
Joe Biden did not decline alone
Accept, for a moment, Joe Biden's contention that he is as mentally as sharp as ever. Then try to explain some revelations of the books beginning to appear about his presidency: that he never held a formal meeting to discuss whether to run for a second term; that he never heard directly from his own pollsters about his dismal public standing, or anything else; that by 2024 most of his own cabinet secretaries had no contact with him; that, when he was in Washington, he would often eat dinner at 4.30pm and vanish into his private quarters by 5.15; that when he travelled, he often skipped briefings while keeping a morning appointment with a makeup artist to cover his wrinkles and liver spots. You might think that Mr Biden—that anyone—would welcome as a rationale that he had lost a step or two. It is a kinder explanation than the alternatives: vanity, hubris, incompetence.
In fact, by March 2023, there were times, behind the scenes, when Mr Biden seemed 'completely out of it, spent, exhausted, almost gone", according to 'Original Sin", by Jake Tapper, of CNN, and Alex Thompson, a reporter for Axios. In one encounter in December 2022, he did not remember the name of his national security adviser or communications director. 'You know George," an aide prodded Mr Biden in June 2024, coaxing him to recognise George Clooney, who was starring at a fundraiser for him.
Mr Biden's aides tried to compensate by walking beside him to his helicopter, to disguise his gait and catch him if he stumbled, and by using two cameras for remarks to be shown on video so they could camouflage incoherence with jump cuts. Jonathan Allen, a reporter for NBC, and Amie Parnes, a reporter for the Hill, describe in 'Fight" how aides would tack down fluorescent tape to guide the president to the lectern at fund-raisers. Once the most loquacious of politicians, Mr Biden ended up clinging to brief texts on teleprompters for even casual political remarks.
Such in-plain-sight accommodations point to what is slightly ridiculous about the present exercise of exposing Mr Biden's decline. It was obvious to many people: to donors, to some Democratic politicians on the rare occasions they met him and, most important, to Americans, who saw through his pretence long before June 2024, when he fell apart in debate with Donald Trump. In April 2023, only a third of voters told Pew Research that they thought Mr Biden was 'mentally sharp".
For that reason, focusing on Mr Biden's health is useful now less to tell a cautionary tale about his own decline, made even more melancholy by his cancer diagnosis, than one about the decline of his party and the press. 'Fight" details how, after Mr Biden failed in debate, party leaders struggled to prevent the electoral catastrophe they foresaw. Even the most influential of Democrats, Barack Obama, who is portrayed as lacking confidence in both Mr Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris, emerges in this account as ineffectual as he belatedly seeks some sort of 'mini-primary".
The parties have become so weak that whoever becomes their nominee can dominate them. Mr Biden's vanity, and that of his family and closest aides, overrode common sense about whether he should seek a second term. Few Democrats spoke up about his infirmity while he was in office. With few exceptions, journalists from left-leaning news organisations, quick to deplore Mr Trump's behaviour, competed to expose Mr Biden's frailty only once Democrats were pushing him out. Journalists from right-leaning news organisations are still pounding away at Mr Biden's mental or ethical lapses; they show less interest in Mr Trump's.
'We got so screwed by Biden as a party," David Plouffe, the rare Democrat in either book willing to attach his name to such criticism, told the authors of 'Original Sin". Mr Plouffe helped run Ms Harris's campaign for president after she replaced Mr Biden. Mr Plouffe describes as 'one of the great lessons of 2024" something that only a condescending, insular political organisation could possibly need to learn: 'never again can we as a party suggest to people that what they're seeing is not true". (Regular readers may recall that Lexington, and The Economist, urged Mr Biden not to run again back when he was riding high, after the Democrats overperformed in the midterms of 2022.)
Many Democrats who condemn Republican congressmen for lacking the courage to oppose Mr Trump and call out his lies might instead pause to consider their own weakness, calculation or inattention. Even after that shocking debate, Democratic leaders who insisted Mr Biden was fit for a second term included not just Ms Harris but Governor Gavin Newsom of California, Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, all possible presidential candidates. Have they since absorbed Mr Plouffe's lesson?
A bridge, abridged
It's the easy one. The party will probably not nominate an oldster again any time soon. Neither book shows that Mr Biden's age led to policy failures by degrading his decision-making, as opposed to hiscommunication skills (as essential as breath to a president). Regardless, nominating a young candidate won't resolve the party's confusion. The hard questions for Democrats are not about Mr Biden's age but about how they should face the other challenges he struggled with, including immigration, the deficit and the implementation of his own infrastructure plan.
Revisionist historians may someday emphasise Mr Biden's legislative achievements. But those cannot compensate for his hubris. Having once declared himself a bridge to a new generation, he became, instead, just a bridge 'from one Trump term to the next", the authors of 'Fight" conclude. This may not be merely a story of the decline of a man, his party and the media. It may turn out to be about the decline of American democracy itself.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
7 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US governors divided along party lines about troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines an alarming abuse of power that "undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement. The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticise him, when to emphasise common ground and when to bite their tongues. There probably is some concern about retributions what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University. And in this case, polling indicates about half of US adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, we'll see you in court over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a straight-up dictator," but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: I'm not going to criticise him directly much at all." Democratic governors speaking out but some cautiously Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California," Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. GOP governors weighing in Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader, Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order, he said. States are preparing for more protests this weekend Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities and a series of No Kings demonstrations are planned for the weekend with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarise the situation. That just makes the situation worse, said Lamont, who called Trump "a little eager to send federal troops and militarise the situation in Los Angeles. It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you, DeSantis said Tuesday. And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.


Mint
16 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump wants cheaper drugs like Europe has. How it works.
President Donald Trump doesn't just want to bring down prescription drug prices for Americans. He wants European countries to raise them to make up the revenue that drugmakers would lose from his policy. Trump is proposing a so-called most-favored-nation pricing model, which would set U.S. drug prices at the lowest level in other wealthy countries. But the pharmaceutical industry isn't buying into tying drug prices in the U.S. to prices in Europe—at least not knowing the details of the president's proposal. More details about the government's pricing model could come this week. On May 12, Trump directed government health officials to benchmark drug prices to international standards within 30 days. The lobbying group PhRMA, with members including U.S. pharma giants Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AbbVie, has argued there are two reasons why U.S. drug prices are high: foreign countries not paying 'their fair share" for medicines, and middlemen such as pharmacy-benefit managers. Today, U.S. drug pricing is largely market driven. It involves negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacy-benefit managers, healthcare insurers and providers. European countries do it much differently. Each has its own way of determining drug prices, but most follow one of two broad approaches. The first approach, which Germany and France use, considers the overall clinical effectiveness of a new medicine. How does the new treatment compare to existing ones? Does it have added therapeutic benefits? If the new drug is substantially better, its price would reflect that. A second approach, used by the U.K., the Netherlands, and Sweden, analyzes cost effectiveness. This model not only compares the new drug to existing ones but also assesses the incremental value that the medicine brings to the health system. After the assessments, negotiations between drugmakers and the countries begin. Because many European countries have national health systems, they are in a strong negotiation position. If government negotiators think a medicine is too expensive for its effectiveness, they won't recommend its use. How Trump's MFN policy would work in practice isn't clear. Drug prices would probably be based on list prices in Europe since the prices paid by national health systems, or net prices, are confidential. The president's open-ended directive, laid out in an executive order, has many wondering how the U.S. could raise prices in Europe. Trump has made clear he wants to close the gap between U.S. and international prices, and has suggested he would use tariffs and export controls to achieve his goal. In theory, drugmakers could set list prices higher in Europe as long as it doesn't affect net prices, health policy expert Dr. Huseyin Naci told Barron's. In the U.K., for example, a higher list price could still lower the prices in other European countries. 'So that would still not be an acceptable approach to many other European countries," said Naci, who is associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics. Overhauling Europe's decades-old pricing approaches would require fundamental changes to their pricing regulations—and there will be 'little appetite or ability" to alter them, Naci added. Cost is another complicating factor. 'Pharmaceutical spending is already one of the top categories of spending in many countries in terms of healthcare expenditure, so there's little room to accommodate higher prices and spending for pharmaceuticals in Europe," according to Naci. How Trump is planning to make Europeans pay more for drugs is the big question. He could use tariffs and trade negotiations as leverage. In early April, the president said a 'major" tax on pharmaceutical imports is coming 'very shortly," however nothing has been announced yet. In a trade agreement with the U.K. a month later, there is a provision on pharmaceuticals that states the U.K. will 'endeavor to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies." What that means in practice still isn't clear. Write to Elsa Ohlen at
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
17 minutes ago
- First Post
Israel is 'fully ready' to attack Iran's nuclear sites, US on high alert
The US is on high alert amid heightened tensions in the Middle East, as Israel could launch a strike on Iran's nuclear sites, with no clear breakthrough in talks between Washington and Tehran. read more Advertisement Representational Image- AFP The United States is on high alert over concerns that Israel might launch a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, The Washington Post reported. The Trump administration is concerned that Israel could target Iran's nuclear sites without US approval if nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran break down. Amid these fears, heightened tensions have emerged as hopes fade for President Trump to reach a deal with Tehran to limit Iran's nuclear programme and prevent another major conflict in the Middle East following the Israel-Hamas war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump said on Wednesday that the United States would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. 'They can't have a nuclear weapon. Very simple, they can't have a nuclear weapon,' he said. West Asia is 'a dangerous place': Trump Speaking at the Kennedy Center in Washington on Wednesday evening, President Trump said: 'They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens. We've given notice to move out, and we'll see what happens.' US pulling non-essential personnels According to reports, the US is also planning a partial evacuation of its embassy in Iraq and will allow families of military personnel to leave certain locations in the Middle East due to heightened security threats, Reuters reported, citing US and Iraqi sources. The State Department said it had ordered the departure of all non-essential personnel from the US Embassy in Baghdad following its latest review and a commitment 'to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad.' The embassy was already operating with limited staff, so the order will not affect a large number of personnel. Meanwhile, Israel has informed the US that it is fully prepared to launch a strike on Iran, CBS News reported, citing several American officials. Iran's warning Iran has repeatedly warned that the United States, as Israel's main military and political supporter, would face consequences if Israel attacks Iran. On Wednesday, Iranian Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said that if Iran is targeted, it will retaliate by striking US bases in the region.