I've been pushing the case that stopping Trump is more important than protesting against Biden. But the longer the Gaza genocide goes on, the harder that becomes. Biden will lose the votes of young leftists, and exhortation isn't going to change that.
I'd turn it around and say that stopping Trump is more important for Biden than any residual sympathy for Israel. Biden needs to make sure a ceasefire happens and soon, even if that requires steps like an explicit and public denunciation of Netanyahu and the threat of an end to the US-Israel alliance.
This is a good piece but it misses the most glaring and obvious example of the difference between Biden on Trump
On human rights - Biden is actively trying to broker a cease fire between Israel and Hamas, while facilitating aid to Gazans while Trump has stated he’d deport every single Palestinian supporter! There’s no doubt that if Trump were in office now, Gazans would be 100x worse off.
Possibly it's a rhetorical flourish, but I disagree with your statement
"But the suggestion from some on the left that Biden’s support for Israel should cost him the 2024 election is wrong. And the main reason it’s wrong is that his opponent is Donald Trump."
I'm not happy with Israel's current behavior, and I think Biden could be more publicly outspoken about it, but I consider the "suggestion from some on the left" bonkers for reasons that go far beyond Donald Trump.
This article highlights the madness of youth and POC turning against Biden. It’s not that some criticism of Biden’s foreign policy isn’t warranted; it’s just that it will be far worse under Trump. The Biden administration, though, needs to loudly contrast their approach with the former admin’s every day.
How to solve the dilemma of "innocent Palestinian civilians, especially children, need help" and "Israel has the right to fight Hamas after what they did on 10/7"?
My question to our esteemed host and fellow readers: how realistic is it for the US to convince/pressure/bribe Egypt to open the Rafah crossing and let Palestinian children, women, the injured and the elderly into Sinai? Israel could continue to pound Gaza and destroy the tunnels without the horrific bloodshed of children, and the civilians would be in a place where they could receive food, medical care, and some temporary shelter for the duration of the fighting.
Is this in any way doable? What would it take: offer the Egyptian President a gold-plated villa in Carmel-by-the-Sea, tickets to a Taylor Swift concert, anything?
I get that I'm not the intended audience here, even while agreeing that "we can't have a carbon tax because equity"-type progressive argumentation is deeply unhelpful, especially when the stakes are high. Perfect as the enemy of, well, anything not-perfect. But overall I didn't find the piece persuasive on the merits. Viewed without assuming The Bottom Line:
-tried different diplomatic tactics with long-running boondoggle states
-shuffled some behind-the-scenes reports in a different way (need a link to back up assertion these actually carry meaningful weight vs more visible FP apparatus, I'm reminded of hysterical e/acc overreaction to the AI EO reporting requirements)
-quit a largely symbolic moribund mouthpiece that still hasn't gotten dentures to replace the teeth it never had
-made different moral and ethical tradeoffs when evaluating humanitarian problems, which some people disagree with (exactly like UNHRC, except they get a pass for "moral inconsistencies")
-Goodhart's Law for airstrikes (were there compelling military reasons? did this net improve the outcomes? did it substitute for "boots on the ground", which no one likes even more?)
-Goodhart's Law for State Dept tenure (is 25+ yrs experience a meaningful cutoff? is more experience necessarily better? if one disagrees with the existing consensus, isn't injecting new blood good?)
-did extensive research and vetting of potential staffers, as any incoming regime should
There are of course plenty of other good reasons not to vote for Trump, as you close the piece with, and I don't expect to do so. But this didn't add any new ones to my list, and it certainly won't persuade someone who believes that Trump was the most peaceful president, he kept us out of wars under his watch via belligerence/chaos theory/strongman empathy. Which is definitely a thing I've run into several times! (No mention of Soleimani, the sabre-rattling dog that didn't bark.)
Sure, I don't disagree with that. There's coattail toadies in every administration, though. Cost of doing business. One could argue that Trump's cabinet, as a whole, was significantly less qualified even for a Republican slate (I genuinely don't know, seems tricky to quantify too). But I felt like that section was worded with the implication that it was weird for an incoming very-different-values regime to not switch out many personnel, especially those who didn't care for the new boss. (Likewise it'd be a different story if it was largely self-exits in protest rather than pink slips. I might have read something like that was the case? It's been years now though...)
Either way, the article is for progressives, and I don't think they're the ones fretting about Deep State. (Oldest of the public colleges...they've been around since forever.)
When you battle -- as Trump did -- a 'blob' that wants to resist your every policy, it's not going to be done by established, co-opted establishmentarians. Stand by for round two; hopefully all the establishmentarians will be summarily fired -- if that's legally possible. Alternatively, they can be given a desk in the basement.
I'll come out and say it: foreign policy isn't something I have firm convictions about. My question: anyone have books that had a big influence on how you think about this stuff?
I'd just add that anti-Biden progressives seem to be making a pretty shortsighted choice here. Before 10/7 the trends towards the Democrats becoming more critical of Israel in the long term were pretty strong due to things like generational replacement etc. But if Trump does win a close election and that is seen as being caused by progressives that's one of the few things that might reverse those trends inside the party. Likewise if Biden wins anyway progressives will have really isolated themselves from his administration and possibly the next Dem president like Harris as well (one thing I'd due as Biden's CoS if he wins would be to have a house cleaning of people who signed those open letter etc. Their anti-anti-Trump politics strike me as being selfish, shortsighted, and self destructive but that's kind of par of the course for some of these people I guess.
This was a nice morning read, thank you for writing it. I agree human rights matter, but insist on asking about their enforcement. Isn't the biggest cause of lower human suffering (and thus greater human rights) American military hegemony since WW2? I don't think we can maintain it the same way in a world where many countries are (thankfully) becoming richer, but I wonder which budget priorities a second Biden term will have for regional security. Let's list three big ones: Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. It seems like Republicans really want Europeans pulled towards spending more by tough talk and hardball means (frankly, Biden might quietly agree and be playing the good cop here.) A loud part of the GOP is willing to say that region should be less of a priority. But I can't name one of those three regions I listed where the Biden admin or his party's leaders say we cannot afford to pour more resources in, unlike a future GOP one.
That seems like a big deal. Especially when negotiations on overall military budgets generally consist of Republicans spending more on the military (and less on domestic programs) while Democrats champion enormous growing domestic programs such as Medicare. That's what I see in Congress. In the press, Democrats certainly *aspire* to be seen as the party of American strength abroad, they want each expensive region to be a top priority, and they think old middle class healthcare entitlements should never be trimmed, unless it's for CBO cash towards one of their partisan bills (hence the ACA and IRA.) You don't have to be a Trump fan to notice the math isn't adding up to their rhetoric. But aside from budgets and messaging, human rights will be much harder to secure if one or both political parties cannot articulate how American hard power will be prioritized in the dangerous decade ahead. While you've laid out some important significant correlations between Trump and indifference to specific problems, I favor what the economist Deirdre McCloskey calls "Oomph"[1], and look at the bigger picture of security spending and power abroad. I'm afraid the Democratic party does not inspire confidence in that regard, and thus not for human rights in the long term either.
> But I can't name one of those three regions I listed where the Biden admin or his party's leaders say we cannot afford to pour more resources in, unlike a future GOP one.
Afghanistan is the red headed 2 trillion dollar stepchild, and I'm glad he followed through. Referring to my three listed regions, one could argue he's trying to deprioritize the Middle East via normalizing the Saudis and Iranians as competing regional powers. But Biden hasn't publicly argued that. Even more provocatively, one could argue some major Democrats see China as an economic competitor on EVs, solar, and minerals rather than a geopolitical one, and this too is relative deescalation and a potential curb to future spending compared to the long-standing Republican hawkish view of East Asia.
But notice this is all inference I am doing. Major Republican politicians are saying in plain English that we cannot afford more than existing NATO spending in Europe, and even that will require more European defense contribution through political cajoling and threats. I can't think of a major region where high-ranking Democrats talk the same way. Perhaps the closest was when Biden criticized Saudi Arabia in his first year alongside the Afghan pullout while trying to restore the JCPOA? But he has clearly changed his tune on the Saudis since then, and probably for good reason given the results have been quite mixed. America remains deeply engaged in the Middle East, for better or for worse.
I've been pushing the case that stopping Trump is more important than protesting against Biden. But the longer the Gaza genocide goes on, the harder that becomes. Biden will lose the votes of young leftists, and exhortation isn't going to change that.
I'd turn it around and say that stopping Trump is more important for Biden than any residual sympathy for Israel. Biden needs to make sure a ceasefire happens and soon, even if that requires steps like an explicit and public denunciation of Netanyahu and the threat of an end to the US-Israel alliance.
Great article Ben!
This is a good piece but it misses the most glaring and obvious example of the difference between Biden on Trump
On human rights - Biden is actively trying to broker a cease fire between Israel and Hamas, while facilitating aid to Gazans while Trump has stated he’d deport every single Palestinian supporter! There’s no doubt that if Trump were in office now, Gazans would be 100x worse off.
I am just now realizing this was a Ben post. I raised my issues with the thesis but it was well argued and in the style of SB. Thought it was Matt!
Possibly it's a rhetorical flourish, but I disagree with your statement
"But the suggestion from some on the left that Biden’s support for Israel should cost him the 2024 election is wrong. And the main reason it’s wrong is that his opponent is Donald Trump."
I'm not happy with Israel's current behavior, and I think Biden could be more publicly outspoken about it, but I consider the "suggestion from some on the left" bonkers for reasons that go far beyond Donald Trump.
I agree that it's bonkers! But it is a narrative that exists on some segments of the left.
This article highlights the madness of youth and POC turning against Biden. It’s not that some criticism of Biden’s foreign policy isn’t warranted; it’s just that it will be far worse under Trump. The Biden administration, though, needs to loudly contrast their approach with the former admin’s every day.
A bit off-topic but related:
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is absolutely horrific. Nicholas Kristof wrote about it in the NYT yesterday: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/03/opinion/gaza-israel-war-children.html
How to solve the dilemma of "innocent Palestinian civilians, especially children, need help" and "Israel has the right to fight Hamas after what they did on 10/7"?
My question to our esteemed host and fellow readers: how realistic is it for the US to convince/pressure/bribe Egypt to open the Rafah crossing and let Palestinian children, women, the injured and the elderly into Sinai? Israel could continue to pound Gaza and destroy the tunnels without the horrific bloodshed of children, and the civilians would be in a place where they could receive food, medical care, and some temporary shelter for the duration of the fighting.
Is this in any way doable? What would it take: offer the Egyptian President a gold-plated villa in Carmel-by-the-Sea, tickets to a Taylor Swift concert, anything?
I get that I'm not the intended audience here, even while agreeing that "we can't have a carbon tax because equity"-type progressive argumentation is deeply unhelpful, especially when the stakes are high. Perfect as the enemy of, well, anything not-perfect. But overall I didn't find the piece persuasive on the merits. Viewed without assuming The Bottom Line:
-tried different diplomatic tactics with long-running boondoggle states
-shuffled some behind-the-scenes reports in a different way (need a link to back up assertion these actually carry meaningful weight vs more visible FP apparatus, I'm reminded of hysterical e/acc overreaction to the AI EO reporting requirements)
-quit a largely symbolic moribund mouthpiece that still hasn't gotten dentures to replace the teeth it never had
-made different moral and ethical tradeoffs when evaluating humanitarian problems, which some people disagree with (exactly like UNHRC, except they get a pass for "moral inconsistencies")
-Goodhart's Law for airstrikes (were there compelling military reasons? did this net improve the outcomes? did it substitute for "boots on the ground", which no one likes even more?)
-Goodhart's Law for State Dept tenure (is 25+ yrs experience a meaningful cutoff? is more experience necessarily better? if one disagrees with the existing consensus, isn't injecting new blood good?)
-did extensive research and vetting of potential staffers, as any incoming regime should
There are of course plenty of other good reasons not to vote for Trump, as you close the piece with, and I don't expect to do so. But this didn't add any new ones to my list, and it certainly won't persuade someone who believes that Trump was the most peaceful president, he kept us out of wars under his watch via belligerence/chaos theory/strongman empathy. Which is definitely a thing I've run into several times! (No mention of Soleimani, the sabre-rattling dog that didn't bark.)
"if one disagrees with the existing consensus, isn't injecting new blood good?"
"new blood" != "a ignoramus who got, uh, injected for their ideological loyalty rather than knowledge or competence"
Sure, I don't disagree with that. There's coattail toadies in every administration, though. Cost of doing business. One could argue that Trump's cabinet, as a whole, was significantly less qualified even for a Republican slate (I genuinely don't know, seems tricky to quantify too). But I felt like that section was worded with the implication that it was weird for an incoming very-different-values regime to not switch out many personnel, especially those who didn't care for the new boss. (Likewise it'd be a different story if it was largely self-exits in protest rather than pink slips. I might have read something like that was the case? It's been years now though...)
Either way, the article is for progressives, and I don't think they're the ones fretting about Deep State. (Oldest of the public colleges...they've been around since forever.)
When you battle -- as Trump did -- a 'blob' that wants to resist your every policy, it's not going to be done by established, co-opted establishmentarians. Stand by for round two; hopefully all the establishmentarians will be summarily fired -- if that's legally possible. Alternatively, they can be given a desk in the basement.
I'll come out and say it: foreign policy isn't something I have firm convictions about. My question: anyone have books that had a big influence on how you think about this stuff?
I'd just add that anti-Biden progressives seem to be making a pretty shortsighted choice here. Before 10/7 the trends towards the Democrats becoming more critical of Israel in the long term were pretty strong due to things like generational replacement etc. But if Trump does win a close election and that is seen as being caused by progressives that's one of the few things that might reverse those trends inside the party. Likewise if Biden wins anyway progressives will have really isolated themselves from his administration and possibly the next Dem president like Harris as well (one thing I'd due as Biden's CoS if he wins would be to have a house cleaning of people who signed those open letter etc. Their anti-anti-Trump politics strike me as being selfish, shortsighted, and self destructive but that's kind of par of the course for some of these people I guess.
“ Massive pro-Palestine protests are regular occurrences in cities across the country”
There are? I haven’t heard of any “massive” ones. Just the usual “protest disorder” crowd of college kids and now very aged hippies.
We could really use an across-the-board summary of how Trump corrupted the government, often in ways that were not highly visible.
Glad to see your writing on here, Ben. Looking forward to more.
Thanks, Ben. Anyone who isn't all-in on the best option is immoral. Better is good.
This was a nice morning read, thank you for writing it. I agree human rights matter, but insist on asking about their enforcement. Isn't the biggest cause of lower human suffering (and thus greater human rights) American military hegemony since WW2? I don't think we can maintain it the same way in a world where many countries are (thankfully) becoming richer, but I wonder which budget priorities a second Biden term will have for regional security. Let's list three big ones: Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. It seems like Republicans really want Europeans pulled towards spending more by tough talk and hardball means (frankly, Biden might quietly agree and be playing the good cop here.) A loud part of the GOP is willing to say that region should be less of a priority. But I can't name one of those three regions I listed where the Biden admin or his party's leaders say we cannot afford to pour more resources in, unlike a future GOP one.
That seems like a big deal. Especially when negotiations on overall military budgets generally consist of Republicans spending more on the military (and less on domestic programs) while Democrats champion enormous growing domestic programs such as Medicare. That's what I see in Congress. In the press, Democrats certainly *aspire* to be seen as the party of American strength abroad, they want each expensive region to be a top priority, and they think old middle class healthcare entitlements should never be trimmed, unless it's for CBO cash towards one of their partisan bills (hence the ACA and IRA.) You don't have to be a Trump fan to notice the math isn't adding up to their rhetoric. But aside from budgets and messaging, human rights will be much harder to secure if one or both political parties cannot articulate how American hard power will be prioritized in the dangerous decade ahead. While you've laid out some important significant correlations between Trump and indifference to specific problems, I favor what the economist Deirdre McCloskey calls "Oomph"[1], and look at the bigger picture of security spending and power abroad. I'm afraid the Democratic party does not inspire confidence in that regard, and thus not for human rights in the long term either.
EDIT: Edited for precision and Oomph.
[1] https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/jsm.pdf
> But I can't name one of those three regions I listed where the Biden admin or his party's leaders say we cannot afford to pour more resources in, unlike a future GOP one.
Biden pulled out of Afghanistan!
Afghanistan is the red headed 2 trillion dollar stepchild, and I'm glad he followed through. Referring to my three listed regions, one could argue he's trying to deprioritize the Middle East via normalizing the Saudis and Iranians as competing regional powers. But Biden hasn't publicly argued that. Even more provocatively, one could argue some major Democrats see China as an economic competitor on EVs, solar, and minerals rather than a geopolitical one, and this too is relative deescalation and a potential curb to future spending compared to the long-standing Republican hawkish view of East Asia.
But notice this is all inference I am doing. Major Republican politicians are saying in plain English that we cannot afford more than existing NATO spending in Europe, and even that will require more European defense contribution through political cajoling and threats. I can't think of a major region where high-ranking Democrats talk the same way. Perhaps the closest was when Biden criticized Saudi Arabia in his first year alongside the Afghan pullout while trying to restore the JCPOA? But he has clearly changed his tune on the Saudis since then, and probably for good reason given the results have been quite mixed. America remains deeply engaged in the Middle East, for better or for worse.