In a previous Substack column I wrote about the possible demise of President Biden’s second term candidacy. That was rooted in Biden following not Clinton’s very political example of post-election pivoting to the center, but Obama’s intended legacy of persistent progressivism. It seemed possible that Biden and the Democrat party would not retreat from his international and domestic agendas that rewarded a coalition of intersectional loud minorities even as they failed the economic and social realities of the majority. Instead, he “surged” progressivism using the triply debilitating private wealth confiscation of taxes, expansion of national forever debt, and inflation. His passive importation of new Democratically dependent immigrants via benign neglect at the border and persistent attempts to socialize student loans from those responsible to all others (from those who have to those that need) are intended to require the obvious solution of more Federal government munificence to a population whom 47% or so are already on the government dole in some fashion. His attempt at subliminally purchasing votes has not sufficed. Although some (governmentally derived) statistics indicate a persistently improving financial outlook for the country, that demonized majority who reject reparations and tribalism still see hard choices regarding their present and future welfare on a daily basis. Biden did, after all, forgo Clinton’s dictum, “it’s the economy, stupid”. Instead, he subscribed fully to Obama’s incompletely voiced principle: Hope and change in the basic philosophy of America to a Marxist doctrine that will attract and pacify the populace in a governmentally perverse securing of the “general welfare”.
Perhaps Biden had two last gasps available. The particulars of these were my first two errors. A few months ago, I thought two to three cuts in interest rates by the Federal Reserve “independent” of any other action by the Biden administration would spur a jolt of recovery from Biden’s Covid Recession, even if it caused further inflation down the road and devalued Treasury Bills and Bonds on the domestic and international market. The most likely Fed scenario (certainly not inspired by any political aspirations) might be a rate cut in June or late July, giving the Democrat administration a bragging point about reducing inflation and beginning a sudden increase in economic activity visible, if not experienced, by all. This would have been just before the Democrat Convention. Then I surmised a second cut as this year’s “October surprise” of a positive nature, perhaps overcoming any reminiscences of son Hunter Biden’s criminal convictions or trials. I ended that series of mistakes with “Presuming his re-election, the third would be planned for December, to end the year on an ecstatic economic note in time for Biden’s second inauguration and setting the stage for an accelerated progressive agenda of Democratic Socialism in the new year.” Has the Fed’s reserve on rate cuts been truly independent, or delayed in view of Biden’s clearly failing suitability as a candidate and President? I leave that to other conspiracy theorists. But the Fed apparently does fully intend to provide at least one rate cut sometime during the remainder of 2024. As I wrote previously, “Timing is everything in politics and the market”. I still suspect that the Fed’s timing of rate cut(s) will not be entirely independent of political acumen. Look for this, in variations of the reasons above as will be noted below, either in late July or more likely October. Providing the Democrat candidate prevails in November, there may yet be a second cut in December. Any rate cut “gasp” before the Convention was apparently judged insufficient to sustain Biden.
Biden’s second gasp is already underwater. I thought he might rescue his candidacy by dumping Kamala Harris in favor of a bullet-proof replacement of her and him. Acknowledging that Biden’s Presidency is truly Obama’s third term, and that Obama was once noted to publicly state “I’d rather seek to run the Presidency than serve in it again” (paraphrased), the surest stand-in for Obama who would satisfy and enthuse all the disparate factions of the Democrat Party would have been Michelle Obama as Vice President. I reviewed all the reasons she was capable of running as well as her strongly stated reluctance but persevered in the belief that if called to duty by the Party, her husband, and her own well-known ambitions, she would answer. After all she would almost certainly, for reasons and methods noted below, serve most of Joe Biden’s second term and then be eligible for two terms of her own. Barring some miraculous outbreak of democracy at the Democrat Convention, I was very wrong. The Democrats have doubled down on DEIsm, with the ultimate intersectional candidate, despite her demonstrated incompetence in thought, word, and deed. She even has a Jewish spouse, so that small faction of the party is covered despite her balancing act on the Occam’s razor of Zionism versus Palestinianism. By the most undemocratic of processes, harking back to both party’s conventions of the 1950’s and 1960’s and their “smoke filled back rooms”, Harris has been appointed progressivism’s messiah by that subliminal triumvirate of political power, the uberwealthy, the infotainment industry, and advocacy journalism. The latter two are Goebbel-esque in their instant harmonization of messaging, repeating the exact same short phrases in all communication venues endlessly. Presuming her survival through a dictated convention outcome to become the officially accepted party candidate, her critical phase will not be candidacy for the Presidency come November but rather conduct of her pseudo-Presidency until January 20,2025.
In an earlier Substack I briefly reviewed a history of the Republican and Democrat Party that might explain the candidacies of Trump and Biden. I was convinced that Biden would withdraw or be shunted aside for obvious reasons other than his policies. I noted that, in the final days of Trump’s term, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had endorsed use of the 25th Amendment “not for this President but for some future President” (paraphrased). Was this extraordinary public statement prescient, or foreshadowing a potential crisis of leadership that could be fashioned into an opportunity? As I discussed, if Edith Wilson could run the Presidency for a post-stroke Woodrow Wilson for 18 months, why couldn’t “a junta of experienced administrative and political operatives deal with the daily Presidential fodder”, with Biden as the basement or beach straw man? Thus, no need to invoke the 25th, except as a desperate rescue via his incredibly inexperienced uber-progressive pinch hitter Harris? Her remarkable unfitness for the Presidency blinded me to the opportunity it presented to that very junta. I argued, in this earlier writing, for a replacement for his second term via Gavin Newsom, a toothsome, socially adept politico approaching Bill Clinton’s attractiveness. I was mistaken in not seeing how intrenched intersectionality had become in the Democrat Party, how dependent they have become on their loud tribal factionalism. Joe Biden’s survival through his first term despite political and advocacy journalism concealment of his progressive inabilities was a fortuitous gift to Kamala Harris. No need for her to function in any meaningful capacity arose, and her several failures of assignment could be easily hidden in the media’s basement. As Progressivism’s second-string quarterback, she now is called to save the current game ostensibly under the guidance, tutelage, and actions of the first-string star who stayed a season too long. To return as starter next term, she must demonstrate clear knowledge of a highly complex playbook, and the ability to execute it effectively despite that first-stringer still being “on the field”.
For although he is being retired ostensibly because he cannot bring the team to victory again (or so the triumvirate asserts), he may have to suddenly drop out before this season is over. Everyone sees that his knees are gone, his throws are routinely off target, and his play-calling is often unintelligible even to his own teammates. He is one small mistake away from a playoff catastrophe in domestic or international affairs. Realistically he probably cannot carry our nation through the next six months. Unless Pelosi’s prescription is invoked--which would be as unexpected and unprecedented as Kamala Harris’ ascendancy to Presidential candidacy and therefore equally possible—that office will continue to be run by that unknown junta, increasingly using Kamala Harris as the “face” of the nation to minimize embarrassment before our citizens and the international community. Enhancing public perception of Harris as the DeFacto President until the election strongly argues against Republican calls for Biden’s resignation or removal now.
Here is a new problem: can she be “administered” by that junta, now and after election? Harris is notorious for being difficult to work with or for, many staff jumping ship after short tenures. Biden’s junta if extant may consist of Jill and Hunter Biden for emotional guidance with people such as Zients and Klain and others (long present and often holdovers from Obama) for specific policy and political guidance. They will certainly expect to continue their sub rosa active roles until the lame duck finally falls. But resistance from Harris, and the campaign/transition team she will assemble, may produce enough friction for all to see the smoke. She is a child of San Francisco’s Willy Brown/Nancy Pelosi machine. Biden’s seeing-eye dogs are all of the Daley/Obama Chicago machine. Harris’ picks are as garbled in inconsistencies as her policies and pronouncements. Many of her inner circle are reviewed in a recent article in the WSJ (“Harris Keeps a Tight Inner Circle of Friends and Family” by Tarini Parti July 26, 2024). Among them are the former chair of Harris’ disastrous 2020 Presidential campaign, a top advisor during that campaign, a national policy director during that rapidly failed effort, her chief of staff at that time, a current campaign manager who worked on that 2020 campaign and had most recently been Biden’s campaign manager (how’d that work out?), and two political consultants who worked with her in her fruitless 2020 effort and have most recently worked with Gavin Newsom but now apparently are switching allegiances to Kamala Harris. Not a lineup to instill confidence. Especially since several pundits have asserted a 90% turnover rate in her lesser staff positions due to interpersonal difficulties with the candidate/officeholder/candidate. Will Harris attempt to mount a coup of her own amongst the advisors nee junta during or after the campaign? A few of her currently chosen have ties to the prior Obama administration, but Biden’s current team is more directly connected and more jealous of furthering Obama’s long-term goals of democratic socialism. Although Harris’ record and prior pronouncements are well to the left of Biden’s, and perhaps Obama’s, but well aligned with her “Weekend at Bernie’s” buddy Sanders, her public speaking is so scattershot that tight management of her messaging by others is clearly needed, but it is not clear that she will accept this. Her history of disapproving prepared remarks, dropping speeches altogether, ignoring teleprompters, and ad-libbing tangentially are almost as bad as Donald Trump’s. As I wrote previously, “Her babbling is not due to the cerebral decay of time, but due to intrinsic cerebral incoherence.” Yet despite these gifts and her cackling that make her a genuinely unfortunate segue from Biden, she may well win the Presidency. She has rapidly harvested the endorsements of all potential rivals that might have challenged her at the upcoming pseudo-convention and touched off a nuclear explosion of donations exceeding a quarter of a billion dollars already. She has the desperate support of the triumvirate (the uberwealthy, the infotainment and advocacy journalism industries), and, despite all the inimical factionalism of the current Democrat Party, that final last-ditch defense. Anyone but Trump.
As her campaign heats up, watch for the smoke. It may be from internal fires of self-destruction amongst her varying cadres of advisors, some of whom very much want to continue their management of the Presidency. Which of the three candidates for that office will win? Trump, Harris, or the junta?
Granted, another unlikely fantasy, for many legitimate reasons. Remember, you read it here first.