Trump-Proofing (July 12, 2024)
Welcome to Home & Away. Two issues dominated the week—Joe Biden and the NATO Summit in Washington—but in some ways they turned out to be much the same thing. Less Home & Away than Home&Away.
The Biden Watch
Two weeks and one day after the first and quite possibly only debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, the debate (which was a debacle for Biden despite Trump’s many lies) still holds center stage in the national conversation.
The immediate consequence of that night is that just about everyone is asking whether Joe Biden will be the Democratic candidate for president. Actually, they are asking whether he should be, which quickly morphs into the question of whether he will be.
Even with the growing calls for Biden to pass the torch, it is still pretty much up to him. Biden cannot be forced out; the vast majority of delegates are pledged to him. And so far, he (with the backing of an ever-smaller inner circle) is hanging tough.
This hardening of his stance is captured in a letter the president sent on July 8 to House Democrats. In it, Biden argues that he won the nomination fair and square, that he will run, and that he can and will beat Donald Trump. He concludes that the time has come to focus on that task rather than on whether he should remain the party’s nominee.
If the priority is to defeat Trump, then it is imperative to ask whether Biden is right in claiming that he is the person with the best chance to do so. I would argue not. This has been a terrible year for incumbents. Think India, South Africa, France, and the UK. It is not Biden’s fault, but he represents continuity at a time when people are disaffected and say they want change. If someone were to replace Biden on the ticket, they would not carry that same burden.
And Biden’s incumbency, despite several notable domestic and foreign policy accomplishments, also includes letting in millions of illegal immigrants, higher prices for milk and gas (even though inflation seems to be finally cooling), and what many view as failures in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
The polls are not reassuring, with some suggesting that other prominent Democrats would fare better in a head-to-head matchup against Trump. Biden would need a commanding lead in the popular vote to have any chance of winning the electoral vote. The problem is he simply isn’t close to that. He would have to pull the political equivalent of an inside straight, holding each of the states where he currently leads and winning at least Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania on top of that. Anyone who plays poker would tell you this is risky in the extreme to bet on, especially given that multiple polls show Biden trailing Trump in those three must-win states.
Then there is the age matter. Nancy Pelosi quite rightly raised the question of whether what happened two weeks ago was evidence of a condition or an episode. I am not the kind of doctor who can opine authoritatively on such things, but it sure seems to be more than a singular episode. A condition that can never be resolved once and for all.
Last night’s press conference is a case in point. Biden did well, demonstrating an impressive mastery of the foreign policy portfolio. He was knowledgeable, thoughtful, and nuanced. If he had done as well at the debate, he and we could well be in a very different place politically than where we find ourselves.
But he did not. And unfortunately for him, few Americans are focused on foreign policy issues. What is more, Biden’s performance was in part undone when he called Trump his vice president and when earlier in the day he referred to Ukraine’s president as Putin.
All of which is to say he may have bought himself some time last night, but he is still not assured of the nomination. Biden will never be able to put the age question to rest, as all it would take is one more moment of forgetfulness, one verbal or physical slip, or one moment of confusion for it to retake center stage. And imagine if such a moment were to occur after the August convention but before Election Day. It is not realistic to plan on his playing error-free ball between now and November.
Biden will lose this election if it is a referendum on him. At the same time, he or any other Democrat stands a good chance of winning the election if it becomes a referendum on Trump. It should be the latter given Trump’s myriad flaws, but the age issue all but ensures it will be the former if Biden is the candidate. Which means that on the current trajectory the 45th president of the United States (who is demonstrating what for him is surprising discipline and self-control, thereby keeping the focus on Biden) will likely be the 47th. Unless the 46th president stands aside. In which case things will get very interesting.
From Plato to NATO
Although NATO is only marking its 75th year, it is fair to say there is no other alliance in the annals of history that has so succeeded over time.
This week’s gathering in Washington, though, made for an uneasy celebration. The summit took place against the backdrop of the awful war in Ukraine, now in its third year. The most recent Russian atrocity, the missile attack on a children’s hospital in Ukraine, took place just before the 32 leaders gathered.
There were two agendas. The formal agenda focused on what you would expect—the need to increase defense spending, rebuild the West’s defense industrial base, and provide a new tranche of aid to Ukraine.
As for Ukraine, the leaders agreed that it was on an “irreversible path to membership.” But there is less to this than meets the eye, as missing is a timetable and any sense of what is meant by Ukraine becoming a member. NATO’s Article 5 requires that members commit to defending the territory of other members. But what is the territory of Ukraine to be protected? Would there need to be a ceasefire first? Would NATO forces be stationed there? In short, more was left undecided than decided.
There was one surprise: the callout of China for being “a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine.” China, by supplying critical technologies and components that Russia needs to maintain its own defense industrial base, but not arms or ammunition, may be living up the letter of the boundaries the United States set but not anything close to the spirit. It will be interesting to see what, if any, economic sanctions follow, and what effect they would have on China’s conduct.
As for the informal agenda of the summit—what the leaders spent a good deal of their networking time discussing—it was all about domestic politics, beginning with France. The good news from Paris is that that the far right did worse than predicted. My sense is that its strong showing in the first round galvanized a good many people to come out and vote for their opponents, above all the left. The not-so-good news is that the far left came out on top, and elements of it embrace domestic and international policies—strategies domestique et entranger—that are tres bizarre et extreme. How Macron will govern a country with a parliament in which no one party has a majority is a mystere.
The bigger question, though, was and is American politics. The notion of “Trump-proofing” NATO or policy toward Ukraine is just silly. U.S. presidents retain extraordinary discretion, influence, and power when it comes to foreign policy. Nor, while we are on the subject, is there any obvious way to Trump-proof American democracy. Although a good way to start would be to choose a stronger candidate to take him on.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Saturday, July 6: SiriusXM: Perri Peltz Show (Full episode with Sirius XM subscription)
Thursday, July 11: MSNBC Reports, Bloomberg Markets, American Bar Association: A Conversation with Richard Haass: The State of World Affairs and Obligations of Good Citizens
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens