President Joe Biden hosted a small group of scholars and historians for lunch on Wednesday as he gears up for a speech framing the upcoming election as a battle for the nation’s democracy.

The discussion revolved around “ongoing threats to democracy and democratic institutions both here in America and around the world, as well as the opportunities we face as a nation,” the White House said in a statement.

Princeton’s Eddie Glaude Jr. and Sean Wilentz, Harvard’s Annette Gordon-Reed, Yale’s Beverly Gage and Boston College’s Heather Cox Richardson were among the attendees, as well as presidential biographer — and occasional Biden speech writer — Jon Meacham.

Attendees were tight-lipped about what was discussed at the gathering. One would only go so far as to say they “talked about American history and its bearing on the present — a lively exchange of ideas.”

Another person in the room, who like the others was not authorized to speak publicly about a private meeting, said the historians urged the president “to call out the moment for what it is.” In blunt terms, the academics discussed looming threats to the nation’s democracy and warned about the slow crawl of authoritarianism around the globe.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    And who will shield the needy and vulnerable? Who will come to their aide when the world simply stares? What is your alternative solution?

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I don’t. I think we need to change how our voting system works. We don’t have time before the next election. Thats my rationale. You have to choose now, this year. Ranked choice is not being implemented. So, you’re getting Trump or Biden most likely. With this shitty voting system, anybody spitefully withholding votes is helping Republicans make a Theocracy.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      And who will shield the needy and vulnerable?

      Who indeed? Democrats had some legitimacy when they claimed they would do that. Until recently.

      What is your alternative solution?

      I’d start with Democrats ceasing their support for genocide.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The older Democrats and generation in general hold fast to Israel. Its what they’re familiar with and have grown up “on their team”. There is a divide in the age groups as the younger democratic officials support Palestine. What other elected officials of a different political party support Palestine and endorse it publicly? Do many Republicans? In American politics, those are your options without fundamental change to the voting system.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          What other elected officials of a different political party support Palestine and endorse it publicly? Do many Republicans? In American politics, those are your options without fundamental change to the voting system.

          I.

          AM.

          NOT.

          ADVOCATING.

          FOR.

          VOTING.

          FOR.

          ANOTHER.

          PARTY.

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            You jumped into the chain that started with someone claiming voter apathy. What do you think I’m on about?

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That doesn’t mean I support everything everyone else in the chain says. I jumped in because you were acting like Democrats are interested in the slightest in stopping genocide. I pointed out why that no longer holds water.

              If you want to credibly claim that a party will even try to protect anyone from genocide, that party should not be actively supporting genocide when you make that claim.

              Democrats have supported one genocide. Democrats are governed by political expedience. When it becomes politically expedient, they will support another. Who do you suppose it will be?