By Matt Underwood A year into the current term, a significant sentiment emerging among voters is that the previous administration, under Joe Biden, was demonstrably better. This feeling appears to stem from a stark contrast in leadership styles, perceived competence, and the overall atmosphere of political discourse. Many recall Biden’s tenure as a period of relative stability and predictability, a welcome departure from what is widely viewed as the chaotic and norm-eroding political theater associated with Donald Trump. The idea that virtually any president might look better in comparison to Trump is a recurring theme, but the sentiment goes beyond mere comparison; it’s a clear indication that, for many, Biden was not just a preferable option, but a genuinely positive one.
A core argument for Biden’s perceived superiority centers on his administration’s competence. Unlike the current leadership, which is often characterized as being filled with individuals mirroring the perceived incompetence of the top official, Biden was seen as surrounding himself with capable government officials. This created an environment where the business of governing could, in the eyes of these voters, proceed more effectively. There’s a palpable sense that Biden, while perhaps facing his own criticisms, genuinely attempted to act in good faith, follow the law, and work for the benefit of the entire nation, hiring competent individuals to achieve those goals.
The impact of prolonged exposure to what is described as “Trump politics” is a significant concern, particularly for the emergence of a generation that may normalize extreme political behavior. The erosion of established political norms is seen as a deeply damaging legacy, creating a situation where a return to a more stable political landscape seems exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. The continuous cycle of outrage and the “enshittification of discourse” have left many feeling perpetually exhausted and nostalgic for a time that felt more grounded, even if that past period was once criticized for being “boring.” This yearning for stability is a powerful driver behind the current reassessment.
For many, the absence of constant crisis and the reduction in the need to engage in incessant “doom scrolling” to keep up with the latest pronouncements were significant benefits of the Biden years. The memory of not having to wake up to alarming news or confront the perceived absurdity of the day’s political developments has fostered a sense of nostalgia. This is particularly true when everyday concerns, such as rent, insurance, and retirement accounts, begin to feel precarious. The feeling of instability directly impacting personal finances and security is a powerful motivator for voters to reconsider past leadership.
While acknowledging that no administration is perfect and that exceptions, even within Biden’s team, might be cited, the overwhelming sentiment is that the focus on competence and good governance under Biden was a significant improvement. The current administration, in contrast, is often described as prioritizing appeasement and capitulation, with an almost sycophantic approach seen in public interactions. This perceived lack of independent thought and the constant pandering are viewed with considerable disdain, making the contrast with Biden’s administration even more pronounced. Voters express a frustration that, despite the clear signs and warnings, many seem to have short memories, leading to a collective experience of negative consequences.
The economic performance under Biden is frequently cited as a key metric where he excelled. Despite navigating a deeply divided Congress and facing significant global economic headwinds, including the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, his administration is credited with passing important legislation and managing the economy effectively. The narrative that the economy was performing poorly is seen by many as a deliberate distortion, fueled by misinformation from various sources. In their view, the US was performing well on the global stage, and the subsequent economic downturn is directly linked to the current administration’s policies, which have had ripple effects worldwide.
Beyond policy and economics, a fundamental concern for many is the perceived character of the leaders. Biden is often described as a man of conviction who made an effort to act honorably and prioritize the well-being of the nation, even if his age was a point of contention. This stands in stark contrast to the current leadership, which is often characterized as being driven by personal whims and lacking in basic decency. The idea that the current administration is actively harming the country, leading it towards a potentially dire future, is a deeply held belief for a significant portion of the electorate.
Historians’ rankings, which often place Biden favorably and Trump at the bottom, are also referenced as objective evidence supporting the view that Biden was the better president. The notion that misinformation campaigns, including those from mainstream media and social media, obscured Biden’s accomplishments is a common refrain. This selective dissemination of information, coupled with a tendency for social media to amplify popular, but not necessarily accurate, sentiments, has contributed to a distorted public perception. The desire for “likes” and “upvotes” can override a commitment to factual reporting, making it difficult for objective truths to gain traction.
The current political climate is described as one of an “outrage economy,” where every cycle feels existential, leaving people weary and yearning for a return to normalcy. The choice, for many, was between maintaining a degree of stability or actively worsening the situation. The preference for the former, even if it meant supporting a candidate they weren’t entirely enthusiastic about, highlights the deep-seated desire for a return to a less turbulent political environment. The perception that the current administration is “actively making things worse” is a powerful indictment.
The current administration’s perceived alignment with “the bourgeoisie” and the call to “smash this system” reflect a deeper dissatisfaction that transcends typical partisan politics. For some, the current political landscape represents a fundamental flaw in the system itself. However, even within this critique, the comparison to Biden often emerges favorably, with the argument that his administration, while perhaps imperfect, was a less destructive force than the current one. The nostalgia for the Biden years, even among those who might have preferred another candidate, is a testament to the perceived stability and relative competence of his time in office.
The argument that the current leadership is even further down the “dementia hole” than Biden is a poignant, albeit harsh, commentary on the perceived cognitive decline of political figures. This sentiment, coupled with accusations of dishonesty and a history of broken promises, paints a grim picture for those who feel the country has regressed significantly. The comparison between a “graceful age-related decline” and a “maliciously destructive age-related decline” further underscores the negative perception of the current leadership’s impact.
Ultimately, the recurring theme is a profound disappointment with the current state of affairs and a longing for the perceived stability, competence, and decency of the Biden years. Voters express a sense of regret that the choice was perceived as between something less than ideal and something demonstrably worse, and that the “worse” option was chosen. The idea that even a literal turd, which serves a purpose, is preferable to the current administration speaks volumes about the depth of this sentiment.