The Presidency Is Too Big For Anyone
Amid chatter about Biden's stamina, the presidency itself looms unacknowledged.
One of my favorite apocryphal quotes from the corporate world comes from Gil Amelio, the Apple CEO who preceded Steve Jobs before he returned to the company in a boardroom coup. Regarding leadership, Amelio is claimed to have said, "Apple is like a ship with a hole in the bottom, leaking water, and my job is to get the ship pointed in the right direction.” The candidates themselves, unsurprisingly, are selling themselves as saviors of the country in some rhetorical form or another. Much of the political media, seized by threats to democracy and the rise of strongmen, seems to accept the premise that the real or perceived stability of American democracy rests on the direction of the ship, never mind the structural issues that have given rise to a presidency too daunting for any one person.
The case against President Biden continuing his bid is fairly straightforward: His disastrous debate performance is a prime indication of what many have observed for the last four years—that his lacking mental acuity poses too great a risk given the demands of the presidency. It is argued that he should end his campaign and concede the nomination to someone younger, particularly his vice president. On the other hand, voters can believe multiple coherent things at one time: that the president is too old to run, that he should drop out, and that he should be the Democratic nominee. Additionally, voters may have already priced in his questionable ability to serve out a second term, which post-debate polls seem to imply given the minimal change there. It follows that a decisive number of voters are already prepared for, if not anticipating, a Harris presidency. That blunts whatever advantage there would be to Biden dropping out and handing the campaign to someone with low approvals and who is untested in a competitive Electoral College.
I recognize why the watchdogs in the press are inclined to commit more of their labor toward emphasizing the candidates over executive power. Engaging storytelling emphasizes personalities over policies to create narratives that attract audiences. Human psychology favors stories about individuals, which are more relatable and easier to understand than abstract concepts like executive overreach, its legality, and its near-term consequences. Additionally, the immediate and visible impact of a president's actions—or how a president reacts to the doings of other federal bodies like the Supreme Court—generates a sense of urgency that overshadows discussions about long-term institutional reforms. Partisan loyalty further intensifies this focus, as supporters and opponents view elections as existential battles, reinforcing the emphasis on candidates.
The main material risk of Biden’s lacking stamina lies in foreign policy. There, the president has more explicit constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief, complicated by the troubling power the executive has amassed over the last century. On the international stage, while the president can and does defer to his advisers as he does on domestic matters, indecision or an incapacity to make decisions on timetables that are less predictable than they are in the domestic policy realm could be concerning. If allies and adversaries detect a vacancy in the White House, their actions will reflect that. Biden’s high approval ratings tanked after the withdrawal from Afghanistan and never recovered. That was a policy he campaigned on and fully owned with unequivocal conviction. That was nearly three years ago. Since then, Russia has invaded Ukraine (something Trump claims wouldn’t have happened on his watch) as China becomes more confrontational on Taiwan.
In one sense, the Biden story draws attention to the role of a competent and able-minded president, just as panic over another Trump term underscores the need for a disciplined leader. More pertinent to the long-term health of the country, these news cycles underscore how unwieldy the office of the president has become, regardless of the age, experience, charisma, or intelligence of the occupant. Given the pearl-clutching over democracy, one would think the concentration of power might make for a lede that parallels the themes of the campaign. One would expect, in our existentialist Flight 93 moment where democracy is in peril, that there might be a dedicated beat drawing attention to the powers not just Biden but Trump may have as president. Instead of badgering congressional Democrats endlessly to induce a story that is arguably blown out of proportion, more inquiry into what Congress can be doing to restrain the presidency during our fragile moment could be constructive and relevant.
One could argue that addressing the excesses of executive power involves complex, multifaceted reforms that lack the clear, tangible narratives of electoral politics. Consequently, while people may recognize the issue of excessive executive power, the combination of media influence, psychological factors, and political dynamics drives the public and commentators to concentrate on the personalities of the candidates. And yet there are several complex, intangible, large-scale, and hotly partisan issues that transcend personalities and have grabbed leaders to organize and act in some form—economic inequality, climate change, and racial disparities, to name a few. Even if one disputes that these issues are those leaders have not sufficiently moved on, there’s no denying that a great deal of policymaking is now framed with the language of inequality, climate and racial justice activists. Rebalancing executive power shouldn’t be any different. We need not depend on the U.S. Supreme Court, favorable as the Loper decision was to power skeptics.
Remarkably, Congress managed to pass reforms to the Electoral Count Act, outlining that the vice president’s role in counting electoral votes is “purely ministerial,” all in response to Trump’s haphazard plot to stay in office by directing Vice President Mike Pence to reject certified votes. If re-elected, Biden should lobby Congress to pass reforms that restrain the office on terms favorable to each party. That might include reforms to the War Powers Act, limiting executive orders and national security directives, curtailing presidential pardoning power, and limiting executive discretion on emergency powers, to name a few. The same opportunity is there for Trump himself, one that he may take up if only to own his Democratic successors.
To the extent federal lawmakers take no action in this regard and no national reporters inquire, the rhetoric and ink spilled over protecting democracy will continue to be viewed as nothing other than lip service.
That Patchwork is a first-of-its-kind newsletter about democracy, economics and culture from a decentralist angle. Today, fewer people are seeking more power over American life. To preserve a pluralist democracy will mean challenging the entrenched premise that observations, ideas and solutions are best made with a federal or national interest.