Inside the Groupthink That Shielded Biden and Paved the Way for Trump’s Return

Inside the Groupthink That Shielded Biden and Paved the Way for Trump’s Return

This article is based on an edited transcript from an episode of “The Ezra Klein Show.” The original conversation can be accessed on various podcast platforms.

The central question explored is whether there was a deliberate cover-up surrounding Joe Biden’s cognitive decline during his 2024 presidential campaign.

Concerns about Biden’s age were widespread when he ran in 2020. After his victory, inquiries with senior White House officials about his condition consistently returned reassurances of his vigor and command.

While these officials were trusted, the deeper issue was whether they were deceiving themselves about the president’s true state.

The White House seemed to create a false dichotomy: although Biden’s public communication skills had deteriorated, his decision-making remained sharp. This rationale justified keeping him on the ticket despite evident struggles.

However, separating communication from leadership is misleading, as effective presidency requires both. The narrative that only communication declined while other faculties remained intact was always questionable.

The story progressed with Biden’s faltering performance in the 2024 presidential debate, calls within the party to replace him on the ticket, Kamala Harris’s accelerated campaign efforts, and ultimately Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

In recent months, a new consensus has emerged suggesting that many insiders knew Biden was unfit for office but chose to conceal it.

A genuine cover-up would imply a cold, rational decision by those close to Biden to hide the truth. Yet, what actually transpired appears more complex and less calculated.

This raises broader questions about perception and loyalty: how people fail to acknowledge uncomfortable realities and allow allegiance to cloud judgment.

Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s book, “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” reconstructs what the Democratic Party knew and when.

Tapper, a seasoned journalist and co-moderator of the pivotal 2024 presidential debate, and Thompson, a political reporter, conducted over 200 interviews for their investigation.

Tapper discusses with Ezra Klein the insights gained, beginning with his own growing doubts about Biden’s capacity to campaign effectively.

The following conversation was recorded before Biden’s cancer diagnosis, which adds further relevance to the discussion.

Tapper recounts special prosecutor Robert Hur’s October 2023 interview with Biden, where prosecutors described the president as a well-intentioned elderly man struggling with memory lapses.

Hur and his team were astonished by Biden’s disjointed responses, inability to recall dates, and confusion over key events relevant to the investigation.

Although some dismissed Hur’s characterization as politically motivated, the transcripts suggest a genuinely concerning level of cognitive decline.

The White House’s response was to emphasize Biden’s age rather than address potential legal or ethical concerns, mounting opposition not only against Hur but also against Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Despite initial hopes for an independent Justice Department, Garland concluded that Biden preferred protection over impartiality.

Tapper recalls his growing unease after the release of the Hur report and Biden’s avoidance of major interviews, notably the decision to skip the Super Bowl interview to avoid scrutiny.

Biden’s subsequent press conference, intended to dispel concerns about his memory, instead revealed further lapses, such as confusing Egypt with Mexico.

The book explores how personal tragedies, especially Hunter Biden’s legal troubles, added immense stress that likely accelerated Biden’s decline.

Tapper reflects on how this period marked a turning point, where calls for Biden to step down grew louder, although many within his circle continued to deny the severity of the situation.

The orchestrated effort to shield Biden involved key figures including Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, Mike Donilon, and Steve Ricchetti, who managed public perceptions and internal messaging.

Repeated assurances from White House staff suggested Biden could fulfill the presidency’s demands in meetings and decision-making, despite evident communication difficulties.

Tapper contends this collective self-deception amounted to a cover-up, not necessarily born of malice but of denial and loyalty.

He describes a bifurcation between a 'functioning' Biden and a 'nonfunctioning' Biden, with the latter increasingly visible from 2019 onward.

Staffers likened the situation to a frog in boiling water, gradually acclimating to worsening conditions until the decline became undeniable.

The article traces Biden’s trajectory through previous elections, noting that his communication challenges were already apparent by 2020, with the COVID-19 pandemic inadvertently shielding him from public scrutiny.

Accommodations such as teleprompters at small fundraisers and limitations on his working hours became increasingly common, further signaling his struggles.

White House efforts also included restricting Biden’s interactions, notably with cabinet members, to limit exposure to demanding situations.

Questions remain about Biden’s own awareness of his limitations, with Tapper suggesting the president likely recognized physical aging but not the full extent of his cognitive decline.

Decisions to manage Biden’s schedule and interactions were largely driven by senior aides and staffers, with few willing to openly acknowledge the reality.

The article highlights the absence of a formal process or genuine debate over Biden’s re-election bid, with key advisors dismissing polling and concerns to keep him on the ballot.

The political environment, marked by fear of Donald Trump’s candidacy and party loyalty, suppressed internal criticism and alternative leadership challenges.

Tapper notes that Biden’s declining attentiveness was especially evident in domestic policy matters, while he remained more engaged on foreign affairs.

Several anecdotes illustrate Biden’s diminished cognitive clarity, including moments of confusion at immigration events and detachment from key policy discussions.

The article critiques the false distinction made by some aides between essential presidential functions and mere public performance, emphasizing that communication and persuasion are central to leadership.

The June 2024 debate, held unusually early and late in the evening, was a critical misstep, exposing Biden’s vulnerabilities to public view.

Tapper, as co-moderator, recounts the debate’s chaotic moments, including Biden’s late arrival, poor preparation, and evident physical and cognitive difficulties.

Despite public optimism from campaign insiders, the debate’s outcome was a clear indicator of Biden’s declining capacity.

The article addresses the political dynamics post-debate, including the reluctance of party leaders to confront the issue and the use of Kamala Harris as a political shield.

It also examines the Democratic Party’s failure to hold a meaningful primary challenge, which could have tested Biden’s viability.

The 2022 midterm results, often credited to Biden’s leadership, are argued to be influenced more by external factors like backlash to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and weak Republican candidates.

Ultimately, internal polling and political calculations revealed that Biden’s age and perceived incapacity were insurmountable obstacles to a successful campaign.

The decision to hold a June debate was a misguided attempt to shift focus from Biden’s vulnerabilities to Trump.

The article reflects on the systemic failures within political parties and institutions to address obvious leadership problems, driven by loyalty, fear, and tribalism.

Tapper calls for greater transparency in White House medical reporting and more honest political discourse to prevent similar scenarios.

He highlights parallels with the Republican Party’s handling of leadership challenges and the broader weakening of institutional checks in American politics.

The article concludes by underscoring the importance of prioritizing the country’s needs over political loyalties and the dangers of suppressing uncomfortable truths.

Listeners are encouraged to explore the full discussion on “The Ezra Klein Show” across multiple audio platforms.