Politics / July 9, 2024

Biden’s Salvo Against Party “Elites” Is a Cop-Out

From his perch in the nation’s highest office, the president has positioned himself as the underdog—against elected Democratic representatives.

Chris Lehmann
Democratic presidential candidate former vice president Joe Biden speaks at a primary night election rally in Columbia, South Carolina, Saturday, February 29, 2020.(Matt Rourke / AP Photo)

After a weeklong bout of near-hibernation, interrupted by a terrible interview with ABC News broadcaster George Stephanopoulos, President Joe Biden has emerged with a pseudo-populist rallying cry for fellow Democrats: He is on the warpath against party “elites.” That was the chief refrain of yesterday’s news-making call to the president’s favorite pundit show, MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “I’m getting so frustrated by the elites” in the Democratic Party, Biden announced, before offering them an ultimatum akin to his campaign-trail push-up challenges to detractors: “Run against me. Go ahead. Announce for president. Challenge me at the convention.” For good measure, he derided the track records of his critics in the press and the poll watchers: “They’re big names, but I don’t care what those big names think. They were wrong in 2020. They were wrong in 2022 about the red wave. They were wrong in 2024.”

These talking points echoed the gist of a letter Biden sent to Congress the same day, urging elected Democrats to move on from the raging debate over his suitability for a reelection run after his disastrous performance at the June presidential debate. After offering a disingenuous account of a primary season featuring no serious challengers and no candidate debates, Biden declared that “the voters of the Democratic Party have voted…. Do we now just say this process doesn’t matter? That the voters don’t have a say?” He continued in the same register of anti-elite dudgeon:

I feel a deep obligation to the faith and trust that the voters of the Democratic Party have placed in me to run this year. It was their decision to make. Not the press, not the pundits, not the big donors, not any select group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned. The voters—and the voters alone—decide the nominee of the Democratic Party. How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I will not do that. I cannot do that.

There’s no shortage of plain cognitive dissonance in such appeals—if the president of the United States is not an elite figure, and a big-name one at that, who is? And his loudly advertised war against party elites pretty much lasted the length of his call to Mika Brzezinski; soon after, Biden reportedly proceeded to a call with major Democratic donors to field their questions about the race—all without having conducted a voters’ town hall since 2021. What’s more, Biden’s whole narrative of humbly acceding to the wishes of Democratic base voters flies in the face of recent political history: His rapid movement into the pole position during the 2020 primary season was largely a coordinated effort engineered by party leaders and donors, as his chief primary rivals simultaneously suspended their campaigns. And the chief aim of that maneuver was to stave off Bernie Sanders’s insurgent presidential run, which drew heavy support from the party’s younger and reform-minded base. Four years later, as the sitting president leaned into the outsize financial and organizational advantages of incumbency, this election season’s primaries were an even more perfunctory Potemkin spectacle.

Beyond this inconvenient recent historical record, however, there’s an ungainly side to this 11th-hour anti-elite crusade—and not simply because Biden, after his coming of age as “Scranton Joe,” was once widely known as “the senator from MBNA” (a credit card company from his home state of Delaware) for the extreme solicitude he showed for moneyed interests on Capitol Hill. Just for starters, the broadsides against the pundits and the press echo a long-standing refrain on the American right—the idea that the media is operating from an elite-cabal playbook to undermine the otherwise hardy state of the true American republic. As I argued long ago, this formative right-wing crusade against “press bias” has supplied the template for nearly all the American right’s other culture-war campaigns. We commonly associate this charge with Trump and his former chief strategist Steve Bannon, but it harks back to the Nixon administration’s attack on journalists as “impudent snobs” and “nattering nabobs of negativity.” In the hands of Biden’s extremely online defenders, it plays out into the same dangerous and demented shoot-the-messenger logic. (Nate Silver, of all people, has published a thorough and persuasive dismantling of the Biden camp’s anti-press broadsides.)

More urgently for the Democratic Party’s immediate electoral prospects, however, Biden’s allied sniping at the wrongness of polling is itself just plain wrong. Polls didn’t underestimate Biden’s prospects in 2020—indeed, they considerably overrated them, particularly in the election-deciding swing states. Polls also were not dramatically off during the 2022 midterms; where turnout numbers flagged, it was among younger voters, non-white voters, and women—the very constituencies that the Democrats need to mobilize in order to have a shot at defeating Trump this year.

And polling this year so far undermines Biden’s claim that the voice of the people is being undermined by cunning party elites and faithless pundits. Indeed, the trend is very much the opposite: Biden is trailing Trump badly, especially in swing-state polling. (Short-term bumps in Biden’s swing-state showing still have Biden behind, as the Trump campaign prepares to direct its swelling war chest toward these critical battlegrounds.) As CNN poll analyst Harry Enten notes, Biden is now experiencing his lowest-ever numbers against Trump, and is the first Democrat to be trailing a GOP rival in July of an election year since 2000. On the key question of the viability of his candidates, poll numbers are scarcely more encouraging; a New York Times/Siena poll conducted prior to the June debate found that 64 percent of all voters favored replacing Biden as the nominee, and 48 percent of Biden voters actually supported swapping him out. As former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau argues, “This is not an elite thing. This is not a media thing. This is not a one-bad-debate-freakout thing.”

Nor is it a cosseted Capitol Hill thing. There’s a reason House members are the first group of elected officials calling for Biden to step aside—and their numbers are bound to increase over the course of the week, as Congress returns from the July 4 holiday. Democratic representatives from purple and right-leaning districts know that Biden’s dismal showing at the debate and in the polls mean that they will be wiped out on a Biden-led ticket. It’s also true that the House, for all its manifest flaws, is the proper power base of a party that genuinely seeks to represent ordinary Americans—that was very much the case for the New Deal Democratic Party’s sustained nearly 60-year control of the chamber. One of the many distressing anti-populist trends of the actual neoliberal party elite’s capture of the Democratic Party is that nearly every successful Democratic presidential campaign has been greeted in short order by a ritual surrender of the Democratic House majority. For Biden to publish a letter dismissing the urgent anxieties of Democratic House members without offering any plan to reverse the political realities on the ground is itself a symptom of the party’s elite capture, not a salvo against it.

Yet here we are, with the most powerful man on Earth posturing as the persecuted victim of shadowy elites, shoddy polling, and a feckless media. It’s not so much a strategy to defeat Donald Trump as a playbook for imitating him.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Chris Lehmann

Chris Lehmann is the DC Bureau chief for The Nation and a contributing editor at The Baffler. He was formerly editor of The Baffler and The New Republic, and is the author, most recently, of The Money Cult: Capitalism, Christianity, and the Unmaking of the American Dream (Melville House, 2016).

More from The Nation

Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz sit for a joint interview with CNN's Dana Bash.

The Beltway Media Got Its Harris Interview. Can We Move on Now? The Beltway Media Got Its Harris Interview. Can We Move on Now?

Harris and Walz held their own during an interview driven more by media-made controversies than substance.

Joan Walsh

Delegates wearing keffiyehs hold up signs with the names of people who died in the Gaza war on the second day of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago on August 20, 2024.

I’m Still Hoping to Vote for Kamala Harris I’m Still Hoping to Vote for Kamala Harris

But the hope I felt when she became the nominee has been curdling into despair over her refusal to allow a Palestinian to address the convention—and her continuing silence on Gaza...

Benjamin Moser

Donald Trump smiling next to J.D. Vance

Don’t Underestimate Donald Trump’s Coalition of the Weird Don’t Underestimate Donald Trump’s Coalition of the Weird

The GOP’s new league of fringe figures tries to replicate the party’s winning formula of 2016. And it just might work again.

Jeet Heer

Vice President Kamala Harris takes the stage alongside Andrea Campbell, who is being discussed as a possible attorney general pick.

It’s Not Too Early to Ask: Who Should Replace Merrick Garland? It’s Not Too Early to Ask: Who Should Replace Merrick Garland?

Should Kamala Harris win in November, her attorney general pick will be among her most critical cabinet appointments. Progressives should start organizing now.

Elie Mystal

The complex Kennedy legacy has reactionary as well as liberal strands. Former Republican presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump shake hands during a campaign rally at Desert Diamond Arena on August 23, 2024, in Glendale, Arizona. When he endorsed Donald Trump last Friday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) ignited a family drama. His famous family name is one of RFK Jr.’s main political assets, so it was not surprising that in explaining why he was suspending his campaign and backing Trump, he claimed the posthumous support of the two most famous members of his clan, his father, Robert F. Kennedy (RFK), and his uncle John F. Kennedy (JFK), both assassinated in the 1960s. RFK Jr. claimed that the two deceased statesmen “are looking down right now and they are very, very proud.” This audacious and galling claim was too much for Kennedy’s family. Five of RFK Jr.’s siblings issued a statement saying the endorsement was a “a betrayal of the values our father and our family hold most dear.” This letter was signed by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Courtney Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy, Chris Kennedy, and Rory Kennedy. In an interview with MSNBC, Kerry Kennedy said she was “outraged and disgusted by my brother’s gaudy and obscene embrace of Donald Trump.” She added that her father “would have detested almost everything Donald Trump represents if he was alive today.” Another RFK descendant, brother Max, wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that denounced RFK Jr.’s support of Trump as “sordid,” as well as “a hollow grab for power, a strategic attempt at relevance.” Max Kennedy noted that prior to backing Trump, his brother had unsuccessfully approached the Harris campaign with a quid pro quo, a possible endorsement in exchange for a position in her administration. It appears that Trump made the kind of deal RFK Jr. wanted, so if Trump returns to the White House there will be a position waiting for the black sheep of the Kennedy dynasty. RFK Jr. boasted to Tucker Carlson that he’ll be part of Trump’s transition team and “help pick the people who will be running the government.” Writing in The Washington Post, columnist Karen Tumulty lamented that “RFK Jr. has sullied the Kennedy name and the dimming aura of Camelot.” It’s undeniable that RFK Jr. has betrayed the liberalism that his family, in its best moments, embodied. Indeed, RFK Jr. also proved disloyal to his own stated values, since only a few years ago he condemned Trump as a “threat to democracy,” “a terrible president,” and “a sociopath” whose politics was based on “bigotry,” “hatred,” and “xenophobia.” Given this abrupt about-face, it’s not surprising that former close collaborators with RFK Jr., notably the investigative journalist Greg Palast, openly speak about the politician as someone who has “lost his mind” But as manifestly corrupt as RFK Jr.’s behavior is, we should be wary of the narrative of Camelot betrayed, which relies on the attractive fiction that there is a unified and unsullied Kennedy legacy. In truth, the Kennedys, who have been national figures for more than a century, have been all over the map politically—not always in admirable ways. The family have long been Democrats, but at times very reactionary ones, in a manner that does decidedly show an affinity for Trumpism. As the historian Garry Wills documented in his classic book The Kennedy Imprisonment (1982), the most searching of all books about the dynasty, the family’s patriarch, Joseph Kennedy (1888–1969), imprinted on his large brood a host of bad habits. The grandchild of Irish immigrants and son of a successful Boston politician, Kennedy rose to stratospheric wealth through the stock market and liquor (although not, contrary to popular myths, by bootlegging). But his plutocratic success didn’t win Kennedy many friends among Boston’s Brahmins—snooty WASPs who saw the Irish as inherently low-class. Stung by social rejection, Kennedy pursued alternative paths to status via Hollywood (taking, among many other starlets, Gloria Swanson as a mistress) and politics. Although a Democrat who was appointed as ambassador to England from 1938 to 1940, Kennedy fought bitterly with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. During his disastrous term as ambassador, Kennedy threw in his lot with the aristocratic Cliveden set in England who wanted to accept Hitler as overlord of Europe in order to build a bulwark against communism. When his own government rejected this embrace of Nazi domination of Europe, Kennedy concluded that FDR’s mind had been poisoned by a cabal of wicked Jews (such as Felix Frankfurter and Sidney Hillman) who were dragging America to war. A primordial patriarch, Kennedy saw the world in belligerent macho terms: All men were rivals; all women existed for sexual conquest. He passed along this attitude to many of his sons, sometimes, as Wills and other historians have documented, sharing his mistresses with his boys. As Wills conclusively shows, this macho attitude was a pervasive part of the life of JFK and RFK (although RFK, who had a streak of devout Catholicism, was not a compulsive womanizer). During the 1950s both Kennedy brothers were classic Cold War militant anti-communists. JFK was pals with Joseph McCarthy, even going on double dates with the Wisconsin demagogue. RFK served on the staff of McCarthy’s Senate Subcommittee on Investigations and wanted to be chief counsel, a job that was won by Roy Cohn (who would go on to be Donald Trump’s mentor in the art of dirty politics). In 1960, JFK ran to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy, decrying a fictional missile gap. As Wills notes, the failed invasion of Cuba in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs was a pure distillation of the Kennedy style of masculinist politics. The Bay of Pigs, Wills argues, was taken to heart because it was so clearly marked with the new traits of Kennedy’s own government. It had for its target the man who obsessed Kennedy. It had for its leader the ideal of Kennedy’s “best and brightest.” It was a chess game backed by daring—played mind to mind, macho to macho, charisma to charisma. It was a James Bond exploit blessed by Yale, a PT raid run by Ph.D.s. It was the very definition of the New Frontier. To the credit of the Kennedys, they also had a capacity to learn from their mistakes. During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK discovered how dangerous brinksmanship could be. A new openness to diplomacy can be heard in JFK’s address to American University, delivered on June 10, 1963, just five months before he was assassinated. JFK’s counterinsurgency program and meddling in South Vietnamese politics (including turning a blind eye to the assassination plot against President Ngo Dinh Diem) entangled the United States in a disastrous war. But by the late 1960s, both RFK Jr. and Edward Kennedy were outspoken critics of that war. Edward Kennedy went on to be an outstanding liberal senator, although his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a manslaughter case covered by Kennedy cronies, is a reminder of the family’s outrageous license. And Edward Kennedy remained unchecked in his sexual harassment of women, a lasting family trait. Last November, I appeared on the podcast Know Your Enemy to talk about Wills’s Kennedy Imprisonment. The show’s cohost Sam Adler-Bell noted that, on many points, the JFK in the book reminded him of Donald Trump: an aggressive and exploitive womanizer with vulgar taste who was saturated with media culture (Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack in the case of JFK, reality TV in the case of Trump). The Kennedy presidency was the first really media-dominated administration, obsessed with “charisma” (an idea taken from the sociologist Max Weber but popularized in that era) and image-making (a concept expounded in 1962 by the historian Daniel J. Boorstin). The traits of charismatic leadership, as detailed by the sociologist Reinhard Bendix and distilled by Wills, are eerily prescient of the Trump era: a loose, personal style of leadership that prioritizes the loyalty of cronies and transactional deal-making above consensus building, democratic accountability, or following norms. Further, the aristocratic ideals JFK inherited from his perversely Anglophilic father, the belief that strong societies require great leaders who can transcend the blindness of the masses, was the seedbed of antidemocratic impulses that still bedevil American society. The Kennedys, therefore, have a mixed legacy. If they have been leaders of American liberalism, they’ve also at times embodied anti-liberal impulses that are antithetical to democracy. One way to describe RFK Jr.’s politics is that in endorsing Trump he is abandoning the liberalism of Edward Kennedy and reverting to the America First authoritarianism of his grandfather. It’s easy to understand why RFK, his siblings, and his cousins all remain haunted by the legacy of their family. To be the children of great men who were killed young is a heavy burden. This is part of what Wills means by the Kennedy imprisonment. But both the family and America would benefit from finding a way to escape this prison. The problem is not just that RFK Jr. has betrayed his father’s legacy, but also that he and America need to be more clear-eyed about how limited that legacy is. Camelot was always a myth. To move forward, that myth has to be left behind.

The Backlash Comes for Oakland’s Progressive Prosecutor The Backlash Comes for Oakland’s Progressive Prosecutor

Pamela Price, the Alameda County DA, is fighting a recall vote and to defend her unwavering refusal to over-criminalize young people.

Piper French

Members of 18by Vote engaging in youth peer-to-peer organizing.

Youth Voter Turnout in NYC Is Struggling. These Organizations Want to Fix It. Youth Voter Turnout in NYC Is Struggling. These Organizations Want to Fix It.

A lack of knowledge about the process—from registration to marking a ballot—is often the main barrier between youth and voting. “If young people sit it out, that will have an impa...

StudentNation / Aminata Gueye and Nikole Rajgor