A few weeks ago, I wrote articles about why I love Donald Trump and why I love Bernie Sanders, which you can find here – https://thelevinelowdown.com/america-2020-election/. When I was writing those articles, it was looking like Bernie Sanders would comfortably win the Democratic nomination and challenge Donald Trump for the Presidency of the United States. 4 weeks later, and it seems like it may be Joe Biden who wins the Democratic nomination. Nonetheless, here is Why I Love Joe Biden.

One of Joe Biden’s vision is to rebuild the middle class. He firmly believes that no matter where your life starts, there shouldn’t be a limit on what you can achieve. I agree with this perspective and his further belief that rebuilding the middle class should be regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Where you are born should not limit your opportunities. If you work hard, remain grateful and set goals, your place of birth should be irrelevant.

Joe Biden also prioritises global leadership. This is something we desperately need from an American President. The United States of America has unbelievable power and control on the world stage, and unfortunately, Donald Trump has not exercised this power effectively. In this new era, there are many new international challenges. Climate change, nuclear conflict, aggression with China and Russia and the refugee crisis require nations to come together to solve. This requires a President who is willing to repair relationships with America’s allies and stand up to nations who are not fulfilling their agreements. Joe Biden believes he can fulfil this role and if elected, I hope he does.

I would consider Joe Biden a more moderate democrat, especially when compared to Bernie Sanders. Biden’s health care policy is not about giving everyone free healthcare and possibly destroying the economy, but rather ensuring the health care and health insurance is affordable. There will be a public option which can negotiate prices with providers which creates a more affordable option for many Americans. Under Joe Biden, health care is not determined by wealth, and this is incredibly important.

Mr Biden has an image of seasoned experience, a reputation for empathy over a long time and a powerful base of support among older voters, moderates and African Americans. This has immensely contributed to his recent dominance over Bernie Sanders and will almost certainly lead him to challenging Donald Trump for the Presidency.  

Joe Biden now needs to gather the rest of the Democratic supporters, specifically young people and ideological progressives who sided with Sanders and mobilise them for the general election.

Can he do it? Time will tell.

What do you think about Joe Biden?

Part of the ‘America 2020 Election’ Series – https://thelevinelowdown.com/america-2020-election/

Article 11 of the ‘Why I Love…’ Series – https://thelevinelowdown.com/why-i-love/

18 thoughts on “Why I Love Joe Biden

  1. A Biden administration would continue government by Wall Street and the military-industrial complex, just like the Obama administration. There would be no expectation of ending the wars, providing Medicare for all, regulating financial speculators or reversing U.S. economic decline.

    Biden’s main legislative accomplishment was to make it harder for debtors to get out of bankruptcy.

    He is a passive person—a follower, not a leader.

    The only argument for voting for Biden is that he is not Donald Trump.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!

      Do you not think that Biden has the power or will to pass legislation regarding his policies? Or does he just not want to?

      Is your final line enough justification for some people in America?


      1. I wouldn’t vote for Joe Biden myself. I don’t expect to vote for either a Democrat or Republican in this year’s presidential election. But a lot of my friends would vote for any Democrat running against Donald Trump.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Very interesting. How has Donald Trump lead compared to your expectations of him in 2016? Has he exceeded your expectations? Would another 4 years of Trump be detrimental to the United States?


  2. Joe Biden is showing signs of his age. So he isn’t qualified.

    Biden is for all practical purposes a Socialist. Progressivism is just another word for Socialism. Problem with Socialism is that it does not work because it is not ethical.

    Consider. What is government? Government is a gang of people who combine to force other people to obey their will. What justifies such behavior? Generosity with other people’s property? Don’t think so.

    We can justify the need for government, but we cannot justify using government transform other people. We have neither the right or the wisdom.

    Consider one other thing. When we vote we get some choice in the selection of our leaders. That is important, but we each exercise more power when we spend our money. Every time spend our money in a free market we effect what people produce and how we live. Socialism arbitrarily takes that power completely away from us.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m not sure if I agree with you on the point about Biden being a socialist. If you made the argument that Sanders leaned towards Socialism I would be happy to accept that argument, but Biden is much more conservative than Sanders and I don’t think the label of socialism is entirely appropriate.

      Progressivism aims to raise the standard of living for the average person in society in order to achieve positive social change where Socialism is where the government run the production of resources collectively owned by society. Socialists want to abolish capitalism, but progressives focus on gradual change. I believe they are clear distinctions between the two. What do you think?


      1. @thelevinelowdown

        Think about the fact slavery in its various forms has existed for thousands of years. The South fought with great ferocity to preserve slavery. Why?

        Slavery is economically highly inefficient. Most Southerners did not own slaves. What was going through the minds of these people?

        James Madison observed that men are not angels. So, we need government to protect each other from each other. The problem is keeping the government itself from being used to abuse people’s rights, as various peoples have used it to maintain the institution of slavery.

        How do we keep the government from being a threat to our rights? We keep as much power as possible in the hands of individuals. The power we give the government we divide and place in multiple hands, even if it requires pitting various branches and levels of government against each other.

        The framers of our Constitution, knowing the love men have for power over each other, chose a limited government over what might seem to some a more efficient form of government. They feared tyranny, even the tyranny of the majority.

        So, what is wrong with Progressivism? Progressives do not uphold any principles which would prevent our leaders from gathering and concentrating power into a few hands. Instead of seeing a free people, working together voluntarily together as the best solution for most problems, Progressives tend to see government as the only proper solution.

        Endlessly increasing the power of government just leads to tyranny. That’s why we have to see government as the solution when nothing else will work. If a regulation will do the job, we don’t need another new program or agency.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Very interesting thoughts and perspectives.

        However, you argument against progressivism can be just as easily manipulated to fit conservativism. Conservatives naturally favour big business and wealthier individuals, concentrating power within a small number of individuals in society. Your wealth directly impacts on your power within society, and that power stay’s within this people, families and is impossible to get rid of, even when arguably undesirable leaders rise to take power.

        Why do you believe that conservatism is the right way forward for America in this election?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. @thelevinelowdown

        Why do you believe that conservatism is the right way forward for America in this election?

        Conservatives don’t favor anyone over anyone else. When we use the law to show partiality towards the wealthy, a particular race, cronies, or whoever, that’s immoral. We should not even do that in church.

        The primary risk with Capitalism is what we call Crony Capitalism. That is, the wealthy use their government contacts to gain competitive advantages. Normally, as businesses grow larger, they become more difficult to run and less competitive. However, cronyism allows a business to continue to grow even when it is not well run. We can fight cronyism by keeping our tax code and regulations as simple as possible.

        Businesses can also grow disproportionately large because of economies of scale or because they are natural monopolies. It is simpler to control these tendencies with regulations than it is to nationalize such businesses.

        The last thing we want is government ownership. Then we end up with the government trying to regulate itself. That sort of conflict produces predictable results.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Thank you again for sharing such detailed thoughts! I can definitely understand and appreciate these fundamental aspects of conservativism. You talk about Crony Capitalism as a major risk, but I feel like it is inevitable in many governments around the world, and arguably in America during periods. Regardless, it’s been great to hear your thoughts. All the best and I look forward to talking to you more as the election race continues! LL 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      5. @thelevinelowdown

        Is Crony Capitalism inevitable? Well, I cannot argue that it isn’t, but there is a common misunderstanding. Because we refer to it as Crony Capitalism, we tend to think of Crony Capitalism as a form of Capitalism. However, Crony Capitalism is really a form of government control.

        Think! As Crony Capitalism begins to predominate, where does that lead us? Don’t Crony Capitalists beat out their competitors by increasing the government’s control over their competitors. Eventually, increasing government control over business leads to virtual government ownership of business. When government runs or owns all businesses, that is, the economy, that is Socialism.

        The Nazis were Socialists. They implemented their form of Socialism via Crony Capitalism. Had they won WWII, they probably would have gone farther.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. I think regardless of whether it is labelled as Crony Capitalism or not, it is still inevitable within conservative governments. I can agree with you that in theory it makes sense, but it isn’t translated in practise. Just like how Communist theory has certain advantages, in practise it is impossible to practise.

        The Nazis were not socialists. They led under the loose banner of socialism but they are ultra-nationalistic, socially conservative, anti-eglatarian and led on fascist ideology.


      7. @thelevinelowdown

        Is Crony Capitalism inevitable? Cannot say it isn’t. Republics — societies of free people — have been rare. We are not naturally good. Unless we are taught to sincerely believe we should love our neighbor, we won’t.

        The United Kingdom and the United States are accidents of history. During the Enlightenment, the United Kingdom and the American colonies went in a different direction from the Enlightenment on the European continent. Whereas the Enlightenment on the continent elevated human reason, the peoples of the United Kingdom and the American colonies built upon their Christian and democratic traditions, respecting the rights of the individual.

        Were the Nazis socialists? A Nazi is a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Note that word Socialist.

        We speak of the Left and the Right as if these are the extremes of the political spectrum. Nope!

        What are the extremes of the political spectrum, totalitarianism and anarchy. In a totalitarian system, the individual can only do what the government says he can do. Anarchy, on the other hand, is the absence of government. Is anarchy a good idea? No. Since only the strong can protect themselves, anarchy quickly leads to the subjugation of the weak.

        So, what is the difference between the Left and the Right. The Left traditionally discriminates based upon wealth; it pits the have nots against the haves. The Right traditionally discriminates based upon races. The Nazis pitted the Aryan race against Jews, Slavs, Blacks, and so forth.

        Nazis are more less nonexistent for the time being. Liberal Democrats have, however, taken the politics of division to a new level, identity politics. Identity politics divides based upon race, sex, wealth, religion, and so forth.

        Remember what I said earlier in this comment, unless we are taught to sincerely believe we should love our neighbor, we won’t. Identity politics works because it encourages us to show partiality to people like us. When we forget the everyone is made in the image of God, that sort of nonsense works.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. I understand that they had the word ‘Socialist’ in their name, I referred to that loose banner in my previous response. Stalin also had the word ‘Communist’ in his party’s name but there was nothing communist about his leadership and regime.

        I would agree that anarchy is terrible. As is totalitarianism. Both sides of the coin are horrible and destructive policies which destroy society.

        I also agree that the left can do things that lead to division. However, I believe that the right create division to a greater extent. I have to look at ultra-nationalistic terrorism and violence here. These acts are by ultra-conservatives and they create clear identity division. Then moderate conservatives don’t necessarily believe these divisions, but they are certainly influenced by them. Then, right-wing media utilise unexpected events to create crimes waves, forming moral panic and further division amongst society. I’m not saying that the left is immune to creating division, but I would say that their goal of social equality or social opportunity is greater than the conservatives.

        I completely agree with you that we should seek to love our neighbour. I believe that a moderate progressive government has a better chance of pursuing this goal than a conservative government.


      9. @thelevinelowdown

        In a practical sense there are no real Socialists. The Nazis and the Communists were sincere enough, but their hatred and the power they grasped for corrupted them.

        You might think Hitler was some kind of demon, but he won the Iron Cross during WW1. He was a brave man. Somewhere along the line he began to believe the end justified the means. At some point he accepted the notion that he was one of Friedrich Nietzsche’s supermen.

        The difference between Nazi’s and Communists is almost nil. Both want totalitarian police states. Both hate, just for differing reasons. Socialism became for them just an excuse for seizing more power than government needs to protect the rights of the people.

        In the end Socialists of any stripe risk differing little from the Nazis and the Communists. Instead of focusing on the legitimate role of government, Socialists desire to make people do the right thing, share their wealth. That is stealing, but Socialists justify the means with their supposedly glorious end, So, they seize enough power to redistribute the wealth, and then, to keep power they seize still more power. Once we start justifying the means with the end, where do we stop? Often, we don’t.

        Liked by 1 person

      10. There are some fundamental parts of this comment which I disagree with, I don’t think the blending of Nazi’s and Communists is appropriate and your representation of Hitler lacks key adjectives, however; as a whole response I understand your perspective and partly agree.

        I also don’t advocate for socialism, even parts of progressivism I don’t completely agree with. I believe in equal opportunity. Everyone should be given the same opportunity and be able to achieve success regardless of where they were born.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. @thelevinelowdown

        We often confuse style with substance. When we speak of the Left and the Right, I think that is what we are doing. Could I be wrong? Would not be the first time. So, I have a question. How in substance are the Nazis and Communists different?

        Take your pick.

        The Devil is in the details.


        God is in the detail.

        The point is that until we examine an idea, concept, design (etcetera) carefully we may not see the problems with it or the beauty of it.

        So, more questions. Equal opportunity sounds like a fine goal. Who can give everyone an equal opportunity? Does this person have the power to give everyone the same genes, the same environment, and the same education? Does this generous soul confiscate other people’s property to give everyone an opportunity? Or do they reach into their own pocket? Does everyone have to make the exact same choices, that is, the government choose for us? How do we distinguish an equal opportunity from an equal outcome? Would it actually be a good thing if we were all the exact same? What happens to the beauty of diversity?

        Liked by 1 person

      12. The terms the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ have become somewhat meaningless. People rarely sit solely on one side of the spectrum for every single issue. And even throughout people’s lives, their beliefs and opinions can change. However, there are terms that we can use to broadly describe the leadership of a government. Terms such as totalitarian, a dictatorship, anarchy, democracy, etc. Yes, the Nazi’s and Communists were both totalitarian. If you’re making the argument that they are similar in practise, then sure, there are definitely similarities. If you are making the argument that they are similar in theory, then I would strongly disagree.

        I am not saying we should all be the same. Moreover, I am not at all stating that the government chooses for us. The government’s role is to act as a trampoline, to help push people up and allow them to achieve their own success. Every single person’s success and goals are different, but in our current society, many of those goals are never able to be achieved. Diversity would still be achieved in a policy of equal opportunity as people still have their own minds, control their own actions and still have the choice to take the opportunities provided. I do not advocate for just giving money out, confiscating property or creating the same conditions, hard work and passion should still be imperative.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s