Pulling on a Thread: Unravelling the Republic

America is an intricate tapestry of rich cultures and beliefs collected, created and cultivated over centuries, resulting in a beautifully complex nation. But that does not mean that it has gone untattered, free of imperfection. Recognizing that it will sustain wear, the question is, what does one do when it becomes frayed, exposing loose threads? Traditionally, efforts are made to preserve, to seek repairs or cut away those loose threads, the unwanted and unsightly that threaten to, when left unaddressed, spread, unraveling it altogether.

If America is that tapestry – that beautiful nation – one would do everything possible to retain it. If it is little more than ragged, soiled and irredeemable, for which only replacement ought to be sought, one might see that thread as an opportunity to discard what was. All one need do is identify those loose threads, expose them, and pull…and pull…and pull, until nothing remains resembling what was – in this case – what many consider the most successful political experiment in human history.

When historians view the legacy of presidents, one of the key measurements used to gauge their success is the degree to which they exercised clear, decisive leadership, particularly through crisis,[1] and their ability to unite the country in the process. Though debate ranges on what constitutes a crisis today, most agree that the country is experiencing crisis, if not a multitude of crises.

Where and how has the new president, Joe Biden, spent his first 100 days in the Oval Office? What have been his priorities? What have been his positions? Who is making the decisions? What is his view of that tapestry?

Through his words and actions, some of these answers are clear, but with policies belaying campaign promises and the lack of formal (and regular) communication between the president, the press and the other elected officials in Washington, others remain muddy.

In part, this may be out of design, not necessarily of the president’s own, but of his handlers. As guarded as he has been, with access limited by his inner circle, Biden may be unaware of the efforts of Republican leaders to reach him. This could be their intent, for exposure to reason, moderation and conservatives’ concerns may very well bring out the more moderate man voters thought they elected to lead. That would certainly not serve the progressive agenda.

The Wizard of Washington: Leading from Behind…the Curtain?

Amongst the signs of leadership are one’s willingness to take actions believed best for problem-solving, the ability to bring people together and one’s very presence, including both openness and transparency. In taking swift action to dismantle many of the prior administration’s policies through executive action,[2] for which the necessity or appropriateness remain contended, and signing the massive $1.9T American Rescue Plan[3] along party lines, Biden has presented little evidence – other than words – that he is making any effort to bring the country together.

To the contrary, the policies he has proposed, the positions he has supported and the language he has embraced have been consistently anathema to conservative principles and their views of the very country he was elected to lead. Consequently, despite professing to have the support of Republican voters, the polls show a marked contrast.[4]

Notably, in addition to matching the greatest party differential in public support, per recent tracking – a clear indication of divisiveness – the president has the same degree of support from Republicans as Donald Trump had of Democrats.

Where, then, is Senator Biden?

The president won the 2020 election professing to be the moderate option – the moderate compared to the likes of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and Trump in the general election. Leading up to the campaign, he frequently relayed how he worked with his Republican colleagues to enact legislation through negotiation and compromise,[5] suggesting it was a necessity and fundamental concept to peaceful governing. He even “worried that no party should have too much power.”[6]

There is little reason to believe this person exists today.

In short order, he reversed numerous Republican-supported policies through executive action and rebuffed leading Republicans’ efforts to find bipartisan compromises,[7] opting, instead, to support the most progressive policies through budget reconciliation, avoiding debate about their substance, sidestepping a thorough evaluation of their agenda. Why are he and his fellow Democrats afraid to publicly debate the merits of legislation if they are so confident about its value? Why are they so reluctant to allow light to be shined upon their plans?

If the negotiator Biden no longer exists, has he suddenly changed or become a spokesperson with others in charge of presidential policy? With the extraordinary amount of ‘dark money’ that he accepted during the 2020 campaign,[8] a question – one which used to be raised aggressively by Democrats in opposition to Republicans who accepted such support[9] – easily becomes who has influence over him? Further evidencing a lack of interest in moderation and openness are the appointments of progressives to positions of authority[10] and the highly controlled approach that has been taken toward media access.

When compared to his more accessible predecessor, Biden is rarely available to take questions from the media. And when he finally appeared in his first press conference, he brought a prepared list of pre-approved correspondents for him to call upon,[11] as if questions were already known in advance. The list, however, was largely devoid of the more critical, conservative-leaning organizations like Fox News. The legitimacy of the event was only made worse by the soft approach correspondents took toward him. In general, the press appeared more content to ask him about how sympathetic he is, requesting he reflect on his image as a “moral, decent man” in the face of the border problem,[12] almost as if they were grateful that he would take any questions at all.

For the White House press corps, it seemed to matter not that he may have to read what he believes off note cards. Such an act, however, cannot help but raise questions: if he is speaking what he himself believes, why does he have to read what he believes off note cards; if he did not write them himself, who writes what he believes; if they are not his answers, whose answers are they; and, if they are others’ answers and beliefs, who is in charge of the Office of the President of the United States?

More importantly, when it comes to the media, who pressed him with any of these questions? Why did they fail to do so? Where was the real-time fact-checking of the repeated misinformation he provided despite his notes, a press practice that became regular during the prior administration? An impartial and legitimate media would not ignore errors simply because they approve of the speaker or the errors are convenient and supportive of their preferred story. Subsequently, however, the fact checkers did call out numerous mistruths or misleading statements at the press briefing,[13] and more thoroughly respecting his first 100 days.[14]

The frequency with which Biden loses track of a question, or his train of thought, may have simply led his handlers to fashion a means for him to stay on track – indeed his administration has been highly disciplined and free of leaks[15] when compared to the Trump administration – but the optics are poor, and certainly do not indicate strong leadership. It has the appearance of the opposite – following – following the media’s framing and narratives, following his notes, taking cues from both, whomever, whatever, wherever their origins.

In response, reporters appear more obliged to accept that the best intentions of the good-meaning and large-hearted should take priority to the consequences of the actions themselves, a trait not uncommon to the more liberal sentimentalists who frequently prefer style over substance – ‘look not at what one does, listen to what one says,’ as if the why matters more than the what. Similarly, the abrasive, if not simply realist, words of conservatives can quickly capture media attention and ire, with little care for the effectiveness of policies they enact, even if reporters and pundits may support the results.

In reality, speaking with emotion and empathy does not make the statements any more true than being short or curt with the facts makes them false.

Clearly, as a natural result of where power in the country is concentrated, the political and media class have been living in largely-liberal urban bubbles. This was evident with the soft press handling of the president, which seemed to take on the approach of an advocacy group aligned with his policies, but what happens when the bubble bursts? Perhaps we got a taste of that in 2016 and the media treatment of the Trump Presidency.

In the meantime, to what or who is Biden referring when he says “I’m really gonna be in trouble” if he answers the press’ questions?[16]

The Orwellian Warfare of Unreality: Weaponizing Language to Conform to Politics

Words matter. And the language one employs helps frame discussions. But when the words, as defined by dictionaries, are inconsistent with or unsupportive of the politics one espouses, manipulators redefine the meaning of words, or simply employ those that are, in their appearance, innocuous.

When it comes to language, liberals have successfully captured the high ground with the use of the latter. For example, if one is not pro-choice, one must oppose a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body. If one does not support social justice, one must oppose equitable treatment on social matters. If one does not support environmental justice, one must oppose fair treatment respecting people and the environment. If one does not subscribe to climate change, one must believe that humans have no effect on the climate. If one does not support mostly-peaceful protests, one must oppose the right to protest. If one does not support Black Lives Matter, one must oppose the very idea that black lives matter.

Each of these topics warrant attention, discussion and understanding; however, the selected terms imply political objectives, which are proven to be consistently liberal in nature.

And though language is constantly evolving, when the definition of words are contorted to conform to politics – to whatever one wants – the purpose and intent become clear: if the facts do not support the position, alter the meaning of the words to support your position. The public, which speaks in common vernacular, will be slow to catch on to the words’ new application, however determined by “faculty lounge politics.”[17]

Over the past several decades we have seen this done to words like racism, which has been historically accepted to mean actions taken against others on the basis of race differences with concepts of superiority.[18] Since, with legitimate progress, such actions have become less and less common, liberals have expanded the definition,[19] stretching so far as to mean anything that does not result in equal (or equitable) outcomes based on race. As the end of this version of ‘racism’ is statistically immeasurable and an impossible goal to meet, it enables progressives to repeated charge racism as the cause to enact change. And with racism rooted in clearly corrupt moral practice, these charges frequently land, making opposition to such policies appear as opposition to corrupt moral practice, irrespective of the facts, actual intentions or policies being proposed.

Under the Biden administration, which was already buoyed by such language during the 2020 campaign,[20] there has been an acceleration in the manipulation of terms to support progressive purpose.

In response to the passing of Georgia’s new election law,[21] rather than speak to the specifics with accuracy, the president smeared it as “Jim Crow 2.0,”[22] providing a variety of falsehoods, several of which have been noted by fact checkers, including the Washington Post, which gave him their highest rating for falsehoods – four Pinocchios.[23] Despite some in the press calling out his repeated misinformation on the subject, his press secretary continued with the characterization[24] while the president accused Republicans of “backsliding into the days of Jim Crow when black people had to count jelly beans to get the vote,”[25] comparing efforts to secure election integrity to blatantly racist segregationist laws that came to an end a half a century ago.[26]

Meanwhile, the president continued to fail to accurately specify what provisions he opposes. Nonetheless, Jim Crow. Never mind that he is a progenitor of the same party from which Jim Crow policies derived, nor that he worked with segregationists[27] to ensure, in his own words, children did not grow up “in a racial jungle.”[28] Today, if the substance does not support your position, assume people will ignore the past, including your own, and simply label it something hateful. After all, who could oppose Jim Crow today?

In the face of the criticism that Biden has failed to seek, let alone achieve, the support of any congressional Republicans to provide evidence of the bipartisan support he promised would come with his presidency,[29] he is attempting to redefine the word bipartisan, which has long been “characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions”[30] To the president, it now simply means having support from Republican voters.[31] In truth, not only does he have no support from the Republican leaders voters sent to Washington on their behalf, he has a record low support from Republican voters themselves, as evidenced by the Gallup poll. For a man who has spent most of his life as a Washington politician, this is an especially disingenuous effort.

In need of national infrastructure improvements, which has been a bipartisan call for years, progressives like Sanders have expanded the definition to include “human infrastructure.”[32] In support of the palatably-titled American Jobs Plan – at a cost of $2.25T[33] – this distortion of the term permits for the inclusion of nearly any type of social insurance. Of course, if anything is infrastructure, nothing is infrastructure. In truth, roughly 37% of the plan can be reasonably considered infrastructure by any traditional measure.[34] When advocating for the bill, will voters understand what is meant by “infrastructure?” Perhaps that is the point of the obfuscation.

In support of progressive sentiment, these nomenclature games are now part of federal agency practice in issuing further directions and declarations. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared racism a “serious public health threat,”[35] redefining the concept of disease and health. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a memo that migrants shall no longer be referred to as illegal aliens,[36] even where factually descriptive in distinguishing the type of immigration, blurring the lines between lawful and unlawful entry into the very country whose border laws CBP is commissioned to protect.

When refusing to remain grounded in facts, trust is lost. When abandoning commonly accepted language, discourse is debased. By emphasizing minority-interest causes at the expense of the greater public’s interest, consensus becomes impossible. These are not the means to unite a fractured public.

This is how one pulls on threads.

Politicians used to squabble about solutions to understood problems. In the Age of Want, where the nature of reality continues to conform to the will of individuals, the squabbles have deepened. For genuine progress, the nation will have to climb out of this hole that has been dug.

If there can be no agreement on language, there can be no agreement on the problems. If there can be no agreement on problems, there can be no agreement on the solutions. If there can be no agreement on solutions, there can be nothing but chaos.

No Time to Admit Wrong

Further eroding confidence in the very nature of language and truth, while this distortion of words is underway, previous weapons of unreality, stories that were once vibrantly promoted by the media and liberal actors in attacking the prior administration, have been proven false.

The claim that Russia had bounties on American soldiers, which the Trump administration denied had sufficient intelligence upon which to act,[37] was used to accuse the former president of being soft of Vladimir Putin,[38] as if he was unwilling to defend American soldiers. The report is now understood to be unreliable, likely altogether untrue.[39] During the campaign Biden accused the former president of refusing to act on the poor intel as “beyond the pale.”[40] Now in a position to act, he has backed down on the issue, providing no apology for his fact-free allegation.

The claim that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, a position of then-candidate Joe Biden himself, which was based on the past behavior of the Russians rather than the facts at hand,[41] has proven to be untrue, undenied by his son.[42] To their credit, NPR admitted its initial reporting was wrong when it indicated the laptop story had been discredited by intelligence officials[43] and Twitter acknowledged they errored in blocking the New York Post article that broke the story.[44] The president, however, with his son under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ),[45] remains silent on the matter.

The claim that Trump demanded the Georgia secretary of state “find” the votes to hand him the win,[46] which was used to discredit his claims of seeking the results of a fair election, has been revealed to be, in parts, false and misleading.[47]

The claim that Officer Brian Sicknick was killed during the attacks on the capitol,[48] used to amplify the damage of the riot in support of the impeachment case against the former president, has been proven to be false by autopsy.[49]

Conveniently, pundits have largely ignored the story corrections – or, at best, provided minimal coverage when compared to the widely-covered false narratives – but the prior administration was damaged, and the perpetrators of the misinformation have remained largely silent on these matters.

Where is the accountability?

The denial of facts and the coopting of language are weapons of political warfare historically employed by the worst of totalitarian regimes. This has no place in a free democratic republic, which depends on truth for its survival, but those who cannot win the argument on the merits, based on facts, are becoming those who simply change the conversation to conform to their preferred politics.

This is simply dangerous.

Politicians should not be surprised when Americans prove that they still believe in the founding principles of freedom and fairness and show signs of beginning to resist the slippery slope upon which they are being asked to walk. After a year of lockdowns, restrictions, conflating messages and added stress resulting from the coronavirus crisis, how much further can Americans’ patience, tolerance and reasonableness be stretched and tested by its political and thought leaders?

At the highest levels, conservatives are finally beginning to attack the twisted language and ‘word bombs,’ as has the black southern Republican senator, Tim Scott. In his rebuttal to the new president’s first address before Congress, Scott poignantly indicated, with irony, that Biden’s administration speaks of building bridges – whilst expanding the meaning of the word – yet will not even build bridges to reach members across the aisle.[50]

In response to Scott’s speech, in which he offered that America is not a racist nation, the liberal critique came quick and Twitter lit up with accusations of “Uncle Tim,”[51] a twisted take on a centuries-old racist slur…

…a sad but fitting conclusion to Joe Biden’s first 100 days of “moderate radicalism.”[52]

This is where a nation finds itself when its leaders focus on the few frays, opting to pull on the threads that once held it together…

…and they are turning their attention to police departments and the justice system, the very basis of law and order, without which there would be chaos, and chaos alone.

(This is the first in a series of articles on Joe Biden’s First 100 Days in office.)

[1] Presidential Historians Survey, 2017: Methodology, (C-SPAN, 2017)

[2] Christopher Hickey, Curt Merrill, Richard J. Chang, Kate Sullivan, Janie Boschma and Sean O’Key, Here are the executive actions Biden signed in his first 100 days, (CNN, 2021)

[3] Grace Segers, Biden signs $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan into law, (CBS News, 2021)

[4] Jeffrey M. Jones, Biden Sparks Greater Party, Education Gaps Than Predecessors, (Gallup, 2021)

[5] Arlette Saenz, Biden defends working with Republicans ahead of possible 2020 bid, (CNN, 2019)

[6] Peter Wade, Biden, Ignoring Three-Quarters of His Vice-Presential Tenure, Says Sharing Power With Republicans Is a Good Thing, (Rolling Stone, 2019)

[7] Jarrett Renshaw, Despite ‘productive’ Republican meeting, Biden will not accept a scaled-down COVID-19 bill – White House, (Reuters, 2021)

[8] Bill Allison, ‘Dark Money’ Helped Pave Joe Biden’s Path to the White House, (Bloomberg, 2021)

[9] Alex Seitz-Wald, Democrats used to rail against ‘dark money.’ Now they’re better at it than the GOP, (NBC News, 2020)

[10] Brett Samuels and Morgan Chalfant, Biden makes inroads with progressives, (The Hill, 2021)

[11] Jack Dutton, Joe Biden’s Press Conference Cheat Sheet Divides Opinion, (Newsweek, 2021)

[12] David Rutz, Liberal PBS reporter gushes Biden perceived as ‘moral, decent man’ during immigration question, (Fox News, 2021)

[13] Nomaan Merchant and Josh Boak, AP FACT CHECK: Biden, Skews Figures on Border, Taxes, More, (U.S. News, 2021)

[14] Glenn, Kessler, Adrian Blanco and Tyler Remmel, The false and misleading claims President Biden made during his first 100 days in office, (The Washington Post, 2021)