I had a recent discussion with someone I both love and respect regarding the current political climate in the US. Of course the lament hinged on how so much of our ideological bandwidth and shared political discourse can’t help but be pulled into the curved space of MAGA; not because we agree with what the orbit shows us, but because there is little way to escape its pull.
Not surprisingly, the discussion also touched on how Biden is too old, something I’ve found increasingly suspect. Yes, he’s old, but just because others view his age as a disqualifier, doesn’t make it so. Ask these Biden nay-sayers to dig a little deeper into this particular line of reasoning and the argument falls apart into anecdotal assertions of “when my father was his age he could no longer speak in full sentences,” or, “he seems frail".” With this kind of reasoning, FDR would have never made it to DC. Still, I understand this fear and we definitely want presidents that can use subjects, verbs, and predicates. But even this line of reasoning fails when one looks at Biden’s proclivities towards productivity (massive legislative wins in the face of a hostile congress) and well-reasoned application of US geopolitical power (aircraft carriers sent to the Eastern Mediterranean to discourage Iranian/Hezbolllah meddling immediately after the October 7th massacre). Face facts, octogenarian babblers can’t do this. So where’s the proof? Tucker and the rest of the Fox Family shouldn’t be seen as valid authorities any more than CNN’s brood. Still, how is Biden’s age necessarily a disqualifier, especially given the alternative. To wit, What is Trump’s legislative legacy, even when his party ran both houses? Tax cuts for the rich? What did Trump do for the US’s geopolitical standing and leadership among our allies during his tenure? Again, where’s the proof of Biden’s age keeping him from doing the job? Or, put another way, give us a rational reason to follow your line of irrational, and unproved assertions.
The awkward silence, notwithstanding, my conversation leaned onto an “alternative” that held little argumentative substance: What about RFK, Jr?
What about him? Seriously.
I, along with many others, can get nostalgic about the family line, but beyond this superficiality, and especially taking his family’s opinion of him into account, and I believe we should look at his candidacy with appropriate suspicion. American’s can be lazy when it comes to doing the heavy lifting of thought. We, as a people, tend to look for someone, or some ideology that simplifies the complex so that we can know what, or who, to “believe”. But this doesn’t help us form “… a more perfect union.” Rather, RFK, Jr. fills a void for those looking for someone to validate the distortions of truth they bend into shapes that have the potential to, in their minds, fill the gaps afforded by today’s chaos. While, this abdication of responsibility relieves us of our shared, and critical, burden as members of a liberal democracy, it also leaves us vulnerable to the same kinds of demagoguery that brought us history’s parade of poor, often autocratic, and misguided leadership when something else was needed to build a better future for a shared pursuit of happiness, justice, and freedoms that real democracies should support.
This is a human problem as much as it is an American one. Enter RFK, Jr. who has confused and conflated falsehoods in order to develop an aligned sensibility that is at best conspiratorial, and, at worst, dangerous.
Consider four sets of false claims that should alarm an intellectually participatory citizenry of a democracy:
At the very least, Mr. Kennedy, and those who’ve followed his lead, have shown themselves to be weak on the facts, and strong on the fringe. What’s worse, any of us who challenge them are seen as part of a wider conspiracy. Further, while Mr. Kennedy and his ilk show a collective ignorance by believing in these falsehoods, I’m not sure that this should prevent a run at the highest office in the US. I do, however, wonder why becoming a public proponent and presidential candidate rooted in the dissemination of these LIES AS FACTS isn’t a disqualifier.
Besides, moving away from the Trumpian tendency to actively propagate lies as a way to forge chaos into a path to fear-based voting, should be part of our shared maturation. Fear is the source of anger and continually begs for refuge in the form of tribe and belief-system, thus influencing hearts and minds of an intellectually lazy (and fearful) populace. As an electorate in the 21st Century, we owe it to our posterity, and to a world that needs our mindful, compassionate, and tempered leadership to do the heavy lifting of thinking as opposed to falling prey to believing weak arguments built on false claims that simplify the complex.
P.S. For a truly chilling account of RFK, Jr.’s poor choices, read Joe Hagen’s piece from Vanity Fair.