When you read political opinion pieces, you must always consider the source. (Unfortunately, to a growing extent, that’s also the case with so-called news stories, but that’s another column for another day.)
For example, you shouldn’t be at all surprised to find an opinion piece in Vanity Fair that begins with something along the lines of, “leaving a trail of slime behind him, Trump schlepped his Diet-Coke addled carcass across Iowa. …” Similarly, you would expect a right-wing publication such as Breitbart to carry columns clamoring for the impeachment of everyone in Biden’s administration, from Attorney General Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas all the way down to the receptionist at the White House mess.
It is far more interesting, however, to read a piece somewhere that is even mildly critical of the home team.
Thus it was last week when The Atlantic, an outlet that has become increasingly left-leaning over the last several years, ran a piece titled, “Step Aside, Joe Biden.”
To be sure, it was written by Eliot Cohen, a former Bush appointee. But it was The Atlantic and its editors who chose to publish it. So it’s fair to assume that the message was not intended for Republicans.
For some reason, The Atlantic wanted to expose its left-leaning audience to a dignified but thorough criticism of Biden’s mental acuity and ability to perform his presidential duties. This is a clue that market demand for this subject is growing on the left. The column arguably puts a voice to what many Democrats — including, one presumes, the folks at The Atlantic — are thinking: Joe Biden isn’t up to the job.
The column didn’t directly accuse Biden of having dementia. In fact, it took pains to sidestep the issue, instead choosing loose, bipartisan analogies to Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), hinting at what the future might hold for politicians of their advanced ages. (Note, however, that these elderly senators are 10 and 9 years older than Biden, respectively.)
Neither did Cohen’s piece specifically mention some of the occasional unflattering public glimpses into Biden’s mental state — for example, such gaffes as Biden’s repeated confusion about where Russia is waging war (Iraq instead of Ukraine), nor to the eyebrow-raising non sequiturs that hint at cognitive disconnects, such as “God Save the Queen, man.”
The piece is likewise silent about perhaps the most disturbing hint that Biden is more severely limited than his camp will admit: his seeking out Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) at a staged event several weeks after she had died in a horrific car crash.
But the column still not only put the issue on the table, but also spent more than a little time singing the praises of the (much younger) Democratic bench, including both California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu.
The Atlantic is far from the only outlet to raise questions about Biden’s mental capacity and, thus not only his suitability for office but also his electability. This publication, for example, led its editorial content last week with two pieces about Biden, his age and his abilities. But The Hill is nowhere near being the reliable Democrat mouthpiece that The Atlantic is — it is rated about as close to the center as they come.
There is a famous piece of political and media history from the 1960s that might provide a comparison, albeit more in type than in scope. Deep into the Vietnam War, concerned about the veracity of the reports the U.S. military was feeding media outlets, revered CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite went to Southeast Asia himself. The hourlong special that grew out of his visit ended with Cronkite’s assessment that the war was likely to end, not in victory, but in a tie. At that moment, President Lyndon Johnson famously opined that if he had “lost” Cronkite, he’d lost the country.
That analogy is far from perfect. Eliot Cohen isn’t Walter Cronkite, and The Atlantic of 2023 isn’t CBS Evening News of 1968. Cronkite and CBS were also far from the left-wing propagandists currently running that network. But the point remains the same: When politicians lose their own advocates in the media, their futures become increasingly uncertain.
Imagine if Breitbart were to give 1,000 words to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough to call on Donald Trump to take a plea deal and drop out of the presidential race. You would be personally surprised, and you can imagine that the squad at Mar-a-Lago would sit up and take notice as well.
When they are talking about the possibility of replacing Biden at the editor’s desk at reliable left-leaning media outlets, you can bank on the fact that they are talking about it at cocktail parties in New York, Chicago and San Francisco. And if they are talking about it at power gatherings of the donor class, they are talking about it in the backrooms of the Democratic National Committee — not to mention the as-yet unofficial “Newsom for President” and “Booker 2024” headquarters.
Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina, is a contributor to NewsNation. He served as director of the Office of Management and Budget, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and acting White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump.