The America of the 1950’s seems quaint by today’s standards.

Because our memories of that era match the monochrome images that danced across early television screens from coast to coast, we see Dwight David Eisenhower as a genial grandfather and golf enthusiast instead of the decisive leader and hardened warrior.

In his 1982 book “The Hidden-Hand Presidency,” political scientist and historian Fred I. Greenstein revised the thinking about Ike and his two terms in the Oval Office.

Rather than foster the perception that he was a bold “man of action,” as so many of his successors would encourage of themselves once ego met ambition at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Eisenhower employed a style that encouraged an incurious or even an indulgent reaction, considering that he was the first septuagenarian to serve as president.

His press secretary, James C. Hagerty, recalled an anecdote that typified Ike’s approach. When considering a challenging question, he might face concerning a controversial topic at a press conference, Eisenhower told his staffer: “Don’t worry, Jim; if that question comes up, I’ll just confuse them.”

While Eisenhower exploited imprecision as part of his personal image, other leaders from the other side of the aisle have employed it to achieve policy goals. Lyndon B. Johnson dramatically expanded the federal role in health care by advocating and signing into law both the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Three decades after those programs were established, historian-turned-House Speaker Newt Gingrich theorized that by sowing deliberate seeds of confusion over Medicare and Medicaid, distinctions between the two would be forgotten. Therefore, any stigma about government-run health care would be minimized in the public consciousness, thus aiding the left in advocating a complete federal takeover of healthcare.

Fast forward to the here and now. Joe Biden leads a Democratic Party increasingly conflicted about truly democratic elections. 

Despite the parroting of the “voter suppression” canard by a reliably partisan Washington Press Corps, this is one instance where the American people are relying on their collective commonsense. Understanding that photo identification is required to cash a check, board a plane or even enter a federal courthouse, the public does not see why the same stipulation should not apply to voting.

Polling shows that 80% of the public embraces the idea of photo ID as a way to safeguard voter integrity.

So, Ol’ Joe is taking a page out of the “LBJ Playbook.”

When asked about the Supreme Court’s decision that affirmed the constitutionality of the new Arizona voter integrity laws, Mr. Biden blew past the particulars of the case to outline his major concern, which he readily admitted was not part of the court’s Arizona decision.

“I think it is critical that we make a distinction between voter suppression and suspension.”

Voter suspension? Sounds similar to voter suppression. What’s the difference?

Joe is making the shift because he wants to get ahead of the mounting evidence of vote fraud – here in Arizona and elsewhere. He’s doing so for his own political survival.

To hang on to power, leftists will claim that if any votes are thrown out – “suspended,” in their new vernacular, it will be a denial of the “will of the people.”

Conveniently forgotten in this new semantical twist: any evidence that proves the “suspended” votes are fraudulent.