I’ve never interviewed Joe Biden, and I probably never will. But if I did, it would go something like this:
C: Mr. Vice-President! Thanks for meeting me.
B: My pleasure.
C: I’m guessing that if I ask you if you’re running for president, you will say you haven’t decided, but you’re giving it serious consideration.
B: That’s just about it.
C: Do you have any regrets about not running in 2016?
B: Yes and no. Yes, in that I think I would have won and spared the country from Trump. I have deep regrets about that. No, in that I wasn’t completely ready to make the commitment. It’s not a simple issue.
C: Let me make the case for and against your candidacy in 2020 and give me your reactions.
B: Sure.
C: On the pro side, you are, beyond question, the best qualified candidate, and that means something, particularly in light of what is happening today. You have plenty of experience with nationwide campaigns. You can appeal to white working people. You might well be the candidate who has the best chance to bring the country together. Does that sound about right?
B: Yes.
C: On the con side, you’re too old. You’re too tied into the Obama years–the world has passed them, and you, by. You’re a gaffe machine, and you have some skeletons in your closet, particular in the age of MeToo. While you did well as a VP candidate, your presidential campaigns didn’t end well. You should just settle for being an elder statesman and leave the 2020 campaign to younger people.
B: Let me respond to each part of that individually. As to being too old, I’m younger than Bernie Sanders, and just barely older than Trump. I’m in great shape, both physically and mentally. And being old means I have plenty of experience, which always comes in handy.
C: OK.
B: The world hasn’t passed me by. I’ve been out on the campaign trail working for Democratic candidates for the last couple years. I understand what’s bothering Americans as well as anyone.
C: You’ve admitted you’re a gaffe machine.
B: Not next to Trump. He’s a lie machine. That’s a lot worse.
C: What about the Anita Hill thing?
B: I know times and standards have changed. I just ask women to look at my record as a whole. In any event, next to Trump, I’m a saint. No one would dispute that.
C: What about your previous campaigns?
B: I’ve learned a lot since then. That’s the advantage of experience. None of the other candidates have been through that. Everyone already knows my weaknesses; theirs will be exposed in time.
C: I have suggested that the likely Democratic candidates can be put on a graph, with the axes being realo/fundi and identity/class. Where would you put yourself on that graph?
B: I’m definitely a realo. I don’t believe it makes sense to promise things you can’t possibly deliver. As to identity/class, I would say class, but it’s a debatable point. I’ll leave that to you.
C: Let’s talk about the two axes. If I’m a fundi, my argument is that nothing ever happens if you don’t dream and fight for it, and that we can’t appeal to a wide range of Americans if we don’t promise anything that makes a difference to them. How do you respond?
B: It’s not a simple question. There are issues like racism on which you just can’t compromise. I agree with fundis on that. But in general, if you make promises you can’t keep, you just create frustration among the voters that ultimately endangers the system as a whole. Think about Brexit, or, in this country, what has happened with the Freedom Caucus.
C: There is a school of thought to the effect that the primaries will be largely about Obama’s legacy–whether it is something to be cherished and built on, or whether we need a “revolution.” What do you think?
B: That’s definitely going to be a theme during the primaries. I know a lot of activists tend to support a “revolution,” but I don’t think the average primary voter does. One way or another, we’ll probably find out.
C: What about the identity/class issue? Do you think the Democratic Party is primarily defined by class, or identity?
B: Identity, but it needs to be about both if we want to win. Writing off white working people is political suicide, and just plain wrong. I think I’m better positioned to bring them back than any of the other candidates.
C: Do you agree with Bernie Sanders that the Clinton campaign was too identity-oriented, and did too little to emphasize what unites Americans?
B: I don’t ordinarily agree with Bernie, but I’m with him on that. Ultimately, it’s about an American identity, and how all of the various groups are part of a larger mosaic. The individual parts are extremely important, but so is the mosaic.
C: Given the filibuster and the makeup of the Supreme Court, what do you think the priorities of the next president should be, and what can realistically be promised?
B: The first priority has to be to restore integrity and competence to the federal government. We need to wipe out Trumpism altogether. We need to unite the country, not divide it. After that, we need to create an America that is fair to everyone, and not just the wealthy. We need to take effective action to slow down climate change. We need to restore our relationships with our allies. There’s so much to do!
C: That sounds like building on Obama’s legacy.
B: That’s a realistic program. I don’t think America is crying out for new and hugely expensive government programs, and the filibuster will make it impossible, anyway. I think the public is demanding that we fill in the holes that exist in the current programs, and to make government work for everyone, not just a handful of rich white guys. I think that’s what the country really wants.
C: Thank you for your time.