Connect with us

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

World

Israel attacks Syrian military HQ – and disrupts live TV broadcast

Published

on

By

Israel attacks Syrian military HQ - and disrupts live TV broadcast

Israeli airstrikes have targeted the Syrian military headquarters in Damascus amid renewed clashes in the country.

The gate of the Ministry of Defence in the Syrian capital was targeted by two warning missiles from an Israeli reconnaissance aircraft.

State-owned Elekhbariya TV said the Israeli strike had wounded two civilians, the Reuters news agency reported.

Smoke rises after strikes on Syria's defence ministry in Damascus, Syria.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Smoke rises from Syria’s defence ministry building in Damascus. Pic: Reuters

It came as Israeli airstrikes targeted security and army vehicles in the southern city of Sweida, where the Druze faith is one of the major religious groups – marking the third consecutive day Israel has struck Syrian forces.

The Israeli military confirmed it had “struck the entrance gate” in Damascus – and that it would be monitoring “actions being taken against Druze civilians in southern Syria”.

Smoke rises from an Israeli airstrike that hit the Syrian Defence Ministry in Damascus.
Pic: AP
Image:
The Israeli airstrike targeted Syria’s military headquarters. Pic: AP

Why Israel is getting involved in Syria’s internal fighting


Dominic Waghorn

Dominic Waghorn

International affairs editor

@DominicWaghorn

Israel has shown little respect for international borders since becoming the unrivalled military hegemon of the Middle East. Today that meant an Israeli airstrike on a government building in Damascus.

Israel says its attack on a Syrian defence ministry facility was intended as a warning to the new government: stay out of the part of southern Syria we have occupied or else.

Israel has moved into parts of the south of the country, built military bases and declared a line of control.

On Monday, Syrian tanks heading south to try and restore order following an outbreak of factional fighting were attacked by Israeli warplanes.

“The presence of such vehicles in southern Syria could pose a threat to Israel,” stated the Israel Defence Forces.

In reality, Syria’s ageing tanks pose minimal threat to Israel’s state-of-the art military.

Read the full analysis

Local media said Sweida and nearby villages were coming under heavy artillery and mortar fire on Wednesday, according to Reuters.

The clashes marked the collapse of a ceasefire between Syrian government forces and Druze armed groups, with Israel also warning it would increase its involvement.

Syrian security forces walk together along a street in the southern Druze city of Sweida.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Syria said its forces had responded to being fired upon. Pic: Reuters

Israel said it was acting to protect the Druze groups through its attacks on convoys of Syrian forces.

Syria blamed militias in Sweida for violating a ceasefire agreement which had only been reached on Tuesday.

Read more from Sky News:
‘My family is finished’: Afghan man feels betrayed
Harry follows in Diana’s charity footsteps

A statement from its defence ministry said: “Military forces continue to respond to the source of fire inside the city of Sweida, while adhering to rules of engagement to protect residents, prevent harm, and ensure the safe return of those who left the city back to their homes.”

Israel’s defence minister Israel Katz said the military will continue to strike Syrian forces until they withdraw and should “leave Druze alone”, according to local reports.

Continue Reading

World

Why Israel is getting involved in Syria’s internal fighting

Published

on

By

Why Israel is getting involved in Syria's internal fighting

Israel has shown little respect for international borders since becoming the unrivalled military hegemon of the Middle East.  Today that meant an Israeli airstrike on a government building in Damascus.

Israel says its attack on a Syrian defence ministry facility was intended as a warning to the new government: stay out of the part of southern Syria we have occupied or else.

Israel has moved into parts of the south of the country, built military bases and declared a line of control.

Smoke rises from an Israeli airstrike that hit the Syrian Defence Ministry in Damascus.
Pic: AP
Image:
Smoke rises from an Israeli airstrike that hit the Syrian Defence Ministry in Damascus. Pic: AP

On Monday, Syrian tanks heading south to try and restore order following an outbreak of factional fighting were attacked by Israeli warplanes.

“The presence of such vehicles in southern Syria could pose a threat to Israel,” stated the Israel Defence Forces.

In reality, Syria’s ageing tanks pose minimal threat to Israel’s state-of-the art military.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Syrian presenter interrupted by Israeli airstrike

The Syrian armour was attacked as it entered the area around Sweida in the Druze heartland of southern Syria following factional fighting there.

More on Israel

The flare-up reportedly began with clashes between Bedouin and Druze groups that ended in scores killed.

The background to the escalation is complicated.

At least three Druze militia groups are divided in their loyalties to different religious leaders and differ over how they should respond to calls to assimilate into the new post-revolutionary Syria.

Druze from Syria and Israel protest on the Israeli-Syrian border, in Majdal Shams in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.
Pic: AP
Image:
Druze from Syria and Israel protest on the Israeli-Syrian border.
Pic: AP

Read more:
30 dead as armed groups clash in Syria
UK restores diplomatic ties with Syria

Israel is becoming more and more involved in Syria’s internecine war and says it will remain there indefinitely “to protect our communities and thwart any threat”.

Its critics say Israel is operating a policy of divide and rule in Syria, weakening the fledgling government and creating a buffer zone to protect the border with the Golan Heights – originally Syrian territory that it has occupied and annexed for almost half a century.

Since the fall of the Assad regime, Israel has used airstrikes to destroy of much of Syria’s military capability weakening its ability to impose control on outlying regions. This makes it more not less likely Israel will have a volatile unstable state on its northern border.

Syrian security forces walk together along a street in the southern Druze city of Sweida.
Pic: Reuters
Image:
Syrian security forces walk along a street in the southern Druze city of Sweida. Pic: Reuters

America and European powers have chosen to normalise relations with the new government in Damascus and lift sanctions.

In contrast Israel has occupied its territory, bombed its military and today hit one of its government buildings in the capital with an airstrike.

Since its crushing military campaigns against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, Israel has emerged as the unchallenged military power of the region.

There is however a limit to what blunt force can achieve alone. It requires diplomacy to achieve lasting gains and Israel’s repeated assaults on multiple neighbours combined with its relentless campaign in Gaza are winning it few friends in the region.

Continue Reading

World

Gaza: At least 19 killed in crowd crush near distribution site, says Israel-backed aid group

Published

on

By

Gaza: At least 19 killed in crowd crush near distribution site, says Israel-backed aid group

At least 20 people have been killed in an incident in Khan Younis, according to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an Israel and US-backed organisation.

In a statement, it said 19 people were trampled and one was stabbed in a surge “driven by agitators in the crowd”.

“We have credible reason to believe that elements within the crowd – armed and affiliated with Hamas – deliberately fomented the unrest,” it said.

“For the first time since operations began, GHF personnel identified multiple firearms in the crowd, one of which was confiscated. An American worker was also threatened with a firearm by a member of the crowd during the incident.”

It provided no evidence to support the claim.

The Hamas-run Gaza health ministry claimed 21 Palestinians were killed, “including 15 who died of suffocation as a result of tear gas fired at the starving people and the subsequent stampede” at the GHF site.

Read analysis: Deaths go up when aid sites open

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Gaza deaths increase when aid sites open

The statement is unusual for the GHF, as the controversial group, which has been rejected by the United Nations and other aid groups, rarely acknowledges trouble at its distribution sites.

The GHF began distributing food packages in Gaza at the end of May, after Israel eased its 11-week blockade of aid into the territory.

It has four distribution centres, three of which are in the southern Gaza Strip. The sites, kept off-limits to independent media, are guarded by private security contractors and located in zones where the Israeli military operates.

Analysis: Gazans face unbearable choice of risking their lives for supplies or going hungry

by Lisa Holland, Sky News correspondent in Jerusalem

The United Nations has already condemned the aid centres run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as “death traps” – and that was before the latest loss of life, seemingly mostly from suffocation.

It’s the first and only time we know of people dying in this way, waiting to get food.  Although the Gaza health ministry and the GHF dispute exactly what happened.

But how much longer can this Israeli and American-backed way to supply aid continue when people are dying on a near-daily basis?

However it happened, Gaza’s overcrowded hospitals are once again overwhelmed.

And there are serious questions to answer about the organisation of a system which is supposed to be providing humanitarian aid to desperately hungry people, but instead is a place where there is so much loss of life.

It leaves people with an unbearable choice between risking their lives to get supplies or going hungry.

Palestinian witnesses say Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire towards crowds of people going to receive aid.

The Israeli military says it has fired warning shots at people who have behaved in what it says is a suspicious manner. It says its forces operate near the aid sites to stop supplies from falling into the hands of militants.

After the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians trying to reach the aid hubs, the UN has called the GHF’s aid model “inherently unsafe” and a violation of humanitarian impartiality standards.

In response, a GHF spokesperson said: “The fact is the most deadly attacks on aid sites have been linked to UN convoys.”

People carry distributed aid supplies in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza, on July 1, 2025. Pic: AP
Image:
People carry distributed aid supplies in Khan Yunis, southern Gaza. File pic: AP

The GHF says it has delivered more than 70 million meals to Gazans in five weeks and claims other humanitarian groups – which refuse to work with the GHF – had “nearly all of their aid looted” by Hamas or criminal gangs.

Read more:
Medical charity warns acute malnutrition at all-time high

UN data on Gaza deaths ‘disinformation’, claims GHF chief

Since the GHF sites began operating, more than 875 people have been killed while receiving aid, both at GHF distribution points or elsewhere, according to the UN human rights office and the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry.

At least 674 of those have been killed in the vicinity of aid distribution sites run by the GHF.

Continue Reading

Trending