Biden, Harris, and Tha God
A powerful voice in Black media is a thorn in the administration's side.
There has been quite a bit of talk the last couple of years about Black voters becoming more disillusioned with the Democratic Party in general and President Biden in particular. While it’s almost surely overblown—the demographic is still overwhelmingly Democratic and likely to vote for Biden’s re-election—it’s nonetheless a phenomenon that bears watching as our parties realign.
A POLITICO piece from yesterday morning, “Trouble with tha God,” sheds some interesting if anecdotal light on it.
It’s not so much that Charlamagne tha God has beef with the president.
It’s just that he thinks Joe Biden is a lousy messenger and that he lacks the basic political skills that — whatever one thinks about the guy — Donald Trump possesses.
Sitting in the second row of his black Escalade as his driver crawls through Manhattan traffic on a late October morning, the co-host of the influential “Breakfast Club” radio show said Biden and others in his circle spend too much time posturing.
Instead of thinking of better ways to play up policy achievements, he argues, Democrats rely too much on depicting former President Donald Trump as a crook.
“It’s almost like Democrats are doing this purity test. America is not pure. The people of America are not pure. We’re flawed,” he said. “I’m not looking for my politicians to be pure, … I’m looking for my politicians to be effective.”
Biden has faced similarly tough recriminations from other political luminaries. But coming from Charlamagne, it hits different. The radio host, 45, claims a loyal audience of 8 million monthly listeners. He is ascendant, having taken on roles guest hosting “The Daily Show,” starting up his own podcasting empire with iHeartRadio and being inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame. He’s also reaching the very voters Biden is struggling to draw: young and Black.
And increasingly, Charlamagne’s appraisal of the Biden administration has been sour. While he anguishes at the thought of a 2020 rematch, the radio personality gives Trump props for commanding attention and selling his ideas.
Trump relentlessly touted — or, in some cases, gave himself outsized credit for — policies he enacted as president. He signed the First Step Act into law, which brought modest reforms to the federal criminal justice system. He pardoned rappers Lil Wayne and Kodak Black. And he sent stimulus checks, or what a lot of folks commonly refer to as “stimmies,” during the first year of the pandemic.
“Imagine you felt like you’ve never gotten anything from the government, ever. And you don’t know how politics work, you just know you just got this check in the mail, with [Trump’s] name on it,” Charlamagne said. “You will feel like he did something.”
Biden sent checks too. But Charlamagne argues that he failed to play it up the way his predecessor did.
Charlamagne doesn’t consider himself a Democrat or a Republican — a position he says allows him to call bullshit on empty campaign rhetoric politicians spew when they decide it’s time to engage Black audiences to wrangle up votes.
“In 2024, it’s a race between the cowards, the crooks and the couch,” he said, referring to Biden, Trump and the option to stay home.
Charlamagne suspects the couch will win.
There’s a whole lot more to the piece, much of which focuses on Charlamagne’s evolution as a host as he’s matured and gained influence, as well as the ways in which Democratic politicians—Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Kamala Harris—have hurt themselves with appearances on his show.
Reading the feature, it strikes me that Charlamagne expects that Democratic politicians to spend more time on “Black media” and, frankly, to him and his audience. Still, his larger critique of Biden The Politician is not off the mark.
After more than three years of Biden in office, Charlamagne openly questions his endorsement and why Biden can’t take advantage of simple messaging opportunities, like in October when the president announced the designation of 31 tech hubs across the nation intended to spur innovation. The radio personality fumed on his program that the announcement didn’t include basic information about how it could help average Americans or provide clues to what types of jobs folks should be preparing to apply for or how those jobs would be protected from advancements in artificial intelligence.
“I’m not the highest grade of weed in the dispensary,” he quipped to me. “I’m genuinely asking questions, because I want answers and that is just common sense to me. Yeah, it’s good that you’re making all these investments in tech and everything else. But what does this mean, for regular everyday people?” (Fun fact, one of Charlamagne’s next business ventures is opening up a Hashstoria marijuana dispensary in Newark in early 2024 with partners Raekwon of the Wu-Tang Clan and Bakari Sellers, now a TV pundit.)
At the same time, there’s a not-unreasonable pushback that he’s shooting at the wrong target:
The administration has periodically back channeled with him, though it’s often to express annoyance with how he is framing an issue. For his part, Charlamagne said the conversations with White House officials are respectful and that he’s never asked him to tone down his rhetoric.
Within Democratic circles, including inside the administration, there is a general recognition that the president needs to do more to reach Black voters.
Biden officials convened a meeting at the White House with influential Black Democrats in mid-December to discuss how the administration can better engage Black men ahead of the 2024 elections. And the president has highlighted the administration’s successes helping Black-owned businesses at a recent stop in Milwaukee before Christmas.
And, for whatever validity his critiques of Biden have, Charlamagne seems to have too little grasp of the art of the possible:
Charlamagne stumped with then-presidential candidate Harris in 2019 in Goose Creek, South Carolina. It was there that she unveiled her plan to tackle the nation’s mental health crisis, something of a personal topic to Charlamagne, who has used his platform to speak about his own mental health struggles and tried to destigmatize the issue for Black men.
Since then, he said, Harris and the rest of the Biden administration have not adequately elevated mental health awareness as an issue or done enough promoting criminal justice reforms, particularly on marijuana offenses.
The White House announced a proposed rule in July that closed a loophole that previously allowed health care providers to deny care for mental health disorders and substance abuse. Biden also announced last October that he was pardoning all federal offenses for simple weed possession.
But that wasn’t enough for Charlamagne, who also said has no plans to throw his support behind Biden’s reelection. He said he feels burned by backing Harris.
“I’ve learned my lesson from doing that,” he said. “Once they got in the White House, she … kind of disappeared.”
He suspects neither Biden nor Harris will make a return to “The Breakfast Club” this cycle.
Charlamagne knows his word holds weight with his audience. “When I give people my word like: ‘Yo man, I think we should be supporting Kamala Harris for vice president … because she’s going to hold it down.’ When we say those things and people don’t see her holding it down, that causes issues,” he said.
He says he still gets blowback from it. “‘Damn, you told us to vote for [them].’ Do you know how many people say that to me all the time?”
Presidents have only so much political capital to spend. And, while Biden ostensibly had Democratic control of the House and Senate his first two years in office, the degree to which Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema was thorns in his side are well-documented. The idea that he was going to prioritize mental health and marijuana reform, neither of which are core voter concerns (or likely to attract Manchin’s support), is absurd.
Further, while I’m hardly Harris’ biggest fan, she’s the Vice President. She has no policymaking authority beyond the ability to persuade the President. What more was she supposed to “hold down”?
And then there’s this:
There’s a difference, of course, between not endorsing someone and actively criticizing. And for the Biden White House, Charlamagne has become something of an irritant, whether it’s raising questions about the president’s political acumen or helping elevate longshot presidential hopefuls Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Marianne Williamson and Cornel West — but not, notably, Biden or Harris.
One he has given outsized attention to is fellow South Carolinian, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley.
When she appeared on “The Daily Show” with Charlamagne in December he asked: “Why doesn’t the GOP just move away from Trump and get behind you?”
He believes Haley could “definitely” beat Biden — something polling backs up.
Such proclamations make Charlamagne a growing fixture in the conservative media ecosystem.
Fox News and other conservative outlets routinely write about Charlamagne’s digs on the Biden administration, helping to amplify his reach and showcase what many always knew was the case: Biden does not have unified Black support.
For his part, Charlamagne says he does not fully understand conservatives’ obsession with what he does on “The Breakfast Club” or any of his other outlets. At the end of the day, he notes, he is an entertainer and knows that ratings, eyeballs and clicks are good for business.
It always irritates me when influential entertainers in the political space—whether it was the late Rush Limbaugh or former Daily Show host Jon Stewart—simultaneously shape the policy agenda and the election cycles and yet hide behind the “I’m just an entertainer” schtick. It’s just disingenuous.
The posture has earned him his own chorus of critics, who say his push for audience and relevance is blinding him to a very obvious pitfall: His relentless criticisms of Biden may unintentionally elevate Trump, which some Democrats argue will be detrimental for Black voters.
Still, there are other Democrats — particularly those outside of the Biden administration — who understand the unique perch Charlamagne occupies.
There may only be one God. But there’s also only one Charlamagne too.
“I have enormous respect for him, he’s one of the greatest influences of our time,” said Donna Brazile, a longtime Democratic strategist who has appeared on “The Breakfast Club” numerous times.
“He represents a different generation, a different voice, he reaches people that typically do not follow the breaking news each and every day,” she noted.
I’ve only seen snippets of Charlamagne’s interviews over the years and have no real sense of the man. To the extent he’s being honest in his questioning rather than just trying to generate attention to himself, I’m firmly in the Let The Chips Fall Where They May camp. He has no duty to restrain his critiques of Biden for fear that they indirectly help Trump.
At the same time, if he believes—as he clearly does—that re-electing Biden is light years better for his audience than a second Trump term, then he should certainly make that clear repeatedly. In swing states with large Black populations, their sitting on the couch come November could very well make the difference.
UPDATE: In the comments below, @Mimai posits:
Premise: Any criticism* of Biden harms his bid for re-election. It chips away at his support among his, er, supporters. It reinforces the opposition. And it increases the likelihood that fence-sitters (who otherwise lean toward Biden given the alternatives) will stay home.
Conclusion: One should never criticize Biden.
Question: How is this framing wrong?
While it follows syllogistic logic quite well, its flaw is its underlying presumption that the only thing that matters in life is who wins the 2024 election. To the extent Charlamagne is a legitimate political commentator rather than a mere showman or Democratic Party operative, he owes his audience integrity in his analysis.
I spent most of the life of this blog as a supporter of Republican candidates, albeit more enthusiastically in the earlier days. Even then, I criticized the policy choices or political moves of those for whom I intended to vote. Since 2016, I’ve been a #NeverTrump guy and reluctant supporter of Democratic candidates. That doesn’t require me to be their cheerleader.
Indeed, I roundly criticized the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt for admitting that they shaded their commentary to “carry water” for John McCain the Republicans in the 2006 midterms even though they had reservations. Hackery is the ultimate sin of the pundit.
I very much agree with his sense that Biden’s messaging is inadequate. Yeah, Joe is mostly doing what he can, where he can, but when he does, you rarely hear anything about it.
As far as issues, making noise about legalizing marijuana would actually go over quite well. It’s become a national issue, something that’s been done in even traditionally “red” states because nobody cares about pot anymore. NORML won, because it turns out that as they’ve been pointing out for 40 years, legalizing weed is more profitable than sending dangerously chill kids to prison. At this point the mantra should be, “Leave it up to the states, just like we do for alcohol.”
Likewise Biden could push for criminal justice changes at the federal level, press demands on states that their systems conform to basic standards, and make hay over the terrible conditions in some states’ prisons. Those states are almost entirely “red”, and those systems are propped up by slender white majorities (I’m looking at you, Louisiana). That would have an outsized impact on the most vulnerable Black populations (read: most systemically abused) – and the entire Black community would know it.
But really, when’s the last time you heard anything from Biden that made it through the cacophony of Republican pols vying for second place in the Ugliest Soul contest? It just doesn’t happen because this administration is bad at press. Biden should be taking them on directly, but he just kinda waves his hands a bit and gives some low-key speeches and hopes things will play out like 2020.
Charlemagne’s position is a reflection of the quip about the perfect becoming the enemy of the good. Do any of the Dem or left-leaning Biden critics really believe that 4 more years of Trump will be of personal or national benefit? He’s more of an astute marketer than political savant. His claim that he doesn’t understand the rightwing media’s attention is laughable.
Premise: Any criticism* of Biden harms his bid for re-election. It chips away at his support among his, er, supporters. It reinforces the opposition. And it increases the likelihood that fence-sitters (who otherwise lean toward Biden given the alternatives) will stay home.
Conclusion: One should never criticize Biden.
Question: How is this framing wrong?
*Regardless of any prefatory throat clearing about the alternative candidate(s) being worse.
There’s nothing this guy is saying which is unreasonable. I mean, closing a loophole for mental health? This sounds like somebody on the phone you reach after twenty minutes of dealing with an artificial voice. Most people, when they get hit with something huge medically, have no idea what to expect from their insurers. You can safely demagogue against them and not just issue press releases from the middle of nowhere.
Republicans have selected targets for anti-social rejects–teachers, colleges, woke entertainment, but they at least are cashing in on how crappy capitalism has turned out to be. Trump gets this as well. He doesn’t sound like customer service, or Matthew Yglesias or some vulgar motivational speaker being paid 10K a session to inspire managers to do layoffs.
“Charlamagne says he does not fully understand conservatives’ obsession with what he does on “The Breakfast Club” ”
I’d say he understands well enough that firmly taking Bidens side would cost him a lot of audience who are interested in his praise of Haley, Trump etc. And from a practical perspective, he is a rich person – so will not be much affected personally by the rightward spiral of any future Republican administration.
@Mimai:
The issue seems to be that he only criticizes Biden/Harris.. even for Trump he ‘gives Trump props for commanding attention and selling his ideas’. Alongwith ‘helping elevate longshot presidential hopefuls Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Marianne Williamson and Cornel West’, and apparently a pretty soft hand with Haley.
@Mimai: I initially responded here and decided instead to do so as an UPDATE to the OP.
I understand that “tha” is AAVE, but why the misspelling of “Charlemagne”?
I’m curious, do you believe they actually had reservations about McCain? I didn’t listen to either of them a whole lot, and had always assumed they were just trying to save face from backing a losing candidate.
Rush Limbaugh, whatever his political views, greatly benefitted from Bill Clinton’s two terms as President.
Charlamagne, personally and professionally will likely benefit from a second Trump term.
@Han: I actually misremembered the context: they made their comments in the aftermath of the 2006 midterm losses, not the 2008 election loss. But, yes, while they had/have hackish tendencies, I think they genuinely hated having to shill for relatively moderate Republican politicians.
@Han:
No. McCain was controversial on the right going back to the 2000 election when he backed campaign-finance reform, criticized Dubya for pushing tax cuts for the rich, and attacked Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as bigots comparable to Louis Farrakhan. He became somewhat of a favorite in the pundit class who viewed him as a “good” Republican, and he gained further sympathy with this set for the Bush campaign’s racist smear campaign against his teenage daughter during the South Carolina primary.
He later shifted rightward in his path to finally getting the nomination in 2008, but many on the right continued to view him as a RINO traitor.
It’s a big, diverse country of 330 million people of which. As much as people wish otherwise, shoving that diversity into two different holes is not easy. And it makes tailored messaging difficult.
There are a lot of people who aren’t in the tank for one side or another and aren’t convinced by simplistic positive or negative partisanship and related arguments. Charlamagne seems to fall into that broad camp, which means the usual tactics are not likely to work well on him.
Politicians, in general, don’t help themselves with this group of people by constantly overpromising and underdelivering. Expectations management matters. The cynicism in politics is entirely justified and self-reinforcing.
In the update, James wrote the following:
Thou shalt not sully my syllogism with your projections. 😉
Especially when your projection is a strawman: “[T]he only thing that matters in life” — weak sauce.
It should go without saying that criticism (or lack thereof) of Biden does not necessarily compete with other matters of life importance.
Note also that the syllogism was focused on criticism. Sports analogy: To refrain from booing does not obligate one to cheerlead.
All that said, let me attempt to flesh it out a bit more with this preface to the syllogism: “If one believes that the 2024 election is significant*…”
*ie, democracy is in the balance, human rights are threatened, it’s a one-way door, etc.
I question whether it is possible in this day and age to have effective positive political messaging. For decades now the Republicans (with the aid of Fox news and talk radio) have hammered the Democrats on anything they do. It is always the Democrats fault, sometimes with aid of a few RINOs. And a substantial portion of the country buys into this.
To me the idea of Trump as POTUS is now an existential danger to this country. I’d love to see some deep pocket Democrat(s) put out some ads that go like this: I am a Democrat and support Joe Biden, and I want to see him re-elected as president of the United States. But if he isn’t re-elected I do not fear for the future of the country. Unless Donald Trump is elected as president. He is a man who has shown us by his past actions that he has no ethical sense whatsoever, and will act only in ways that benefit him personally. He is an amoral pig (h/t Michael Reynolds, you used this one about Trump and I think it is the most succinct description of him I have ever heard).
@SenyorDave:
Current political analysis (to be updated for the Moral Downfall du Jour): “Republicans – who we should clearly consider good faith political participants making a reasonable point – are just a little conservative. They truly believe that our inability to stop transgender teachers from existing is the downfall of the nation. Surely they’re just concerned and there’s a chance that it’s true!”
What I wish we would get: “Just 20 years ago, Conservatives fought against equality for gays by saying it would be the downfall of our country. And 20 years before that they fought against women’s equality. And 20 years before that they fought against Civil Rights. And 20 years before that they fought against worker rights. And 20 years before that they fought against Native American rights. And 20 years before that they fought against Italian and Irish immigrants. And 20 years before that they fought against Asian immigrants. And 20 years before that they literally started a war to keep slaves. What’s wrong with these people?”
@Mimai: Ha! I wasn’t trying to strawman you, merely intending to point out that your premise was focused solely on Trump v Biden when other factors also matter. The notion that a show host who prefers Biden to Trump must therefore avoid any analysis or commentary that might, even indirectly, help Trump elides the host’s responsibilities to his audience.
Charlamagne sounds like a Black Joe Rogan in that article, and I hope the article is doing him wrong, because no one should sound like a Joe Rogan.
That said, the Biden campaign should at least be sending surrogates to the show, as tha God speaks to a key, wavering demographic in large numbers.
Politico scribes scribble:
So, it’s a trap. Screw that. Send Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren, the two whitest Democrats in America. And also two of the most unflappable surrogates.
If Hillary Clinton went on his show and sounded inauthentic and pandering because of her hot sauce claims, and he got Biden frustrated enough to say that if you vote for Trump you ain’t Black, then I think someone who is authentically Unable To Pander To Black Folks may be the right person. Someone who can say “I’m not like you, but I’ve got charts and graphs to show how this administration’s policies have helped Black Americans.”
Or it would be such an awkward clusterfuck that it would be amazing.
I’m not saying it’s probable, or very likely, or even likely at all, but there’s a very small, almost zero but ultimately non-zero chance that it would culminate in Pete Buttigieg attempting to rap “Baby Got Back”.
@James Joyner:
I think that’s the general context, though – frustration that he’s not a team player for the Democrats. That if he’s going to criticize Biden for falling short, then he needs to follow that up with strong support for Biden and encourage his audience to vote for him despite his reservations. Which it seems he’s not doing, at least not yet.
We see that all the time, including here – any criticism of Biden/Democrats that isn’t immediately followed by unconditional support is seen as ranging from unhelpful to treasonous.
This is one way that politics is very different from sports tribalism, and I think it’s because politics is primarily a binary, zero-sum contest, while sports is not.
@Assad K:
I know if may “seem” this way. Because that is what gets the clicks: “Prominent Black voice criticizes a Democrat!”
And yet, a review (if you are not already familiar) of his output indicates otherwise.
I spent most of the life of this blog as a supporter of Republican candidates, albeit more enthusiastically in the earlier days. Even then, I criticized the policy choices or political moves of those for whom I intended to vote. Since 2016, I’ve been a #NeverTrump guy and reluctant supporter of Democratic candidates. That doesn’t require me to be their cheerleader.
No one is saying someone like CTG has to be a cheerleader. What they’re saying is that he isn’t properly analyzing policies and is confusing the issue. Every “Biden could do better” has to be contrasted with “but what would Trump do”.
@James Joyner:
I don’t think it elides anything.
If one truly believes that this election (Biden v Trump) is critical — the most critical in our lifetime and maybe of all time!!! — then one has to consider the tradeoffs.
The premise I set up is that criticism of Biden, on net, harms his chances for re-election. Now one can certainly challenge that premise (please do), but so far, no one has.
I did not say anything about cheerleading for Biden, engaging in hackery, etc. I focused solely on criticism — to do or not to do.
One might consider the various tradeoffs and conclude that the upsides of criticizing Biden outweigh the downsides of harming Biden’s re-election.
For me, it would be an easy decision. Criticize. Why? Among other things,* my platform (to which it exists at all) is tiny and my self-regard is >tiny. But on closer in(tro)spection, that seems rather selfish and short-sighted if one truly believes this election is critical. Perhaps I should reconsider.
But what about people who have larger platforms? And who could actually have some non-zero impact on the election outcome? And who have more skin in the game (ie, face greater risks) regarding the outcome?
*So many other things!
@Mimai:
For one thing, criticism is what keeps campaigns from staying out of echo chambers and countering the voices of sycophants and the already converted. Criticism is a guard against complacency and the comfort of narratives rooted in confirmation bias.
So I agree with what you’re getting at.
@Mimai:
Most of the time, Biden’s loudest critics:
1) have the most to gain from a Trump presidency,
And/or 2) suffer from boiling frog syndrome, convincing themselves the institutions will hold (maybe), this too will pass (true), and the danger of MAGA extremism is overblown despite Trump’s umhinged, Hitler-esque dangerous rhetoric (false),
And/or 3) have the least to lose from a Trump presidency, either because their socioeconomic privilege protects them short-term, or they are quite underprivileged and don’t have much more to lose.
Charlemagne is rich and would likely be safe under the MAGA Reich, at least till the guillotines and Jan. 6-style gallows started rattling and the concentration camp choo-choos started rolling. Like many wealthy people of all races, I think he dislikes Trump — but also, he thinks he can protect his own. So… whatever.
If you are a black American of means, with an influential platform, and you understand the threat of Trump — who failed to appoint a single high-level black judge, who tweeted a White Power video on 28 June 2020, who coddles Putin, and who pushes regressive, corporatist, white supremacist neofascism — what bigger responsibility to your 2024 audience is there, than to avoid assisting Trump?
I can’t think of any.
So the common denominator among those eschewing your simple cost-benefit analysis and thus refusing to temper extraneous critiques of Biden and Democrats until after Nov. 5, 2024 is this: they don’t think Trump is that bad, for themselves or the rest of us. Some just don’t say so due to social pressure. (Their threat assessment is wrong.)
@Mimai:
I will disagree with Dr. Joyner and say: it isn’t. I hate that, but it isn’t.
Ironically, I’ve been reading some technical literature that is relevant to this question. It has to do with the proper way to balance future generations against current sacrifices when thinking about climate change. If you pretend that these are normal times, and apply standard discounting principles to future costs and benefits, you have to conclude that we shouldn’t do anything about climate change, even if it might wipe out most of humanity. That’s wrong, but explaining why is subtle.
Offhand, I can’t think of anything more important to America than preventing a second Trump administration. That could change, I suppose, between now and Election Day — but for the moment there’s no benefit to be had from criticizing Biden’s flaws that could outweigh even a tiny increase in the chances of a Trump victory. Even if Biden suddenly starting pushing for every policy I favor, the net difference between that situation and the current situation is trivial compared to the difference between the worst possible Biden second term and the best possible Trump second term — and the worst plausible Trump administration dwarfs even that.