Moderation in Defense of Democracy Is A Virtue

Now that college football season has begun, most weekends will find me couch-bound for three hours or so, pulling for the Michigan State Spartans. In addition to being my hometown team–I grew up 15 miles from campus–the Spartans maintain a gritty, old-school ethos I find appealing. MSU is hard-pressed to recruit the caliber of players Big Ten rivals Ohio State and Michigan routinely attract. However, the Spartans punch above their weight through determination and a super-sized chip on their shoulder. 

Much to the bemusement of my family members, during MSU games, I oscillate between unbridled enthusiasm and abject misery, stopping at plenty of way-stations. If things aren't going well for Sparty, I have been known to shift from one side of the couch to the other or don a rally cap in the hope of bringing about a vibe shift in a football field 2,400 miles away.

I share this background to convey how I felt last week as I watched President Biden's speech on "The Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation" at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. While I don't have the same deep-seated loyalty for Joe Biden as I do for MSU, I have always appreciated his character and instincts as a small "d" democratic leader. He is the kind of underdog I like to pull for. I voted for Biden in 2020 because I saw his opponent threatening our constitution. For the most part, I have approved of his subsequent leadership as president. 

I knew that with his much-touted speech, Biden would be speaking into a fraught political moment. At the start of his address, I felt like I do when the Spartans kickoff against a superior opponent. I was hoping for the best and bracing for the worst. Alas, midway through the speech, about the time hecklers started chanting, "Let's Go Brandon!" I felt compelled to change seats. But it was too late: the vibe was already set, and it was not good.

A jumbled discordance

President Biden started off his remarks on solid footing, donning the mantle of a statesman and invoking the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution:

“This is where we set in motion the most extraordinary experiment of self-government the world has ever known with three simple words: "We, the People."...These two documents and the ideas they embody—equality and democracy—are the rock upon which this nation is built. They are how we became the greatest nation on Earth. They are why, for more than two centuries, America has been a beacon to the world."

So far, so good! But even as the President hit these inspirational marks, there was something off about the dark red lighting, and the silhouettes of US Marines posted behind him. The visual backdrop took on a more ominous tone as he turned to condemn the threats to U.S. democracy posed by Donald Trump and what he called the "MAGA Republicans." After giving his political opponents the wire brush treatment, President Biden shifted to tout his administration's legislative accomplishments as proof that U.S. democracy was alive and well. 

Unfortunately, President Biden's speech jumbled together elements that worked against each other, and the discordance worsened as it wore on. On their own, its setting and timing–a battleground state two months before the midterms–inevitably gave the speech a political taint. So did the President's harsh criticism of the opposing party (accurate as it may have been) and his legislative victory lap. So did his suggestion that support for his party's positions on cultural issues (e.g., abortion and marriage equality) was equivalent to support for democracy vs. authoritarianism. These aspects of Biden's speech undermined rhetoric that sought to rise above the political fray and burnish the founding values of equality and democracy.

Grounds for skepticism and cynicism

The political valence of the speech also limited its reach. The major networks, wary of infringements on their lucrative prime-time programming and expecting (rightly) that what the White House had planned would be seen by roughly half their audiences as a partisan exercise, declined to air it. Only MSNBC and CNN carried it live. The speech succeeded if the goal was to rally Democratic elites and outrage their GOP counterparties. But it was a non-event for the vast majority of Americans who were ostensibly the intended audience.

Skeptics–and a president with 43% approval faces plenty of them–might conclude he was using our shared constitutional inheritance as a prop to help him and his party politically. Advisors to the President reportedly see advantages for the Democratic Party and Biden himself in turning the upcoming elections into a referendum on Trump and Trumpism. The goal is presumably to shift the attention away from the economy, reassemble the coalition that prevailed (narrowly) in 2020, and deflate calls for a new and younger standard bearer in 2024. If so, the President’s speech was written to support this multifaceted political stroke with a diamond cutter’s precision.

Moreover, for all of the President's dire warnings, Democratic Party committees and allied donors have spent more than $40 million helping extreme MAGA candidates prevail in Republican primary elections. They are betting it will be easier to defeat them in November. To quote one of my favorite works of political theory, the movie Dodgeball, “It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for ‘em!” In the meantime, judging by what Democratic politicos are doing, not what the President is saying, they are more concerned with their party's electoral fortunes than the health of our democracy.

“Democracy!” is not enough

One of the most telling moments in the speech came at the very end, after the President had asked for God to bless the nation and those who protect it. Before leaving the podium, he pumped his fist and said simply "Democracy!" It was as if, in summation, that word said it all. It may, for some of us. But our backsliding will not be stopped, let alone reversed, by a left-leaning Democratic Party waving the bloody shirt of January 6 to eke out electoral victories. 

A party determined to defend democracy, facing an opposing party not so dedicated, should seek to expand and sustain its majorities so that future elections are not close. Its goal should be to marginalize and overwhelm–via the ballot box, not investigations or legal proceedings–rival partisans who cannot be trusted to uphold our system of government. This imperative, though, requires winning over a healthy portion of voters in the center who do not share the ideological commitments and orthodoxies of the party's base. 

Bill Clinton liked to say good politics–and for all his flaws, he was a master practitioner–was about addition and multiplication, not subtraction and division. Savvy politicians and parties seek majorities not of 50% +1 but of 55% or even 60% +1. This means forgoing broad rhetorical brush strokes that depict large swaths of our fellow citizens as "deplorables" or "extremists." It entails expanding the electoral coalition with a policy agenda that speaks to the economic and cultural concerns of the voters inclined to leave the pro-democracy party. Riling up the base with a drumbeat about threats to democracy might get you to 50% +1 in this election. But will it in the next one? It certainly is not a recipe for a broad and enduring majority or for sustaining democracy.

Moderation becomes a president

To be clear, I am not suggesting that citizens and leaders should sit back and tolerate egregious violations of our democratic values and institutions. We should condemn without hesitation anyone who seeks to undermine our elections or incite political violence. Democrats shouldn't and needn't hold back from criticizing Donald Trump and his most ardent followers for transgressions they have committed. But other politicians and party members–e.g., Members of Congress, state and local elected officials, national advocates, grass roots activists–are better suited for this partisan task than the President.

The American presidency calls for leadership characterized by moderation and magnanimity. This doesn't mean splitting the difference between Joe Manchin and Susan Collins on policy matters (though there is nothing wrong with that!). It means leading with prudence, restraint, probity, and forbearance toward one's political opponents (whether they warrant and reciprocate it or not). It means honoring the challenging fact that as president, one serves as head of state and chief executive for the entire nation, including (at present) the 74 million citizens who voted for Donald Trump.

Along these lines, perhaps the most authentic moment in an otherwise stilted speech came with President Biden's response to his hecklers. In similar circumstances, his predecessor, true to his bullying and demagogic nature, urged the crowds to rough up protesters. Biden, reflecting his better character, one fit to lead in a constitutional republic, acknowledged the nuisance from "those folks you hear on the other side there" before noting, "they're entitled to be outrageous. This is a democracy." Presidents are at their best and most persuasive when they are showing, not telling us how to uphold it.