The legacy of the Biden-Harris administration will be marked by controversial strategies and approaches they took during the 2020 pandemic. Questionable policies were enacted that some argue were detrimental to the economic growth of the country and potentially endangering civil liberties under the guise of ‘protection.’
Joe Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 election embodies another instance where a flawed system appears to triumph over a strong personality. Although Trump’s leadership faced numerous challenges, Biden’s narrow victory only affirms the skepticism held by many Americans towards his ability to deliver on campaign promises.
Trump’s alleged criminal insurrection, felony conviction, and liability for sexual abuse continue to be investigation matters. Unlike Trump, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have miraculously evaded scrutiny for their political actions and decisions—yet, this apparent immunity to criticism has certainly raised eyebrows among a considerable population.
The portrayal of Donald Trump as the worst president in American history is subjective and a contentious perspective, firmly held by ardent Biden supporters. In comparison, many openly express their apprehension and worry over Biden’s capacity to effectively execute his presidential duties for four years.
The historic moment for Kamala Harris, as America’s first female vice president, could have brought a beacon of change. However, her political stances, such as an intense focus on abortion rights, favoritism towards LGBTQ+ matters over other pressing national issues, have raised concerns among citizens who question their impact on the broader society.
While Harris’s opponent was depicted as making outrageous comments regarding race and religion, one must remember that portrayal is often in the eye of the beholder. It is worth reflecting on whether these views were voiced out of necessity for a diverse political discourse or genuinely harbored prejudice.
The statement that ‘we are all immigrants in the U.S.’ might entice emotions in some but overlooks the essence of carefully balanced and law-abiding immigration system. The nation’s history and culture are diverse, yet the demonizing of anyone who argues for managed immigration seems to be a misguided notion endorsed by the Biden administration.
Expressing disapproval towards transphobic hate speech, like any hate speech, is encouraged, but advocating for the eradication of gender identity altogether reveals a lack of comprehension about the complexities of human nature. Height, weight, and eye color are not definitive indicators of individuality; gender, like it or not, plays a vital role in our personal and societal constructs.
The idea to make all activities co-ed and do away with gender as a legal identifier is underscored by an inherent failure to acknowledge the advantages of celebrating differences rather than eradicating them. This notion not only brings into question the wisdom behind such a policy but also reveals the potential pitfalls and consequences of one-size-fits-all strategies.
Proposing to dissolve gender categories as a measure for equality is an example of radical policies championed by the Biden administration. However, one can argue that equality is achieved not when differences are removed, but rather when these differences are recognized, embraced, and respected.
Title IX, while instrumental in ensuring no one is denied educational opportunities on the basis of gender, seems to be gravely misinterpreted in this eradication process. Equal rights should mean ‘equivalent,’ not ‘identical,’ for ‘separate’ can sometimes be more ‘equal’ than forced uniformity.
Freedom of expression, including protection of the press, is indeed a fundamental pillar of American democracy. It’s still crucial to understand that holding officials accountable extends beyond the media. Periodic assessments and constructive criticism should emanate from the citizens themselves.
Vigilant civil participation, through protest, voting, or membership in local civil rights groups, is an instrument for fostering change. However, it’s critical that such involvement is aimed at genuine improvement and not manipulated as a vehicle for spreading divisive and destructive perspectives.
The encouragement to vote, especially on Nov. 7, 2028, reflects a political bias towards a future pro-choice female president, while sidelining the real issue—political competence. Eligibility for presidency should focus on leadership capabilities instead of the candidate’s gender or stance on sensitive topics like abortion.
While history may remember the Biden-Harris reign, a considerable share of the population won’t view it as a golden age. This controversy over their leadership effectiveness is a testament of polarized viewpoints rather than a universal acceptance of their performance.
After examining the past and imagining possible future trajectories under leadership like Biden’s and Harris’, one can’t help but question if their dogged determination to appease specific ideologies may prove detrimental to the unity, stability, and future prospects our beloved nation deserves.