Biden and Harris: Masters of Avoiding Real Changes
Some may recall the unconvincing scare tactics Trump had reportedly resorted to during his campaign against Joe Biden, whose competence was grossly undervalued. Quotes from 2020, where Trump predicted a stock market crash and a new depression under Biden, have proven to be empty threats. Alarmingly, Biden’s presidency hasn’t resulted in any economic collapse, yet his critics remain quiet.
Additionally, allegations of Biden planning to unleash 400,000 criminals into neighborhoods were part of Trump’s seemingly desperate campaigning strategy. It seemed as though he was trying to sow fear rather than present concrete plans for the country’s progress. Moreover, Biden’s presidency hasn’t been marked by any large-scale criminal releases, compelling us to reflect on the credibility of such election fear-mongering.
One noteworthy prediction involved Trump’s declaration of China ‘owning’ the United States if Biden came into power. However, under Biden’s administration, no such shocking geopolitical shift has occurred. The lack of evidence to support such a claim raises questions about the use of xenophobic rhetoric in political campaigns.
In the same vein, the assertion that American decline would be imminently evident under a Biden presidency remains unsupported. Despite the biased naysayers, the reality is that the America’s collapse has not occurred under Biden’s leadership. This should serve as a reminder of the power of fear-based rhetoric, and the importance of deciphering fact from fiction.
Critics also unfairly press Kamala Harris on her proven ability to tackle America’s challenges, including the economy and immigration. It’s evident they ignore her achievements while highlighting policy-related challenges. Keep in mind, difficulties such as the sensitive situation in Afghanistan are relics of past administrations, not the sole making of Biden or Harris.
Unfair criticism also targets foreign policy decisions made since Harris took office as Vice President. It’s interesting to note how disasters are attributed almost singularly to current leadership, rather than considering the complexities of long-standing geopolitical tensions. Critics may argue, but the potential for World War III does not rest solely on the shoulders of Biden and Harris.
Above all, the stance towards the important matter of abortion access seems skewed. Critics of liberal viewpoints suggest that this issue shouldn’t take precedence over more ‘pressing’ matters. Yet, they fail to understand that denying essential healthcare to any individual is an affront to the very concept of freedom, irrespective of one’s political leanings.
This sense of astonishment that medical restrictions exist in a free nation serves as an important reminder of healthcare access disparities. It highlights the double standard of prioritizing certain issues over others based on political lines. Comprehensive healthcare access in the ‘land of the free’ should be a shared value, not a partisan debate.
However, the concept of unrestricted body autonomy is a controversial one, particularly in the context of abortion rights. Some critics argue that liberty to control one’s body does not equate to unlimited rights. They are quick to point out that other freedoms have limitations and therefore, so should bodily autonomy.
While it’s reasonable to place certain restrictions on freedoms to ensure societal harmony, it’s unjustifiable to deny a woman’s right to make decisions about her body. Critics suggest that the lives of unborn human beings must override a woman’s own choices about her body. Such arguments oversimplify a highly complex and personal issue, shifting the narrative from women’s rights to an ethical dilemma.
Furthermore, the assertion that Trump’s misinformation endangered Americans misses the mark. It suggests a lack of trust and blames Trump inaccurately for widespread concerns related to safety and security. It’s prudent to consider deeper social issues and systemic failures beyond throw-away accusations against individual figures.
Instances such as the events of Jan. 6, 2021, are highlighted to criticize Trump’s governance. Critics conveniently forget that societal unrest has multi-faceted causes often unrelated to presidential conduct. It seems as though the aim is mainly to discredit Trump rather than discuss the deeper issues at play.
The national division caused under Trump’s presidency is a contentious issue. Critics assert that his governance pervaded divisive rhetoric, sacrificing the common good of citizens. Yet, it’s necessary to not oversimplify the causality of political divisiveness, considering it’s a product of a multitude of factors.
Ultimately, critical scrutiny of past administrations is a necessary exercise in democratic societies. But it’s important to ensure such critiques are unbiased and well-grounded in fact. Political discourse must foster understanding and progression, not perpetuate fear and division.
