The kind of President Joe Biden could be

What might we hope for from a Biden presidency? Here's one possibility. This is not a prediction of how a Biden presidency would unfold, nor is it an official Holy Mountain endorsement, although I've expressed myself about the awfulness of Donald Trump here and here. Also here. And at this writing Biden and Trump are the only viable candidates for the presidency in 2020. 

Whichever man is inaugurated next January, he will face times that are difficult, to say the least. The still-young century has been marked by a number of ongoing challenges, requiring commitment and contributions from everyone: a racial divide based in unequal treatment, economic opportunities diminished by inequities and automation, political polarization, climate change, depletion of natural resources and habitats, and the shaky financial situation of nearly every governmental body.

Trump didn't create these situations; he inherited them. Yet his legacy will be one of ignoring or dismissing them, missing opportunities to address them. In the case of political polarization, he both took political advantage of it and aggravated it (Lopez 2017). Even before the start of 2020, Trump had weakened the capacity of the U.S. government by either firing or alienating qualified staff, helping congressional Republicans pass a budget-busting tax cut, and taking a slash-and-burn approach to health, safety, and environmental regulations. His rabble-rousing and personal corruption found its way into official actions on numerous occasions. (What President tear-gasses peaceful protestors out of the way so he can do a video, complete with upside-down Bible, in front of a church that he never consulted before using it? This one.) America's standing in the world diminished. Then came the coronavirus pandemic, to which Trump responded first, last, and always as a public relations problem (Itkowitz 2020, Peters, Plott and Haberman 2020, Olorunippa 2020, Partlow and Dawsey 2020), so his administration's response has been incoherent. Despite the expertise of advisors Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, Trump's dismissal of the problem led to a partisan response among the public that surely prolonged the outbreak, and ironically aggravated its impacts on the very economy he had planned to run on.

(The same approach might apply to the famous border wall. The effort has been marked by favoritism and physical intimidation of opponents, and yet is unlikely to survive a flood (Schwarz and Treviso 2020)).

The next President, whether in 2021 or 2025, will thus face an epic mess, and the major order of business will be to clean it up. The national division and loss of governmental capacity will inhibit major initiatives; at best the President can prepare the ground for what might happen next. For this reason, Biden is a lot more suited to the situation than a more exciting liberal (or conservative) movement leader.

Former Vice President Joe Biden

There are plenty of reasons to be doubtful of Biden. He will be 78 before Inauguration Day 2021, which would make him the oldest first-day President ever (Trump, the current record-holder, was 70 in 2017); it's a job that places incredible physical demands on anyone who is actively involved in day-to-day governing. Possibly because of his age, or his personality, he is not someone who generates excitement among his supporters, like a Barack Obama or Bernie Sanders--or Donald Trump, for that matter. As Lee Drutman of New America says, "Biden has never generated a lot of enthusiasm." His public record and manner of speaking seem to put him out of touch with this historical moment of #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo. His personal stories have a weird relationship with the facts (Viser and Jaffe 2019, Bourow 2020). Most troublingly, there are accusations of sexual harassment, including sexual assault charges from former aide Tara Reade which have at least for the time being lost prominence due to other questions about her credibility (Lee, Kaufmann and Stracqualursi 2020).

Nevertheless, assuming nothing disqualifying emerges, Biden's attributes suggest his presidency could be--not "will be," as this you'll remember is not a prediction--a positive moment in American history. He appears most capable of hosting what the country needs at this moment: a national, inclusive conversation about problems and solutions. As Thomas E. Cronin (2009) demonstrates, Presidents are listeners and coalition-builders, not policy innovators.

Domestic policy change often takes place over a lengthy period, and sometimes it seems as though the White House is the last to learn about the pending change. This is in part because we have created a presidency that is necessarily a brokerage institution: It waits for other groups, individuals, and institutions to take the lead. The White House responds to ideas and suggestions for change, yet usually not until such ideas or proposals have gathered public support... Presidents often can assist those who are advocating change. They can nurture or facilitate a national debate and in doing so can often help expand the public support for an idea whose time ha yet to come. (2009: 65-66, emphasis mine)

Ronald Reagan, 40th President (1981-1989)

Forty years after the election of Ronald Reagan, the United States remains in a political alignment defined by his administration. We may have arrived at a moment in "political time" when we are ready for a "great repudiator... standing against a discredited regime to reconstruct the terms and conditions of legitimate national government" (Skowronek 2006: 131). Skowronek's examples are Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan, each of whom brought bold policy changes, and it's hard to see Biden following in their footsteps. Yet, it seems at this writing unlikely that the current "old orthodoxy" will be repudiated as clearly as it was in those cases. (To be fair, however, I would have written the same sentence on this date in 1980.) Moreover, Trump's administration has offered a useful reconsideration of what we truly want from national government. Do we really want one man or even the national government as a unit to lead on everything? Or could many of our problems be more effectively dealt with at the community level, assuming communities can overcome James Madison's objection that they tend to be run by factional majorities? (See, on this point, Barber 2013, Marohn 2020 ch. 9, Hester 2006, Kemmis 1990.)

Biden has some personal characteristics that could prove helpful. He speaks to a political coalition that is broad even if attachment is as shallow as Drutman suggests. In a crowded field of candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, he constructed a base of Blacks, moderates, and older voters that turned the race in South Carolina (Agiesta and Sparks 2020). By the March contests he was winning among "somewhat liberal" voters, women, and non-colleged whites, though trailing among Latinx voters and young college-educated whites (Astor, Goldmacher and Stevens 2020). His broad experience in public policy making--he served as chair of both the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees before becoming Vice President--should give him the ability to recognize the signs of responsible argument from advisors or members of Congress, which Paul J. Quirk (2006: 144-147) has called a critical qualification for any President. Finally, there is Biden's open, extroverted personality, which enables him to talk across partisan and ideological lines. I once heard Sam Adams described as having the "political hide of a rhinoceros;" the thick-skinned Biden has the same. Biden has received criticism for bragging about his close working relationship with racial reactionaries like Strom Thurmond, but that quality may serve the country better than ideological purity, as long as he doesn't give away the store. "I know his heart," said Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) when he endorsed Biden before the South Carolina primary. "I know who he is. I know what he is."

Clyburn endorses Biden (Yahoo News)

Replacing Donald Trump as President, as malignant as his administration has been, will not suddenly end the coronavirus, nor will it produce the brighter day of inclusion and community spirit in America. There is much division and distrust to overcome. The controversy over masking has exposed the tattered condition of our social fabric. The 40+ percent of survey respondents who continue to support Trump's administration are more likely after Election Day to form a latter-day Tea Party than to come to the table to discuss policy compromises. The gazillions of federal judges approved by the Republican-controlled Senate since Trump took office aren't going anywhere, and will be a major roadblock to any legislation.

This is not the moment for some magician-leader to produce a bevy of progressive policies. It ain't gonna happen, and there's no such candidate in the running this year anyway. What can happen are inclusive conversations at all levels about the society we wish to become, leading to productive, cooperative efforts. Biden might be the leader to host such conversations. Trump never will be.

PRINT SOURCES

Benjamin R. Barber, If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities (Yale, 2013)

Thomas E. Cronin, On the Presidency: Teacher, Soldier, Shaman, Pol (Paradigm, 2009)

Randolph T. Hester, Design for Ecological Democracy (MIT, 2006)

Dan Kemmis, Community and the Politics of Place (Oklahoma, 1990)

Charles L. Marohn Jr., Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity (Wiley, 2020)

Paul J. Quirk, "Presidential Competence," in Michael Nelson (ed), The Presidency and the Political System (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 8th ed, 2006), 136-169

Stephen Skowronek, "Presidential Leadership in Political Time," in Michael Nelson (ed), The Presidency and the Political System (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 8th ed, 2006), 89-135