I'm Loathe To Do So For Several Reasons (Like The Gaza Genocide) But I Plan To Vote For Biden In Nov

Let's Look At Existentialism

I never thought I’d vote for a lesser of two evils candidate again. In 2012 I didn’t vote for Obama; in 2016 I didn’t vote for Hillary; in 2020 I didn’t vote for Biden. In 2024 I have every intention in the world of voting for Biden, not because he’s any better than he was in 2016-- quite the contraty-- but because Trump is so much worse and because the question of who becomes president is actually existential.

“Existential” was a word I first learned in high school— in Mr Fulmer’s wonderful, eye-opening literature class. He used the term to help us understand the philosophy behind works by Simone de Beauvoir (The Second Sex), Martin Heidegger (Being And Time— which eventually, once I was tripping, led me to Baba Ram Das’ Be Here Now) and, especially Jean-Paul Sartre’s idea that individuals exist first and then define themselves through their choices and actions... which he expressed in Being and Nothingness, giving us— at least in 11th grade English literature— the idea that we’re free to create our own meaning and identity in a world devoid of inherent meaning. And there was something about “bad faith,” where individuals deceive themselves about their freedom and responsibility by conforming to societal expectations and denying their own agency. Did you have a Mister Fulmer who taught you that too— and in such a way that it stuck in your mind for for 6 decades?

Anyway, in the context of philosophy, existentialism is concerned with exploring the individual's existence, freedom, and responsibility in the face of an often absurd or meaningless world. So, as I understood it, the term “existential” referred to matters relating to existence or the essence of being, encompassing questions about the purpose and meaning of life, the individual's freedom to make choices... and the confrontation with the inevitability of death. What I came to understand later, “existential” often describes experiences or situations that evoke a sense of profound significance, urgency, or even crisis related to one's existence or the existence of humanity as a whole. For example, an “existential threat,” in the way I use it at DWT, refers to a threat that poses a fundamental risk to one's existence or way of life. So when I— or anyone— refers to a choice as existential in the context of a presidential election, we mean that the outcome of the election could have far-reaching consequences that deeply affect the essence of society, individuals' lives, or even the continued existence of our values or principles.

The idea that the choice of candidates, in a lesser of two evils presidential election, is existential is because the policies and actions of a president— you know who I mean— can have significant and lasting effects on issues such as healthcare, immigration, the economy, the environment and social justice. Trump’s extremism brings that kind of existentialism right to the fore. Do you agree?

That’s why I’m horrified by craven politicians like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, even Rand Paul, who have all made it perfectly clear that they know exactly what a danger Trump is, still stick with their narrow tribalistic perspectives to support him and to urge their own followers to support him. Did you watch Chris Christie dissimulating on Meet the Press Sunday? After reiterating that Trump is “unfit to be president of the United States,” Kristen Welker asked him howler he’s wiling to go to stop Trump. “In 2016 you told wary Republicans that if they weren't working to elect Donald Trump they were working to elect Hillary Clinton. Let me put that back to you now. If you aren't working to elect President Biden, are you working to elect former President Trump?”

Christie: No, I don't think so because I think what we have in this race is two really, really bad choice…

Welker: But how's it different? Those are the choices.

Christie: It is different because this time we don't know if we're going to have a third choice or not. And so I'm not going to make any commitment. The one commitment I will make to you this morning is I'm not voting for Donald Trump under any circumstances. Now, who I might vote for, I'll wait to see the complete field before I make my judgment…

Welker: Do you rule out voting for President Biden?

Christie: I can't see myself voting for President Biden either.

Welker: But you don't rule it out?

Christie: No, look, I can't see myself voting for him because I don't agree with his policies and I have serious questions about his competence to serve another four years. So, do I rule it out? I can't imagine doing it. My guess is, Kristen, if those are the only two choices I'll move to the Senate race in New Jersey, and that'll be my first vote.

Welker: But, you know, you keep talking about the fact that a third party likely won't get to 270. So, it looks like those are going to be your two options. You've called Donald Trump a dictator, a threat to the democracy. So why not vote for, campaign for, his alternative if your goal is to stoop Trump?

Christie: If you disagree… look, you have two different problems here. You have someone in Joe Biden who I think doesn't physically look up to serving another four years whose policies I disagree with in the main. You have Donald Trump who I agree with a number of his policies but who I believe his character absolutely disqualifies him from the presidency. Those are two awful choices. And by the way, Kristen, that's what about 70% of the American people are saying right now, is they don't like either one of those choices. And so what I’d say about a third-party candidate is this: In my lifetime I've never seen a situation more asking for a viable third-party candidate. But whether that will happen or not, I don't know.

As Judd Legum explained over the weekend, the corporate media, created a Biden “fitness crisis. “Robert Hur, the Republican special prosecutor assigned to investigate President Biden,” he wrote, “is a lawyer, not a doctor. On Thursday, Hur issued a lengthy report that came to the legal conclusion that charges against Biden for mishandling classified materials were not warranted. In the report, Hur also opined, based on a few hours of interviews, that Biden had a ‘poor memory’ and ‘diminished faculties.’ Hur lacks any qualifications to arrive at these medical opinions. Nevertheless, Hur's decision to include those opinions in the report was newsworthy, as was Biden's forceful rejection of Hur's attack on his mental fitness later that day. But while Hur's views about Biden's memory were worth mentioning, the media instead treated Hur's amateur medical judgments as a political crisis for Biden and an existential threat to his reelection campaign. But the actual threat to Biden's political prospects is the deluge of negative media coverage based on Hur's conjecture. A Popular Information analysis found that just three major papers— the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal— collectively published 81 articles about Hur's assessment of Biden's memory in the four days following the release of Hur's report. Incidents that raised questions about former President Trump's mental state received far less coverage by the same outlets.

Overall, the New York Times published 30 stories about Biden's alleged memory issues between February 7 and February 10. Over those four days, the story was covered by 24 reporters (some of whom filed multiple stories), four opinion columnists, and the New York Times Editorial Board. 

Hur's report legally clearing Biden was described in the New York Times as "a political disaster," "a political nightmare," "a new political crisis," and "a political mess." The paper said the report inflicted "searing political damage," placed "Mr. Biden’s advanced age… back at the center of America’s political conversation," and constituted "a gift" to Republicans. And that's just what was included in purportedly objective "news" reports. After Hur's report, New York Times opinion columnists with no medical credentials said Biden showed "signs of senescence" and suggested he was sliding "into dementia." Another said Hur's report proved "Biden should not be running for re-election" and blamed Biden's mental state for "the emboldenment of America’s rivals." The New York Times Editorial Board described the report ominously as "a dark moment for Mr. Biden’s presidency." 

Only one of those stories mentioned a key fact: Hur is completely unqualified to render a judgment on Biden's mental capacity. On February 9, health reporter Gina Kolata published an article headlined, "Memory Loss Requires Careful Diagnosis, Scientists Say." The piece noted that "while the report disparaged Mr. Biden’s mental health, medical experts on Friday noted that its judgments were not based on science and that its methods bore no resemblance to those that doctors use to assess possible cognitive impairment." David Loewenstein, director of the center for cognitive neuroscience and aging at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine told the paper that it is "a basic tenet of the field never to diagnose a patient you have not seen in a medical setting." 

These basic facts were omitted from the rest of the New York Times' voluminous reporting on Hur's report. And while many articles about Hur's report were plastered on the front page of the paper, Kolata's piece did not even appear in the print edition.    

The Washington Post featured even more coverage of Biden's memory in the aftermath of Hur's report. The paper produced 33 articles featuring Hur's opinions about Biden's memory from February 7 to February 10. Headlines include: "Special counsel report paints scathing picture of Biden’s memory," "‘Hair on fire’: Democratic worries grow over claims about Biden’s memory lapses," and "Republicans call for 25th Amendment to be invoked." The articles described Hur's report as a "devastating picture of [Biden's] mental agility," "a devastating portrait of an 81-year-old president," and "damning."

Just one of the Washington Post's 33 articles noted that Hur's opinions about Biden were baseless. That piece, written by health reporters, noted that "the cognitive abilities of Biden… can’t be evaluated based on anecdotal memory lapses." Instead, "[f]ormal evaluations are needed to truly assess someone’s brain health." Those evaluations would not focus on "memory lapses," which "at any age are surprisingly normal and, for most people, aren’t a signal of mental decline."

The Wall Street Journal produced somewhat less coverage, publishing 18 articles on Biden's memory from February 7 to February 10. A news article reports that the information in Hur's report "suggest[s] a notable decline" in Biden's mental health. The Wall Street Journal's opinion pieces were even most caustic, flatly asserting that Hur's report proved that Biden was in "cognitive decline," and had "a failing short-term memory." Columns included "Special Counsel: Biden Too Forgetful to Prosecute," "Biden’s Doddering Document Defense," and "A Tipping Point on Biden’s Decline."

The Wall Street Journal did not produce any articles explaining that Hur's evaluation of Biden's mental health has no medical basis.