SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
joe biden
From Power as an Aphrodisiac to Prostate Cancer: Democrats and the Fall of Joe Biden
The presidency is the ultimate source of power in American politics. But individuals lusting for power does not typically end well for the masses—especially the working class.
May 21, 2025
There is a fable that when Kissinger and Nixon met with Mao Zedong, Mao wondered out loud why the physically unattractive Kissinger was so successful with women. Kissinger quipped, supposedly, that “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
Anyone who has spent time in political campaigns, political office, or corporate hierarchies, knows there is more than a little truth to Kissinger’s claim. If you hold power or have access to it you are attractive, or at least more attractive than you would be without it. You can feel it and you can use it, and you may do foolish things for fear of losing it. The hunger for it is strong enough to suck away your courage.
Kissinger’s insight gives us, perhaps, a better understanding about how Biden got away with running again when he was so obviously impaired. (You want to kill an aphrodisiac? Talk about your prostate cancer.)
The wound has been reopened with the publication of Original Sin, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. It is the supposedly shocking story of how Biden’s mental and physical maladies were covered up. (What’s really shocking is how Tapper is hawking his own book on his own CNN show and then also covering it as major news, just a bit like Trump selling meme coins from the White House. Yes, in behalf of all authors, I’m jealous!)
And now the revelation that Biden has Stage 4 prostate cancer is leading to further recriminations that he was hiding his declining health both from the public and from his fellow Democrats.
The basic argument is that those in the know knew that Biden was growing more and more feeble during his presidency and covered up the growing problems by keeping him out of the public eye. As a result, Biden and his team pressed for his reelection, while virtually no one in the Democratic Party resisted publicly, even as polls repeatedly showed that a majority of Democratic voters thought Biden was too old to run again.
Why didn’t the Democrats do something about this obvious train wreck in the making? Why didn’t Bernie, AOC, Elizabeth Warren and other congressional progressives call this process into question so there would be time to select a new candidate through primaries? Why didn’t Governors Pritzker and Newsom, along with other presidential hopefuls, say something—anything—to the American public?
The current crop of answers goes something like this: Biden was protected by his “Polit Bureau” of close advisors, as Democrats labeled them. Those in government who were in contact with Biden always reported that he was sharp and fit because he was only made available during his good times. In short, it was largely his advisor’s fault, including his wife Jill, who failed the party and American democracy by protecting him from more scrutiny. And perhaps, more importantly, it was Biden’s foolish ego that pushed him to hold onto power until it was too late.
Much of that may be true, but it’s inadequate. Kissinger’s aphrodisiac explanation goes deeper.
The presidency is the ultimate source of power in American politics. How could anything match being the leader of the free world, the Commander in Chief of the largest military arsenal in history, and the single person who can control U.S. laws and legislation, from the bully pulpit, by executive order, or with a veto? Everyone wants to kiss your ring.
The president has that power. Power for most everyone else (except for the Supreme Court justices, when they show some spine) is largely derivative. As a result, those who have access to the president are far more powerful than those who do not. Gaining presidential access and then holding on to it is the next best aphrodisiac.
Progressives in Congress—like Sanders, AOC, and Warren—believed they had great influence over Biden and his agenda. There was the repeated bluster that Biden was the most pro-working-class president since FDR. Big ideas, like the Green New Deal, gained Biden’s support, and progressives were often in the center of the action, passing progressive legislation and regulations (even when ambushed by Sens. Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema).
Had they dared to question Biden’s re-election run, it is likely, very likely, they would have lost their access in a hurry. That threat no doubt quieted their tongues. Proximity to power may even have led them to ignore Biden’s decline, to avoid seeing it, and even to choose not to think about it. The power-high can do that and more.
What about the presidential hopefuls? They are hungry for the fullest dose of the power aphrodisiac. If they challenged Biden and his incumbent advantage in 2024 and failed, they might never get another chance at that ultimate high. The Biden supporters among Democratic elites, especially, would never forgive them for stepping into the race. And if Biden beat them in the primaries, and then lost to Trump, or if they beat Biden and then lost to Trump, they would get blamed, and their lofty political ambitions would be quashed. Just calling Biden out, without challenging him in the primaries, would get them nowhere but down. Just ask Dean Phillips.
But if they sat back and let Biden win, or fail on his own, then the 2028 would be wide open. Their choice wasn’t that hard. The safest path to power was to bide their time.
Unfortunately, that political pragmatism and surrender to the aphrodisiac might turn out to be enormously problematic for the Democrats. It’s not a given that Trump’s scorched earth policies will flip the House back to the Democrats in 2026, and the Senate map is a particularly tough one for the Democrats. The Biden debacle has voters questioning why Democrats remained dead silent even as the rest of the country could see plainly that Biden was too old to govern.
That silence now leads to more questions about the timing of Biden’s cancer diagnosis. Did he release this information to turn media coverage away from the new book’s revelations? How could he not know of his ailment while he was president, given that he had the best health care support in the country, if not the world?
All this adds to the stains on the Democratic brand and further undermines their credibility, which already is severely tarnished among working-class voters.
As this story festers, it might be a good time for progressives to question their lifelong strategy of rebuilding the Democratic Party into an instrument of working-class justice. Maybe, just maybe, they should concede that task is doomed to failure. Most Democratic Party officials do not want to be the defenders of the working class. Most, in fact, are content to work hand-in-hand with their wealthy donors who have gained their riches by siphoning wealth away from working people.
Instead, it might be time to have a serious discussion about what it will take to build a new working-class political formation, possibly a new party, even if it is going to take a decade and maybe longer to come to fruition.
The billionaires have two political parties. We need one of our own—one that is not intoxicated by the enfeebling lust for power.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Former President Biden Has 'Aggressive Form' of Prostate Cancer
Biden, 82, is the oldest person to have held the office of the presidency.
May 18, 2025
Former U.S. President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, according to a Sunday statement from his personal office.
"Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms. On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone," according to a statement sent to CBS News and other outlets."While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management."
A Gleason score, a grading system for prostate cancer, ranks the seriousness of cancer from six, which is considered "low-grade" cancer, to 10, which is considered "high-grade" cancer.
Biden has kept a relatively low profile since exiting the 2024 presidential race last summer following a disastrous debate performance in June that generated widespread concern about his fitness to serve as the Democratic candidate.
Since then, reports about this decline have continued to surface. On Friday, Axios released audio of Biden's interviews with Special Counsel Robert Hur, who investigated his handling of classified documents from before he took office in 2021. In the audio recordings of the interviews, which took place in October 2023, Biden has a difficult time remembering key dates and details.
Earlier in May, Biden did a television interview during which he refuted the notion that he suffered serious mental decline during his final year in office.
Democrats have continued to deal with the fallout of around Biden's departure from the race and reports regarding his mental acuity, with some fielding tough questions about their awareness of his decline before he decided to drop out.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Biden are the two oldest presidents to ever be sworn in, with Trump besting Biden by a few months when he was sworn in this past January. Biden, who is 82, is the oldest person to have held the office of the presidency.
Elected officials in both parties, including Trump, offered Biden well wishes and messages of support on Sunday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bondi Shreds Biden-Era Protections for Journalists as Trump White House Hunts Leakers
One critic warned that President Donald Trump "almost certainly will abuse the legal system to investigate and prosecute his critics and the journalists they talk to."
Apr 28, 2025
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has scrapped a Biden-era policy that sharply restricted the Justice Department's ability to seize journalists' records and force them to testify in leak investigations, an alarming move that press freedom advocates said carries dire implications for reporters and whistleblowers.
In an internal memo first reported Friday by CBS News, Bondi wrote that the Justice Department "will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President [Donald] Trump's policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people."
"The perpetrators of these leaks aid our foreign adversaries by spilling sensitive and sometimes classified information onto the Internet. The damage is significant and irreversible," Bondi continued. "Accountability, including criminal prosecutions, is necessary to set a new course."
As part of a renewed crackdown on leaks, Bondi said she is issuing revised Justice Department regulations stating that media outlets "must answer subpoenas" related to efforts to uncover sources of unauthorized disclosures within the federal government.
"The policy contemplates the use of subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to compel production of information and testimony by and relating to members of the news media, subject to the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa, and the approval of the department's leadership in some instances," the memo states. "The attorney general must also approve efforts to question or arrest members of the news media."
"Some of the most consequential reporting in U.S. history—from Watergate to warrantless wiretapping after 9/11—was and continues to be made possible because reporters have been able to protect the identities of confidential sources."
The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF)—a group co-founded by the late Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked classified documents that came to be known as the Pentagon Papers—noted in a statement that Bondi's memo followed "news that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard asked the Department of Justice to investigate recent leaks to reporters."
Seth Stern, FPF's advocacy director, said Bondi's move was made possible by lawmakers' failure to pass the PRESS Act, bipartisan legislation would have codified into law rules prohibiting the federal government from forcing journalists or telecom companies from disclosing information about their sources.
"Every Democrat who put the PRESS Act on the back burner when they had the opportunity to pass a bipartisan bill codifying journalist-source confidentiality should be ashamed," said Stern. "Everyone predicted this would happen in a second Trump administration, yet politicians in a position to prevent it prioritized empty rhetoric over putting up a meaningful fight."
"Because of them," Stern added, "a president who threatens journalists with prison rape for protecting their sources and says reporting critically on his administration should be illegal can and almost certainly will abuse the legal system to investigate and prosecute his critics and the journalists they talk to."
After his victory in the 2024 presidential election, Trump instructed Republicans to block the PRESS Act, writing on his social media platform, "REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!"
Since the start of his second term, Trump has launched what Reporters Without Borders (RSF) characterized as "a monumental assault on press freedom," including by engaging in "legal intimidation" against media outlets.
"When you step back and look at the whole picture, the pattern of blows to press freedom is quite clear," Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF North America, said late last week. "RSF refuses to accept this massive attack on press freedom as the new normal. We will continue to call out these assaults against the press and use every means at our disposal to fight back against them. We urge every American who values press freedom to do the same."
Earlier this month, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a safety advisory to journalists planning to visit the United States, warning "journalists who are at high risk of being detained at the border" to "consider leaving their personal and/or work devices at home and instead carry separate devices and a new SIM card."
Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement following Bondi's memo that "strong protections for journalists serve the American public by safeguarding the free flow of information."
"Some of the most consequential reporting in U.S. history—from Watergate to warrantless wiretapping after 9/11—was and continues to be made possible because reporters have been able to protect the identities of confidential sources and uncover and report stories that matter to people across the political spectrum," Brown said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular