We need to listen

Warner has raised the discussion of Biden's future to a new level

Mark Warner is a cautious man. That’s not a negative in a world where public figures seem to have magazines full of tweets ready to load at a moment’s notice. He also trusts his own judgment. He’s got half a billion dollars in the bank, so maybe he should. When he makes a major move in a year he’s not on the ballot, he’s likely not doing it for the money or the votes.

That’s why his concerns about President Biden should carry more weight than, just for instance, the NYTimes editorial page. He doesn’t want the job himself but, even if he does, he’s smart enough to know he has less chance than Harry does of being king. He’s smart enough to know that he has enough political capital to affect the conversation, and that he may not have as much when this is all over. So the question becomes what’s in it for him.

It's hard to find an answer that doesn’t come down to duty and love of country. He’ll still be a rich United States Senator regardless of who’s president. He doesn’t have a personal stake in whether Biden or Trump wins, except for the desire to live in a country that’s not run by a felonious, adulterous, lying megalomaniac. But your mileage may vary. Maybe you just can’t believe in patriotism. You love your country and you don’t want to live in the one Trump will create, but you can’t quite give the benefit of the doubt to any elected officials.

But having someone of Warner’s stature, and caution, raising questions means we ought to be paying attention and not just taking a side. On the one hand, Biden won the primaries and has the delegates to win the nomination. That’s how our system works. On the other hand, his dismal performance at the debate has to be balanced against two things. One is that he’s had some good appearances since then. The other is that now we know he’s capable of the kind of lapse that made Trump look good by comparison.

Distinctions about critical things require nuance. They require sensible people in leadership roles to shape the discussion and provide context. Is it fair to think Biden should consider stepping aside because of the perception that he can’t run the country, or does he deserve a chance to refute that perception? Or is the political reality that he can’t recover, that there isn’t time to repair the debate’s damage? Does fairness to Biden mean more than that political reality? Does one man’s right to accept the nomination he won outweigh the damage to the country if he loses in November?

Warner joining this discussion doesn’t mean he gets to decide. He gets to try bringing enough senators together to guide Biden’s thinking. He’s brought it to that level. Media pundits, political donors, and keyboard warriors may hold strong opinions, but under our system, decisions are made by those who’ve won an election.

I met Warner 25 years ago when someone needed an elected Democrat to attend a meeting and the other two in the Valley were busy. I still go to his advisory group dinners and I still talk to his staff. I respect him enough to think if he has concerns, we should listen. Naturally, those with ironclad loyalty to Biden will question Warner’s motives; that’s also how our system works. I’m willing to give him credit for caring about the country’s future; specifically, whether it will have one.