In a recent CBS/YouGov poll, 59% of people questioned described the current economy as “bad”, with nearly 2/3 believing it was stronger during the Trump administration. This stands in sharp contrast to what the experts are saying and what the numbers show: GDP growth was 3.3% last quarter, unemployment down to a record-low of 3.4% (from 6.9% when Biden took office), consumer spending is up, inflation is down, etc. The fact of the matter is, despite these impressive indicators, the “average Joe” just isn’t feeling the good times or benefits. This can likely be attributed to years of price increases prior to recent change, the uncertainty of the Covid years, and staggering interest rates. In tandem with the general politicised air of today, people feel vulnerable to what’s been described as the “vibecession”, an addendum to the “perception becomes reality” thesis.
Needless to say, this is a major problem for the Biden camp as the election approaches. As with our last piece on Biden’s presentation of his age, it’s not necessarily effective to just state that everything is fine or “the economy is strong”. The lapse in credibility comes from the day-to-day reality of gas and grocery prices; the latter of which have remained high despite the slow-down of inflation in the past year. Indeed, the gravest mistake the Biden camp has made in this respect has been to emphasise this improvement, while blatantly ignoring how desperate the rate of inflation was in 2022 (8%). Either side of that (4.7% in 2021 and 4.1% in 2023) aren’t exactly great either, when you compare with the 2010s’ figures (e.g. 1.8% in 2019). So while the economy is on the right path, people are still feeling that 11% increase in grocery prices (2021-22), which normally would have been a 2% annual increase.
As elections are largely media driven, we must remind ourselves that fear is unfortunately a big selling point too. Therein, the anxiety surrounding what may come seems to be more pressing than ever. As the invasion of Ukraine sent energy prices skyrocketing (albeit far more in Europe), people have become wary of international affairs having knock-on effects. The beginning of last year was marked by reports of massive layoffs in the tech industry. AI meanwhile, hovers as a merciless shadow over the proceedings of so many more. The housing market, of course, remains a mess as people resist selling, lest they lose optimal interest rates. And some economists have speculated that recent consumer spending (or splurging) could create vulnerability in the market going forward. It may be a glass-half-empty approach to looking at things, but the notion of a “vibecession” (while cringeworthy as a term) is not a merit-less one.
Again, it takes time for economic improvement to translate into reality. Back in 1992, George HW Bush’s electoral hopes were partially dashed by an 8-month recession (which ended in March 1991). The sluggish recovery cast doubts on his ability to govern domestically, leading to the popular slogan employed by the Clinton camp: “it’s the economy, stupid”. A compromise on his 1988 “no new taxes” pledge had actually helped set the stage for the growth of the 1990s but alas, despite recovery by the election, Bush’s image never faired as successfully.
Will Biden’s? There has been a longer stretch of economic prosperity than in 1992 (unfortunately mired by high inflation rates) but should things keel out and continue as they are, I think there’s cause for optimism in his camp. There’s still eight months to go and the creation of new jobs and businesses are likely to bolster his image. But it’ll take some strategic selling and frankness. As with the matter of age, perhaps Biden needs to acknowledge the perception out there; how devastating inflation’s been, while promising in turn to challenge unjust profits on the parts of certain corporations. He took a step in this direction during a Super-Bowl break, by addressing the scandal that is “shrinkflation” (where product sizes shrink but prices remain high; this is whole other article though so I won’t delve deeper for now.) He needs to continue fighting for an economy that works for low- and middle-income families, via cost of living prices, as well as the bigger picture trends of GDP and employment. Again, it’s the perception that becomes reality.
Depending on your source, an alleged 3/4 Americans have “concerns” about President Biden’s age (81), including 50% of Democrats. As the oldest president in American history, it was inevitable that this would become bait for opposition. After all, it’s easy and it’s sort of fair… just as a general observation of humanity and what old age does to people. Unlike in 2020 too, the Republicans now have years of press conferences and interviews to pick a part then cut back together as presentations and memes of cognitive decline. The Democratic establishment have held steady on their candidate but even with a slew of legal landslides coming against Trump, we can still see many sweating. This is why I’ve taken it upon myself to offer some practical advice for Biden’s team in how they respond to these criticisms because so far it’s not been great.
To offer some additional context here: at a press conference earlier this month, he angrily rebutted a journalist’s claims that these were valid concerns before going on to mix up Egypt and Mexico on another topic. He also recently mixed up the president of France with a former president, Francois Mitterrand, who died in 1996. So… not great. This week, he stopped by “Late Night with Seth Meyers” for what was a fairly softball interview. Seth asked about his age and while Biden was relatively strident in his response, he immediately began to offer comparisons between himself and the mad man, Donald J. Trump; in effect, saying “you know what’s old? Trump’s ideas”. Fair enough. The ideas are what are most important. But is that really the way to handle this? It’s a pivot which shows he’s not really capable of debunking the wider criticism of cognitive decline. It’s a pivot away from a question of character to one of policy. The kind of answer that irritates rather than impresses.
Biden simply needs to accept and address this question more gracefully. He can’t outrun it. So what I would propose is that he leans into it as Ronald Reagan so expertly did in 1984 against Walter Mondale: “I will not exploit for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Now obviously, don’t say that verbatim; Trump’s already been president, but you get the gist. Employ a little humour. Hire some joke writers. Take control of the story. Then… as he’s already done, you can reiterate that while you are indeed old, your ideas are not. On top of that, you’ve got a great team behind you and have a successful term already behind you. A record you can exploit. And why not; with wisdom comes age.
By trying to manipulate this narrative or avoid answering the question directly, Biden can be painted as distracted, if not delusional. While he’s always been prone to gaffes and the odd stutter however, part of his appeal lies in his kooky grandfather persona. Occasionally not with it but ultimately, empathetic and kind-hearted. He’s the nice candidate, where Trump’s the bullish blowhard. Having a president at 81 isn’t exactly anyone’s ideal situation but in a contest of character and policy, this should be a lot easier than it’s proven thus far. Sometimes you just have to take the card your dealt. With cost of living prices still proving problematic and crises abroad, you can’t convince the public that the economy or international security is strong but what you can do is reassure them that the right man is at the wheel.
To answer quite literally; yes, I think Joe Biden looks dashing for a man pushing 81… But the ellipsis begs the further question of how he will look when he’s 82- which he would be upon commencing his 2nd term in January 2025. Well…
Running the country is different from running for the presidency. If we were to chalk this up to the record, Biden would look quite good (at least with Democrats). He’s gotten the US out of Afghanistan, lowered drug costs, made a start on cancelling student debt, and passed an inflation-reduction act, to name a few things. But… those measures simply aren’t painting the larger picture, which is that of an old man struggling to load up a restaurant’s QR-code menu on his phone (I know, frustrating for all). He’s old news. Past it. Out to pasture. Bamboozled by the times. Pork chops for dinner. Why, he’s even older than the president who was elected 31 years ago. The man’s ancient. Now, wisdom is acquired and in theory, having an older leader is no bad thing. But at some point, perception trumps (sorry) reality and if the latest polls are anything to go by (39% approval; Trump supposedly leading in 5/6 swing states), Biden’s not looking like a promising prospect anymore.
Biden’s detractors and supporters both fear he will struggle in the debates. While he held his own reasonably well against Trump last time, he may struggle in 10 months. Trump’s only several years younger but he just doesn’t wear his age the same way. It’s like his ego has sustained him with an unnatural propensity for spewing entertaining nonsense. Sure, Biden can fact-check him but I’m inclined to agree with Dave Chapelle’s analysis that Trump comes across as an “honest liar”. He may not know what he’s talking about but he’s not playing to the weary cringe-inducing politic-speak Biden or Hillary indulge in. Plus, last time Trump was running, the pandemic was hampering his support. This time around, virtually nobody will care about that and Biden will have four years of political baggage to account for. Basically, he’ll be playing defence this time around.
And the defence will likely be centred around his son; Hunter Biden. That’s a whole other kettle of fish but again, since perception trumps reality, and the Republicans have been beating this drum for years now, it’ll be tough for Biden to avoid this. Perhaps too, it stings his supporters to admit that this was newsworthy, even if slight against the plethora of lawsuits dogging Trump. To the vaguely uninformed, the messaged received is: there’s some dodgy stuff with Biden, some dodgy stuff with Trump, it’s a wash; we’re all in the swamp. And thanks to the preposterous level of subjectivity in news media today, it’s hard to put things back in perspective.
Outside of all this conjecture however, two issues may affect Biden’s rating in the next 12 months; foreign policy and inflation. Typically, the former doesn’t have as much of an impact on the average voter but foreign aid and support directed towards Ukraine and Israel may weigh something. Republicans have opposed Biden’s allocation of “too much in funds” for Ukraine while support amongst Democrats for Israel has decreased somewhat. Since these are contentious matters (also worthy of a lot more exploration), I won’t dig in deeper (or cast judgement), other than to say there is a tangible level of resentment directed at the government for taking this capital from home. This leads us to inflation.
Inflation actually peaked in June of last year at 9% and is now 3.7%, but in day-to-day life, prices are still rising on the likes of personal care products, groceries, restaurants, rent, and more. It’s also speculated that it won’t keel out until 2025, which will prove a major factor in the election. Even though it’s not totally in Biden’s control, the “buck ends” at the Oval Office (as foolishly accounted for by Harry Truman). While statistically wages are up and unemployment is down, inflation will make the largest impression on Biden. It takes time for the appropriate measures to lead to results; for example, the economy was on the mend in 1992 but hadn’t yet shown, affecting Bush Sr’s campaign. As with the “controversy everywhere” analysis aforementioned, it’s hard for people to know where to direct their anger but the Republicans will beat this drum as the Democrats play defence.
So, as Biden languishes in the polls, with the possibility of the Dark Lord’s return, many have suggested it might be time for someone else to step in and run in his place. This seems unlikely at this point but not without precedence. In March 1968, Lyndon Johnson announced he would not seek re-election, mostly owing to his lack of favourability with the Vietnam War. His VP, Hubert Humphries, went on to lose to Nixon later that year, though one of history’s great “what ifs” remains in if Robert Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated that summer. And you know what, we have Robert Kennedy’s son running as an independent this year, so a Trump v. RFK Jr v. Kamala Harris ticket could materialise. Maybe another Republican could clinch the nomination, especially if one of those lawsuits leads to something with Trump. Maybe Kamala somehow gets popular? Well, there’s a long stretch ahead still but as it stands, it looks to be a rematch in November 2024 and that’s… terrifying.
The Washington Walrus has finally hit 100 articles! And in the 7 years since its inception (January 2016; okay, we don’t post regularly), a lot has changed in America. So to commemorate this momentous… moment, we thought it’d be fun to try and summarise and maybe evaluate some of the things that have happened since then. How has the character (or “soul”, as Joe Biden would put it) of this nation changed? What distinguishes today from back then… Well, there’s only one place to start.
2016: The Rise Of Donald Trump
In his final Last Week Tonight segment of that year, John Oliver blew up the cursed numbers themselves in a therapeutic gesture of frustration and disappointment with what seemed like a terrible year, marked by numerous high-profile celebrity deaths (David Bowie, Prince, Alan Rickman, etc) and the election of Donald J. Trump. The latter point marked the most significant shift of this period of time.
While most of us were certain of Hillary Clinton’s victory, in hindsight, the writing was on the wall. Many Americans felt betrayed by the system and disappointed in the not so perceptible “changes” promised by the Obama administration. In truth, Obama had to sweep up the mess of the economic downfall that occurred in 2008 and was largely gridlocked in his domestic agenda, against increasingly combative Republicans. Hillary Clinton, it seemed, was not the answer. Perhaps, no run-of-the-mill Democrat was.
In the 2015-16 Democratic campaign, Bernie Sanders had emerged as an unlikely favourite amongst the youth. An independent with a noble, if not particularly successful track record, he seemed to capture something of the same spirit that led to Trump’s shocking election; a feeling that corruption was ripe is Washington and lobbyists, billionaires, and special interest groups were calling the shots. For quite awhile, he was a great challenge to the Clinton campaign, but ultimately lost. (Many assert that had he succeeded, he might’ve beaten Trump. I’m not exactly convinced he wouldn’t…) This is besides the point however. The point is that a rot had set in and politics would not proceed as usual.
2017-19: “Chaos Is A Ladder”- Littlefinger
Upon releasing her memoir, Becoming, the following year, Michelle Obama wrote that she “stopped smiling” upon listening to Trump’s inaugural address because she simply couldn’t pretend any longer. For those who hoped he would rise above the petty insults and divisive rhetoric of his campaign, it became immediately clear that things were about to get wild. First, there was the ban on people flying in from predominantly Islamic nations. Then, a series of cabinet upheavals. Scandals galore. Then, an insensitive summary of Charlottesville, in which he deemed there were fine people on both sides; both sides being white supremacists and protestors. It was in this moment, Joe Biden apparently decided he should run, in order to “save the soul” of America.
The fact that Trump was so emboldened in his office and able to get away with (seemingly) anything perhaps emboldened the left, in turn. If the battle couldn’t be won in Washington, then perhaps it could be in the culture wars. Indeed, the values of left and right had polarised increasingly throughout the decade with right-wing commentators arguing the left were pushing a politically correct agenda across America, particularly in universities while the left challenged the right’s reticence on civil rights’ issues including gay marriage, trans identification, and more.
The breakthrough of the Harvey Weinstein case in 2017 marked a major cultural shift in the dynamic of women dealing with powerful men. With the colossal expose, a number of issues and transgressions were brought to light, helping to widen the scope of what was and wasn’t acceptable behaviour (or had always been). In the following years, Hollywood would amp up their promotion of diverse works and female-led stories, again sparking the ire of many who felt politics (or liberal politics) had become more important than art and story. At the same time, a parallel was being drawn by critics of the Democratic Party, who felt identity politics and the optics of diversity were becoming ever more prioritised in electoral agendas. This was dismissed by some as generational blindness. “OK boomer” became a de facto response for many.
The battleground for the culture wars had traditionally been fought in news media. By the 2010s though, social media had become the dominant source of information for most. Where misinformation and been brought to light with the 2016 election and the ensuing trials of Facebook, there now also lay the problem of a new level of sensationalism in misleading click bait headlines, yellow journalism, and (often) straight-out lies. Trump’s rise to power was seen as being emblematic of a post-truth world, in which both sides claimed ownership of whatever the “truth” was. Annoying celebrities started confessing their stories as “speaking [their] truths”. There was much cringe-worthiness to be found. Most crucially, it seemed beyond political differences, the left and right had come to hate each other outright.
Let’s not forget the dual disappointments of Game of Thrones season 8 and The Rise of Skywalker (both 2019) either. I’ve nothing to say about them. Just don’t forget.
2020: The Boiling Point
The fact that this year started with an impeachment barely anyone remembers shows how crazy the Trump years had gotten by this point. Somehow, 2020 would become the year all hell broke loose for a couple of reasons. First, the beginning of lockdowns in response to the emergence of Covid-19. Second, the protests and unrest that resulted from the murder of George Floyd in the summer. Both of these factors influenced the culture and politics of the US enormously this year, with the mania perhaps lending some desire for normalcy, found in the wrinkled hands of old Sleepy Joe.
How Covid became a political issue may be question for future historians but by 2020, when everything else had, there was no reason this shouldn’t have been. Indeed, Trump mocked Biden in the debates for “wearing the biggest mask” before getting Covid himself. Beyond his pantomime, it was drawn as a debate on the nature of civil liberties for many; with some arguing against big government limiting their freedom through mandated governmental worker vaccines and lockdowns. Others felt that these opponents were questioning science itself in the name of partisanship or wilful ignorance.
As regards the second factor, the Black Lives Matter movement had become increasingly visible throughout the 2010s since social media allowed for the sharing and exposure of police brutality. With the shocking violence and boiling point of George Floyd’s death, the truth was driven home once again that black lives were treated as second class in America. Critical Race Theory became more prominent in the years that followed, with a wider net cast for those learning of the systemic oppression caused by economic and power models in US history. And while some progress had been made since the 1992 riots, Americans were reminded of the lived realities of many Black Americans. Unfortunately, this lesson has needed repeating throughout history.
2021-Present: Conflict At Home & Abroad
2021 started off with a little hiccup at the Capitol. A misunderstanding or something. Then a new leader was sworn in. So… Joe Biden’s presidency has and hasn’t marked a return to normalcy. I, for one, no longer feel the need to google the president’s name every day to see what wackiness he’s gotten up to. On the other hand, America remains deeply divided and though Trump is presently indicted, I don’t think his loss in 2024 is guaranteed. The same seeds of discontent fester and not even under the surface. To many, these legal proceedings are a “witch hunt”. Increasingly the idea of a “national divorce” seems pushed to the forefront, even if in political jest.
The Biden presidency (post Covid), outside this sphere, has chiefly been defined by the Ukraine-Russia war and inflation. The expansion of NATO and America’s involvement in this conflict may define the coming years, if no resolution materialises soon. As Trump had been (shall we say) cozy with Putin, things would likely change should he succeed in getting a second term. For most Americans however, economic burdens will distinguish this decade (even more so) than the last. To go back to where we began, it seems Bernie Sander’s concerns have only become more pertinent and fully understood with the passing years. As billionaires control social media and politicians fail to close the left-right divide, the country lies in a precarious position.
The Washington Walrus Thanks You…
Thanks to all for reading this or any of the articles we’ve put out in the last 7 years. It’s been an interesting blog to attend to, even if not attended to regularly. While it started out as an exercise in writing about current politics and American history, it transformed to something that could address all sorts of cultural, social, and even entertainment-based issues. No subject’s too light or heavy to cover, so long as something lies beneath the surface (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes’ scoring not accurately reflecting viewers’ interests and appreciation of art).
The nature of the vice presidency is typically one of brief significance, ridicule, and vague adaptability. They’re briefly significant in the election cycle because they can be used to give some momentum to a candidate’s campaign, as the final months close in. They’re ridiculed because, while seemingly senior in management, they’re often sidelined next to other key positions such as Chief of Staff or Secretary of State. And then their actual role remains vague, depending on the administration, and adaptable, because their responsibilities may change depending on the issues at hand, their credibility, or image.
All of these things are as true for any VP as they’ve been for the current incumbent, Kamala Harris. And yet, with an approval rating hovering in the 30s (a few points below Joe Biden’s), she seems to be suffering the brunt more unjustly. To the left, this is because she is a woman and mixed race. To the right (and many others aside), this is kind of for the same reasons, if with a twist. They see Kamala Harris’ very appointment in terms of affirmative action; a choice made solely to appeal on the grounds of identity politics. To reel in those wide-eyed liberals.
This is a tough ordeal for Harris because she can’t exactly deny such criticisms. Indeed, it was always Biden’s plan to choose a woman as his running mate but given she’d been relatively tough on him in the debates, she also might’ve drawn some early intrigue for her strength in challenging a potential “yes man” agenda. This might’ve mattered to some. To most, it probably didn’t.
But say, Harris was just what many expected; a choice to appease Democratic voters. This is hardly different (beyond the issues of gender and race) in making such a decision. Kennedy picked Johnson (despite disliking him) to win the South. Roosevelt was forced to go with Truman for his fourth round, to appease his party. Mike Pence was hardly a regular at Trump’s various resorts but yielded an opportunity to appeal to more traditional, evangelical Republicans. This kind of appointment is nothing new. And yet…
Well, things have changed a bit. The cultural and political wars of today are more toxic than ever. There is increasing skepticism and frustration with the Democratic Party and liberals today (from within and outside the party) on how important identity politics has become in electing and appointing important positions. Credibility is at play on the level of perception and media coverage. Plus, more tangibly, there’s the matter of Sleepy Joe’s age. He’s 80. And while relatively fit for the job, one can’t help but hover over the matter of mortality. Indeed, the question of whether he’ll run again in 2024 has been springing up at every occasion (he plans to, by the way). This is awkward for Harris because (already labelled an affirmative action pick), she’s been perceived as a forced successor; a more likely leader than most VPs have been before her. The optics are concerning.
The gullible (or innocent) response to this quagmire would be to posit that Harris need only prove herself in the role she has to attain credibility. If you regard most the criticisms of Harris however, they’ve been mostly vague: weak on immigration (not exactly a simple issue to tackle); not doing enough to support Biden and conversely, out there too much or hidden in the background; and “dysfunctions” in her office (as if Trump’s cabinet didn’t changed a thousand times in his first year). Again, this role is largely symbolic and without definition. Harris’ main prerogative seems to be addressing immigration, voting reform, and other issues (e.g. the destruction of Roe v. Wade) with an ambassadorial-type approach, which granted hasn’t yielded any phenomenal results. But the same people who’d argue how disastrous she’s been would likely be hard-pressed to define the legacy of past VPs such as Pence or Biden, himself. The point is that most people simply don’t care about the actual job, whatever they think it may be.
To return to the matter of image then, Harris faces a challenge there may be no solution to. It seems to me that she’s been given a raw deal on one hand but on the other, having watched her give several interviews, I’m not exactly impressed by her traditionally political, say-a-bunch-without-saying-anything approach either (see her on Colbert recently; cringe). The 2024 election is looming and where the question of Biden’s age lingers, so too does a tangent on Harris’ continued suitability. At the end of the day, is she worth the hassle? Would offing her prove cowardly or tactically smart? If Biden’s credibility is at stake, I think he’d be better off sticking with her; the image of loyalty supersedes political meanderings. They may be no Obama-Biden, but they can at least stick it out and maybe one day, Harris’ legacy will be revised to reflect her support of this administration rather than her attributes as a candidate.
President Joe Biden has issued some major economic sanctions against Russia in the midst of the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. These measures have largely been supported by the public, both in America and across the world, as strong displays of condemnation, without taking the next dire step. The question arises everyday then: will such a step be taken? If we consider the trajectory of America’s recent interventionist past, I would say it’s unlikely. (Of course, such postulation may be emboldening Putin so there’s a caveat to consider there.)
Anyways, to take the first view, let’s look back at Syria in 2013. Obama was concerned that if the US didn’t intervene, it would undercut the severity of chemical weapons’ usage there. Rather than go in all-guns blazing like his predecessor had with Iraq though, he instead went to the Capitol to seek approval. It was determined America wouldn’t intervene. Years later, a divide remains over whether they should have with a Guardian piece in 2018 entitled “The Epic Failure Of Our Age: How The West Let Down Syria”. I mention this, not to weigh in on any specific view, but to show that it’s not always clear-cut when, where, and why America should intervene.
Had Syria’s crisis come ten or twenty years before, America may very well have sought a different approach. As it happened, George W. Bush had led the nation into two costly wars in 2002-3 with Afghanistan and Iraq. We know all about how those went but it’s interesting to consider that at the beginning, support for the Afghanistan War was close to unanimous (90% according to Gallup). Iraq wasn’t ever quite as popular but it got a whole lot less so in the following years. But what if it hadn’t gone so wrong? Yes, I understand and completely agree that the invasion of Iraq was wrong from the get-go but in the eyes of the American public, what if there had been less casualties and more success associated with it? Like with the Gulf War a decade before?
George H.W. Bush sent the military in to liberate Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion. It was a quick, bold, and decisive victory that skyrocketed his approval ratings to 90%. The mission was complete but a lot of his supporters felt he should have gone further (into Iraq) and removed the problem of Saddam Hussein there and then. He declined, though years later (under the auspices of the War on Terror), his son determined America could not hold its head high while Saddam continued to violate international laws (and maybe have nuclear weapons???) Perhaps, an invasion in the early 90s would have gone just as poorly, even with the senior Bush proving a formidable foreign policy strategist. Indeed, his interventions in Panama and Somalia (while contested and dubious to many) were well planned out and successful. Well…
With regards Somalia (which began just after Bush had lost election), the people were initially thankful for his swift intervention. His record would then turn out positively when Bill Clinton took over and Somalia descended into chaos (with Black Hawk Down and more). Bush didn’t have to deal with the eventualities such interventions can bring, where Clinton was faced with an uphill battle he hadn’t even sought. The rest of his presidency would be tested on the question of when American intervention should and shouldn’t occur with critics (and himself, later on) citing a late entry to Rwanda and Bosnia as unfortunate, if not shameful, chapters in history.
In 1996, Eric Carson wrote a piece for the Rand Organisation entitled “Public Support For US Military Operations” exploring the factors that restrained presidents, in this sphere. Having come out of the Cold War just a few years ago, America had entered a “more confusing world” where the objective wasn’t always clear as had been with something like World War 2 (where people acknowledged the gravity of the situation). Further to that, political divisions or disagreements were having a knock-on effect on public perception. To bring this back to the present, we can see the potential of this political divide crinkling American support for a “next step” as many Republicans weren’t long ago flaunting a “rather be Russian than Democrat” motto.
Public support is essential when a president has a paper-thin political majority or faces contentions. This is another reason why I feel a strong intervention from the US is less likely today than it was years ago. After 9/11, George W. Bush had the nation’s support, even if he would quickly squander it. Back in World War 2, Franklin D. Roosevelt was a president in his third term. Even though Truman’s reputation would for years be bashed by the Korean War, there was still general support for a policy of Communist Containment.
Vietnam, the follow-up to Korea, truly took on its perception as an abject failure when the public started seeing what was going on through the medium of television. With public marches and demonstrations, bolstered by the counter-cultural movement, a new picture of American interventionism and soldiers themselves (quite harshly) was ingrained in the public’s psyche. What if Vietnam had happened ten years before, however? Well, as already mentioned, Korea was a contentious affair, though the South remained free of Russian influence but it is reasonable to assert it wouldn’t have been as unpopular or ended in quite the fashion it had, heavily influencing an election cycle.
Is it bleak to conclude that Americans will support American intervention then only if success is assured? It seems to be the case though such luxuries are never realistically afforded them. Popular support, as a result of today’s media, rancour in politics, and recent dubious interventions, has become nigh-on impossible. The best a president can do, in this age, is justify the chances of success should an intervention occur, answer how the nation is a threat to US interest, exert all means of diplomacy, and run the usual course of air strikes. Though as much as history has taught us how any conflict resolves in the public’s imagination, it is also worth remembering how easily people forget history. In a 2019, YouGov poll, the people were vary much split on whether the Gulf War was justified, for example. So as an addendum, one must note that we can’t even assume a clear or factual basis for public perception when such crises arise.
Joe Biden has announced his first pick for the Supreme Court: Ketanji Brown. She would become the first Black woman appointed, should she be confirmed. Yes, the should has become a most dubious matter of late, since the Democratic majority hangs by a thin thread, as if taken from a cat-ravaged sweater. They’ll need every Democrat in the Senate on board and likely Kamala Harris too (as the deciding tie-breaker) should no Republicans offer support. Which they won’t.
Sadly, the Supreme Court nominating process has become embroiled in the same petty politics that dominates basically every other major appointment or campaign in Washington. And it’s much more consequential since Supreme Court justices don’t have terms limits (Clarence Thomas has been serving for 30 years now). So a lot is on the line. Plus, this is just replacing one Democratic appointee (Stephen Breyer) with another. The Republican appointees (i.e. conservative judges still hold a majority of 6:3 which is unlikely to change anytime soon. Can anything be done and what’s the best course of action? There’s really no clear-cut answers but we’ll delve into it, after first taking a look at the justices:
John G. Roberts (Chief Justice; appointed by George W. Bush; 2005; confirmed 78-22 vote)
Clarence Thomas (appointed by George H.W. Bush; 1991; confirmed 52-48 vote)
Stephen G. Breyer (appointed by Bill Clinton; 1994; confirmed 87-9; to be replaced)
Samuel Alito Jr (appointed by George W. Bush; 2006; confirmed 58-42)
Sonia Sotomayor (appointed by Barack Obama; 2009; confirmed 68-31)
Elena Kagan (appointed by Barack Obama; 2010; confirmed 63-37)
Neil Gorsuch (appointed by Donald Trump; 2017; confirmed 54-45)
Brett Kavanaugh (appointed by Donald Trump; 2018; confirmed 50-48)
Amy Coney Barrett (appointed by Donald Trump; 2020; confirmed 52-48)
Just at a glance, a couple interesting points can be drawn:
The votes have become increasingly contentious (for the most part)
Donald Trump has secured three appointments in a single-term without even winning the popular vote
It would be incorrect to say this process hasn’t always involved politics or clashes over nominees. Indeed, history shows that as far back as Washington, there’s been rejection and compromise (when he failed to make John Rutledge the Chief Justice in 1795). John Tyler (the first VP to ascend to the top job) only had one of his five men appointed by the Whig-majority Senate. So, it’s nothing new exactly. But… it has gotten pettier and that bit more combative. In 2017, Trump appointed Gorsuch even though it was Obama’s duty to replace the conservative judge Antonin Scalia (the Republicans basically blocked Obama and delayed). Amy Coney Barrett was then quickly rushed through in the wake of Ruth Badger Gisberg’s death in 2020; appointed only a week out from election. (Her nominating process, between hearings and other such matters, took only 28 days, where it’s taken 2-3 months on average the last 50 years for other justices).
The short-circuiting and politicisation of this process has not been lost on the public. From August 2019 to January 2022, a PEW Research Center poll found favorability ratings of the court had fallen from 69% to 54%. Democrats are naturally more miffed , considering the general ideological imbalance. Many conservatives, unsurprisingly, find the court to be closer to neutral in their judgment. For Jack Schafer (writing in January for Politico), the differences of perspective are irrevocably hard to reconcile. He writes that Joe Biden’s declaration of Black female justice (motivated by endorsement of S. Carolina representative Jim Clyburn) parallels Reagan’s promise of a female justice in 1980. He also feels that judicial philosophies cannot easily be separated from personal ones (if at all) as evidenced by rulings which “track so closely with the positions of the parties whence they came”. Basically, nobody’s buying Amy Coney Barrett’s bullshit statement of apolitical duty and everyone has an agenda or bias anyways.
Had Joe Biden opted for a moderate justice then, would the path towards a more levelled Supreme Court be paved? It would be entirely naive to think so. Plus, he doesn’t have the luxury of experimenting since (again) they’re at a 6:3 disadvantage. Certainly though, it’s clear that the appointment of Brown has riled up conservatives who will paint her as ultra-liberal counterweight. And unless the current political discourse (as a whole) is tempered, we’re unlikely to see much change in the courts. Perhaps, Pete Buttigieg’s proposal of 15 justices (10 affiliated across both parties with 5 selected by them or something similar) would help dilute matters but it’d likely result in a bureaucratic mess too and given the popular perception of Washington as indecisive, one can’t imagine that playing out well.
Unfortunately, it may be a matter of simple expectations and hopes placed on the justices we have at present. Should Joe Biden add more, one can only imagine what a Republican president would do, in turn (even though they cheated with Gorusch and Barrett). Really, all he can do is try his best to get Brown through and maybe rally public support behind the values of his causes. Of course, then we go down the rabbit-hole of how liberal the Democrats should present themselves, among other things. And so we leave another article on another, nice ambiguous …
On January 6th 2021, things got a little shaky in Washington. Without getting into details, one president was preparing to take office while another’s feelings were hurt. The latter may have said some things that shouldn’t have been said; maybe suggested his followers descend on the Capitol in defiance of a “rigged” election with “fake” results. And yeah, sure, if you want to be technical with it, they may have done just that in a blatant disregard for democracy. It’s hard to remember.
Well, against type, old “Sleepy Joe” remembers. In one of his most defining moments yet, he made a speech last week regarding the “web of lies” the former, “defeated” president had spread resulting in this insurrection. While his rhetoric and performance may have been lauded by his side however, it begs the question as to how prominent Trump and “Trumpism” remains in defining this presidency.
Indeed, a year on now, the battle for the “soul of America” (as Biden put it) rages on. Despite a multitude of major spending bills, the picture being framed by the media is still one of left-and-right friction, via the nitty-gritty of negotiating these bills, mask mandates, and vaccine uptake; its narrative spins every accomplishment or historical event under this paralysis.
For example, the withdrawal from Afghanistan (and the immediate return of the Taliban) was set in motion under the Trump presidency but Biden’s been saddled with much of the blame (not that he should be wholly exonerated from it). The vaccination program, depending on who you ask, has been a disaster. Either Trump had already done “the best job” he could have with it and set everything in place, or else Biden was extolling authoritarian virtues by implementing a federal mandate or even taking credit for what Trump had done before him. Trump criticised Biden’s action and then (at a rally) encouraged his followers to get vaccinated. It’s a little confusing. I think the official position they’ve landed on is that “vaccinations are fine but you shouldn’t have to get one but they’re also a scam”. Plus, masks are “lame”.
Naturally enough, most governments have had to readjust their strategies somewhat to contend with new variants, like Omicron. To a degree, Joe Biden was naive to suggest life would be back to normal by now though. Alas, that’s run-of-the-mill politics at its laziest and yet, he’s taken bold action in this department with the $1.9-trillion stimulus “American Rescue Plan” (passed in March). Unfortunately, with a cling-film, flimsy thin majority, the Democrats have struggled to follow up on the other two parts of the “Build Back Better Plan”- the II) “American Jobs Plan” and III) “American Families Plan”. (Although, parts of II made their way into the $1.2 trillion “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act”, passed in November.) The pressure to regain ground in this debate (publicly contested by Senator Joe Manchin) may play a role in establishing Democratic credibility in the mid-terms.
On that note, what is “Democratic credibility”? For while the Republicans still largely stand by Trump (2/3 even still believe his lies about the election), the Democrats remain tentative in deciding just how progressive they want their party to be and where its future lies. Indeed, many feel Biden’s as-of-yet unrealised plans don’t go far enough- an age-old adage for progressives. Plus, there’s a general feeling that Biden is serving as a temporary, caretaker president with many eyes turning to Kamala Harris for 2024. Biden has stated he plans to run for re-election but even his supporters’ doubts haven’t been assuaged. This, unfortunately, reflects the notion that great, transformative change cannot be expected in these next few years, even if they are needed.
As mid-terms have historically been a disaster for Democrats and many of the same contentions from the Trump years remain, Joe Biden may simply have to contend himself with dulling the rancorous hate that’s divided America. Sadly, it’s not just down to him. It’ll take a degree of bi-partisanship, an acknowledgment on the GOP’s part that Trump lied, and the media to stop droning on about Trump all the time. It’ll take some time for us to acknowledge the success rate of the Biden presidency with a clear filter.
There’s no easy way to do this. Each US President existed in a different context of the young nation’s history and had unique challenges to face; be it economical (with the Panic of 1837 or The Great Depression after 1929), wartime (World War 2), or domestic (slavery). Each had external factors preying on their ability to do the job; from congressional layout to crises (e.g. 9/11) and world-changing dynamics (inflation in the ’70s). Each had different cabinets of support and varying levels of opposition (publicly, politically, and commercially). Really, one could argue it’s not even fair to judge the likes of Washington (from a simpler but creative period for government) against say, Bill Clinton, operating under a much more complex system. However… we’re going to anyways.
How exactly? Well, by accounting for their successes in foreign policy, economics, domestic policy, agenda set, public persuasion, and so on and so forth… Yes, all that, but mainly by addressing the central question: did they live up to the challenges of their time? And don’t worry, we’ll provide justification for these rankings- some may shock you given past rankings on other sites (sorry Andrew Jackson fans) but know this- plenty of thought has been given for each choice- this wasn’t some mere cut and paste job with a few throw-arounds for controversy.
Also, we will be excluding two presidents from this list: Joe Biden and William Henry Harrison. Joe; because, well, he’s not completed a year yet- although if push came to shove, I’d rank him around 15 for a strong response to Covid 19, with partial responsibility for the disastrous end to the Afghanistan war. And William H. Harrison? He served only 30 days in office, dying from pneumonia which he likely contracted after giving a tediously long inauguration speech in the cold. A lot of lists place him around 40, which I consider harsh. So let’s do the honourable thing and just bash his grandson who later became president.
Anyways, without further ado:
43. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
One of three impeached presidents, Andrew Johnson assumed the job in the wake of Lincoln’s assassination and made a perpetual fool of himself by attempting to go back on much of what just been achieved in the Civil War. He opposed the 14th Amendment which granted citizenship to former slaves and acted in a cantankerous manner, causing great friction with Congress, who passed the Tenure of Office Act (restricting Johnson’s ability to fire Cabinet officials). He was only acquitted because no one saw any chance of his re-election (which they were right about).
42. Donald J. Trump (2017-2021)
The former Apprentice host sowed a great deal of division in the country, inspiring renewed racist fervour and idiocy amongst his cohorts and followers. His outlandish statements aside, he will be remembered for making the pandemic far more devastating than it needed to be by spreading misinformation; corruption and nepotism; and refusing to take election results seriously, leading to a national insurrection on the Capitol building in January of this year.
41. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
At a time when decisive leadership was needed, James Buchanan essentially sat out the slavery issue, setting the stage for the secession of the southern states upon Lincoln’s election.
40. Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)
Theodore Roosevelt wrote of him as a “servile tool of men worse than himself… ever ready to do any work the slavery leaders set him”. Pierce is best remembered for failing to secure sectional conciliation, supporting the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and aiding the downfall of the Democratic Party for decades to come.
39. Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
Named after something that literally sucks, Herbert Hoover failed to address one of the great calamities of the 20th Century: The Great Depression. His perceived lack of concern resulted in shanty towns being called “Hoovervilles” while his tariff act (fuelling an international trade war) only served to make things worse.
38. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
There was a time when this (literal) mad-man was once considered a top 15. In recent years, historians have re-addressed his legacy as that of an American Caesar whose Native Removal policy stands as one of the most heinous of policies ever committed to American soil. Sure, he was the father of the Democratic Party but that doesn’t acquit him of these horrendous charges. Sure, he was a “man of the people” and not one of the elites but his assault on the banks contributed to the Panic of 1837. So beyond these basic labels, why is he held to such lofty heights? (Also, Trump admired him.)
37. John Tyler (1841-1845)
John Tyler succeeded the month-long presidency of William H. Harrison, seeking to establish the legitimacy of his leadership. He even believed the President should set policy rather than Congress. To this end, he was referred to as “His Accidency” by the Whigs. Sick burn.
36. George W. Bush (2001-2009)
Iraq. The economic crash. Besides that, seems an affable enough fellow.
35. Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
Harding is usually ranked in the bottom three but beyond his innate incompetence (which he at least admitted to), I don’t consider his (albeit corrupt) administration to be particularly damaging to the US. (He, at least, acknowledged that democracy was a “lie” without political equality for black citizens. He didn’t do anything about it but he acknowledged it.)
34. Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)
Another spineless leader in the vein of Buchanan, Fillmore’s support of the 1850 compromise opened up the territories of the Mexican Cession to slavery and allowed for the return of escaped slaves to those who claimed ownership. Harry Truman called him a “weak, trivial thumb-twaddler who would do nothing to offend anyone”.
33. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
More like Van Burden, am I right? Van Buren continued Andrew Jackson’s policy of Native Removal and denied the application of Texas to the Union. His presidency was also mired by the Panic of 1837. (Interesting bit of trivia for you: Van Buren was a member of the Old Kindergarten Club for which to gain access you had to say “okay”, thus originating the term.)
32. Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-1881)
Hayes’ era essentially marked an end to Reconstruction and inconsistent civil service reform. He also championed the Gold Standard and broke the Great Strike of 1877. Nothing particularly striking or memorable or interesting here.
31. Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)
A mess of contradictions: owned slaves but wanted to ban the expansion of slavery into western territories conquered from Mexico; a military triumph in that war who wasn’t particularly keen on Manifest Destiny (expanding US borders); a decisive commander in battle who avoided tough decisions as President. Given his strong commitment to the union, historians wonder (had he lived) whether the Compromise of 1850 or the Civil War would have occurred.
30. Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)
The grandson of former President William H., he was committed to voting rights for African Americans but economically uncertain of how to handle the nation’s affairs, resulting in the 1893 crash.
29. William Howard Taft (1909-1913)
Once the promising successor to Teddy Roosevelt, committed to 80 antitrust suits against large industries, he disappointed his predecessor by reneging and falling into place among the more conservative members of the Republican Party. This led to old Teddy mounting a race against him in 1912 under the “Bull-Moose” party. Both would lose, leading to the Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s rise.
28. Grover Cleveland (1885-1889 and 1893-1897)
Two non-consecutive terms? Oh, you better believe it happened! If people expected Cleveland to have improved in his off-years, they were sorely disappointed though when he was dealt the hand of the 1893 crash which he failed to deal with adequately. This resulted in Democrats losing support everywhere but the Deep South.
27. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
Harding’s successor has attained some historical reassessment on the part of classic Republicans who admired his small-government and laissez-faire economic approach. He helped restore the reputation of the White House following the corruption scandals of Harding’s cohorts but largely detached himself from the job; infamously sleeping during the day and avoiding mingling with guests. Upon his death, Dorothy Parker remarked “how can they tell?’
26. Chester A. Arthur (1881-1885)
Given some of his past associations in business dealings, people expected him to be more corrupt than he was. He fought the spoils patronage system he’d supported in New York and advocated tariff relief for businesses and tackled civil service reform. It doesn’t say much though when your reputation, at best, surmounts to: “well, I guess he wasn’t that bad”.
25. James Garfield (1881)
He only served a few months but contemporaries were impressed by his handling of Roscoe Conkling; a New York senator trying to push his agenda and men in high positions. Historians call him a “what if?”
24. Gerald Ford (1974-1977)
Ford’s rise to power was particularly incidental, taking over for Spiro Agnew as VP before taking over the main post when Nixon resigned. A generally decent and uncontroversial politician, Ford, unfortunately wasn’t a great communicator, even if his pardon of Nixon was intended to help move a damaged nation on.
23. Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
Besides that whole Watergate thing, Nixon wasn’t a terrible president. Strategically minded, he approached the Cold War in a more pragmatic way than his predecessors or successors ever did, resulting in the first SALT treaty and the opening of relations with China. He even tried his hand at a health care plan and established the Environmental Protection Agency.
22. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)
The son of John Adams served as Secretary of State and a senator before becoming president and as a representative after. It’s fair to say he’s best remembered for his later achievements there, focusing on the anti slavery movement. As the nation’s leader, he was generally considered to be too uncompromising to achieve much in an increasingly political age.
21. Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
Alas. My favourite president in essence and character but unfortunately not one with the most impressive record, even though he was the only post WW2 leader to not launch a missile. A true Washington “outsider”, Carter’s reign was beset by out-of-control issues like inflation and (more in control issues like) poor congressional relations. In my opinion, he was ahead of his time but legacies rest on effective, perceptible changes and not just rhetoric.
20. John Adams (1797-1801)
Being one of the OGs is a surefire way to knock yourself up the list but Adams paled in comparison to Washington and Jefferson, signing the controversial Alien and Seditions Act which included powers to deport foreigners and make it harder for new immigrants to vote; strange cause for a newly built nation but then it’s hard to find a footing in those early days. He gets marks for not expanding the naval war with France into a greater conflict, however.
19. James Polk (1845-1849)
A lot of land acquisition went on during Polk’s term; Oregon, California, and New Mexico, notably. He also settled the Texas border dispute, established the federal depository system, and lowered tariff rates. Simply put, one of the most accomplished presidents there ever was. Critics charge however that his underestimation of the Mexican War’s effects paved the way for sectional conflict and the troubles that ensued over the next decade.
18. James Madison (1809-1817)
The war of 1812 was seen as unnecessary by some and as something of a 2nd war of independence to others. The new nation, either way, cemented its foundations in this test.
17. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Reagan’s often ranked in the top ten and I can see why… kind of. A great communicator, Reagan brought hope to a nation deflated by inflation, Vietnam, Watergate, and perceived ineffective leadership. He amped the Cold War back up in its last days, oversaw a more prosperous era (while setting the stage with his trickle-down economics for a latter recession) and delivered some great jokes. Let’s face it though; he stumbled when it came to talking specifics, didn’t handle the AIDS epidemic well, and of course, that whole Iran-Contra thing. Sorry Reagan fans. If it’s any consolation, I still like him! What a character.
16. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
Grant’s administration was wrought by scandals involving bribes and a whiskey ring, tarnishing his image for years to come (even though he didn’t personally benefit from the crimes). If we look beyond that, he was actually a pretty effective president who worked to stabilise the post-war national economy, support reconstruction, and crush the KKK.
15. William McKinley (1897-1901)
McKinley’s presidency marked the emergence of an imperial era for the US as he declared war with Spain over Cuban independence. He was also the first president to actively engage the media by holding press conferences and he went on national tours to speak with voters. A new day had come.
14. James Monroe (1817-1825)
Monroe helped further the nationalistic cause by reaching out to all parts of the then smaller US, separating their course and interests from Europe’s with the Monroe Doctrine. Florida was also acquired during his tenure.
13. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
Despite being one of America’s most well educated leaders, Wilson held regressive viewpoints for race relations (even for his time). He’s ranked lowly in that regard but otherwise highly for guiding America through World War One and establishing the League of Nations, as well as banking reform, supporting labour and collective bargaining, and more.
12. John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
I give some props for rhetoric and inspiring people but when it comes to actual legislative achievement, there’s not much to be said for JFK. And while, yes, he resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis with dramatic flair, he played a major role in starting it. And he set the stage for Vietnam. A great deal of his mythos has been born out of his untimely assassination. Again though, that inspiring stuff does count for something and let’s face it- it’s endured.
11. George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
The senior Bush’s reputation has improved in recent years, probably as a result of people’s nostalgic yearning for a conservative who could be flexible. His 1990 tax hike might have irked his supporters after the reticence of his “no new taxes” election pledge but it was the right and responsible thing to do. Plus, on the world stage, he was very well respected for his even tempered, strategic diplomacy- too humble for most when the Berlin Wall fell and too cautious for others who wanted the Gulf War victory to lead onto further gains in Iraq (we later learned how that would work out). A very underrated president, in my opinion; he simply couldn’t sell himself well enough.
10. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Clinton’s impeachment was largely based on petty partisan squabbles so I’m not factoring that in as much as others would like. On the whole, he did the job successfully, steering the economy to a surplus for the first time since Truman’s years. While he was initially slow on Bosnia and Rwanda, he later found his footing on the international stage, earning support from the likes of Mandela and helping to establish NATO.
9. Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969)
Vietnam escalated to disastrous levels under LBJ so why is he at number 9? Well, under the auspices of Communist Containment, one could argue he was merely maintaining a longstanding foreign policy of the US but really, it’s because his domestic agenda was so progressive and realised. Only a year after pushing the Civil Rights Bill, he got the Voting Rights Act passed. Then, a flurry of the most impressive legislation committed by a liberal president, including Medicare. He was an intimidating, foul-mouthed beast of a man but he knew how to play the political game better than almost any other US president.
8. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
One of the OGs, Jefferson promoted a western expansionist policy with the Louisiana Purchase, effectively doubling the nation’s grounds. He also put an end to the long-standing problem of Tripoli pirates from North Africa, who were disrupting American trade in the Mediterranean. His passing of the Embargo Act of 1807, which suspended all trade with Europe, unfortunately wrecked the US economy and paved the way for the War of 1812 with Britain.
7. Barack Obama (2009-2017)
While many supporters were frustrated with the gridlock of congressional relations in Obama’s years and the supposed let-down in the wake of his meteoric rise, there’s no denying the achievement that was the Affordable Care Act. Not perfect, sure, but something that had eluded America’s leaders for decades. Besides that, Obama helped restore America’s image abroad and took some tough but much needed measures to restore the US economy after the 2008 crash.
6. Harry Truman (1945-1953)
Truman was never given an easy hand to play. He had been virtually kept in the dark by FDR while VP, not even knowing about the development of the Atomic Bomb. To drop that in August of 1945 was perhaps one of the gravest decisions a US President ever had to make. Shortly thereafter, he had to take quick measures to ensure the containment of communism where he could, mostly with success, though a period of uncertainty loomed at the end of his tenure with the Korean War. Initially not popular upon leaving office, his reputation was restored by the time of Vietnam due to the accountability with which he had held himself- a sign upon his office reading “the buck stops here”.
5. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
A military hero who ended the Korean War. A republican who continued the legacies of the New Deal and Fair Deal. Apatriot who opposed communism but would not give the red scare-mongering likes of Joseph McCarthy any time of his day. Yes, Ike was a popular leader who came as a natural choice for many in the post-war era. Perhaps his previous lack of political ambitions paved the way for him being the kind of president who could rule with sense, partisanship aside.
4. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
We’re into the major leagues now. Roosevelt ushered in the Square Deal which aimed to conserve natural resources, control corporations, and protect consumers. And… he was a Republican. Yes,, of the old sort- the kind that believed in containing big government and capitalism where it got dangerous. While something of a bloodthirsty scoundrel, apparently always itching for a fight and building up the US navy, he also brokered the end of the Russo-Japanese War (earning him the Nobel Peace Prize).
3. George Washington (1789-1797)
The first president is often ranked number one or two. While I admire his dedication to the job and setting the tone for the office by stepping down after two terms (where many wanted to make him essentially a king), it must be said that he operated in a time of widespread support and creativity for the new nation. He didn’t have the binds facing other presidents. Still, can’t really fault him on much.
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
Elected a record-breaking four times (dying early into his fourth term), FDR brought America through both the Great Depression and World War 2. His legacy is closely tied to the New Deal agenda, which set the course for liberal economic ambitions since, if never fully realised. Plus, he was also inspiring- helping to raise morale with his fireside chats and proclamations such as “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”. Upon his death, the people weren’t quite sure how another leader could occupy such a space.
1. Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
No president has ever faced a test quite like the Civil War. Upon election, several southern states seceded resulting in America’s darkest hour. Lincoln was responsible not only for winning this war and reuniting the broken nation but for passing the 13th Amendment which abolished the original sin of America’s foundation: slavery. This would mark the great turning point in the nation’s history. Managing such a hefty task required a man of great intellect and greater moral fibre.
In the pantheon of presidential historical evaluation, the first 100 days has never been an accurate indicator of what is to come. Often referred to as the “Honeymoon period”, it tends to reflect a more restrained take on the presidency, given its freshness, initial public support, and change of power dynamics. In a sense, everyone’s testing the water and willing (on some part) to give the benefit of the doubt. This is doubly true for the Biden administration, who have come into their own with a long-suppressed sigh of relief following the turmoil of the Trump years.
This is perhaps the most evident thing about the new president; his normality and candour in juxtaposition to the raging clown prince of crime, whose final days saw siege upon the Capitol. Joe Biden has been effective, thus far, in restoring a sense of normalcy and decency in how America tackles its problems. A naturally empathetic man, he’s struck the right tone in addressing mass shootings and the pandemic, in a time when true leadership has been needed.
His words have been supported to by action too; namely, the $1.9 trillion Covid Bill set to alleviate the economic offsets of the pandemic. More liberal commentators, worried that he would prove too moderate, have been surprised by this bold course of action. Thankfully, Biden understands that dramatic times call for dramatic responses and having paid witness to the gridlock of the Obama years, he’s done his base right by practically ignoring the Republicans’ attempts to slim down this bill.
The pandemic has, at this point, reached a turning in the tides with over 200 million Americans vaccinated at this point (a goal set out by the administration). As always, I would be reluctant to give Trump any credit since he only ever served to aggravate the World Health Organization, undermine Dr. Anthony Fauci, and meander wildly on the severity of the virus but it is worth at least noting, that some structure was in place for Biden to capitalise on this reversal of fortunes. As a leader, he’s set a good standard however, asking Americans to continue wearing masks while paying respect to the scientists Trump so callously questioned.
The Covid Bill hasn’t been the only bold proposal put forth too. Biden has also unveiled a $2 trillion infrastructure plan which has long been overdue (Trump had actually been correct in 2016, assessing this as one of America’s gravest issues but failed to deliver in appropriate fashion). To his critics, this may be overreaching. They’d have a point too, since the buck has to stop somewhere. With that said, with the awesome power of the presidency, it is gratifying to see these major issues tackled with some gravitas. Just remember, that any leader’s going to be popular when spending.
Elsewhere, Biden has marked a contrast with the Trump administration by suspending the Keystone pipeline and rejoining the Paris Climate Accord. He’s also gotten the first notable gun control package in three decade (though limited) and boasted the fastest cabinet appointee approvals in four presidencies. On the surface, it seems like this has thus been a highly successful, action-oriented start. Beneath the surface however…
Well, not to quash people hopes but yes, the tough days are ahead. As eluded to earlier, spending makes one popular but bills have to be settled and the economic downturn of the last year’s events has yet to manifest. (We can only hope this massive investment will curb the worst of this.) The immigration problem, too, is rearing its head, as Biden struggles to set out a new policy, differentiating from Trump’s. (Even George W. Bush has called on his party to act in Congress to work on this.) Plus, while justice was exacted in the George Floyd trial, we’re still seeing disgusting instances of police brutality against Black Americans. Now that a Democrat is in power (and the party has a slight majority), some legislative action will be expected. The Republicans, momentarily out of sorts for now, will return with their combative stances and make this presidency increasingly more difficult.
So, while a dark cloud looms on the horizon, we can at least be thankful that Biden has proven more radical than expected in his approach to the immediate major problems facing him. With his conciliatory inaugural address too, he has hopefully set out a renewed air of compassion for the politics of compromise in Washington. In a sense, reversing the hateful rhetoric of 2016-2020 may prove his greatest feat.
The Washington Walrus 