For at least the last year, the so-called smartest Democrats in Washington have been telling me not only that President Biden is the leading candidate for president, or at least their best candidate, but that he is the only candidate who can beat Donald Trump, and the only person who has ever done so.
This has always been childish logic. Trump has only beaten one flawed Democrat, and his party has lost every national election since, so you don't have to be the love child of Lyndon Johnson and Margaret Thatcher to have a chance at beating him. But within the first 20 seconds of Thursday's debate, as Biden walked slowly and unsteadily to the podium, even the president's admirers must have thought that he might not even make the top 10, let alone be the only candidate who could win.
The question everyone is asking is, “What happens next?” If the answer is chaos and conflict, I think Democrats will be wise to bring it.
Of course, the political parties that still exist should never have plunged the country into such a foreseeable crisis in the first place. As I have written many times, Democrats insisted on nominating an 81-year-old sitting president with a 40 percent approval rating, with democracy hanging in the balance, primarily because they feared the vice president would inherit the top spot on the shortlist and lose.
Follow this authorMatt Bai's opinion
Now they find themselves in the predictable position of having realized (perhaps too late) that Biden's image will overwhelm anything he says about policy or judgment. Democrats have committed the age-old political sin of confusing hope with strategy, and the country is now in danger of paying the price.
Biden might be persuaded to step aside and let the party choose another candidate, but that would likely lead to a contested convention and heated debates (assuming the party doesn't unify behind VP Harris by the time of the hypothetical nomination vote in August). This is scaring Democrats to death. It shouldn't be that way.
Democrats have a deep, almost pathological fear of a disorderly convention that dates back to 1968 (and, to some extent, 1980), when internal divisions emerged, splitting the party's base and leaving a lasting impression of chaos. During those two years, Democrats held the White House, and in both cases, internal infighting seemed to be the primary cause of its squandering.
For generations of Democrats, their worst nightmare was that some little alien Richard Nixon or Newt Gingrich-type guy would come from outer space and enslave the human race, but a raucous convention was a close second.
But let me state the sadly obvious: our society is very different than it was in 1968. Political parties, like every other great institution in American society, are losing their value. Nominating conventions today barely capture the public's attention, merely a few hours someone broadcasts on television while the rest of the nation spends its time at the lake or beach. We skim over the boring rendition of a modern convention; it's junk mail for primetime programming.
Meanwhile, unscripted television is the closest thing we have to a shared cultural experience now, aside from the Super Bowl. What are the origins of Trump if not a national craving for unscripted entertainment? He represents the triumph of personality over party, a product not of politics but of all that is rude and disrespectful.
If Biden were to accept reality and step aside once and for all, Democrats would have a real chance to counter Trump's theatrical dominance. What better way to get voters to re-enact themselves than a suspenseful, episodic battle for leadership? What could draw more people into politics than a must-see nighttime drama with the fate of the nation at stake? Trump, a modern-day PT Barnum who feeds on the boring machinations of his opponents, must fear the spectacle more than anything else.
And in a political era where familiarity breeds distrust, what could be more advantageous than choosing a candidate with just two months to campaign, preferably from outside Washington, and then imagine the explosion of interest that would surround a newcomer who wasn't an octogenarian like Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, Gina Raimondo or Josh Shapiro over a 10-week campaign? How would Trump handle that?
Despite her shortcomings as a political messenger, Harris would benefit greatly from an open contest if she ultimately prevails: She would have a rare opportunity to once again present herself as a unifying force and a winner, and seize the national stage.
With the primaries over and the convention looming, it's understandable that Democrats might flinch at the idea of ​​blowing it all up. I understand that chaos and discord always carry huge risks.
Is this riskier than if Biden were the front-runner? If you watched the debate, you already know the answer.
