During his diminishing days as president, Joe Biden was seen attempting to dissuade his successor, the President-elect Donald Trump, from implementing tariff threats on Mexico and Canada. Addressing the circumstances from Nantucket, Massachusetts, where he was spending Thanksgiving, Biden referred to these planned tariffs as ‘counterproductive’. An intriguing choice of words, considering the overall potential economic consequences of such actions.
Nevertheless, the specious argument he made was that the implementation of such tariffs could destabilize relationships with these neighboring countries. His viewpoint seems to be deeply rooted in the belief that at the close quarters of the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, the United States should be more trepidatious about agitating its ‘allies’, Mexico and Canada. Quite a simplistic view, if you ask me.
The President-elect Trump had announced tariff threats against Mexico and Canada earlier that week. He justified the tariffs in the light of a ‘Caravan’ from Mexico, comprising thousands of people who seemed, in his words, ‘unstoppable in their quest’, due to the open border status. While such concerns are valid and pressing, Biden, however, appears to lack understanding of this national security issue.
As Trump explicitly expressed, the 25% planned tariffs on all products entering the United States are also seen as a means to control the ‘ridiculous open borders’. And yet, Biden, rather puzzlingly, perceives such necessary actions as unproductive. Yet again, his argument stands on rather shaky ground.
Trump had emphasized that the Tariff would be effective until a halt could be brought on the influx of drugs, especially Fentanyl, and illegal aliens. Additionally, he stated that Mexico and Canada, rightfully having the power to resolve this extant issue, should be held accountable for their actions. Despite this articulate reasoning, Biden dismisses the stances as detrimental.
Interestingly enough, Biden had himself imposed tariffs against Chinese products during his stint in the presidency. These tariffs were applied to a myriad of supplies including medical tools, semiconductors and lithium-ion batteries. This contradiction in policies and actions raises valid questions about Biden’s firmness in decision-making.
Further, Biden’s principal economic advisor criticised Trump’s planned tariffs in the very same week. This advisor’s take was that imposing sweeping tariffs across the board can be disruptive. However, it seems more a case of political posturing, given Biden’s own history of tariff increase against China.
The advisor advocated for sheltering manufacturers via the protection of credits in historical investment laws legislated by the Biden administration, rather than inducing an era of ‘chaos and price increases’. There seems to be an ironic refusal to acknowledge that they, too, imposed similar tariffs during their term of administration.
In the midst of this, Biden was questioned about the status of America’s association with China. His response indicated a supposedly stable connection with the global heavyweight, with even a hotline established between him and President Xi. A misleading deflection attention from real concerns about our nation’s relationship with China, it seems.
Biden further expressed that he is ‘confident’ about President Xi not wanting to commit an error. He even absurdly claimed it as one of his sincere beliefs. This overconfidence about a foreign leader’s intentions seem dangerously naive and warrants serious doubt about his judgement.
Biden mentioned he had communicated with three Americans who were freed from China during a prisoner exchange. His remark of being ‘really happy they are home’ starkly contradicts with the harsh realities faced by those held captive. It appears to have a slight disconnect with the serious urgency of such international issues.
Moreover, he discussed the forthcoming change of administration to Trump. In a show of typical political tact, he stated his desire for a smooth transition while brushing aside speculations about what Trump ‘may do or may not do’. The air was filled with an unnecessary and pre-emptive critique of his successor’s potential actions.
He hints at a potential internal reckoning for Trump, indicating it ‘remains to be seen’. The statement, a veiled attempt at undermining confidence in Trump’s administration, provides little value-add to the actual challenges being discussed.
To conclude his puzzling message, Biden disclosed being appreciative of his family, the peaceful transition of presidency, and the progress made in the Middle East, in particular Lebanon. It was not surprising to see Biden shying away from any recognition of the upcoming administration’s potential.
While he may be grateful for these aspects, it is questionable whether his gratitude translates into real world action. Biden’s reluctance to appreciate the efforts of his successors, their understanding of national security issues, and their proactive approach in addressing these problems paints a rather hazy picture of his own stance.
Thus, it becomes evident that Biden’s perspective on pivotal national and international matters is questionable. His disregard for the potential strengths of the incoming administration clearly illustrates a partisan mindset, possibly undermining the very foundations of democratic governance. It remains to be seen whether his successor can rise above such baseless criticism to defend national interests effectively.