The thing is - the UK’s royal family once really did handle the actual state functions as well. To the extent it’s ceremonial now, there’s a contingent of people wondering if they need the monarchy part of the whole business at all.
And technically Charles is also King of Canada and King of Australia. Yet, he hardly serves any ceremonial purposes for them.
It’s not a matter of American exceptionalism. Other countries that have adopted a parliamentary system that did not start with a strong monarchy did not retain their monarchies or institute ceremonial equivalents. It would actually be a case of American exceptionalism to create such a position since nobody else has done so. Those positions predated the democracy portion of their current governments by centuries.
I found myself agreeing with ECP as well in terms of what he said, just coming to a different conclusion as well. I think Biden has done a masterful job at steadying the boat. It’s just that I think the current moment in history calls for a POTUS to rock the boat in a good way, like FDR or LBJ, rather than a don’t rock the boat POTUS like Clinton or Obama.
Many of you are getting very far afield of the topic. Let’s please stick with discussing Joe Biden’s job performance. Anything else is a hijack and belongs elsewhere. Thanks.
I’m not sure what it is we’re being asked to avoid. Are you saying comparisons of Biden with other Presidents are off topic? It seems difficult to judge whether or not Biden is doing a good job without trying to establish what level of performance qualifies as good.
No, I meant things that are really off topic, such as discussion of having a royal family, a prime minister or other figureheads in lieu of or in addition to a president. None of this is germane to the topic at hand.
No problem discussing Biden’s performance as it stacks up to other presidents.
I’m afraid he has not been so good at foreign policy because of failing to sufficiently prepare.for the possibility – I’d say likelihood – that the next President will be some kind of isolationist.
2/3 of South Koreans say they want nuclear weapons. Estimates are that their highly responsible government could build several in 1 - 3 years if it wasn’t for U.S. opposition. We see what happened to Ukraine due to not having them. Trump has no credibility in terms of shielding Seoul from Pyongyang, and Biden is doing nothing to prepare for this. That’s what history is liable to judge him on.
There are several ways humanity could luck out here, in which case historians won’t care about my concerns. But if Biden winds up being seen, decades from now, as a mediocre president, it will be because he didn’t properly prep for Trump term 2.
EDIT: This documents the South Korean public’s view:
I could see how a balance of nuclear arms in Korea makes reasonable sense since it’s going to be a long time before N. Korea changes their weapon priority or declares peace with S. Korea. But I’m a hearts-and-flowers guy-it’s enough to make you sick.
So you’re suggesting the Biden should do a lot of things now that are not in the USA’s best interest now, just in case some future president might do other stuff that’s even less in the USA’s best interests then?
Got it. That’s some real Elon Musk 23D chess you’ve got going on.
I didn’t say “a lot of things”. And I don’t see how South Korea having a credible deterrent is not in the U.S. national interest. I think that one item is the biggie where Biden could make a difference in terms of making Trump 2 less risky. It might even help with Taiwan by giving Xi a bit more to worry about when it comes to deciding yes or no on military adventurism.
If you are an old-school progressive saying that nuclear non-proliferation is always a good idea, I would look more at specifics than generalities. I don’t think it’s outrageous to suggest we would be in a safer place if Ukraine had kept a small nuclear arsenal when separating from the USSR.
I can barely guess what you are getting at here, and my guess would probably be wrong.
I don’t think adding people to the nuclear club is a good idea. South Korea may be a stable ally now, but can you guarantee that for all time? I think Biden’s foreign policy is so-so. He’s not doing enough to rectify the gaps Trump left, and, like most American politicians, he’s more concerned with the domestic, since most Americans don’t seem to care what happens beyond the borders.
Obviously, Biden is going to be ranked higher than Trump by virtually all historians having a liberal/democratic perspective. But the thread is supposed to be about whether Biden is “really good.” I think making it hard for your good policies to be reversed is a big differentiator between acceptable and “really good”.
We won’t know if Biden was “really good” until there is some historical perspective, so we are judging him on what turns out to be most important in the long term. It could be that, in the long terms, a right/left issue of today (global warming?) will look to have been the biggest factor in whether Biden was “really good.” But maybe not. Maybe it will be a question of war and peace, and I was trying to think of the one where Biden may have some control.
Given the dreadfully consistent Trump-a-bit-ahead-of Biden poling averages, and DJT’s adulation of dictators, I can’t even guarantee it for two years.
Or maybe even two hours. We today have no NATO-like clear mutual defense treaty with South Korea.
I also can’t guarantee it for any current nuclear weapons state, including Britain and France — both of which are more stable democracies than the U.S.
In the ultimate long-run, we are all dead. In the meanwhile, international relations is complicated.
North Korea needs to be deterred. And South Korea can do this much more plausibly than the U.S. (A question sometimes asked is whether a U.S. president would really risk Los Angeles for Seoul. Biden, maybe. Trump, no.)
So I would look at specific situations with as much care as possible.
I totally can see being against all nuclear proliferation early in the nuclear age. But it’s looking like nuclear states are generally less likely to go to war with each other. I was afraid of India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons, but so far, so good. And the sanctions we put on those two countries, when they became nuclear weapons states, did nothing good. A really good president should adjust to this realty.
Biden
LBJ
Eisenhower
Clinton
Obama
JFK
Carter
Bush Sr.
Ford
Nixon
Reagan
Bush Jr.
Dump
That in the consensus of historians, the best president, Lincoln, was preceded and followed by the two worst, Buchanan and A. Johnson, gives a sense of whiplash. That Dump was succeeded by Biden is a whiplash of similar proportions.
Biden is going to be ranked higher than Trump by any fair assessment, regardless of politics. Trump didn’t become the worse because he had the worst policies. He gets that honor by being incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, disguising, and ineffective. His America Last foreign policy is going to hurt his ranking too.