Staying the Course Endangers the Nation
by Bryan H. Wildenthal (July 9, 2024)
(See Copyright & Permissions Note on Vita & Contact page.)
(Update: After President Biden withdrew from his reelection campaign on July 21, I published an essay on August 10 praising his patriotism in doing so.)
I have not previously posted political essays here and have no intention of doing so on a regular basis — only on rare occasions like this. There is a fine line (often no line at all) between politics and discussions of law, legal reforms, and the Constitution. Several of my essays on Jurist have straddled that boundary.
As a law professor, I claim no more expertise in political analysis than many other interested citizens in all walks of life. But as everyone knows (or should know) the outcome of this election will have profound consequences for the future of our Constitution, the rule of law, and our democratic form of government. So this is something I care deeply about.
I voted for President Biden in 2020. I have been a supporter of the Democratic Party my entire adult life, while often dissenting from party orthodoxies. Like millions of Americans, I feel admiration and gratitude for Biden’s leadership in defeating Donald Trump (literally saving the country), and for overcoming diehard opposition from the extreme Right (and sometimes the extreme Left) to promote successful legislation and policies on everything from health care to infrastructure to economic growth to Native American rights.
More importantly and fundamentally, I am a patriotic American committed to defending our Constitution and our democratic (small “d”) and republican (small “r”) form of government. I fear the existential threat to our constitutional democracy posed by Trump and the quasi-fascist cult of personality he leads and represents. I therefore support President Biden or any alternative nominee against Trump.
But the issue at the moment is not Trump. It is whether President Biden has the capacity to lead a successful campaign against him for the second time.
It has become painfully and tragically obvious that President Biden lacks that capacity. He must make way for another Democratic Party nominee. If he does not withdraw voluntarily, the convention delegates should take a deep breath, consult their consciences, and deny him the nomination.
Keep in Mind What’s at Stake
Let’s be very clear about the stakes. Trump, and the extremists among his supporters (not generalizing about all his supporters), threaten to:
(1) Overthrow free and fair elections, nullify the past votes and future voting rights of millions of their fellow Americans, fan false claims of voter “fraud,” and deny reality, facts, and science in numerous ways.
(2) Impose on all Americans an extreme and twisted version of religious dogma known as “Christian Nationalism,” unrecognizable to most actual Christians (among whom are many of my beloved family members), or adherents of other religions (or no religion, like me), who are committed to our Constitution and the rule of law.
(3) Seek “retribution” — their own ugly and chilling word choice — against their perceived enemies, and enact cruel, dangerous, and extremist policies that would set back our nation by decades.
(4) Undermine or even destroy the NATO alliance that has safeguarded North American and European security for 75 years. This would grant an enormous unearned victory to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the war-mongering dictator who is the most dangerous tyrant in the world today. Putin invaded Ukraine in an unprovoked war of aggression, directly threatens much of Europe, has threatened all of humanity with the specter of nuclear war, and has persistently interfered in the internal politics of the United States and other democracies. Incredible as it is to contemplate, Trump has publicly fawned over Putin and encouraged his aggression.
(5) Above all, Trump would rip apart and destroy the fabric of our constitutional democracy, woven over centuries by the sacrifices of patriots who gave everything, including their lives in many cases, to preserve it for posterity. Oh … and if you’re deluding yourself that Trump might at least be kinda sorta ok on the economy — think again!
Unlike Trump’s MAGA cult of personality, we Democrats typically do not heedlessly worship any leader. When our leaders fall into error, or endanger the country with bad judgment or lack of capacity, we have not just the right but the duty to demand (not meekly ask) that they step aside or take a different course.
Many of my fellow Democrats, including beloved family members and friends, understandably concerned by the risks of an abrupt change of course just weeks before the expected confirmation of President Biden’s nomination, oppose it and counsel those of us advocating it to instead rally behind the president.
Speaking to them, I respectfully say: Please review the facts and reconsider your position. As Abraham Lincoln put it, it is time to “think anew and act anew.”
Regrettably, some prominent Democratic politicians and campaign operatives have sought to gaslight their fellow Democrats, and all Americans, by telling us to ignore what we saw with our own eyes during the June 27 Biden-Trump debate. They have sought to shame and marginalize us and have castigated us to shut up and get with the party program.
Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, in bullying rants on social media, has suggested we “get a spine or grow a set” (referring to male genitals). President Biden’s deputy campaign manager, Rob Flaherty, dismissed those raising obviously valid concerns as “the bedwetting brigade” (an outrageously offensive term also used by Fetterman).
Such insults merely underscore the urgency of choosing a nominee who can actually unite us and defeat Trump, rather than the one who is actually now dividing and demoralizing us and driving directly toward a cliff of defeat and disaster.
The President Falsely Frames the Issue
President Biden has said he refuses to allow a single 90-minute debate (dismissing it as merely “a bad night”) to cancel out his achievements of the past three years.
That falsely frames the issue and he knows it.
No reasonable person calling for this change of course has suggested that the June 27 debate somehow cancels out his many laudable past achievements. Nor has any reasonable person suggested that the June 27 debate alone should drive our decisions.
The problem is precisely that the debate does not stand alone. It transpired against the background of three years of the president’s evident decline (both physical and mental), and sharply declining approval by voters as measured and corroborated by far too many polls to dismiss.
The real issue is not the last three years but the next four years and the president’s ability to lead his own campaign going forward. The real issue is whether voters, now or in November, can have any realistic confidence in the president’s ability to function during the next term, at the end of which he will be 86 years old!
The New York Times Editorial Board put it well on June 28, in words I cannot improve upon so will simply quote:
President Biden’s “performance cannot be written off as a bad night … because it affirmed concerns that have been mounting for months or even years.” The June 27 debate “cannot be outweighed by other public appearances because [the president] has limited and carefully controlled his public appearances.”
The president has failed to act with any urgency or effectiveness to mitigate the damage. He failed to even place a phone call to the House Democratic Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, until five days after the debate. He did not call Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer until July 3, almost a full week later.
He did not hit the campaign trail with multiple unscripted events and appearances that might have assuaged voter concerns, implying that he and his team know he is not capable of doing so. Instead he opted for brief teleprompter speeches and planted softball questions from friendly radio hosts.
Not until more than a week after the debate, on July 5, did President Biden finally allow another unscripted encounter — a gentle 22-minute interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, a longtime Democrat.
President Biden, looking well rested, responding to easily predictable questions for which he had more than a week to prepare from an obviously friendly and sympathetic interviewer, offered answers that were meandering and unfocused. He often just repeated trite phrases and talking points.
Most devastatingly, as the Times noted on June 28 (my emphasis):
“It should be remembered that Mr. Biden challenged Mr. Trump to [the June 27] verbal duel. He set the rules, and he insisted on a date months earlier than any previous general election debate. He understood that he needed to address longstanding public concerns about his mental acuity and that he needed to do so as soon as possible. The truth Mr. Biden needs to confront now is that he failed his own test.”
The President’s Disturbing Egotism
As troubling as the shaky and unconvincing nature of the July 5 interview was the president’s seeming arrogance, self-centered egotism, and detachment from reality.
Those are concerns reminiscent, troublingly and ironically, of Donald Trump himself. Please note I do not endorse false equivalency. Certainly such attitudes manifest themselves in far more extreme form with Trump. President Biden is a man of profoundly good intentions, in stark contrast to Trump’s naked malevolence and malignant narcissism.
But it is troubling that President Biden blithely denied on July 5 that any leading Democrats had expressed any concerns to him or were losing any confidence in his capacity to run a successful campaign. Even worse, he airily suggested he would simply ignore them if they did convey such concerns.
The president declared he would drop out of the race only if “the Lord Almighty” told him to. Even allowing for a colorful phrase probably not meant to be taken literally, he seemed to be saying he would withdraw only if he personally concludes he is not up to the task (perhaps guided by prayer).
Ever since the June 27 debate, the president has conveyed the strong impression that he is simply not receptive to feedback from voters or fellow elected officials in his own party. He has dismissed all the opinion polls indicating his gravely endangered standing. He seems convinced that only he can defeat Trump.
There is a very troubling echo here of Trump’s notorious claim in 2016, referring to the country and its problems as a whole: “Only I can fix it.”
As New York Times political analyst Nate Cohn noted on July 3:
“Four years ago, it was the absence of any major political liabilities that allowed Mr. Biden to prevail over Mr. Trump. He won the Democratic nomination and ultimately the presidency because he was a well-liked, relatively moderate, broadly acceptable candidate who could unite the politically diverse voters who disliked Mr. Trump.”
But as Cohn notes: “Mr. Biden is not a broadly acceptable candidate anymore … and as a consequence he no longer leads Mr. Trump. Long before the debate, his approval and favorability ratings plunged deep into the danger zone for an incumbent. More ominously, his numbers were falling even though the conditions for a Biden comeback always seemed to be around the corner. Inflation was subsiding. [Cohn could have added that the economy, jobs, and real wages have all grown steadily.] The general election was heating up. On paper, an incumbent should have been the favorite — and his opponent was a candidate accused of multiple crimes, and recently convicted of a felony.”
Yet today, Cohn notes, President Biden’s “approval rating stands nearly a net 10 points lower than it was ahead of the 2022 midterm election, when inflation was over 7 percent. With the economy and consumer confidence improved since then, perhaps the best remaining explanation for this steady erosion is growing concern about his age.”
The notion that President Biden is somehow uniquely indispensable, that only he can save the country or defeat Trump, is not just obviously false. It is offensively and disturbingly false. It is, in fact, delusional.
What Is the Greater Risk?
The argument put forth by many of the president’s apologists is that it is simply too risky for him to withdraw. It is true there would be serious risks. But this argument rests far more on vague fears than fact-based analysis. And it tends to ignore the far more obvious risks of staying the current course.
As the New York Times Editorial Board suggested, again in its compelling June 28 statement, it is President Biden himself, and his diehard defenders, not his current doubters and critics within the Democratic Party, who are “engaged in a reckless gamble.”
As the Times accurately noted: “There are Democratic leaders better equipped to present clear, compelling and energetic alternatives to a second Trump presidency. There is no reason for the party to risk the stability and security of the country by forcing voters to choose between Mr. Trump’s deficiencies and those of Mr. Biden. It’s too big a bet to simply hope Americans will overlook or discount Mr. Biden’s age and infirmity that they see with their own eyes.”
The Times could have added that we have a great deal of polling data indicating that voters absolutely will not “overlook or discount” the president’s obviously declining capacity. Dismissing those polls is the true gamble, and a recklessly dangerous one indeed.
The notion that opinion polls have become systematically less reliable is largely a myth. It has been debunked by thoughtful polling experts. Polls should always be taken with a grain of salt and considered cumulatively in context. We should never put too much weight on any single poll. But they provide a wealth of valuable information that we ignore at our peril.
If we want to be fact-based and realistic, and not indulge in denialism and wishful thinking, we need to confront the overwhelming evidence that most voters (including many Democrats) have lost confidence in President Biden.
The New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, again in words I cannot improve upon, put it well on July 7:
“President Biden faces a problem with no solution. No interview or speech will convince a doubtful public that he is still fit to serve. Perceptions of him had years to harden. In June 2020, 36 percent of voters said Biden was too old to serve. By 2024, that number had roughly doubled. … After the debate, 74 percent [said so].”
As Klein summed up (my emphasis): “The debate didn’t change what voters believed about Biden. The debate made it impossible for the Democratic Party to continue ignoring what voters already believed about Biden.”
The President Doubles Down
Most recently, in a July 8 letter to Democrats in Congress, President Biden provided still more evidence of his detachment from reality.
The vast majority of the letter consists of reciting his past achievements and the dangers posed by Trump. I find little to disagree with there and the same will probably be true of most Democrats.
But that merely underscores the importance of assuring we have a nominee fully capable of making the case to the country (not to party loyalists) that Trump must be denied another term in the White House. In that regard, President Biden’s letter is a striking failure and consists of little more than bluster and bravado. It is even more painfully obvious now that he is not that nominee.
The president claims in the July 8 letter that he had “extensive conversations with the leadership of our party … over these past 10 days.” But that is simply not true. As noted above, the president did not even bother to place a call to top Congressional Democrats until almost a week after the June 27 debate.
The Circumstances Have Changed
The president points out that he prevailed in the primaries last spring and that Democrats “have voted” and “have chosen me to be the nominee.” He notes that only three candidates challenged him in the primaries and were “soundly defeated.” He says: “Do we now just say this process didn’t matter? That the voters don’t have a say?” He blusters that we cannot “stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party.”
While these are superficially appealing rhetorical points, they ignore reality and dodge the relevant issue, as the president well knows.
President Biden swept the primaries only because no serious opponent entered the race. Stronger opponents were deterred and intimidated from running by the president’s own insistence on seeking another term. In doing so, he broke his strongly implied promise in 2020 that he would serve as a “bridge” to the next generation of Democrats.
Democratic voters in the primaries were given no fair or realistic choice except to vote for President Biden. The proof of this is that the president declined to even debate any of his primary opponents. We now know that if he had, he might well have fallen flat on his face as he did on June 27.
I myself voted for the president in the California primary because there were no plausible alternatives listed on the ballot. I found that frustrating. But like many Democrats, before being confronted with the evidence of the June 27 debate, I deluded myself that he could somehow muddle through.
Reliable opinion polls have shown for years now that large percentages of Democrats, even outright majorities in some polls, have said they do not want the president to run again and are desperate for anyone other than the president to be their nominee.
Serious Democratic primary opponents would have been depicted by the president’s team as disloyal, as undermining and dividing the party, and the president knows that perfectly well.
In any event, the June 27 debate and the president’s on-going age-related decline constitute new and changed circumstances since last spring. That was then. This is now. And the president’s condition may well decline even more by this fall, before the November election, when we can least afford it.
As I stated at the outset, if President Biden does not withdraw voluntarily, the convention delegates should deny him the nomination. This would concededly be a bold and difficult step. The delegates pledged to Biden are bound in “good conscience” to support him.
But we now have new facts before our eyes. In light of the changed circumstances, the delegates would be more than justified, in good conscience, to take them into account if the president refuses to take the rational and patriotic course of stepping aside voluntarily.
The famous words of Abraham Lincoln (quoted briefly earlier) are again very apt here: “As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
The Tragic Realities of Age-Related Decline
Millions of Americans like me, who have dealt with parents or grandparents entering their 80s, know painfully well that age-related decline often accelerates rapidly and unpredictably. Even minor illnesses, falls, or mishaps can easily become major crises.
Those who deny such well-known facts, who cry “ageism,” are not being serious. They are not facing reality. They are whistling in the wind. And the consequences for the country could be catastrophic.
In response to predictable whataboutism, yes, it’s obviously true that Donald Trump also suffers from age-related decline. Which makes it all the more imperative to defeat him! Which makes it all the more crucial not to put up against him a nominee also suffering from age-related decline!
Trump’s fanatical and deluded supporters refuse to see his obvious unfitness for office. We should not mindlessly mimic them.
And let’s not delude ourselves still further. I despise Trump and was offended and horrified by his own debate performance on June 27. Yet as I watched the debate, even despite Trump’s endless lies and ranting, and the fact that he’s actually only three years younger than President Biden, I was forced to admit that he looked and moved like he was ten years younger.
Again, this is no surprise to those of us who have closely observed the aging of our own parents and grandparents. At that age, even a few years can make a remarkable difference. That underscores the danger of electing Trump to another term and the danger of going forward with President Biden as our nominee.
The president concludes his July 8 letter by claiming that the issue “has been well-aired for over a week now” and declares flatly that “it’s time for it to end.”
But the issue has not been adequately aired — far from it — for the reasons already stated. It is troubling that the president unilaterally and self-servingly seeks to shut down this discussion and calls for an “end” to obviously relevant and crucial questions.
The president himself has failed to engage with concerned members of his own party in a timely or adequate way. And he has failed to provide adequate opportunities to evaluate his capacity.
The president has so far held only a single unscripted public interview or comparable event since the June 27 debate: the 22-minute interview with Stephanopoulos. That July 5 interview and the July 8 letter have not helped the president’s cause. They have only deepened the longstanding concerns that were thrown into sharp relief by the disastrous debate.
A Weirdly One-Sided Public Discussion
I am hesitant to get into a meta-debate about the debate over the debate — such a typical law professor move. But … oh well, that’s who I am. So I have to say, it is truly fascinating and revealing how lopsided the public argument has been about the president’s best course of action.
I have read more than a dozen detailed, thoughtful, compelling, and eloquent published essays advocating the need for the president to withdraw. They have made it rather easy to write this essay, much of which merely selects and quotes the best arguments already made by others.
In just the last two days, the New York Times Editorial Board has published another virtually unanswerable argument for the president to step aside, joined by an equally persuasive essay by Paul Krugman.
I have read only a single published argument — by Charles Blow — setting forth in any detailed or thoughtful way why President Biden should stay in the race. But Blow doesn’t even attempt to show how Biden can now be a viable candidate.
In private discussions within my own extended family, some have circulated passionate and detailed arguments to stick with Biden. They have not persuaded me but I truly appreciate them. I wish more of them would get published. I’m a big believer in the importance, in any discussion, of getting the best possible arguments on the table.
But for the most part, all I have seen publicly from defenders of the president have been knee-jerk slogans like “Biden is our guy” or “I’m with Joe” or “We should have his back.”
These are classically irrational, emotional, and tribalistic human responses. They suggest a common reaction in a crisis: to simply trust and rally around and remain loyal to the leader — never mind that in this case the leader IS the crisis!
These reactions are disturbingly Orwellian because they demand we obediently ignore the truth we see with our own eyes. They are only a faint shadow of the thuggish cult of personality the Republican Party has degenerated into. Again, I do not suggest false equivalency! But even that faint shadow is deeply alarming because it indicates this mentality has started to infect the Democratic Party as well.
In my experience it is very telling when one side of an argument barely pretends to even engage in it — when one side would clearly rather shut down the discussion altogether. I have seen this in the debate over Shakespeare authorship.
In fairness, I recognize that defenders of the president worry that continuing to publicly argue about his capacity won’t solve anything and may just further damage the campaign against Trump. This is a legitimate and good-faith concern that Blow expresses. But the sad reality is that the public’s view of the president is already fixed and irreparable.
President Biden himself continues to do far more than sympathetic critics like me ever could to undermine his own cause — as with his surrealistic suggestion (hilarious were it not so politically damaging) that the solution is simply to sleep more and work less! Is the president trying to feed attack lines to Trump (who has long ridiculed him as “Sleepy Joe Biden“)? President Biden’s own staff reports that he is already only “dependably engaged” between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm!
To a large extent the public defenses of the president have been weirdly defeatist and fatalistic. They assert he’s already the nominee (which is false!), so there’s nothing we can do about it. It’s too late. He’ll never step aside voluntarily. So we just have to throw up our hands. We must simply hunker down and hope for the best.
But the premise of this defeatism is demonstrably untrue. The Democratic convention does not begin until August 19, exactly 41 days from today — well over a month! True, a bothersome distraction has been an utterly unreasonable ballot access rule in Ohio (contrary to 49 other states), which demands that the major parties decide on their nominees weeks earlier. The Democratic National Committee unwisely and frustratingly caved in to this Republican blackmail by announcing it would hold a “virtual” roll call vote on the nomination weeks in advance, thus robbing our convention of much of its traditional drama and excitement.
But Democrats can and should safely ignore that absurd Ohio deadline. We have no chance of winning Ohio anyway. And the Republican-controlled Ohio legislature will probably blink in the end. Given false Trumpian claims about “rigged” elections, they will not want to blatantly rig the election in Ohio so as to actually keep one of our two major political parties off the presidential ballot on such a specious ground!
It has long been traditional for the incumbent president’s party to hold its convention in late August. The Republicans themselves did so in 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, and in 2020 under Trump! The 2004 and 2008 Republican conventions did not end until early September!
If Not Biden, Who?
Many friends have asked me: If President Biden declines or is denied the nomination, who should take his place?
It is not for me to answer that question. Once the president accepts the inevitable, potential alternative candidates will need to make their own case. That can be done in an orderly and reasonable fashion. Respected Democratic National Committee member James Zogby (though not yet himself advocating that the president withdraw) has outlined and proposed exactly such a process.
The list of realistic and compelling alternative prospects turns out to be very short:
(1) Vice President Kamala Harris was chosen by President Biden himself, with the support and endorsement of the Democratic Party and then the American people in the 2020 election, to be his replacement should the need arise.
I would personally be happy to support Vice President Harris as the presidential nominee this year. I would also be happy to support any of the alternative nominees suggested below or any other plausible and acceptable nominee.
The president himself, and Democrats in general, have a lot to answer for now if they are to be understood as implying that they lack confidence in Vice President Harris to serve as president!
Still, this does not entitle Vice President Harris to the presidential nomination. The vice president is constitutionally designated to step in upon the president’s death, resignation, or incapacity during the current term. That does not mean she is entitled to be nominated as president for the next term, which has not yet begun, just as President Biden himself is not automatically entitled to that nomination.
Vice President Harris could, for example, continue doing exactly what she’s doing now: running for renomination and then reelection as vice president. There would be no indignity in that. If she is willing to serve as President Biden’s vice president for another four years, why should she be unwilling to serve as vice president with any alternative presidential nominee?
Nor would this be harmful to Vice President Harris’s future political prospects. Quite the contrary! If President Biden were to show the humility and self-sacrificing patriotism to step aside as the nominee himself, a decision by Vice President Harris to similarly defer to a stronger presidential nominee would also be hailed as an act of the highest and most selfless patriotism.
There is no two-term limit for vice presidents. Serving as vice president for another four or even eight years would put Harris in a potentially commanding position to run for president in 2028 or 2032. Even in November 2032, she would still be only 68, fourteen years younger than President Biden will be this November!
Additional obvious alternatives to President Biden consist, primarily, of Democratic governors or senators who have proven their ability to win repeated competitive elections in large swing states.
Focusing first on the most eligible governors adds the following three names to the short list:
(2) Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina, a popular, moderate, 67-year-old Democrat, was elected twice in that Republican-leaning state with heavy Black support, even as Trump carried the state both times (quite narrowly in 2020). Allies of Vice President Harris have suggested Cooper would be her ideal running mate if she became the nominee. Perhaps so, but perhaps even more ideal would be if their roles were reversed, with Cooper leading the ticket and Harris continuing as vice presidential nominee.
(3) Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a popular moderate Democrat who turns 53 in August, was also elected twice with heavy Black support, in a state absolutely critical to Democratic success in the general election where Hillary Clinton lost narrowly in 2016 but President Biden prevailed in 2020.
(4) Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, a moderate 51-year-old Democrat, was also elected with heavy Black support in his politically divided state, where he enjoys remarkably high popularity, and which, like Michigan, is absolutely critical to Democratic success in the general election. Pennsylvania is another state where Clinton lost narrowly in 2016 and where President Biden only narrowly prevailed in 2020.
There are several moderate Democratic senators who have won at least twice in competitive swing states. But to avoid risking the narrow Democratic Senate majority, we would not want to nominate a senator already up for reelection this year or in a state with a Republican governor who would appoint a replacement. We must follow the ancient doctor’s prescription and, as much as possible, “do no harm.”
The latter stipulations have the effect of eliminating several otherwise eligible and attractive prospects, including Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine of Virginia, Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire.
That is unfortunate but still leaves one very obvious name to add to the list:
(5) Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a 60-year-old Navy veteran and astronaut. Kelly won two extremely tough and competitive Senate races in 2020 and 2022. He is a deeply inspiring and appealing public servant. Arizona was a heavily Republican state until very recently and went only very narrowly for President Biden in 2020.
These five Democratic leaders represent a short but very impressive list of highly qualified potential prospects.
Not all of these prospects may be interested in seeking the nomination this year. Some may currently deny any such interest. But that must be taken with a bushel of salt, since no prospect can afford to appear disloyal or overly ambitious as the president weighs what we all understand is a painful and difficult issue.
For those candidates who do seek the nomination, the party can commission opinion polls and stage debates in a fair, open, and transparent process. In addition to the Zogby proposal, President Bill Clinton’s legendary political strategist James Carville has also suggested a viable approach. The convention delegates could then select the final nominee.
Then we can get on with the highest priority of this critical election year: defeating Donald Trump.
The Skeptical Professor 