TORONTO – A former friend engaged in journalism and politics at senior levels once opined that “politics is not a serious business”. Another, in an effort to excuse the “apparent failings” of the ones in power, offered that “the blame rests with the advisors”. Both are defensive postures aimed at deflecting transparency, responsibility and accountability. In brief, “it does not matter anyway”. 

But it does. At time of writing, President Biden issued a letter on X (formerly Twitter) announcing that he will declare his decision NOT to contest the next federal election.

In any democratic environment – or any decision-making process – the public does not choose/elect advisors. He/she who occupies the Chair must be held accountable for decisions and the advice leading to outcomes. It is legitimate to ask who the advisors are today dictating the themes in the political debates dominating our lives.

The first, logistically, among them are the estimated 4,532 delegates at the Democratic National Convention to be held in Chicago, Illinois. These will include 3,788 pledged delegates (some 99% of them  for Biden) and 744 “automatic” delegates — more commonly known as superdelegates

Current President Joe Biden had emerged the victor in a gauntlet of tests defined as The Primaries, a process by which qualified/certified members, via secret ballot, determine the Party’s candidate for the next National election. Nonetheless, Biden was trounced in the first debate some two weeks ago.

His own people now want him out, not because the principles legitimizing the socio-economic political of the government apparatus are at stake, but because some other Party may emerge as the victor in the struggle for the “Chair”.  The achievements sculpted in their legacy are so easily cast aside and replaced by a new Mantra that no longer fits the ageing and infirm: Win, Win, Win. 

Translated, those three magic words mean: Sorry Biden, we were just messing with your mind; please leave or we will destroy the Party at our own expense. Process be damned. “Special interest groups” , in the most strident and insistent of fashions  have already begun to secure the political agenda they want the Democratic Party to  pursue in return for their support.

CNN, the cable television network standard-bearer for the Democrats and available to a large Canadian audience, has begun giving those advocates the air time they need to advance those positions. In Canada, those positions promote DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), almost exclusively. As in the USA, the stated motivation is to combat debilitating discrimination, to fight against conditions leading to marginalization and to promote tolerance and integration.

The emerging campaign rhetoric suggests a more narrow approach, one decidedly divisive as one can expect when special interests equipped with money and influence enter the fray to advise that “the rules can and should be altered”… to suit their own goals and objectives -whatever they may be.

As if on cue, the “politically hungry” have started raging about “reproductive rights” (code for abortion) and the need to nullify the overturn of Roe v Wade, a States’  Rights matter. Concurrently, the vocal types talk about the need to have a “visible minority presence on the ticket” (marginalization is still a threat, even though the USA has had a Black President and a Black/Asian VP). Almost as egregious is the virtually complete dismissal of another reality; recent demographic studies suggest that 60 of the 342 million American residents now speak some form of Spanish-English – none of them have a position the Press and Media enunciate.

Serious analysts reference capability to maintain military superiority, measures to maintain global economic competitiveness, internal security, immigration and social programs reflective of a leading society.

Thirty-six elected Representatives and Senators, spoke for the “reversal of the process” that got them this far. They have no confidence in the conditions they helped create. Will they now accept the advice of the President incumbent/candidate to swing behind his choice? Will the Courts intervene to authorize any bypassing of the electorate?

Tomorrow: discussion of the options.