A Dangerous Interregnum
President Biden's decision to allow Ukraine to fire American missiles deep into Russian territory risks plunging the world into crisis in the finals months of his administration.
The transfer of power between heads of state can often be a process fraught with great peril. This is particularly true in cases where the departing and incoming leaders have radically different views regarding a country’s posture towards friends and adversaries. The level of risk increases in proportion to the length of the interregnum. While there are potential domestic discontinuities that can be concerning, the main risk involves miscommunication with other countries that could spiral into armed conflict.
America is currently experiencing one of the most dangerous transitions of power in the country’s history. Donald Trump won a resounding victory on November 5, 2024 but will not take office until January 20, 2025, a period of seventy-six days. Although economic factors most likely played the predominant role in the election, foreign policy considerations also came into play and represented the decisive factor in my own decision to vote for Mr. Trump.
The President-elect was very clear throughout the campaign that he would seek to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, or at least an end to American involvement in the war. In contrast, the outgoing Biden administration has steadily escalated American involvement. This escalation has continued beyond the election. This morning, The Wall Street Journal reported that President Biden has approved the use of long-range missiles to strike deep into Russian territory. In addition, American defense contractors are now permitted to enter Ukraine to repair American supplied weapons and aircraft. This will obviously be seen as a massive provocation by Russia, a country equipped with over five thousand nuclear weapons as well as hypersonic missiles impervious to existing missile defense systems.
The debate over whether the United States should have involved itself in the Russia-Ukraine war is a complicated subject beyond the scope of this article. At issue here is whether it is proper for President Biden to escalate American involvement in a war that his successor clearly wants to avoid.
A country can only have one leader at a time. President Biden is the commander in chief until noon on January 20, 2025, as he was elected to four years in office that expires on that day. Donald Trump received a strong mandate from the American people, but his mandate does not begin for two more months. To what extent should the outgoing president consult with his successor on matters of foreign policy when the two men clearly disagree? Does the outgoing president owe his successor any deference when it comes to decisions over the next two months?
Equally important is the question of how Russia perceives current actions. The Russians are obviously familiar with the American system of government and the timing of our transition of power, but there must still be considerable confusion regarding how to interpret our actions. When it comes to matters of war, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and confusion can lead to disaster in a world with nuclear weapons.
Why is our system so slow to transfer power after an election?
The answer involves constraints that were imposed by agriculture and transportation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Holding the election in early November was timed to avoid impacting agricultural activities, since mid-fall is a slow time of year. A long transition was required to deal with the length of time required to travel in an era before railroads. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution set the Presidential inauguration for March 4, a date that was in force until the 20th Amendment changed the inauguration date to January 20. The 20th Amendment went into effect with the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and remains in effect to this day.
There is a legitimate need for a transition period between an election and the inauguration. There must be time to ensure that votes for electors are tabulated and certified by the states, and the election is not finalized until votes are received by a joint session of Congress presided over by the sitting Vice President who also serves as President of the Senate. This process takes place during the first week in January. Incoming Presidents also need time to select nominees for their cabinet and other high level appointments.
The question is whether two and a half months is required for the transition of power in the modern age. Transportation is a non-issue and communication is instant. Presidential candidates are known to vet and select major appointees even before the election takes place in order to be in a position to act quickly during the transition. Votes should be counted within hours of the closing of the polls, although some states are notorious for counting ballots weeks later. This not only delays a quicker transition but also erodes public confidence in the integrity of the voting process.
If Americans wish to shorten the transition of power, there are two paths to making it happen. First, the date of the inauguration of the new President could be changed, but this would require a constitutional amendment which, by design, is extremely difficult to enact. Second, the date of the election could be moved closer to the inauguration. For example, if a one month transition is considered sufficient, the election could be moved to late December, although weather and the holiday season could be impediments. If a two or three week transition is sufficient, Americans could go to the polls shortly after New Year’s Day, although winter weather might be even more of a problem. Changing the date of the election could be accomplished through normal legislation, a process that is considerably easier than enacting a constitutional amendment.
Short of reducing length of the transition period, my view is that outgoing Presidents have a responsibility to consider the mandate of the people when taking actions, particularly when the election results in a transfer of power between two individuals who disagree on important matters. I am in no way suggesting that President Biden has a duty to enact proposals that President-elect Trump campaigned on, but I do believe that President Biden has a duty to at least not subvert his successor.
Allowing America to be drawn even deeper into a foreign conflict in the final weeks of an outgoing administration is profoundly unwise, particularly given the geopolitical realities of relations between nuclear powers. These realities were well understood and recognized by politicians of both parties during the Cold War, but nuclear brinksmanship seems to have become more acceptable in recent years. The next two months will be extremely dangerous, perhaps comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
Copyright, Disclosures, and Privacy Information
Nothing in this article constitutes investment advice and all content is subject to the copyright and disclaimer policy of The Rational Walk LLC. The Rational Walk is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.