Last week’s presidential debate suddenly made the 2024 voting choice uglier and riskier. As I watched the rambling exchange of barbs and program promises, my anxiety about our democracy soared. Which of the two flawed candidates would best preserve our free system of government? It was hard enough listening for relative fragments of truth in their claims and counter-claims. But the spectacle of Trump’s preening denials pitted against Biden’s cringeworthy infirmity told me this electoral campaign has now deteriorated into something horrifying. The audition for the nation’s chief executive has become a medieval contest for our democracy’s leadership: less about persuasion and more about physical vitality.
Trial by Combat
When the French Normans conquered England (1066 AD), they introduced the practice of trial by combat (or “wager of battle”) to settle disputes. For example, if ownership about a plot of land was contested in the English countryside, the matter could be decided by armed duel between the disputants. Those too weak to wield a weapon were entitled to enlist a strong champion for their cause—and the other side then did the same, to even the odds. The fights were brutal, as advocates and other spectators from the shire cheered for their chosen champions. “Justice” was found when the stronger champion killed or disabled the other, or when the bloodied loser begged for the beating to stop.
Justice Evolves
Trial by combat remained in force for hundreds of years. It began to diminish when dispute resolution shifted to an alternative during the 12-13th centuries: judgment by panels of peer members of the local community. In brief, justice was now decided not “by injury” but rather “in jury.” With the development of Common Law, persuasion rather than violence became the way to resolve grievances. The change was a critical step in the development of modern democracy: persuasion, not violence, for making decisions.
The Lesser Evil for the Greater Good
But after last week’s debate, the perceived ability of the candidates to project power has become more important than verbal content. For many viewers of the event, Joe Biden’s halting and often confused comments against Trump’s smoother and confident demeanor shifted the contest to questions over who was the stronger and more physically able leader. Policy matters for democracy—and fact-checking confirmed that much of what Trump said or promised was completely unmoored from fact. Up on the stage he objectively lied many times, veering from the truth way beyond Biden’s less frequent errors and embellishments. But when I think about which man would be more capable and resilient in a crisis, or facing off against tough, ruthless opponents on the world stage, it’s hard to be enthusiastic about the current Democratic candidate.
Crisis may be closer than we think. History also teaches us about the dangers of security risk: states divided among themselves, in political chaos, or only weakly-led for defense become much more vulnerable to attack. During the early Middle Ages, England was invaded and sacked multiple times by Vikings who exploited Anglo- Saxon fragmentation. Biden’s weak showing and the subsequent division among Democrats about his abilities has only added to the disarray of our already fractious politics. Is the quivering status quo now tempting global adversaries towards offensive opportunities? How nimbly and forcefully would America be able to respond right now: if China moves on Taiwan? Or Putin uses a “limited nuclear option” to finish off Ukraine? Or even more immigrants surge to our borders, while the current president is fighting on all sides for his political life?
Evening the Odds
For the sake of national security, and more generally preserving democracy, America must make the choice for the next president a fairer fight. It’s time for Joe Biden to step aside. We need a stronger Democratic candidate who can even up the odds even before any discussion of policy. Who can ensure that the presidential contest will be decided more by persuasion than physical and cognitive fitness.
Let he or she compete with Donald Trump for the honor of defending America.
There are so many complexities of modern day politics, particularly presidential politics, that complicate matters greatly. Following Thursday's debate, it has become clear that President Biden would be unable to lead our country for another 4 years. As so many have stated, for the sake of our democracy, President Biden should step aside promptly and allow a younger, more vigorous and hopefully moderate candidate run for the presidency of our great country.
With regret, I agree with you that it is time for Biden to step aside. I hope people he trusts can be tactful and forceful enough to overcome his denial. Just as I still wish such people had been able to persuade Ruth Bader Ginsburg to resign so she could have been replaced by someone who shared her judicial philosophy.