Between the morbid and the criminal: The 2024 US presidential election, By Toyin Falola

On 27 June, American citizens were caught between the devil and the sea, coming to the realities that followed the presidential debate. They are left with either choice and no choice at the same time: the Morbid Biden or the Criminal Trump. The American elections draw near, and the leadership of the “leaders of the free world” will emerge, but at this point, Americans cannot say with full conviction which of the two options would be the most preferable. The presidential debates have always been a rendezvous point for American citizens to have access to the person of their potential leaders, speaking to their plans as well as casting projectors on their approach to solving the issues faced by Americans.

Unfortunately, many citizens have seen the debate as one of the worst in history, with unapologetic underperformance from both candidates, underwhelming the audience far below their expectations. To be honest, the expectation had been high, seeing that the debate involved people who had both filled the shoes of the Oval Office. A supposed intellectual combat between the former president and the incumbent downgraded to a level quite below High School prefectorial position debates and banters. I mean, Americans tuned their television sets to watch banters, falsehood, and some incongruent dispositions.

Since 26 September, 1960, when the first-ever televised debate was held between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, the American political landscape has never remained the same, and the anticipation of the people for subsequent debates is with countless justifications. The debates have always been an important democratic step towards finalising the capability of the candidates and their agility and confidence to be the head of the most powerful country in the world.

Riding on this background, the debate had been part of the winning factors of John F. Kennedy at the polls as he exuded more confidence, reliability, and assertiveness in the debate against Nixon. From that debate, Nixon was perceived as quite uncomfortable, and it affected the notion of the Americans regarding his candidacy. To some extent, the debate influenced the decisions of the voters in favour of Kennedy.

A similar incident was the 1980 debate, in which the close candidacy of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan was widely decided by the intensity of their performance in the debates. Reagan had appeared quite confident, fitting the American expectations and a better alternative to Carter for the most important political seat in the world, influencing the direction of the voters’ decision at the polls. Reagan’s mastery and confidence in the debates also helped him in the 1984 debates, allowing him victory over Mondale. In the 1988 debate, how Michael Dukakis handled a question put to him on the controversial topic of the death penalty at the debate against Bush, with a hypothetical example of his wife being attacked, was said to have affected his chances. The people had seen him as unemotional from the response, and this posed a great challenge to his campaign.

President Gerald Ford’s statement that “there is no soviet domination of Eastern Europe” at the 1976 debate did not go well with the citizens, who saw him as a blunder and someone whom reality had eluded. The relatability achieved by Bush against a condescending Al Gore at the 2000 debate contributed to his victory. A similar trend followed the 2012 and 2016 debates of Obama against Romney and that of Trump against Clinton.

From the above, it is obvious that the essence of the American debate cannot be underestimated; it further helps the citizens to regain confidence in a particular candidate, somewhat settle close ranges, and propel indecisive electorates to a position. However, the results of the debates and the antecedence of the candidates put the citizens in a dilemma. It revealed the exact fear of the people. The two candidates had one job at the debates: to convince people that their fears were not real in support of their candidacy. However, it only showed that Americans were going to be torn between the morbid and the criminal.

President Biden has faced a lot of criticism on the state of his health for an 81-year-old president who would be 86 years old at the end of his tenure if elected for a second term. This had been the thorn in the side of Biden’s campaign group as a struggle to prove otherwise. To address some of these issues, Biden released some medical reports that seem to assert or imply a good bill of health. His doctor had described him as “a healthy, vigorous 80-year-old mate who is fit to execute the duties of the presidency.”

The debate contradicts Dr. Kelvin O’Connor’s statement about President Biden’s health status. His handling of questions, replies, rebuttals, and composure during the debates has brought about more justification for the fears of the people. Biden had a low voice that the audience could barely hear during the debate and, at some point, made wrong references, misapplied statements, and words that questioned his mental and physical ability to carry on the job. Although Biden had been entering a rigorous work schedule, the trend has shown that he had not been having many impromptu engagements that he was not prepared for.

The core of the concern is that Biden might remain unable to make independent decisions without the influence of the people around him, no matter their intentions. Well, concerns have been raised about whether he still has the agility to face intense situations and conditions that are not too far from the office he aspires to continue occupying. We must not shy away from the truth: the presidency is a rigorous activity, and Americans deserve a president who is healthy enough, mentally and physically, to drive the affairs of the nation.

But where the people decide not to choose Biden for his health concern, is Trump the better devil or alternative? America rides on the mantra and philosophy of freedom and protection of the rights of the people. Would Trump’s antecedents not be contrary to these ideals? No matter how nations criticize the US, it is a determinant factor in the globalization trends across the world. Would the United States be ready to leave the country’s duty and determination in the hands of a man with questionable character? Trump took his jamboree of lies and falsities to the presidential debates, reeling out facts that were not true, exaggerating his accomplishments, and failing to address the issues head-on.

The non-conventional, evading, and notorious demeanour and false statements of Trump on subjects like “superpredators” statements, tax cuts, the economy, the border, the environment, abortion, and other subjects pose another concern for the people. This circles back to the different character questions that Trump had to struggle with. The federal indictments of mal-handling classified documents that question his respect for his office and integrity to occupy the seat, the Georgia indictment that questioned his attempted interference in the 2020 elections, and the hush-money indictment that made him one of the first convicted presidents in the history of America, begs the question whether the country is ready to go on an outing with a convicted criminal in the next fear years. What will the world perceive of a president like Trump?

Aside from these indictments, Trump has brought the integrity of the presidency to question, even under his administration. His statements against immigrants, blacks, and other people of colour have questioned if he is not holding a contrary view to the very principles that form the pillars of the United States. The sins of Trump while occupying the Oval Office have been disturbing. Americans need to remember how he carelessly handled the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to refresh the memory of voters about his role on January 6, 2021, when he attacked the capitol with his supporters and further incited the actions. His inhuman attitude to helpless immigrants who had their families and children mercilessly separated from their loved ones and parents.

President Trump has failed during and after his tenure to take a bold stand against racism, a concern that cannot be forgiven by American citizens who are innately of diverse origins. One must not forget his 2017 comments on the Charlottesville rally. He had also maintained unfavourable foreign relations and policies that saw the respect for the United States questioned by the international communities. So, would Americans be ready to forgo these sins to unthinkingly follow his candidacy?

There is an impasse, but I believe the Americans must think outside the box. First, Biden’s followers need to urgently call him to point out that his second tenure might undo whatever good he had done in his first. Sometimes, the best warriors are not those who can fight on but those who are disciplined enough to know how and when to stop.

The Democrats need to rise to reality and not be too arrogant to embrace Biden’s situation. It would be only heroic to withdraw a candidate whose fitness to run is in question. I am sure the party has a pool of people who would be just as qualified as Biden. Kamala Harris, who has been the Vice President, is another good fit that would be appropriate for different reasons. First, she has served with Biden and expected to be acquitted with the party and Biden’s blueprints if derailment would be the worry. Secondly, her emergence would be an early credit to the Democrats as she represents the political minority identities in different ways. If she is chosen and elected, she would be the first female president in the history of America and the second black to hold the office, among other reasons. I doubt, though, that Kamala Harris can be a popular choice among Democrats for reasons that space does not permit its elaboration.

Well, Americans should not put their fates on the uncertainty of a party’s political permutation. However, it seems that Americans are left with two choices, and that’s quite a myopic take. It is probably time to consider the “others.”

Toyin Falola, a professor of History, University Distinguished Teaching Professor, and Jacob and Frances Sanger Mossiker Chair in the Humanities at The University of Texas at Austin, is the Bobapitan of Ibadanland.