Main Edition
US
FR
Biden haunts a White House balcony (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
On Sunday, the impossible finally came to pass. Joe Biden, after swearing that only the Lord Almighty himself could compel him to step down from the 2024 presidential race, suddenly revealed that he was finished. The announcement, which only came in the form of a social media post, caught his own staffers by complete surprise. Even those working in the White House only came to learn of his decision on X.
To say that this is an unprecedented situation risks underselling the uniqueness of the current moment. Not only are we in very strange territory electorally (given the announcement’s proximity to the party convention), but there is also a sense that something has gone seriously wrong with the political system itself.
As I write, there is growing concern — bordering on paranoia — that Joe Biden might not actually have signed his resignation letter. Comparisons between the letter’s signature and those on previous executive orders are being circulated, and other curious details, including the absence of an official White House letterhead, are also being poured over. And whatever the merit of these conspiratorial claims, the basic fact remains that this is a resignation communicated by social media, through an account that Biden himself does not control, while the man himself is still nowhere to be seen. Last night, the White House still hadn’t published official plans for Biden to address the nation. Is he sulking? Is he physically incapacitated? The fact that these questions are even being asked — that there exists any degree of uncertainty about any of this — is momentous in and of itself.
Has America just experienced its own version of the 1991 coup in the Soviet Union, where Mikhail Gorbachev was confined to his dacha, with all lines of communication cut, and pressured to sign a letter declaring a state of emergency? Did the staffer who published the news of Biden’s resignation act on orders from Biden himself? Or did someone else make that call? Every hour that Biden doesn’t publicly dispel these rumours adds to the feeling of unreality. Needless to say, this is not exactly a healthy state for the “world’s greatest democracy”.
But whatever the details, one conclusion has been reached: Joe Biden is out and Kamala Harris is in. This is currently being met with a fair degree of celebration among many on the American Right: Harris is a notoriously weak candidate, one who is prone to gaffes and was completely unable to make headway in the 2020 Democratic primary. But counting your electoral chickens before they hatch is never wise, and certainly not in these extraordinary times. Biden himself was also a notoriously weak candidate (having tried to run for president several times and failed spectacularly every time), even more gaffe-prone than Harris, and only became the 2020 Democratic nominee as part of a concerted insider plot to stop Bernie Sanders. Neither Harris nor Biden could ever hope to win even a remotely competitive Democratic primary if their lives depended on it. But as we learned in 2020, a basic inability to win a primary race does not mean a candidate can’t then go on to win the presidential race.
And yet, 2024 is not a year that lends itself to easy predictions. In the space of just over a week, the US has seen one presidential candidate shot, and the other step down under murky circumstances. The idea that Trump now has an automatic path to victory reeks of the same complacency that saw him lose in 2020, and that spurred so many hopes for a massive “red wave” in the 2022 midterms.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“The idea that Trump now has an automatic path to victory reeks of the same complacency that saw him lose in 2020, and that spurred so many hopes for a massive “red wave” in the 2022 midterms.”
Interestingly enough, it seems Trump and Vance are a lot more aware of this than most of the Republican Party. They are keeping the party in line and focused for now. It is also telling that they had already switched the focus of their attacks against the Democrat party as a whole instead of just focusing on Biden. I’m going to be honest, I never thought I would see Trump of all people showing such drive and seriousness. Maybe the Democrat lawfare campaign against him had some unexpected side effects?
Edit: The neocons in the party are also aware of this fact but they are also hoping he loses so they are not the most helpful.
It’s pretty obvious to anyone with first-hand experience of a loved one with dementia that Joe Biden is not in any condition to make decisions anymore. That’s also why I think he should not be criticized for hanging around too long – whoever was making that decision for him should be. This absolutely begs the very, very important question of who, in fact, is actually in charge of America right now. He really should have resigned, not just left the race for the next term, for that same reason.
The first thing I thought when I heard he left the race was, “Oh good, finally.” The very next thing was, “But how is he still going to be President until January?” If the mechanisms in the American system aren’t sufficient to address this, they need to come up with one. This is their second President in office with dementia now. It’s not at all an issue of age; it’s an issue of cognitive capacity.
Quote – ‘It’s pretty obvious to anyone with first-hand experience of a loved one with dementia that Joe Biden is not in any condition to make decisions anymore.’ End quote
Did you hear the phone call that Biden made to Harris’s rally?
COVID is a cure for dementia.
United socialist states of amerika
All societies have oligarchal elites. The only variation is the power and reach of the oligarchs. Oligarchal power and reach may range from a being just another lobbying group of a government to directly ruling society. I believe the pendulum of power in Western democracies is swinging once again toward the oligarchs. It is an oligarchal elite that sponsored Biden – an old, weak man reliant on advisors – for the presidency, and then surrounded him with their nameless, faceless advisors who run the US on their behalf. It is an oligarchal elite that will sponsor Harris – an intellectual vacuum reliant on advisors – for the presidency, and then surrounded her with their nameless, faceless advisors to run the US on their behalf. And I believe this pattern is being repeated in other Western democracies.
Those of us living in democracies choose our governments. We assume our selection process affirms the popular priorities and constrains the influence of the oligarchal elites to just lobbyists, jockeying for position alongside all the other lobby groups. But what if in a party political system one or more political parties becomes captured by the oligarchs? Is that even possible, and what would it look like?
Traditionally, each big political party in a democracy needed big donors and it needed many members. The donors paid for the publicity and events, and the members did the unpaid legwork to reach voters. In return for their free labour, members demanded considerable influence. Crucially, the members were self organised into their own collective organisations: unions being one example on the left, and small business groups on the right. And these internal collective organisations, being large and inevitably diverse, provided a representative and powerful constraint on attempts by oligarchs to control a popular poltical party. Only parties with a well organised mass membership were popular and could be popular.
One standout feature of the last 40 years is the atomisation of Western societies. By every measure, churches to hobbies to unions to small business groups, fewer and fewer of us participate in and are members of organised groups. That includes membership of political parties and – crucially – organised collective groups within those parties. What is left are the shells of formerly representative political parties with all of the old brand loyalty and none of the representative balance.
In the face of this loss of mass collective organisation, the power of the well funded lobby group – often with barely any members – increases. Helping the rise of such lobby groups has been the changing nature of the media. Television and social media are lenses that magnify both issues and the apparent relevance and campaign support for such issues. The unpopular and the niche can be ratcheted up the political agenda without any brake by ordinary opinion. Political parties are the targets of this lobbying. Now lacking large collectively organised memberships, the leaderships of the political parties are left beholden to the lobbyists. Money and connections are the twin pillars of lobbying, things oligarchs are not short of. Suddenly, at the centre of our democracy, the oligarchs once again have the means of controlling government by wearing the shells of our popular political parties.
We ordinary individuals are less collectively organised than at any other time in the short period that democracy has flourished. Yet democracy only organically developed after ordinary people collectively organised themselves. It was only through collective organisation that the power of ordinary people could act as a counterweight to the inherent power and influence that oligarchs had and still have. Without that collective organisation, ordinary people once again become the grass trampled by the oligarchs fighting.
That’s a powerful argument, cogently expressed. I’m not convinced that much has changed in terms of ‘influence of the few on the many’ but that the biggest change has occurred in the optics – the lens of communication to which you refer.
For instance, the power of trades unions on the labour (and Labour) movement was concentrated largely in the hands of a very small number of ‘union barons’. The rest of the membership merely paid their subs, for the right to work in that profession/trade. Similarly, press barons.
Has there ever been a time, therefore, when “ordinary people” have exerted democratic influence, or is it the case that digital communications has taken the place of traditional press and tv journalism, the ‘msm’, which has itself changed either as a consequence or a precursor to the internet? In the UK, i sensed a change in tone around the early 1990s, with tv reporting of the first Gulf War (i.e. before widespread use of computers and a decade before mobile phone ubiquity) but no doubt the change was afoot before then. News content was changing from reportage of events to a more opinionated version, a trend that has since accelerated.
It could therefore be argued that “ordinary people” now exert more influence than before, in the sense of having some kind of a voice; this forum is an example but of course there are much larger examples. When was that ever possible prior to digital media – to have a voice? Precisely what difference does it make? I’m not being prescriptive here, just raising questions around the very well argued narrative you’ve put forward.
Interesting discussion. I think Brexit might be an arguable case where ordinary people upended the hold of the oligarchs (to their great displeasure). Digital media had a role in that but as a revolt it felt like something much deeper and was a function of the democratic system.
While JK Rowling may not be an ‘ordinary person’ she is not an oligarch or political player. I would say her stance facilitated the TERF push back. That changing of the tide made the Cass report acceptable in a way, for instance, Sowell’s report into racism wasn’t.
While politicians rely on votes to attain power they must reflect some of the wishes of the little people however imperfectly. Contrast that with Ursula’s recent election where she only had to reflect the wishes of the oligarchs.
The new media landscape has just made information much harder to control. As many more possible explanations and narratives emerge you’d expect a fracturing of the political monoliths, which is what we are seeing.
The transfer of power to supranational or non governmental organisations seems to be the oligarchs answer to that.
Not a coherent argument one way or the other. Just throwing in some further observations. It’s complicated!
There used to be a fair few protest marches. Not so much now though, I feel. Gaza protesters put on a few. But those do not count, as the ‘ordinary people’ do not seem to be too well disposed towards Gazans thinking, quite wrongly, that they are terrorists and the zionists as pure as the driven snow.
Your unrelenting pro-terrorism screeds are becoming tiresome.
All true, yet it does not address Mr Clover’s point, that it was within political parties and their wider structure and membership that a multiplicity of individuals collaborated and exerted their views, rather than the much fewer, and much richer, individuals who now inhabit the shell of those former popular organisations.
Islam is a powerfull and very determined collective organisation.
Except while the mullah can tell whether you’re at Friday prayers, the ballot box is beyond his gaze and that of everyone else.
The choices at balloting are carefully controlled by special interests.
There are legitimate reasons to believe that the mullah has a lot more influence in the voting booth than he should. Religion and Democracy were always a difficult mix. Not impossible, just…fraught.
Yes and it lacks compassion for its goes. A manor advantage over current liberal so called democracies.
Unions, the various churches and other religions, political parties, demanded blind obedience to their precepts whenever they could get away with it – refer to British unions’ historic position on womens’ labour rights, for example.
Large membership groups seem like a way for large sections of the population to participate in politics but they are often veiled oligarchies no better than aristocracies, kleptocracies, media barons and lobbyists.
And that’s before considering the harms done by groupthink…
I agree that unions, churches, etc. had dogmatic agendas. But even so, these agendas were loosely rooted in the lives of ordinary people and in competition with oligarchal interests. However imperfect this was, it still offered alternative counterweights to the oligarchs and had a legitimacy that rested on mass membership. We’ve lost the imperfect counterweights but still have the oligarchs.
As for group think, these different collective organisations individually may have suffered group think, but the variety of such collective groups meant the parties themselves were very broad churches of thought, far broader than today. Take the UK Labour party of the 70s – it had Trotskyists and free marketeers, liberals and social conservatives while today its leader boasts of the purges he’s made. Further, it was much harder to make ad hominem attacks on a particular opinion when that opinion was backed by a large collective group within a mass membership political party, and that collective group had the power and influence of its organisation to fight back.
In short, “if voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it”.
Interesting claims. So it was ever thus, but more so now? What time period do you identify as the “short period that democracy has flourished” and which part of that would you rather inhabit?
The pendulum has swung far out toward the oligarchs or monied influencers already; now it will swing back. This is being moved by collective swarms, whether intelligent and principled or mindless and nihilistic.
I wonder if, rather than “collective swarms” the influences aren’t more Darwinian; pre-conscious, cellular. Like the doe in the woods who has two fauns in a good spring, one or none in a bad one. How could her body know, before she conceives, what the coming spring will be like?
Are we subject to influences that we can’t even imagine, despite all our science?
I’d say: yes, we are. But we are not utterly ruled by them, and to exert even 5% steering control over the direction of a ship–our created individual selves–whose ancient origin and scope is beyond our understanding, despite all out science, is not nothin’. It is a sacred inheritance that should not be disavowed.
The short period of democracy flourishing I’m referring to is roughly from 1832 to 1992 in the UK. This brackets the period from the Reform Act 1832 to a high water mark for turnout and total votes cast in 1992, between which democratic participation and representation improved in fits and starts.
The Reform Act removed the power of patrons to select constituency MPs amongst other things. The pressure for this change came from a rising middle class and skilled working class who formed political unions. The effect of these unions was to weaken Tory resolve against reform, fearful as they were of discontent spilling over into revolutionary change.
1992 was not only a high water mark for participation, but also was the last election fought by Labour and the Tories where the memberships had a significant role in managing the parties. Blair would soon eviscerate factional participation in Labour (the deal with the devil being he would win power for Labour) and the Tories too after their huge loss to Blair would follow him and purge the power of local constituencies.
Thanks for your detailed response. Would you allow that social media and platforms like Substack allow individual and small groups to influence opinion and participation on a way that wasn’t available in 1992? That influence can be very unwholesome, of course.
Having turned 21 that year, I might like to return to 1992 on some days, but I don’t remember it as a high water mark for political participation or popular influence on this side of the pond. Perhaps the major parties of the Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and Perot election year were a BIT more responsive, and somewhat less sold out to corporate interests.
One of the interesting things about democracy is that if everybody voted at a democratic level, we would never have a problem. I think now we are reaching the technology to have a pure democracy. Yes, it may change every 4 years, but maybe we could extend that to every 8 to 10 years. Of course, if there’s a problem with the choice, we can always recall it with democratic power, but that would be majority tyranny on steroid. To avoid that, democracy came up with a representational republic, which means a small group of people represent the majority. This group is assumed to be fair and reasonable. However, when this group holds power for many years, they tend to become corrupt in every case throughout history…call them church to monarchy to main street to wall street!
What the East and the global South figured out a long time ago is that corruption will happen no matter what. The Americans are now learning this through a very painful experience. At the end of the day, businesses rule the country, and the government is merely the military. The military and business are always in conflict because the military wants to protect the land and resources not to mention wealth for themselves, while business wants to exploit them, creating constant tension.
What’s happening in the US now is that the voting system is 100% corrupt. To even talk about addressing this issue seems futile -donation is a stupid word for bribe. In my view, there will be no election but rather some sort of crisis, and I think Mike Johnson will become the President of the USA. No one will believe any result come in January. The center will not hold!
Just an opinion, a hunch, a feeling…
Your excess of words makes ludicrous assumptions. The most inaccurate is that the electoral system is democratic.
Nothing is perfect. There are only degrees of imperfection. No practical electoral system can be truly democratic for the simple reason that imperfect or non-democratic methods must first decide what goes on the ballot. But even our very imperfect electoral system does offer opportunities to change policy by degrees so it can’t yet be described as not democratic.
Thanks Nell – Unherd should be paying YOU!
You have to wonder at sheer lunacy of all this.
On the one hand we have Biden, a man who is clearly suffering with dementia. Being propped up by Lord only knows who. And worst of all the party he represents were going to let him run again!!
And on the other you have a megalomaniac and showman Trump. A man so preposterous that he defies belief.
It’s darkly comic. You desperately want to look away but you can’t.
Dylan – Greetings from the United States. I think President Biden is a figure head leader. He has more say in things than your King Charles, however, the real day to day decisions are made by a combination of Jill Biden, Hunter Biden and some of his close advisors (whose names I do not know). Our Administrative state runs a lot of our government here. The political strategy is coordinated by a combination of Barak Obama and others with power and influence such as people at the New York Times, and the donor class (who knew how effective George Clooney could be at influencing things).
The Democrats were more than happy to have President Biden run for and win re-election because he is a “moderate” figurehead President and the left and progressives could then get what they want.
The argument that if you’re not fit to *run for* President, you’re not fit to *be* President is, by itself, false. At the moment, Biden would remain President for about six months, and he may be capable of doing that; whereas being President for a second term would require him to be capable for a further four years.
Of course, I said that he *may* be capable of being President for another six months, and that’s in doubt. My own guess is that he’s probably capable for a couple of hours a day. Other commenters here may disagree, but few if any will have more definite information than me (and I don’t claim to have more than any reasonably attentive media consumer).
Yes, running for President and being fit to serve another 4 year term is a different assessment than Biden being able to serve out his present term. He has been an autopilot President anyway.
I’ve long believed the Biden presidency is run by advisers, not Biden, so it will surely be business as usual.
Yes to your important main point: 6 months is not equal to 4.5 years.
Also: Campaigning and governing/presiding are not identical. With the pressure to get elected removed from his drooping shoulders, I suspect Biden can be a real live president for as many as 6–8 hours a days—more than Trump could typically manage between TV, tweeting, and golf time.
Boorish, but your desire to be the foil is appreciated. And, extra points for bringing the term “horndog” into play on a different piece.
Thanks for your qualified compliment.
It’s not so much a desire as a sometimes irresistible impulse. This website has tilted much farther rightward, and become more predictably partisan, on both sides of the Atlantic, since I first joined about two years ago. Dissent from the prevailing herd view is far less welcome and the takes are more binary and simplistic than ever—like the most smug BTL hordes at NYT, where I tend to be to the centre-right of the norm. Just reflecting the cultural moment I suppose, but disappointing even so.
But the fact that many intelligent views are expressed and SOME legitimate discussion occurs, keeps me coming back for now.
Some of the better moderate voices, like Steve Murray and Rasmus Fogh, have already bailed. Mission partway accomplished for the rabid ideologues, burn-it-all-down right-radicals, and head-on-fire true believers.
I very much agree – and must do likewise !
Why do those who write for a living so often fail the basic standards of English? It is easier than ever to check anything one writes, but they don’t bother. Too convinced of their innate superiority?
To the ‘writer’; it is ‘pored over’, not ‘poured over’.
On the other hand, it is nice to learn an old African proverb.
I guess you mean “fail TO MEET basic standards”. The editorial team, not the author, is often responsible for missing (or even making) such trivial mistakes.
Oops!
“Already, more and more Republicans are stating the obvious: if you aren’t healthy enough to run for president, you clearly aren’t healthy enough to be president.”
That is a ridiculous statement. There is a huge amount of difference between believing that you can continue in a job for another few months and believing that you are capable of doing it for four more years. Not that I am saying he is capable of continuing now!
It is not a run of the mill office job. Take a look at the pictures of US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers and leaving office and se how they age
“Has America just experienced its own version of the 1991 coup in the Soviet Union, where Mikhail Gorbachev was confined to his dacha, with all lines of communication cut, and pressured to sign a letter declaring a state of emergency?”
Mystery solved?
Sky News, Tuesday 23 July 2024 08:13, UK
“Mr Biden told supporters on Monday: “I’m not going anywhere. I’m going to be out there on the campaign with her, with Kamala. I’m going to be working like hell. Both as a sitting president, getting legislation passed, as well as campaigning.”
Mr Biden added that even though “I won’t be on the ticket… I’m still going to be fully, fully engaged”.
“I’ve got six months left of my presidency, I’m determined to get as much done as I possibly can. Both foreign policy and domestic policy.”
On supporting Ms Harris, he said: “I’ll be doing whatever Kamala wants me or needs me to do… We’re still fighting in this fight together.”
He hit out at Mr Trump, saying he was “still a danger to the communities, a danger to the nation”.
https://news.sky.com/story/joe-biden-vows-to-work-like-hell-for-harris-as-vice-president-hits-out-at-trump-in-speech-13183365
‘Mr Trump, saying he was “still a danger to the communities, a danger to the nation”.’
That must be the unifier Biden, not the Biden who uses rhetoric which gets his opponents shot at.
That was an amazing call. Harris started to call it a recording, but then corrected herself.
Who would have thought that COVID could cure Biden’s speaking problems?
Unhelpful article with little to enlighten
My understanding is that he was threatened with the 25th Amendment if he did not step down.
I find that perfectly plausible.
What we just witnessed was the absolute proof that the donors and a select group of senior democrats run the party and the media is in their pocket.
He didn’t “step down”, he withdrew from the 2024 race.
Where’s Joe? Last seen on 17th July and it’s the 23rd today.
Anybody seen Jill or Hunter recently?
We’re talking about the POTUS, dropping out of the race for re-election by a tweet.
After all the talk of Biden being ‘as sharp as a tack’ ( Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation, etc), I’m not sure I trust what I read in the press without independent verification, anymore. Still no sighting of Joe reported on the Beeb.
The palace coup that our political and chattering classes want to pretend was something else. Much like they pretend there is fear among Repubs and joy among Dems over Kamala, a woman the dem faithful summarily rejected in 2020 and whose presence is solely a DEI function. Dems can’t even be bothered with a slogan for her campaign, preferring instead to rehash the “I’m with her” that was used with Hillary.
Who’s in charge? The same people who have been in charge for the entirety of the Biden tenure – a bunch of Obama holdovers who take marching orders from Barack, who takes marching orders from someone else. Meanwhile, every non-democratic action imaginable has been taken not just to try and disqualify Trump, but also to corrupt the Dems’ own primary process.
A minor point, perhaps. The author states that there was “one presidential candidate shot” – I suggest that the word “at” should be at the end of that phrase. It is entirely plausible, indeed probable, that DJT was injured by flying debris, as I have read were others, rather than an actual bullet. No doubt we shall see when the plaster comes off but a bullet would have removed a fair bit of flesh (“2cm wound” according to his spokesperson) which would not grow back.
The test of the American constitution will be if the result in November is accepted by all, and KH puts up a reasonable campaign even if she is not elected. Many criticize America gratuitously but it always pulls through.
”… Harris is a notoriously weak candidate, one who is prone to gaffes ..”. I suspect the author does not like her. She has 4 months to put over a path to stability, omitting Identity Politics and continuing good Biden policies (without excessive public spending – a weakness of both candidates).
Equally we should hope that Mr Trump avoids attack and outrage for the sake of it, and governs for all Americans.
The special interests of us in Britain include fair trade and commitment to NATO – which includes reminding some members that they must pay their way. Mr Trump is aware of the dangers from China but should drop his liking for Pres Putin.
Is this too much to hope for?
Surely the most pertinent question is not who is in charge now, but rather who has been in charge for the last four years?
All good questions. I’m personally chagrined that I was a loyal Democrat for 40+ years before the Biden administration’s response to COVID, its capture by wokeism — especially around gender ideology — and party leadership’s obstruction of any meaningful primary process made me realize “Democrat” is no longer my tribe. If a nail in the coffin were needed — it isn’t — it’s the premature, predictable anointing of Harris, rather than embracing a truly open convention during which Democrats could finally get a fair look at other viable candidates.
“There is going to be a revolution in this country…” https://x.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1815944005307211917?s=46
If Kamala wins, then the women are and will be in charge.