Tags

, , , , , ,

The Wall St. Journal had two successive editorials, seemingly contradicting one another. Each one is written by a long-time editorial page writer, both of whom to which I tend to listen. William McGurn writes that Biden Is Angry but Not Serious. Daniel Henninger counters that we should, in fact, Take Joe Biden’s Speech Seriously. Sorry, but both editorials appear to be behind a paywall. Try searching for the titles for a shot at finding more of the actual text.

So which is it? Do we take President Biden at his word when it comes to his fiery Labor Day weekend oration or do we filter it all through politics-as-usual? Pick your answer as if your life depended on it because… well, does it? It depends on how much of what he said you actually take seriously.

Biden’s speech struck America’s right and a good chunk of the middle as well beyond the pale. Some were angry – particularly at the use of United States Marines to embellish what was clearly a mid-term campaign speech. Some were amused at the obvious miscalculation of lighting up Independence Hall to look like the gates of hell or perhaps, as McGurn write, “a bordello in some red light district.” Some were fearful – taking Biden’s words to be personally directed at them. When someone says you, you personally, “don’t just threaten our personal rights and our economic security. [You] embrace political violence,” what manner follow-up might you expect? What if the speaker happens to command the world’s most formidable military as well as multiple and vast police forces?

If you’re from the left, maybe you too thought it was over the top. Or maybe not. Maybe you thought this was just what the doctor ordered – finally drawing a line in the sand for those who refuse to embrace what is good and right in the world.

Or maybe it was all much ado about nothing.

As a campaign speech, maybe it kinda, sorta makes sense. We witnessed Donald Trump as president giving these political rallies, ostensibly to cheer on American values. I doubt, however, that America as a whole (that is the half that weren’t backing Mr. Trump) were really “rallied.” Turnabout may well be fair play. Furthermore, if you’re a Democrat strategist, you know in your heart that the only threat to electoral victory in November is an insufficiently motivated base. The leak of a Supreme Court draft got the Democratic mid-term counter-attack going early but more and harder is needed to bring it home. Why not hammer on the very issue that won the last election? – Donald Trump!

I suppose this second view necessarily implies that there are voters out there who think that all Republicans ARE a threat to the nation (and there assuredly are). It also implies that there are other voters out there that think that (some/most/a few), if not all, Republicans are a threat to the nation – an assertion that one also can’t deny. The correctness of the accusation becomes a matter of how broadly you want to paint with that particular brush. Even the President has walked his remarks back and forth, seemingly trying to triangulate on just the right target. He didn’t mean all Republicans, he says, just MAGA Republicans. He didn’t mean all Trump supporters, just “MAGA extremists.” He didn’t mean you, he meant that crazy, unshaven lunatic that lives up in the hills.

At the same time, his own people have stretched the message the other way. Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre implied that the ranks of the damned may extend well beyond even the president’s widest net. Being a Trump supporter or a Republican may be sufficient, but it is not necessary. According to a statement, simply disagreeing with the majority opinion is enough to make you an extremist and, as we know, being an extremist is enough to make you an enemy of the people.

So which is worse, that the entire White House staff has absolutely no control over their language and these seemingly-significant statement are just gaffes, blunders, and missteps? Or is there a genuine resolve within this administration and it’s political party to eliminate all opposition from the political play field? Or maybe, would you believe, this is an elaborate variation on message “A-B testing” where random variations of policy statements are floated to see how they poll?

The first of these possibilities is supported by McGurn. Being, himself, a former speech writer, he talks about the lack of substance in any political speech. It is the context of the speech, not the words themselves, that determines its historical importance. In a related commentary (I can’t remember from where, but also related – I think – to the Biden Labor Day show), I recently read a plea for the news outlets to report on political action rather than political words. Absent that impossible evolution, maybe we can all just calm down and focus on what matters.

Unless…

Unless Mr. Henninger has it right and we really should take Mr. Biden, Ms. Jean-Pierre, and other Democrat “leaders” seriously.

If you can read Henninger’s article, you will see he is not saying that anyone who has ever pulled a Republican ballot in a primary should be expecting to “hear their standard issue kicking in your door.”* Rather, his warning is that speeches and statements make policy, policy which is then picked up by political appointees and, ultimately, the career staff of government agencies. Bring back Lois Lerner’s Obama-era targeting of the Tea Party, but now with 87,000 new agents and millions of rounds of fresh ammunition. Expand the Mar-a-Lago raids to include not only those who question election results but also maybe those who deny climate change, use the wrong pronouns, or suggest that parents have a say in their children’s school curriculum.

Does this seem too far fetched? It is telling, Henninger points out, that Biden calls unauthorized entry onto the capitol grounds out to be “violence,”, “insurrection” and “treason,” but ignores the somewhat-similar action of his supporters. Taking over Federal and other government buildings and even burning them (not to mention private property) gets, at best, some hand waving and a blind eye. Maybe people wouldn’t feel so targeted if the message itself weren’t so targeted.

Is it relevant that, on the same page where Henninger’s editorial appeared, there is another opinion about the unconstitutionality of disqualifying office aspirants on the basis of their presence (or participation**) in the actions at the U.S. capitol on January 6th? It doesn’t take an act of Congress or an executive order to target the political minority. A federal agency, a State, or even a group of citizens (again, see **) can take the message and run with it.

Henninger draws a parallel with the “cancel culture” in Universities and in the media. As University presidents are eager to point out, there is no policy on campuses to silence conservatives or those with politically-incorrect opinions. Practically speaking, there is little difference between a speech canceled pursuant to official policy or a speech canceled as a result of unauthorized actions of a protesting group. This is why Henninger warns us to take Biden seriously and fear the fan-out that his more intemperate pronouncements may invoke.

Sandwiched between these two takes, the Wall St. Journal had a third editorial, penned by musician, composer, and lyricist Gregg Opelka. He suggests that the president is merely cribbing from the first episode of Get Smart, Mr. Big. If Trump is Mr. Big and Biden is Maxwell Smart, that makes the conservatives of this nation KAOS. Surely that’s worth a vote?

– Photo by Lukas on Pexels.com

*That’s Pink Floyd, fellow music lovers.

**I’m referring to a court case in Arizona. The disqualified candidate had a leadership role, of sorts, in the mob actions on that day; he is said to have “riled up the mob with a bullhorn.” On the other hand, he has been acquitted of the charge of “disorderly conduct” and convicted only of “entering and remaining on restricted grounds.” Is this treason? If so, isn’t it mere presence that implicates you of treason? How about holding the same opinion as these “traitors,” even if you weren’t there to express it with him. In New Hampshire, for example, there was an attempt to bar from holding any further public office those Representatives who voted for or co-sponsored a ballot question about “peaceably declar[ing] independence from the United States.” Indeed, this seems to be the intent of using the word “insurrection” rather than, say, “impeding an official proceeding” (the latter a felony under Sarbanes–Oxley but not a capital crime under the Constitution). Words have power and exercising that power can have real consequences.