Biden must answer the $400 question
We already knew that president number 46 would be nothing like 45, but what we perhaps had forgotten is what an understated presidency looks like. Joe Biden already presents more like Bush (W.) than Reagan, more Carter than Clinton, and nothing at all like the cerebral Obama, which is welcome given the naïve assumption that Biden’s presidency would merely be a continuation of 2015. To say his presidency is just a little “blue-collar” would be neither inaccurate nor unfair. He looks to be more the grandfatherly figurehead-type with big friendly rescue dogs that haven’t been trained to snatch a journalist by the throat (which is the only way you know the previous president would have accepted hounds in his home).
Biden isn’t about to impose some ideology upon the nation but is more likely to resemble a latter-day FDR, speaking to the country from the fireside. His is a homely kind of wisdom, valued but surprisingly rare in American politics. Lincoln had it and people like Senator John Kennedy try to emulate it. With Biden, however, it is humbler in that he prefers to speak through his administration rather than dominate the cameras.
As welcome as all this might be after the whiz-bang years of Trump, the weakness of the humble approach is also becoming apparent. Politics is no longer played that way. Old Joe owns the bully pulpit but he’s not enough of a bully to spit from it. Besides, who uses a pulpit these days? The news agenda is dominated by people who know how to Tik Toc. Who needs a fireside chat when you have a great pile of burning grief to dump onto Facebook? On one side there’s Marjorie Taylor Greene bouncing across the headlines like a firefly ripped on acid. On the other, there’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is able to make simple solutions to big problems sound almost reasonable so long as they’re wrapped in human interest. Just last night, AOC took to Instagram to explain her experiences of the Capitol riots and today those headlines are amplifying Democratic anger.
As for Biden… Biden seems to think he will be measured by results alone.
He may yet be proven right but that might rest on his getting a stimulus package through Congress. It is a chance for Biden to present an unashamedly liberal response to a global crisis, yet also a chance to reach the kind of bipartisan deal that would erase all doubts about his commitment to unity.
And in case it is not immediately apparent: the two are mutually exclusive.
It’s a contradictory mix that results in the kind of meeting that took place on Monday when nine Republicans entered the White House (another dialled in) to discuss Biden’s plan to dole out $1.9 trillion to Americans struggling to survive this once-in-a-century crisis. This was bipartisanship in action, even if both sides probably knew it was just a little doomed from the start. It was a sense of “all hands to the pumps” but nobody bothered to bring a bucket of water.
That’s not to say there wasn’t great sincerity in their intention. The Republicans include many of the usual suspects, including Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, and Susan Collins, who, despite their many failings, did at least offer some resistance to Trump back when Trump had real rather than symbolic power. The problem for the moderates is that they might not be able to offer enough to tempt Biden. Admittedly, there are ten of them which means they present Biden with an opportunity to reach the 60 votes to pass the deal in the Senate without resorting to something as “tricky” as reconciliation (a parliamentary mechanism to pass some budgets with only a majority vote). Yet their offer of $618 billion is paltry compared to Biden’s $1.9 trillion. Big numbers but significantly smaller than $7.8 trillion, which is how much the US federal debt increased by under the Trump administration.
Two trillion dollars is also the kind of ambitious programme that many Democrats have been advocating for years, perhaps understandably. In 2009, Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which pumped $787 billion into the economy yet has long been considered inadequate – the narrative that the bill was rendered ineffective because of compromise has quickly become dominant.
Would Biden be willing to do the same just to score political points that will largely be noticed inside the beltway? Is he so naïve to think that Republicans will find some higher moral conviction because the Democrats are willing to bend a little?
Biden and Vice President Harris met with the delegation for what was described as a “substantive and productive discussion”, but perhaps more should be read into the White House’s response, which was to affirm that Biden “will not settle for a package that fails to meet the moment”. Of course, any sum can be said to “meet the moment” if Biden decides it does, but the implication here is that Biden wants the kind of package that will make a difference and, ultimately, define his presidency.
Forget the trillions. The important numbers are much smaller. The Democrats plan to give $1400 to a broad swathe of America, whereas the ten Republicans want to reduce that to $1000 targeted at the less well off. There might be some compromise in the way the cheques are targeted but the number on the front matters the most. Biden has always prided himself on understanding the value of an ordinary paycheque. His calculation might depend on how much he values bipartisanship but perhaps more fundamental is how much he understands what $400 means to those at the bottom.