US elections: where are the new Roosevelts, Eisenhowers, Kennedys or Fords?

The exit of President Biden, the new Nelson Mandela, has shaken the summer drowsiness of the political scene, although it certainly cannot be said that it was an unexpected earthquake, given the progress of the last confrontation vis-à-vis, at least for audiences more accustomed than others to more refined alchemies of power; the debate, which took place on 27 June, certified a state of contingencies such as to discourage Biden from any further confrontation with the slightly younger Trump, who in turn was a lackluster veteran of the discussion, and solely the beneficiary of the principle whereby in orbe cecatorum monoculo reigns.

If Biden demonstrated confusion and lack of incisiveness, there was no shortage of statements from the Republican candidate devoid of objective correspondence and opportunities, not to mention the dangerously vague assertions regarding foreign policy. By and large, Trump's notes were crude, shouty, populist; the curiosity remains as to what could have happened with a younger and more aggressive interlocutor; if the November dispute then rewards the GOP candidate, then between the European lands and the Taiwanese shores we will have the opportunity to test firsthand the political perspective, understanding how and to what extent it may be attractive to him as a claimed planetary leader, on whom the b-movie images of the assault on the Capitol will forever weigh.

It is true that US foreign policy has left something to be desired, especially if we consider the all too hasty awarding of the devalued Nobel Peace Prize. Insults and more or less veiled accusations of being gods Manchurian Candidate, they closed in ugliness a match that effectively put the seal on the end of politics and on the affirmation of the vulgar cosmic void typical of second-hand television broadcasts. Trump's statements on the one hand certify a political barbarism, on the other the senile decadence of the antagonistic party, in complete anoxia in expressing valid and age-acceptable leaders.

The cameras confirmed for both contenders the pre-formed stereotypes at least until a few days ago, that is, until the wear and tear of power ended up consuming both those who hold it and those who crave it.

Whether seniority is a stigma of wisdom remains to be verified, starting with when to consider the gerontocratic limit; in comparison, Reagan, elected at the age of 70, was nothing more than a promising apprentice, given that Clinton, Trump's contemporary, retired in 2001.

So what? Well, the rubbish of Camilleri, which bring to mind the Soviet glories, strike a good part of the Congress by highlighting a reluctance to cede power and benefits which goes hand in hand with the belief that, perhaps, it would be appropriate to impose age limits, given that if it is true that 86% of voters think Biden is too much elderly, 62% do not save money golfer Trump.

The reality of the facts attests that, net of the disinterest shown by the Dem and the Rep, the Americans would have wanted an alternative capable of shelving the gray hair in favor of a peculiar alternative of a new ruling class, perhaps capable of evaluating a new and even more delicate sunroom and decking area over there Eisenhower.

Politically, the USA must return to being a no country for old men. Biden's stubborn and politically suicidal senescence and Trump's lack of credibility cannot help but raise concerns about the alleged American imperial twilight, an expression of the projection of a power which, involving a large part of the globe, would authorize us to think of an imaginary overseas constituency made up of countries however involved, willy-nilly, in American elections and in any case larger and more populous than Rhode Island (nothing against, for goodness sake). Biden, perhaps, would have liked to impersonate the savior of the essence of manifest destiny comes out of the quagmire of a moral collapse caused by the American system itself.

What awaits the globe, in the face of two ongoing wars, others increasingly imminent and with a commercial system to be rewritten from scratch? Who still trusts Washington under these conditions? What kind of hegemon will the USA become? Will they also rely on a γερουσία (gerousía), on an aristocratic council of elders? Can we count on those who, for vested interests, at this moment, are aiming to oust the holder of the launch codes?

The problem probably lies in the fact that, after falling out of love with the Obama figure, which history is discovering to be complex and contradictory, society fears new things but runs the risk of finding itself involved in an ideal vicious circle of abstentionism, with the polarization of the system.

If the attack on Trump had taken place in southern Europe, the unfortunate Levantines on duty would have been accused of melodramatic carelessness; a remote town in Pennsylvania, forgotten both by divine entities and by figures human, brought back memories of convertible cars and Texan roads and immortalized the shot by Evan Vucci of the Associated Press which, with a perhaps disrespectful comparison, takes us back to the iconography of Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima, where the flags were raised by parents who would now recriminate in horror for sacrifices that allowed clumsy farcical performances. And be careful, because the Trumpian incitement to fight! contains in a nutshell the germs of January 6, 2021, particularly virulent in a country where there are more guns than people who are increasingly convinced of the meandering and misunderstood legitimacy of attacking a political opponent. The shot at Trump clears everyone, even the antagonists of the Republican candidate, who is no longer a monopolist of any form of reprehensible intemperance.

The pressures exerted on Biden, not least those which saw the involvement of the prosaic cash management of income from sponsors, for a moment in dramatic decline, have shown the true face of the political competition which, among not too silent sighs of relief for a retreat delayed beyond measure, now looks to the torrid Chicago Convention on August 19th and the vote that the over 3.000 delegates from the states will have to express in a test of truth in which party discipline will play a fundamental role: no one (sic!) will be able be free to vote for other candidates, given that the decision will have to be taken by absolute majority¹.

Regardless of the news, what remains is the tragedy of the human story of a president who is too old, not irreplaceable, too weak to oppose the courtship and seductions that have left him exposed on defenseless walls. Despite the inevitable apologies of the moment, Kamala Harris will have to propose a coherent political message, a difficulty that derives from her experiences in the judiciary² which have made it disliked by the electorate, an aspect which now, as noted by Ezra Klein of the NYT, would fit perfectly on a front, the security one, which is suffering after the most extreme positions taken in favor of cutting funds for police.

The vice presidential job was uncomfortable; a role certainly not facilitated by the POTUS staff, fearful of shaping a competitor for Biden. The support of the black electorate and the support for the cause pro choice on abortion they will still have to go hand in hand with the defense of the political line supported on immigration.

In summary: Democratic voters who wanted a break with the past will have to come to terms with continuity. While the Republicans aim for working class, Harris³ he will have to look to the more educated electorate, convincing the undecided that he has the capabilities to be a capable president, something of which some, such as James Carville and Alex Castellanos, are not convinced, although with Biden the electoral race was taking a dangerous slope.

The season of uncertainty has begun for an electoral campaign that has already gone down in history, given that despite the endorsement the Biden-Harris change of hands may not be so obvious given that there is no rule that authorizes any automation, that the primaries have already passed and that we need to face a Convention poised between coronation and the gauntlet⁴; it is no coincidence that Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution imagined Biden's withdrawal in unsuspecting times a sort of convention where all options are possible, that is, where each faction could push for its own champion, a politically tragic scenario which, in 1968, had already seen the Dems lose with the renunciation of Lyndon Johnson's second term.

The favorable fronts will have to emerge in the next few hours, for example that of the governors of California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, all of whom are however afraid of getting burned in the 2028 presidential elections; moreover, this Convention will not be a ceremonial formality, but will offer the stage for actual decisions, such as that relating to the choice of the vice-presidential candidate, which is more necessary than ever to balance the context and broaden the consensus.

If Harris were to win, she would be the first woman, also of color, to become president in the history of the USA. Another problem of no small importance will be the conduct of an electoral campaign in a short time, with only 3 months to make yourself known to 250 million Americans and convince them to vote for you.

With roles now reversed, one strong point will be precisely that of age, which has turned against the Reps, who suddenly found themselves more old. For the Dems, preferring other candidates to Kamala Harris risks splitting the party, despite there being strong reservations about her percentage chances of success; an open Convention could prove to be a disaster, confirming chaos and divisions. Another atmosphere, optimistic and cohesive in Milwaukee where, between the performances of wrestlers and the diffusion of no sleep of Puccini's Turandot, another beautiful enigma, other than politics, the GOP has handed over the presidential mission to Trump, dedicated to attracting Midwestern voters, the working class and to confronting the embarrassing Project 2025, developed by the Heritage Foundation and which aims to give greater power and direct federal controls to the president⁵.

At the moment the most powerful country in the world lacks fundamental guidelines for the need, while the dialectic slips further and further downwards, demonstrating that money is not enough to provide a rational and fruitful political education. The country of presidential doctrines now does not have one available for ferrying towards a November too far away for a nuclear power and with a president too similar to a Viscount halved. In recent years, a consolidated tradition of thought, teaching and learning has been missing, because there has been nothing to learn or teach in a country marked by profound basic ignorance.⁶.

The candidates for the presidential seat are the most incompatible there is with FD Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, but it is also true both that a political subject who renounces his own history without drawing lessons from it for the future runs the risk of plodding along like a lame duck, and that the sum of Frank Underwood's thoughts can be adapted to the circumstances: The road to power is paved with hypocrisy and deaths. Never regret.