Buried somewhere in my almost 10,000 Medium responses is an argument with several Medium contributors in 2019. I was suggesting that the Democratic Party find someone other than Joe Biden as their presidential candidate for the 2020 election.
My reason was Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board of directors of the Ukrainian energy firm “Burisma” — for $50,000 a month. Most people would understand that this appointment was made only because Hunter was the vice-president’s son. What favors were exchanged we did not know.
Now let’s add the famous “Hunter Biden Laptop.” Lots of good political intrigue; mysteriously appearing and disappearing and staying hidden. It was great fodder for right-wing conspiracy theorists who don’t see the importance of finding and presenting hard evidence. Just keep the story alive!
My fellow dialoguers were taking the role of apologist for the Democratic Party. They had a long list of ready apologies for Joe Biden:
1. There was no evidence that Mr. Biden influenced Burisma’s decision to hire Hunter Biden.
2. There was no evidence of an actual quid-pro-quo deal.
3. There was no evidence that the appointment somehow endeared the Ukrainian government to the Obama Administration.
4. There was no direct harm to the USA with this side business deal between friends.
5. The USA taxpayer was not paying for this cushy job.
6. The appointment was small in comparison to what the other side had given to their families.
7. We voters should choose this level of corruption over the higher level of corruption from the other side.
8. Another four years of a Trump presidency would be a disaster, so we should overlook this small transgression.
9. There is always some corruption in politics.
What these apologists — and many other Medium political writers — fail to understand is that many citizens do not compare the lesser the two evils when casting their vote. In my five years on Medium, there has been little acknowledgement of the role of hard and soft political support in elections.
Hard support for a political party is very determined to cast a vote. These voters would walk through a blizzard or miss their mother’s funeral to make sure their X got counted.
Soft support for a political party are not so committed. They need to be convinced by the party ground teams to vote.
As well, the soft support can be swayed by negative advertising from the other side. This marketing convinces them that their preference is not that great of a politician. With these negative inklings wandering in their minds, the soft support find it easy to say: “I had a hard day at work” or “The weather is not nice today” or “My son has a basketball game” or “My mother is sick.”
Please understand that the soft support people do not vote for the other side; they often decide their preference is not worth the effort and inconvenience to mark their X.
So I recommended that the Democratic Party dump Joe Biden before he became the candidate in 2020. The Hunter Biden story was going to erode the soft D support. Why risk that? Especially in a coin-flip election? Find someone else that does not have such a known political baggage in hand.
I predicted that Hunter was going to be a campaign issue — and cost Joe 250,000 votes. Not that these citizens were ever going to change their vote from D to R; 250,000 soft D voters were just not going to vote. Which is almost as good as voting for the R’s.
But a 250,000 vote in a country of 215,000,000 voters sounds like a drop in the bucket. But in a coin-flip election, it is a big deal — this 0.1% of the total vote. Trump, the Republican Party, and Foxx News tried their best to make Hunter a campaign issue to find that 0.1%. They understood soft support. But their rhetoric never found the places where the soft D support could be manipulated.
So I was wrong about the election issue and the 250,000 lost votes. But I still say that Hunter was still too much of a political risk to accept Mr. Biden as the candidate in 2020. The Democratic lineup had other interesting and fresh faces in 2020.
Fast Forward to 2023
I always considered the Hunter Biden laptop as a moot point. I doubted it would ever bring on any kind of criminal investigation by itself, for white collar crime usually requires a few rabbit trails leading to the same conclusion. If the anti-Biden forces could not find these rabbit trails, then the laptop was somewhere between a hoax and an overblown molehill.
Today it seems these rabbit trails are popping up. There are calls for more investigation. What we have recently learned is:
1) Hunter Biden was more unqualified for the Burisma job than we originally believed. We can only wonder more about why he was appointed. Did he even attend the meetings?
2) The mainstream media (CNN, MSNBC, PBS, et al) seemed to have colluded to keep the laptop story off the news feed. While they could justify the laptop was not yet a real story, keeping the lid on ensured the soft-D support did not get tainted and discouraged from voting in 2020. The people in these media backrooms sure understood soft support for the Democratic Party — and sacrificed sensationalism for the greater good. Now it seems the mass media was working against the Republicans, which probably has turned some soft R support into hard R support. And some hard R support into radical R support!
3) We have evidence of political interference with the IRS. More like this is likely to come.
4) November 2024 is 15 months away to expose more rabbit trails.
5) Maybe 1,000,000 soft D voters can’t find their way to the polls this time? Again, not much in a country with 230,000,000 voters; but enough to create a different result in a coin-flip election. Remember, these voters may be quite happy Mr. Trump is sitting behind bars, but they still won’t come to vote for Mr. Biden.
6) The anti-Biden forces have more ammunition to make a legitimate election go their way. Just keep hammering the Hunter message to the soft D support. It’s good political strategy! Hammer! Hammer! Hammer! 1,000,000 fewer votes for the D’s. Flip that coin!
While Democratic apologists will pounce on this article and cavil that voters must use the “choosing the lesser of two evils” approach to casting a wise vote, the reality is that this controversy will cause enough soft D voters to stay away from the polls. Handing the election to the other side is a much stronger possibility than it was a month ago.
Yep, the Democratic Party should have dropped Mr. Biden in 2020. I hope I’m not vindicated, but . . . .
Expect another article from me about the true date of the fall of American Democracy. While many forces have come together to create this condition, Hunter Biden might be regarded as the hinge point.
Tiered Democratic Governance
My few loyal readers know I often dovetail my articles into my alternative democracy: Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG). Without this ulterior motive, I have not much purpose to be on Medium. Here is the warning of my abrupt change of tone in this article.
I believe that generally good people do find their way into politics. But putting good people into a system that requires some corruption to get elected is not exactly a wholesome recipe. That recipe means you, I, and everyone else reading this article would be subject to this meal. If the cooks don’t follow the recipe, they don’t get to cook. As much as it feels good that we could be better cooks than our current public officials, WE on the outside are not holier than THEY on the inside — because we could not be elected with a different recipe. And we already know this!
From what I can gather from public persona of Mr. Biden, he seems like a man dedicated to public service. He has the intellect, open-mindedness, quick thinking skills, and the out-going nature for this field. He probably would rise high in the TDG.
Let’s imagine a mature TDG. Mr. Biden has found his way into the top tier. He is very influential in society decisions. He has respect throughout the tiers.
Let’s then imagine he uses his high position to find his incompetent son a cushy job. It becomes public knowledge. How does the TDG handle that?
Mr. Biden could not hide behind any party banner and loyal supporters to protect him. He could not keep his job just because he is the lesser of two evils. He cannot rely on whatever popular appeal he has with the public — or big parts of the public.
The people who vote for the higher tier would recognize the integrity of the TDG is at stake if it keeps Mr. Biden in the top tier. They would vote for someone else. That someone else will probably be just as competent as Mr. Biden.
Because TDG elections are annual, Mr. Biden would be out of the top tier within a year. There would be no need for sensational news stories or public pressure or big investigations or impeachment trials to remove him from the top tier. He was there. Now he is gone. Someone else has his spot.
Citizens in this TDG would not see this ouster as sinister. Some would understand why Mr. Biden needed to go. Some would trust the TDG process has made a difficult, but rightful, decision. Many would not care. For the few who believe Mr. Biden was removed by political intrigue, whatever political force they can muster is likely to dissipate — as the TDG maintains its integrity of good governance.
And he would recognize the different culture of the TDG. He would know giving his son a cushy job is going to cost him his TDG job. Mr. Biden just would not make such a move.
Is not this TDG way a better way to govern than our current way?
Published on Medium 2023
Public Opinion Must be Rightly Focused
