Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Getting into the highest offices is hard. Getting out is harder.

A Republic, if we can keep it: Part XXIII

Joe Biden at the debate

After his disastrous peformance at the debate, President Biden needs to exit the race, writes Breslin.

Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is the latest in “ A Republic, if we can keep it,” a series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Getting into America’s highest political offices is hard. Getting out is harder.

President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate performance has intensified calls for him to step aside. Not even 24 hours after his poor showing, The New York Times took the extraordinary and unprecedented position that the sitting president should immediately pass the torch to a more energetic and electable candidate. “The greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform,” the editorial board declared, “is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election.”


Regrettably, The Times has it right. After more than a half-century of dedicated and decorated service, the moment has come for Biden to depart the political stage. He must retire. All citizens, regardless of party affiliation, should agree that the challenges our nation faces require political leaders to be at the peak of their game, not when their mental acuity is in obvious decline.

Democrats have been here before. In 2013, faced with the very real possibility that the Republican Party would gain majority control of the Senate, President Barack Obama invited Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to lunch. He claimed that he wanted to build a “better rapport” with the Notorious R.B.G., but most in Obama’s inner circle understood that the president’s objective was to gently nudge her towards retirement. Obama had the foresight to recognize that time was running out on the Democratic Party’s ability to maintain a strong liberal bloc on the Supreme Court. He wanted the chance to appoint a like-minded jurist to the bench. That chance wouldn’t come. Ginsburg flatly turned the president down, saying, “I think [you] would agree with me that [the timing of my retirement] is a question for my own good judgment.”

It turned out to be poor judgment. Ginsburg, generally considered a jurisprudential titan by court watchers on both the left and the right, would remain in her post for seven additional terms. Save the historic 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that constitutionally recognized same-sex marriage, Ginsburg and her liberal allies often found themselves on the losing end of major legal skirmishes. She admitted to considerable frustration. When she died at her home two weeks before the start of the court’s 2021 term, her authority among The Nine had waned.

Ginsburg’s tragic death was the final ingredient in the conservative constitutional revolution. Amy Coney Barrett, Ginsburg’s replacement, might share chromosomes and an elite legal education with the late liberal giant, but little more. She is Ginsburg’s ideological foil. Barrett voted with the majority in overturning Roe v. Wade, defended marriage as a union solely between men and women, and supported men in workplace sexual harassment claims. Indeed, it’s ironic that the passing of the greatest champion of gender equality this nation has ever seen helped to solidify a new judicial patriarchy. The Obama lunch takes on added significance with the clarity of hindsight.

No one should doubt that Joe Biden and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are American patriots. They selflessly gave and gave to their country and to the causes of freedom, equality and justice. They exhibited integrity and decency throughout their long careers. America needs more Joe Bidens and Ruth Bader Ginsburgs. We need more heroes on both sides of the aisle. But we also need our political leaders to know when it’s time to leave.

Ginsburg’s choice to remain on the bench had tragic consequences for her deepest convictions. The same is true if Biden remains in the race. The issues Biden cares most about — civil rights, health care, the working people of America, immigration, abortion, democracy and so on — as well as the degree of dignity the office must engender, are all in jeopardy should he choose to stay the course. And that doesn’t even account for the correlating likelihood that his obstinacy will significantly impact down-ballot races. Biden has an obligation to all Americans to contemplate the considerable stakes at hand. They’ve rarely been higher.

America’s first president, George Washington, confronted similar stakes in similar times. The country was in a bad way in 1796, and Washington was old. He faced a choice: remain in America’s highest office or return to his estate on the Potomac. He chose the latter.

“Friends and Citizens,” his Farewell Address began, “it appears to me proper that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice [to be President] is to be made. I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.”

Take the step, President Biden. Take the step.


Read More

Tank and fighter plane with lots of coins and banknotes.

A former Navy Lieutenant Commander warns that Trump and his associates are profiting from the Iran conflict through defense contracts, crypto ventures, and prediction markets while putting American troops and taxpayers at risk.

Getty Images, gopixa

The Blood Money Presidency

Trump is running a war racket. Between arms dealing, prediction markets, and crypto, the war in Iran is looking more and more like a not-so-elaborate scheme to rake in blood money for himself and his cronies. Even his own Defense Secretary attempted to buy defense stocks on the eve of the war. At least, if you have been wondering what we’re still doing at war with Iran, then Trump’s financial dealings may offer an explanation.

The Trumps are war dogs. Powerus, a startup based in West Palm Beach, was founded only last year, specializing in counter-drone tech tailored for none other than Middle East operations. Then, in March, just after Trump started a war in the Middle East, the company went public–and Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump joined the board with sizable equity stakes. The conflict of interest may be their entire business model. Just weeks after the brothers came aboard, the Air Force gifted Powerus its first military contract for an undisclosed number of interceptor drones. At the same time, the company is pitching drone demonstrations to Gulf countries that know buying from the President's sons is sure to curry favor. As former chief White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter put it: “This is going to be the first family of a president to make a lot of money off war — a war he didn’t get the consent of Congress for.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s petty pursuit of his ‘enemies’

President Donald Trump speaks during an arrival ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 28, 2026.

(Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

Trump’s petty pursuit of his ‘enemies’

When the history books write about Donald Trump, they’ll have a lot to say — little of it positive, I’d be willing to wager.

His presidencies have been marked by rank incompetence, unprecedented greed and self-dealing, naked corruption, ethical, legal and moral breaches and, as we repeatedly see, a rise in political division and anger. From impeachments to an insurrection to who-knows-what is still to come, the era of Trump has hardly been worthy of admiration.

Keep ReadingShow less
Whenever political violence erupts, Washington starts playing the blame game

Agents draw their guns after loud bangs were heard during the White House Correspondents' dinner at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., on April 25, 2026. President Trump is attending the annual gala of the political press for the first time while in office.

(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Whenever political violence erupts, Washington starts playing the blame game

A heavily armed California man was caught trying to storm the White House correspondents’ dinner Saturday with the apparent intent to kill the president.

It didn’t take long for Washington to start arguing. Democrats denounce violent rhetoric from the right, but the alleged assailant seemed to be inspired by his own rhetoric. President Trump, after initially offering some unifying remarks about defending free speech, soon started accusing the press of encouraging violence against him. Critics pounced on the hypocrisy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fulcrum Roundtable:  ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent
soldiers in truck

Fulcrum Roundtable:  ‘Chilling Effect’ on Dissent

Congress and the Trump administration are locked in an escalating fight over presidential war powers as President Donald Trump continues military action against Iran without congressional authorization, prompting renewed debate over the limits of executive authority.

Julie Roland, a ten-year Navy veteran and frequent contributor to The Fulcrum, joined Executive Editor Hugo Balta on this month's edition of The Fulcrum Roundtable, where she expressed deep concerns regarding the Trump administration’s impact on military nonpartisanship and the rights of service members.

A former helicopter pilot and lieutenant commander, Roland has used her weekly column to highlight what she describes as a systemic attempt to stifle dissent within the armed forces.

Keep ReadingShow less