Impunity (February 16, 2024)
Welcome to Home & Away. I was close to sending this week’s edition off when news broke of Alexei Navalny’s death. It would be more accurate to speak of the killing of Navalny, as that is what it was given his poisoning years ago and harsh imprisonment. Much will be said about Navalny the man, the principled and courageous opponent of Vladimir Putin’s tyranny and corruption. What strikes me, though, is how Putin will brush off the criticism sure to come his way. Putin increasingly acts with impunity, be it inside Russia's borders, in Ukraine, potentially in other parts of Europe, or in outer space as the news this week suggested.
There is not a lot we can do in the way of retaliation that would hurt Putin’s position at home. He controls much of the political narrative and oversees a ruthless police state. There is little left to sanction. What we can do, and what we should do, is frustrate Putin’s designs in Ukraine and Europe. This requires providing military and economic aid to Ukraine now and, over time, forging links between it and both the EU and NATO. It also means strengthening NATO. All this makes Donald Trump’s and the broader Republican unwillingness to stand up to Putin even more inexplicable, not to mention damaging and dangerous.
Age is Not Just a Number
It was already a busy week before this morning’s news. Here at Home, there was an encouraging sign for the Democrats in that their candidate won Tuesday’s special election (an American by-election) on Long Island for the seat vacated by Republican George Santos, whose level of fraud managed to stand out even in an era marked by precious little authenticity. The win further narrowed the Republican House majority, but even more showed that a Democrat could turn the immigration issue from a political liability into an asset by taking a tough stand on the border and blaming Republicans for blocking legislation that would have improved matters substantially.
The special election was a welcome respite for the White House given that the week began with just about everyone focused on President Biden’s age in the aftermath of the Special Counsel’s report on his handling of classified documents, which went beyond its mandate when it described Biden as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and recounted in detail instances in which Biden couldn’t remember important details or events. Biden didn’t help himself by reacting angrily to the report with an impromptu press conference in which he confused the names of Egypt and Mexico’s presidents.
The age issue is real in that the president is perceived by many Americans as being too old for the job. It will be difficult and then some for him to change this perception, much as it was for Gerald Ford to convince the country he was not a klutz, even though he was arguably the best athlete to ever occupy the Oval Office. Or for Dan Quayle, 41’s vice-president, to convince the country he was not a dunce, even though he could be quite thoughtful. Life is unfair: an individual can get something right 99 out of 100 times, but the one slip that reinforces a preexisting negative perception will overwhelm evidence to the contrary. Joe Biden has been a good president overall, but the view that he is old and diminished could more than offset this in the eyes of many.
So where does this leave Biden? One option is to take a page from LBJ and announce he will not stand for reelection. Doing this would be warranted if he experienced a serious medical event or if his closest advisors and most important supporters concluded that the age issue could not be overcome, and that some other Democrat stood a better chance of winning in November. To be blunt, it is more important that Donald Trump be defeated than Joe Biden be elected given all a Trump victory would mean for our democracy and the world (more on that below).
If Biden were to opt not to run, Democrats would need to scramble. It is probably too late to organize a full, open primary process (and Biden’s current primary challenger appears less likely than him to beat Trump). But it would not be too late for debates, interviews, forums, and more with potential candidates. The August convention in Illinois would take on a major role. If nothing else, it would be interesting.
Two things come to mind if Biden insists on moving forward and stands for reelection (which remains the likeliest scenario). One is to make lemons out of lemonade. Instead of protesting that he is not too old for a second term, Biden could say something like, “Yes, I am older than I was. Just like all of you. And yes, my memory is not what it was. But age has upsides as well as downsides. I am wiser. I have relationships that go back decades and allow me to get things done here at home and abroad. And I have learned a lot, including over the past four years. In many important ways I am more prepared to be president than ever. And I am a hell of a lot more prepared to be a good president than the other guy, who is only four years my junior.”
Second, instead of simply arguing that he is not diminished, Biden needs to demonstrate that he still has game. It was a mistake not to do the pre-Super Bowl interview. You don’t often get the chance to speak to almost 125 million Americans. The president needs to hold more press conferences and town halls and speak to the country regularly from the White House. He cannot eliminate the perception that he is too infirm for the job, but he can defuse it somewhat.
Him and US
Biden was fortunate that Donald Trump was characteristically undisciplined and shifted much of the attention away from Biden's age to himself and his lack of judgment. In this case it was Trump’s comments on NATO, encouraging Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that did not spend two percent of their GDP on defense and signaling that the United States would not protect those allies.
For starters, Trump seems unable, or unwilling, to internalize how NATO works. Certainly, every NATO member should be spending more on defense, but the reality is that many have increased their spending as the Russian threat has reemerged. NATO is stronger now than it was a decade ago.
I would add here that levels of defense spending are a crude barometer of defense effort. Far more important than how much is spent is how it is spent. In the case of Europe, which spends close to $400 billion a year on defense (or nearly half the U.S. total), the problem is as much the lack of a coordinated approach as it is levels of national effort. There is far too much redundancy and not enough specialization or combined effort. In addition, Europe’s defense industrial base is woefully inadequate. Focusing on fixing these problems would be a far more useful approach from a U.S. president.
Taking a step back, Trump seems to perceive NATO as something this country does as a favor for Europe. It is…but no less true is that NATO is something we do for ourselves. The lesson of history is that order in Europe fundamentally affects the security and quality of life here. It is also that Europeans do things for and with us, as demonstrated by NATO’s invocation of Article 5 in the wake of September 11—the only time Article 5 has been invoked in the alliance’s history—and its subsequent support for the U.S.-led war on terror in the Middle East.
Trump’s comments, coupled with the newest failure of House Republicans to approve aid for Ukraine, makes for a one-two punch that undermines the most successful alliance in history along with deterrence more broadly. I could go on at length on this, but instead will point you to a thoughtful essay in the New York Times by Tom Edsall in which he cites me and a good many others about the risks and costs of resurgent isolationism in the United States.
Trump’s comments once more underscore he is unfit to be president. This is hardly new, but it is dismaying that so many Americans continue to support him despite all the evidence that he should not reclaim the Oval Office. The 2024 election will be as much about us as it will be about him. It was one thing for Americans to elect Trump in 2016, thinking that he wasn’t serious about many of his campaign threats and platforms. But now we know better—or at least should.
No End in Sight
I also want to say a few things about the Middle East before signing off. As of this writing, Israel is pressing ahead in Gaza as well as in Lebanon. There is a strong likelihood the former war will continue for some time and the latter will escalate.
All of which is bad for this president at home and for this country abroad. I am increasingly of the mind that nothing the United States says or does will cause this Israeli prime minister and government to significantly change course. To the contrary, Netanyahu’s desire to stay in office is obvious, and the best way for him to do so is by continuing to wage war and following, rather than leading, public opinion in Israel. The latest evidence of this is Netanyahu’s decision to have Israel’s hostage negotiation team sit out the next round of cease-fire talks in Cairo.
As a result, the definition of success for U.S. policy in the Middle East crisis may have to pivot from changing Israeli behavior to changing the domestic perception of this president and international perception of this country. That would require not just publicly criticizing Israel when doing so is warranted—as Biden did at the end of his press conference on the special counsel’s report, when he called Israel’s response to October 7 over the top—but also putting forth a vision for ending the war and the political process to follow. He and his administration could also start putting that political vision into motion, working with Europe, the Arab world, and those Palestinians who are willing to eschew violence and co-exist peacefully with Israel. It is time for an independent U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, one that recognizes that this Israeli government and prime minister are not partners. The goal would be to develop a plan for the region that would ideally gain traction and in so doing provide Palestinians an alternative to Hamas and Israelis an alternative to a government committed to war and open-ended occupation.
Last, Lincoln
I was in Indianapolis this week (about to host the NBA All Star game) and took a walk by the State House. Just outside there was a monument marking Abraham Lincoln’s visit to the city on February 11, 1861, then en route to Washington where he was to be inaugurated and take up the presidency. The stopover came against the backdrop of events that would soon lead to civil war. Lincoln’s words are well worth reading: “I appeal to you again to constantly bear in mind that with you, and not with politicians, not with presidents, not with office-seekers, but with you, is the question: Shall the Union and shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generation?” Words to live by then, words to live by today.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Tuesday, February 13: MSNBC Morning Joe on Trump and the GOP's foreign policy (audio-only; begins at 27:25)
Podcast
"2024: the year of elections” (Goldman Sachs Exchanges)
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens