Reaction to the first 2024 debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump focused on Biden’s performance. Ajamu Baraka, Black Agenda Report editor and columnist, analyzes the politics behind that debate and the role that Democratic Party machinations played in the event and in the electoral process.
Margaret Kimberley: This is Margaret Kimberley, Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report and I'm speaking with Ajamu Baraka, Black Agenda Report editor and columnist, about the June 27th debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Welcome, Ajamu. And thank you.
Ajamu Baraka: Thank you for having me.
MK: You know, this debate was very unusual. Debates take place after the conventions. There's a Presidential Debate Commission. The commission was bypassed and the campaigns agreed to hold a debate in June. Before we get to the fallout and the reaction to the debate, why do you think it happened under those circumstances?
AB: Well you know, Margaret, that's a very good question. I was of the opinion that this was a set-up. And I know that may sound conspiratorial. But I know that there had been whispering and even some conversations among Democrats regarding where Biden really would be in 2024 in terms of his position as the nominee of that party. I thought that there were quiet conversations that would allow him to basically step aside and to make a smooth transition. It did mean that there was going to be open primaries. The Democrats are, of course, anti democratic. And they wanted to make sure that whatever process was put in place after the primaries to move him off the ticket, that the party elites completely controlled that.
So I thought that was something that was in play, and that to just sort of sweeten the deal, if you will, or to hammer the deal home, they set up this early so-called debate in June, with the real possibility that the performance we saw was in fact, the performance that they had anticipated. Now, even if that was the case, it's such an undignified and crude way to deal with your party nominee, especially after you used that individual as the main weapon to undermine the popular constituency in your party during the campaign, by Bernie Sanders, to win the nomination, that the party bosses conspired. They grouped around Biden and they made sure that Bernie Sanders became basically a footnote. But now they have moved in a very similar kind of way. So that's what I think, Margaret, I think that basically, this was a power move made by the party bosses. Everyone knew that Biden wasn't really up to the task. And so this performance was basically the performance they needed to have in order to orchestrate what appeared to be a campaign to move him off the ticket.
MK: Well, you know, the response was immediate. The New York Times editorial board said immediately that he should step aside. Cable news networks, who the week before, were saying we shouldn't believe our eyes when we saw these videos of Biden behaving strangely, that we shouldn't believe them because they were being manipulated. Suddenly they said Biden had to go. They all turned on a dime, colluding together, as it were, but do they have a plan for going forward? Biden stepping down or Kamala Harris stepping up, or he quits before November. Do you think they've thought this through?
AB: They thought this through about as well as they thought through their support for the Ukrainian proxy war, or the consistent, almost irrational positions that the Biden administration and the Democrats took on the issue of Gaza. They didn't think it through when they decided that they were going to encourage a violent, repressive response from the authorities against their sons and daughters on these college campuses across the country. These individuals are not very bright, in fact, this crop of leadership, not only in the U.S., but throughout the western world, is probably the worst crop of leaders ever in the history of the West perhaps. And it may sound exaggerated, but it's definitely not something that is beyond the pale. I really believe that.
So no, it wasn't thought through. And you can see the fumbling taking place now, with the conversations around how this change in the nominee would be executed. You know, many people started saying that he had to go of course. But then all of a sudden, his VP was also included in having to go. And there was then some pushback, they said, this is not the wise, especially on the heels of AIPAC and the abandonment of the Democratic Party to Jamaal Bowman, that this is another example of the kind of disregard and disrespect that their party has, for its main constituency, its most loyal constituency, which is the Black vote. So they've been sort of hesitating on that. But it doesn't seem like they have a plan, the plan basically, is to persuade him to step down. If he doesn't, there is going to be a messy open convention, where he will end up probably losing the delegates that he has now pledged to him. So there is no plan at all. But what the result of this non plan is that the Democrats look awfully weak, and it was guaranteed really before the debate that Trump was going to win. Because the main elements of the capitalist class have basically decided that they were going to go with Trump. That's why the funding has shifted already. So no, it's almost guaranteed that this fumbling around is going to assure that Trump will be in fact, the next President of the United States of America.
MK: And you mentioned Kamala Harris and the bad optics of they made a big deal, Biden said he would choose a woman of color as his running mate and so he did. How does it look for her to be dumped along with him? But Kamala Harris presents her own problems, doesn't she? I mean, she's younger and healthier than Biden, but doesn't seem to be any smarter. She was one who often fumbles in her public appearances, can't talk off the cuff. And plus, she's not very popular. People remember her as a prosecutor bragging about putting people in jail. So she's a problem aside from this fact. She's problematic also, isn't she?
AB: She really is. But actually, the polls seem to be suggesting that she in fact would do better in a head to head with Trump than Biden. And it is a marvel, it is a very interesting phenomenon, Margaret, that when you have a whole bunch of money, and if you have institutional support, and the support of the ideological apparatus that we refer to as the national media, along with big tech out of Silicon Valley, you can basically put lipstick on the pig and and call it a Madonna. That can happen. They can transform Kamala and actually make her a viable candidate. Would they? Are they really going to do that? No. Because ultimately, in my opinion, the people who are running the Democratic Party, are white supremacist, and their position when it comes to Black folks, is for Black folks to keep their mouths shut and vote. And it means that there's not going to be much regard for Kamala Harris as the party nominee. So yes, she has some baggage, but that bags can be repaired if there was real institutional support for her. Unfortunately for her, there isn't.
MK: Well, she wouldn't be the first president, the first lackluster and not very bright person who was gussied up for the presidency. So there is historic precedent for these people to get behind someone when they want them. So I see your point. But let's talk about Black people and this election and the debate. I personally came in on the debate as Trump was talking about “Black jobs,” talking about immigrants taking jobs from Black people was what he meant. But we see the unreconstructed racist Trump saying that in a way that was guaranteed to generate antipathy from Black people. So once again, we see this refrain of the trap of the duopoly of Black people feeling trapped. And believing they have to back the Democrats, the “Black people's party.” So not only was this entire performance sad and tawdry, but we see a response that is predictable, but one that ultimately is unhelpful to us.
AB: Exactly, and Trump in his crudeness though, what he was referring to, and most people understood it, was those low level low skilled jobs that Black people have traditionally occupied. And those are some of the jobs, of course, that are in direct competition with migrant workers. That's all part of the plan as a matter of fact. And so that's what he referred to. And of course, people got upset about that, because everybody wants to project the notion of Black progress, and such. But there’s an objective reality where Black folks still occupy these kinds of positions in the labor market. That's not just mythology. That's the fact. But, you know, the white supremacists in the Democratic Party, they are like the white supremacist in the Republican Party, and that they did deal with the issue of power. And if there is a no pushback from the organized Black masses, against these kinds of perceptions, against the undignified treatment, that the parties meted out to them, including primarily the Democratic Party, then they will continue to be the subject of this kind of dishonor, this kind of disrespectful treatment. So this is part of what is in play here.
So, you know, Kamala Harris and Democrats and Hakeem the white folks dream Jeffries, you know, these individuals are there to serve white power. And so, you know, many of us are very reluctant to even frame this as a competition between the white people's party who are the racists and the black People's Party. We know that that's the common perception. But we understand that basically, that the duopoly structure is a dual structure of white capitalist power.
MK: And how do we move Black people away from thinking that our only choices are in the electoral arena, and our only choice is the Democratic Party. Trump and Biden will not be the only two people on the ballot in most states across the country. How do we move folks into thinking there are other possibilities?
AB: Well, it is a difficult challenge Margaret. We will stick with the electoral process for a minute. And we acknowledge that the kind of fundamental change that needs to take place in this country isn't just going to come about as a consequence of participating in the electoral process. But there are spaces that can be exploited in this process, there are opportunities to engage the people in terms of stripping away the mystification regarding policy that is anti-people, that undermines the interests of the working class, that we don't have a chance to strip away because those third party challengers are not allowed to participate, that the analysis that they present is marginalized or completely erased.
So therefore, the choices seem to be only a binary choice between the Republicans and the Democrats. And so part of the challenge is, in fact, you know, trying to penetrate that grip that the monopoly has on communications, on information. But it's a monumental task, Margaret, because the fascistic developments are moving at such a rapid pace. It's becoming more and more difficult to present alternative information and analysis to mass numbers of people. And when you do that, you run the risk of being labeled as spreading disinformation or misinformation, being kicked off of various platforms, being de-platformed, in terms of the colleges and universities, and the driving forces of this narrowing of acceptable discourse and information is, in fact, the neo-liberal Democrats, this is the driving force of a U.S. neo-fascism. So it's a very difficult task, but it's one we have to take up if we're going to survive this next phase of consolidating fascism.
That's why we don't play into this, this popular notion that the republic is somehow under threat if a Donald Trump wins the presidency, we have to take the objective position that it doesn't matter who sits in the white people's house for us, that basically we have to fight. There's a trajectory of movement continuing to the right, that's going to continue because that appears to be the reform that the capitalist class has decided to embrace that is a fascistic reform. People have to understand that it's not about, you know, behaviorism. This is about a particular configuration of class forces. Right now, the driving class force is coming from the neo-liberal, internationalists utilizing the state and the duopoly to impose a totalitarian reality on the people of the United States of America and really, throughout the western world. So this is the task that we have, this monumental one, because, you know, these folks are serious about maintaining that power, and serious about doing whatever is necessary to in fact, maintain that power while we are still being diverted, with all of this nonsense with Trumpism while they are consolidating their grip, on the consciousness of the people of this country.
MK: And before we close, is there anything you wanted to bring up that I didn't ask?
AB: Well, only that basically the debate of course, was a debacle for the Democrats. It played into part of a plan I think they had. But what they didn't anticipate is that the debate exposed the limitations of their intellectual abilities, of their honesty. Everyone knew, it was an open secret that this individual was not up to the task. But they utilized him, they used them to advance their particular interests. And now as a consequence of that, now they're trying to dump him. Now we've seen all of the fissures within the Democratic Party, and it is a spectacle that, no matter what happens, Margaret, they're not going to survive this in the same way. And so I think for those of us who really believe in the possibility of democracy, even though it’s not gonna be good, it's going to be very messy, and we're going to be going through this fascistic phase. All of this is really a good thing. But in order for us to take advantage of it, we've got to get better organized. We've got to be able to confront our detractors with honesty, clear analysis, and boldness. We can't hesitate on this one. It doesn't matter who gets mad at us. Our responsibility is to call it the way we see it.
MK: Thank you so much Ajamu.
AB: My pleasure. Thank you.
Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents. She is also a contributor to the anthology, In Defense of Julian Assange. You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on the Twitter, Bluesky, and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at [email protected].
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report. Baraka serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Peace Council and leadership body of the U.S.-based United National Anti-War Coalition (UNAC) and the Steering Committee of the Black is Back Coalition.
In this week’s segment, we discuss the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe in World War II, and the disinformation that centers on the U.S.'s role and dismisses the pivotal Soviet role in that…
Roger McKenzie is the international editor of the UK-based Morning Star, the only English-language socialist daily newspaper in the world. He joins us from Oxford to discuss his new book, “The…
The late Bruce Dixon was a co-founder and managing editor of Black Agenda Report. In 2018, he provided this commentary entitled, "US Fake History of World War II Underlies Permanent Bipartisan…
Nadiah Alyafai is a member of the US Palestinian Community Network chapter in Chicago and she joins us to discuss why the public must be aware of the Nakba and the continuity of Palestinian…
Black people who are among the rich and famous garner praise and love, and so do those who are in distress. But concerns for the masses of people and their struggles are often missing.
