It’s not a question of admitting error; it’s a question of definition. Was the speech political? Or not?
The President takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Is it inherently political to do so? What would make it political? How much of doing that can’t be political? Indeed, is there anything the POTUS can do which is not also political?
Barack Obama once (and only once) wore a tan suit. Even that was political (not by his desire). I guess it’s a good thing he didn’t walk past a Marine while wearing it.
Arguably Biden had the two Marines behind him to visually emphasize his duty to protect the Constitution, as well as underline the seriousness of his speech. Certainly his Republican opponents (even more so his GOP enemies) want to see his speech as purely political and purely partisan. Must we agree?
Biden’s speech was political, no less so than W’s premature announcement of major military operations being ended in Iraq. He did that on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, with a banner he later blamed on the ship’s crew: “Mission Accomplished.” Probably worse was him flying onto the deck in a fighter jet, wearing the flight suit of a military aviator.
He was acting as Commander in Chief making that announcement, though it could have been done from the White House. So making it the way he did was also political. W was doing it on a carrier for purely political reasons.
Just like Biden, speaking in front of Independence Hall, lighted in bands of red, white, and blue. But again, arguably, Biden did that for the TV cameras. And, again, to underline his point: he is the protector of the Constitution. That is one of his roles. He was taking it seriously, trying visually and verbally to get his point across.
Or was he? How you define it is how you understand the legitimacy, or illegitimacy, of the staging. Do I wish he’d left the Marines out? Maybe. Or was he subtly telling the “ultra-MAGAs” that they defund the enforcement power of the US government, and challenge the very legitimacy of that government, at the risk of we, the people?
You can still argue it was bad optics, or even a misuse of the military. But I’d rather talk about what he actually said. I understand the fallacy of never admitting error; but in this case the greater fallacy is doing the GOP’s work for them.
Watch the donut, not the hole.
ADDING: I’ll just leave this right here:
No comments:
Post a Comment