Senator Chris Coons, known for his passionate speeches, urgently rushed to the Senate floor with the aim of validating the final selection of Joe Biden’s judicial nominees. This added to what was already the biggest number of nominations for a single term since the days of the Carter administration. Yet, instead of an achievement, this move paints a picture of a desperate push for influence, trying to establish a diverse, young federal judiciary, including circuit court, district court, and Supreme Court appointments. Still, the credibility of such a diverse selection is questionable at best.
Biden’s influence on the federal judiciary, according to Coons, is set to last for a generation. However, as the former Vice President was clinging onto his party’s nomination last summer, he wasn’t aware of what was brewing beneath the surface of his campaign. A concerned Democratic strategist aptly described Biden as a captain unwilling to abandon his sinking ship: ‘You own everything.’ Every lost Senate seat, every lost House seat – all perceived as his burden.
Despite these warnings, Biden stubbornly hung on. His decision to quit only came in late July, but by then, his deep-rooted unpopularity already sank the Democrats into a profound political pit. Kamala Harris, despite her best efforts, couldn’t rescue the situation or modify the public’s view. The consequence was indisputable: the Democrats faced a significant setback.
Looking back, Trump now aims to unravel many elements of Biden’s tenure. Ever-determined, the former President dedicated considerable time during his anticipated 2024 campaign to reverse Biden’s controversial policies — covering a wide gamut from transgender rights to immigration restrictions. There’s also speculation that Trump might endeavor to reverse regulatory alterations made during the twilight of Biden’s presidency.
Despite the blustering of may or may not occur from Trump, and the imminent damage he is likely to cause, Democrats stubbornly claim there exist major Biden ‘accomplishments’ that are allegedly Trump-proof. Of these, three are cited more frequently, laying claim to their projected impact on various ‘existential issues’. However, these ‘accomplishments’ deserve a closer, more critical examination.
One of the key points raised in favor of Biden is the US’s intervention against Russian invasion in Ukraine under his rule. Instead of adopting an isolationist stance, Biden’s government reportedly resisted the Russian offence, pulling together international support and forwarding billions in American aid. While this stance is colored as heroic by some, it’s important to consider the potential ramifications and possible fallout from such a heavy commitment.
Claims have been made that Biden could have been more forceful in defending Ukraine. ‘The piecemealing of sending weapon systems became a real obstacle to Ukrainian success,’ comments Michael Allen, a White House national security specialist from the Bush era. However, such speculations ignore the precariousness of escalating tension, especially given the nuclear capabilities of Russia. A gradual approach, while not ideal, suits the sensitive diplomatic balance.
While Ukraine remains independent and its citizens alive, attributing this state to Biden’s presidency is over-reaching. Such a claim casually disregards the complexities of international relations and the resilience of the Ukrainian people. The notion that Biden ‘bought time’ for Ukraine appears suspiciously self-congratulatory for his administration, neglecting the potential bleakness looming over Ukraine’s future.
The cited ‘destruction’ of the Russian army and the ‘strengthened’ NATO come across as baseless boasts. The assumption that the world is currently better because of Biden assumes that Trump could not have achieved similar or superior results. Such a premise is subtly predicated on the vilification of Trump, aiming to sideline any criticisms against Biden’s method.
Another supposed feather in Biden’s cap is the passage of his signature legislation in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act. Masking its primary focus on climate change under a misleading title (alluding to health care and tax policy adjustments), the act served mainly to pump government funds into clean energy and climate programs. Embellished with promises of nationwide prosperity, its true intentions lurk beneath the surface.
The act’s projected benefits are grand in scale, boasting of new technologies for manufacturing plants and electric vehicles. However, the exorbitant subsidizing of the green industry presents more as politically motivated expenditure, rather than a farsighted investment. Additionally, wide-sweeping tax credits stimulate private investments, heralding a risky dependency on government financial aid.
On the surface, Biden’s infrastructure drive appears commendable — upgrading roads, bridges, and railroad projects across the country. Rewinding to 2014, Biden had once made comments about the condition of LaGuardia Airport being akin to a ‘third-world country’. Yet, the significant funding allocated towards rectifying this ‘issue’ seems like a self-serving endeavor, rather than a necessity-driven project.
Whilst immense funds were directed towards the airport and countless other projects under Biden’s Infrastructure Act, terrible traffic junctions such as the one south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge reveal the questionable prioritization behind these infrastructure upgrades. While the act is advertised to foster development in the area and improve air quality, we must wait and see its actual, tangible effects.
Discussing all these supposed victory points – foreign policy, climate change, infrastructure – a crucial question arises: Do they balance out the clear defeat suffered by Harris under the spotlight? Probably not. It seems that Biden and his team are clinging onto a handful of ‘achievements’; yet, the legacy of their defeat looms large.
The ability of Biden’s changes to persist beyond his administration remains doubtful at best. Some suggest honouring Biden with named physical landmarks. However, recognition should be based on merit and widespread public approval, not determined by a small group clinging onto the remnants of a faltering administration.
In summary, critics argue that Biden’s presidency has left a lot to be desired. From questionable achievements to widely unpopular moves and failed strategies, the past four years offer many lessons. Biden’s tenure certainly leaves behind some controversial changes; whether they will stand the test of time or crumble under fresh leadership remains to be seen.