Biden Gets Tougher

Will Joe Biden's more aggressive stances on key issues move the needle ahead of November’s election?

U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks on an executive order limiting asylum in the East Room of the White House. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images.

Americans love a strong leader. Donald Trump scores high with many voters precisely because he acts like a despotic strongman, seemingly unrestrained by rules, laws, international agreements, or even social conventions. By contrast, Joe Biden is a competent and cool executive, leading an administration that adheres to established norms, operates by consultation, and follows the data-driven advice of experts.

Competent government may seem sound and reassuring to many. Heck, it may even explain the objectively good economic numbers and historic legislative achievements under Biden, even with a divided Congress. 

But it just doesn’t make him seem all that tough. 

With his age a top issue among voters, whether a fair critique or not, Biden has struggled to not read as weak to the electorate. The constant yet false drumbeat from right-wing media—that Biden is feeble, unfocused, and taking all his direction from others—creates a formidable challenge to his public image. This unflattering portrayal continues even as the media ignores Trump’s obvious mental decline, his rambling speeches, and daily unhinged rants. Those aren’t new, so they aren’t newsworthy.

Lately, however, Biden has noticeably shifted, both in his rhetoric and his policies, and has taken some tough if controversial positions. From our border policy, to foreign relations, to his dealings with the press, Biden has adopted a more muscular, aggressive stance. Even his image on the cover of Time magazine, which has him leaning forward over his Oval Office desk and engaging the viewer directly, conveys confidence and toughness.

But will Americans buy it? And will progressives, many of whom are already disillusioned with his position on Israel and Gaza, cry foul, especially over the newly announced immigration restrictions? In short, can Biden win over moderate swing voters while not losing the left?

In today’s piece, I explore this question, looking specifically at three areas where Biden has flexed of late: on migrants and the border, on facing down our enemies and even some of our allies, and on dealing with a press that can’t seem to ever cut him a break. 

Biden’s new border policy

Immigration and the border rank among the top concerns of voters, in no small part due to the brutal effectiveness of right-wing media. To much of America, our borders are “open” and we are being “invaded” by an unsustainable number of migrants. The fact, however, is that border crossings have fallen dramatically—down 54 percent from their highs—in the last six months, according to internal records of the Border Patrol, in part due to diplomatic efforts to manage migration within Mexico.

We are all familiar with the political games that Republicans and Trump have played with the border: first insisting that border security be included in any aid package to Ukraine and Israel, then torpedoing their own hard-fought bill once Trump insisted the border remain a political issue for the campaign.

Nor is the “migrant crime wave” that is emphasized repeatedly by Fox and other right-wing networks a real thing. The data in fact shows violent crime and homicides down sharply in nearly all major cities where migrants have relocated.

But facts don’t always move public perception. And that may explain why the Biden Administration has decided to tack to the right, with a message that if Republicans won’t help fix the border, the White House will act on its own.

There are many, many problems with Biden’s new executive order, not the least of which is that it appears on its face illegal. On top of granting the President questionable emergency powers to shut down the border to new migrants if the number of unauthorized crossings exceeds an average of 2,500 on any given day (as it already does, at around 3,700 average per day currently), it also authorizes immediate deportation to anyone who attempts a crossing outside of a designated port of entry. 

That last part flies in the face of established asylum law. In fact, a court struck down a similar move by Donald Trump, citing existing law and protections that state, for example,

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status may apply for asylum…

The ACLU has declared it will sue to invalidate the Executive Order, saying a ban on asylum is illegal no matter which president orders it. And it stands a good chance of prevailing. So what’s going on at the White House that it has pushed forward with such an order?

There’s the cynical answer, which is that Biden needs to outmaneuver Trump on the question of the border. The first debate is coming up, and the moderator almost certainly will pose a question about what the candidates would do about the border “crisis.” 

Predictably, Trump likely will say that it’s a disaster, that we are being “overrun,” and perhaps even repeat or double down on his claim that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of our nation. He will argue that it has fallen to states like Texas and Arizona to do something about the illegal crossings, that the White House response has been a disgrace, and that soon we won’t have a country anymore.

That’s all hyperbole and fear-mongering, but he knows it works.

Armed with his new Executive Order, Biden now has a response to all that. He will say that he tried to work with Republicans on border security, but it was Trump who insisted that the most comprehensive, toughest agreement ever reached by the parties could not become law, all so he could say the things he just said to score political points. But because Republicans wouldn’t work with him, he had to do something on his own, so he ordered migrations halted and put in place rules that Trump himself once ordered. But Biden’s plan comes with humanitarian-related exceptions, including for unaccompanied minors, victims of trafficking, or those who are in a medical emergency or face imminent risk of death or great bodily harm due to rape, torture, kidnapping, or murder if sent home.

There’s also the practical answer, which is that in the absence of any funding from Congress to unclog our asylum courts and reduce wait times, people know they can come here and, if they make it across, stay for years while their case is pending. That actually is not sustainable over time, and at some point something has to be done, if not by Congress, then by the White House.

Whatever the reason, it won’t be factually correct any longer to say that Democrats and the White House are doing nothing about the border. On the contrary, they are the only ones who are actually proposing and attempting any real solutions. Whether that message breaks through to the U.S. public, given the prevalence of misinformation coming from the right, remains unclear.

Targeting inside Russia and calling Bibi’s bluff

Two important shifts, with potentially major consequences to international peace and security, occurred at the highest levels of U.S. policymaking recently. One concerns U.S. policy toward Ukraine when it comes to use of weaponry, and the other concerns the newest ceasefire proposal for Israel and Gaza, now backed by several nations including the United States. Both carry enormous geopolitical and domestic political risks for the White House, which underscores how important the shifts truly are.

With respect to the war between Russia and Ukraine, it has long been U.S. policy not to permit weapons provided to the Ukranians to be used to strike targets inside of Russia. Such permission, the thinking went, risked escalation of the war and possible retaliation by Russia against targets inside NATO territory, such as supply lines and training facilities.

But after persistent lobbying by Ukrainian officials and an acknowledgment that the policy was hamstringing Ukraine’s defenses because it permitted Russia to amass offensive capabilities just across the border, recently the U.S. has eased the restriction. The White House greenlit Ukraine to use U.S.-provided weapons to strike targets inside of Russia, but only in the area around the northeastern city of Kharkiv near the Russian border, ensuring that Ukrainian forces can hit the Russian military as it attacks or prepares to attack. 

That’s an area where Russia launched a massive corridor attack three weeks ago. Ukrainian forces literally could see Russia amassing forces across the border, but it could not hit them with short-range weaponry, to the strong frustration of Ukrainian commanders. It was this circumstance that led to a change in the rule allowing limited use of U.S. firepower to hit Russian forces just across the border.

The U.S. had been the lone holdout among NATO to permit this use of weaponry, despite pleas by NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg that permission be granted. In May, France pushed hard for permission, and once the U.S. relented, Germany confirmed that it would match the stance and permit the use of its weapons to strike inside of Russia as well on this limited basis. For its part, Kyiv welcomed the news, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pressed for more: He wants permission to use U.S. long-range weapons to strike deep into Russian territory.

The danger, of course, is that Russia will view this as a major escalation and that it will retaliate. Dire warnings have come from the Kremlin. As NBC reported, last week, Putin warned that NATO risked “global conflict” with this move; Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned of miscalculations with “fatal” consequences; and Russian officials issued warnings and threats of nuclear retaliation. Those went unheeded, and on Tuesday, the first use of U.S. weapons within the new permitted strike zone inside Russia apparently occurred, with Ukraine reportedly destroying a Russian S-300 missile system on Russian territory.

The more aggressive U.S. foreign policy stance isn’t limited to the Russian-Ukraine war. On the Israel-Gaza conflict, the White House has ratcheted up its pressure upon the Netanyahu government by publicly backing a new peace proposal. 

The machinations behind the proposal are a bit murky: The White House claims that the proposal came from Israel itself, but Prime Minister Netanyahu and other far-right leaders in his cabinet have been publicly less supportive, some even expressing outright opposition.

Indeed, two far-right members of the Israeli cabinet, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, rejected the proposal outright and threatened to bring down the government if it is implemented. But Biden has basically ignored these threats by continuing to press the parties for acceptance of the three-point plan, which would begin with a six-week ceasefire. On Saturday, Netanyahu threw a wet blanket on the proposal, calling any proposal for a permanent ceasefire a “non-starter.”

This has set up a looming showdown between Biden and Netanyahu. The Biden-backed peace proposal could topple Netanyahu from power and expose him to further criminal prosecution. In a perverse sense, then, any lasting peace would likely bring about the fall of Netanyahu, so he is logically incentivized to prolong the war so he may remain in power. This also means that Biden’s more aggressive insistence on peace necessarily adds domestic political pressures—opening Biden up to charges that he is interfering in Israeli politics.

Indeed, when asked directly whether Netanyahu is seeking to continue the war just so he may remain in power, Biden responded that there was “every reason for people to draw that conclusion.”

Strong stuff.

It is equally fair to say that by refusing to adopt a peace proposal his own government has championed, out of fear of losing his own position and going to jail, Netanyahu is similarly interfering with U.S. domestic politics. After all, Biden currently remains caught between deep criticisms of unconditional U.S. support for Israel by the left, which exploded in the form of pro-Palestinian campus protests this spring, and stalwart support for Israel within the Democratic Party. To walk this tightrope, Biden has moved to corner Netanyahu politically and lay the blame for the continued war at his feet, just as hundreds of thousands of Israelis protesting Netanyahu’s prosecution of the war have.

There is a striking comparison I must draw here between strongmen who benefit from continued crises. Earlier, I discussed how Trump torpedoed his own party’s plan to address the border. He even admitted that he needed the border to remain a campaign issue so he might hammer Biden with it. Similarly, Netanyahu must continue the war in Gaza, and reject his own government’s peace plan, to serve his own political power and survival.

Biden faces tall odds ahead. He seeks to shift perceptions within the Democratic base from “genocide Joe” to “peacemaker President” in time for the election. But will his strong public rebukes of Netanyahu and his administration’s dogged pursuit of peace—even as Israel continues to use U.S. weaponry to inflict massive civilian casualties within Gaza—win him any praise? That is unlikely. At best, he can hope that a permanent ceasefire will stanch the horrific bloodshed and that the political question will recede from the headlines by November.

Sorry, Gray Lady. You don’t get the interview.

President Biden has faced an intractable domestic opponent as well: the mainstream media. Chief among his foes has been the paper of record itself, the New York Times. 

Few can ignore the obvious bias against Biden in the Times’s headlines, whether they are highlighting his age or downplaying his economic and legislative achievements. The editorializing and horse-racing of the election, where one side poses an existential threat to our entire democracy, has gotten so bad and so predictable that the parody New York Times Pitchbot account often simply screenshots actual headlines from the paper, saying, “I can’t do better than this.”

The feud between Biden and the Times burst out into the open with confirmation that the editorial slant against Biden has come at the request of the paper’s own publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, and from other top officers at the outlet. Said one Times journalist to Politico,

All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day. It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.

The top brass apparently are miffed that Biden has refused to sit for an interview with the paper. And really, why should he, given the Times’s demonstrated record of not giving him (or his son, Hunter for that matter) a fair shake, especially while it has consistently downplayed and underreported Trump’s unhinged, autocratic and even criminal behavior.

Instead, Biden has trolled the Times, giving a sit-down interview first to Howard Stern, which came off beautifully, then to Time magazine, and soon to ABC News.

Unlike his predecessor, who made bashing the press part of his brand, President Biden has been more reserved in his criticism, demanding instead to know why so much of what his administration has achieved has gone underreported. In his recent interview with Time, for example, Biden spoke about the war in Ukraine and criticized the media for its coverage when asked if Ukraine should accept a ceasefire. Biden said no, and then added,

“By the way, I don't know why you skip over all that's happened in the meantime. The Russian military has been decimated. You don't write about that. It's been freaking decimated.”

Time later deemed Biden’s assessment of the state of the Russian military to be “fair.”

President Biden has also taken a serious tone when addressing members of the press directly, even at a more jovial occasion such as the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Said Biden to the gathered reporters, 

“I’m sincerely not asking of you to take sides but asking you to rise up to the seriousness of the moment; move past the horserace numbers and the gotcha moments and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics; and focus on what’s actually at stake. I think, in your hearts, you know what’s at stake. The stakes couldn’t be higher.”

Biden’s remonstrations may or may not be getting through. Or they may be aided by an increasingly angry reading public and punditry, including from the pages of this Substack, about the absurd reporting and the biased and unreliable polling put out by the media. 

Even Nate Cohn of the New York Times, just yesterday in the Upshot, admitted that Trump’s felony convictions might be impacting voter attitudes toward him. “The early answer seems to be an equivocal ‘yes,’” he begrudgingly wrote.

As Biden takes his gloves off with the Times and stiffens his spine and U.S. policy with respect to two wars and our border with Mexico, his campaign is hoping that perceptions will begin to match reality. There is of course still plenty of time for the campaign to recast him as the truly strong and resolute candidate in the eyes of many undecided voters, most of whom haven’t tuned into the election yet at all. The real question is whether the shift to a tougher, harder president will alienate the progressive wing of the party, which had until the Gaza and border crises enjoyed a far gentler, softer spoken leader.

If you find our political insights valuable, please consider supporting us by becoming a paid subscriber and forwarding this email to a friend who may also find it beneficial!