The right move, but not an easy one

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/07/2024 (474 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Why was it necessary for Joe Biden to go?

Let’s be honest: the writing was on the wall for the U.S. president after his terrible debate performance in late June. Indeed, the daily calls for him to terminate his presidential campaign were not going to suddenly end.

Even though Biden was surrounded by a circle of experienced and savvy advisers, many Americans and even some foreign diplomats were nervously biting their nails. In the cutting words of one nameless European diplomat: “If they can change the horse, they should. If it was possible to call the governor of California and have Biden say, ‘You go and I’ll step out,’ that would be the right thing to do.”

Well, may be Biden won’t be replaced by California governor Gavin Newsom. But it does look increasingly likely that a former San Francisco District Attorney, state attorney general and California Senator — one Kamala Harris — will be soon leading the Democratic Party.

Moreover, and in direct contrast to former U.S. president Donald Trump, most agreed with Biden’s foreign policy orientation (especially on Russia and China), his internationalist policy priorities and his diplomatic outreach. And that will most assuredly not fundamentally change under a Harris White House.

They also understand and appreciate the central role the U.S. plays on the world stage. In addition, they recognize that very few of the planet’s fundamental challenges — from climate change to violent conflict and AI to global trade and investment matters — can be resolved without an engaged and focused U.S. president.

But the jarring U.S. presidential debate in Atlanta changed the political landscape, and now the make-up of the Democratic ticket. Those within and without the U.S. know full well this was not the time, when the world is becoming an increasingly more dangerous and polarized place, for a U.S. president who had trouble focusing.

That concern has now evaporated with Biden’s momentous decision to step aside. I’m sure that was no easy decision to make. Few leaders want to willingly give up political power.

No longer, though, will Democratic Party supporters and other global leaders have to fear that a weakened Biden would be easy prey for Trump in the November elections. The last thing that they want is a second term of Trump in the White House and a second round of an isolationist “America First.”

They are obviously perturbed by what a Trump presidency would mean for the advancement of liberal democracy in the world and a rules-based order. Stated differently, they shudder at the thought of an authoritarian Trump, with virtually no guardrails or checks and balances, being a gift to other autocratic or illiberal governmental leaders.

In short, there was just too much at stake to have an enfeebled Biden to contest the forthcoming U.S. presidential election. It is not a sure thing, and there is plenty of political risk involved here, but anyone other than Biden on the Democratic ticket would be better than what Trump has to offer.

More to the point, Vice-President Harris has impressive skills, experience and grit to bring to the political table. And she looks to be the Democrats’ best chance of actually defeating the former president.

Besides, many Americans (and even those outside of the U.S.) know what awaits them if Trump is re-elected on Nov. 5 — that is, a foreign policy train wreck, a hyper-protectionist trade policy, a closed border, mass deportation and a more unstable world order. Bilateral relations with many countries around the world, and not just Iran and China, will be severely strained under a Trump White House.

Hemispheric affairs, in particular, will be neglected even more than under Biden, as countries such as Mexico, Colombia, Brazil and Chile are placed in the diplomatic penalty box. As for governments in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela (should Nicolás Maduro hold on to power this month), they will almost certainly be isolated and singled out for punishment.

Additionally, they all fully realize that an electorally vulnerable Biden opened the door wide to a Trump Administration that will kick a war-ravaged Ukraine to the curb. And as he has already intimated, “King Trump” will give little thought to recklessly withdrawing the U.S. from the NATO military alliance. Harris, for her part, will certainly maintain a pro-NATO and a pro-Ukraine policy posture.

While it is never easy to push a sitting U.S. president out of the political arena, the last few weeks have been a demonstrative sign of just how desperate people were inside the Democratic Party to block Trump from winning in November. In the end, Biden himself realized that a confluence of factors had come together — especially the implacable infighting within the Democratic Party, his slumping poll numbers and the drying up campaign donor funding — to spell the end of more than 50 years in politics.

Now, let’s get ready for an extraordinary Harris-Trump presidential tilt.

Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.