The first debate fully revealed the cognitive impairment of Pres. Joe Biden. His speech was slurred, he spoke too softly, his face exhibited a dazed expression, there were many verbal errors such as saying “trillions” when he meant “billions,” some expressions made no sense such as “beat Medicare,” and he stated no goals for governance. However, Pres. Donald Trump was his usual forceful self. Like a tiger, he went after his prey, referring to Biden as the worst president we have ever had. Like a tiger, he ripped Biden’s throat (his aimless speech and lack of leadership), tore his skin (his policies), and ripped wads of flesh from his carcass (his dismal and regressive record affecting every area of American life).
At the same time, Pres. Trump re-affirmed his many successes during his term. He presented a detailed criticism of Biden policies such as open borders, ineffective leadership in foreign affairs, a horrifying exit from Afghanistan, sky-high inflation, and insensitivity to the needs of struggling African-Americans. He stated at least three times that his term of office was a time of peace and prosperity.
Yet, for sensitive citizens, there was an air of unreality in the so-called debate. Trump was glib and brash. Biden was awkward and dysfunctional. There was a lack of dignity, grace, and sensitivity on both sides. Trump’s brash, carnival-barker style is emphatic and strong. His style is that of a winner, but an obnoxious winner. In one sense Trump’s persona is bold. In another sense, he is covered head to toe with a spirit of braggadocio. In a way, this makes him attractive because he is so comfortable being “a man who has everything” that he cannot be hypnotized by the hors d’oeuvres and cocktails of the world’s executive elites.
Sometimes, when I think of photos I’ve seen of John Kerry in Brussels or Geneva negotiating with the Iranians and other diplomats, it seems that they are there as much for the lifestyle perks as they are to fulfill policy goals. Do the Obamacrats negotiate with Iranians for a truly balanced treaty that would de-fang the ayatollahs’ terrorist ambitions, or do they negotiate endlessly because they love the sound of third-world waiters asking them if they would care for a glass of champagne or some caviar snacks?
Sadly, the Democrats turned the corner in 2020 from New Deal Keynesian leftism and united with the cause of full blown socialism and cultural communism. When Biden’s team signed a 110-page pact with the Sen. Bernie Sanders team in 2020, they broke with a policy of distancing themselves from the far left that had been in place since the Franklin Roosevelt years. In 1948, Pres. Truman did not agree to a pact with Henry Wallace, who was sympathetic with Stalin and Russian communism. Wallace had been a secretary of commerce, vice president, and secretary of agriculture under FDR, but Truman, running for president after FDR’s death, did not sign a pact with Wallace because of their differences regarding the USSR. Instead, Wallace ran for president against Truman in 1948 on the Progressive Party ticket and lost by a wide margin.
By signing the pact with the Sanders team, the Biden team broke with the precedent set in 1948 and embraced the far left wing of the Democrats. We may never know whether this was done at the urging of former Pres. Obama or if it was simply a manipulation by the party chiefs to obtain more votes on the left. But we do know that Trump starkly represents individualism and capitalist innovation and risk-taking, and that he can impress millions by his lack of reserve and his remarkable energy and innovative skills in building an empire that includes hotels, golf courses, men’s clothing, the Miss Universe pageant, and a highly rated TV show (The Apprentice).
Thus, we can see that this election is not mainly a conflict between two mature, intelligent leaders, but is more oriented toward an ideological conflict: Trump is the personification of capitalist success and dynamic entrepreneurship. Biden and his Obamaphiles — with the inclusion of Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the Squad — are now taking a huge leap in favor of communist ideology and cultural Marxism.
With their support of “gender transitioning,” the cultural Marxists in our midst have to some degree also embraced the deconstructionist philosophy of Jacques Derrida, where denotation of words is bypassed in favor of a much more fluid use of language. “He” and “she” are seen by this philosophically perverse group as unnecessarily restrictive. With the “rainbow agenda” they want to bypass or totally ignore Jewish and Christian morality. In parallel fashion, the Dems want the rule of law itself to be diluted. The biblical idea that the punishment should fit the crime is being attacked by implementation of the idea that therapy and greater latitude in “consequences” are more in keeping with civilized thinking and modern knowledge. Thus, ever increasing numbers of those arrested are being released without bail so they can and will commit more offenses.
According to the left, with its opposition to Jewish and Christian thinking, we are not given free will or responsibility to the degree that our laws assume, but we are products of our upbringing. As such, lawbreakers are not as responsible for their actions as society once thought. Constitutional values such as emphasis on rights, balance of power between the states and the feds, and the need for the Electoral College to prevent dictatorship of the majority by the big urban areas are under attack. These attacks are part of the new attempts (many are successful) to grab control of the USA and Implement a Marxist agenda.
The ideal of a balance of power in society and between the states and the federal government is, for the ideologically driven Democrat party, out of date. These so-called “ideals” were nothing more or less than the rationalization of white, educated, Christian males for attaining and keeping power in America. Emphasis on natural rights and property rights, so important to John Locke, the great English philosopher, and on a principled, God-centered legal system (by the 18th-century founder of modern English law, William Blackstone), are considered by modern atheistic philosophers of law unnecessarily God-centered.
In sum, the first debate and the respective candidacies of Trump and Biden certainly present us with two different styles and with contrasting levels of vigor and coherence. However, the symbolism and ideological differences of the conflict are to some degree more important than the individual leadership pros and cons that are visible to the public.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
Comments are closed.