Correspondent of World in Washington, Gilles Paris answered questions from Internet users on the results of Joe Biden’s first hundred days as President of the United States and on the challenges facing the Democrat.
Page Contents
Curious observer: By wanting to put the federal state back at the heart of the game, won’t Biden awaken the antagonisms that go back to the first steps in the history of the United States?
Gilles Paris: It is true that the return to “big government” desired by Joe Biden can potentially rekindle tensions, but they seem more to do with the conservative Reaganian revolution and the size of the welfare state than with the debates linked to the Tenth Amendment. on the competences of the federal state compared to those of the states.
Joe Biden offers programs that are in addition to what already exists. What republican governor could, for example, oppose the generalization of nursery schools or the creation of sick leave assumed by the federal state when these are very popular measures in the public opinion?
Vienna Logan: Is Biden that revolutionary? Isn’t that an optical effect?
Donald Trump’s policy was, in fact, quite indefinable. It included classically Republican elements such as tax cuts, but combined with the commitment not to touch social spending, which however denied the crusade against Obamacare.
Donald Trump observed no fiscal discipline, including before the pandemic, and he assumed during the health crisis the signing of checks addressed directly to Americans (embellished with his signature), a perfect heresy for a classic fiscal conservative.
The revolutionary side of Joe Biden, even if we can of course discuss the term, lies in his desire to return to “big government” financed by tax increases, whereas they were synonymous with political suicide. not so long ago. It is an extremely risky bet, but potentially revolutionary in view of the last forty years of American public policy.
Also listen Joe Biden, the revolutionary we weren’t expecting
Cyrano: What part of Joe Biden’s announcements would require a qualified majority?
None, and this is why he focused most of his speech on his “jobs” plan – the other name given to the massive investments envisaged in both tangible and intangible infrastructures – and on his “family” plan. Because they include fiscal provisions, he can, in fact, be satisfied with the simple majority he has in the Senate, where everything will be decided, by taking advantage of the so-called “reconciliation” procedure which allows it. He has already received the green light from the independent parliamentary official who is the arbiter.
It is unlikely that the Republican Party, spurred on from a distance by Donald Trump, will engage in a real negotiation. The counter-proposal made so far by Republican senators on infrastructure cannot really be considered serious.
However, he must now obtain the unanimous support of the Democratic senators, which means that he will have to convince the centrists, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, of the relevance of his choices. This cannot be taken for granted and it is very possible that the proposals will be revised downwards, as will their financing by taxes.
Sol75: Does Trump have the means today to force Republicans to oppose Biden’s policies head on? If so, what are the most problematic areas of contestation?
Donald Trump retains enormous influence over the Republican Party because he remains the main driver of campaign fundraising. Locked in his conspiracy theories about the alleged electoral fraud that would have cost him his re-election, he stands in a posture of frontal, absolute opposition.
In the Senate, Republicans who are in theory more impervious to his pressures are opposed to Joe Biden’s plans for powerful ideological reasons: out of hostility to any increase in the welfare state and out of fierce attachment to the principle of tax cuts.
This conjunction of oppositions leaves little room for negotiation on investment projects and none for societal issues that are fetishistic for conservatives, such as guns or abortion. There could be exceptions, for the fate of undocumented migrants who arrived as children in the United States, the Dreamers, perhaps also in terms of reforms of police practices. But the odds are slim in the context of unprecedented polarization that is paralyzing Washington.
Arnaud: The situation on the Mexican border, with the influx of migrants, still seems complicated even if the media seem to talk less about it (at least the European media). What measures has Biden put in place?
The wave of arrivals at the border was arguably prompted by an ambiguous message from the Biden administration which presented itself both as the opposite of Donald Trump, and which extolled his respect for human values, while urging undocumented migrants to stay at home.
It was taken aback by the influx but it is a new cycle which should end with the arrival of the hot weather which makes this trip even more perilous and by the establishment of better cooperation. with Mexico and the countries of departure. But the problem will remain unsolved in the absence of Congress’ ability to pass comprehensive immigration reform that has been imperative for more than a decade.
Regarding the “wall”, which he promised that he would not add an additional meter, we are still waiting for the plan that was promised. Joe Biden backtracked on the Pentagon’s reallocations of funds that funded the majority of the work, in the name of a national emergency declaration that was rescinded, but he has no power over funds voted by the Congress. On Wednesday, he spoke of a “smart wall” based on electronic devices. It is very likely that the physical “wall” of which Donald Trump was so proud will never be completed.
madmaxxx: What are Joe Biden’s real commitments to ecology in this balance sheet speech?
Environmental commitments depend to a large extent on the ability of the new administration to get its investment projects adopted. Joe Biden has already adopted concrete measures, such as the return of the United States to the Paris agreement against global warming or the cancellation of anti-environmental deregulations decided by Donald Trump.
Buber: Why is there so much continuity between Trump’s foreign policy and Biden’s?
The main purpose of foreign policy is to defend the interests of a country, and these rarely change drastically from one presidency to another. However, breaks are evident in terms of alliances, the defense of values, or multilateralism. Joe Biden, unlike Donald Trump who undoubtedly adhered partly out of laziness and partly instinctively to a relativism set up in a system, thinks that the interests of his country are better preserved with these tools than without.
He also believes, contrary to the insular (rather than isolationist) temptation of his predecessor, that the challenges facing the United States require a global response as shown by the fight against the current pandemic. He also thinks diplomacy is useful, especially in gaining control of Iran’s nuclear program in Iran.
The two men alike see China as the main challenge to American power, but they respond to it in totally different ways. For Donald Trump, obsessed with the trade deficit, a success meant tons of soybeans sold in Beijing, also to please the farmer voters of Iowa. On China, Joe Biden speaks of technological challenge, research and development, artificial intelligence, which his predecessor was concerned about.
Lorenzaccio: As a journalist, what has changed? Are you seeing greater transparency, for example?
Donald Trump had made his presidency a reality TV sequence in which he was at the center of everything, constantly dictating the agenda through his messages on social networks, including in relation to an administration regularly taken by surprise and outdated by events. The press was divided into two camps: the friends with whom it was omnipresent, starting with the powerful Fox News, and the enemies. The confrontation with the latter was moreover part of his presidency.
Joe Biden makes the opposite choice: that of scarcity, calm, even boredom. The presidential word is thought out and controlled, to the point that the administration is sometimes taken aback by the unexpected, such as the crisis at the Mexican border. Relations are dispassionate, professional, but this concern for mastery is obviously an obstacle: for the moment we come up against the elements of language, while the petaudière that the Trump administration was fueling the “leaks” with a continuous stream. This impermeability is likely to fuel growing frustration among the media, which initially appreciated no longer being called “enemies of the people”, a qualifier whose violence was underestimated.
