From The Wall Street Journal: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge
From The Wall Street Journal:
To adapt the White House around the needs of a diminished leader, they told visitors to keep meetings focused. Interactions with senior Democratic lawmakers and some cabinet members—including powerful secretaries such as Defense’s Lloyd Austin and Treasury’s Janet Yellen—were infrequent or grew less frequent. Some legislative leaders had a hard time getting the president’s ear at key moments, including ahead of the U.S.’s disastrous pullout from Afghanistan.
Senior advisers were often put into roles that some administration officials and lawmakers thought Biden should occupy, with people such as National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, senior counselor Steve Ricchetti and National Economic Council head Lael Brainard and her predecessor frequently in the position of being go-betweens for the president.
Press aides who compiled packages of news clips for Biden were told by senior staff to exclude negative stories about the president. The president wasn’t talking to his own pollsters as surveys showed him trailing in the 2024 race.
How long ago was the information in this story a conspiracy theory?Report
2015-16Report
What a cluster.Report
Yup. Worst part is it looks like the various architects of this scheme are so old they’re all retiring from service anyhow.Report
If this is all true, it sounds like he never should have run in 2020, because he was likely already in pretty serious decline.Report
The good news: The people who defended him were right.
Afghanistan withdrawal debacle? That wasn’t Biden’s fault!
Gas prices? That’s not Biden’s fault!
Inflation? That’s not Biden’s fault!
Losing the election? That wasn’t Biden’s fault either.Report
It’s amazing that we live in a country with two shite parties, one reduced to a proto-fascist cult of personality that’s currently being led from behind the scenes by the son of a South African emerald dealer, and the other a gerontocracy clinging to power so tightly, and at the expense of any other aim, that they ran a septuagenarian in serious cognitive decline for president, twice.Report
To be perfectly honest, I kinda see Trump as a peasants’ revolt against what you’re describing.
(As for “behind the scenes”, he seems to be doing it very publicly on Twitter.)Report
I find it hard to see a guy whose entire brand is Ultrarich leads a peasant revolt, but meh.Report
Not in a conspiratorial way, but in the back of my mind I always kinda wondered if Obama knew Joe was past peak as VP and why he would never get behind him before he was president.Report
I mean, he had to, right? They seemed pretty tight, so Obama would definitely have noticed the difference.Report
Yeah, well, that’s my supposition anyway… not that Biden had completely lost it, but that he [Obama] knew he’d passed from aging to aged. I think the steeper decline happened post election.
The 2020 election was sooo weird with Covid and the organized Tuesday consolidation where the young folk all dropped out… not out of conviction, but, well, not sure really.Report
Sure, conviction that Sanders would be a disaster and that they didn’t want to duplicate the GOP’s primary experience from 2016 from the left side of the spectrum.
But, yes, the 2020 election was very weird.Report
I believe the endorsement by Clyburn was the critical moment for the center lane of candidates. That seemed to signify Biden would get the black vote which was both where Bernie was weakest and on whose votes many of the remaining primary states would turn.
Even with this info I am not convinced it was the wrong decision. It was on Biden and those closest to him to have a sense of his cognitive status.Report
Agreed. In the clear stark light of hindsight Biden should either have not run at all in 2020 in which case likely one of the other center laners or a centrist who sat out because of Biden would have gotten the nod and thumped Trump or he should have said he wasn’t running again after the midterms.Report
I look forward to similar stories regarding the next president.Report
(stands up)
(clears throat)
“What about Ronald Reagan?”Report
What about him? His Alzheimer’s wasn’t apparent until the last year or so of his second term, and was described subsequently as mild enough to be not a big deal.
Not that it matters much since he couldn’t get reelected in the GOP nowdays.Report
We shouldn’t have cried Gorilla as early as we did.
Trump’s lost a step, is too old for office and shouldn’t be President… but my hunch is that slipping as much as Biden will be more noticable for the 1) absence of Trump from the big stage, or 2) Trump won’t GAF and it’ll be like the Biden Debate every day until, 3)
He gets knifed in the backPardoned and feted as the best President Ever as he Golfs his way to Valhalla.ReportCan’t wait for the article that finally informs us which individual(s) have actually been running the Executive Branch for the past 2+ years.Report
That would be the same as in any Administration – the career civil servants. Above that it really doesn’t matter much.Report
Somehow I don’t think that, assuming “running the Executive Branch” means “making decisions only the president should be making” and that’s how I interpret it, none of them should be. They are there for advice, expertise on subject maters, and implementing the president’s decisions, NOT determining policy.Report
White Houses of both political stripes during my almost 24 years have functioned by a President making big decisions on course setting, and leaving the navigation to the cabinet secretaries and the civil service. In many cases cabinet Secretaries do set policy in their areas of jurisdiction because that’s what they are there for when the President has no engagement one way or the other. The Transpiration Secretary might ask the President how he feels about additional funding for heavy rail transit – which is a policy issue – but the Secretary may not get a response and have to decide for themselves. Nothing – including this article – suggest even the Biden White House has deviated form this model.Report
Clearly this is how things work at the highest level.
However, the way that the Biden Administration lost control of the narrative and lost control of things like the
Inflation Reduction ActInfrastructure Spending Bill had negative effects. First, it’s not clear that we are getting a good ROI on the actual Infrastructure Investments and Second, if we are, or to whatever extent we are, the lack of oversight and ownership by Biden and his Admin is the sort of thing the President typically does.So, I think it’s fair to say that the American Public isn’t really sure (i’m not sure the Govt. is sure) whether the IRA is spending it’s $1T remit to any particular benefit other than contractors. That’s a big Biden failure that I think is likely directly attributable to his decline and inability to own, manage and communicate his signature legislation. Presidents are still important to make sure that things get done and people are held (somewhat) accountable for consuming contracting $$$$$$ without delivering. The more $ the more important it is to own and manage.Report
The IRA is a bad example – each executive branch agency has bene required since the Act was passed tor report on how they are spending the funds. Not unlike all the other reporting activities agencies are required to publish annually. The White House rolls all that up via OMB and publishes it:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/08/16/fact-sheet-two-years-in-the-inflation-reduction-act-is-lowering-costs-for-millions-of-americans-tackling-the-climate-crisis-and-creating-jobs/
Now you may not be reading about this in the media because its an example of the fact that government largely works, and that’s not a click bait worthy headline. But saying no one knows what’s going on is not true.Report
I think it’s a good example.
You can link a White House ‘rollup” of an OMB report to me and I’ll read it!
But the question is whether there are things that the President does that can’t be done by the OMB and Sr. Administration officials.
…and, making sure that the IRA is delivering and *everyone knows its delivering* is something the President does so that his party wins elections and keeps delivering.
… it also means handling scrutiny about whether the summary on a webpage is accurate and not just a thing put on a website by Sr. Administration officials.Report
And you have citable evidence this Administration hasn’t done these things as the Presidential level?Report
Would an article in the WSJ count?Report
Like the WSJ one that started this thread? The part that’s not paywalled doesn’t say what you think it does Jay, at least not to anyone who works for the Administration.Report
Since it passed, the President has made a number of speeches citing its impacts. His press secretary has given dozens of briefings. The media hasn’t chosen to emphasize this. You lay this at the White House’s feet why exactly?Report
Is Biden an effective communicator anymore?
That’s what’s funny about the ‘cite’ dodge… the Election Loss is a cite. We’re the audience and he didn’t do this well is a cite. MattY and hundreds of people publicly commenting on Biden’s diminished ability to drive his agenda is a cite.
C’mon man.Report
I’m not gonna get a pass to the people ignoring all the messaging the WH has done on this. You shouldn’t either.Report
You mean like “Cheap Fakes” or are you talking about something else?Report
So which career civil servant decided it was ok for Ukraine to expand military strikes into Russia?Report
My guess would be a senior level Defense analyst who sold the idea to her service chief who sold it to the Joint Chiefs Chair who sold it to Biden.Report
What if Biden’s cabinet did their job and removed him?
You would have had a couple years of Harris as president and then going into 2024 elections with her own record.
Do you think it would have made a difference? Well, other than being honest about Biden and doing the right thing.Report
Chris Cillizza has apologized for not covering this at the time.Report