Despite longstanding concerns about President Biden’s age and ability to run an effective campaign, many Democrats have resisted any discussion of replacing him on the ticket. They recognize the president’s domestic record as an asset for his run and that his persona directly challenges former President Trump’s appeal with white working-class voters in key battleground states. And they fear the uncertainties that might accompany his stepping down.

After the president’s unsettling debate performance on June 27th, confronting this concern went from speculative to urgent. With major news outlets and respected commentators elevating the president’s mental acuity and elected officials beginning to voice concern, Democrats realize this issue will continue to dominate coverage as media wait for the next verbal gaffe or sign of frailty.

Instead of this facing this problem, the White House and the party have doubled down on denial—placing blame on the president’s travel schedule or a cold and sending supporters emails comparing the president’s superior vision for the country’s future with Donald Trump’s bold-faced lies. Recognizing that the reality of the president’s performance and capacity can’t be ignored, I submitted a proposal to the party outlining how the President could step down and be replaced by a candidate chosen through an open, transparent, and democratic process. I hoped the process would also be respectful of the president and his accomplishments. It would have to begin with the president’s announcement that he would not be seeking reelection—understanding the need to defeat Donald Trump and confident in the deep Democratic bench to defeat Trump and build on his presidency’s successes. While he could endorse his Vice-President, he would be clear that this was not a coronation, but an open process to be decided by the Democratic Convention. To ensure voters have their say, he’d turn the process over to the Democratic National Committee to define the way forward.

My proposal is that the DNC lay out a one-month campaign schedule to select the party’s nominee—a nominating process, an abbreviated campaign schedule (featuring two televised town halls), and formal nominations at the convention with votes taken among the seated delegates. The excitement generated by this process and the attention it would be given would be a plus for our eventual nominee. The benefits would be a process seen as open, transparent, and democratic, and, for weeks, national media focused on Democratic candidates, drawing sharp contrast with the GOP nominee’s antics. Over the past half century, conventions have gone from exciting and sometimes unpredictable affairs to highly scripted events. The more scripted, the less attention they’ve received from national media— from gavel-to-gavel coverage to just an hour or two nightly. An unscripted convention would ensure greater coverage. With the excitement of an open process, Democrats would leave Chicago energized.

Finally, President Biden, having made this possible, would be seen as a national leader who put aside personal ambition because he cared more about saving democracy—and trusted the party and Democrats to build on his legacy. His final address to the Convention would be a crowning moment in his long career as a public servant.

Three additional notes: I wrote this memo (and this article) as a leader in the Democratic Party. I’ve been on the national committee for 31 years—16 on the Executive Committee and 11 as chair of the Resolutions Committee. When my proposal received considerable national media attention, I knew many party leaders would be upset because I spoke out of turn. But I was willing to face the consequences knowing the importance of our taking the reins of this situation. Some were displeased that I suggested the president shouldn’t simply step down and pass the mantle to Vice President Harris. While she would be an excellent choice and most likely win at the convention, I believe her candidacy would be greatly strengthened by winning in an open convention.

Finally, some in my community were upset I even cared to engage in this process because of our legitimate anger over President Biden’s support for Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. I’ve never hesitated to condemn the US complicity in this war and will continue to do so. What motivated me was the urgency of ensuring that Donald Trump will never again enter the White House. And so I acted in the best interests of my community, my party, and my country.

Dr. James J. Zogby
The writer is the President of Arab American Institute.