The first public debate between the two main contenders for the United States Presidency held last week turned out to be a rude shock to one political camp and a pleasant surprise to the other. Democratic Party seniors and grassroots supporters alike are reeling over the completely un-expected physical and mental frailty displayed by incumbent President Joe Biden.
And notoriously rambunctious former President Donald Trump seemed visibly bemused in the live telecast at the constantly feeble responses by Biden. After all, Trump had been geared up by his handlers to face a barrage of hard rational points by a sitting President wellknown for his mastery of policy and clinical strategizing.
But to the utter dismay of his loyal voters, campaign managers and, party’s leaders, Biden could barely stagger on to the debate platform. He walked stiffly and slowly on stage. And, at the podium, in full view of his American and global audience, the President remained rigid, almost like an inanimate robot (like C-3PO, the humanoid robot of the ‘Star Wars’ films).
Some pro-Biden commentators in TV discussions following the debate seemed close to tears, or, at least visibly sombre, in shock over this first key public test for the aged Presidential contender. Commentators could not recall similar levels of candidate fragility and incoherence in any previous election period. The only comparable fragility displayed by US leaders was at the end of their terms, especially after tenures full of stressful political controversy, as with Richard Nixon of Watergate infamy.
But the Democratic Party hierarchy does not seem to be seriously moving toward any replacement of Biden with a contender who is younger and mentally agile although the Party does have such aspirants currently in the field. Party leaders are firmly ruling out any such possibility.
This inaction on a ‘Plan B’ hints at strong political influences or other specific factors. One possible foreign policy factor is the determination to deploy Biden‘s uniquely fanatical dedication to defending a rampant Israel embroiled in an increasingly desperate war. Biden is a self-declared ‘Zionist’.
Unshakeable
Biden is easily (and shamelessly) ready to soft-pedal on Ukraine in consonance with his party colleagues and also with his Opposition Republican colleagues, But he has been unshakeable (to many critics, quite fundamentalist) in his zealous support for Israel in the face of not only the Israeli regime’s own,obviously clumsy, brinkmanship, but also the overwhelming global opinion against the ongoing genocide.
Even the childishly bellicose Donald Trump has publicly leaned in favour of a quick de-escalation of the Palestinian conflict, but not Biden. Not even after he became labelled ‘Genocide Joe’ by possibly millions in his own country.
Foreign observers are naturally more concerned about the geopolitical ramifications of the US presidency. But to American society, as in any other country, it is the domestic ramifications that are paramount.
Despite his age, all opinion polls indicate that Biden is the best choice for his party in terms of popular electability. But equally important for the Democratic Party and all the powerful interest groups behind it, is his most succesful policy mix of managing economic growth while systematically ensuring a socio-economic safety net for the American poor and socially disadvantaged.
Those interest groups range from the most powerful sections of the American capitalist class, to the trade unions representing an increasingly impoverished industrial working class and lower rungs of white-collar professionals, to the elite intelligentsia, to most of the ethnic and other socio-cultural minorities (such as Third Gender) and, to environmental groups.
Internationally, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden do not represent radically different foreign policies. This is mainly because foreign policy is largely decided not by the individual in the White House but by the various specialised branches of the Administration (the cabinet and ministries, such as State Department, CIA) on one side and, the legislatures of the US Congress, on the other. Also highly influential is the US “military-industrial complex” – that tightly intertwined system of (yet) the world’s largest, most sophisticated, armed forces together with an equally massive, military equipment manufacturing industry, again, the world’s biggest and richest.
As has been noted in these columns previously, the profit-oriented military industries of the capitalist market economies naturallywant to constantly manufacture and sell their products. The myriad economic sectors within the military industries all combine to produce goods and services in accordance with market needs.
Once, for example, a 155 mm howitzer gun is designed and produced, its buyers would then want ammunitions for it and, spare parts, and, road transporters and, ancillary command- and-control technology and equipment. Likewise, with a multi-purpose naval frigate or, with the latest version assault rifle or, billion-dollar multi-role combat aircraft.
Thus, wars and tensions are useful for a country’s economy (not so much the country suffering the war but other states) – as the Australian Government recently had to argue after a British newspaper exposed the existence of an Israeli arms industry package for Victoria state.
Military industry profits aside, the US is deeply engaged in military operations across the world primarily to retain and enforce its vast economic empire of export markets, strategic material supply networks, distant sources of vital raw materials and, the sustaining of a network of allied states encircling the globe.There are large and small American military bases or minor installations in 165 countries worldwide from among a total of 192 states.
Mal-performance
The person elected to serve in the White House must possess capacity to meet all these needs and interests both local and foreign. ‘Competence’ is paramount and ‘performance’ is closely scrutinised. Mal-performance is immediately noted and assessed, such as in a high-profile TV debate.
Even if this mal-performance by the rival candidate is surely heartening, the opposition Republican Partyis not entirely rejoicing. The Republican Party has longbeen tied up – and is still tied up – in knots over its own candidate, precisely on the issue of governance ‘competence’.
“Chaotic” is the word most used to describe Trump’s first presidency. It is used by the US bureaucracy, Trump’s own chosen – and then summarily fired – Cabinet members and other top officers, the entire military command, the business leaders, and, tragically (for US imperial stature), by the leaders and diplomats of America’s allies.
The world still remembers that the US is the only state in the world and in human history that actually waged nuclear war and did so against well-identified civilian targets – the cities of Hiroshima and Nagaissuesaki. Thus, America’s own geopolitical record certainly does not reassure those who worry over ‘competence’ in Washington.It is as much an institutional problematic as it is an issue of the calibre of the individual in the White House.
The competence of this super-power to manage its own imperial domain does not compare well with the management record of many other previous empires. During ancient Rome’s several centuries of ‘Pax Romana’, in the middle period of that thousand-year empire, the then biggest empire in history (until Genghis Khan’s vast Mongolian empire) did ensure stability over a vast, relatively quiet, expanse of territory and ocean.
It is quite paradoxical that neither major political party – probably the richest parties in the world – of the world’s richest, most powerful State, cannot find Presidential candidates other than a Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
In addition to the problem of finding intellectually capable and young and fit presidential candidates, the United States of America is also now showing alarming institutional deficiency. Recent geopolitics – over at least two decades – indicate a clumsiness and incompetence of institutions of the US state.
In terms of its management of empire, Washington has recently shown poor capacity to ensure rational, balanced, international governance, a governance that would ensure a stable world.
Some analysts thought the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Senior and Junior, too aggressively imperialistic and warlike in their times.But what did Democrat Barak Obama come to the White House and do – after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
Somalia, already ravaged under the Bushes and Clinton, became an even more ignored, failed state under Obama, even as the first Black President proceeded to totally destroy the stable and relatively socially progressive state of Libya (a secular, anti-fundamentalist society) and a similarly stable, secularist – if not so affluent – Syria. And, Afghanistan?
Decades after first lavishly helping and, later, expensively fighting, the Taliban, the West, led by the US, has had to abandon that hapless nation. Today, Afghanistan is impoverished, unstable.
Decay
All these are sad cases of a gross mismanagement of that “rules-based order” which is Washington’s codeword for its worldwide empire and related spheres of influence.
As long as the world was locked in an inactive but hostile confrontation between the Capitalist and Socialist blocs during the Cold War, the world system was a relatively orderly arrangement of geopolitics with only a few isolated proxy wars in the peripheries. This was the outcome of ‘deterrent’, a factor deriving from the reality of mutually assured destruction (MAD), that is, the “nuclear stand-off”.
But the failure of the Soviet Union, saw the end of the Cold War and the pre-eminence of the Western bloc, essentially the dominance of a single super-power, but it is a superpower that suffers from an institutional and human resource decay reminiscent of declining Rome.
Those outside America just might prefer the candidate who is likely to do the least damage to the world system – whatever he may do to his own country. After all, the victims of, and those oppressed by, imperialism and domination always live for an end to that suffering and subjugation.
