The missing man.
On August 4th, 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev voyaged to his Crimean dacha at Foros. On August 18th, 1991, the self-constituted State Committee on the State of Emergency cut off his communications with the outside world, and surrounded the dacha with KGB personnel. This was, indisputably, a coup d'état. Fortunately for the peace of the world, it was unsuccessful. There was no independent confirmation of Gorbachev’s status, nor even that he was alive, until the putschists allowed a Russian (not Soviet) delegation to visit him on August 21st.
From coup to proof of life, therefore, was a span of a mere three days in 1991. How long will it be before we have independent confirmation of the American President’s wellbeing in 2024?
Let us reflect for a moment on the exceeding strangeness, the un-normalcy, of all this. It is extremely strange for a President of the United States to end his reelection candidacy — and therefore to de facto end his Presidency — with a mere memorandum posted on social media. It is extremely strange for that President to issue a followup social-media post designating a successor, who immediately sets in motion the process of amassing the funds and power previously accrued to her predecessor. It is extremely strange for the President’s calendar to be concurrently cleared, including the cancellation of meetings with foreign leaders who are traveling to the United States specifically to meet with the President.
It is extremely strange for all this to happen without a single personal appearance, without even a video, without even a recording of his voice, without even a photograph, in an era where producing and sharing those things has never been easier. Why do we have nothing? Is the President’s medical condition so very grave that all planning is impossible, and all appearances an injury to dignity? If so, why was he compelled to make this decision in those straits? Out of plain compassion, was there not a few days of grace that might have been given? If so, furthermore, why not simply say so? Surely “the President is gravely ill” is less challenging a public declaration than “the President has upended the process for the national election.”
Everyone knows that the President is incapable of performing the basic tasks attendant to the actions attributed to him across the past two days — drafting a memorandum, posting a tweet — and so everyone understands that there are other persons executing them. That much is D.C.-figure commonplace. What gives actions like this their imprimatur is always the personal appearance and endorsement of the principal.
But the principal is missing.
President Joe Biden is, supposedly, making decisions nearly unique in two and a half centuries of American history. When do we get to drop the conditional in that sentence? When does the country get to see him? Must we wait three days, as with the Gorbachev coup? Or is there a longer interregnum in store?
One note on the rhetoric here: there is pushback online from certain corners against the use of coup d’état to describe events. This is a tell, and ought to signal that we should use it often. We should use it because it leads ineluctably to three assertions they wish to avoid. One is that the plotters ought to face public accountability. Another is that a President unfit to run is unfit to remain in office. Still another is that the regime is illegitimate.
And there is one other reason to use it: because it is true.
Relatedly, this probably isn’t the last time we will see the Democrats try to swap out their candidate. The initial rounds of polling for Harris versus Trump is deeply negative for her, but she has until the week of August 12th to demonstrate a competitive shot. If she cannot do that — and the odds are against it — then the DNC that convenes on August 19th will probably blow wide open.