Left-Wing New Republic Urges Biden to ‘Step Down’ for ‘Sake of the Planet’

President Joe Biden must step down from office “for the sake of the planet,” according to a recent New Republic piece highlighting the “rambling octogenarian’s” debate struggles, questioning Democratic leadership before the November election while warning of a “crisis of potentially untold magnitude” as a result of Democrats continuing to “burn through their credibility” by “telling voters to ignore the obvious.”

The Wednesday essay, titled “Yes, Biden Should Step Down—for the Sake of the Planet” and penned by columnist Kate Aronoff, begins by arguing that climate and energy policy “barely came up” during the disastrous Thursday presidential debate, overshadowed by Biden’s difficulties in articulating coherent responses to Trump’s aggressive rhetoric.

“Throughout the night, Biden struggled to string together coherent sentences to counter Trump’s lies and bluster,” she writes. “The humiliating spectacle kicked off a panic among Democratic Party elites about whether a visibly diminished Biden can beat Trump in November.”

According to the essay, some party members feel they were “misled” about the extent of Biden’s decline, alleging that his inner circle may have hidden evidence of his deteriorating condition.

“With the time for straightforward solutions having passed, it might simply be too late to ward off a looming crisis of potentially untold magnitude,” Aronoff argues. “While some are proposing radical fixes, none offer the certainty of avoiding horrific outcomes.”

The piece draws a parallel between the current crisis and the “familiar” narrative in climate politics, where warnings are often ignored until it’s nearly too late.

“They had years to avoid this sort of destruction and now need a Hail Mary in both meanings of the phrase: a desperate bid to overcome terrible odds, and forgiveness,” she writes.

Criticizing the party’s tendency to rally around elder statesmen, the essay highlights the broader implications of Democratic leadership choices, pointing to figures like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose decision not to step down at a critical moment “paved the way for the Supreme Court’s wrecking ball of a right-wing supermajority, now diligently chipping away at (among other things) basic human rights, presidential accountability, and the government’s ability to do its job.”

She further explains:

When it comes to Ginsberg, Feinstein, and Biden, the problem is less with their absolute age than the bizarre idea that these figures have somehow earned the right to continue holding extraordinarily important posts until they drop dead, however impaired they might be. As we’ve seen over the last week, defending that position requires telling voters to ignore the obvious and root for government officials like superheroes: not as public servants with a distinct set of responsibilities, but as characters with backstories compelling enough to merit their showing up in the sequel.

Despite these criticisms, the essay acknowledges that the current administration has made progress in climate policy, partly due to the influence of climate-conscious advisers. 

“The Biden administration has almost certainly done more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than any of its predecessors,” it admits. However, it argues that the president having a “relatively smart and competent team of climate advisers surrounding him is a terrible argument for keeping him around.”

Urging the Democrat Party to confront its internal issues and consider alternative leadership options, the essay notes that “since 2016, top Democrats have campaigned on the idea that nothing is more important than keeping Trump out of the Oval Office,” though “the man they’re saying is up to the task publicly struggles to speak cogently.”

Insisting that “pretending nothing is wrong with Biden is an insult to voters’ intelligence,” Aronoff warns that continuing to support the president could damage the party’s credibility, especially among younger voters who are crucial for its future. She writes:

As genuinely grave a threat as another Trump administration is to U.S. climate policy, Democrats continuing to burn through their credibility—particularly with the younger, less enthusiastic voters who represent the party’s demographic future—could mean abdicating their chance to govern boldly (or at all) for the foreseeable future, let alone enact adequate climate policy.

“It’s hard to make the case for a party whose headline offerings are a rambling octogenarian and the threat of something worse,” she adds.

Emphasizing the need for decisive action to prevent a crisis, the essay concludes by suggesting that while no easy solution exists, sticking with Biden seems the riskiest option.

“As with rising temperatures, there’s no quick fix to prevent the catastrophe of Republican rule,” Aronoff warns. “An open convention is risky. So is passing the reins to Kamala Harris. Continuing to close ranks around Biden seems even riskier.”

The matter comes as prominent left-wing commentators and editorial pages, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, continue to urge President Biden to reconsider his 2024 candidacy due to concerns over his ability to win against Trump following his dismal debate performance.

Over the weekend, Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina asserted that Democrats are now “in panic mode” following Biden’s disastrous debate performance against Trump.  

“We should all be wondering what the hell’s going on in the White House [and] who’s actually in charge because it’s clearly not Joe Biden,” she said.