President Biden bowed to the inevitable on Sunday by ending his re-election campaign, and, though belated and begrudging, his decision is in the best interests of the country. He clearly isn’t capable of doing the job of President for four more years, and he was headed for a crushing defeat against Donald Trump.
Republicans are saying the decision insults the voters who supported Mr. Biden in primaries, and there’s no doubt the Democratic establishment wanted him out. Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama orchestrated what in the end was an insider coup. But they had been all-in for Mr. Biden as long as they thought he could win. Only when the election polls showed he was a likely loser, and the Democratic electorate revolted, did they plot to force his ouster.
In that sense the voters prevailed and forced the establishment’s hand. By rights the Democrats should pay some electoral price for their complicity in covering for Mr. Biden’s growing infirmity. His decision to run again was a selfish act that someone other than Rep. Dean Phillips should have challenged. Instead the liberal establishment savaged Mr. Phillips and tried to gull the public. The disastrous June 27 debate exposed the con.
GOP vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance is demanding that Mr. Biden resign immediately, claiming that if he can’t run for four more years he can’t serve for six more months. But those are different tenures, and we don’t think his resignation is in the country’s interest. He’d have to turn the office over to Vice President Kamala Harris, who would have to manage that transition even as she runs to be President.
Adversaries may try to exploit a lame-duck and enfeebled President Biden. But they could also test a new President Harris as she learns the job of Commander in Chief. The Administration’s foreign policy has essentially been run for some time by what amounts to a committee, and that is probably the safest path for what is undeniably a risky next few months.
Republicans would do better by the country, and more for their own political interests, if they sent a public message that adversaries shouldn’t seek to exploit this period—that they’ll support a lame-duck Mr. Biden if he is forced to use military force to defend U.S. interests. This is what leaders of past generations would have done.
Democrats will want Americans to forget all of this Biden drama and settle on a new nominee quickly. The President endorsed Ms. Harris on Sunday, which will give her a running start. It isn’t clear as we write this what mechanism the Democratic Party will use to choose a nominee, but there’s a strong case for an open nominating convention that would consider other candidates.
That means short-term uncertainty, but also media attention as the party seeks the most formidable candidate against Mr. Trump. Ms. Harris has experience as Vice President, but she proved to be lousy candidate in her own right in 2019, dropping out before the first contest.
At 59 years old, she can turn the age issue back against the 78-year-old Mr. Trump. She will have the strong support of many on the left, and she can perhaps increase enthusiasm among the young and minority voters who have been moving to the Republicans.
Her biggest liability is that she carries the policy legacy of the Biden years. Mr. Biden was losing to Mr. Trump even before the debate owing to inflation, the migrant and border failures, and disorder abroad. She is even more of a left-wing culture warrior than Mr. Biden. She will also have to answer for her role in covering for Mr. Biden’s cognitive decline. Did she deceive the public?
All of this suggests that Democrats who want to win should seek an open debate in the next month and let the delegates decide in Chicago the week of Aug. 19.
Relieved Democrats are hailing Mr. Biden for his decision and gilding his achievements in office as historic. No doubt he has some accomplishments. There is the Aukus accord with Australia and the United Kingdom to increase military and especially nuclear submarine cooperation. Mr. Biden also worked to enhance the U.S. alliance with Japan and South Korea, and to reduce lingering enmity between them as an alliance against China.
His support for Ukraine is laudable, but it’s severely compromised by his failure to deter Vladimir Putin and his refusal to give Ukraine the weapons to force Russia to the bargaining table. Ditto for the Middle East (see nearby). His main economic legacy is a spending blowout that ignited inflation and caused a decline in real wages. His climate policies have already devolved into a special-interest bacchanal that won’t help the climate.
Republicans can make a strong case against this record, but now they might not have the layup they anticipated. Ms. Harris or some other nominee will be able to offer a competing vision and exploit Mr. Trump’s considerable weaknesses in a way Mr. Biden could not. Mr. Trump will have to raise his game too.
The Wall Street Journal
More Coverage
Trump’s vision for Gaza revives idea once reviled in Israel
Resurgent ultranationalist movement latches on to US president’s proposal to relocate Palestinians.
Inside the Salvadoran mega-prison offering to take America’s worst criminals
Lockup currently houses thousands of members of gangs that terrorised the Central American country for decades.