There’s no denying that the Democratic strategy spearheaded by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential elections has raised a lot of questions. Critiques are increasingly cropping up and a representative voice amongst these comes from Washington’s own Congressmember, Adam Smith. Smith’s unease about the questionable decision for Biden to run for a second term has been open and longstanding.
In many ways, Smith’s loud doubts about Biden were vindicated by what he calls a disheartening performance against Republican Donald Trump in the summer debates of 2024. As a harbinger of stronger voices within the Democratic camp, he was resolute in his call for Biden to step aside for the benefit of another party aspirant. With the political stakes higher than ever, Smith was clear that Biden needed to recede from the forefront as soon as time permitted.
Smith’s plea for a change in baton became increasingly vocal in July when he unequivocally championed for Biden to withdraw his candidacy. He strongly felt that the urgency at hand called for a fresh Democratic candidate who could maximize their campaigning period and make an effective case before the American public. When Kamala Harris eventually stepped in for Biden, she found herself relegated to a paltry campaigning timeframe of just over 100 days.
A report corroborating his claims of issues with the Biden administration preceded his discussions with Congressmember Smith. The report highlighted several Democrats who were dissatisfied due to difficulties in scheduling meetings with the President, highlighted lack of communication, and suggested an overly concentrated circle around Biden. It was insights like these that sparked Smith’s concerns as early as 2021, just after Biden’s first year in office.
During that time, the United States was on the precipice of a major decision – navigating their exit from Afghanistan. Smith, heading the House Armed Services Committee as a lead Democrat, was naturally fraught with unease. His attempts to schedule a meeting with Biden for mitigating the ensuing impact and for sharing policy concerns were met with a discouraging silence.
Smith’s parting words to the White House, expressing his concern over their overly optimistic projections for post-withdrawal Afghanistan, bore no fruit. An assurance from the White House that they would try for a meeting was followed by continued silence. Though this might seem standard given the President’s busy schedule, Smith argued that a topic as significant as Afghanistan deserved at least a dialogue.
Smith never questioned the President’s ability to execute his role effectively. His key concerns were rooted in the President’s decision to seek a second term at an advanced age of 82. Smith harbored these concerns as early as 2021, despite not seeing any reason to voice them publicly at the time.
As discussions about the next campaign began to take shape in 2022 and 2023, Smith’s apprehensions about Biden’s decision to run again solidified. The seeming likelihood of Trump returning as the nominee caused further strain. Smith confessed his perturbation over the notion of Biden going against Trump in the upcoming election.
When it became apparent that Biden was ill-prepared for another presidential race during the debate, Smith decided it was high time to voice his concerns. He understood that speaking earlier might impact Biden’s chances negatively, thus weakening the only Democratic nominee present. But he saw the need to prioritize clarity over partisan agendas.
Post the election, with Trump returning to the White House in 2025, Smith believes the Democratic party should heed the lessons from Biden’s era. One crucial warning being that election to the presidency can cloud judgements, causing incumbents to hold every past decision as invariably correct. Smith advises any current or future President to ensure they are surrounded by individuals who challenge and stimulate critical thinking.
Smith’s second observation is directed towards the Democratic party’s decision-making process. He feels that they often hesitate to question the competence of its key figures, unlike their Republican counterparts. This reluctance, Smith believes, is harmful to forging strong, competitive political figures.
In his role as the top Democrat in the Armed Services Committee, Smith personally welcomes the possibility of his own capability being questioned. He thinks it is healthier for the Democratic party to challenge the effectiveness of its representatives. Such challenges, if taken positively, will only strengthen the party’s stance and invigorate its ranks.
Smith’s concerns echo a broader sentiment that the democratic party should not shy away from making discerning judgments about their candidates. Aware that these concerns may be seen as disrespectful, he argues instead that they are necessary to promote healthy competition within the party.
Smith’s reflections serve as a wakeup call not only to the Democratic party but also to future electoral strategies. It is crucial to strike a balance between respecting legacy and promoting new, capable leaders. By failing to make these necessary judgements and changes, the Democrats serve only to weaken their position in the political landscape.
The failures of the Biden era serves as a testament to Smith’s apprehensions and hopes that the Democratic party would heed to his advice. With the 2025 election cycle lost to the Republicans, it is key for Democrats to now look forward and ensure the mistakes of the past are not repeated.