By Berl Falbaum
In his recent address to the country, President Biden was correct in his diagnosis of the state or our politics but, sadly, the strategy he applied to alleviate our divide was flawed.
His objective was admirable; his execution left much to be desired.
In discussing the dangers facing our democracy, he condemned MAGA Republicans a dozen times in his speech, leaving the impression - no matter how unjustified or mistaken - that he was attacking all Republicans.
Yes, early in the speech - in two sentences - he delivered the obligatory disclaimer that he was not condemning all Republicans. He said, "Not every Republican embraces their [MAGA extremists] ideology."
But immediately, he regrettably added, "But there is no question that the Republican Party is dominated, driven and intimated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans."
It is not that Biden's analysis is wrong. It isn't. But his responsibility is to sooth not agitate; to unite not divide; to accommodate not separate.
He might have run a draft of his speech past Hillary Clinton who learned her lesson in the 2016 presidential campaign when she described half of Republicans as "deplorables" and then, regretting her remarks, called her words "grossly generalistic."
Biden could have made his point much more effectively if he had defined the threats and listed specific examples. For instance, he could have cited:
• Endorsement of the Big Lie and refuting the results of a fair and honest election.
• Calling for the execution of Attorney General Merrick Garland as a candidate for Congress in New York, Carl Paladino, has done.
• Describing the January 6 insurrection "a normal tourist" visit as Congressman Andrew Clyde, a Republican from Georgia, did.
• Labeling the January 6 insurrectionists as patriots.
• Vilifying of the FBI and calling for defunding the agency.
• Adoption of laws at state and local levels that threaten free and fair elections, and suppress voting rights.
• Inciting violence by predicting riots if the former president is indicted as Senator Lindsey O. Graham has warned.
Biden could have cited these examples and many others to make his point and he might even have achieved some understanding from Republicans; at a minimum, he would not have angered all of them and, most important, he would not have alienated those who may be on the proverbial political fence.
Again, to emphasize, he is not wrong in his characterization of the state of our politics. The issue is how to repair the chasm.
Granted, Biden may sincerely have wanted only to attack extremists. But extremists are a lost cause and it is a waste of political capital to attack them or hope for conversions.
He left a false impression and for many, it is reality because they will respond accordingly to what they perceive. As one philosopher advised: "Perception is real even when it is not reality."
Biden might have reflected on how Lincoln warned, citing Matthew 12:25, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. While Lincoln's position on slavery was highly complex, he considered it immoral. Yet, Lincoln reached out to the South, stating "I have no prejudice against the Southern people."
If Biden's political attacks were not enough, he then poured more political gasoline on the political fire by launching into a self-congratulatory tone, and listing many of his legislative achievements. This was neither the time or place for a legislative victory lap, not when he was telling the nation that our very democracy was at stake. This was not a Democratic convention; he was speaking to the country.
The summary of his party's achievements angered Republicans even more, proving to them that the entire speech was no more than an opportunity to demean them in prime time.
If he felt the need to celebrate, he might have served the cause of saving democracy by commending those Republicans who voted for some of his legislative proposals.
In addition, he could have said while he condemns extremism he welcomes and respects conservative public policies even if he disagrees with them.
An analysis of the speech leads one to conclude that it was written entirely on a political calculation, i.e. such an attack would prove beneficial for the mid-term elections just weeks away.
There are two problems with that judgment: (1) If Biden is correct in his view that we are in a crisis - and he is - than his party would have been served better by trying to heal; (2) If that calculation proves wrong in November, there will be hell to pay.
Biden could have invited Republicans to join him in attempts to lower the temperature and work toward more civility in our public discourse. He might have suggested a "peace summit" at which leaders of both parties examine solutions for a more productive and positive political environment. For example, he might have said:
"At such a conference we would commit ourselves to condemn hatred, ugly political rhetoric, racism, anti-Semitism, lying and upholding the rule of law. We would commit to denouncing these actions whether they are engaged in by Democrats, Republicans or others of different political persuasions. We would pledge to a respectful political dialogue while recognizing that at times we will have serious differences of opinion.
"Such an agreement would go a long way in healing the wounds to our democracy. Indeed, I am prepared to make such a commitment tonight."
Pollyannaish? Absolutely. But words along those lines would have created the much-needed tone and delivered a message the opposition would not have been able to criticize or refute.
If the effort failed or the recommendation was rejected, Biden, at least, would have been admired by the American people for his outreach and leadership. He could and should have played the statesman.
Two final points: Put aside all the political intrigue, he committed, what is called in sports, an unforced error by giving Republicans an opening to chastise him. Finally, he apparently has recognized the mistake because he (and his press secretary), in several interviews after the speech, tried to walk back the implications of his ill-advised rhetoric.
All and all, it was a lost opportunity. A well-intentioned, decent man lost sight of a president's responsibilities for which he will pay a dear price. And so will the nation as the divide continues to widen.
--------
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.
