As President Joe Biden weighs whether to remain in the 2024 race, one of the defenses offered by the president’s supporters is noteworthy — not just for what it says about Biden’s acumen, but also for what it says about the state of the modern presidency .
Earlier this week, former Obama administration official Jeh Johnson said during an appearance on MSNBC that the election is really about choosing a administrative, Not the president.
“The presidency is more than just one person,” Johnson told Joe Scarborough. “As long as Joe Biden has the likes of Avril Haines, Samantha Power, Gina Raimondo and others supporting him, I will choose to be on 86-year-old Joe Biden’s worst day Support him, not Donald Trump.
Of course, this is true. There are more than 4 million people working in the executive branch of the federal government, and Joe Biden is one of them. Most are full-time, nonpolitical appointees, but each president can make about 4,000 appointments (including about 1,200 positions that require Senate confirmation). There is clearly more to the presidency than just one person.
Even so, it is interesting — and perhaps telling — that we have now had two consecutive presidential administrations employing versions of the same argument in response to questions about the fitness of the person purportedly running the federal government.
During the Trump administration, Trump-skeptic Republicans often used similar arguments to justify supporting the then-president despite his apparent temper issues and general lack of interest in the details of policymaking. It’s about the judges he appoints. It’s about provisions that will be revoked by his administration appointees. It’s about military leaders who would stop him from doing reckless things.
Maybe the president is just a friend we met along the way?
The same argument has been circulating in Republican circles during this campaign. “It is entirely possible to argue that Trump should not be president because he wants to act in ways inconsistent with our Constitution, but if he does become president, he will not be able to escape the core constraints of the system,” wrote national reviewCharles Cooke epitomizes Trump-skeptical conservatives. “Making this case is not an attempt to ‘defend Trump’ but rather to express confidence in the American model of government against those who would undermine it.”
Whether it’s to curb the worst impulses of a confused populist in the Oval Office or to prop up a man who goes to bed before 8 p.m., this argument makes strategic sense. This is to reassure voters that they can continue to support the name at the top of the ballot even if they have doubts about the president himself. Maybe Biden thinks he “defeated Medicare,” but don’t worry because there are actually more responsible people running the program.
But this entire argument, while accurate, is in clear conflict with the way most modern presidential campaigns operate. They are all about the person on the ticket.
Maybe this needs to change. We expect the president to name his or her running mate before the convention, but perhaps that expectation should extend to other positions in government as well.
This is not to say that Trump or Biden need to give us a list of 4,000 people they will appoint if elected. But if government is truly more than just one person, would it hurt if voters knew better about who would hold key positions — positions that are, generally speaking, more consequential than the vice presidency?
This will provide more transparency and information to voters. It may also help curb the dangerous trend of building a cult of personality around presidents, which is healthy for our democracy.
The modern presidency is clearly too big for anyone to fully run for — and certainly far beyond the capabilities of Trump and Biden in the states they currently hold. We should be more willing to say the same thing.
