The uncomfortable position in which President Joe Biden’s apparent disregard for the political conundrum of his son’s criminal plea agreement has put Democrats is apparent in New York Times analyst Peter Baker’s amusing reflections on last week’s state dinner at the White House.
While the Biden administration rolled out the red carpet for Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and his entourage, Hunter Biden made his presence ostentatiously known. Baker describes a scene in which the younger Biden did his best to glad-hand the unlucky guests with whom he happened to make eye contact. Baker describes an awkward montage in which Hunter Biden parades around the room, giving limp shoulder rubs to the doubtlessly disturbed attendees touched by his cursed appendage. We know where that hand has been — Hunter keeps impeccable records.
For some, the president’s son’s unwelcome attendance was a nuisance. For Attorney General Merrick Garland, it was a threat. Baker paints a portrait of an unnerved Garland spending his entire evening maintaining as wide a berth as possible from the subject of his agency’s criminal investigation.
And yet, the sources close to the Biden White House with whom Baker spoke for the record appear to insist that these precautions were entirely unnecessary.
Was it wise for Hunter Biden to attend this formal function having so recently admitted to criminal activity? “That’s probably more of a question for an etiquette czar than an ethics czar,” said Norm Eisen, Obama-era special counsel for ethics and government reform and author of a book on “how to restore ethics, the rule of law, and democracy” in Washington. Baker’s piece is peppered with references to Donald Trump, implicitly to establish the notion that Republicans are only opportunistically capitalizing on Hunter Biden’s plea deal, which in no way neutralizes the political threat Joe Biden’s son poses to the president’s party. And of course, Joe Biden’s affection for his son trumps any petty political consideration. As the White House spokesman Andrew Bates observed, “the president and first lady love and support their son.”
Joe Biden’s feelings are deeply human, and anyone with an ounce of empathy can understand his refusal to place political niceties over his desire to keep his surviving child close. But a president’s life is not entirely his own; that is part of what Joe Biden knowingly signed himself up for when he launched his campaign in 2019. Potentially vulnerable Democratic lawmakers are already attempting to establish some distance from Biden ahead of next year’s general election, and the White House’s casual disregard for the political liability his son now represents will only hasten their flight from Biden’s side.
The Biden White House can “what about Trump” on background to reporters all they like, but neither Trump nor his family established for themselves a brand of incorruptibility. Quite the opposite, albeit implicitly. By contrast, Biden has cultivated a perception of himself as a noble and selfless public servant. His son’s criminal misconduct and the swirling allegations around further corrupt practices threaten to tarnish that image.
Biden refuses to practice prudence when it comes to Hunter, and maybe that’s understandable. But it’s just as easy to grasp why the president’s fellow Democrats would feel obliged to protect themselves from the fallout settling around the president’s son. Especially since it’s obvious now that Joe Biden won’t.