Amy Walter, writing for the Cook Political Report, has asked an important question in the title of her article: “Will the coronavirus shake political stasis?” She specifically discusses what the idea of ​​stasis or change means for the President of the United States, Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders connects with us


In the midst of a crisis that is shaking the world economy, as if subject to an endless series of earthquakes and aftershocks, while further undermining the already waning public confidence in our institutions and political systems, Joe Biden, the alleged Democratic candidate in the United States presidential election, just answered Walter’s question. Withholding his eventual election as vice president, Biden tells us that if he wins the presidency, the answer will be emphatic: no! Biden’s mind is on the only thing that matters: stasis.

Reuters reports that after consulting former President Barack Obama, Biden, who had already publicly promised that his vice president would be a woman, “emphasized that the woman would have to agree with his fundamental vision on policies, including health care, education and the need for the expansive influence of the United States in the world. “

Here is today’s 3D definition:


The political philosophy of the Democratic Party.
establishment in the United States, an institution that continues to believe
that, after the chaos of any Republican presidency, Americans always want
nothing more than returning to the state of affairs that existed during the
former Democratic administration.

Contextual note

For at least the past four years, the bipartisan system in the United States has suffered from a protracted identity crisis. Republicans are theoretically divided into two groups: those loyal to Trump and the never Trumpers. But as long as Trump clings to power, even the Trumpers will never obediently line up behind the president because for any politician, power clearly always has more gravitational pull than principles.

Many observers from the Democratic Party
I have observed that due to a profound divergence between the establishment and
the progressive wing, the party would have more coherence if it were logically
divided into two. It even seemed like that could happen multiple times in
the last four years after a multiple challenge by Bernie Sanders,
Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tulsi Gabbard and others.

If the party were to split, The Daily Devil’s Dictionary is boldly suggesting that the two sides adopt new labels that differentiate their visions and yet remind voters of their historical connection through the Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry party. Truman and John F. Kennedy. One side could be called the “Demostatic Party”, which would correspond to the current establishment of the party. The other side could assume the name of the “Dynocratic Party”, the progressive wing. Stasis versus dynamism. They could go their separate ways, but sometimes they choose to band together to wield power on any occasion that arises to evict perpetually ruling Republicans and seize power through elections.

Even amidst the challenge to humanity that the coronavirus pandemic represents, Biden once again demonstrated his commitment to stasis when he announced that he had boldly decided to consult Obama on the vice presidential election. This is consistent with the basic message of his campaign that boils down to: When you buy a president, look for a brand you can trust: Biden, powered by Obama.

Biden, who was vice president under the Obama administration, also revealed that there are three policy areas that he will focus on and that will require obedience from his future vice president: “health care, education, and the need for expansive influence from United States in the world. “Democrats have already been reassured and Dynocrats appalled at Biden’s promise to veto any version of” Medicare for All “that may come to his Oval Office desk.

On the issue of free education raised during the Dynocrats’ presidential primary campaign, Biden now seems to approve of the principle but wants at all costs to make sure it isn’t free for everyone. This is a concession for both Demostats and Dynocrats, but also a source of concern for both. The Demostatos fear its cost. The Dynocrats oppose bureaucracy and the potential injustice of media evidence. As for the “expansive influence of the USA in the world”, for Dynocrats, this “influence” clearly means more imperial bravado, wars and punitive sanctions, although undoubtedly dressed in diplomatic decorum cultivated by Obama.

Historic note

In the 2008 Democratic primaries, the
Democrats logically led Hillary Clinton and hoped she would beat an insurgent,
Young black champion promoting a slogan of hope and change. Barack Obama
basically because he was black, he found a way to present himself as the first
Credible dynocrat, defined by his commitment to change. Your campaign
mobilized not only youth and minorities, but also a large proportion of
Suburban White Democrat voters looking for the cleanest break possible
with the Bush administration.

Clinton and the Demostats, instead of
promising change, he proposed a return to the presidency of Bill Clinton, perceived
as a time of peace, but in which the seeds of George W. Bush’s wars in the
Middle East were sown. The Clinton years, after the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991, it seemed peaceful and prosperous, thanks to the absence of any
direct military threat to the United States. Clinton, however, actively participated in the
Balkans conflict of the 1990s and spent eight years brutally punishing Iraq as
a prelude to Bush’s 2003 decision to invade the country.

The visible difference, in terms of
voting records, among Hillary Clinton, perceived as quintessential
Demostat – and Obama as a new Dynocrat was that Hillary had supported
The Bush wars, while Obama had opposed the invasion of Iraq. the cultural
between them it was more contrasted. Obama was projected as a
disruptive challenger to the establishment with an antimilitarist attitude,
promising to lead a massive reform movement that would include
articles, such as protecting whistleblowers and closing Guantanamo Bay detention
to camp
In Cuba. The fact that he was black meant, for most observers, that he
would be committed to dismantling the racist culture that still flourished in the
United States decades after the civil rights movement.

Eight years of President Obama
showed that even an insurgent and racially diverse reformer with a clear
The dynamic profile could easily be transformed into a Demostat. Some future biographer
can offer a credible explanation that because Obama was the
first black president of the United States, he felt he had to prove to the oligarchy that he was
challenging him to understand their rules and
transform the system without causing a revolution. He would do things like
gradually as possible to reassure and convince them to join you in your
mission. But make the decision to slow down and do things gradually, when
pushed too far, it can transform dynamism into stasis. Whatever it was
happening in Obama’s mind, his image effectively shifted from a Dynocrat to
a demo

This transformation quickly became visible. Even the Swedish Nobel committee believed that Obama was committed to withdrawing from Bush’s aggressive military policy and ushering in a new era of predominantly peaceful international relations. In a rush to its own hope for change, the committee immediately honored Obama with the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Many of those who elected him to the United States in 2008 were only able to gasp at the content of his acceptance speech. Nobel, in which, referring to the moral positions of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, proclaimed: “I cannot be guided only by their examples. I face the world as it is, and I cannot remain idle in the face of threats to the American people. … To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism: it is an acknowledgment of history … The service and sacrifice of our uniformed men and women has promoted peace and prosperity. “

Then, Obama invoked the “great principle” that guides all who believe in the reign of stasis: “We have done it for self-interest.” Like Demostat, he probably believed that was the guiding principle when he set about prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act on an unprecedented scale.

Undoubtedly, Obama understood that whistleblowers are people who made the mistake of being enlightened and lacked an adequate sense of self-interest. They disrupt stasis by neglecting the much more sacred than enlightenment principle of self-interest. The demographic and persistent punishment of his sin against stasis contrasts paradoxically with Obama’s empathetic statement in the Nobel acceptance speech when he stated that “there are men and women around the world who have been imprisoned and beaten in search of justice” . As Lewis Carroll’s walrus told the oysters he had invited to dinner: “I cry for you … I deeply sympathize” in selecting and devouring “those of the largest size.”

Biden might be tempted to think about this: that the imprisonment and torture of men and women that Obama mentioned is a practice directly associated in recent history with Biden’s stated ideal of “expansive influence of the United States on the world.” Despite promises to the contrary, as Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch wrote in January 2017, Obama continued and even escalated acts of war, tolerated torture, and protected Bush-era war criminals from the prosecution, possibly as a precedent to protect his own administration from similar charges in the future.

That logic of, I will protect you so much
that you can protect me is precisely the kind of selfish reasoning that
defines political stasis.

* *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The opinions expressed in this article
They are the property of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial of