The slim victory afforded to Joe Biden over Donald Trump, to Democrats over Republicans, can scarcely be a cause for celebration. In fact, it should make us wary of the way the nation stands divided. For despite all the theatrics, lies, malignancy hurled at whomever, the fact that the sitting incumbent only lost marginally, goes on to tell something about the Democratic candidate himself and his charisma, or lack of it.
Yet the sigh of relief, accompanied by the rhetoric that anyone is better than Trump provides little solace against the crisis faced by the American people, reeling under the pandemic, economic slowdown, and unprecedented racial and civil unrest. Moreover, it is to be hoped that the euphoria unleashed amongst the Democrats on the ousting of Trump does not let the public consciousness slip into oblivion vis-a-vis the deeply disturbing, dangerous reforms pushed by Biden in the eighties and nineties that have made the criminal justice system not only more lethal but also bigger.
It might be okay to refer to Joe Biden as the lesser evil, or even as a sort of affable uncle, but consider for a moment the downsides of Biden’s career: In 1989, at the height of punitive anti-drug and mass incarceration politics, from Biden came the most vociferous criticism of President George H.W. Bush's war on drugs ."Quite frankly," Biden said, "the president’s plan is not tough enough, bold enough, or imaginative enough to meet the crisis at hand."
He called for harsher punishments for drug dealers, as well as to “hold every drug user accountable.” According to Biden, the then head of Senate Judiciary Committee, Bush's plan didn't include enough police officers to catch the violent thugs, nor enough prosecutors to convict them, nor enough judges to sentence them, and not enough prison cells to put them away behind bars. All in all, it was a call for more incarceration, which resulted in him putting in place several laws designed to bring about a punitive criminal justice system, with measures that enacted tougher prison sentences for drug offences, particularly crack cocaine.
Similarly, a close examination of Kamala Harris's records reveals glaring contradictions. On one hand, she pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of shutting them in prisons; on the other she fought to keep people in prison even after they were proven innocent. While she refused to pursue the death penalty against a man charged with killing a police officer, she openly defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, yet in other instances, she resisted calls to get her office to investigate controversial police shootings.
With Harris gaining national prominence, it was not her legacy of progressive prosecutor that was thrown into limelight, but her career as an anti-reform attorney general.
The objective of this article is not to downplay the Democrats' victory, however small, but to ensure that the media does not present the duo as the Saviours that America desperately needed to rid itself of Demon Trump. With a fair share of their own baggage to carry, the Biden-Harris team can take the country only so far. The real responsibility lies with the people, who through judicious political vigilantism, could take it further.
As the author James Bovard points out, "Winning politicians often enjoy a honeymoon after Election Day, but neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden deserve any honeymoon from cynicism. 'Think well of your masters' will be the death of democracy".
Constructive cynicism can often serve as an effective tool towards political damage control. Timely doubts freely expressed can stop leaders 'blindingly driving a nation over a cliff or into a foreign quagmire'.
Interesting and informative.
ReplyDelete