Biden’s worst day was not more beneficial to the United States than any period overseen by his predecessor or successor. Implications suggesting cognitive decline and physical fragility seem to circulate around him just as he left a nation in apparent turmoil. Unfortunately, his long-standing reputation in the public service space does little to deflect the worsening state of affairs. In a twist of irony, Biden, rather than enhancing the presidency after Trump’s tenure in 2020, is widely accused of paving the way for Trump’s disruptive comeback and the subsequent uproar it has instigated across the nation and around the globe.
Regrettably, Biden’s decision to run for a second term was a severe miscalculation. Surrounded by advisers with self-serving interests, this blunder was magnified by his hesitance to opt-out of the race in a timely manner. His choice to steer clear of hard-hitting advice was evident. Whether another Democrat candidate selected by an open convention could have performed better than the Vice President, Kamala Harris, remains an unanswerable query.
When the voters faced the options of Harris versus Trump, they were clearly picking between the lesser of two evils. Harris represented a faux sense of decency while Trump showcased blatant demagoguery, paranoia, and hints of dictatorship. The selection of Trump by a majority underscores the flaws in blindly trusting the self-execution of the Constitution.
With Biden’s health issues becoming increasingly hard to ignore, the secrecy surrounding them is eerily similar to a common illness plaguing Washington—too few are willing to truthfully speak out. The media overlooks Biden’s frequent bouts of memory lapses and confusion, drawing attention to them only when they become a public spectacle, such as during the catastrophe of a debate with Trump. In those squabbles, Trump’s flurry of blatant untruths went unremarked.
The leading tirade against Biden includes his undisclosed prostate cancer, a redundant point considering men of his age aren’t typically recommended for screenings. That said, perhaps potential presidents should be subjected to greater scrutiny in medical screenings given their pivotal role. It’s no secret that this disease could potentially escalate rapidly, thus putting the nation’s reins into unstable hands.
In light of these concerns, a proposition could be that the ruler of the nation should get a consensus from a secondary authority before initiating thermonuclear warfare. A suitable candidate for this role could be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There’s already a similar methodology in place at lower levels within strategic missile command centers, requiring two officers to turn the launch keys.
Considering Biden’s shortcomings and Trump’s advancing years, it seems only logical to implement an age cap for presidency. However, that might be somewhat arbitrary. An improved approach would be vigorous campaigning whereby candidates regularly interact with the media, providing voters with ample opportunity to assess their capabilities. A zesty series of debates should help in selecting the most competent individual for the presidency.
One could argue in favor of limiting the presidency to a solitary six-year term. This could facilitate the focus of presidents on the welfare of the nation, rather than being preoccupied with their political future. The drawbacks include the risk of a ‘lame duck’ president from the very beginning. Nevertheless, this might reduce obstruction from their opponents in Congress.
In theory, the 25th Amendment was designed to ensure a swift, involuntary replacement in the case of a president’s disability. Its implementation requires the commitment of the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet. However, when the same president who previously second-guessed Biden’s fitness is himself now rumored to seek an illicit third term, the provision of the amendment seems ironic, if not entirely inadequate.
We are witnessing a time when the person who once questioned Biden’s abilities is causing constitutional complications with his lack of regard for the authority of the federal courts. This poses a constitutional crisis of significant proportion. The transformation of the entire Republican Party into an extension of Trump’s personality cult has left no room for implementing new constitutional safeguards.
Despite this alarming situation, the need for such precautionary measures has never been more pressing. It is essential to review the competency and effectiveness of those leading the country and, moreover, to ensure full transparency with the electorate whom they serve. The political landscape will continue to shift, and it is incumbent upon us to adapt dynamically to preserve the integrity of our democratic institutions.
Regrettably, Biden’s legacy appears to have been tarnished by irrational decisions and unhealthy secrecy. Consequentially, American citizens are faced with uncertain leadership and increasing disillusionment. The restoration of our democracy relies on demanding transparency, accountability, and adeptness from our political figureheads.
Ultimately, the mediocrity of Biden’s governance highlights the importance of sober scrutiny and careful deliberation in our selection of leaders. The prospect of which, in itself, offers a dire reflection of the state of American democracy and an urgent wake-up call for change. What the future holds for our nation, heavily depends on how we approach these critical issues today.