\n<\/p>\n
I\u2019m pretty surprised to see this today. Just a few days ago I was very critical of the Washington Post for becoming the \u201cgoth teen of national newspapers<\/a>\u201d for its fixation on the death of democracy and today the editorial board has published something criticizing the tone and content of Joe Biden\u2019s speech last night. They editorial opens by saying they agree with the idea democracy is under assault but quickly pivot to why Biden\u2019s speech did a terrible job of addressing those concerns<\/a>.<\/p>\n The difficult, perhaps insurmountable, challenge that Mr. Biden confronted \u2014 just eight weeks before midterm elections that will determine the future course of his presidency \u2014 was how to convey the message of defending democracy in a way that summons patriotism rather than partisanship. Here, as much as we agree with the president about the urgency of the issue, is where he fell short, too often sounding more like a Democrat than a democrat. You don\u2019t persuade people by scolding or demeaning them, but that\u2019s how the president\u2019s speech landed for many conservatives of goodwill.<\/p>\n Mr. Biden was wrong to conflate upholding the rule of law with his own partisan agenda, which he called \u201cthe work of democracy.\u201d You can be for democracy but against the president\u2019s policy proposals to use government to lower prescription-drug prices and combat climate change. \u201cMAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love,\u201d Mr. Biden proclaimed. But many conservatives \u2014 not just \u201cMAGA forces\u201d \u2014 agree with the Supreme Court\u2019s decision to overturn\u00a0Roe v. Wade.\u00a0<\/i>It was disappointing that Mr. Biden chose to omit that the infrastructure, gun-control and burn-pits legislation he praised had passed with Republican votes. Pointing this out would actually have strengthened his effort to draw a contrast between \u201cMAGA Republicans\u201d and \u201cmainstream Republicans.\u201d<\/p>\n Moreover, Mr. Biden\u2019s clarion call for democracy would carry more credibility if he were willing to call out his own party for its cynical effort to elevate some of the same \u201cMAGA Republicans\u201d he now warns will destroy democracy if they prevail in the general election. During the primaries, Democrats spent tens of millions helping dangerous election deniers defeat better-funded \u201cmainstream Republicans,\u201d including in Pennsylvania, where Mr. Biden, not coincidentally, chose to speak.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Give the Post credit for speaking the truth to a mostly hostile audience. The top comment on this editorial is from \u201cDark Brandon\u201d who writes, \u201cBiden literally said \u2018Not all Republicans are MAGA Republicans, in fact the majority aren\u2019t\u2019, and the WAPO Board writes this garbage column?\u201d Biden did literally say that but how does that undercut the points raised by the editorial board, i.e. that Biden conflated the rule of law with his own agenda, that he failed to acknowledge there are pro-lifers (even some Democrats) who aren\u2019t Trump fans. Or that he failed to say anything about people in his own party promoting the campaigns of the people he now says are a threat to democracy.<\/p>\n All the top comments sound like this:<\/p>\n This is pretty much what I was seeing on Twitter last night. Many, many progressives have bought into this idea that this is their Flight 93 Election and they don\u2019t want to hear anything but that kind of rhetoric. And that\u2019s why the Post\u2019s top opinion piece right now isn\u2019t this one but something written by Dana Milbank which mocks the ideas of nuance that the Post editorial board is trying to defend. Milbank\u2019s piece is titled \u201cDear Insurrectionists and Fascists: I\u2019m sorry I offended you<\/a>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n There is a better opinion piece about this topic at the Post today. Here\u2019s Henry Olsen on Biden\u2019s speech<\/a>:<\/p>\n Presidents have public and political roles. Their public role is to serve as the nation\u2019s chief executive, while their political one is to advance their party and its agenda. Presidents have historically taken great care to separate the two roles.<\/p>\n Biden disregarded that distinction, crucial to a functioning democracy, on Thursday night. He gave what was essentially a Democratic campaign speech during an official White House effort, complete with Marine guards standing ominously in the background. Casually ignoring a bipartisan democratic norm in a speech ostensibly devoted to protecting democracy dials chutzpah up to 11.<\/p>\n But that\u2019s par for the course for Democrats this year. On the one hand, they tell Americans that MAGA Republicans are the greatest threat to the United States ever seen. On the other, they have spent nearly $50 million trying to promote ultra-MAGA candidates in Republican primaries, believing they would be easier to defeat in general elections. Just Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer\u2019s political action committee placed more than $3 million in television ads to promote ultra-MAGA Senate candidate Don Bolduc in New Hampshire\u2019s GOP primary. Cynically promoting people you believe to be threats to democracy for partisan gain is despicable.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a reason Biden and the Democrats are\u00a0waving the bloody shirt<\/a>: Polls show they will likely lose the midterm elections if they don\u2019t.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Read the whole thing. He makes some of the same points the editorial board made but with less holding back.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n