In a fitting finale to one of the most upstanding and progressive political careers in modern American history, US President Joe Biden, once again, did the right thing. By deferring to his party’s preference that he drop out of the presidential race, he has provided a model of selflessness and decency not only for all Americans, but for democratically minded people around the world.
Still, the struggle within the Democratic Party over the past month has been unsettling, exposing divisions that could still put the party’s prospects – and America’s future – in peril. The drama began with Biden’s wobbly performance in the debate against the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, on June 27. In the weeks that followed, Democratic Party “elders” (including Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Chuck Schumer), as well as the editorial boards of major newspapers (the New York Times and the Washington Post most prominently) and leading celebrity fundraisers (George Clooney) called for Biden to step down.
They questioned Biden’s cognitive capacities, even as others – including Bernie Sanders, a former rival, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a major star of the left – remained loyal to him. After three weeks of displaying the tenacity that has marked his half-century in politics, Biden threw in the towel.
But the story is not over. Biden has endorsed Vice-President Kamala Harris, as have Bill and Hillary Clinton and other high-profile Democrats, and Harris responded by signalling her intention to “earn and win” the nomination. But others, Obama for one, refrained from immediately endorsing her, perhaps heeding those who called for a competitive open process or some type of “mini-primary.” Nonetheless, as of July 23, Harris had secured enough Democratic Party delegates to clinch the nomination.
While the Democrats were airing their dirty laundry in public to convince Biden to step aside, the Republicans put on an ostentatious display of unity at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Trump, strengthened by a wave of sympathy following the attempt on his life, formally accepted his party’s nomination. His choice of running mate is the unabashedly sycophantic junior senator from Ohio, JD Vance, the author of a bestselling memoir about the plight of the white working class in Appalachia.
Notably, former Trump challengers such as Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis offered their unqualified support, while the former pro wrestler Hulk Hogan ripped open his shirt for an audience of delegates wearing ear bandages in solidarity with Trump. Republican politicians seemed ready to sit back and enjoy the show playing out within the Democratic Party.
The Democrats’ self-questioning, critical spirit may seem laudable compared to the cultish, chilling vision of a Republican Party that now exists to serve a convicted felon. But 100-odd days before one of the most consequential elections in history is no time for bickering in public. To keep things together between now and Election Day, the Democrats should heed lessons from the science of co-operation.
According to group selection theory, “multi-level selection” is the key factor driving evolution in social animals like ourselves. Societies that have achieved uniquely rapid rates of progress have done so not because they embraced competition between individuals or a “survival of the fittest” mindset, but because they fostered co-operation within groups. Call it survival of the friendliest. The takeaway for the Democrats is that the individual candidate they field may matter less than their ability to coalesce around that person.
Despite its incessant preaching about individualistic values, the right has often practiced this form of collectivism better than the left. Neoliberalism’s capture of economic theory and policymaking from the 1980s to 2008, for example, owed much to Milton Friedman’s brother-in-law, Aaron Director, who showed relentless zeal in consolidating the Chicago School of Economics into a highly cohesive, unified intellectual paradigm. Equally, the gains made by left-of-centre parties in elections this year – whether in India or France – were products of strong coalitions, whereas the British right lost because it had fragmented into warring factions, both within the Conservatives and between them and Reform UK.
If Democrats are serious about averting the catastrophe of another Trump presidency, they will remember that any remaining uncertainty or ongoing infighting is their biggest enemy. Internal ambivalence about the 2016 Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, may have helped pave the path for Trump’s first term. That same Democratic dithering and self-doubt could put him in the White House again.
Science offers a clear lesson for the course that Democrats must chart in the run-up to their convention and beyond. If they fail to co-operate in mobilising voters and reaching out to independents in key states, they will lose. — Project Syndicate