COMMENTARY: Why are Democrats acknowledging RFK Jr.?

In the Democratic Party’s stepped-up offensive against presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a faint whiff of panic is in the air, a stirring of concern that no good can come from one of the nation’s most storied political names lingering on the fringes of Joe Biden re-election strategy.

Conventional wisdom has it that a candidate trailing by as much as 50 points should be ignored. Punching down is considered a foolish and counterproductive strategy.

Given Kennedy’s standing and failure to gain ground, the establishment has embraced a broad and orchestrated attack not merely to marginalize him, but to toss him into the “kooks and cranks” bin and convince Democrats who might be enamored of him that he has lost his grip on reality.

The ferocity of the attacks — accusing him of antisemitism and racism, for instance — indicates a belief that he should be crushed rather than damaged.

The onslaught begs the question: Why go nuclear on a candidate who is 50 points behind, who has lost much of the support he began with, has failed to gain any traction and cannot possibly win the nomination? In what political universe and under what logic does Kennedy represent a threat to Biden?

To be sure, he has given his critics ample opportunity to raise serious doubts about his fitness to lead.

His history of claiming vaccines cause childhood ailments and psychological damage has placed him on the scientific fringe. His recent suggestion that COVID-19 was bio-engineered to spare Asians and Jews while infecting Caucasians and African Americans was totally lacking in any foundation and brought well-deserved criticism raining down on his head.

It is difficult to regain credibility and convince others of seriousness of purpose and thought while burdened with a history of out of the mainstream beliefs.

For the most part, the White House and the Biden campaign have wisely refrained from the attacking Kennedy, relying instead largely on congressional surrogates.

The president’s campaign has dismissed talk of a debate, and the intensified focus on Kennedy’s conspiratorial ruminations provides further justification for refusing a one on one confrontation.

It also allays fears of many that Kennedy would hold his own in a debate while the Biden team would hold its collective breath hoping the president will avoid responses trailing off into mumbling, forget names and places, utter disconnected phrases or veer off into reminiscing.

While secretly longing for a 2020 reprise of a campaign from the basement, the Biden team has carefully placed him in front of friendly audiences and avoided any freewheeling interaction with the media. The strategy recognizes that Biden’s public approval remains in the low 40 percent range.

Convincing voters conditions under Biden are far more comfortable than their daily experiences will be difficult. Erasing that disconnect will require more than selling “Bidenomics” — it will demand economic improvement, easing inflation and bringing the cost of living into alignment with income and ability to pay.

Achieving those goals should take precedence over tamping down misplaced and imaginary panic about a candidate with a legendary name but whose impact and influence are those of someone named Smith or Jones.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. Contact him at cgolden1937@gmail.