Allusions are stirring and rumors abound about Jill Biden, the former first lady. Aides to Joe Biden are being called to testify on Capitol Hill about accusations of a “cover-up” regarding the former president’s cognitive decline — who knew and when did they know it?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Jill Biden had substantive influence over her husband.
Did the former president’s wife merely acquiesce to her husband running for re-election or was he persuaded, after it had become evident that completing his first term in office was a challenge?
In considering the above, the noted Bard of England’s Elizabethan period comes to mind. One’s thoughts turn to an unforgettable (or perhaps unforgivable) character in Shakespeare’s tragic drama — Macbeth. As the play opens, Lady Macbeth is portrayed as an independent and self-assured woman; and as it unfolds so does her true character — eventually faltering under the weight of her own ambition. Self-serving in her maneuvering, she is already plotting Duncan’s murder, and she is stronger, more conniving, and more ambitious than her husband. She seems fully aware of this, and knows that she will have to push Macbeth into committing regicide. At one point, she wishes that she were not a woman, so that she could do it herself — for political gain — to seize more power.
The similarity of Jill Biden to Shakespeare’s character is perhaps overstated, but time and testimony will bear forth the truth. In social-political circles in Washington, she is increasingly mentioned as one whose thirst for clinging to power and prestige may have compelled her husband to seek a second term in the White House, despite patent signs of his decline.
It would seem that Mrs. Biden has a fair amount of self-reflection ahead of her, notwithstanding a future punctuated with emotions ranging from embarrassment to perhaps guilt. But of even greater import is the specter of which people were inordinately influencing presidential decisions — who was in charge and at what point?
The release of a new book — Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House — illustrates the extent of President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline during his reelection campaign. The authors gained access to Biden’s inner circle — top officials had grave concerns about Biden’s fitness for the presidency; their concerns were present well before the public’s awareness of the extent of his decline.
So, the question becomes: Did Jill Biden, and at least some of the president’s closest advisors, separately or in collaboration, shield him from the media and public scrutiny?
The Denial
An elite legacy media, irrespective of their feigned denials, cannot avoid responsibility and (hopefully) accountability for their role in the affair. They will, of course, attempt to seek refuge in ignorance of the obvious, claiming to not know what was clear to others. American poet Marianne Moore once wrote, “Omissions are not accidents.” Her observation astutely applies to the “omissions” practiced by the establishment media over the last several years.
Their soft treatment of Biden can be traced back to the 2020 campaign, when candidate Biden ran a virtual campaign from the basement of his home. The press used COVID to excuse that absence. In a revealing moment more than a year ago, Steve Krakauer of AARR, singled out Morning Joe on MSNBC as an example of a show with notably close ties to Biden and his team. He explained how the program became a platform for favorable coverage, rarely questioning or even considering the former president’s behavior, mental capacity, or decisions. And of course Jake Tapper of CNN infamy, with his recently released book on Biden, is among those with severe “selective amnesia” — shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders in risible denial.
Liberal media elites functioned like a “coalition of the willing” in protecting Biden, posing “challenging” questions of “national importance” during the 2020 campaign. You remember, questions like, “Joe, what’s your favorite ice cream flavor?” Today, of course, these same media personalities are masquerading as being “deeply concerned” as the revelations point to the denials.
Insecure ‘Dr.’ Biden
The former first lady’s insecurities surfaced early during Joe’s presidency. This is especially true regarding her self-aggrandizement when she demanded of the media and her aides that they refer to her as “Dr. Jill Biden.” Her degree is a doctorate in educational leadership (D.Ed.) from the University of Delaware.
But here’s the thing: Almost anyone, including this writer who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy, knows that only those holding non-MD credentials — and driven by disabling insecurities — would demand to be called “doctor.”
Amusement about Mrs. Biden’s emotional needs was understandably tolerated — but no one is laughing now. As the person closest to her husband and with the most influence, she could have dissuaded him from making — or acquiescing to — the decision to run again. It is becoming increasingly clear that Dr. Biden had substantive influence over her husband. How can one forget her condescending talk to the former president like he was a grade-school pupil, offering him token compliments after the debacle during last year’s presidential debate with Trump? “Joe,” she began, “you did such a great job, you answered every question, you knew all the facts.”
These comments are not only insulting to Joe Biden, personally; they are actually dangerous when they are delivered to Joe Biden, President of the United States. The welfare of a nation is more important than indulging one’s ego — did no one stop to consider the potential consequences of that distinction?
Mrs. Biden will perhaps one day lament what at least appear to be Lady Macbeth-like ambitions — persuading her husband to try and sally forth for another four years — towards a potentially disastrous end with a possibly cataclysmic effect. The war in Ukraine was being vigorously pursued by then-President Joe Biden, escalating it perilously close to precipitating an unwanted response from Vladimir Putin – one that the Russian president repeatedly warned could be nuclear in nature.
No one better than the Bard himself could put these sordid details into perspective:
“All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.”
“What’s done cannot be undone.” (Act 5, Scene 1)
READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: