How is it possible for a nation to have three presidents and still lack a clear leader?
Maybe I have already provided the answer myself. Three presidents seem excessive for any nation—particularly under the current circumstances we are witnessing in the United States. Before he vanished on election night, the sitting president had been gradually retreating from the limelight for an entire year. He is now effectively missing in action. Meanwhile, our president-elect has been behaving as though he is in office since the first week of November, but he has also essentially appointed a shadow president in Elon Musk, who currently appears to wield the most influence among the trio.
Regarding our two political parties, the incoming president’s party and his unelected co-leader lack spine, while the party of the astonishingly absent incumbent is completely adrift.
What could possibly go wrong?
Let’s delve into the odd and somewhat tragic situation of Joe Biden, the former president in waiting, along with his party, the Democrats. Biden is an upstanding individual who has accomplished a significant amount during his time in office—the nation is indebted to him. Nonetheless, he should not have pursued a second term and should have made that clear well over a year ago. He ought to have served as the transitional leader he committed to being. By failing to do so, his struggles as a candidate have placed the party and his intended successor, Vice President Kamala Harris, in a precarious situation. To her credit, she almost won the election while undertaking the briefest campaign in US political history.
Since that day in July when Biden stepped back, he has largely receded from public awareness. Undoubtedly, part of this was to provide Harris the space she required to campaign in his stead, although even the mere thought of his presence made it challenging for her to separate herself from many of his policies. Clearly, that burden weighed on her during a year when the American populace was evidently seeking change.
However, Biden has continued to withdraw in both determination and public role. (For instance, he announced commendable climate objectives on Thursday, although he and everyone else knows they are insignificant since Donald Trump will repeal them shortly.) The dilemma for the Democratic Party, then, is that with the current president approaching a deserved retirement, his vice president having lost in November, and potential 2028 candidates already assembling teams behind the scenes but reluctant to appear eager, a leadership gap has emerged within the party.
While capable and respected, no member of the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill currently stands out as a viable “leader of the opposition” against Republican dominance in both houses of Congress. The move by the party’s aging leadership to thwart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the Democrats’ most significant rising figures, from leading the party on the House Oversight Committee underscores their shortsightedness. This is precisely the moment Democrats should be championing generational change. The older members, for the most part, are resisting it.
On the other side, Republicans find themselves once more in disarray. About six weeks after a narrow but solid victory in November, we are faced with a new installation of a familiar narrative: a government shutdown due to a fractious GOP-controlled House’s inability to unify over budgetary concerns. A continuing resolution to avert furloughing millions of government employees and shutting down essential services during the Christmas season was on the verge of passing when Musk, the DOGE lord and the world’s wealthiest individual, voiced concerns over its alleged fiscal irresponsibility.
Merry f-cking Christmas, Mr. Scrooge.
Of course, Scrooge was a fictional character. Musk, however, is all too real. He has seemingly decided to reign over America through tweets. And regarding the squeaking minions within the GOP Congress, his statements carry significant weight—especially now that there’s no character limit. This is because he has indicated his readiness to fund challenges to Republicans who fail to adhere to his directions.
Trump does not seem to show any concern regarding the disruption Musk is causing. In fact, he appears to appreciate it; he has certainly devoted more time during the transition phase to Musk than to nearly anyone else, Melania included. During all this, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has almost been as invisible as Biden, leading to the inevitable speculation that perhaps he is not real after all, but merely an inflatable HOV-lane dummy or some groundbreaking creation from Musk’s robotics lab. (Considering Vance’s campaign performance, one might assume that if he were a Musk creation, he originated from the Boring Company’s facilities.)
Curiously, neither Trump nor Musk is actually in the White House yet. Musk has never received a single vote from an American voter. Quite frankly, he isn’t even eligible for the presidency. Yet in today’s political climate, they seem to be the driving forces behind discussions concerning the government’s operational continuity.
Thus, it is hardly surprising that having too many presidents does not enhance the traditional notion of having one at a time. Honestly, even as we return to having just two in late January, the outlook does not appear favorable. With Trump strutting like an aging peacock and Musk assuming the role of the GOP’s financial guru, tensions between the two are likely to escalate. Whether due to Trump’s notoriously fragile ego, Musk’s desire to run the country his way because he financed it, or the increasing dissatisfaction among the fractious GOP caucus regarding their heavy-handed approach, it seems almost certain that the current chaos will persist for a considerable time ahead.
