Joe Biden, how would you rate him 18 months in?

[thenorthern]

We are now around the 18 months mark since Joe Biden become President. So far how would you rate him within those 18 months? I am aware in this country it's very hard to discuss the Biden Administration without people mentioning/comparing it to the Trump Administration. This is rather annoying as it's not a binary choice as one can dislike Biden while also disking Trump.

Leaving Trump out out it how would you rate the Biden administration so far?

Personally I think he has been rather poor, the withdrawal from Afghanistan was handled very badly and it was essentially saying our troops were fighting and dying for nothing. His handling of the war in Ukraine has been pretty poor in my opinion and the situations in Kosovo and Taiwan also worry me. Domestically he seems to be fighting a losing battle at the border and he doesn't seem to realise that he is the President so there should be less talk and more action.

Overall I think the expectation of Biden was too big. I remember Jeremy Corbyn saying Biden's victory was a "win for Progressives" but in reality Biden and Corbyn are very different politically. The main example is healthcare as Biden has made it absolutely clear he opposes NHS style healthcare. It's rather like Macron people supported him as he wasn't Marianne Le Penn but in reality he has been a disappointment.

 

[nlogax]

Pretty poor but as you say the expectations on him were yooge huge. He's been stymied by the ongoing GOP hangover after four years of Trump plus a couple of almost-turncoats in the Dem side of the house. Manchin in particular has harmed Biden's progress over the last two years although it seems he's recently just remembered he's actually not a Republican after all.

'Anyone but Trump' won the vote in 2020 but I feel Biden isn't going to win the next one. In an ideal world he should give way to someone who stands a better chance of success for the Democrat ticket but that candidate doesn't seem to exist. Whoever they'll be, they have two years to get their act together and get some money funding a run.

 

[Acfb]

Not great but not any/much worse than expectations. The Democrats look likely to narrowly hold the Senate in November (probably 51-49) but lose the House.

In many ways Obama was a greater disappointment overall relative to expectations. Biden does deserve at least some credit IMO for actually carrying out the Afghanistan withdrawal even if could have been carried out better.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pretty poor - very much showing the challenges of age in how he speaks and propped up by his civil service and party. It's quite something that Trump and Biden are the best that one of the richest and most populous countries in the world can come up with.

 

[Busaholic]

Personally I think he has been rather poor, the withdrawal from Afghanistan was handled very badly and it was essentially saying our troops were fighting and dying for nothing.

The whole process was started by Trump, who knew that Biden would find it very hard to derail it, given that the troops were all gearing up for it. Personally, I consider the U.K.'s pull-out was handled so appallingly that the the USA's pales into insignificance in comparison.

 

[MikeWM]

Awful.

The utterly botched withdrawal from Afghanistan was a particular low point. Yes, leaving was the right thing to do, but you have to do it in the right way, and it is hard to see how it could have been done any more wrong.

His rubbish response to Covid another - '100 days of masking' that have become 600 or more, combined with his (botched) vaccine mandates and his offensive and divisive comments about those choosing not to take the vaccine - 'Our patience is wearing thin' (directly channeling Goebbels there), 'a winter of severe illness and death', and so forth.

And he is directly responsible for the fact I still can't travel to the USA, a position that makes absolutely no sense whatever given what we now know about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the Covid vaccines.

 

[duncombec]

I don't normally get involved in these sorts of threads, but this one has piqued my interest.

Disappointing... eh... maybe. The US system in general doesn't help, being basically two parties - yes, there are Libertarians but too widely spread and they rarely win even a county, and the Greens, who make our Greens look big. As a result, you have a hardcore of either side, and a few in the middle. The democrats probably have the broadest "church" of all, and they cover people as far apart as the "Squad", who to some Republicans are bordering on communist, to Joe Manchin, who is a long-serving Democrat in an otherwise heavily Republican state. Kyrsten Sinema, equally "awkward to the program" is in a similar position - off the top of my head, they are both up for re-election this year, so aren't going to rock the boat.

I'm not entirely sure the Democrat program as announced was palatable to all Democrats, let alone Republicans, and has been modified accordingly (The Economist ran an article a couple of weeks ago about how much more they are likely to get done now they've realised the "far left" is going to take a while to reach, and small gains in the name of good are better than no gains whilst seeking perfection). Ditto comments on Kamala Harris - she got the job of getting the most difficult parts of a difficult agenda through Congress - frankly, it would be a minor miracle if she had achieved anything other than "barely acceptable" given the job she was given.

Personally, I blame the system rather than the person. Unlike the UK, where the Civil service is the civil service and they try to at least be neutral, a lot of US posts are political appointments or direct votes - have any of you seen a US voting form and the offices they vote for? We'd think it ludicrous to have the President of the Country (or an MP, in our case) on the same form as the board of governors for the local school and the parks superintendent... not to mention the returning officer for the next ballot! Let's also not forget that the US is the only country in the world, I understand, to use an Electoral College for all levels of federal government and head of state under universal suffrage. Whilst others use it for heads of state (e.g. German president), I believe the only other state that comes close to electing someone with the same degree of power is the Vatican City!

Unfortunately, the system is polarised. Large numbers of Democrats think that anyone who votes Republican is a backwater hick (I asked colleagues, ranting about how all Republicans are awful, whether they'd vote for a Democrat candidate as bad as Trump. They answered that they didn't think the Democrats would choose someone like that to start with), whilst there are large parts of "flyover country" for whom the statement is more "what have the Democrats ever done for us?". It's a bit like you'll struggle to get a Labour MP in leafy Cheshire - they aren't horrible people per se, they just don't identify with the politics. Blaming Joe Biden for high fuel prices... really? If it was a Republican president in power, they'd be blaming something else.

Overall, and much waffle later - disappointing, but only because the Democrats set themselves up for that to be the case. I think a lot of "reasonable" people, at home and abroad, have treated this very much as an "anyone but Trump, please let him not come back in four years time, and try and find some sanity in the meantime" presidency.

 

[AlterEgo]

It’s like watching Weekend at Bernie’s. 2/10, he’d be a 1 other than the fact he isn’t Trump.

 

[thenorthern]

I don't normally get involved in these sorts of threads, but this one has piqued my interest.

Disappointing... eh... maybe. The US system in general doesn't help, being basically two parties - yes, there are Libertarians but too widely spread and they rarely win even a county, and the Greens, who make our Greens look big. As a result, you have a hardcore of either side, and a few in the middle. The democrats probably have the broadest "church" of all, and they cover people as far apart as the "Squad", who to some Republicans are bordering on communist, to Joe Manchin, who is a long-serving Democrat in an otherwise heavily Republican state. Kyrsten Sinema, equally "awkward to the program" is in a similar position - off the top of my head, they are both up for re-election this year, so aren't going to rock the boat.

I'm not entirely sure the Democrat program as announced was palatable to all Democrats, let alone Republicans, and has been modified accordingly (The Economist ran an article a couple of weeks ago about how much more they are likely to get done now they've realised the "far left" is going to take a while to reach, and small gains in the name of good are better than no gains whilst seeking perfection). Ditto comments on Kamala Harris - she got the job of getting the most difficult parts of a difficult agenda through Congress - frankly, it would be a minor miracle if she had achieved anything other than "barely acceptable" given the job she was given.

Personally, I blame the system rather than the person. Unlike the UK, where the Civil service is the civil service and they try to at least be neutral, a lot of US posts are political appointments or direct votes - have any of you seen a US voting form and the offices they vote for? We'd think it ludicrous to have the President of the Country (or an MP, in our case) on the same form as the board of governors for the local school and the parks superintendent... not to mention the returning officer for the next ballot! Let's also not forget that the US is the only country in the world, I understand, to use an Electoral College for all levels of federal government and head of state under universal suffrage. Whilst others use it for heads of state (e.g. German president), I believe the only other state that comes close to electing someone with the same degree of power is the Vatican City!

Unfortunately, the system is polarised. Large numbers of Democrats think that anyone who votes Republican is a backwater hick (I asked colleagues, ranting about how all Republicans are awful, whether they'd vote for a Democrat candidate as bad as Trump. They answered that they didn't think the Democrats would choose someone like that to start with), whilst there are large parts of "flyover country" for whom the statement is more "what have the Democrats ever done for us?". It's a bit like you'll struggle to get a Labour MP in leafy Cheshire - they aren't horrible people per se, they just don't identify with the politics. Blaming Joe Biden for high fuel prices... really? If it was a Republican president in power, they'd be blaming something else.

Overall, and much waffle later - disappointing, but only because the Democrats set themselves up for that to be the case. I think a lot of "reasonable" people, at home and abroad, have treated this very much as an "anyone but Trump, please let him not come back in four years time, and try and find some sanity in the meantime" presidency.

The Bernie Sanders campaign didn't help. Biden has always opposed NHS style healthcare but Bernie on the other hand supported it. Amongst some Bernie supporters there was a feeling that Biden would change his mind on the issue but in reality he was never going to. Also Biden said he would "look at" student debt which is politician talk for "I am not going to do anything", Bernie supporters took that to mean he was going to erase student debt.

This has created the problem for Biden where the Republicans don't like him because he is a Democrat (which is not really a surprise) but at the same time many on the left of the Democrats don't like him as he isn't doing what they thought he would. As I say the expectation was too great.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It’s like watching Weekend at Bernie’s. 2/10, he’d be a 1 other than the fact he isn’t Trump.

This. I've heard several commentators from both sides of the aisle question whether keeping him in office would qualify as elder abuse... only half-jokingly.

 

[DarloRich]

A sensible mature adult who doesn't seem to be a criminal, corrupt or determined to encourage a putsch to create an hereditary presidency for life in his favour.

 

[TwoYellas]

An empty vessel. Had to be pushed for the Green New Deal by The Sunrise Movement who, aided by congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, carried out a sit in in Pelosi's office.

The real heroes are far away from the spotlights. As illustrated in Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States'.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A sensible mature adult who doesn't seem to be a criminal, corrupt or determined to encourage a putsch to create an hereditary presidency for life in his favour.

Which is more than can be said for his son.

Not sure about the "sensible" part either, but compared to No.45 before him anyone would seem sensible in comparison. If he'd been following anyone other than Trump I think his approval ratings would be even lower. He hasn't quite lived up to his old "Amtrak Joe" nickname either, by appointing the rather dubious Pete Buttigieg as Transport Secretary.

 

[nlogax]

by appointing the rather dubious Pete Buttigieg as Transport Secretary.

Why 'dubious'? Buttigieg appears to be one of the more competent members of Biden's cabinet.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why 'dubious'? Buttigieg appears to be one of the more competent members of Biden's cabinet.

There was the controversy that derailed his own presidential bid, over his response to race relations issues while he was mayor of South Bend, Indiana. South Bend was also a city heavily dependent on the Auto industry, so it's no surprise he hasn't been particularly favourable to public transit.

 

[duncombec]

The whole process was started by Trump, who knew that Biden would find it very hard to derail it, given that the troops were all gearing up for it. [...]

Exactly this - didn't Trump also set the timetable? Not to exonerate Biden entirely, but it did smack slightly of having his shoelaces tied together and then told to run.

The Bernie Sanders campaign didn't help. Biden has always opposed NHS style healthcare but Bernie on the other hand supported it. Amongst some Bernie supporters there was a feeling that Biden would change his mind on the issue but in reality he was never going to. Also Biden said he would "look at" student debt which is politician talk for "I am not going to do anything", Bernie supporters took that to mean he was going to erase student debt.

"Socialized Healthcare" is as toxic in the US (especially for people with high quality insurance) as "Uncontrolled migration" is here (especially in parts of the country that aren't on the south cpast or 'deprived cities'): it's a one-way ticket to disappointment. I'm generally given the picture that the NHS only really makes it's way onto the US news when it's bad - the sort of "my mother spent 12 hours on a trolley in a corridor with 15 ambulances waiting to drop off patients and nobody even offered her a cup of tea" type stories, or yesterday's stories about dentist access, rather than anything even slightly positive - they won't be getting "found something a bit suspicious and was being treated in days". There are also some who, because of the association of health insurance with work, consider the lack of insurance to be the sign of laziness, bad choices, etc., and don't see why their taxes should be spent on 'supporting the idle'. It's very, very complex, and again, the "hard left" are going to have to be satisfied with incremental gains rather than a big bang, and certainly nothing by executive order.

There was the controversy that derailed his own presidential bid, over his response to race relations issues while he was mayor of South Bend, Indiana. South Bend was also a city heavily dependent on the Auto industry, so it's no surprise he hasn't been particularly favourable to public transit.

In fairness, though, isn't it his job to consider all forms of transportation, not just public transit? Am I getting mixed up with Canada by thinking a lot of American's physical "railroad" is owned by Private companies, and the state pays track access? If so, it hardly seems a Republican-friendly idea to try and "nationalise" such things!

 

[Busaholic]

A sensible mature adult who doesn't seem to be a criminal, corrupt or determined to encourage a putsch to create an hereditary presidency for life in his favour.

Precisely.

 

[Strathclyder]

Middling to average, so roughly where I set my expectations after the euphoria of Trump being booted out and denied a second term had worn off.

Or just see @DarloRich's answer for my immensely broad answer to this question.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In fairness, though, isn't it his job to consider all forms of transportation, not just public transit? Am I getting mixed up with Canada by thinking a lot of American's physical "railroad" is owned by Private companies, and the state pays track access? If so, it hardly seems a Republican-friendly idea to try and "nationalise" such things!

On your first point, yes it is, much like most countries including the UK's Department for Transport. However dependency on road transport is a particular issue in the US, given the environmental impact it has.
On the second point, indeed much of the railway infrastructure is owned by the big privately owned Class 1 freight railroads, just as it was in GB prior to 1948. However there are ways of solving that issue one way or another, it just requires $$$.

Those issues can't be solved quickly, but they can be solved.

 

[Sm5]

Compared to the Reagan, Bushes, Clinton, Obama and Trump… he’s quite mild.

 

[Bevan Price]

I have little confidence in the entire US political system - a lot of it seems morally corrupt.
Lots of politicians seem to be sponsored (i.e. "bought") by industries and/or lobby groups, and most will never vote for anything considered contrary to the self-interests of their sponsors. (e,g. the gun industry, the oil industry, the insurance industry, etc.). With such problems, any potential reformers are always going to be limited in what they can achieve - and Biden seems no better or worse than many who have preceded him.

 

[thenorthern]

Exactly this - didn't Trump also set the timetable? Not to exonerate Biden entirely, but it did smack slightly of having his shoelaces tied together and then told to run.


"Socialized Healthcare" is as toxic in the US (especially for people with high quality insurance) as "Uncontrolled migration" is here (especially in parts of the country that aren't on the south cpast or 'deprived cities'): it's a one-way ticket to disappointment. I'm generally given the picture that the NHS only really makes it's way onto the US news when it's bad - the sort of "my mother spent 12 hours on a trolley in a corridor with 15 ambulances waiting to drop off patients and nobody even offered her a cup of tea" type stories, or yesterday's stories about dentist access, rather than anything even slightly positive - they won't be getting "found something a bit suspicious and was being treated in days". There are also some who, because of the association of health insurance with work, consider the lack of insurance to be the sign of laziness, bad choices, etc., and don't see why their taxes should be spent on 'supporting the idle'. It's very, very complex, and again, the "hard left" are going to have to be satisfied with incremental gains rather than a big bang, and certainly nothing by executive order.


In fairness, though, isn't it his job to consider all forms of transportation, not just public transit? Am I getting mixed up with Canada by thinking a lot of American's physical "railroad" is owned by Private companies, and the state pays track access? If so, it hardly seems a Republican-friendly idea to try and "nationalise" such things!

With Healthcare in the US the cost of providing NHS style healthcare for everyone would be $4 Trillion a year (about £3.3 trillion) which would be unaffordable without massive tax rises. That is the main reason that Biden is against it.

 

[joebassman]

"Socialized Healthcare" is as toxic in the US (especially for people with high quality insurance) as "Uncontrolled migration" is here (especially in parts of the country that aren't on the south cpast or 'deprived cities'): it's a one-way ticket to disappointment. I'm generally given the picture that the NHS only really makes it's way onto the US news when it's bad - the sort of "my mother spent 12 hours on a trolley in a corridor with 15 ambulances waiting to drop off patients and nobody even offered her a cup of tea" type stories, or yesterday's stories about dentist access, rather than anything even slightly positive - they won't be getting "found something a bit suspicious and was being treated in days". There are also some who, because of the association of health insurance with work, consider the lack of insurance to be the sign of laziness, bad choices, etc., and don't see why their taxes should be spent on 'supporting the idle'. It's very, very complex, and again, the "hard left" are going to have to be satisfied with incremental gains rather than a big bang, and certainly nothing by executive order.

And yet doesn't the US have one of the highest GDP per capita spend on health services in the western world plus one of the worst records for positive outcomes for patients?

Added to the fact that the pharma compqnies charge something like 100-200% + for the same drug as their European counterparts.

I never understood the death panel argument against a NHS there. Surely that is what insurance panels are. I knew someone who lived out there and she said that the insirance will only oay out once for a condition and will then no longer cover that condition.

I also have relatives out there in their 70s and they are going to have to work until they drop to pay the $2k a month premium.

 

[DarloRich]

Which is more than can be said for his son.

Perhaps - but Biden doesn't seem to be actively encouraging and supporting ( perhaps even facilitating) the corruption of his family. Biden doesn't seem to have appointed members of his family as unofficial spokesmen and consigliere. Trump on the other hand.................

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perhaps - but Biden doesn't seem to be actively encouraging and supporting ( perhaps even facilitating) the corruption of his family. Biden doesn't seem to have appointed members of his family as unofficial spokesmen and consigliere. Trump on the other hand.................

Biden junior so far seems to be well protected by his dad's current occupation... no doubt if the same information we have about Hunter applied to one of the Trump kids, they'd be similarly protected.

Apart from Tiffany of course. Donald Senior would probably throw her under the bus faster than you can say "bigly".

 

[brad465]

Biden has signed The Inflation Reduction Act into law, and Obama decided to use the quote Biden said in Obama's ear when passing Obamacare 12 years ago:

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1559669129535176710

This is a BFD.

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1559661280130224128

The Inflation Reduction Act is now law. Giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. Ensuring wealthy corporations pay their fair share in taxes. And taking the biggest step forward on climate in our history.

 

[JohnMcL7]

With Healthcare in the US the cost of providing NHS style healthcare for everyone would be $4 Trillion a year (about £3.3 trillion) which would be unaffordable without massive tax rises. That is the main reason that Biden is against it.

It's the other way round, it would be much, much cheaper for the US to provide NHS style healthcare. Currently the US has some of the highest spending per person yet they have terrible medical coverage with large amounts of people not having access to proper healthcare, it's not wonder so many Americans incorrectly think the US can't afford proper medical coverage because they don't realise how much they're being ripped off for medical costs.

 

[Springs Branch]

Leaving Trump out out it how would you rate the Biden administration so far?

Overall I think the expectation of Biden was too big.

When Biden was inaugurated, I remember hearing some commentator say that Biden would only be acting as a figurehead for the incoming administration, that the real power behind the throne would be the Vice President, Kamala Harris and there would gradually be some kind of transition to the US's first "woman of colour" President.

I don't follow US politics too closely any more, but I can't say I've seen any evidence of this, and Harris seems to be very much in the background.

Currently the US has some of the highest spending per person yet they have terrible medical coverage with large amounts of people not having access to proper healthcare, it's not wonder so many Americans incorrectly think the US can't afford proper medical coverage because they don't realise how much they're being ripped off for medical costs.

I lived in the US for a number of years and, in my personal experience, the medical care I received there was the most thorough and prompt I've ever had, after living in multiple countries around the world.

The provisos to this are (1) I worked in high-level, corporate jobs where first-class health insurance was a key part of my 'compensation' and one of the first things head-hunters would dangle in front of you, and (2) I didn't have any major medical problems whilst living in the US. Apart from a few trivial deductibles, my direct health care and prescription costs were zero.

But I wasn't typical and didn't need to look too far down the food chain to see some of my colleagues and acquaintances getting into all sorts of trouble with health care providers and - worst of all - the insurance companies.

One colleague in the C-Suite was diagnosed with a heart condition and needed quite prompt surgery. He explained, the first task was to identify the best hospital and surgeon to perform the procedure. Immediately after this was sorted, job no. 2 was find a specialist attorney to represent him in the upcoming fight with the medical insurance company. Because you just knew there would be a battle.

Perhaps this is part of reason for being so accepting of the status quo - presumably the corporate and political elite, and the very wealthy at the top of the pyramid, all have similar excellent health plans like I did. Either they're somehow blind to the problems of the majority, or it's an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. After all, the Great American Myth is that anyone can 'make it' if they're smart enough, or work hard enough, and there's a widespread dread of 'socialism'.

 

[JamesT]

Exactly this - didn't Trump also set the timetable? Not to exonerate Biden entirely, but it did smack slightly of having his shoelaces tied together and then told to run.

The Trump deal set a withdrawal date of 1st May 2021. Biden postponed that to 11th September, then in July changed it to 31st August. So he appeared to have some control over the timetable, though the panic at the airport at the end suggests some deficiencies in the planning.

 

[thenorthern]

It's the other way round, it would be much, much cheaper for the US to provide NHS style healthcare. Currently the US has some of the highest spending per person yet they have terrible medical coverage with large amounts of people not having access to proper healthcare, it's not wonder so many Americans incorrectly think the US can't afford proper medical coverage because they don't realise how much they're being ripped off for medical costs.

Sort of most Americans are accustomed to much greater healthcare coverage than what the NHS provides.