gracchusdixit

In 1735, after a tumultuous political career, during which he was accused of treason, fled in exile to France, and was pardoned more than once, Henry S^t John, 1^st Viscount Bolingbroke, retired from public life.  In a letter to his friend and political ally, Sir William Wyndham, Bolingbroke observed:  “My part is over; and he who remains on the stage after his part is over deserves to be hissed off.”  Our nation would be well served if at least two of the Democratic presidential primary candidates heeded Bolingbroke’s advice.  Those candidates are Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders.

Several months ago, I said in these pages that it was time for Biden, after a long and largely distinguished political career, to call it a day, because for him to seek the Democratic nomination would in all likelihood ensure Donald Trump’s reelection, an event that would be catastrophic for the country.  My point was not that Biden is unqualified or inexperienced.  Far from it.  My point was that he is out of touch, out of step, and tone-deaf to the sensitivities of the age we live in,  and thereby incapable of offering the new vision of the future that so many Americans are longing for.

Because I believe Joe Biden to be a fundamentally decent man, it gives me no pleasure to say that his performance in the first Democratic primary debate last week proved the point—in spades.  Throughout, Biden seemed vague, tentative, and disoriented, unsure of his answers and, more tellingly, unsure of the questions themselves or their implications. 

The revelatory moment came when Biden was confronted by Kamala Harris about his boast that, during his days in the United States Senate, he was able to do business with unflinching white racists like James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia.  He was attempting to make the case that compromises are required to get things done and that he has a long record of forging such compromises.  The problem, of course, is that the two men whose names he invoked were utterly despicable, determined to “keep negroes in their place,” defend segregation, and uphold white supremacy. 

No one believes for a moment that Joe Biden shares, or ever shared, such virulent prejudices, nor did Kamala Harris make that accusation.  As a victim of racial prejudice herself, she merely wanted to know what “greater good” could possibly have justified Biden in accommodating such men.  It was a fair question, to which he had no convincing answer.  Instead, he continued to prevaricate, denying blame and defending his record, as he has been doing for weeks.

Biden’s supporters, of course, are furious at Harris for daring to question his record.  It was all a very long time ago, they say, and they ask:  Isn’t it unfair to criticize Joe Biden for political actions that were normal and customary in their day?   The answer to that question is:  No.  

Joe Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972, four years after Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated, in part for refusing to “compromise” with virulent racists like James Eastland and Herman Talmadge.  Other men and women of principle, on both sides of the political aisle, did the same.  If Joe Biden hopes to become our next president, he must be held to a higher standard than “normal and customary” behavior.

He must also answer for his treatment of Anita Hill, whose public humiliation during hearings that eventually gave Clarence Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court Biden did nothing to stop.  He has said several times that he owes Anita Hill an apology, but he still hasn’t bothered to pick up the phone.  

No less damaging was Biden’s feebleness on the debate stage.  If he couldn’t make his case clearly, if he couldn’t defend himself against reasonable criticism by fellow Democrats, how will he be able to withstand the torrent of vitriol that inevitably spews forth from orifice that is Donald Trump?  Biden’s candidacy is predicated on the promise that he can win a rhetorical knife-fight with Trump.  His ability to deliver on that promise now seems questionable.

The problem Bernie Sanders faces is different.  He made no missteps during the debate, nor did he show any signs of vagueness or disorientation.  On the contrary, he stayed the course, singing the same song, with the exactly same fervor.

And precisely that may be the problem.  

Bernie Sanders remains the old, grumpy, unrepentant socialist he has always been.  Let me confess that I have a great fondness for old, grumpy, unrepentant socialists, being one myself.  What’s more, the nation owes Bernie a debt of gratitude it can never repay for putting fundamental issues of social and economic justice front and center in our public debate.  

The fact remains, however, that Bernie Sanders is no longer the most persuasive advocate for the principles he holds dear, nor is he the most plausible candidate, with the best chance of turning those principles into reality.  That mantle goes to Elizabeth Warren.

Warren’s rallying cry, “I have a plan for that,” is more than a glib motto; it is a statement of fact.  She has developed a series of political proposals that are specific, tangible, and persuasive.  Next to that, Bernie’s ideas seem more aspirational than real.   Like it or not, Bernie Sanders has been outclassed by a candidate who is no less authentically a progressive but is smarter, more articulate, and utterly fearless.

Biden and Bernie will in all likelihood plod on to the end, because to do otherwise would be to admit that their “part is over”.  For political figures who have spent their lives in the public arena, such an admission must surely seem like psychological suicide.  We can sympathize with their predicament.  But that predicament is inescapable.  Better to go now, with their dignity intact, for if they insist on remaining on the stage, they will eventually be hissed off.