The Real Difference Between Trump and Biden

Published

2 years ago

March 1, 2024

admin

Americans likely face a choice this fall between two men they dont want for president. Or they can stay home and get one of the two guys they dont want for president anyway. The reasons for voter disdain are clear enough: Poll respondents say Joe Biden is too old, an impression reinforced by last weeks special-counsel report, and they have always been troubled by Donald Trumps judgment and character (though a majority think hes too old too.)

Voters have genuine questions about both men. But weve seen each occupy the presidency. One thing the two administrations have made clear is that whereas Biden follows an approach to governance that seems to offset some of his weaknesses, Trumps preferred managerial style seems to amplify his.

Many people treat elections as a chance to vote a single individual into office; as a result, they tend to focus disproportionately on the personality, character, and temperament of the people running. But voters are also choosing a platforma set of policies as well as a set of people, chosen by the president, who will shape and implement them. The president is the conductor of an orchestra, not a solo artist. As the past eight years have made very clear, the difference in governance between a Trump administration and a Biden administration is not subtlefor example, on foreign policy, border security, and economicsand voters have plenty of evidence on which to base their decision.

But for the sake of argument, lets consider the potential effects of Bidens failures of memory and Trumps well, its a little tough to say what exactly is going on with Trumps mental state. The former president has always had a penchant for saying strange things and acting impulsively, and its hard to know whether recent lapses are indications of new troubles or the same deficits that have long been present. His always-dark rhetoric has become more apocalyptic and vengeance-focused, and he frequently seems forgetful or confused about basic facts.

To what extent would either of their struggles be material in a future presidential term? One key distinction is that Biden and Trump have fundamentally different conceptions of the presidency as an office. Bidens approach to governance has been more or less in keeping with the traditions of recent decades. Bidens Cabinet and West Wing are (for better or worse) stocked with longtime political and policy hands who have extensive experience in government. Cabinet secretaries largely run their departments through normal channels. Policy proposals are usually formulated by subject-area experts. The presidents job is to sit atop this apparatus and set broad direction.

Read: The presidency is not a math test

Biden doesnt always defer to experts, and he has clashed with and overruled advisers on some topics, including, notably, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such occasional clashes are fairly typicalas long as theyre occasional. As my colleague Graeme Wood wrote this week, The presidency is an endless series of judgment calls, not a four-year math test. In fact, large parts of the executive branch exist, in effect, to do the math problems on the presidents behalf, then present to him all those tough judgment calls with the calculations already factored in.

This doesnt mean that Bidens readily apparent aging doesnt bring risks. The presidency requires a great deal of energy, and crises can happen at all hours and on top of one another, testing the stamina of any person. The oldest president before Biden, Ronald Reagan, struggled with acuity in his second term, an administration that produced a huge, appalling scandal of which he claimed to be unaware.

In contrast to the model of the president as the ultimate decision maker, Trump has approached the presidency less like a Fortune 500 CEO and more like the sole proprietor of a small business. (Though he boasts about his experience running a business empire, the Trump Organization also ran this wayit is a company with a large bottom line but with concentrated and insular management by corporate standards.) As president, Trump had a tendency to micromanage detailsthe launching system for a new aircraft carrier, the paint scheme on Air Force Onewhile evincing little interest in major policy questions, such as a long-promised replacement for Obamacare.

At times, Trump has described his role in practically messianic terms: I alone can fix it, he infamously said at the 2016 Republican National Convention. He has claimed to be the worlds foremost expert on a wide variety of subjects, and he often disregarded the views of policy experts in his administration, complaining that they tried to talk him out of ideas (when they didnt just obstruct him). He and his allies have embarked on a major campaign to ensure that staffers in a second Trump administration would be picked for their ideological and personal loyalty to him. Axios has reported that the speechwriter Stephen Miller could be the next attorney general, even though Miller is not an attorney.

Perhaps as a result of these different approaches to the job, people who have served under the men have divergent views on them. Whereas Biden can seem bumbling and mild in public, aides accounts of his private demeanor depict an engaged, incisive, and sometimes hot-tempered president. Thats also the view that emerges from my colleague Franklin Foers book The Last Politician. He has a kind of mantra: You can never give me too much detail, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has said. The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it, because he is sharp, intensely probing, and detail-oriented and focused, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said last weekend. (As Jon Stewart noted on Monday night, the public might be more convinced were these moments videotaped, like the gaffes.)

Former Trump aides are not so complimentary. Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly called Trump a person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law, adding, God help us. Former Attorney General Bill Barr said that he shouldnt be anywhere near the Oval Office. Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper described him as unfit for office. Of 44 former Cabinet members queried by NBC, only four said they supported Trumps return to office. Even allowing for the puffery of politics, the contrast is dramatic.

Read: A Hail Mary to save The Daily Show

None of this is to say that Bidens memory lapses arent worth concern or that he is as vigorous as he was as a younger man. But someone voting for Biden is selecting, above all, a set of policy ideas and promises that he has laid out, with the expectation that the apparatus of the executive branch will implement them.

Voting for Trump is opting for a charismatic individual who brings to office a set of attitudes rather than a platform. Considering the presidency as a matter of individual mental acuity grants the field to Trumps own preferred conception of unified personal power, so its striking that the comparison makes the dangers posed by Trumps mentality so stark.

Entertainment

Tim Davie resigns as BBC’s director-general – with CEO of BBC News also stepping down

Published

2 hours ago

November 9, 2025

admin

Tim Davie resigns as BBC's director-general - with CEO of BBC News also stepping down

Tim Davie has resigned as the BBC’s director-general after five years in the role.

The chief executive of BBC News Deborah Turness has also resigned.

It comes as the corporation is expected to apologise on Monday following concerns about impartiality, including how a speech by US President Donald Trump was edited in an episode of Panorama.

White House and others react to resignations – latest

The concerns regard clips spliced together from sections of the US president’s speech on 6 January 2021 to make it appear he told supporters he was going to walk to the US Capitol with them to “fight like hell” in the documentary Trump: A Second Chance?, which was broadcast by the BBC the week before last year’s US election.

Mr Davie sent a message to staff on Sunday afternoon, saying it was “entirely” his decision to quit.

Admitting the BBC “is not perfect”, he said: “We must always be open, transparent and accountable.”

“While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision.

“Overall, the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”

Ms Turness told staff the “ongoing controversy” around the edition of Panorama “has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC – an institution that I love.

“The buck stops with me – and I took the decision to offer my resignation to the director-general last night.

“In public life, leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down. While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”

BBC Chair, Samir Shah called it “a very difficult day”, thanking Ms Turness and crediting her with having “transformed” the corporation’s news output.

Mr Trump said Mr Davie and Ms Turness were “very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of a presidential election”. In a post on Truth Social, he called it “a terrible thing for democracy!”

Mr Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, posted a triumphant two-word reaction on X, using the drinking term “shot” to describe reports that the US president was “going to war with fake news”, referring to the BBC programme, and describing Mr Davie’s resignation as a “chaser” – a drink taken after the shot to soften the taste of the alcohol.

In an interview published on Friday, she had described the BBC as “100% fake news” and a “propaganda machine”.

Farage: ‘BBC’s last chance’

In a message posted on social media, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy thanked Mr Davie for leading the BBC through a period of “significant change”.

She called the organisation “one of our most important national institutions”, adding that “now, more than ever, the need for trusted news and high-quality programming is essential to our democratic and cultural life, and our place in the world”.

Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, said it was “right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC”.

She said: “The culture at the BBC has not yet changed. BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul.”

Ms Badenoch said it “should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality”.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said Sunday’s resignations “must be an opportunity for the BBC to turn a new leaf, rebuild trust and not give in to the likes of [Reform UK leader] Nigel Farage who want to destroy it”.

Mr Farage said the pair’s resignations must be “the start of wholesale change” at the BBC.

He urged the ministers to appoint “somebody with a record of coming in and turning companies and their cultures around”, preferably someone “from the private sector who has run a forward-facing business and understands PR”.

Mr Farage said: “This is the BBC’s last chance. If they don’t get this right, there will be vast numbers of people refusing to pay the licence fee.”

As well as the Panorama show on Mr Trump, the BBC has also been accused of failing to maintain its neutrality in its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war and over trans issues.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) called for an independent inquiry into potential bias at the BBC, saying “growing bias” had been evident for “many years across a wide array of issues”.

The group claimed that, under Mr Davie and Ms Turness, the BBC had “often served as a mouthpiece for Hamas” and “gaslit” its audience “by claiming to be a bastion of ethics and truthful journalism”.

Marcus Ryder, a former executive producer of current affairs at the BBC, called the resignations “really sad”, adding that “it shows the pressure and ethical climate that the BBC is operating in, that this edit can actually bring down the director- general”.

Dame Melanie Dawes, chief executive of Ofcom, thanked Mr Davie, saying he had led the organisation “at a time of great change and challenge”.

The Daily Telegraph reported on Tuesday that a memo by a former external adviser to the BBC’s editorial standards committee raised the issue, as well as other concerns about impartiality, in the summer.

Dealing with controversies

Mr Davie took the role in 2020, replacing Tony Hall.

During his time in charge of the broadcaster, he has dealt with a number of high-profile controversies within the corporation.

They include a row over former Match of the Day host Gary Lineker’s sharing of his political views, top presenter Huw Edwards being convicted of making indecent images of children, and the BBC’s broadcasting of Bob Vylan’s controversial Glastonbury performance.

There were also controversies surrounding some of its top shows, such as MasterChef and its former presenter, Gregg Wallace, as well as Strictly Come Dancing.

Mr Davie, who had a career in marketing and finance before joining the BBC’s marketing team in 2005, was previously acting director-general from November 2012 until April 2013.

He said his departure will not be immediate and that he is “working through” timings to ensure an “orderly transition” over the coming months.

A person familiar with the situation said Davie’s decision had left the BBC board stunned by the move.

Politics

Starmer avoided political heat at home during Brazil climate conference – but he returns to a prisons crisis

Published

2 hours ago

November 9, 2025

admin

Starmer avoided political heat at home during Brazil climate conference - but he returns to a prisons crisis

Sir Keir Starmer’s been on the other side of the world for most of the week – at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, his 40th foreign trip in 16 months.

Back home, his government’s credibility has continued its painful unravelling.

Five days on from David Lammy’s disastrous stand-in performance at PMQS, the justice secretary’s ministerial colleagues are still struggling to explain why he repeatedly failed to answer questions on whether another migrant criminal had been released from prison by mistake.

Yes, Conservative MP James Cartlidge got the question wrong, as Brahim Kaddour-Cherif was an illegal migrant, not an asylum seeker.

But Mr Cartlidge argued that because the deputy prime minister failed to divulge the information he did have, he failed to act with full transparency and should be investigated by the PM’s ethics advisor for a possible breach of the ministerial code.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has been defending Mr Lammy’s response.

She told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips she doesn’t accept that he was being evasive, insisting Mr Lammy had been carefully weighing his words to ensure that “when we do speak about matters of such significance to the public… we do so with care and make sure the full facts are presented”.

At that time, rather extraordinarily, we’re told the justice secretary did not have the full facts of the case, even though the Metropolitan Police had been informed the day before (six days after Kaddour-Cherif was accidentally freed).

How Sky correspondent found escaped prisoner

The combination of wrongly-freed prisoners and illegal migrants is a conjunction of two of the most toxic issues in British politics – the overflowing prison system and the dysfunctional asylum system.

Both are vast, chaotic problems the government is struggling to get a grip on, as the Conservatives also found, to their cost.

But ministers’ ongoing failure to bring both issues under control has only been highlighted by Mr Lammy’s sloppy handling of the situation.

Football regulator donations row

Ms Nandy has herself been at the heart of another government controversy this week – over the appointment of the new football regulator, David Kogan.

An independent investigation found she “unknowingly” breached the code on public appointments by failing to declare that Mr Kogan had previously donated £2,900 to her Labour leadership campaign – and also criticised her department for not highlighting his status as a Labour donor who had previously given £33,410 to the party.

The culture secretary has apologised and explained she had been unaware of the donations.

She also pointed out that Mr Kogan was a candidate originally put forward by the Conservatives. But again, it’s messy.

It’s yet another story which chips away at the government’s promises to clear up politics and act with full transparency and accountability.

Budget blues?

The ultimate breach of trust looks set to come with the budget on 26 November, however.

In an extraordinary early morning speech this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves signalled that she’s likely to raise taxes in two and a half weeks – and thus breach the core promise of the Labour Party manifesto.

The rationale for her dire warnings on Tuesday was to start explaining why she will probably have to do so – getting in her excuses early about the languishing state of the economy as a result of Brexit, Donald Trump’s tariffs and her inheritance from the Conservatives.

The Tories claim Ms Reeves could sort out the finances by cutting welfare spending – something ministers dramatically failed to do when their efforts at reform were scuttled by angry backbenchers.

Governments breach their manifesto commitments all the time.

But if the chancellor goes ahead and puts up income tax, as expected (even if that’s offset, for some, by a corresponding cut to national insurance), it will be a shock – and the first such increase in 50 years.

The new deputy leader of the party, Lucy Powell, pointedly warned the government this week about the risks of breaching trust in politics by breaking manifesto promises.

Lisa Nandy didn’t shoot her comments down when Sir Trevor asked for her response, arguing instead that while “we take our promises very, very seriously”, they [Labour] “were also elected on a promise to change this country”, with a particular focus on fixing the NHS.

The impossibility of doing both – protecting taxes while also increasing government spending in such a challenging economic climate – highlights the folly of making such restrictive promises.

But voters are not in a forgiving mood.

UK