Biden during his speech. Photo: Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images President Joe Biden delivered a blistering prime-time address on Thursday in front of Philadelphia’s

Independence Hall in which he tried to essentially, albeit not literally, issue a national call-to-arms to protect America’s democracy. More specifically, Biden tried to lay out an argument

for why “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.” They “do not respect the Constitution,” he said. “They do not

believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election.” He added these “MAGA Republicans” see the people who stormed

framed the upcoming midterm elections, which may end Democrats’ control of Congress, as an opportunity to reject the MAGA ilk — and listed many of his administrations accomplishments as

examples of taking the country forward, while emphasizing how “MAGA forces are determined to take the country backwards.” Needless to say, Biden’s speech came in hot, and so has the

continuing response. Below is a guide the reaction in all its forms, from high fives to MAGA-world outrage to moderate what-about-our-norms angst. The reaction from many on the American

right, and particularly those now aligned with Donald Trump, was to essentially respond to Biden’s speech by claiming that he, not Trump or them, is the problem. They characterized Biden’s

address as a demagogic, divisive, and authoritarian attack on his fellow citizens, suggesting Joe Biden and Democrats, as opposed to Trump and his allies and supporters, were the real

American would-be fascists. “Instead of trying to bring our country together to solve the MANY problems he has created, President Biden has chosen to divide, demean, and disparage his fellow

Americans — simply because they disagree with his policies,” was one of the milder responses, from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Former governor-turned-pundit Mike Huckabee called

Biden’s address “pure hate speech.” Across Twitter and other social-media platforms, much of the outrage from GOP lawmakers, candidates, and allies utilized the same photograph of Biden

during his speech, giving it the appearance of a coordinated response: Illustration: Screencaps/Intelligencer/Twitter The _National Review_’s Charles W. Cooke also called the speech “a

catastrophe — for the rule of law, for President Biden, and for the country itself, which, in almost every respect, deserves a far better political life than the one it’s getting.” The

Washington _Post_ editorial board complained that Biden invoked partisanship instead of patriotism: > As much as we agree with the president about the urgency of the > issue, is where 

he fell short, too often sounding more like a > Democrat than a democrat. You don’t persuade people by scolding or > demeaning them, but that’s how the president’s speech landed for

> many conservatives of goodwill. Mr. Biden was wrong to conflate > upholding the rule of law with his own partisan agenda, which he > called “the work of democracy.” New York

_Times_ columnist Ross Douthat agreed, criticizing Biden for linking opponents of his overall policy agenda, including people who are against abortion or cancelling student loan debt, with

anti-Democracy forces. He also noted, as the _Post_’s editorial board did, that the Democratic Party and their allies are currently spending a lot of money to boost the “Trumpiest”

candidates in GOP primaries around the country, believing those candidates will be easier to defeat in the midterms: > But in the debate about the risks of Republican extremism, the > 

debate the president just joined, it’s still important to judge > the leaders of the Democratic Party by their behavior. _You_ may > believe that American democracy is threatened as at

 no point since > the Civil War, dear reader, but _they_ do not. They are running a > political operation in which the threat to democracy is leverage, > used to keep swing voters 

onside without having to make difficult > concessions to the center or the right. >  > It’s easy to imagine a Biden speech that offered such concessions > without giving an inch 

in its critique of Donald Trump. The > president could have acknowledged, for instance, that his own party > has played some role in undermining faith in American elections, > that 

the Republicans challenging the 2020 result were making a more > dangerous use of tactics deployed by Democrats in 2004 and 2016. Washington _Post_ columnist Eugene Robinson, who on

Friday morning characterized Biden’s speech as “an urgent wartime address,” argued in an op-ed that he thought Biden’s tone, timing, and rhetoric were all warranted and “if anything,

understated,” since “we are in a fight to save our democratic system, and it would have been wrong to pretend the battle is not both political and partisan”: > Was it appropriate to use a

 prime-time address — the venue for > presidents to speak to the nation about important affairs of state > — to deliver a political message? Yes, because the attack on our > 

democratic norms, as with any attack on our country from actors > outside it or within it, is a fundamental threat to the nation. And > because that threat, like it or not, can only 

realistically be seen > as partisan in nature. >  > Was it proper to use Independence Hall, where the Declaration of > Independence and the Constitution were signed, as his 

backdrop? > Absolutely. CNN White House correspondent John Harwood, on what controversially turned out to be his last day at the network on Friday, also backed up Biden, noting how Trump

has now offered to pardon the January 6 insurrectionists if he is elected president again: > The core point [Biden] made in that political speech about a > threat to democracy is true.

 Now, that’s something that’s not > easy for us, as journalists, to say. We’re brought up to > believe there’s two different political parties with different > points of view and we

 don’t take sides in honest disagreements > between them. But that’s not what we’re talking about. These > are not honest disagreements. The Republican Party right now is > led by a

 dishonest demagogue. Many, many Republicans are rallying > behind his lies about the 2020 election and other things as well. > And a significant portion — or a sufficient portion — of

> the constituency that they’re leading attacked the Capitol on > January 6th. Violently. By offering pardons or suggesting pardons > for those people who violently attacked the 

Capitol, which > you’ve been pointing out numerous times this morning, Donald > Trump made Joe Biden’s point for him.  At _The Atlantic_, David Frum argued that Biden’s address was a

justified shift to meeting the danger of resilient Trumpism, noting that Biden can no longer pretend that America will go back to normal, so he “followed the old adage: If you can’t beat

them, join them”: > Whatever was true four, five, or six years ago, in 2022 Trumpism > cannot be regarded as some anomalous strain in U.S. politics. What > began as deviation has 

become mainstream. What once could be > minimized as a recessive tendency within the Republican Party has > become the dominant one. Facing that reality is the way to prevent > it 

from doing worse harm. Only recognition of that unwelcome new > reality can change behaviors across American politics—not just > those of Trump supporters, but also those of Trump 

opponents. … >  > Trump changed the rules of politics. Everybody, on all sides of > politics, has no choice but to adapt. Speaking with reporters on Thursday morning, White House

press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre insisted that Biden’s address would not be a “political speech.” A senior administration official told NBC News, anonymously, that the address was “not a

speech about a particular politician or even about a particular political party.” But as numerous finger-wagging political journalists later pointed out, it was, of course, a political

speech. And major broadcast-television networks opted against preempting their prime-time lineups to air the address. Reports the Washington _Post_’s Paul Farhi: > People involved in 

negotiations over Thursday’s address said the > networks deemed Biden’s remarks as “political” in nature and > therefore decided not to televise it. These people, who spoke on the >

 condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions, cited the > speech’s criticism of Trump — who may run in the Republican > presidential primaries in 2024 — and its timing two

 months before > the midterm elections. White House officials, afterward, continued to push back on the idea that Biden’s message was political: > Yes, please do read the excerpts.

>  > They defend Freedom. Equality. Democracy. >  > They are as "political" as Ben Franklin, saying in 1787, that the > Framers had given us "a Republic, if you

 can keep it." > https://t.co/NO445eizZC > — Ronald Klain (@WHCOS) September 1, 2022 > Tonight was a classic example of how different things can look in > person versus on 

TV. In person: Joe Biden at the patriotic cradle of > America. On TV: Dark Brandon on his throne of human skulls. > pic.twitter.com/uGldLywdVB > — Anthony Zurcher (@awzurcher) 

September 2, 2022 Another theme in commentary about the speech, particularly from MAGA world, was the red background lighting during Biden’s speech, which prompted a lot of colorful

commentary and hyperbole, including numerous comparisons of Biden to Hitler and Satan. Fox News host Tucker Carlson referred to it as a “blood-red Nazi background.” Nikki Haley said on Fox

News that Biden “looked like he was in the depths of hell,” while Rudy Giuliani tweeted it looked like a “basement in hell.” Vice News’ David Gilbert reports that the Nazi-memeification of

Biden began almost instantly on far-right and pro-Trump message boards, then quickly bled out to the right-wing Establishment: > “Biden eats children’s souls,” wrote one member of the 

rabidly > pro-Trump TheDonald message board, whose members recently threatened > FBI agents following the search of Mar-a-Lago. Other message boards > lit up on Thursday night with 

wild conspiracy theories about the > imagery of Biden’s speech. Within minutes of the speech airing, > forum members were sharing memes featuring altered images showing > Biden 

dressed as Hitler, with Nazi flags superimposed on the > background, with Biden wearing demonic masks, or with him speaking > at a podium featuring the Soviet hammer and sickle. And, 

as has > become the norm these days, the line between far-right extremist > message boards and Republicans on mainstream platforms like Twitter > and Facebook has almost vanished 

completely. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene even tweeted a video of the speech in which Hitler’s face was superimposed over Biden’s. Many on the right also accused CNN of deliberately

altering the color of the background during their broadcast of Biden’s speech so that it became hot pink instead of fascist red: > Watch the moment CNN slowly adjusts the camera settings 

when the > blood-red lighting behind Dark Brandon is looking a little too > authoritarian. >  > By the end, the stripes on the American flag are pinkish-purple. > 

https://t.co/IuYGZRbpGZ pic.twitter.com/RgzKrVEEcB > — Mia Cathell (@MiaCathell) September 2, 2022 A CNN representative told Mediate that the color shift was due to a technical issue with

the pool video feed. Then again, maybe the lighting choice was all just a big mistake: > A lesson in lighting: >  > Under no circumstances should you use a very loud, very dominant

 red > as the sole background of your nighttime speech. Every screenshot, > every clip, is going to have the straight on look and not this one. >  > Also, DON’T USE COLORED 

LIGHTING AT ALL. > pic.twitter.com/yKJAWaTFXt > — Joe Cunningham (@JoePCunningham) September 2, 2022 Some on the left thought Biden’s apparent real-life manifestation of the Dark

Brandon meme during the speech was just plain awesome: > BREAKING: MAGA Republicans are melting down over Joe Biden’s > historic anti-Trumper speech and are falsely claiming he 

threatened > Americans with military force. This photo of Biden has them > absolutely terrified. RT IF YOU THINK THAT DARK BRANDON LOOKS > BADASS! pic.twitter.com/eoNcTYX3UB > — 

Occupy Democrats (@OccupyDemocrats) September 2, 2022 > https://t.co/gtR0sqPQCw pic.twitter.com/a0Kcs42lEq > — Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) September 2, 2022 Another vein of the

pushback to the speech was how U.S. Marines in their dress blues were standing in the background behind Biden. To people like Tucker Carlson, the Marines were a symbol of Biden’s

authoritarian intent to use to military to crush the MAGA movement. Others just saw them as inappropriate political props: > Whatever you think of this speech the military is supposed to 

be > apolitical. Positioning Marines in uniform behind President Biden > for a political speech flies in the face of that. It’s wrong when > Democrats do it. It’s wrong when 

Republicans do it. > — Brianna Keilar (@brikeilarcnn) September 2, 2022 > There’s nothing unusual or wrong with a President delivering a > political speech — it’s inherent in the 

job description — but > doing it against a backdrop of two Marines standing at attention and > the Marine Band is a break with White House traditions. > pic.twitter.com/s3TSYHtkcA

> — Jeff Zeleny (@jeffzeleny) September 2, 2022 These sentiments quickly provoked their own pushback, with many people pointing out all the times that Trump and other former presidents

used members of the military as a political backdrop. Duke University professor Peter Feaver, who repeatedly criticized the Trump White House’s use of servicemembers as props, told the

Washington _Post_ that “the choice to literally keep the Marines guards in the frame was an unfortunate one” which “may even have the effect of distracting from the message as people debate

the optics rather than the substance of the president’s speech.” In response to the controversy, an unnamed White House official told the _Post_ that “The presence of Marines at the speech

was intended to demonstrate the deep and abiding respect the President has for their service to these ideals and the unique role our independent military plays in defending our democracy, no

matter which party is in power.” Longtime (anti-Trump) GOP operative Jim Dornan told Politico that the speech felt like a “24-minute bitch slap of Republicans” and though he agreed with the

premise of Biden’s remarks, parts also offended him and thus, “He’s not going to gain votes from people like me.” The Dispatch’s David French meanwhile argued that much of the pushback from

the right was hard to take seriously: > There was a lot I didn’t like about Biden’s speech, but when the > “OK groomer” crowd gets mad about his tone, or the folks who are > 

constantly calling Democrats “communists” and even “demonic” > get upset about words like “semi-fascist,” I’m sensing a > certain kind of energy: pic.twitter.com/3iLn5yz0Tf > — 

David French (@DavidAFrench) September 3, 2022 At _The_ _New Republic_, Alex Shephard argued that many journalists defaulted to forced balance in their reporting instead of properly

acknowledging that the threat Biden was describing was very real: > That Biden’s speech was political served as an excuse for lazy > both-sides journalism, as reporters scrambled after

 the nearest > bottle of weak sauce to draw equivalence between Biden’s > commentary and a movement that’s currently calling in bomb threats > to children’s hospitals. Biden was 

quoted laying out an argument > — with evidence — that Republicans were bent on subverting > democracy. At the _Columbia Journalism Review_, Jon Allsop criticized the “semantic

squabble” over the speech in the press, noting numerous examples of questionable analysis and framing in its aftermath: > Biden’s core message was clear. Too much coverage ended up > 

muddying it — stenographically > stacking _he-said/she-said_ reaction quotes, wringing it through > the deadening mangle of the midterms horserace, even insinuating a > cynical ploy

 on Biden’s part. “Biden warned about the genuinely > historic threat to American democracy,” Brendan Nyhan, a political > scientist who has written for _CJR_ and others, tweeted last

> night. “And the media response is more brain-dead game frame > coverage of the ‘politics’” … >  > Arguing about whether last night’s speech was _political_ would > have been

 silly and pedantic at the best of times. At this fraught > moment, it’s akin to watching your house catch fire and shouting, > “Wait a minute! Is this a house?” _This guide has been

updated._