He patronised the rube. (Credit: by Mandel Ngan - Pool/Getty)

In his farewell address to the nation on Wednesday, President Biden warned that âan oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracyâ. He went on to explicitly echo his predecessor Dwight Eisenhowerâs famed admonition about the âmilitary-industrial complexâ, intoning that a âtech-industrial complexâ similarly imperils America today.
While ostensibly addressing an important issue â concentrated wealth and power â Biden ultimately offered a shallow and pettily partisan account in a way that embodied his political failure as he exits the stage of history.
As many have noted, there was plenty of irony to be found in the address. Democrats, not Republicans, have recently been favoured â in donations and votes â by corporate America, including Big Tech, a few prominent defectors notwithstanding. But the issue with Bidenâs speech wasnât that it was hypocritical given his partyâs fundraising prowess and increasingly upscale base. Ike himself, after all, had overseen the expansion of the very military-industrial complex he decried, but at least he ended his presidency with a memorable articulation of the problem that pointed the finger at an institution with which he was closely associated.
Biden, in contrast, followed up his comments on a real crisis that has been mounting for decades â a rising oligarchy â with some indications that the main such people heâs concerned about arenât oligarchs writ large, so much as a few in particular: Donald Trump and his cronies. In this respect, he showed little understanding of why his presidency is ending in such lousy fashion: a governing vision that has vacillated between a broad critique of concentrated wealth and a far narrower one focused on the crisis represented by Trump.
âNever let a good crisis go to wasteâ: This phrase, attributed to Winston Churchill, was notably repurposed by Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to Bidenâs old boss, Barack Obama. Emanuelâs reference was to the 2008 financial crisis, which brought an end to two decades of bipartisan optimism about the US economy. But as former Obama adviser Reed Hundt argued in his 2019 book, A Crisis Wasted, Obama failed to seize on the opportunity to remake the economic order. Infamously, he bailed out the banks but left homeowners underwater; he also initiated quantitative-easing policies that juiced the markets but redounded heavily to the benefit of the asset-rich; and presided over a dramatic worsening of inequality. Trumpâs successful defiance of GOP economic orthodoxies around free trade and entitlements and his defeat of Hillary Clinton amounted to a belated verdict on Obamaâs inability to deliver real reform.
The Biden presidency, which began amid the ongoing fallout of the pandemic, offered the possibility of a do-over. Many saw the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan, enacted under two months after Bidenâs inauguration, as proof his administration had discarded the excessive caution that got in the way of Obamaâs hope to be a transformative president. After campaigning mostly as a moderate with the modest goal of helping lead the nation out of crisis, Biden entered office promising to be the âmost progressive president since FDR,â whose portrait he hung above the fireplace in the Oval Office.
If we didnât know Bidenâs party had lost decisively after his ignominious withdrawal from the campaign, his farewell address might have sounded like a victory lap. To be sure, he canât be faulted for an unwillingness to âgo bigâ, between the stimulus packages, the revival of a trust-busting agenda targeting big corporations, and the industrial policy aimed at, as Biden put it, âcreating new businesses and industries, hiring American workers, using American productsâ. Congressional progressives are happy to give him credit for all this. So why werenât working-class voters, who not only didnât bring back the FDR-era Democratic supermajority, but drifted even further from the party?
Many plausible answers have already been offered to this question: Biden couldnât overcome the global anti-incumbency wave fed by inflation; he failed to control the border; the industrial and infrastructure projects he subsidised will take too long to come online to generate immediate benefits; his own senility and Kamala Harrisâs inept candidacy doomed them; and so on. But Bidenâs farewell address highlighted something more fundamental. Despite his administrationâs sweeping economic reforms, it remained wedded to the Democratic Partyâs main post-2016 sales pitch, which is roughly: whatever we are, at least we arenât Donald Trump.
Consider the âreal dangersâ of the âtech-industrial complexâ highlighted in Bidenâs speech: not, for instance, the immense power wielded over employees by companies such as Uber (whose general counsel, as it happens, served as one of Kamala Harrisâs main advisers in the 2024 race), but an âavalanche of misinformation and disinformationâ. He went on to lament that âsocial media is giving up on fact-checkingâ, an allusion to Mark Zuckerbergâs recent announcement that he would retire Metaâs fact-checking programme in favour of community notes.
The notion that the gravest crisis affecting the country is âmisinformationâ, to be countered by fact-checking, can be traced back to the frantic postmortems that followed Hillary Clintonâs 2016 loss. That Biden is sticking to this message up to his final day in office suggests his party has hardly evolved since then, even though the misinformation narrative has been widely disputed and the eight-year war on âfake newsâ utterly failed to achieve its main objective: preventing Trumpâs return to office.
It is unsurprising that constant warnings about these supposed threats failed to turn many voters against their nemesis, and may have done the opposite. Misinformation worries political and media elites, but barely registers for most people â for good reason. The circulation of un-approved ideas, stories, and messages is symptomatic of gatekeepersâ loss of control. If youâre a gatekeeper, thatâs a crisis for you; if youâre not, it isnât. Not only that, the misinformation narrative exudes contempt for the ordinary citizen, who is treated as an ignorant rube in need of constant supervision. No wonder this messageâs resonance barely extends outside a few small precincts.
No less than Obama, then, Biden let a crisis go to waste. But part of the reason for this was he and his party, for self-interested reasons, misrecognised what the crisis was. A whole series of threats â Vladimir Putinâs Russia, fake news, authoritarianism, Covid â were conjured up or made to stand in for the crisis ostensibly represented by one man. Yet while Trump has been a crisis for the political class, most of the public hasnât viewed him that way; even many who didnât vote for him were unreceptive to the Democratsâ âsaving-democracyâ messaging. Moreover, in 2024 even more than earlier cycles, many saw his disruptive presence as a necessary response to crises they do care about, and the political class doesnât: affordability, crime, out-of-control immigration.
The concentrated wealth of a man such as Elon Musk, who has now used it to buy himself a place in the president-electâs inner circle, is a genuine concern â a crisis, perhaps. But Biden and his party have spent most of the past eight years claiming not that they will confront such influence-peddling, but posturing as the defenders of an establishment we all know was corrupted by the wealthy long before Trump first took control of the GOP.
In his 1936 re-election campaign, FDR could declare that âbusiness and financial monopolyâ were âunanimous in their hatred for me â and I welcome their hatredâ. In 2024, Kamala Harris could say no such thing â and on the contrary, she regularly cited the plaudits she received from Goldman Sachs and other corporate interests as the ultimate proof of her competence. To anyone who remembers this, Bidenâs warnings about oligarchy ring hollow.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAll of the points raised in the article can by summarised by two questions and one statement.
Q1. What is best for the working class man (WCM)?
Q2. Who is the working class man?
Statement: All information is misinformation.
In the UK and the USA, Ă©lites rule everything. In the USA, it is unlikely that Biden has ever met a WCM, certainly not since he was a lot younger. Trump is more likely but only a long time ago. In the UK, the Ă©lite will have met some WCMs at university but that is where WCM disappears to become Middle Class Man.The Ă©lite have dreams and fantasies about what WCM looks like, what he does and what he wants. As time passes these fantasies become more and more removed from reality. Meanwhile the Ă©lite continues to impose its ideas on us all.
All information is misinformation and it depends on the choice of words. Read about Gaza in The Times and the Guardian. Watch news bulletins from Al Jazeera.
I have enjoyed watching again the Adam Curtis documentaries The Century Of The Self (2002) and The Trap (2007).
Both series produced before the GFC show how democracies on both sides of the Atlantic have been managed and manipulated because the political parties had very little faith in the electorate. They saw it as a means to enrich their backers and themselves while promoting their respective ideologies.
There aren’t many Democrats who don’t hold Biden largely responsible for Trump re-election and certainly a good portion of the Author’s critique seems valid.
However doesn’t mean it can’t be much worse and we may be about to find out.
Couple of other points. Firstly it’s sometimes overlooked Trump’s win was narrow – the 3rd lowest margin ever. It was no landslide. And the stars aligned for him – Biden’s cognitive decline, Harris not the greatest opponent, post Covid inflation that has occurred in many Nations etc. And yet his win was so narrow perhaps ought to be the bigger surprise.
Secondly the Author seems to downplay ‘misinformation’. There is a reason Orwell had the Ministry of Truth have such a prominent role in his most famous novel. Some fake news is just silly and ignorable, but some is spread like contagion via the internet with quite deliberate purpose.
Something weird with the comments (for me) since yesterday. Seems I can’t reply on some articles (perhaps that’s a wise editorial decision …).
In response to JW – “misinformation” (a barely defined term) isn’t only spread on the internet. There’s plenty coming through traditional media. Also recall that Orwell focused on the power of the state in spreading lies. That’s a very different and far more dangerous thing than individuals doing it. Also, Trump’s win wasn’t that narrow – a bigger win than Trump 1 (2016) or George W Bush 1 (2000). I think it’s more accurate to say it was close, but decisive. So decisive that no one is seriously disputing it or Trump’s authority now. Recall also that it was a clean sweep for the Republicans (President, House, Senate).
In response to CW, I’m not really sure that “working class man” has any universal meaning these days. I’d just say “working person” – but then we’re into the mire of the government not being able to define what this is. We’re after a new label to describe what I think you mean – someone who has to (no independent means) and wants to work for a living and [probably] expects to sustain him/herself mainly by his/her own (or family) efforts.
On Biden – I’m not convinced he was that bad. Could have been far worse given some of the craziness in the Democrats. No real disasters (the US would have left Afghanistan anyway – he just made it look like a fiasco). The handover from Biden to Trump seems to be going remarkably well.
Ukraine surely was, and is, a “real disaster”.
It seems to me Mr Shullenberg that you have completely and utterly missed the point of the danger of misinformation, how it effectively got Trump elected, and how it can, and is likely to, spell the end of democracy in the USA.
This article you have written is just nonsense to be honest.
Jon’s apparent cognitive limits do not a good argument make.
“While ostensibly addressing an important issue” it “offered a shallow and pettily partisan account” could be etched onto the tombstone of 21st c. Leftist Progressivism. Its ‘important issue’ issue was the ideal of fair-shares-for-all…but its ‘shallow and partisan’ solution has been an ugly scramble for who gets to climb to the top of the greasy victimhood pole: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/stairway-to-equiheaven
Responding here PB – ‘Misinformation’ the phrase Author used, and yes Orwell wasn’t prescient about the Internet or how Billionaire Tech bros who control some of the most used social media could align themselves so much with an Administration. He was though about Information control and misinformation. The Author understates the role of ‘misinformation’ from wherever it comes and I think that the key point was making.
As regards election victories, yep you pick the two that were closer. You won’t find any closer. And million miles from the sort of landslides Johnson, Reagan, Obama even Nixon had. Congressional races also got much closer which is why sometimes getting much done really down to a knowledge of how it works.
His presidency spoke only of the corruption marking his family history and wider political career. Its second symbolic importance lay with the institutional degradation of the US Democrat Party which seemed to transform itself into a postmodern Maoist apparatus to mirror the unfortunate neo-Marxism of Anglo higher education and the toxic identity politics promoted in corporate America.
After campaigning mostly as a moderate with the modest goal of helping lead the nation out of crisis, Biden entered office promising to be the âmost progressive president since FDR,â
In other words, whoever Biden’s handlers were built his tenure on a lie. What a shock. From the same people who had no issue with oligarchies or tech bosses when platforms were doing the left’s bidding and the likes of George Soros was buying up DA slots nationwide.
Also, the author neglects the biggest source of mis- and disinformation: govt. Anyone remember Covid and the false narratives we were? How about the Russian collusion claims, Hunter’s laptop being disinformation, ‘crime is decreasing,’ Ivermectin as horse dewormer, the Inflation Reduction Act reducing inflation, and on and on and on.
Nothing defines and reflects a man quite like the manner of his leaving. And Biden’s leaving was focused heavily on tomorrow’s fish’n’chips paper and passing politics. Certainly there wasn’t even the barest attempt to views his legacy on terms of the broader sweep of the 21st Century or America’s narrative.
And what a cheek! To denounce oligarchy.whem he and his party have been the chief beneficiaries of it over the past 8 years. To denounce misinformation and disinformation when a false narrative around his opponent was spread so widely at the 2020 election, aided by corrupt FBI agents. When his oligarch friends conspired to ensure the truth of his own son’s crimes were suppressed. When the appalling truth of his own cognitive decline was suppressed and denied until it simply could not be. And even then, even then, the attempt to deny continued.
I agree with the article’s headline and sentiment; what a waste.
Peter B: Iâm annoyed by that glitch too, even if it might have been better for everyone given my overactive typing fingers of late. Another problem is that comments get quarantined for unpopularity alone, so that I canât see j watsonâs initial comment, though itâll probably return in 6, 12, or 18 hours when nearly everybody has moved on. This website should have the wherewithal to vet comments more quickly. Subscribers: Please donât flag comments unless they are truly over some line that trounces bare decency or supersedes free speech.
I also donât think Biden was that bad, just mediocre like heâs always been. He took a surprising sharp left on some issuesâborder, DEI hiring, trans-rightsâthat progressives welcomed but which hurt Democrats as a whole. But he was almost too old the day he was elected, and could never have served out a second term except in something like a full-on âregency presidencyâ, which makes even less sense in our high-visibility age than it might have when Biden was young. I see Biden as a decent, sane man who was not smart or charismatic enough to make a strong president, at any age.
I see Trump as a charismatic, energetic personality who doesnât have much decency or mental balance. His IQ isnât the issue, his judgment and intellectual indifference are. He doesnât read, or listen that well when heâs bored or angry (kind of his default modes). Heâs willing to strategically promote fringe notions (birtherism, âeating the cats and dogsâ) with a rabid following, and susceptible to the extreme murmurings of people like Stephen Miller and Elon Musk. If Trump serves out his full term heâll be the oldest president ever. I donât think heâll be aged or diminished in the way Biden is, but heâs already less sharp and sane-sounding than he was at 50. Doubt this old horn dog can learn any good new tricks. Weâll see.
The article sniffs for the trail of the disaster the oligarchy inflicted on us with the election of 2020, and manages to get close.
It’s like children arguing in the backyardâ’You started it first!’ ‘No, you started it first!’ This is just a case of ‘my oligarchs are better than your oligarchs.’ But in the end, it’s still all about oligarchs.
Looking at the numbers of multimillionaire congress-people, this is the concentration that should concern the average American…
People stopped listening to this demented old fool a looong time ago. It’s time for the media to climb on board before the train slowly, very slowly, leaves the station.
Jon Turner, you seem either to be using “misinformation” in a partisan sense — to mean information, whether true or false, that discomfits the center-left elite — and “democracy” the way American Democrats use the word, to mean not rule by the demos, but rule by Democrats, or you are yourself misinformed about where the real threat to the American Republic lies. Interference in electoral campaigns by the intelligence services and control of information available to the public by corporations acting in concert with the state is a far greater threat than Donald Trump, and where have we seen that? Biden was elected in the first place at least in part because news of the prima facia evidence of corruption found in Hunter Biden’s laptop was suppressed at the behest of “former” intelligence officials (not all of whom were actually former), falsely asserting that it “had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation”.
Happily that threat has in part receded with Musk and now Zuckerberg abolishing the mechanisms used to censor content on Twitter (now X) and Facebook at the behest of our Federal government, and expressing commitments to what until five minutes ago, world-historically speaking, had been a liberal democratic value: freedom of speech.
I feel there are many good arguments to be pleased that Mr Trump won the vote, and few arguments to regret that Ms Harris lost. So it was a clear decision for me. But it’s worrying to me, that only about 51% of voters agreed with my opinion. Do “the people” really know what is best?
with Kamala spending three times Trump, seems as odd approach.
One large and meaningful difference between Biden Oligarchs and Trump Oligarchs is that Trump Oligarchs arenât afraid to put their opinions out there on social media for debate by hoi polloi. Whereas Biden Oligarchs hide their opinions behind their faceless bought-and-paid-for âobey my authority because I am SCIENCEâ websites and institutions that are now thoroughly debunked as untrustworthy.
Democracy dies in their darkness.
Yep, spot on.
J Watson: ” the Author seems to downplay âmisinformationâ. There is a reason Orwell had the Ministry of Truth have such a prominent role in his most famous novel. Some fake news is just silly and ignorable, but some is spread like contagion via the internet with quite deliberate purpose.”
Let’s remember that Orwell was talking about the power of state controlled media having a monopoly over what people are allowed to hear about, which is decidedly not what impelled Trump to the white house. Like him or hate him, he was the insurgent, not an incumbent dictator controlling all media.
But more to the point, could you suggest, say, the top three example of “fake news” which you believe account for Donald Trump’s election, after being “spread like contagion via the internet with quite deliberate purpose”?
If such misinformation was so influential, examples should be extremely easy to find. If the misinformation was obscure and hard to find, it would not have such impact.
Good candidate examples would:
be objectively false or unevidenced (“fake news”)
be very widely promulgated to voters
be widely believed true by said voters
have changed the votes of people who would have otherwise voted differently
be spread specifically via the internet (not just attack ads by any side)
not be organically viral, but amplified with deliberate purpose
I cannot think of good candidates offhand which benefitted Trump, but I’m open to hearing some.
For example, I do not think it credible that Vance claiming that some immigrants were eating pets changed the outcome significantly; that does not show up on the top 10 lists of swing voters. (It may well have riled up some people who had zero chance of NOT voting for Trump no matter what, but that doesn’t change election outcomes, and there was plenty of true information to rile them up as well. What matters is swaying swing voters)
I have heard from many of my Democratic friends that “Trump plans to take away social security and medicare”, which should qualify as fake news (with no evidence whatsoever to support it), and it’s about something that many people care deeply about, and seems to be a widespread misconception as I’ve heard it often. It may well have influenced a significant number of voters, especially older swing voters. I could imagine a Trump supporter (which I am not) citing that as an example of amplified misinformation in the other direction if Trump had lost. If so, I would examine that assertion as well. But for now, we are looking at your assertion as a supporter of the losing side.
I DO think that misinformation is a real and serious problem (even if at times overstated), but I also believe that misinformation ABOUT misinformation is part of the problem as well – like partisan conspiracy theories about misinformation from the other side having exceptional explanatory value. That is, there are people spreading a weaponized and distorted characterization of misinformation which is also attempting to mislead the public. It’s possible that your own assertion is actually misinformation (tho I have NOT so concluded, to be clear). Thus it is relevant to ask for more specific details for assertions such as yours, rather than just accept vague charges and hand waving. You may well have well reasoned and researched evidence behind your assertion, which I would be very open to hearing.
I look forward to your best examples which support your characterization. If upon reflection, you have trouble coming up with them, please admit that.
UnHerd is not allowing me to reply to comments, hence this indirect response.
He’s a confused old bitter man. He could have used his time in government in service to the people but the allure of wealth and power proved too strong.
He’s an ugly man inside and out. He and Fauci will walk hand in hand into he//.
And the angels will weep because God never wants for any of His children to be lost.