The Future of the Presidency

So debate night came and went, and while I was a bit skeptical of Trump accepting the challenge, it turned out to pay off big for him. While I think that Trump could have done better in several areas, Biden fumbled the ball.

I, along with a few others, was of the opinion that since the bar was set so low for Joe, all he had to do was remain above that bar for the debate to be considered a success. Sadly for him, he was unable to do that.

Immediately after the debate ended, liberal pundits across the news media voiced their utter disappointment. Even our most liberal network, MSNBC, was dooming hard, bringing up that a conversation ought to be had at replacing Biden as the Democratic candidate for president.

After all, having a debate this early with many safety features (that were meant to benefit Joe) was supposed to reassure the Democratic elites and electorate that Biden could hold his own against Trump. In an ironic way, those safety features (mic muting, no audience, delay) contributed to Biden’s downfall.

Ever since the debate, there have been conversations being held in Democratic Party elite circles about Biden’s competency, which those of us on the right have been talking about for years. They can no longer be contributed to “cheap fakes.”

Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who comfortably won her reelection campaign in 2022, has expressed doubts that Biden can win the state of Michigan. It also appears that, according to Jake Tapper, a group of Democratic governors held a call yesterday expressing concern about Biden. The call was initiated by Minnesota Governor Walz.

Aside from that, many of Biden’s donors have reportedly expressed frustration over the campaign, with some asking for refunds. Apparently, these people were asleep for the past three and a half years.

The Biden campaign has tried to reassure people by declaring that he will remain in the race, despite growing calls for him to drop out. This is further reinforced by the fact that, with only four months left to go before election day, it could be too late to swap out.

The Bidenists have responded to these calls by attacking primary voters, who, they say, voted for Biden. Never mind the fact that there wasn’t much of a Democratic Primary to speak of, with no debates or major names thrown in the ring.

It appears that the Biden campaign is now running on the hope that people see Trump as the devil, and that even if Biden is not up to the task of governing, he would still be surrounded by a team of people who will uphold “our democracy.”

Which brings us to the problem I wish to discuss today.

Biden’s rule by committee
The Biden campaign, whether intentionally or not, admitted what many have long suspected for a long while. Biden isn’t really in control most of the time, in fact, he is surrounded by a team of agency heads, cabinet members and bureaucrats who are setting the agenda.

Essentially, Biden has decentralized the office of the President to such a degree that the President himself isn’t the chief executive anymore. The White House has been degraded to more of a board of directors, with Biden as a very weak chairman.

I saw this coming years ago, given that many of Biden’s biggest arguments against Trump was a supposed lack of cabinet and agency independence. It was laughable, given that there were numerous times that Trump and his agency heads disagreed heavily.

However, this wasn’t enough for Joe. Now we have an executive branch that is too decentralized, with agency heads being able to act with near total independence. Pete Buttigieg, for all I know, is still on his eternal vacation.

This presents us with a big problem. If Biden isn’t able to function at all times (until 4 PM, apparently), who is making the decisions half the time? Who do we blame if things go wrong? This administration isn’t very transparent.

Contrast this with Vladimir Putin, who is able to function hours on end, even during the middle of the night. Of course, Presidents are people who need sleep, but the Presidency isn’t a part time job. In being elected President, you have volunteered yourself to be put on call 24/7 for 4-8 years.

Also, if the entire thing about Biden being woozy after 4 PM is 100% true, then whose bright idea was it for him to go up against Trump, a guy who doesn’t have this issue despite being close to his age, at 9 PM?

This also presents a problem for Biden’s defenders. They claim that Joe Biden is the last line of defense for our democracy against the onslaught of Donald Trump. How can this be, if he isn’t mentally or physically up to the task of the office?

How can anyone in good faith claim that democracy is on the line when the person we are supposed to vote for to defend it isn’t in control of his administration? Are we supposed to believe that democracy must now be defended by the faceless unelected bureaucrats in the fourth branch of government?

To argue that Joe Biden is the choice to defend democracy is also arguing that democracy is rule by the unelected bureaucrats of the fourth branch. How can this be, when such people are appointed, and not elected?

Trump’s Centralization
On the other hand, we have Donald Trump, who isn’t facing the same problem Joe is. His goal seems to be the opposite: a full centralization of executive power in the hands of the Presidency. The actual elected official, I should add.

Such a proposal didn’t start with Trump. The Unitary Executive Theory, which has been floated around for years, argues that the President possesses the power to control the entire executive branch.

This theory is based upon article two of the US constitution, which in its Vesting Clause states that:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:[...]”

According to Alexander Hamilton:

“In the article which gives the legislative powers of the government, the expressions are "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States." In that which grants the executive power, the expressions are "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States." The enumeration ought therefore to be considered, as intended merely to specify the principal articles implied in the definition of executive power. ...”

Hamilton was pointing out the difference between the unenumerated powers of the legislative and executive branches. Congress is limited to powers specifically delegated to the legislature, as the term “herein” implies. Meanwhile, executive power is vested in the President of the United States. There is no “herein.”

As the years have gone by, the US government strayed from this course and created the web of faceless, unelected bureaucrats that we see today, many of whom the President has no control over despite being formally part of the executive branch.

Joe Biden, along with the modern Democratic Party apparatus, have made it quite clear that they do not believe in the Unitary Executive Theory, so much so that it seems we have almost done away with an executive during these three and a half years of Joe.

Trump, on the other hand, seems to believe in the Unitary Executive Theory, or at least his own version of it. His Schedule F seeks to strip protections from many employees of the executive branch that would normally be protected from dismissal.

Schedule F was enacted during the final days of the Trump administration but never enacted because Biden rescinded it. Biden has also attempted to strengthen protections for the federal bureaucracy. No surprises there.

Despite this, Trump has vowed to bring it back on day one, with many as 50,000 people potentially being affected at the minimum. While people might gasp at this, it could be a good thing.

After all, why should unelected bureaucrats have greater protections than the average citizen? Why should they be allowed to continue their work unchecked? The people elect the President to set an agenda, why should it be stonewalled by people nobody voted for?

One could argue that the office of the American President is a uniquely populist position that has been undermined by intrusions into the branch of government that it is supposed to have total control over.

It seems to me that Schedule F, like many good ideas, is only opposed because Trump is the one that proposed it. Now, we must suffer through the Biden unelected bureaucratic machine because Trump is a threat to democracy despite his argument for executive centralization being grounded in the constitution.

Conclusion
The above written is why I believe that the argument of this election deciding the fate of our democracy is a simplistic one at best. If anything, this election will decide the fate of our executive branch and the power that it possesses.

Joe Biden has made it clear that the best defense of democracy is a weak executive with a strong team of cabinet officials and agency heads despite these people being unelected themselves. Institutional integrity is what matters.

Trump has made it clear that the best defense of democracy is a strong executive with total control over appointments, agencies and cabinet departments, grounded in a constitutional basis even if it looks authoritarian.

What happens next depends on who wins in November and whether Trump can succeed in his efforts to create a unitary executive should he win. He didn’t last time.