The Politics of Biden’s First Foreign Policy Crisis of the Year
Hello Hackaroos,
We hope your week is off to a better start than those waiting to see what happens on the Ukrainian border! We start with the politics of a foreign policy crisis and how it could help or hurt President Biden. Then we turn to our misgivings with the media obsession with voter “enthusiasm” making headlines from the latest NBC News Poll. Plus, we have our first mail bag edition of the year. Please keep your comments and questions coming and we’ll try to answer them on a more regular basis!
As always, be sure to share the newsletter with your friends: https://hacksontap.bulletin.com/subscribe!
And check out our Hacks Merch: https://themerchspot.com/collections/hacks-on-tap.
Let’s begin…
UKRAINE IN THE MEMBRANE
MURPHY: Well Gibbs, I'm hoping for a peaceful resolution of the crisis over the Ukraine. But as political hacks we have to look at the politics should the worst happen and the Russian Army cross the border to invade. President Biden, suffering from an image of weakness at home has slowly been ramping up the Big Squeeze on Russia. Every day brings another news story with fresh leaks about how the administration is cranking up the heat on Putin and Mother Russia (the latest is a nifty caper to cut off Russia’s supply of vital microchips.) I applaud the tough stance Biden is taking; as an old thumb screw jockey from the KGB there seems to be little else Putin understands beyond concrete threats. Politically for Biden, this could be a big win if Putin decides it just isn’t worth all the pain and backs down. If he invades, it’ll be covered as another foreign policy loss for Biden, at least in the short term. But if Putin finds himself in a Ukrainian quagmire and NATO becomes more united than ever… Biden could still claim a win in the medium to long term. Gibbsie, what do you think a foreign policy crisis will do for Biden politically, assuming it doesn't spiral into complete disaster?
GIBBS: Well, I think on the first day of most foreign policy classes they teach you that the best threats are ones that you never have to act on because the power of the threat deters the action. So, I think the political calculus of this is, does this tougher stance move Putin off of what he might have wanted to do in Ukraine? Or does Putin see being one-on-one with Joe Biden and the United States as an otherwise good thing for a leader whose greatest problems are not in in Ukraine or Kiev, but actually in Moscow? Putin wants to call the shots and extend Russia’s sphere of influence reminiscent of the bygone Cold War era. Undoubtedly, Biden’s latest moves around the possibility of activating troops is a change in posture. And I think that's the real challenge here for the President. The tendency is to believe that looking muscular is a good thing politically. I think it all depends on what comes out of this. Do we have an invasion and a and war in Europe or is some sort of agreement reached that allows the United States to deter Putin’s aggression toward the former Soviet republic?
MURPHY: Yeah, I think the risk of real fighting is pretty slim. I think the administration's been pursuing a classic deterrence strategy of increasingly raising the pain price to Putin of a military invasion of the Ukraine. Normally, as we both know, foreign affairs isn't that big of a deal on the political scene, but this is the sort of high stakes and dramatic crisis that could take over the political debate and potentially be a badly needed win for Joe Biden.
GIBBS: Yeah, exactly. How many people who are worried about the economy, inflation, COVID, etc. are overly concerned about or thinking about Ukraine? Activating troops and the idea of the news being filled with who lost Ukraine means the stakes are higher here.
MURPHY: Good point. Inflation and other domestic issues are Biden’s biggest headache. But, as a President suffering from a perception of weakness, a strong public win against the classic big bear never hurt anybody in politics.
GIBBS: Yeah, I think that the first two of the three you mentioned there are the bulk of people's concerns. But, if Putin decides to test Biden, the showdown will loom large.
OUR LACK OF ENTHUSIASM FOR THE "ENTHUSIASM GAP"
GIBBS: Speaking of concerns, Murphy, we’ve been having a robust debate about the term “enthusiasm gap” and what it does or doesn’t mean? For me, at least, I have enthusiasm gap flashbacks to 2010 and 2014 in understanding what that meant in the end. I don't think you need a poll to understand that Democrats are very demoralized right now. And I think there's a whole host of reasons for that, not all of which are going to be solved in 2022. But still, the overall NBC News poll included bad numbers for Biden on the direction of the country and pretty high numbers for Biden disapproval, making it feel like another canary in the coal mine for me.
MURPHY: You are correct my dear Gibbs. There is no doubt Democrats have plenty of reason to be depressed after a year of hapless tactical politics featuring a circular Democratic firing squad. Biden should have triangulated against his looney left, but we’ve discussed that before.
Now the enthusiasm gap is a minor obsession for me because I think it's mostly media B.S. A typical catchy phrase that sounds important but is misleading. The whole concept feeds the recent fashion in both parties to treat base voters like swing voters. Phooey! Making the base happy is seldom the way to win a big election in a competitive place. The idea that a vote cast by a happy base voter (who always votes D or R) is better than the same vote an irritated base voter who is unhappy because their party candidate has walked a bit away from true Party Gospel to appeal to finicky swing voters is ridiculous. A happy vote is not better than a grumpy vote. The cost of getting enough swing voters to win is putting base voters under some pressure. I don’t care how “enthusiastic” base voters are; they ain’t going to be voting for the other party. Now what about turnout?!? CW would reply. Well, the fact is turnout is rather predictable. Off years are lower, Presidential years higher. I doubt very much if we’ll see a Democratic turnout collapse this year. We’ll see normal Dem turnout, which is bad news since it’ll be lower among young voters and minority voters than it is in Presidential years… enthusiastic or not.
GIBBS: Murphy, I feel like the patient that went into the doctor feeling like they had a debilitating or terminal disease and you’re telling me, “No, you don't have that disease, but the bad news is you have something different and it's still likely terminal.” I was hoping you would assuage my fears and make me feel better. And, I have come to the simple conclusion that you, Dr. Murphy, have not!
MAILBAG
Finally, we're going start bringing the mailbag back from time to time here so keep sending in your questions and comments!
Brian Brogan: What Republican would be best to draft as an independent presidential candidate for 2024 to draw votes from Trump and save us all
MURPHY: Eric Trump. He hates his dad and will split the vote. If you can't get Eric Trump, and could do a hypnotism spell and make somebody run, I’d say Rep. Dan Crenshaw – a war hero Congressman from Texas who's been cynically slumming in Trump land, but knows better.
GIBBS: Alright, in the spirit of picking someone who might actually run against Trump, I'll say Larry Hogan or someone like him. The unfortunate reality is this path is very unlikely to result in the type of vote swing you are hoping for Brian.
Janet Leder: Murphy, I heard you today talking about subscribing to local newspapers to get in the know about what’s going on in the nation. You mentioned subscribing to the Chicago Tribune, which is a ridiculous shadow of its former self now mostly carrying reprints from the AP or NYTimes. Better to subscribe to the Chicago Sun-Times which is truly focused on local reporting of local events. The trib was so cowardly that they endorsed Johnson cause they couldn’t bring themselves to endorse Clinton in 2016. Shameful!
MURPHY: That idea was actually from Brother Gibbs. I only recommend the Daily Racing Form because Janet, in politics the numbers never lie. In all seriousness (sort of) pick your poison and pick it locally. And when in doubt, I’d say the New York Post and Daily News.
GIBBS: I subscribe to probably too many local newspapers if that’s possible. But I believe if you really are really interested in the politics of a place, despite lots of talented national political reporters, most local politics and elections are not covered all that well by people sitting in Washington instead of on the ground in a state. Again, my pick for the year was the Atlanta Journal-Constitution because I am obsessed with Georgia in 2022. As a bonus, I will probably get some good coverage of my World Champion Atlanta Braves if we can get this lockout dealt with and get on with playing baseball.
Jim Bickhart: Gentlemen, unless I'm missing something, passing amendments to the Electoral Count Act without doing something to block the election rigging the GOP is setting up in the states is a suicide pact. If the Dems do it separate from the rest of the voting rights package, they're bigger suckers than they're normally taken for.
GIBBS: You're absolutely correct in the idea that the legislation Democrats considered and couldn't pass won't be solved by the Electoral College reform legislation contemplated now on Capitol Hill. What will be solved is what we saw happen in January of 2021. Trust me, I would love to see broader election reform enacted, but I simply don’t see the pathway for it happening this year. We're five weeks from the first primaries and unless something enormous that I'm unaware of happens inside either the White House Counsel's Office through Executive Order, the Department of Justice, or in an important federal court, the way Republicans have decided in certain state the rules are going to govern this upcoming election. And if we want to fix that, we're simply going to have to elect more Democrats. I know the base hates when that's the answer. But the answer to fixing the Supreme Court is electing more Democrats. The answer to fixing election reform is electing more Democrats.
MURPHY: Sorry Jim, you've got it all wrong. As Gibbs explained these are two different issues. It's like debating how do we fight crime in Kentucky? Well, there can be a big argument about how to do that. But first, shouldn't we all agree on replacing the small, rusty padlock on door to Fort Knox? That rusty padlock is the Electoral Count Act of 1887. (Yes 1887; think whale oil and horse powered transit). The current process by which we count the electoral vote is hopelessly antiquated (again, 1887!) and filled with vague loopholes and ambiguities that in the modern era are very dangerous. So yes, let's try to find a compromise on the wider and important issue of voting rights. But in the short term, it is vital for democracy that we move fast in a bipartisan way and update the rules governing how the electoral college is counted. Senators from both parties are working on this which is good news. It must happen.
Brian Roberts: I'd like to hear you respond to this basic premise.
GIBBS: It’s an interesting piece. I wholeheartedly agree with one premise that I stated above. If Democrats want to enact more of their legislative agenda, then they need more Democrats. It’s pretty plain and simple. When I first read the headline, I thought it was talking about the overall ideological breakdown of Congress. What is undeniable is that more and more members of Congress represent the outer edges of their party’s political spectrum. Over the past two decades, the number of seats in Congress that are representative of the closeness of the outcome of what you see in a national election has dwindled markedly (I still read this piece from time to time and it’s now almost a decade old ). What that’s led to is a lack of compromise and usually results in not much getting done without full control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government. And this cycle it’s not likely to get any better as redistricting usually shores up incumbents.
MURPHY: The system has evolved to the point where the incentives are all based on appeasing the activists who vote in primaries. Politicians hate tough general elections so they've redistricted themselves to have seats they can't lose in November, only to find out that now they're hostage to their primary voters, who tend to be ideological cranks all to often. So, how do you put the doughnut hole back in the doughnut? Redistricting Reform (check out the Iowa system), open primaries, and first pass the post voting systems where more voters participate and the massive power of primary voters and low turnout primaries is weakened.
GIBBS: I also now can’t get donuts off of my mind. This last question has made me hungry!
MURPHY: Agreed! Let’s eat.
Thanks again for sending in the comments and questions and looking forward to answering more soon!
See you on Friday!
Murphy and Gibbs