← The Political Scene | The New Yorker
The Political Scene | The New Yorker
What Biden Didn’t Say in the State of the Union
00:31:27
What Biden Didn’t Say in the State of the Union
Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:00]
A
As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school. Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month@mintmobile.com New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.
- [01:16]
B
Did you see the Mitt Romney.
- [01:18]
C
I love that Mitt Romney Santos.
- [01:20]
B
The sick puppy is Mitt Romney's favorite insult. Although it is a little bit like, you know how Trump is always saying like everybody, like, like a dog, like a dog. Right?
- [01:28]
D
I know dog lovers take umbrage, but.
- [01:32]
B
Mitt Romney is a dog lover and yet his favorite insult is also sick puppy.
- [01:37]
D
Are you going to allow him to be classified as a dog lover when he did that to his dog on the roof of the cottage? Oh, good lord, Setter.
- [01:45]
C
Not to the roof.
- [01:48]
D
Traveling in his kennel onto the roof.
- [01:50]
B
Yes, it was the roof.
- [01:51]
C
How was he not brought to the Hague? My God.
- [01:59]
B
Welcome to the Political Scene, a weekly discussion about the big questions in American politics. I'm Susan Glaser and I'm joined by my colleagues Jane Mayer and Evan Osnos. Hey guys.
- [02:10]
C
Hey, Susan.
- [02:11]
D
Good to see you.
- [02:17]
B
President Biden gave his second State of the Union address earlier this week and let's just say as these things go, there were actually some fireworks.
- [02:25]
E
Some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security sunset. I'm not saying it's a majority. Well, I'm glad to see you. I tell you, I enjoy conversion. Social Security and Medicare is off the books now, right? They're not to be.
- [02:44]
B
All right, first of all, we got to say if it was a trap, Republicans walked right into it. But before we get into that, I have to say what struck me, and I think all of us, was that there were several hot button issues that Joe Biden hardly even discussed in his hour and 13 minute long state of the Union address. Important issues like abortion rights and the Supreme Court, getting rid of Roe vs Wade, United States relationship with China and of course, the war in Ukraine now hitting one year. By the way, that brief mention of Ukraine came almost an hour into the 73 minute address. In fact, President Biden spent well under a minute discussing the conflict at all, which to me was pretty shocking when you consider that Washington has spent something like $50 billion poured into the largest European conflict since the end of World War II. The that got us thinking what else was missing from the State of the Union and why? What does it tell us about the state of our politics now? First of all, I mean, we have to say, right, the thing that we learned is that Joe Biden is clearly running for reelection. Evan, is that a fair takeaway from this?
- [03:59]
C
I think that he came about as close to the edge of the pool as you possibly can and limbered up without actually diving in. And you know, I think he was demonstrating clearly this was by design that he has, call it what you want, vigor, energy, a little bit of punch in him and this could have gone a very different way. Being able to respond in the moment to that kind of cut and thrust. I think this was about as good as they could have asked for in terms of a demonstration of somebody who's preparing to run again.
- [04:33]
D
I mean, it was certainly clear that they had rehearsed his tone and his it was almost, I mean, he was moving so fast through the list of items. It sounded a little bit like an auctioneer or something. But for me, the high point was when he got into this sort of call and response with the hecklers. And he seemed to really, first of all, I think he seemed like he really enjoyed it. And I think that the idea that he was in command and on his game and then rope a doped them into basically all coming along and saying we'll protect Social Security and Medicare. I mean, that was a great move. And whether he planned it or not, he pulled it off really well.
- [05:14]
B
Well, so, Evan, this is an example, of course, of what Joe Biden and his advisors wanted to talk about. And it wasn't just that they wanted to use these Republicans as a foil, which they very effectively did, but also it was very much a kind of substantive shot at Republicans as well. Why do they think that's such good politics for them right now?
- [05:34]
C
Well, it was interesting to me. I happen to have an interview with Mike Donilon, who is one of Biden's close advisors. He's sort of a confidant type, worked on the speech a lot. He's oftentimes described as kind of Biden's. Call him his external hard drive. And one of the things they were talking about going into this speech was we know that we're going into a period where it's gonna be a lot harder to get things passed in Congress than it was in these first two years. But that doesn't mean we can't draw these contrasts, draw these distinctions about values, about principles. And so the goal was to try to, as much as possible, make these things crystal clear, whether it was around issues of take for inst. A $35 cap on insulin prices. That's the kind of thing that they had. They succeeded in passing for Medicare recipients, but Republicans stripped it out of the bill. When it came to every other American, you heard him raise that in the speech and force Republicans to sit on their hands, in effect, instead of supporting the idea of capping insulin prices for Americans. That's a useful contrast, as they say in politics.
- [06:38]
B
Well, I liked this framing from Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report. She said, you know, this was Biden's American Dream Speech vs Sara Huckabee Sanders and the American carnage redux. You know, that this was the much more almost a kind of a liberal version of the populism that you've seen from Republicans in recent years. And I think that, you know, to me, that was a lot of the grimacing from Kevin McCarthy was because he felt uncomfortable with Biden sort of stealing some of those kind of popular proposals. But, Jane, why do you think we didn't hear from Joe Biden about so many things?
- [07:14]
D
I mean, as you say, I mean, this was in many ways a campaign speech. And a. His numbers are still not good. His approval ratings are poor, really. And he's trying to sort of goose his followers, get them juiced and excited. And so he's trying to remind everybody what he's done so far. And there's some things that are, you know, left out of the speech that really are not as popular. I felt this Was probably a pretty poll driven speech, you know, and so face it, I mean, foreign policy, the threat from China, the war in Ukraine, the issue of abortion, which is an issue that really, really has gone catastrophically wrong for the Democrats. These are not things to get people's moods up, you know, so they skipped him.
- [08:01]
B
Right. Just don't mention it. Right.
- [08:02]
C
To Susan's point, I mean, I absolutely agree that one of the really striking things was how much this speech demonstrated the long legacy of the 2016 election. He assimilated so many of the things that were kind of radical ideas in 2016. When Trump brought up the idea of bringing the supply chain back to the United States, of reaching workers who felt left behind and invisible. You know, at the time, Democrats thought, this isn't gonna land. This seems anti globalized. It doesn't make sense. And actually now it's become really sort of mainstream politics. And you see Joe Biden especially, who has always thought of himself as the voice of the blue collar worker, whether that's true or not, that he's sort of snatching those back. And that is a significant political maneuver.
- [08:44]
D
Some of the, I think most effective parts of it really were when he focused on very prosaic, even trivial grievances that ordinary people have. It showed that he understand what everybody's life is like. Who's not a billionaire when the cable company charges you a fortune to try to switch or cut it off, or airline fees that are just outrageous, or even I think that, you know, online that got a laugh from people was resort fees for places that under no stretch of the imagination are resorts, by.
- [09:13]
B
The way, I thought that was really stealing a march directly from Bill Clinton. After Republicans won the House of representatives in the 1994 midterm elections, this is exactly how Clinton started to pivot. He talked about sort of targeted micro policies, making big announcements about little things, essentially, and it was very effective. And you know what happened two years later in the 1996 presidential election when Bill Clinton recouped from that midterm loss and did very strongly. I'm sure that was a speech they studied. But Jane, to your point, I think you made a very important point about does any of it break through? It might have been a poll driven speech, but right now the polls are terrible for Biden. Two data points. On Monday before the speech, the Washington Post had a new survey out and it was really strikingly bad news. It suggested that 60% of Americans, which means that's a lot of Democrats or Democratic leaning independents as well as Republicans, did not believe that Joe Biden had accomplished a lot during the course of his presidency, despite what the White House views as a long list of legislative accomplishments. So, Evan, do you think any of the stuff that Biden proactively talked about does that breakthrough?
- [10:23]
C
Well, he's up against this very thick crust of a kind of pessimistic mood. I mean, even though the economy is strong, even though you have the lowest unemployment in 50 years, people just feel dyspeptic about politics. They're kind of sick of it, and they don't feel as if it's serving their needs. Interesting fact is that even in the low 40s, where Biden is now, he has the highest approval rating of any leader in the G7 except the new prime minister of Italy, because that person's so new they haven't learned to be unhappy with her yet. I think there is a degree to which there, there is this broad mood of discontent, particularly in democracies. And the key juncture where they are now is about taking these things that have been abstract in Washington, all of this infighting the last two years, and to use their phrase, which we'll hear a lot more of, I'm sure they're going from getting it done to making it real. That's the idea. Get the shovels in the ground, get Biden out there on the road. And that, of course, is what he's been doing.
- [11:16]
D
I mean, I think he's up against two things, both a perception problem and a reality problem. But the other thing, the reality is, I mean it from many, many standpoints. Our economy is booming. It's so strong, it's so much stronger than the other economies bouncing back around the world. We're way ahead. But for one thing, which is inflation. And that is something that everybody feels who does any shopping. And I think it's made people feel that something's out of control and things are unaffordable and, you know, something as simple as eggs. Honestly, I think something like that has more of an effect than any number of big sweeping, shovel ready programs almost.
- [11:57]
B
Yeah, well, I think that's a really important point. And I also am struck by the fact that when we were talking about this, all three of us immediately thought about the things that weren't mentioned in the speech. And I think those political decisions often don't get aired enough either. And I feel like that's a fascinating vantage point to try to understand. One big takeaway for me certainly this year is that Joe Biden doesn't want to talk about the rest of the world. Joe Biden clearly has decided that politically it is not advantageous for him really to engage in what had up until now been a major theme of his presidency. Right. Like the theme of Biden's presidency up until now in many ways had been sort of this notion of defending democracy at home and abroad. We didn't hear a lot about defending democracy at home, which was a stark contrast from the pre midterm election language about the ultra maga Republicans seeking to destroy the country. So we didn't hear about that and we didn't really hear about the rest of the world either.
- [13:00]
D
So why do you think that is, Susan? I'm curious because both you and Evan spend a lot of time thinking about foreign policy. Is it unpopular? Is it divisive? Is it a danger to discuss this? What do you see as the reason behind this?
- [13:13]
B
Well, that's fascinating. I mean, certainly there is a risk factor, right? You don't want to poke the new Republican majority in the House, certainly, if your goal is to preserve what has been largely a bipartisan support for Ukraine. I'll tell you, when I was the editor chief of Foreign Policy magazine, you would talk to individual experts and they were always made so anxious if their particular subject became a broader part of the political conversation that the view in the foreign policy world is if they're talking about your issue, it's going to be bad. But still, it's an incredible contrast. Just one year ago, in Biden's first State of the Union, it was just a few days after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. And it was, you know, the shock was real. The House floor was filled with, you know, everyone was wearing blue and yellow in solidarity. It was just six days after the invasion. At that speech, Biden called out Vladimir Putin by name. He dedicated almost a fifth of the entire speech to pledging support for Ukraine.
- [14:17]
E
He thought he could roll into UKRA and the world would roll over. Instead, he met with a wall of strength he never anticipated or imagined. He met the Ukrainian people.
- [14:32]
B
You know, to me, that is an amazing contrast. The language this year was essentially one minute of spiking the football as if the war in Ukraine was already over and won. Why, Evan?
- [14:44]
C
Well, actually, I want to put the question to you, Susan. I mean, you are our resident Ukraine watcher. Is it that the ambiguity in the state of the war makes it hard to talk about? Or do you think it's the domestic political challenge around maintaining enough support for continued financing of the war?
- [14:59]
B
You know, it seems to me this is an example where They've made some sort of a political decision that the more you talk about it, you don't gain anything from it? Certainly Biden's poll numbers suggest that's the case. In fact, I was really struck. I wrote my New Yorker column last week about this. The poll numbers overall among Democrats, as well as Republicans are softening in terms of support for what the US Is doing in Ukraine, in terms of a concern that the US has sent more aid. Now, more Democrats right now than Republicans support that because they support the president. But the numbers are pretty clear in the trajectory in both parties headed in a downward slope. But of course, that raises this huge question, which is, can anyone sitting here actually articulate what our goal is? You know, is that until Ukraine kicks Russia out of every last bit of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, does that mean that we're gonna just keep in this cycle of, you know, having more and more weapons going to Ukraine and we say no, and then we say yes a few months later? I mean, there's some real questions that in a real State of the Union report, we might have heard from. But, Jane, what do you think? I mean, what does this tell us more broadly about the state of foreign policy? Is there a kind of Democratic capital D, as in Democratic Party view of the world right now? Is Biden actually moving away from the liberal internationalism of the past? Is he trying to embrace a kind of more palatable version of Trump's America firstism with some of his proposals?
- [16:32]
D
I don't think so. I mean, I think it's not very well articulated and defined, but I think the instinct is very much in line with the old democratic internationalism, defending democracy around the world. They haven't made it a top priority in terms of rhetoric, but I think that's Biden's instinct. I hear from people in the White House that he has been very, very much involved in the Ukraine issue and in trying to keep the NATO alliance together, and that he's put tremendous effort into this. So, I mean, I think this may be a private priority with him, that they just don't see a lot of gain in advertising, in. A lot of.
- [17:11]
B
What we're finding out is that there's an interesting perspective on, you know, what doesn't make the cut in a speech like this.
- [17:17]
D
It's very Washington. Isn't it, though, you guys? I mean, you know, the State of the Union is. It's almost like monarchical moment in a way. You've got the president coming up and standing over the Congress, and people watch what happens. The way that court watchers might watch a king, you know, where they see, like, who gets special mention and everybody's vying for, you know, a little something, a little, you know, so, I mean, it's become a race. It's actually. The funny thing is it's not even required by the Constitution.
- [17:52]
B
The political scene will be back in just a moment. Starting on February 13th, the New Yorker is publishing our second digital only interviews issue featuring conversations with leading figures in politics, literature, and the arts, including our own Evan Osnes. Chat with now former White House Chief of staff Ron Klain and Tyler Foggit speaking with Aubrey Plaza about the actor's long standing feud with none other than Joe Biden. News stories are publishing every day next week. So check it out. Starting Monday the 13th on newyorker.com I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director.
- [18:34]
C
I'm Michael Colory, Wired's director of consumer tech and Culture.
- [18:38]
B
And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show Uncanny Valley is about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley. And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics. Right.
- [18:57]
C
So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin, Doge, or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are.
- [19:05]
B
Affecting Washington and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode. Well, Evan, were you let down, so to speak, that President Biden didn't even specifically mention the balloon after more than a week of obsessing, not just in Washington, but in the whole country around.
- [19:31]
C
It, I think it was a surprise in the sense that people assumed that China would be an easy point for him to make, in this sense that you have this broad bipartisan consensus. I mean, we saw it just a couple days later, kind of in dramatic fashion. There was this vote in the House by something like 419 to nothing in favor of condemning this Chinese balloon across the United States. I mean, nothing gets 419 votes today to nothing. So I think the reason why they didn't talk about it more is a couple of things. One, it is very much in play, meaning that just hour by hour and days afterwards, we've been accumulating much more detail about what was going on. What did this operation mean? What did it tell us? I mean, the fact that it is part of this much larger intelligence gathering operation across 40 countries. But at the same time, this is a case where the White House holds tremendous leverage right now over Beijing because China did a very unusual thing. They expressed regret, which they almost never do. They were very unhappy that the United States canceled its trip.
- [20:36]
D
Trip.
- [20:36]
C
And it is a case where it's really sort of the United States is in the position of deciding how and when they want to talk about this issue and either make the relationship worse or make the relationship better. And so they're not gonna squander that moment casually.
- [20:54]
B
Do you think, Jane, that this was also just an example of Biden and his team deciding what exactly he wanted to be heckled on, that he'd rather be heckled about Medicare and Social Security to make a point then about China. Marjorie Taylor Greene, interestingly, who was dressed in this sort of, you must pay attention to me. All white, fur trimmed.
- [21:13]
C
I think it was an entire baby seal she had wrapped around her shoulder.
- [21:17]
B
But, you know, she actually filmed herself earlier in the day walking around the Capitol with a white balloon. And she told reporters that actually that was the reason she was dressed head to toe in white was because she wanted to critique Biden and call attention to the balloon. And she actually threatened to bring the balloon with her into the House chamber. She ultimately didn't do so. He didn't give her a line to heckle on that. What are the politics of the balloon, Jane?
- [21:41]
D
Well, first, can I just say it takes a confident woman to want to dress like a white balloon. That's all I've got. I'll leave it right there.
- [21:49]
B
But I personally thought it said more.
- [21:52]
C
Disney white, but it turns out it was balloon white.
- [21:55]
D
That's totally. Anyway, I think the issue, you know, in a way also was a wake up call for Americans about China. I mean, inside the Beltway, you hear a lot about China as a threat, but I think outside of the Beltway, people really are not. And so to suddenly have this Chinese surveillance balloon floating over the country in our territorial space was alarming to people. And also that the Chinese, it was aggressive and the Chinese seem to have lied about it where they claimed it was just a weather balloon or something.
- [22:30]
B
But Jane, doesn't that make it all the more notable that Biden would basically give us one minute of boilerplate language and not address in a more fulsome and straightforward way what is his policy?
- [22:43]
D
China's complicated and threatening. It's difficult and I don't know. I defer to Evan.
- [22:48]
C
I think what's going on partly is that China is a topic that is complex, that is almost poorly suited for the kind of moment that a State of the Union is. A State of the Union is this performative experience where it's partly about how it's reading in the room. And right now there is more than enough direction of travel towards a more confrontational approach to China that you don't really need the State of the Union to amplify that feeling in the air that is very present on the left and the right. And very seasoned, very serious lawmakers are talking about things like should we ban TikTok? And in some ways, what's going on behind the scenes is actually even more meaningful. I mean, one of the things that happened recently was the United States persuaded Japan and the Netherlands to join in an effort to prevent China from being able to acquire high tech manufacturing capability for semiconductors. That's a hard thing to talk about in the State of the Union in a really zippy way, but it's a huge development.
- [23:50]
B
Well, and this is the point about foreign policy experts basically not wanting there to be much political conversation around their issue. But do you think, is it possible that there's a little bit of a sense of alarm inside the Biden administration at the extent to which sort of macho performative anti Chinaism has become kind of the political language of the moment? There was a really alarming comment from one of the most senior US Generals recently warning his troops in the Air Force that there could be a military conflict with China within two years. Was this an example of a general sort of speaking way out of turn? Does this actually reflect what you've heard is the view inside the US national security world right now?
- [24:31]
C
It's not the consensus view inside the national security establishment. It's not the view within, particularly the intelligence community. But it is certainly a reflection of a very frequent view that you encounter inside the Pentagon in the sense that this has become a dominant mood within the uniform military world. And I think the fact that this got out is a sign of, of how much this is present in the conversation. But you did also see this is very important. You saw the White House and other parts of the government push back publicly and say, this is not our official view.
- [25:06]
D
I just worry about whether preparation then leads to policy. I mean, so that basically it becomes a fait accompli and it certainly doesn't help. I would think that the Secretary of Defense was unable to get anybody on the phone in China when he tried to call them in a state of alarm about this balloon.
- [25:25]
C
In some ways, I think Jane that was the most important factor to come out in the last week. Because one of the things that is really understood is that the way you prevent what might begin as an almost incidental confrontation like this balloon from becoming something enormous is by having lines of communication. And in this case, it was a total and complete failure.
- [25:46]
B
But Evan, I just want to finish on a kind of perplexing note, given everything you've said. So why is it then that the one thing that Biden did say about China, I really didn't understand the guy who's been warning us for years about the rising confrontation between autocracies and democracies, saying it's the defining struggle of our time. Now he comes out in the middle of the State of the Union address and says, well, actually, autocracy has grown weaker, not stronger. And this really bizarre thing, let's listen to it, about Xi Jinping.
- [26:16]
E
Autocracy has grown weaker, not stronger. Name me a world later who changed places with Xi Jinping. Name me one. Name me one.
- [26:26]
C
You know what's interesting about that is he ad libbed it. It was not in the speech. Oh boy, those ad libs. But what's fascinating is when he ad libs, that's often a sign of what he actually thinks. And in this case, I happen to know for a fact he believes this. He said it in private before over the last couple of years. And it speaks to this somewhat divided view in his own mind about China. Cuz for a long time, and there's still a big piece of him that believes this. He had a kind of never bet against America when it came to China, which is that, yeah, they've got all these ambitions and they've got all this strength, but they're hobbled by their own internal contradictions. Their political system ultimately is unsustainable. There's never been a Communist party that lasts forever, all these kinds of things. And even though we've seen China get stronger and stronger, deep down he really believes that. And I think, frankly, that's an astute reading of China's internal challenges. So when he says there's no leader in the world that wants to trade places with Xi Jinping, what he means is Xi Jinping wakes up every morning and is afraid of things like the demographic cliff that China is facing over the next 20 years, the economy slowing to its lowest point almost since 1976. He's not that far off base.
- [27:32]
B
All right, so Jane, we've talked a few times about another really important thing that didn't appear in the speech. I Think in the end, he spent something like 45 seconds only talking about the overturning of Roe versus Wade, which is arguably not only the largest domestic story of the last year, but in many ways a generational change in the United States, not to mention a leading factor, if not the leading factor, for Democrats in the midterm elections. And yet this was all he had to say about it in the State of the Union.
- [28:05]
E
Congress must restore the right that was taken away in Roe v. Wade and protect Roe v. Wade. Every woman, a constant right. The vice President and I are doing everything to protect access to reproductive health care and safeguard patient safety. But already more than a dozen states are enforcing extreme abortion bans. Make no mistake about it. If Congress passes a national ban, I will veto it.
- [28:38]
B
Okay, Jane, as our resident Supreme Court watcher, why would Biden just barely mention this incredibly important issue of reproductive rights?
- [28:47]
D
Again, this is a speech that is touting his successes, but actually, I think many people in the Democratic Party viewed it as a lost opportunity. The issue of reproductive rights for women was, as you say, something that really carried the Democrats through many of the midterm elections to victory. It has a lot of the reason why they won the Senate.
- [29:13]
C
Senate.
- [29:13]
D
And it seems that Biden is just never really fully comfortable with this issue. It's hard to tell whether it's because of his personal history of it, which has changed a lot over time. When he was first elected, he was elected the year that the Roe v. Wade decision came down, in 1973, and he took office in 74. And one of the first things that he said in a very revealing interview to Kitty Kelly was that he found that the Roe v. Wade decision went too far. He was brought up as a Catholic. He's still Catholic. And he said that he did not think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen with her body. That was the quote. His position has changed over the years. He's been in favor of abortion rights. But there's still a squeamishness, I feel, in the way that he talks about it and frankly, in the way that many politicians talk about it. And, I mean, in many ways, I think the other thing that's lurking here is it's a Supreme Court issue now, and there's, I think, a reluctance on the part of many to really directly confront the problem of the Supreme Court that's become extremist. Biden barely touched on it last year when he had a new justice that had just been confirmed, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the year before that he didn't mention the court at all. And he. Look at the way he talked about this abortion issue in the State of the Union. He used the passive tense and he said, you know, the rights had been taken away. He didn't say by whom. It's the Supreme Court, but he doesn't wanna go there.
- [30:52]
B
Look, Biden has changed his mind on lots of other issues. You know, I don't think he was pro gay marriage in 1974 either, but, you know, he is now. I mean, is this something that has stuck with him more than some of the other things he's changed his mind on?
- [31:05]
C
I think there's. There's a piece of him that is perhaps not so much conflicted about the issue because he has been willing to risk his relationship, for instance, with the Catholic Church. There are, in fact, some priests who have said they'd be unwilling to give him communion because of the fact that he is in favor of abortion access. But I think he is self conscious about his credibility on the issue because he knows that he's moved over the years and that there are people who do feel as if, well, maybe he doesn't really feel this as deeply. But I also think there's something interesting and I'd be curious what you think about this real effort to talk about depriving women of rights. And they really hammered that very successfully, politically speaking.
- [31:47]
D
They did.
- [31:48]
C
And then you see this kind of pullback in the State of the Union.
- [31:50]
D
No, I mean, there was an absolute outpouring of outrage after the Dobbs decision. And my sense is that they are moving away from leading that cause and that they risk losing the edge on it. And in a way, I mean, what you can see if you look closely at polls on the court, there's a marquee university poll that showed that credibility and trust in the court was at a nadir in the summer, but it's creeping back up again because they're not hammering this issue from the White House.
- [32:21]
B
Well, it's interesting. I mean, this is certainly an example where what we didn't hear is as telling as what we did hear. And you would think with all of that on the agenda, it might fit right into the question of how Joe Biden is going to make government work for everyday Americans, of which there are many women. But yet it's very notable that he.
- [32:40]
D
Didn'T, as Biden always says, it's not a referendum on him. It's not between him and the God Almighty. It's gonna be a choice between him and his opponent.
- [32:48]
B
All right. Well, stay tuned. Right. That's the subject of our next 30 podcasts, the 2024 election. But I do think pretty soon this is clearly the warm up act for the announcement. This has been the political scene. I'm Susan Glasser and we had production assistance today from Alex d' Elia and Eli Cohn. Steven Valentino is our executive producer. Our theme music is by Alison Leighton Brown. Thank you so much for listening. We'll see you next week.
- [33:29]
D
Right now, we are living through some of the most tumultuous political times our country has ever known. I'm David Remnick and each week on the New Yorker Radio Hour, I'll try to make sense of what's happening alongside politicians and thinkers like Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Tim Waltz, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Newt Gingrich, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Charlamagne Tha God and so many more. That's all on the New Yorker Radio Hour wherever you listen to podcasts.
- [33:59]
B
From PRX.