A POLITICAL DECISION: JOE BIDEN ENDS HIS SILENCE. In today’s political culture, we expect the president of the United States to comment on significant events. But President Joe Biden can sometimes be oddly silent, even on matters of clear national importance. In early 2023, for example, Biden let weeks go by before publicly commenting on the devastating train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Many people in public life, especially Republicans, asked the president simply to acknowledge that the derailment occurred, but Biden, fearing that his administration’s safety agencies would be blamed for failing to prevent the accident, stayed silent.
Lately, Biden has been quiet on the troubling growth of anti-Israel protests on college campuses. Big institutions like Columbia University, the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have been hit hard. More than 2,000 protesters have been arrested, and there have been many angry scenes. As all sides expected the protests to grow and feared that the ugliness might worsen, many wanted to hear from Biden. But the president remained silent.
Until this morning. Speaking at the White House before a campaign trip to North Carolina, Biden framed the issue as a balance between two “fundamental American principles.” “The first is the right to free speech and for people to peacefully assemble and make their voices heard,” Biden said. “The second is the rule of law. Both must be upheld.”
Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
Peaceful protest is lawful and protected by the Constitution, Biden said. But then, “It’s against the law when violence occurs. Destroying property is not a peaceful protest. It’s against the law. Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and graduations — none of this is a peaceful protest. Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. Dissent is essential to democracy. But dissent must never lead to disorder or to denying the rights of others so students can finish the semester and their college education.”
All in all, it was probably a clearer statement of principles and support for order than some expected. But why had Biden waited so long? The answer lies in the current politics of the Democratic Party, a party riven by divisions Biden needs to close if he is to win reelection this year. Yes, Democratic lawmakers like Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) represent the left fringes, but opposition to Israel’s military retaliation after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack has spread throughout the Democratic Party. In late March, Gallup found that just 18% of Democrats approved of Israel’s military action, while 75% disapproved. Looking at those numbers, any Biden staffer might ask: So the president is supposed to condemn the students protesting Israel’s military action? What’s the political benefit of that?
On the other hand, many who oppose what Israel is doing in Gaza also oppose letting protesters run amok on college campuses. A new Morning Consult poll has found that 76% of those surveyed support colleges “asking the police to protect campuses from violence.” Seventy-six percent is a pretty persuasive number. It means that a very solid majority of people want to see order in the nation’s cities and campuses despite whatever they might think about Gaza.
And that is perhaps the reason Biden decided to speak Thursday morning. Just a few hours earlier, NBC News reported that Biden’s advisers “believe that tensions over U.S. support for Israel in the war in Gaza spreading through college campuses will soon flame out and that there is neither a need nor an upside for him to weigh in more directly.” The next morning, Biden was giving his statement.
It happened slowly, and then quickly, and it appears Biden has finally gotten the message about unlawful protests. So for those who might be cynically inclined to believe that the president’s decision to talk or not to talk was all politics, you’re right. It was all politics.
