A Joe Biden presidency would be very bad for the United States without doing anything significant to ameliorate the perceived problems of the current administration. Yes, Joe Biden is a much nicer person than Donald Trump, but at the end of the day, this is about what politicians do, not what kind of people they are. Donald Trump’s flaws are significant and should, and in better times, likely would disqualify him from the office he now holds. However, in order to beat Trump, the opposition must be better. Joe Biden is not. On every significant front, Joe is as bad as Trump, or worse. This must come as a shock to many, as Biden is building his entire campaign on being better than Trump and therefore being able to beat him “like a drum” in November. Let’s look at Trump’s weaknesses and see how Biden actually lines up. weigh him down.
Foreign Policy
Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been harmful to our relationships with allies, emboldened enemies, and disastrously upset the world order to the detriment of America and the world itself.
The title of this article comes from an email I shared with family and friends well over a year ago. Joe Biden had just penned an opinion piece in Americas Quarterly. Understanding America’s role in the Western Hemisphere is a big deal for a U.S. president. Trump’s position on this has been belligerent, particularly with Canada and Mexico, and antagonistically silent towards most of the rest of the countries in this half of the world. Even the election of Jair Balsonaro in Brazil got barely a blip of attention from him. Joe’s position, as articulated in this opinion piece, is highly interventionist.
It is vital that we maintain our leadership role in the region—not because we fear competition, but because U.S. leadership is indispensable to addressing the persistent challenges that prevent our region from realizing its fullest potential.
From Maduro in Venezuela, to the “cronyism” of Nicaraugua, Biden sees nothing but opportunity for American adventurism throughout the hemisphere. In so doing he ignores the history of the region and the absolute shambles that American foreign policy has been on this issue going back to James Monroe. In that sense, Biden is at least consistent with our historical foreign policy position. But the fact of the matter is that our intervention in these matters has been ham-fisted, uninvited, and frequently detrimental. Whether it has been done by American citizens as individuals, American corporations, or the government itself, our track record is abysmal. Much of Central America and South America views the United States not just as a land of freedom to which they might wish to escape for a better life, but also as an unjust aggressor actively making life in their country worse; and the root cause of much of the reason why they might want to flee! The examples I linked are not isolated, but are in fact part of a pattern of behavior wrapped up in much of the United States’ ideals and goals from that Monroe Doctrine, to the concept of Manifest Destiny. The United States of America has approached the hemisphere with remarkable hubris. Joe Biden wants to continue that trend. If he does, it will perpetuate the problems that already exist, rather than curing them, and in at least some cases, probably most profoundly in Venezuela, result in the loss of life.
I am not arguing for an isolationist policy towards the hemisphere. The idea of the Monroe Doctrine that South America should be kept free of outside influence isn’t wrong. But the problem was not the European influence then, or the Chinese influence now. The problem is the U.S. influence. There is no reason that the countries of the Americas cannot succeed on their own, in free trade and friendship with the U.S. And that friendship will build faster if we stop intervening in elections, defrauding them in trade deals, stealing their land, and never once even acknowledging any of that history in our text books. If the choice is between Biden’s adventurism and Trump’s isolationism, Trump is the better choice for the future of this hemisphere.
Foreign policy is more than just one hemisphere, of course, but in the rest of the world, Biden doesn’t fare any better. If the complaint is that Trump has provided succor to Putin and Kim, for example, than the response against Biden is that he is largely the same. He favors foreign policy that works for diplomatic ties and a resolution of hostility with North Korea, with a threat of violence backing it up if necessary. Biden is quite hostile to Putin’s Russia, but how much that is influenced by his own dealings with Ukraine is suspect. Meanwhile, his chief actual policy on Russia is to “strengthen NATO.” The only way to meaningfully strengthen NATO is to demand European countries actually spend the 2% GDP on military that they committed to when signing on to the alliance. If that sounds like a Donald Trump request, it’s because it is. Just as it was an Obama request, and a Bush request, and a Clinton request. In short, policy-wise towards Russia, Biden and Trump are the same.
But where they are not the same is Iran, and the Middle East at large. Here it possible, even reasonable, to argue that it is Biden who is promoting providing succor to our enemies and abandoning our allies.
No matter what part of the world you are looking at, Biden’s foreign policy campaign points, which are excellent examples of double-talk, are not better than the existing jumble of actual Trump policies, even with the benefit of not having actually be implemented, allowing all their self-contradictions to stand unchallenged.
Culture
Donald Trump is fear-mongering, race-baiting, and playing to his base of out-of-touch cultural conservatives, religious fanatics and racist nationalists.
Trump understands that there is a vitriolic culture war going on. He is not , however, particularly of either side. For example, for most of his life, he has identified as Pro-Choice. Instead, he sees it for what it is and is able to use it to his own advantage. He can play the tune that all of the aggrieved (and perceived-aggrieved) can dance to. On the right, the thing that is almost universally praised about Trump is his focus on the judiciary. The Kavanaugh nomination got all of the attention, but the successful nomination of Gorsuch, and the confirmation of hundreds of federal judges is changing the judicial landscape, not just now, but for decades to come. On the hot button cultural issues of religion, sex, guns, money in politics and so much more, these actions matter significantly more than anything else Trump does, or says, or tweets.
If you really like Donald Trump, that’s great, but if you don’t, you have to vote for me anyway. You know why? Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court judges.
Donald Trump, at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 2016.
There are voters in this country who are single-issue voters. They are on both sides of the aisle. On the right, they are focused on life issues and guns, primarily. There is a significant bloc of voters who are Pro-Life, in every single sense that can be capitalized. This includes some evangelicals, but also a large number of conservative Catholics, a group who otherwise have values much in-keeping with those of the Democratic party. But for them the primacy of their anti-abortion position means that they have no home in the Democratic Party, and the importance the voter places on the issue means that Trump’s campaign pitch is correct. They have to vote for him. Because voting for a Democrat means voting for what can only be perceived as legalized murder
For Joe Biden, nominally a Catholic himself, he is remarkably out of touch with these voters. He is also remarkably out of touch with the single-issue voters of his own party, who are much more focused on issues such as climate change or healthcare–to pick options that are not diametrically opposed on the right. Joe’s inability to read the room on these highly divisive topics shows that he does not have what it takes to lead on them. He has told primary voters for whom the sole concern is climate change that they should vote for someone else.
By ignoring the existence of these divisions, Biden does nothing to actually settle them and find consensus. Those motivated by these issues will flock to Trump, or stay home. Joe’s campaign lacks the passion that a campaign like Sanders’ has, for exactly this reason. Even if elected, Biden is unlikely to make any movement on these issues, because they are divisive, because working on them is uncomfortable. He would let these cultural wounds fester in the status quo (or at least the status quo ante) for as long as his presidency might last. These disputes need a resolution. Ignoring them doesn’t bring us closer together. Instead they will remain as wedge issues to divide us and stoke passions as long as they exist. It is these issues that allowed the Russian influence campaign to work in the first place.
Decorum
Donald Trump is vile. He is sexist, racist, elitist, and unapologetic. He is crude and immoral, and also frequently a bad speller.
Without a doubt, one of the strongest criticisms of Trump is that he is piggish. He has no tact and very little guile. He has thin skin and lashes out at those who criticize him, or whom he deems insufficiently loyal. How, then, can Joe Biden possibly not be a better choice if all we’re looking for is a return to a time when we had a president we could be proud of? He’s a nice guy, even if we disagree with him politically.
Joe Biden, however, is not without his faults in the realm of decorum. While most of these are simply blunders, a collection of gaffes from a very long political career, and one in which the rules of the game have changed while he’s been playing, the sheer volume of them is astounding. I linked a video above, but it is literally impossible to pick out a definitive list of Joe Biden’s failures as an orator, because such a “director’s cut” would be hours long. But perhaps we can spare a few minutes to look at some prime examples?
Aren’t slip-ups better than attacks? Perhaps. But what is the reason for the attacks. What is behind the slip-ups? What if the slip-up is the classic politician gaffe of telling the truth. Do these errors tell us more about what Joe is really thinking than he’d like to admit to on the campaign trail? Were his early weak debate performances really just a factor of being one face among so many, or might they have been more signs that Joe, after all, is an old man, tired after a long career in politics, gamely trying to go for one more season before retiring.
There is also the troubling history that Biden has with the African American community historically, his awkward and vaguely racist anecdotes. His embellishments of the truth, to be kind, about his role in the Civil Rights era, or attendance of Nelson Mandela’s funeral. Or his fascination with smelling the hair of women, and (as many politicians do) physically touching others without approval or consent. The difference for Joe is that this typical politician move is no longer endearing, or a sign of friendliness, it is an unwelcome advance. Joe is a product of his time and his environment. I believe he means well, but meaning well doesn’t win any points right now.
One area where we can take the “well, he means well” argument away is Joe’s long history of political white lies, and plagarism. In 1988, he had to end his campaign for President due to these allegations. If he was disqualified in 1988, why was 2008 better? Why is 2020 better? Has it simply been enough time, or it it just because, “well, Donald Trump is worse.”
Biden is experiencing a period of lucidity and success right now, on the heels of South Carolina and Super Tuesday. But the campaign is very long. If Biden is the nominee, I can guarantee we will hear at least ten more new major gaffes before we get to the election. And Trump will have his own, but he will mercilessly attack Joe for each of his.
We’ll hear a lot more than ten personal attacks from Trump. Biden doesn’t have to slip up to have Trump attacking him, but those mistakes will leave him open and vulnerable to attacks. And if, by some chance, Trump’s attacks don’t take down the ship that is already sinking on its own, if Biden does become president, his gaffes in office will not improve our position within the world’s eyes, or restore much sense of decorum to that office. The intent will not be there, perhaps, and that matters, but no one gave the Bushes much leeway for not meaning any harm when they each had political gaffes overseas. The results was still a situation which was embarrassing for the leader, and ultimately for the country.
Corruption
Donald Trump is corrupt, is using his position and influence to increase his wealth and gain access to positions and money for his family. He has violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting money from foreign powers.
In my first point, I noted that Biden called out corruption in South America. He has also called out corruption in Ukraine. He’s pointing out corruption in the Trump organizations. But he is incapable of seeing the corruption in his own family. Whether or not he wants to admit it, Biden has a Ukraine problem, in that as he’s calling out the corruption in that country, his son is actively wallowing in it. Joe is anti-corruption, as long as the corruption isn’t his. Nepotism is such a low level grift that we barely even register it anymore, but in an era of remarkable attention being paid to inequality, his response to this scandal has been tone deaf and out of touch with his own party.
By contrast Trump’s relationship with corruption is more overt. He may as well be telling the camera, “I’m going to get mine, but if I do, I can make sure everyone gets his cut.” He could be lying, but it’s a better line for those hungry for any scrap. There is merit to the accusation that Trump is abusing power for his own personal and familial gain, but the emoluments charge has, despite a lot of effort, not gotten off the ground legally, yet. But it’s worth noting that for all this corruption he is alleged to have engaged in, none of it turned up in the impeachment inquiries. Those focused on political grift, not financial.
Meanwhile, Trump has actual political and policy actions in facing down corrupt authoritarians, and upsetting the comfortable (and therefore ossified, and narrowly lucrative) trade lines, he is making many enemies, but the shakeup forces action where none has existed for a while, and like a jog, is doing a lot of good for improving blood flow for the long term.
Trump has done this by hurting his base. His tarrif war with China hurt farmers the most. It hurt rural American and manufacturing America the most. In short, he got into office and immediately picked a trade war that hurt his voters. He was attacked in the press for turning his back on his base, but his base has loved him throughout. Perhaps because the base can see with long term eyes what the media cannot.
Biden’s appeal for the status quo, that is to verbally chastise China while doing nothing, is very appealing to those who are already comfortable in the status quo, where some degree of wealth is assured because of a pre-existing position, however it was obtained. Trump’s pressure to shake things up kicks parasites off. By inducing a trade fever, the immune system returns to attack the freeloaders. Those producing, those farmers and manufacturers, benefit in the longer term from a healthier system. The stock market is a forward looking indicator and Trump has been right that the market has largely agreed with him. Things have looked brighter in large part because of his attacks on corruption, not in spite of them. By subjecting his base to the short term pain, he hoped to get long term gain for them, and may have succeeded.
It is in Biden’s interest to keep feeding the same class that is already fed, rather than let anyone shake things up. Americans seem to want things shaken up. Trump’s own election, the swelling nationalism and populism, the rise and enduring success of Bernie Sanders all point to an underlying unease felt by many Americans. It’s an open question as to whether Trump can, or would continue to, shake things up in his next four years, or if the process would continue to return at such a high rate, but the process isn’t complete yet, if it ever could be. Letting Biden calm things down doesn’t benefit anyone but those who, like his son, should not be benefiting.
An Unpopular Candidate Unsuited for the Position
Biden can and likely will lose to Trump if he is the Democratic nominee. Not only is that how it is going to go, as I see it, it’s also the way it should go. Biden as president brings with him far more harm than the good of removing the general ickiness that is President Trump.
Biden is a remarkably weak candidate running on a weak platform. His only chance at winning is if Trump is weaker. The Democrats have already made the mistake of underestimating Trump and his base and forcing through an old, weak candidate. Biden is also not particularly popular as a front runner. In some unscientific ranked-choice ballot experiments that fellow Discourser Paul Essen and I put together Joe Biden placed 9th, out of 14! He was ahead of only Marianne Williamson, Deval Patrick, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and Julian Castro. Joe Biden is the favorite of very few, he’s just the consensus choice. The solid #2. Yet, based on ranked preference Biden is still not the #2 consensus choice. Biden doesn’t have what it takes, whether it’s personal charisma, ranked preference choice, or anything else that translates to an ability to beat Trump.
Obviously, if Biden should not be President of the United States, neither should he be the Democratic nominee for that position. There is still time to prevent it. Unfortunately, the media narrative that seems to be controlling this process seems to be well decided. But in the end it’s up to the voters remaining. If you have the chance remaining, please consider all of the above as you make your choice. If, in the end, the response of Democrats to Donald Trump is, “Joe… I guess,” then the outcome will be one that doesn’t make much of anyone on the left happy.
