Well old Joe sure made a splash the other night. Commanding, aggressive, and confident. It was a hell of a speech for Joe (admittedly, that bar is rather low).
Before we get too far, here is some good reading for you.
Charles C. W. Cooke – National Review
Jim Geraghty – National Review
One little problem with it though – he declared that the official position of the White House is that anyone that disagrees with his politics is a “threat to democracy” – and an enemy of the Republic. I have to hand it to him – his team did it up right – complete with iconic imagery!
If I saw this photo once, I saw it 200 times the morning after Joe’s “unifying” speech. Nice.
Students of history may recognize the pose and the backdrop. But then again, I doubt there are many students of history around anymore. What a shame.
The “morning after” walk back is unconvincing. Had Biden attacked Trump, that would be one thing. No, Biden attacked voters.
Joe did not define “MAGA Republicans.” He did not tell us how “they” are different from any other Republican(s). But he did throw into “that” group people that disagree with him on issues like abortion and marriage. Trust me – I’ve asked everywhere I can think of for a definition of a “MAGA” Republican – how can we tell a MAGA Republican from an everyday run-of-the-mill Republican? No answer.
So, I guess I’m left to assume that “MAGA” Republicans are everyone that voted for Trump. That’s only about 78 million American voters. And unless someone can produce this elusive “extremist MAGA” agenda, I must assume that these “extremists” want:
- A secure southern border
- Lower taxes
- Less government intrusion
- Less government spending
- Freedom of speech
- The right to defend themselves and their families – and communities
- Our laws enforced
- Our children protected from sexual and political indoctrination
- Energy security
- Economic security
- Low inflation
- Lower fuel and energy costs
- A secure and affordable food supply
- And – above all – to be LEFT ALONE!
You know – crazy extremist blood-thirsty stuff like that.
But it seems that Joe thinks all of those things are a clear and present danger to “democracy.” It’s not too difficult to read what Joe calls “democracy” as the Democratic party agenda. As Charlie Cooke points out, the message in this speech was clear – the Democrats have convinced themselves that their agenda is “democracy” and that anyone that disagrees with it is “a threat to democracy.” Simple as that.
Maybe it’s just silly little old me, but I seem to remember when advocating for things like freedom of speech and enforcing our laws were not considered a “threat to democracy.” Evidently something changed.
Apparently, Joe mistakenly believes that everyone that disagrees with him are aligned with the people that rioted at the capitol on J6. They are not.
Joe didn’t unite anyone with his speech. He further divided. He insulted – in no uncertain terms – tens of millions of Americans. His reference to reverence for the Constitution was laughable given his words and deeds – and those of his party. He steeled the resolve of those that oppose him. He painted every Republican with the “Trump” brush, and his handlers and speech writers should have known better, the fact that they didn’t is his problem – no one else’s. He screwed up, he damaged the country further, and I truly hope he and his party pay the political price for it.
Disgusting. Disgusting rhetoric and beyond disgusting imagery. Good work Joe.
“But Gads! Why?”
I can only think of two reasons why old Joe and his handlers would put on such a shameful presentation.
One: This is pure distraction and nothing more. His party and his presidency are in political trouble, and they need to put something else (other than their performance to date) at the forefront of the national conversation. They want people talking about Trump and “MAGA Republicans” and not about the economy, fuel prices, the disasters overseas, etc. In fact, they want people talking about anything else other than THEM!
Two: And this is much more sinister. They have decided they need a scapegoat. They’ve cast around looking for the source of our ills and found nothing (aside from their own disastrous policies). So they’ve decided to create a fictitious scapegoat on which to blame every problem. We’ve seen this before of course – in Germany in the 20’s and 30’s.
In my opinion, the evidence points to the latter. In the first case, if Joe was not referring to all conservatives but rather a tiny minority at the fringe, the prime-time show, and colorful theatrics would not have been necessary and would have been very obviously ill-advised. On the other hand, if one was trying to convince the country of an existential threat interwoven into the very fabric of the Republic (think Hitler scapegoating Jews) then such a display would be appropriate (appropriate for that disgusting mindset that is).
The storming of the capitol on J6 was disgusting, but it was also a tiny number of people. Any objective observer would conclude that this was a small number or misguided individuals that let their emotion get the better of them that day. Based on the numbers involved, it does not rise to the level of a national address, and it certainly does not rise to the level of a threat to our Republic.
So what is it Joe? Are you making a mountain out of a few hundred rioters or are you trying to paint all of your political adversaries as enemies of the country? History has shown where the latter goes.
Biden has the ultimate worldwide Bully Pulpit. He certainly has the means to make his message clear. He has chosen not to differentiate between all conservatives and a tiny fringe.
Prudence dictates that we assume he’s referring to all conservatives and that his administration is looking for a nationwide scapegoat.