“American politics is so disastrous and depressing. What if we looked at French politics instead? No, forget it.” You only have to read his latest posts on Twitter to understand that David A. Bell is hardly optimistic about the fate of two of the oldest democracies in the world. The eminent historian, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, joins the long list of observers who would not look unfavorably on Joe Biden’s withdrawal after his catastrophic debate against Donald Trump. Even if he was rather convinced on the substance by the American president’s performance against the Republican candidate who “lies every time he opens his mouth.”
When he’s not poring over the American elections, this professor at Princeton University, a specialist in the French Revolution, keeps an eye on the inexorable rise of the National Rally, now on the threshold of power. And he makes the following observation: “what is happening in France right now is pretty much what happened in the United States about ten years ago.” Interview.
The Express: “If you put aside the performance and judge the debate solely on the merits of the arguments and the accuracy of the facts presented, Biden won easily,” you recently wrote in an op-ed. Yet that’s not what observers took away from the debate…
David A. Bell : Joe Biden’s performance was so bad that it overshadowed the substance of the debate. As soon as he entered the stage, he appeared frail, pale, he spoke in a hesitant and slow manner. Very often, he did not answer questions posed by CNN. The contrast with his much-noticed State of the Union speech last March is very shocking.
That said, if we assume that you don’t win a debate by lying, it goes without saying that Joe Biden won. When he says that the American economy is healthy, he is telling the truth. Just as he does when he explains that immigration problems do not date from his term but are a long-standing problem. In this, he was absolutely right to point out that Republican senators voted against a bipartisan text that aimed to strengthen border security, and this, only because they did not want to give the American president a victory on this issue. Of course, there are things that are more or less true in what Biden said during the debate, but he “lied” as any ordinary politician would do, whereas Trump lies every time he opens his mouth. Whether on inflation or other subjects, almost everything he said during this debate was a lie.
Since Biden’s poor performance, calls have been growing for him to withdraw from the race for the White House. In an unprecedented move, the powerfull New York Times took a position in this sense. You don’t seem to believe in a withdrawal, why?
After his failed debate performance, the Biden family held a summit meeting last weekend to take stock of the situation. They all said that we had to fight and keep going. Everyone in the family is devoted to him. And like any person of a certain age, he himself does not want to believe that he is losing his strength, that he is no longer up to campaigning or being president. He thinks that he saved the United States, that he saved democracy. He has done a lot during his term. He has passed several very important bills. And let’s face it, during the debate, Biden did not show senility. It was not on the substance that he failed his performance, because the content was there, but on the manner in which he expressed himself. Let’s not forget that he has never been a great speaker. [NDLR : Biden est un ancien bègue]. But like almost all politicians who arrive at the White House, Biden has a big ego, he believes in himself, and so it will be very difficult to persuade him to step down. If the other leaders of the Democratic Party do not try anything between now and the Democratic convention [NDLR : qui se tiendra à partir du 19 août]he will be a candidate.
Much has been made of the role played by Jill Biden in his decision to run again at all costs…
It’s not just Jill Biden, it’s him. Most of the people around him were already there when he was vice president or senator. They are very loyal to him and have a hard time imagining a world without him. This is the case with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, for example, who has been by his side for more than twenty years now. Whether it’s his family or his team, they are all very devoted to him. None of them want to believe that he is no longer fit to campaign.
By deciding to go all the way, he is taking the major risk of leading the Democrats to defeat…
I’m too much of a historian to make predictions (laughs). The vast majority of Americans have already made their choice, but I think the chances of Biden winning are much slimmer after this debate. If you take key states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada or Arizona, where the vote will be very close, this debate could have a significant effect. There are probably enough divided voters who now believe that Biden is not up to the task. Faced with Trump, who spoke in a strong, decisive manner, they saw a candidate who gave the impression of being a very weak person. And among Americans, many are wondering how, in this state, he will be able to fight with Putin or China.
Several Democratic names have been put forward to replace Biden, such as the governor of California. Gavin Newsom. Do you believe in such a scenario?
It’s going to be very difficult. American election campaigns have become a kind of big military campaign. It’s not just a question of personality, it’s also a question of resources. There’s a whole team that’s ready to run Biden’s campaign. They’ve already raised hundreds of millions of dollars. His replacement could get some of that money back, but not all of it.
Are the United States and the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
I answer very simply no (laughs). Trump is quite lazy, he doesn’t study the files. So everything will depend on the people he surrounds himself with, on their project. But I fear that this time he will surround himself with people who are much more radical than during his first term. It remains to be seen whether he will have enough support within Congress. Nothing is less certain, especially in the Senate. [NDLR : à majorité démocrate].
You are an expert on French political history. Do you see any parallels between the rise of populism in France with the possible rise of the National Rally to power and the radicalization of conservatism in the United States under Donald Trump?
Absolutely. What is happening to you right now in France is more or less what happened about ten years ago in the United States. There is a moment that can be described as populist where those who feel excluded, those who are not part of the elites, neither intellectual nor economic, those who live outside the centers and large cities, those who do not travel much, who do not study abroad and who are afraid of the opening of society to the world, are joining forces against the elites, as we observed in the United States during the 2016 election with the election of Trump.
In this, Emmanuel Macron is a bit like the French Hillary Clinton. He is part of the elite, he is perceived as arrogant, as someone who has no sympathy for ordinary citizens and who does not understand them. In both cases, we have the impression of two technocratic minds who do not really like to persuade people, they prefer to give them a lecture. And nobody appreciates having someone who speaks to us in that way. Remember, during the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump’s voters “pathetic”, a very poorly chosen expression. The Republicans were quick to tell the Americans “how can you elect someone who has nothing but contempt for ordinary Americans?” If Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2016, we would probably have seen a reaction from the people towards her as strong as we see in France with Macron.
You seem to have a rather severe view of the Macron presidency…
Emmanuel Macron does not embody the people but rather rather abstract ideas about what the country should be, and that is not enough. As the great technocrat that he is, he could have been a great Prime Minister under a president who knew how to speak to the people. He would have had much more success at Matignon than at the Elysée.
.