanding why it exists. And unlike the leaders of other countries, Biden's economic performance was truly outstanding. It is hard to know why voters would be displeased with Biden's economic performance. Another explanation is that Biden's age rendered him incapable of fending off the fascist insurrectionist attack. But if Biden's management of the economy had led to a positive response in the electorate, then he and Harris would have been successful.
The problem is that despite Biden's outstanding economic performance, voters were not impressed. Another explanation is that Biden was so old school he could not understand the antagonism and downright hatred of the government so many of the insurrectionists had for him, Democrats, and our democracy. A related explanation, borne out by the response of many Democrats to how they resist Trump, is that the Democratic Party lacks the spine for a stiff resistance. And Biden is, above all, a Democrat. Yet, Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, to save him from the hell that he would have faced from the Trump administration. While some people feel the pardon was unjustified, premature, or over the top, I am glad Biden saved Hunter. I wish Biden had saved the rest of us, even if it meant taking some actions that would have been untoward under other circumstances.
Because of Biden's success in achieving economic programs, they want to ignore that he failed to preserve democracy. By any criteria, this was a monumental failure. While many people show no reluctance in blaming Merrick Garland for the defeat of democracy, they are reluctant to blame Biden. These people, like the rest of the Democratic Party, did not recognize or understand the danger posed by the fascist insurrectionists. They underestimated the extent to which these people were opposed to democracy and wanted a fascist government. Considering some of the statements Democratic leaders continue to make about working with Trump, I doubt if they recognize the danger even now. However, some feel that if they admit to the danger, they will have to do something and so they pretend there is no danger. Thus, they pretend that Trump is just another president, and if they treat him usually, politics and the country will return to normal. Some Democrats think that internal conflict among the fascists, MAGA, and other Trump sycophants about such things as foreign workers will destroy the movement. Also, they believe that Trump's incompetence and that of his administration will lead to the demise of this movement. Some Democrats have even suggested that the movement will wither away if Trump dies. These optimistic Democrats believe that the media like ABC, the LA Times, Washington Post, Facebook, and X will accurately report the news. I am more pessimistic about what the media will report. In any event, hope is not much of a plan.
Despite some groundbreaking presidential legislative victories, Biden failed to defeat fascism or even to put Democrats on a path to win the 2024 presidential election. Defeating fascism would have required reversing the electoral underperformance of Democrats over the last 30 or 40 years. But the Republican Party Biden faced was led by a convicted felon and had become highly corrupt. This corruption had become more apparent as the Republican agenda became more extreme and less centered on the welfare of the country. Biden's most fundamental mistake was choosing a strategy to defeat Trump that was highly flawed and ill-suited to the threat we faced.
The country dodged a bullet in 2020 when the January 6 insurrection, planned and carried out by Trump and a group of his loyalists, was unsuccessful. The narrowness of this escape should have been a signal to President Biden that overcoming fascist insurrectionists would require that he take robust actions to fight for democracy. Nonetheless, President Biden prioritized economic issues as the dubious strategy for fighting insurrectionists. Biden's focus on economic issues was an attempt to show the MAGA insurrectionists that the federal government could deliver legislation and achieve economic growth. Many of these economic programs targeted red states – the seat of much of the insurrectionist opinion. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) seemingly inspired Biden's focus on the economy. FDR used an economic recovery in the thirties to defeat an earlier wave of fascists.
To his credit, Biden pushed through the most progressive economic legislation since President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ). Although this legislation is admirable, the process of enacting it sent some troubling signals to some observers. Biden could not pass the crown jewel of his economic program, a $3.5 trillion Build Back Better bill. He could not persuade or coerce two Democratic Senators, Manchin and Sinema, to change the Senate filibuster rules. Without such a change, voting rights legislation could not have been passed. After almost a year of negotiations, Congress passed a $2.2 trillion program. The media reports of Democrats wrangling among themselves made Biden look weak. More importantly, because of this wrangling, the bill's impact was delayed even more than one would expect with infrastructure projects. Thus, any positive electoral for Biden and Democrats in the 2024 election was unlikely.
The positive effects of these economic programs for Biden and Democrats were also limited by the many changes that have occurred since FDR's time. The virulent racial antagonisms that existed in the thirties were hidden behind a cotton curtain in the South. Today, racial antagonism has spread throughout the country. During this same period, there has been increased immigration by people of color to the country. In part, because of these demographic changes and the efforts by the federal government to manage them, there has been an extreme decrease in trust in the federal government from 70 to 22 percent. The promise by the Biden Administration to improve the economic conditions of Americans was not believed. Most importantly, social inequality has increased over the past 50 years. Now, 36 percent of the public cannot raise $400 to meet an emergency. The indicators of improved economic conditions associated with the Biden Administration had little meaning for the 36 percent of the public that had previously been bypassed. It is unlikely that mirroring FDR's economic approach could quell a revived fascist threat.
The fascist insurrection we faced was part of a more significant political movement. Economic discontent fueled this movement, as did other discontents. Biden should have recognized that he had to confront these other discontents politically and economically. Biden failed to do this. Instead, he resorted to what he thought was the strategy that FDR used to defeat fascism in the thirties. Besides economic programs, FDR also used political action. FDR's use of economic programs to restore confidence in the federal government contributed to the defeat of fascism following the Great Depression. However, FDR also directly confronted fascism at home and abroad. Roosevelt made speeches and radio addresses educating the public and politicians about the threat fascism posed to democracy. He also supported the FBI in surveilling and monitoring organizations and individuals who espoused fascist links to Germany or Italy. Roosevelt also provided aid to the Allies despite the isolationist tendencies of the Congress. Biden did lead NATO countries in supporting Ukraine against the Russian invasion. However, fearful of escalating the war, Biden did not provide the Ukrainians with the advanced weapons needed to defeat Russia.
Domestically, Biden also did not fully follow the path set by FDR. He did not educate the public about the growing threat of fascism. Biden could not inform the public. He did not understand that the insurrections were part of a movement determined to destroy the U.S. Biden sought to recast the fascist insurrectionists as lawbreakers who may have needed to be punished for crimes rather than as ideologues who were part of a movement determined to destroy our democracy. Biden's biggest mistake was appointing a former judge, Merrick Garland, as Attorney General. Garland, like Biden, did not recognize the fascist roots of the insurrectionists. As a result, Garland timidly pursued the insurrectionists. He moved indecisively to identify and hold all the insurrectionists accountable. Garland also failed to stretch the boundaries of the law; as Attorney General, it was not his job to determine which gray areas crossed those boundaries. He did not use the powers of the Justice Department and the FBI as tools to defeat a movement that was threatening to destroy the United States. Instead, Garland sought to convince the fascist insurrectionists who were attacking the U.S. that they should stop those attacks because the Department of Justice was exercising restraint in holding them to account.
There were many things Biden could have done to fight the insurrectionists, but he chose not to do them. Biden had promised to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act but did not push it. Meanwhile, at least 19 legislatures sympathetic to the insurrectionists have passed new restrictions on voting. Political organizers and activists warned White House officials that voter turnout would be efforts would be compromised if Biden did not pass the bill. Because Blacks and other minorities were so vocal in warning about the harmful effects of not passing the voting rights legislation, the issue became identified as a minority issue. White House officials were convinced they would overcome the voter suppression and restriction with increased turnout efforts. Because Biden wanted to push his economic plan, he abandoned voting rights legislation. Ten million Democratic-leaning voters sat out the 2024 election. Other issues undoubtedly contributed to these voters staying home, but as the Democratic organizers and activists predicted, failing to push voting rights undermined a Democratic victory in 2024.
Merrick Garland should have begun criminally investigating Donald Trump and Congress members for their participation in the January 6 insurrection as soon as he was sworn in as Attorney General. Instead, he procrastinated investigating acknowledged supporters and insurrectionists until he charged many low-level participants. His announced rationale was to identify and accumulate evidence against the low-level participants. Once identified, the accumulated evidence could then be used against the leaders. However, this procedure was unnecessary when the insurrection leaders acknowledged their support for the insurrection, and the media published information about their participation. Almost two years after the January 6 insurrection, Garland appointed Jack Smith as Special Counsel. Six months later, Smith obtained an indictment against Trump. In hopes of speeding up Trump's trial, Smith did not bring indictments against other insurrection leaders. Garland's procrastination helped Trump delay the prosecution against him, although it is not certain that Trump could have obtained further delays or an acquittal.
In addition to the Biden administration delaying these investigations, it failed to take some steps against a biased and corrupt court that could have. When President Richard Nixon wanted Abe Fortas, a liberal Supreme Court justice, removed from the Supreme Court, he had his Attorney General pressure Fortas. Fortas had earned a $15,000 speaking fee that he improperly reported. Nixon's Attorney General opened an investigation into Fortas and threatened to investigate Fortas' wife if Fortas did not resign. Fortas resigned. Biden and his Attorney General, Merrick Garland, chose not to investigate numerous financial windfalls Justice Clarence Thomas received. Also, Garland did not investigate Thomas' wife, who had received large sums of money from right-wing organizations and may have been involved in the January 6 insurrection. Thus, Biden did not take any action to remove a justice from the Supreme Court, which has been aligned with other justices who have shown themselves to be inimical to democracy in numerous cases.
Trump won the 2016 presidential election, in part, because of disinformation. Disinformation is a process of purposely substituting lies for facts in the public's belief by simultaneously undermining the narratives supporting those facts AND the sources propagating those facts. Using the same playbook the Russians have used to undermine governments in Eastern European countries, Trump and his fascist allies have used disinformation to gain political power in the U.S. Considering how disinformation has been used, Biden should have taken every step possible to understand and counter the disinformation. Biden took some timid steps to combat disinformation. The Department of State's Global Engagement Center led and coordinated U.S. efforts to combat foreign disinformation aimed at the U.S. The Center closed on December 23, 2024, because the Republican Congress failed to reauthorize it.
Considering the failure of Biden and Democrats to hold the presidency and the Congress partly because of disinformation, the Center was clearly too little, too late. Moreover, as FBI Director Christopher Wray testified, the greatest threat to the country is coming from domestic terrorists. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas attempted to establish a Disinformation Governance Board in April of 2022 to counter disinformation related to national security, headed by Nina Jankowicz, a renowned disinformation researcher. Almost immediately, MAGA Republicana and fascist insurrectionists were heaping criticism and threats on the Board and Jankowicz. Three weeks later, Biden and Mayorkas pulled the plug on the Board. Mayorkas said that DHS could have done a better job of communicating the purpose of the Board. Regardless of how the establishment of an instrument to counter disinformation was communicated, Biden failed to fight for a critical instrument to defend the country against a primary weapon wielded by its domestic enemies—because its enemies criticized it.
There are other examples of Biden's timidity in resisting the efforts of fascist insurrectionists. First, Justice Thomas and possibly other MAGA supporters have taken questionable tax deductions without being held accountable by the government. Second, while educational and religious organizations are tax-exempt, there have been media reports that many of these organizations engage in blatant political activities without consequence by the executive branch. Third, from media reports, several MAGA leaders associates like Barry Bennett and Douglas Watts may have acted as agents for foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Whether guilty or not, investigating these MAGA members may have soured other members on their association with MAGA. Some actions by the Biden administration might have sent a message that Biden was serious in his defense of democracy.
Many explanations have been given for Biden's failure to preserve our democracy. One reason is a worldwide rebellion against the political status quo. Politicians in many countries are being defeated because voters are displeased with the political and economic conditions. And the argument is that Biden faced the backlash of this worldwide trend. However, identifying a trend does not mean understanding why it exists. And unlike the leaders of other countries, Biden's economic performance was truly outstanding. It is hard to know why voters would be displeased with Biden's economic performance. Another explanation is that Biden's age rendered him incapable of fending off the fascist insurrectionist attack. But if Biden's management of the economy had led to a positive response in the electorate, then he and Harris would have been successful.
The problem is that despite Biden's outstanding economic performance, voters were not impressed. Another explanation is that Biden was so old school he could not understand the antagonism and downright hatred of the government so many of the insurrectionists had for him, Democrats, and our democracy. A related explanation, borne out by the response of many Democrats to how they resist Trump, is that the Democratic Party lacks the spine for a stiff resistance. And Biden is, above all, a Democrat. Yet, Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, to save him from the hell that he would have faced from the Trump administration. While some people feel the pardon was unjustified, premature, or over the top, I am glad Biden saved Hunter. I wish Biden had saved the rest of us, even if it meant taking some actions that would have been untoward under other circumstances.
Because of Biden's success in achieving economic programs, they want to ignore that he failed to preserve democracy. By any criteria, this was a monumental failure. While many people show no reluctance in blaming Merrick Garland for the defeat of democracy, they are reluctant to blame Biden. These people, like the rest of the Democratic Party, did not recognize or understand the danger posed by the fascist insurrectionists. They underestimated the extent to which these people were opposed to democracy and wanted a fascist government. Considering some of the statements Democratic leaders continue to make about working with Trump, I doubt if they recognize the danger even now. However, some feel that if they admit to the danger, they will have to do something and so they pretend there is no danger. Thus, they pretend that Trump is just another president, and if they treat him usually, politics and the country will return to normal. Some Democrats think that internal conflict among the fascists, MAGA, and other Trump sycophants about such things as foreign workers will destroy the movement. Also, they believe that Trump's incompetence and that of his administration will lead to the demise of this movement. Some Democrats have even suggested that the movement will wither away if Trump dies. These optimistic Democrats believe that the media like ABC, the LA Times, Washington Post, Facebook, and X will accurately report the news. I am more pessimistic about what the media will report. In any event, hope is not much of a plan.
