Is he a lame duck?

Is US President Joe Biden becoming less and less effective in influencing the course of global events since his announcement on July 21, that he would not contest the coming Presidential election scheduled for November 5? He took that decision after his disastrous performance in his debate with the former President and the Republican nominee Donald Trump on June 27. Initially Biden tried to dig his heels in and continue with his campaign.

However, senior Democrats became convinced that he would lose to Trump. They put pressure on Biden and finally succeeded in persuading him to abandon his campaign. Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris and it is she who is taking on Trump. So, what is Biden’s real power now even as he will formally continue to hold office till January 20, 2025 when the winner of the November election will be sworn in as the next US President? Is he a lame duck?

This question was directly, if cruelly, put to John Kirby White House National Security Communications Advisor during his interaction with the media on August 26. The complete exchange being fully quoted for the issue of Biden’s international effectiveness is obviously agitating some sections of US opinion. The questions and answers were thus:

“Q: The President’s public comportment and the paucity of events on his public schedule, as on this very day, have fostered a public perception that Mr. Biden is increasingly disengaged from the presidency. Time and again, the question I am hearing from members of the general public, and which I put to you here, Admiral, is: Who is running the country?

Mr. Kirby: President Joe Biden.

Q: Is he a ceremonial figure in some sense at this point?

Mr. Kirby: James, now you know better than that. I mean, my goodness, he talked to Prime Minister Modi today. He had calls with leaders in the region and in Europe, President Zelenskyy, last week. He monitored in real time what was going on over the weekend. I mean, come on. The President is on vacation, but you can never unplug from a job like that, nor does he try to. He’s very much in command of making sure we can continue to protect our national security interests here at home and certainly overseas”.

Clearly, the US system reports to the person holding the office of President. It is he—no lady who has held that office till now; Kamala Harris will be first to do so if she succeeds in the election---who has to formally take decisions. But that is not the question. The question is of the influence he possesses to persuade or press US political leaders and leaders of US allied countries to go by his views and those of his administration. The evidence is that at least the current Israeli leadership is playing him along. Biden wants a ceasefire in Gaza but that is simply not happening.

In view of the importance of the US President’s office to world affairs, a virtual vacuum there is not good for international developments. And, the fact is that there will be a growing ineffectiveness at the top of decision making in the US for the next almost four and a half months. Of course, the Biden administration will deny this and so will many US think-tankers and persons connected with the US establishment.

But their protestations notwithstanding the truth is otherwise. This is especially so now because the US polity is polarised and if Harris wins the election, then at least a large part of the Democratic Party and the Biden administration’s positions may continue with modifications. However, if Trump wins then major changes in US approaches to the Israel-Hamas conflict, US policy to West Asia, towards the Ukraine crisis and global environmental issues can be expected.

In no major country does the political system permit the kind of ineffectiveness as in the US. Changes in the transfer of power elsewhere after elections are swift and the positions of incoming governments are made known relatively quickly. Yes, sometimes there are ‘weak’ Heads of Government if there are coalitions and in these cases the concerned country’s influence is somewhat impaired. However, even in cases of coalition governments its different constituents arrive at a consensus on foreign and security policy issues. This helps to retain the credulity of leader even if his influence is somewhat reduced.

The fact is that the US system of governance is archaic. This is so not only for its executive branch but also its judicial organ. Who could have imagined that basic judicial decisions that have impacted the growth of US society as in the case of gender issues could be regressively overturned after fifty years as in the case of Roe vs Wade? Indeed, two and a half centuries ago when the US constitution was adopted the basic power vested in the constituent states and the residual power in the Centre. But at that stage the US was inconsequential to the power equations of the world.

That is not so now. Hence, the US political system beginning with the manner in which Presidents are elected through the electoral college is in itself archaic. It leads to the anomaly of a candidate who wins the maximum number of votes nationally may lose. It so happened in 2016 when Trump won. For how long can the US tolerate the present system of electing its Presidents where success in the elections depends on a handful of swing states? And, for how long can it continue with the long interval between an election and the swearing in of the victor? This is relevant for the world because the US is still the world’s foremost power.