If the President of the United States were not a leader who has an impact on all our lives, the physical and mental health of President Joe Biden would not have drawn all the attention it has received, nor would we have heard all this noise or comments.
This reminds me of 1982, when Israeli forces invaded Lebanon, with Washington facilitating their mission with a series of “vetoes” and stances... I had moved to Britain three years earlier.
With great pain and even greater fear for my family's fate, I followed the scenes of the brutal strikes on Beirut, as well as other regions in South Lebanon. I did not know where my family was, aggravating my anxiety... I was not sure if they were in our winter house in the capital Beirut, or if they had managed to reach- despite the danger- our summer house in the mountains.
Indeed, an American friend of mine from university was shocked by the answer I gave as we watched the terrifying coverage on TV. When she asked about my family, I told her: "I don't know anything about how they are doing because communications are down."
"We are here studying political science and history, living in a democratic country with an advanced legal and governance system. We value rights, justice, accountability, and good governance,” I told her. “You were born and raised in the greatest democracy the world has ever known... and thanks to its democratic system, you can question your government and hold it accountable, unlike me. Today, look at me, your classmate... I don't even know if my kin in Lebanon are alive, and I cannot defend them. I cannot defend them by questioning your government... nor even by questioning my own helpless government!!"
Much to her astonishment, I then went on to add. "Don't you agree, then, that genuine, full democracy means allowing anyone to question any authority that directly affects their life? For example, the president of my republic does not affect your life as an American citizen in any way... whereas your president, Ronald Reagan, affects my life and the lives of all Lebanese people. Accordingly, would it not be fair that we and the other nations of the world be allowed to participate in electing the president of the US?"
With this rhetorical question, the quick conversation ended. We then continued to follow the invasion, the massacres, the political and security changes with regional implications... all the repercussions whose impact we still feel to this day.
Yes, President Biden's mental health is very important, and everyone has the right to discuss it. The same can be said about the legal status and political discourse of his opponent, former- and possibly future president - Donald Trump. The entire world has paid and will continue to pay the price for the results of the American elections- from Palestine and Syria to Ukraine, and from Taiwan to sub-Saharan Africa. If anyone argues that electing the US president is a "sovereign," purely American affair... they are speaking nonsense and are detached from reality.
But how did the political climate in Washington become like this? What are the dynamics that made the octogenarian Biden "indispensable" for the American Democratic Party and the realization of Democratic planners’ "vision”?
Is it conceivable, that in a system as developed as the American political (and electoral) system, no alternative "strategy" had been drawn up for the event that it became clear the candidate had a major flaw, one that has convinced the party base that they are at great risk of losing their bet?
It is strange. In the United States, the "Vice Presidency" is an important position that requires the same qualifications as the president and is elected on the same ticket; parties even seek to politically and geographically "balance" the ticket through the vice presidential candidate, and one of the vice president’s primary responsibility is to preside over Senate sessions. Yet, some ignore this option in proposing solutions.
Here, I recall that when the Democrats chose Biden- an old white man from an eastern state and a long-serving senator in Congress- as their candidate, many of the things that made her different tipped the scales in favor of Kamala Harris. Among other considerations, she was chosen as his running mate because she is a woman of Afro-Asian descent, relatively young, from a western state, and had been a state governor, not a member of Congress. Thus, she "balanced" in various ways!
Before the last race, both parties had successfully "balanced" their tickets through their choice of the vice president. For the Democrats, we have the tickets of John Kennedy - Lyndon Johnson (East/Southwest), Lyndon Johnson - Hubert Humphrey (Southwest/North), Jimmy Carter - Walter Mondale (South/North), and Barack Obama - Joe Biden (North/East). For the Republicans, there were the tickets of Richard Nixon - Spiro Agnew (West/East), Ronald Reagan - George H.W. Bush (West/Northeast then South), and George H.W. Bush - Dan Quayle (Northeast then South/North)... etc.
The point is that if the interests of the various "lobbies" (who effectively determine who becomes the president and vice president before the polls) allow for it, there is nothing to prevent, for example, an effort to "convince" Biden to step aside and have Harris lead the ticket after it is "balanced" by the right candidate for vice president.
Of course, some could raise a variety of arguments and numerous objections to this, some of which might be legal. However, I do not expect President Biden's plummeting chances of victory to be part of the controversy.
Moreover, considering the depth of the Democrats' hatred for Donald Trump and their determination to prevent him from returning to the White House, logic dictates that they should "think outside the box." That is, the Democrats should consider exceptional solutions for what is an exceptional problem at both the leadership and grassroots levels!
