A Unified Theory of Bidenism

The new president has forged ahead with an aggressive agenda without considering any tradeoffs or downsides.

By
20

As the Biden presidency approaches its 100-day mark Friday, is it too soon to attempt a unified theory of America’s 46th president? On the one hand, three months isn’t a very long time (even in politics). On the other, Biden hasn’t exactly been slow to act since he entered the White House, and neither he nor anyone else in Washington is displaying much patience when it comes to defining “Bidenism.”

The striking thing about the Biden presidency so far—for both his fiercest critics and most enthusiastic cheerleaders—is the paradox of the man who campaigned on a return to normalcy governing with FDR-level boldness. Both camps see this as a political trick, either a sinister sleight of hand or a clever packaging of progressive policies in moderate terms, depending on their point of view. 

But the inconsistencies of Biden’s first 100 days do not neatly fit this “moderate talk, radical action” pattern. An administration set on selling progressive economic ideas to the widest possible audience would spend a lot less time talking about equity and white supremacy, for example. An administration committed to stressing the need for cooperative action on climate change wouldn’t glibly suggest that pipeline workers who just lost long-held, high-paying jobs could simply learn to build solar panels. Instead, the contradictions point to a more fundamental dynamic, and perhaps the defining feature of the emerging Bidenism: a refusal to acknowledge the existence of any tradeoffs or difficult choices when it comes to governing. 

Barely a day goes by without the White House sternly dismissing the suggestion that there might be any sort of downside to anything they are doing. Is there a tradeoff between an aggressive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the next nine years and the fortunes of workers in America’s energy sector? Don’t be silly. Would a minimum wage hike hurt small business owners? Of course not. Is there such a thing as “too much” on pandemic relief legislation? Only if you’re a free-market purist. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
20
By
Comments (20)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. John Goss

    I'm an economist so deal in tradeoffs all the time. And frequently politicians pretend that hard choices are not necessary as Biden did in some of his speech. But there are also many easy choices where almost everyone wins. And climate change, because of technological advances, is now one of those areas. Some people will lose out from rapid action on climate change but most will benefit, and if we are just, we will compensate those whose lose. On things like a higher minimum wage there are both costs and benefits, and Biden should acknowledge the costs, even as he pushes for a higher minimum wage because the benefits do outweigh the costs.
    Excessive cakeism is definitely a problem but we should avoid the opposite problem of seeing the glass as one quarter empty and believing that most of our policy choices involve severe trade-offs.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    I am commenting on this AFTER the Biden speech:

    Yup. Forging ahead without any idea of the repercussions coming, or maybe just not caring.

    The pushback in 2022 is going to be fierce.

    Good analysis in the article. The trade offs of the future are going to be dark the more we do not deal with the problems.

    Collapse
    1. James D

      This ignores a fundamental part of the current Dem logic, which is that they figure due to extensive GOP gerrymandering and the typical mid-term partisan backlash against the ruling party they are likely to lose the House in 2022 no matter what Biden does, and so they ought to make hay while the sun shines.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Victor Clairmont

        Maybe it’s a typical backlash because the ones in power are just that bad at governing.

        Collapse
  3. Dave Sheridan

    Good analysis. Biden has never had strong governing principles, including limiting principles. He's generally calibrated his beliefs to be roughly in the middle of his party, not near the median voter. It's also fair to say that he and his advisors know that opposition to big spending programs is weak after a pandemic and four years of Trump. Add to that low interest rates (a.k.a. free money) and all the stars are aligned for a major spending binge.

    Collapse
  4. Nickson

    Biden campaigned on and successfully pulled off a flurry of activity in his first 100 days. So of course he launched a laundry list of legislation and executive orders without much deliberation publicly. And we knew in advance that he would continue and expand the massive, deficit-funded macroeconomic experiment begun last year. In all the areas you mention, I think Biden’s governing philosophy is simply to “go big” and hope for the best. Your cake analogy assumes a methodical analysis of future cake-eating prospects once the current cake has been eaten, and I don’t think his team did that.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Rochejaquelein

    Good article making fair points, and I like the Boris Johnson cake analogy.

    However, as is frequently the case the elephant in the room is a bit unaddressed. Biden campaigned on unity and won a significant electoral college and crushing popular vote majority.

    The Republican party then went along with a an absolutely insane attack on the integrity of a free and fair election, culminating in an attack on the capitol and the generational disgrace of the majority of the GOP house delegation endorsing a legally facially invalid and evidence free attempt to strip millions of Pennsylvanians of their votes. After a brief spasm of possible contrition, the bulk of the elected GOP has at best decided to stay silent rather than try and tell the truth to the willfully deluded majority of Republican voters who tell pollsters they believe the election was rigged, and at worst (Ron Johnson, etc.) continuing to play along with the big lie.

    I'd put forward that its only human to be somewhat less willing to work across the aisle than you originally intended when the other side of the aisle at least in public is more comfortable with their colleagues who call for your death than their colleagues who dare to criticize Donald Trump, the hidden Iman of the Red Hats.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Paul Reichardt

      "Hidden Iman"... Heh.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rochejaquelein

        “The greater occlusion of Mar-a-Lago, where the Mahdi awaits the will of Allah”

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Nick H

    I both like and dislike the "cakeism" term as a way to describe the current administration. One the one hand, it's cute and catchy and nicely captures the refusal to admit the existence of any downsides. On the other hand, it's catchy and cute in an unserious way that obscures the size and transformative potential of the administrations efforts to massively expand the government and it's role in everyone's life. If the Biden administration is practicing cakeism, it's the kind where the cake is the size of a small city and everyone has to give more and more of their flour and sugar and eggs to the batter.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Jen

    Anytime there is criticism of a Biden policy or proposal Ron Klain points people to polls that say it’s popular. I’m sorry but governing by polling data is bad. Plus lots of things poll well because they sound good and nobody knows what’s in the details (or think someone else will be the one paying for it). We’ll see the same thing tonight. Biden will announce a crap ton of spending expanding the welfare state and it will poll really well because who doesn’t like “free” money?

    Collapse
    1. Nickson

      At least the Dems are polling the public as a whole. The other side— the true “populist” one that nonetheless likes to scold that we’re a republic, not a democracy—polls only its Base and takes its marching orders directly from it. And woe betide a politician who has the audacity to think for themself. As a GOP grandee said of Patrick Toomey’s vote to impeach: “We did not send him there to vote his conscience. We did not send him there to do 'the right thing' or whatever he said he was doing. We sent him there to represent us."

      Collapse
    2. Daniel Rabiner

      When their criticism is based on a lack of "bipartisanship" or "unity" then pointing to the polls makes sense.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      When everybody is told the answer to who is paying for it is, "billionaires" then they will like it even more.

      When they find out that billionaires actually don't have enough money to pay for all of this they will... not really find this out. Both parties are 100% committed to deficits today.

      Collapse
      1. Scroop Moth

        Yes, but . . . deficits to finance tax cuts give money to people with profits in excess of intended investment, who put that money into real estate and other elite assets, or invest in rents (even Greenspan could sound like Piketty talking about superfluous capital). Deficits to finance social spending puts money into future productivity, first by supporting aggregate demand, and then by social investments ("infrastructure" and it's multi-faceted variants). That's the theory, anyway. It worked before, but maybe it won't this time . . . I'm enough of a capitalist to imagine bond market vigilantes announcing their 40-year return. Perhaps in 5 years we'll look back and think the price was negligible. Have we paid off WWII, the Interstates, or the GI bill yet? Have we paid off Alexander Hamilton's Revolutionary War debt?

        I like the theory that Treasury deficits are functionally just a complicated tax rebate to the rich, but I'll leave that to another post.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          I truly think we're in a different fiscal/financial landscape in the modern era. I don't think we understand it yet. It would appear that the old rules don't apply though.

          In particular, there are massive new inputs into our macroeconomy that we've never seen before including the contraction of populations, massive globalization connected to labor that doesn't bow to market forces (also known as slavery), and mass ownership of equities in a very liquid way (Joe the plumber does the stonks on his app and doesn't care about inflation).

          Hence I'm pretty sure we're not going to run into the same problems we did before--but we're libel to run into new problems we never dreamed of.

          Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    DillaDonutz

    Now I can finally get my PhD in physics.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Logical

      Some thesis topics:

      Biden and Super Symmetry

      A GUT Approach to Bidenomics

      Trumpism Invalidated with Biden's String Model

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Chris L

    It appears to me that Biden's Senate habits have turned him into a devout opportunist, specifically in that the concept of "politics is timing" is woven into the fiber of his being. When he thinks the timing is right to do a given thing, he then goes full FDR and throws a bunch of crap at the wall and sees what sticks.

    Agreed that eventually, people will notice that this isn't exactly a return to normalcy, and the bill will come due. However, much like how many see the easing of the pandemic here stateside, there may be less of a desire to return to the previous normalcy or status quo and previously suspected. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

    Between Jonah's article this morning and this article's Cakeism, this is a great, in-depth way to start my morning. Thank you both!

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Logical

    "In other words, his first 100 days are a classic case of cakeism."

    I like the above phrasing. This can go on for a long time (say, 16 years minus 100 days) as long as the MAGA world is wallowing in self-pity, Dr. Seuss, Potatoe Head Penis, hamburgers, and illegals.

    Collapse