Some straight talk on covering Joe Biden

2 things can be true at once.

The last 5 days have been a very interesting social experiment — for me and lots of people who, generally speaking, make a living writing about American politics.

Because, for the vast majority of the campaign to date, the story has been Donald Trump. His legal problems — and conviction. His attempt to overturn the 2020 election. His authoritarian-adjacent plans for a 2nd term. His lies. (If I had to guess, I would say 70% of the posts I have written since I started this newsletter are Trump-focused.)

But, in the wake of last Thursday’s debate, the story — and the media attention — has all been focused on Joe Biden.

Biden’s shaky — at BEST — debate has raised questions of whether he can continue in the race. And whether he represents Democrats’ best chance to beat Trump. And whether his administration has been hiding his deterioration (if that’s what we witnessed last Thursday) from the public eye.

And that change in the coverage focus has occasioned, um, some criticism of me — and the media more generally.

Which reminds me: You should become a paid subscriber to this newsletter 😂😂😂

I don’t make it a habit to check out who — and how many — people are unsubscribing from “So What” on a daily or weekly basis. But, I did happen to go into the “unsubscribes” tab in Substack this morning. (Don’t ask; I am a glutton for punishment.)

What did I find? No more people unsubscribing than usual. Which is good! But I was struck by the notes the few people who were unsubscribing left for me by way of explanation.

Here’s one particularly vitriolic one:

I am canceling because of your ridiculous, ageist and hypocritical treatment of President Biden following the debate with former President Trump. Makes sense why CNN and the WaPo saw fit to fire you.

First, by way of clarification, neither the Washington Post nor CNN fired me. I left the Post because I saw a different and appealing opportunity at CNN. CNN laid me off — and, yes, there is a difference between being laid off and being fired.

But, that’s a minor point. The broader argument contained here is that by writing critically of Joe Biden following last Thursday’s debate I am being “ridiculous, ageist and hypocritical.”

This jibes, broadly, with the critique of both the media (and me) I have seen online in the wake of the debate. Which goes, basically, like this: Why are you talking about Biden’s performance? Why aren’t you talking about Trump’s lies? Or his plans to destroy democracy?

This criticism is particularly pointed at those of us — The Bulwark, Steve Schmidt, Charlie Sykes and others — who have been aggressive in noting the radicalness of Donald Trump, his time in office and his statements about what he would do in a next administration.

The tone is along the lines of “How could you do this to us??????”

To which I respond: Two things can be true at once.

In fact, BOTH of the following are true about the 2024 election:

1. Donald Trump has a long record — in the White House and in this campaign (and in the debate) — of not telling the truth. He also has a vision of the presidency different from anyone we have elected to the job before — and would, without question, seek to push the boundaries of what a chief executive can do (at home and abroad) if he is elected again.

2. Joe Biden is a reduced figure from even a few years ago. He has slowed physically and mentally in ways that are obvious to anyone with two eyes and two ears. His performance in the debate, based on all credible reporting, is not a one-off or an isolated incident but rather part and parcel of this broader erosion in his abilities.

Acknowledging those two realities isn’t both sides-ing it. Or rooting for Trump to win. It’s simply admitting the reality of the situation currently facing the country and the two political parties.

Writing about the ongoing revolt within the Democratic party — and that IS what is happening — in the aftermath of the debate doesn’t change anything that we know about Trump.

You can do both! In fact, people like me, who are doing their best to be independent, honest and authentic political journalists, SHOULD do both!

I think some of the confusion — and anger — about the coverage of Biden post-debate comes from people who are political activists and expect everyone to see the world exactly as they do.

Through this lens, saying anything bad about Biden is, in essence, helping Trump win. And because these folks genuinely believe that Trump’s goal is to end democracy and that he will accomplish it if elected, they see criticism of Biden as, effectively, rooting against democracy.

I have said — and will repeat here — that I reject that framing. I DO think Trump has dictatorial impulses. But I also think there are structures in place — the independent media, checks and balances and the like — that would constrain him from simply, with a snap of his fingers, overthrowing 200 years of democracy and turning the U.S. into a dictatorship.

But, beyond that, I also think that this way of thinking leads to a very slippery slope. Because it suggests that NO MATTER WHAT Biden is above reproach, that writing anything that raises even legitimate questions about him is off limits.

Which is fine if you are a blind partisan! You are entitled to feel how you want!

That’s not what I do. I think it is critically important to report on BOTH Trump and Biden.

It would be an absolute abdication of the promise I made to subscribers to this newsletter if I simply said “Well, Biden was terrible in the debate but all that matters is that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee so I am not going to talk anymore about Biden.”

For people urging me (and the rest of the media) to “move on,” I would point out that the Democratic party hasn’t, er, moved on.

This dropped this morning in the New York Times:

President Biden has told a key ally that he knows he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he cannot convince the public in the coming days that he is up for the job after a disastrous debate performance last week.

The president, who the ally emphasized is still deeply in the fight for re-election, understands that his next few appearances heading into the holiday weekend must go well, particularly an interview scheduled for Friday with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News and campaign stops in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

“He knows if he has two more events like that, we’re in a different place” by the end of the weekend, said the ally, referring to Mr. Biden’s halting and unfocused performance in the debate. The person, who talked to the president in the past 24 hours, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive situation.

This is a developing story! Things are changing by the day — and even by the hour! To ignore it or downplay it because, um, “Donald Trump” would be a huge disservice to readers.

And, if that’s not enough, consider this: There’s a VERY credible case that Biden no longer represents the party’s best chance to beat Trump. Age and competence was already a HUGE issue with voters before the debate last week. Now it is going to be extremely hard for Biden to persuade anyone who had doubts about his ability to do the job that he’s up to it.

So, if your sole concern is nominating the person that can beat Trump, you might actually want there to be more reporting on Biden’s mental and physical condition!

Look. I am appreciative of every single person who subscribes to this newsletter. And to people who support the media writ large by subscribing and consuming the content we create. A free and independent media doesn’t work without you. And a society without a free and independent media isn’t anywhere any of us would want to live.

But I think it is CRAZY to ask the media to stop writing and talking about a) the obvious decline of an 81 year old man who, not for nothing, is president of the United States and b) the efforts from within his own party to convince him to step aside before November.

NONE of that reporting changes the facts of Donald Trump and his candidacy. I, more than almost anyone else in the media, have spent hours going over Trump’s speeches and his interviews to ensure that my readers have the best sense possible of what they (and the country) is voting for.

But, Trump’s candidacy does not mean that we simply ignore the obvious problems with Biden’s candidacy. I can walk and chew gum!

Thanks for reading — as always. And, if you believe in the vision of political journalism I am pursuing, I hope you consider becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter today.

It’s $6 a month and $60 for the year. Thank you.