The Last Thing You Will Ever Have to Read About the Debate

Blind Loyalty is Not Loyalty at All

When I started this Substack a couple weeks ago, the last thing I expected was getting embroiled in a big controversy this soon. Not that I shy away from controversy. From the beginning, my objective was to use the same approach here as I have at The DSR Podcast Network or in my other writings—to present the truth and fact-based analysis, unvarnished, in plain language, no punches pulled.

I know that approach can get a person into trouble. Not only does it piss off ones opponent but sometimes, even more disconcertingly, it alienates one’s friends. I had that problem when in the past, for example, I wrote critiques of what I saw as weaknesses in Obama’s foreign policy—even though I was an Obama supporter and admirer in many other respects. Certainly, the same thing has happened more recently when I detailed why I saw the Biden Administration’s policies pertaining to the Gaza War as being deeply flawed. And while I have largely supported and been actively admiring of their approach to the war in Ukraine, I have been critical of the slowness with which some key weapons systems were provided to help defend against Russia’s aggression and of the constraints that were placed on Ukraine’s ability to use those weapons systems against the Russians to target the places from which threats emanated—in Russia.

In the latter instances, however, I have always made it clear that as an American my greatest concern was preserving our country against the threat from within, the threat that emanated from Trump, MAGA and the American right wing. I have always framed critiques as a friend of the Biden Administration seeking to encourage it toward even better policy choices. I started writing and campaigning against the threat I associated with Donald Trump nearly a decade ago. I have been relentless. I have taken the message to every public and private venue that would have me. I don’t think my record is really assailable in that respect.

Further, time and again, I have celebrated and detailed the successes of President Biden, Vice President Harris and the whole administration. They have done an extraordinary job and objective analysis made that absolutely clear.

The Most Successful Administration of My Lifetime

This has been the most successful administration of my lifetime and one that has provided and continues to provide the last, best line of defense of the greatest threat the U.S. has faced since the Civil War.

Consequently, when I watched the debate on Thursday and saw what I saw, I did so in the context of being a big supporter of Joe Biden, a fierce opponent of Donald Trump and as someone who feels nothing is more important than defeating Trump in November.  It is for those reasons that I thought it was essential to speak out about my deep concerns with what I saw during the course of the debate: firstly, that the Trump menace was greater than ever, and secondly, that if Biden’s halting performance were linked to a longer term decline on his part, now was the time to do something about it to preserve his legacy and our democracy.

It was not a case of criticizing a bad debate performance by Biden. I, like you have seen plenty of bad debate performances from which politicians had rebounded. But this situation was not like those. First, Biden’s opponent was not just another politician. It was not Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama. Trump is an existential threat to our system of government and, in my view, to the safety and stability of the planet. Next, what I saw from Biden were signs that perhaps physical decline was finally taking a toll on him. That, in and of itself, would not be surprising or even greatly worrisome given his track record. Except that I was concerned that the causes of his appearance and performance on Thursday night might manifest themselves again later in the campaign and that they would harm his ability to win in November in a material way.

This election is close. The stakes are high. It seemed reasonable to flag a potential threat and to ask that it be investigated and if it was something that could pose a risk to the higher objective of winning, that it be publicly discussed in the hope that all those who were Biden supporters, Democrats, opponents of Trump could reach an informed and smart conclusion about how to handle it.

What happened after I and many others presented that view, however, was a backlash among some supporters of the President that for me has been deeply disorienting. They have attacked anyone who expressed a view like mine as being “bed-wetters” or “panicked” or part of a media cabal to get clicks. Now, look, I have a tiny media company and a kind of peripheral status as a pundit and I like clicks as much as the next guy. But not only did I agonize over what I wrote and only wrote it after careful consideration to ensure that in my mind it was in the best interest of the party and the higher objectives I’ve discussed, but I know that many of the others who wrote similar columns or said similar things on the air were attacked.

Blind Loyalty is Not Loyalty at All

Suddenly reflexive and unquestioning loyalty to President Biden was being celebrated as a virtue. Suddenly, inconvenient facts were being reframed in ways that frankly did not comport with what we had all seen with our own eyes.

I understand people feel passionately. I understand that many may feel “it was just one bad night” for Biden. I understand that people may been convinced in the marrow of their bones that raising questions about the president might not be helpful to beating Trump. I even understand that in times like these sometimes asking hard questions is deeply uncomfortable. It is why they are called hard questions.

But for me, winning is a goal that is more important than loyalty to any one individual. And asking questions now that make it more likely that we win later increases rather than decreases our chances of beating Trump.

Nonetheless, for the past few days, on social media and broadcast platforms a phalanx of partisans has moved to attack and condemn people who until days before had been acknowledged as their allies simply over a difference of opinion. As others, like Brian Klaas and Tim Miller have pointed out more effectively than I can, this is the behavior of the other party, this is gaslighting.

It is also dangerous as hell. Biden is great. But this election is not about one man. Moreover, it is in Biden’s own interests that his supporters ask the tough questions now rather than wait for a problem when it is too late and his legacy and that of all those who support him is a loss in November.

If, upon investigation, those close to the president conclude that what happened on Thursday will not happen again, that it was indeed a “bad night”, then great. But if there is something deeper there, a problem that may reappear or grow worse—and that seemed a very real possibility from watching the debate—then this is a moment that requires the courage to be honest and to take the actions needed to take in order to win.

But nothing is helped by name-calling and invective and loyalty tests and fracturing the coalition that supports the Democratic Party and opposes Trump. Nothing is helped by saying “we have a plan and we will never change it.” To many wars and other campaigns have been lost by this kind of blinkered inflexibility.

I should add, however, that if the conclusion is that Biden is up to the test, that problems like those we saw on Thursday are unlikely to reappear, there are still some good reasons to move away from Plan A—a presidential candidate centric campaign like most other traditional campaigns.

If you have an 81 year old president who is best between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., then logic dictates that you limit his public appearances as often as possible to that window.  If he sometimes flags, don’t over-program him. If he is best in public settings where he appears presidential then you can cut down on other activities. Help him be the best him—and recognize that the way to do so is not to pretend like he is the candidate he once was.

More importantly, recognize that one of the great strengths of this administration is the quality of its people and that one of the great strengths of the Democratic Party is the depth of its bench. Instead of making this campaign a solo effort, make it a chorus.  Instead of making it into a cult of personality to compete with the other side’s cult of personality, make it a movement. The Blue Team, the pro-democracy team, is not one man, it is millions of people, hundreds of leaders in Washington and across the country, a nation of activist supporters.

While our government has a strong executive branch, what people are voting for in November is not one man. In fact, for a long, long time now, the idea of the “presidency” has been misleading. We elect teams to lead us, the presidency is more like a corporation than it is a sole proprietorship. Project 2025 recognizes that (after Trump’s failure to succeed the first time around by applying what he learned running a relative small…deeply corrupt…family business). We need to do the same.

Central to this will be increasing the role and visibility of the Vice President, one of this country’s greatest asset—a gifted, vibrant, accomplished and highly capable politician who has earned a much more central role here and who frankly, is critical if the goal is to persuade Americans to turn out and vote for a president who will be 86 when he leaves office. But the president’s terrific cabinet, leaders on the Hill—from all parts of the party, and top governors must all be enlisted with a clear message about building on the administration’s legacy, about the differences between the Democratic view of the world and that of the MAGA extremists, and about the centrality of beating Trump.

In other words, learn from Thursday don’t pretend what we saw did not happen. Don’t shout down allies who have the temerity to speak the truth. Consider the possibility that those of us who have raised the issues we raised do so from genuine concern and a desire to do everything that is in our power to defeat Donald Trump and the fascist, racist, misogynist, anti-American, anti-rule of law movement he leads.

The most important take away from the post-debate debate is that both sides share a common goal. Recognizing that is an essential prerequisite to achieving that goal.