OUT OF MY LIBERAL MIND

Debate? No debate? Do we care?

Chapter 2. Thanks for coming back.

It might help understand my conclusions in this piece if I first offer some information about myself. I was born four-score and four years ago today. Fortunately I can still walk, talk and feed myself. My frontal lobes are probably considerably smaller than they used to be, as I often have trouble recalling the word, name or event I want, which -- by the way -- I’m reliably assured is normal even for people much younger than I. In recent years I have spoken in public, chaired meetings and made what I considered to be important family decisions without anyone suggesting I lacked the necessary competence. I have also had family members who suffered from cognitive impairment to varying degrees from mild to severe and am well aware of the tragic impact of dementia.

I also believe I could “swear or affirm that I [could] faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and . . . preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In other words, while my conservative friends who no doubt believe I’m out of my liberal mind would differ, I could take the U.S. Presidential oath of office with an absolutely clear conscience if in a bad dream I was the last man standing and truly was out of my liberal mind and somehow had absolutely no choice in the matter. But I also feel I have an awareness of my existing capabilities and weaknesses and would surround myself with the most competent and trustworthy helpers I could enlist, not flatterers but people who can speak truth to power, just as our finest presidents of the past have done irrespective of age.

All right, I’ve bared a small part of my soul -- so what!  I begin with the premise that I don’t mind that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump lack the maturity of my years. (Thank you Ronald Reagan.) On the other hand I recognize that we’re in the unique position of electing the oldest president ever, and age can be a reasonable basis for concern, especially -- for example -- in the selection of the Vice President. But to the point of this month’s essay:  I personally have no desire whatsoever to watch these two old geezers “debate” each other.

Debate in the classic sense is supposed to be a pursuit of truth. Does anyone seriously believe a Trump-Biden debate could qualify? I ask, how could it possibly help make a more informed decision to watch a Biden-Trump tussle. Yes, Joe will undoubtedly stutter and might demonstrate some forgetfulness particularly if a panelist plays gotcha; and it’s a good bet the Donald will -- in violation of every rule of debate and civility -- again strut around the platform menacingly, blathering on in disregard of pre-agreed time limits and be generally boorish. Joe may mix-up some foreign leader names and verbally stumble occasionally, and Donald will mumble and ramble and yell and exaggerate and be unable to complete a thought or pronounce some words correctly -- later claiming he’s of course doing it all deliberately. It would be terrible theater and definitely not a civil exchange of opposing views of governing. Will this help any truly undecided voter make a good decision?  God, I hope not. But it will definitely displace real news from the front pages for days on end which is the important reason for not holding a debate.

Most likely, aside from being a risky proposition for both candidates, a debate would not shed any new meaningful light, only smoke. It would consume the discussion for an inordinate amount of time and distract from real issues of qualification, competency and intent. We know what kind of president Joe Biden will be. He already is, and we see him in action regularly. The worst that has been said about Joe Biden is probably special counsel Robert Hur’s gratuitous comment that “he is a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”  

Putting aside the obviously ageist prejudice of Hur’s comment, let’s parse this worst-case description. Is being elderly a disqualification? In another context being “elderly” could just as well mean wise, thoughtful, experienced, admirable, as in Eastern cultures, and not necessarily feeble or decrepit as Hur tries to imply. We usually admire “sympathetic” people, well meaning, deserving of sympathy and admiration and not necessarily weak or unable; Santiago from “The Old Man and the Sea” is a sympathetic -- read admirable -- character as is Jean Valjean of “Les Miserables” or Atticus Finch from “To Kill a Mockingbird”. And as for “poor memory” . . . has Joe ever appeared to have forgotten his wife’s name?  Wasn’t it the Donald who thought Victor Orban was Prime Minister of Turkey, that Al Pacino was Jimmy Kimmel, and said Biden if re-elected would lead us into World War Two?!  Donald Trump’s father died of Alzheimer’s, and according to the Alzheimer’s Association, “research shows that those who have a parent or sibling with Alzheimer’s are more likely to develop the disease than those who do not have a first-degree relative with Alzheimer’s.”

But of course Hur wasn’t using these words with an affirmative or even neutral intent. That said, even if Biden is everything Hur said and implied, I submit against that we have pretty good evidence of just how dangerous Donald Trump will be if put back in office, and we have some pretty good indicators of Trump’s mental instability and possible dementia. We don’t need a debate to size up these two men. Just to sample a few beauts, Trump said Hungary has a “front” with Russia -- not true, no common border -- nor does Turkey, which Trump confused with Hungary, have a border with Russia other than both being on the Black Sea. Trump couldn’t remember the name of Israel’s Iron Dome defense, instead while trying to describe the system stumbled through “ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. They’ve only got 17 seconds to figure this whole thing out. Boom. OK. Missile launch. Whosh. Boom.” I particularly liked, “If you have illegal aliens invading your home, we will deport you.”

Age is not the relevant issue in 2024. Both are old and in fact Joe is the more likely to outlive Donald on the odds than the other way round. He’s fit not fat, doesn’t have ragingly high cholesterol, eats a nutritious diet and lives a healthy lifestyle. But we have no other choice and have to pick one slightly pre- or post-octogenarian.

On the other hand, irrationality, which can infect youths and seniors alike, is a fair issue. And I don’t mean who can draw the numbers and hands of a clock face -- something most eight year-olds have no trouble with -- as the Donald endlessly brags, while forgetting and continually exaggerating the actual content of the cognitive impairment test he “aced”.  I’m talking about people who can’t follow a logical train of thought without rambling; people who babble nonsense endlessly; narcissistic people quick to angry outbursts when others can hold their temper -- like in a courtroom; people who display and wallow in needless hostility and anger; who may be evidencing Dunning-Kruger Effect (you can look it up) . . . . Many former Trump appointees like Bolton, Esper, Barr, Mulvaney, Mattis -- it’s such a long list -- have publicly described how erratic, disorganized, incapable, dangerous Trump is; how many people close to Joe Biden have done that?

I believe watching each candidate individually in their set-piece rallies and televised appearances will be far more than enough to let all voters make their decision. I have little expectations from the rigid MAGA acolytes but can hope the few voters who pay attention in the very few swing states will see what I and so many others have already observed. What say you? And please be civil -- as best you can.

And please, please accept my apologies for the annoying format miscues with my initial posting; I hope I’ve caught and corrected them and am just learning how to use Substack comfortably. We’ll be on the road collecting ideas for future posts, so look for the next episode in mid- to late May.

In closing, I want to give props to those of you who think staying with this series may be fun and have signed on. I urge you to invite others who enjoy civilized -- if sometimes pointed -- discussion to join in. To any who worry this may become a pay-for blog, rest assured: as long as I have breath and brain to produce these think pieces, they’ll remain free free free.

Arne Werchick, after fifty years as a litigation attorney, pro tem judge, law writer and lecturer, former Presiding Arbitrator of the State Bar of California, and past president of the California Trial Lawyers Association, moved to Hawaii and lives with his wife Ruth and their rescue dog Topaz.  He can be contacted at liberalmind@werchick.com.