Can’t make it up. Don’t have to. Unless you’re USA Today. (Or CNN or MSNBC, but that’s a given.)
Before we dig into “the rest of the story” behind my headline, lemme tell you a bit about the USA Today contributor I’m going to shred and get it over with. How can I put this, tactfully? David Rothkopf is a clown. Not literally, of course (I assume); more of a clownish writer, as it were. Consider the following headlines:
There’s Chaos and Risk in Afghanistan Exit, but Biden Critics Are Getting It Mostly Wrong
De-Trumpifying America Will Take Longer Than 100 Days, But Biden’s Off to a Good Start
Joe Biden Is Better on the World Stage Than Any President Since George H.W. Bush
Infrastructure Equals Jobs, Growth, Competitive Edge, and Better Lives for Millions
See what I mean?
That brings us to the topic at hand, USA Today’s “international security expert” David Rothkopf’s most recent journalistic masterpiece, Biden Is a Boring President. That’s Okay Because He’s Also a Competent Leader. As you might imagine, Rothkopf’s latest effort is just as brilliant as those that preceded it.
How to begin? Anyone with an IQ beyond two digits who truly thinks Joe Biden is a “competent leader” should immediately, as my dad used to joke, “get his head examined.” As is the case with all conservative outlets, RedState chronicles The Adventures of Cornpop’s Pal on a daily basis. If anything, we have to triage Biden stories because there are only 24 hours in a day. Let’s just call it a target-rich environment.
Yet, USA Today’s Mr. Rothkopf thinks Joe is a competent leader.
The guy begins his ridiculous op-ed by telling us about the unimportance of Joe’s 3-1/2-hour video conference with Communist China’s dictator, Xi Jinping, earlier this month. Reason being, Rothkopf knows it sucked, he knows we know it sucked, and he knows we know he knows it sucked — so he tries to play the “It was no big deal, anyway” card. Hilariously so.
Politico’s Phelim Kine wrote, “President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping telegraphed low expectations for their non-summit … and in that they delivered.” CNN led with the fact that the event produced no major breakthroughs and added that Beijing had already declared victory.
Administration spokespeople had repeatedly briefed the news media that breakthroughs were not the purpose of the event. Indeed, the purpose of the meeting was to establish a cordial, open, candid leaders’ dialogue at the center of the most important bilateral relationship in the world.
Oh, please.
Because you know how “cordial” and “open” Xi is — right before he further clamps down on Hong Kong democracy, threatens Taiwan, or kicks up the genocide meter on the Uyghur Muslims a notch or two.
But you see, Rothkopf schools us, “there are benefits to boring foreign policy.”
Not only is [it] a big deal in its own right but given the complex, often fraught nature of the U.S.-China ties, such meetings that produce less heat and more light are just what the relationship needs.
Yet any praise was grudging and faint (even as some areas of progress were announced) and the majority of the coverage of the event hinted at disappointment.
You could almost feel the reporters longing for a leader who sent foreign tyrants love letters or who shocked the world by taking the Russian president’s views over those of his own intelligence community.
Yeah, America. Instead of criticizing Joe for his horribly inept foreign policy, we should be thanking him for being “boring!” Here’s the thing, Mr. Rothkopf: Sure. If Biden were only “boring,” no problem. At least that way he wouldn’t be screwing everything up. But noooo… Joe was hardly “boring” in Afghanistan. He remains nowhere near “boring” with Mexico, Central America, and other countries around the globe from which people continue to stream — illegally — to America, with zero consequences. Hardly “boring,” bud.
This part made me laugh out loud:
Neglected in much of the coverage was the fact that sometimes, foreign policy is about process and workaday exchanges that do not and are not intended to produce headlines. In fact, in foreign policy, boring is often good. This is true more broadly, in fact, about governing.
What is important or valuable is not often what makes the best television or produces the most clicks on the internet.
Sometimes the best work our leaders do is dull or slow or complicated, too nuanced or arcane to produce 64-point headlines or “Breaking News” chyrons. In this, presidents are a lot like airline pilots. While hired because they can handle emergencies when they arise, often when we notice them least they are doing their best work.
Have you rolled up your pants legs, yet?
“Who needs presidential charisma when you represent the last best hope of the republic?”, argues the “expert.” “Further,” Rothkopf says, “Biden is not the only messenger his party has.”
OK, I understand the “We don’t have to put all of our Democrat eggs in Biden’s basket” ploy but that doesn’t exactly spell “ringing endorsement,” bud.
If Democrats can mobilize and effectively communicate the stakes in the next election and then bring to life the Biden agenda and all it means to average Americans from coast to coast, then they can produce an election outcome that is the kind of surprising twist that the press loves to write about.
If this guy thinks the next Democrat presidential candidate is going to run on “the Biden agenda,” he’s even further up the creek without a paddle than he appears to be. Life is good.