THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MUST BE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE DEPARTMENTAL MANAGERS.

Former homeland security secretary Jeh Johnson used that point to express his confidence in Our President.  “A presidency is more than just one man. I would take Joe Biden at his worst day at age 86 so long as he has people around him like Avril Haines, Samantha Power, Gina Raimondo supporting him, over Trump any day.”  Implicitly, he's noting that none of those people would be among the Trump administration's staffers.  He went on to suggest that the absence of competent senior managers might have contributed to the stupid and futile gesture at the Federal Capitol the day the electoral votes were tallied.  Member of Congress Daniel Goldman, a Democrat from New York, argued similarly.  "[L]et’s not just focus on Joe Biden here. Let’s focus on the people around him, the administration, the policies, and most importantly, the appreciation and protection for the rule of law and our democracy that Donald Trump, every single day, has vowed to take down."

The senior managers, and the worker bees on the staff, matter.  Immediately before that nationally televised debate, Our President's defenders were explaining away the "I'm going to get into trouble" and the lists of correspondents to call on as staff work.  And yes, the absence of that sort of staff late in 2016 put the Trump presidency on the back foot: even if you have only slim hopes of winning, shouldn't you at least have some sketch of a transition ready to go?  That noted, as the extent to which politicians' staffers attempt to influence the questions reporters ask is now making the newsies angry.

The senior staffers, though, are people well-versed in the ways of the Swamp, and that, argues John Hinderaker, might explain why the departmental secretaries have not yet held that 25th Amendment meeting.

Why don’t Democrats don’t think it makes much difference who the president is? Because they are content to have our government run by anonymous White House aides and administrative state bureaucrats. What do they need a president for? To issue Pride Month proclamations and appoint liberal judges. But anyone can do that. Thus, there is no obligation to talk about the fact that the president might as well be a waxwork effigy. And as for foreign policy, they are embarrassed by American power and don’t want the U.S. to play a strong role in the world. So a weak president is fine there, too.

All of this flows from the fact that the Democrats are the party of the status quo. They are happy with the way things are in Washington–which is, in a nutshell, government by people no one voted for. Republicans, conversely, are the party of change. To Republicans, it matters who the president is. We need someone who is competent and energetic, and above all able to battle the bureaucracy to bring about change in a conservative direction. And if you want America to play a positive role in the world, you need a functioning president, too.

So from the Democrats’ point of view, their silence in the face of Biden’s increasing dementia is understandable. The only thing they want from a president is that he beat Donald Trump, and thus block change from occurring.

And yet, doesn't the chief executive have to be sentient enough to settle the disagreements, whether of the faculty-senate-strain-at-gnats wordsmithing or of things more fundamental?  A president who is a wax-works effigy cannot do that, nor can a president with no core principles.

But in that "government by people no one voted for" lies a more fundamental challenge.  I recall something along those lines coming up half a century ago in a comparative politics class.  The discussion section leader made an observation about how voting for Richard Nixon brought Milton Friedman along in the bundle of advisors.  (That wasn't 100% correct, as Milton Friedman took pride in not serving on presidential councils, and in Madison in the early 1970s he was the boogeyman; but the message about something other than Walter Heller's economics guiding policy was on point.)  I recall the section leader's point as something along the lines that popular sovereignty was incomplete: in voting for a president, which people did, was installing a bunch of managers that voters might not even know about.  Whether a Lyndon Johnson who can knock heads together or a Donald Trump capable of firing people suffices to battle the bureaucracy is a sufficient answer to that implicitly undemocratic implicitly bureaucratic bundle of senior managers who get into turf fights of their own is another matter.  Yascha Mounk, observing the Biden follies more in sadness than in anger, elaborates.

For the administration to set out a clear direction for the country and push forward important legislation, you need a leader capable of formulating and implementing a vision. For the vast apparatus of the federal bureaucracy to accomplish anything beyond routine tasks, you need a manager who pushes and probes and admonishes. And in the case of a genuine geopolitical emergency, you need a statesman who is capable of making the toughest of calls—potentially including decisions about whether to deploy nuclear weapons—in a matter of minutes. A team of politicos vying for the favor of a flailing principal simply isn’t capable of leading the most powerful country on earth, no matter how smart or decent each of them may happen to be.

That observation has become more salient with the Biden loyalists touting the supporting cast.

Reminder:
You’re electing a team. pic.twitter.com/enfLCNE7rw

— Chris Strider (@stridinstrider) July 9, 2024

That provides Twitchy's Sam J. a light moment or two.  "Strider's post reeks of desperation. 'Sure, Biden sucks, but don't worry ... there are less sucky people around him who will make the actual decisions, including his harpy of a wife and his drug-addicted degenerate son. YAY TEAM!'"  Victory Girl Nina Bookout found some additional back-talk.  Swallow your coffee before you click over.

My Chicago Boyz colleague David Foster raises more substantive questions about the nature of that staff.

[W]hile it has long been clear that Biden is getting a significant degree of direction and  ‘help’  in executing the duties of his office, we in America today don’t have a good understanding of who these helpers/directors might be.  This question has become increasingly pressing over he last couple of weeks.

I don’t think there’s anything like a formal  “cabal” for telling Joe Biden what to do.  Much more likely, we have a loosely-coupled set of influencers, with power even greater–much greater–than typical of a president’s inner circle.  Who are these people?  Barack Obama, certainly, and many members of the Obama administration: there is some truth to the statement that the Biden administration has really been the third Obama administration.   Doctor Jill Biden, playing the role of Edith Wilson. Ron Klain. Susan Rice. We can only guess who else, because the influencers are not a formal organization from whom transparency can be demanded.

That becomes particularly troubling once one considers that presidents will sometimes introduce discord into their cabinets, in order to have a team of rivals, or something.  That only intensifies the internal politics, as each departmental secretary might envision himself a president or senator some day.  It's hard to conceive of Mr Biden on a bad day being able to bring a contentious debate to an end, let alone to stand alone against a consensus he, as the decider, decides is in error.

In less than two years, Biden and his ˜Commissioners” have done tremendous damage to the United States and the world.  It is hard to imagine that any future Democratic administration would not also be heavily subject to the influence of Obama and the other ‘commissioners’ I mentioned above, leaving aside only Doctor Jill Biden. The best hope of minimizing this damage lies in the potential for a Republican House and and Republican Senate. True, many of the candidates are not what we would wish. But he best is the enemy of the good, and the issue of the moment is not establishing ideal policies but rather avoiding multiple catastrophes.

With the Jarrett regency in a massive internal battle over who gets to say "No more bickering" at the Cabinet meeting, there'd better be some middle manager types in the Trump campaign with backup plans, particularly to call attention to the damaging policies rather than to the doddering figurehead who is signing off on them.

Trump’s team is scrambling to prepare for any outcome, including whether it may need to mount a new campaign focused on a different opponent.

“Every Democrat who is calling on Crooked Joe Biden to quit was once a supporter of Biden and his failed policies that lead to extreme inflation, an open border, and chaos at home and abroad,” LaCivita and Wiles said in their statement. “Make no mistake that Democrats, the main stream media, and the swamp colluded to hide the truth from the American public.”

That is, somebody had better be ready with a fool me once, shame on you response should the Democrats swap out Our President for another fake centrist Democrat.  "The 2024 election will be about which side can make a better case for the American people as a path out of Biden’s endless dark winter. The Democrats have only one plan: scare voters to the polls. The Trump side must find a way to offer something better."  Keep your eye on the ball, suggests John "Bravo Blue" Lucas.  "[I]f Biden does survive the intra-party battle and remains as the nominee, the GOP will not have lost anything by concentrating on substantive policy issues, and they can still point to his obvious decrepitude."