Biden’s Age and the Perils of Revisionist HistoryBiden’s Age and the Perils of Revisionist History In the wake of President Biden’s recent debate performance, comparisons to former President Trump have abounded. However, these comparisons are born out of a misguided attempt to whitewash the past. While Trump’s presidency ended in chaos, his political career unfortunately continues. His actions on January 6, 2021, where he incited a mob to storm the Capitol in a desperate attempt to overturn the election, are well-documented. Despite ample evidence of his misconduct, he remains a central figure in the Republican Party. Similarly, concerns about Biden’s age and cognitive function have been around for years. Yet, his supporters dismissed these concerns as “isolated incidents” or instances of bad debate nights. This rhetorical strategy mirrors that used by Trump’s defenders when faced with his own unfitness for office. Just as Trump’s “isolated events” eventually coalesced into a pattern of erratic behavior, Biden’s recent debate performance should not be dismissed as a one-time occurrence. It is a symptom of a long-standing problem that has now become evident to the entire nation. The “whataboutism” employed by Trump’s defenders is now being used by Biden’s supporters to deflect criticism. By comparing Biden’s performance to Trump’s, they attempt to diminish the significance of his own shortcomings. Furthermore, the gaslighting tactics that were once used to undermine the perceived decline in Trump’s mental acuity are now being employed by Democrats. They insist that Biden’s performance is not indicative of a broader issue, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The fact that Biden set the date and rules for the debate and isolated himself in preparation only underscores the severity of his decline. He failed to refute Trump’s lies and delivered incoherent responses to important questions. While Biden’s age may not be a reflection of moral character, it raises legitimate concerns about his ability to serve as president. The focus should not be on his legacy but on his present-day capabilities. Can he fulfill the demanding responsibilities of the office? Can he outmaneuver a cunning and unscrupulous adversary like Trump? The answers to these questions are what matter most. Comparisons to Trump and revisionist history will not obscure the reality of Biden’s age and its impact on his ability to lead effectively.
Trump’s presidency ended badly, but unfortunately, his political career did not. Whatever laws he broke on January 6, 2021, he spent much of the afternoon watching TV as violent hooligans stormed the Capitol on his behalf, attempted to steal the election, chanted death threats, and literally and figuratively pooped on the people’s house. He was even impeached on his way out the door.
If I had bet on my prediction, I would definitely have been able to collect my winnings that day.
Do you know what else is fate? Age.
Not everyone is lucky enough to reach the golden years, but those who do inevitably lose the qualities of youth, mentally and physically. Some lose more than others, but everyone regresses.
Sign up for the Fulcrum newsletter
Even Biden acknowledges that he is not immune to senescence. He just denies that it matters much. And so does virtually the entire Democratic Party.
The rhetorical circle consists of a few interchangeable talking points. “Bad debate nights happen,” Barack Obama declared. The Biden family “is not going to let those 90 minutes define his four years in office,” first lady Jill Biden told Vogue. “We’re going to keep fighting.” The point of all this is that the president’s performance last week was a snapshot, an isolated incident.
This is all nonsense. Known nonsense. For years, whenever Donald Trump has displayed his unfitness, his defenders have said it was an offhand remark, a one-time event. You have to look at him in context. He is a good man. He fights for you.
In short, they would be saying exactly what Biden’s partisan Praetorian Guard is saying now.
But they were isolated events, the way frames in a movie are when viewed one at a time. Play the film and you see the man in action. Biden’s bad 90 minutes were not a one-off incident; they were an example of a long-standing problem that, disastrously, was televised for all of America to see.
The feeling of déjà vu doesn’t stop there.
After securing the nomination in 2016, Trump’s defenders responded to any denigration of the candidate, particularly in the wake of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which he bragged about sexual assault, by essentially saying, “How about Hillary?”
Anyone who questioned Trump’s fitness was accused of supporting Clinton. Today, any concerns about Biden’s fitness are met with the same Trump-related whataboutism.
After Trump was elected and the “isolated incident” defense lost all credibility, his defenders resorted to telling people not to believe their lying eyes. For years, Democrats and other Trump critics called this “gaslighting”: trying to get people to doubt their own perceptions rather than admitting that something was wrong or untrue.
The enemies of gaslighting have now become the gaslighters.
It was Biden’s idea to have this debate. He set the date and the rules. He locked himself in isolation for a week to prepare. Why? Because the Biden campaign knew they had to counter the narrative that he was too old and too thin to do the job.
Instead, Biden confirmed it.
Defenders rightly point out that Trump’s performance was full of lies (though Biden was hardly a paragon of truth). But Biden was utterly incapable of refuting them.
When asked about abortion, his most pressing issue, the president offered a word salad that ended with a rambling jumble about how crimes committed by illegal immigrants aren’t a big deal because American women get raped all the time, including by their sisters. In response to Trump’s ridiculous tirade about the national debt, Biden rhetorically declared, “We finally defeated Medicare.”
Old age is different from bad character. But the similarities are more important here than the differences.
If you think Biden is the best possible choice to beat Trump, then use that argument. If you think a man who is “reliably engaged” only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., as Axios reported, can do the job for the next six months — let alone another four years — then use that argument.
But spare me the talk of Biden’s legacy, one bad night and “What about Trump?” The only relevant questions are “Can he get the job done?” and, in a distant second place, “Can he win?”
(C)2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
