Most coverage of last week's geriatric cage match of a debate focuses on the impact of Joe Biden's obvious cognitive and physical decline on his prospects as the Democratic presidential candidate. More important though, is that he is currently the U.S. president, supposedly exercising the (excessive) responsibilities of that office, including reacting to firestorms foreign and domestic in an increasingly crisis-rich environment. That he's clearly incapable of doing anything of the sort, and that many government officials obviously covered for his deficiencies, is disturbing and bodes poorly for some Americans' preferences for an even bigger and more active state headed by this country's political class.
Disagreement Over the Role of Government
"Among registered voters, large majorities of Biden supporters – roughly three-quarters or more – favor a bigger, more activist government," Pew Research reported June 24. "Trump supporters, by comparable margins, take the opposing view."
Specifically, among registered voters, 74 percent of Biden supporters want a bigger government providing more services, while 23 percent want a smaller government providing fewer services. Seventy-six percent say government should do more to solve problems, while 23 percent believe government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals. Eighty percent insist government aid to the poor does more good than harm, and 18 percent disagree, saying government aid to the poor does more harm than good.
The opinions of Trump supporters are pretty much the reverse, showing a definite preference for a smaller, less active government. Well, except for Social Security: Eighty-two percent of Biden supporters want Social Security benefits maintained or expanded, and 78 percent of Trump voters agree. With the program expected to become insolvent a decade from now, good luck with that.
Who Should Manage That Government?
Arguments about the role of government are as American as barbecue, and both natural and necessary for any political system. But among the premises of advocacy for a big, intrusive state is that government officials can be trusted to exercise authority competently and benignly. It's a difficult argument to swallow for anybody aware of the frequency with which government mishandles and abuses power. The case for a "bigger, more activist government" becomes that much more ludicrous when the country's highest elected official is revealed to be mentally unfit, and it's obvious that those around him lied about his condition—almost certainly so they could assume the duties of his office themselves.
"The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant," The New York Times, a long-established newspaper that has come to function as a Democratic party newsletter, editorialized after the debate. "He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump's provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence."
"The confidants and aides who have encouraged the president's candidacy and who sheltered him from unscripted appearances in public should recognize the damage to Mr. Biden's standing and the unlikelihood that he can repair it," the Times editorial board added as it called for him to bow out of the race.
Unfit To Run, or To Rule
Like so many observers, the Times emphasized Biden's unfitness to be a candidate. But, if he's in no condition to run for office, then it's a given that exercising the responsibilities of the office he holds, including managing the executive branch, negotiating with foreign leaders, and responding to international provocations, is now beyond his capabilities.
And what does that say about the people around him who, aided by allies in the media, falsely insisted that video clips of the president staring into space, wandering off, and losing his train of thought were deceptively edited "cheap fakes"? They did this even while discussing Biden's fitness among themselves, according to The Wall Street Journal, and while brushing off warnings from foreign officials who voiced concerns after meeting with the president.
These are the people we're supposed to entrust with a "bigger, more activist government?" It's difficult to envision a scenario in which a fading old politician and the dishonest schemers concealing his condition from the public exercise authority wisely, effectively, and in good faith.
Plenty of Unfitness To Go Around
Of course, Joe Biden's leading opponent, Donald Trump, has his own issues. When he's not exaggerating, he's lying about election fraud, public opinion on abortion, his own history of nasty comments, his fiscal record in office, and more (when Biden lies, we're assured, they're "tall tales"). The former president has also had more than a few senior moments of his own recently, confusing names and events, though not as frequently or jarringly as the incumbent. Americans have noticed.
"A majority of adults are concerned about both Biden's and Donald Trump's mental capability to serve effectively as president," AP-NORC pollsters found in March. Sixty-three-percent were "not very/not at all confident" in Biden's mental fitness, and 57 percent said the same of Trump.
But it's easier to reconcile a fading, honesty-challenged presidential candidate with a desire for "a smaller government providing fewer services" than it is to credibly claim that an even more badly eroded politician and his unethical minions are exactly the sort of folks you want presiding over an all-powerful state. Frankly, a healthy cynicism about the competency and the decency of government officials is a credible response to what was on display on Thursday evening when Biden spent 90-plus minutes demonstrating that he and his supporters had been lying about his mental and physical fitness to not only run for a second term, but to carry out the duties of office right now.
And if Trump's comparatively less-bad performance still didn't fill you with confidence that he's a person you want presiding over a bigger, more activist government, that's the appropriate take, too. He didn't face-plant like his opponent, but the former president gave us every reason to believe that, under his control, a smaller, less-involved government is preferable for reasons ideological, practical, and involving self-preservation.
The belief that government should do more, provide more, and embrace us all in a warm and nurturing embrace requires an enormous leap of faith. At the least, those exercising such vast power must be wise and well-intentioned. As last week's debate reminded us, that's a wildly unrealistic assumption.
The post Presidential Debate Debacle Was a Great Argument for Smaller Government appeared first on Reason.com.
