Skip to main content

A thought on the presidential election of 2024

 


During the now-infamous debate between the former President and the incumbent President, the debate that forced the incumbent, Joseph Biden, out of the campaign altogether, there was a moment that looks a lot different now than it did at the time.

There was a moment when Donald Trump was going on about the wonders that would be worked for America by his, Trump's, great relationship with Putin. He said, for example, that by a simple phone call he, Trump, would get the Wall Street Journal reporter, then being held in prison by the Russians, released.

In fact, Trump even spoke some kind words about that reporter, Evan Gershkovich.  I don't remember the words -- and I'm too lazy to look them up-- but they were an exception to the general rule of calling reporters "enemies of the people".  As is his wont. Except, apparently, when praise is convenient.

Anyway ... it would only take one phone call.... 

At the time, Biden simply kept his head down and stayed silent. There was no effective response to this braggadocio. It was easy to take this as a demonstration of the degree to which Biden had checked out, mentally, and could not come up with any reply. 

Now, though, that moment seems different. Biden knew that a deal to release was in the works, and was in fact at this point very far along, he also must have known that by saying so he could throw a wrench into it. He stayed silent not because he is a doddering old man, but because he cared more about the successful resolution for Gershkovich and the other hostages involved than he did about making a good showing at the debate. 

In the following days, Biden seems to have continued work on this subject even as his campaign for president fell apart, at a time when most people's concentration would surely be rattled. 

Yet, Biden (as they say in Paris these days) stuck the landing. 

Good for him.    

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more