"The Most Important Issue In Our Politics"

A Q&A with John Harwood on his interview with Joe Biden about threats to democracy

Over the weekend, after delivering a signal address on threats to American democracy, President Biden sat for an interview with the veteran reporter John Harwood—now of ProPublica, formerly of CNN, the New York Times, and other marquee news outlets—to explore the issue in greater depth. 

The interview runs about 20 minutes, and is worth watching in full. It captures nuances in Biden’s thinking about democracy that I wasn’t fully aware of (though, as you’ll see below and in the video, Biden leaves some questions unanswered). 

The only other spoiler I’ll offer is this: You won’t hear any questions about horse-race politics and gaffes, or loaded questions intended mostly to make the interviewer seem hard-nosed. The purpose was to elucidate. 

I’ve thought highly of Harwood’s approach to journalism—particularly his live or uncut television interviews—for a long time now, and consider him a friend and role model. Several years ago, when he was Washington correspondent for CNBC, Republicans effectively blacklisted him from moderating GOP debates after he angered 2016 primary candidates with his rightly skeptical questions about Donald Trump and the Republican policy agenda. They attacked him publicly and even lured some of his media peers into the pile on. But Harwood was in the right, and stood his ground, and I’ve always admired that. 

After I watched the interview, I emailed him and asked if he’d respond to some questions about it, and he agreed. You can read the whole Q&A below. 

BRIAN BEUTLER: You didn’t ask the president any questions about his son Hunter. You only alluded to Hunter in a question premised on the notion that the Republican impeachment inquiry is based on “innuendo.” Can you explain that decision?

JOHN HARWOOD: My request was for an interview on the threat American democracy now faces. I requested it because that's the most important issue in our politics right now. Time is limited when you interview a president and I didn't want to waste it on any topics of lesser importance. (As viewers can see, I didn't ask about Trump's legal cases either.)

BB: Do you think most White House reporters understand the elemental differences between Hunter Biden’s conduct and legal troubles, and Trump’s?

JH: Yes. Most White House reporters are smart people. The two things are not remotely comparable.

BB:  Why, then, do they see this as an important focal point of their coverage—staging press encounters so they can pepper him with questions about it, tracking the Hunter saga and impeachment as rough parallels with Trump’s indictments and trials?

JH: In fairness to the reporters, in those encounters they generally only have the ability to call out one or two questions. And they tend to use those limited opportunities to ask about things they or their editors decide have the most appeal to their audiences. I was fortunate to have time for an actual conversation with the president.

BB: Your questions focused heavily on threats to democracy—acute ones like the MAGA movement; institutional ones like the Supreme Court; electoral ones like the coming rematch between Trump and Biden. What makes those more urgent, in your mind, than the economic themes at the center of the message Biden and Democrats want to deliver: pocketbook issues, infrastructure, bipartisan consensus, and so on?

JH: The entire American experiment is built upon a government selected by and responsive to the citizenry—of the people, by the people, for their people, as it were. That defining characteristic has made the United States the world's leading nation. Descending into a system where abuse of power or mob violence determines control of the government would ruin the country my kids and grandchildren will inherit. That's more important than near-term economics (which happen to be very good notwithstanding poll responses on the subject).

That is not to say the pocketbook issues are unimportant in and of themselves or to the democracy fight. The 2024 election could be a tipping point for democracy, and pocketbook issues could be a tipping point for the election. But in this moment, it felt more important to me to explore President Biden's views on the threat to democracy itself.

BB: You linked the two themes (democracy and economics) when you asked the president, “You focused on delivering economic benefits to some of those voters who are afraid of change. What is the evidence that, in this current moment, it's economic benefits that will diminish their grievances?” Were you surprised by his answer?

JH: I wasn't surprised. His answer was consistent with what he has expressed throughout his career. But I don't think he considers them unrelated, considering his frequent statement that good jobs confer dignity as well as a paycheck.

BB: What did you make of it—this idea that the administration’s focus on the economic wellbeing of, e.g., Rust Belt communities isn’t so much about making them wealthier, happier, and, thus, more pro-incumbent, but about their identity, their desire to be respected?

JH: Again, I think he and the administration believe it's about both at the same time. At a moment of polarization around deeply-felt political identities, it's very hard to break through with just one or the other. And Biden's attempt to break through is complicated by the fact that he, by virtue of his background and persona, conveys that respect more convincingly than the Democratic Party itself.

BB: Did Biden convince you that maybe some friendly critics (like, cough, me) are wrong—that MAGA voters, or maybe MAGA-curious swing voters, can be reached through economic channels—not with money but by conveying that Democrats aren’t (as Biden put it) "limousine liberals" who ignore or disdain them?

JH: The only convincing that means anything is election results. And elections have shown Republicans generally losing altitude since Trump threaded the electoral college needle in 2016. Largely that's about swing voters feeling disdained by Trump's side rather than attracted to Biden's side. We'll find out whether Biden can hold those gains, or even build on them, next November.

BB: What reasons do you think Biden might have had for saying it’s a “tough call” whether Congress can regulate Supreme Court ethics, when the Constitution says, “The Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, but as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”?

JH: Not sure. Perhaps he thinks there's some genuine ambiguity, or perhaps he thought it more politic to say that to avoid pressuring congressional Democrats on something that clearly can't pass this divided Congress anyway.

BB: In your estimation, could Donald Trump have answered similar questions, tailored to his current political challenges, with similar clarity?

JH: Of course not! On these subjects Trump is ignorant, inarticulate and not the slightest bit interested. He's mentally unwell in a way that makes him care about himself to the exclusion of abstract principles concerning philosophy, governance, or morality.

BB: Do you think the collective output of mainstream news coverage of the candidates, and their ages, reflects that assessment of their relative clarity? And if not, why not?

JH: Individual cases, yes. At times, yes. But collectively and consistently, no.

Mainstream journalists operate from the assumption that we have two parties competing over power and policy and we should cover them as if they are more or less comparable—just on different sides. And they see the job of covering two opposing presidential candidates as exploring their problems and vulnerabilities.

They often do this individually rather than comparatively, without placing the candidates' problems and vulnerabilities in proportion to one another. They're also wary, in an era of shrinking audiences, of offending conservatives by appearing to pile on the conservative candidate since mainstream journalists are already seen (accurately) as left of center themselves.