Zombie Biden Blows It
James Rickards

There’s been so much happening over the past 24 hours that it’s hard to keep up. The Supreme Court has been releasing several key rulings that will have a major impact on American politics.

Just this morning, they overturned the so-called Chevron deference that’s been in operation since the 1980s. Chevron handed the federal bureaucracy extensive authority to interpret statutes as it sees fit. It largely removed judicial oversight of the administrative state, which was a license for rampant bureaucratic abuse.

In many ways, the Chevron deference formed the underpinnings of the deep state. Now the Supreme Court has dismantled those underpinnings, which restores judicial proper oversight.

This is a huge story, and I’ll have more to say about that in future issues. But of course, the biggest news today is last night’s debate.

The first presidential debate of the 2024 election season is now in the books. The result is undisputed and indelible.

The following analysis is an objective evaluation of what happened last night. It’s not partisan.

The Undisputed Winner

Trump won and Biden lost badly. It was so one-sided that if it were a boxing match, the referee would have called the fight and awarded Trump a technical knockout.

That’s clear. The question is why.

Each of the candidates went through the usual talking points. Trump talked about the dangers of the open border, the disaster of the war in Ukraine and the impact of Biden’s inflation. Biden talked about the dangers of Russia winning in Ukraine and moving to attack Poland and other NATO members.

Biden talked about presidential scholars who rate Trump as the worst president in U.S. history; at the same time, Biden touted his student loan forgiveness and support for Black colleges.

None of this matters. We know the respective views of the two candidates. We’ve heard about them thousands of times. We all have our opinions. That’s fine; that’s what democracy is all about.

But the policies and views were the least relevant part of the debate.

A Stark Contrast

What was most relevant was the appearance and carriage of each candidate. Trump had his usual orange tan and red necktie tied too long. But he seemed fit, energetic and mentally sharp. He may be 78 years old, but aging is not a uniform process.

Trump was Trump but gave no reason to believe he could not carry out the duties of the presidency for another four years. (He even mentioned the ‘green new scam,’ a phrase I originally coined. Thank you, President Trump!).

Biden was a funereal zombie. It was easy to tell he was heavily medicated because the usual “slit look” in his eyes was gone (for one night) and his eyes were bugging out because of the medication he was pumped up with.

He was over rehearsed after spending eight days with 16 advisers in a Hollywood-produced set at Camp David. The problem with rehearsing your lines and not being able to speak extemporaneously is that if you get one fact wrong or even slightly confused you go off track and can’t get back on.

Biden did that time and again. He mumbled, he slurred his words, he tailed off into nothing and lost his train of thought. He stared off into space with a vacant stare. He looked weak and acted weak.

Biden’s Favorite Lies

He also droned on about his pet lies. He referred to Belarus as a Russian target after Ukraine. In fact, Belarus is one of Russia’s closest allies and is helping Russia to fight the war in Ukraine.

Biden said, “My son had died… in Iraq.” Not true. Beau Biden served in Iraq, but then returned home and later died of a form of cancer that had nothing to do with the war there. Biden resorted to name calling and used rote phrases like “malarky,” an Irish term of disparagement.

Trump had some zingers. He called Biden “a Manchurian candidate” which is a succinct way to say that Biden and his family are on the Communist Chinese payroll.

Trump was nimble when he connected the open border crisis and flood of illegal aliens to diminished job prospects for Blacks and Hispanics. The illegals are taking jobs that might otherwise be available for disadvantaged Americans.

By doing that, Trump showed that Biden’s policies are actively damaging minorities, a core constituency of the Democratic Party. The polls reflect that, by the way, as significant numbers of Blacks and Hispanics are now supporting Trump. Democrats are deeply concerned about that.

Both issues — immigration and jobs — are hot-button issues and Trump’s ability to connect them and score two points at once showed quick thinking and command of the stage.

[Although I recorded this video before last night’s debate, I address key topics including the debate itself, Trump’s VP pick, the latest Supreme Court rulings and more. Go here to see it once you’ve read the rest of this article.]

Watching Biden: Say No More

Here’s the most important takeaway. It’s something you won’t hear elsewhere and which almost none of the commentators and talking heads understands. Television is a powerful medium with little-understood effects on human cognition.

Canadian philosopher and communications theorist Marshall McLuhan said, “The medium is the message” over 60 years ago. What he meant was that content is almost irrelevant; what matters is the process by which humans comprehend what they’re seeing.

Mountains of research compiled over decades demonstrate that when people watch television, they barely listen to what’s being said. Instead they process what they are seeing. It’s a visual medium that McLuhan described as “cool” (as in cold) because it takes a lot of engagement to decipher what is being shown.

Viewers don’t listen, they watch.

With that as the proper frame, Biden turned in the worst debate performance ever and one of the most vapid, impaired and scary presentations of any politician ever. The only thing scarier than watching Biden with sound was watching Biden without sound. The visage was empty and frightening.

One question to ask is why did Democrats agree to a debate in June, with the election so far off? That’s simply not done. Why did they do it?

Biden Fails Dems’ Test

One possibility is that Democrats wanted to see if Biden could appear passably lucid and mentally competent. He didn’t necessarily have to win the debate, but he had to at least seem competent and mentally fit.

If he did, they could get behind him and try to push him over the line in November. But if it was a train wreck for Biden, it would give them enough time to pivot away from Biden in time for the Democratic convention, which takes place in August in Chicago.

Well, Biden failed the test.

Democrats are clearly panicking about last night’s debate, and the media are openly questioning if Biden can survive this. You can be sure that top Democratic leadership are having serious conversations about replacing Biden. But with who?

The Replacements?

Kamala Harris is not the logical replacement; she’s a dunce. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is ready to step in and would be the most likely nominee in that scenario. Despite the usual uncertainty and conditionality, Newsom would be considered a good bet to win the presidency against Trump.

Michelle Obama has been mentioned a lot, but she’s made it clear that she’s not interested in the nomination. Could she change her mind? Maybe, but as of now she’s not a likely candidate. We’ll see.

But Biden is done. It remains to be seen if the Democrats will stumble to Election Day with a mentally and physically failing phantom or move quickly to substitute a new candidate.

Americans have seen Biden for who he is. Trump got a major boost and now has powerful momentum toward a victory in November.

 

James G. Rickards is the editor of Strategic Intelligence, Project Prophesy, Crash Speculator, and Gold Speculator. He is an American lawyer, economist, and investment banker with 40 years of experience working in capital markets on Wall Street. He was the principal negotiator of the rescue of Long-Term Capital Management L.P. (LTCM) by the U.S Federal Reserve in 1998. His clients include institutional investors and government directorates.

His work is regularly featured in the Financial Times, Evening Standard, New York Times, The Telegraph, and Washington Post, and he is frequently a guest on BBC, RTE Irish National Radio, CNN, NPR, CSPAN, CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox, and The Wall Street Journal. He has contributed as an advisor on capital markets to the U.S. intelligence community, and at the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon. He has also testified before the U.S. House of Representatives about the 2008 financial crisis. 

Rickards is the author of The New Case for Gold (April 2016), and four New York Times best sellers, Currency Wars (2011), The Death of Money (2014), The Road to Ruin(2016), and Aftermath (2019) from Penguin Random House. And his latest book, The New Great Depression was published in January 2021.

 

 

 

dailyreckoning.com