Joe Biden is challenging an incumbent President who is behaving abominably — by any standard — in a crisis of historic proportions. Shouldn’t he be aggressively making the case against that President?
Isn’t it the job of a presidential challenger to lead as many citizens as possible to reject the idea of the incumbent continuing to hold the powers of the presidency?
(Biden has been out there in some ways — and his statements have been good — but his visibility is not nearly what seems called for, and his statements have fallen far short of the kind of attacks that Trump’s conduct makes entirely appropriate.)
**********
The press is plenty critical of Trump’s scandalous machinations. But what about the Democrats?
Last night, on television, former Missouri Senator Clair McCaskill said that, because the various state governors depend upon the President for important help the citizens of their states need, and because Trump routinely punishes those who criticize him, a lot of those governors will be careful not to antagonize this President.
(Even though the President deserves harsh criticism for a whole list of his sins of commission and omission— not the least of which has been Trump’s virtual encouragement of insurrection with his “Liberate Michigan” kinds of encouragements of the crazy protests against the shelter-in-place policies recommended by public health experts and even by Trump’s own announced policy.)
If the governors are understandably reluctant to launch against Trump the kinds of attacks he so richly deserves, don’t we need other Democratic voices to take on the job? And if what is needed is a public critique that commands widespread public attention, is there anyone else besides the Democratic challenger to Trump who can do the job?
Isn’t it time for some toe-to-toe — Biden vs. Trump — to get the contest fully engaged, and on that oh-so-advantageous ground as Trump’s mishandling of this big crisis, with American lives at stake, and with Trump regularly violating obvious norms and taking a tack contrary to public opinion? (Especially since the pandemic is preventing most of the usual ways of campaigning.)
“Attacks” can take a whole variety of forms, and they need not be made in any fashion that undermines Biden’s important assets, like being seen as a “good guy,” a fundamentally “decent” person. So I’m not sure I can see any downside to a well-crafted campaign of calling out Trump for all the ways his presidential leadership is ill-serving a nation facing a major crisis.
******************
And, if this argument is accepted — that attacking Trump NOW, while his unfitness for office is on dramatic display — does that not also argue for Biden to announce his choice for his running mate now, to enlist another voice in the effort?
It is often said that the main criterion for a vice presidential candidate is that she will help the presidential candidate win the election. In this case, with Biden in his late 70s, and therefore to be in his 80s after serving a term from 2021-25, I think that way more than usual, the choice of the Veep should factor in the person’s capability to run effectively for President (in 2024) and to serve well in office if elected. Nonetheless, the ability of the Veep choice to help the 2020 ticket get elected remains of great importance.
So would it not behoove Biden to choose someone now who can play effectively the “attack-dog” role that the Veep is often assigned? Whoever Biden might announces as his running mate would automatically command a much greater amount of public attention simply by virtue of her new position. And then the Democrats would have two voices calling the public’s attention to Trump’s absolutely atrocious leadership during this coronavirus crisis.
(My own choice for who might best play that Veep role would be Elizabeth Warren— who I believe would be the best president, among all those mentioned as vice presidential possibilities, and who is also a proven fighter and outstanding debater of great effectiveness.)