If anything has a knack of making presidents in otherwise commanding positions into one-term presidents, it is recessions of the U.S. economy.

Just ask Jimmy Carter in 1980 as inflation peaked at 14.5 percent in April 1980 and unemployment topped off at 7.8 percent in July 1980.

Or George H.W. Bush in 1992 as inflation went as high as 6.4 percent in 1990 and unemployment reached 7.8 percent in June 1992.

Or Donald Trump in 2020 during the COVID lockdowns and production halts as unemployment briefly skyrocketed to 14.7 percent in April 2020 as more than 25 million jobs were lost as the American people were paid to stay home.

Like clockwork, when bad things happen on the incumbent president’s watch, voters often end up saying it’s time for a change. One exception appears to be Ronald Reagan, who had a crushing recession in 1982, wherein inflation peaked at 10.9 percent in September 1981 followed by peak unemployment reaching 10.8 percent by December 1982.

Given enough time between a recession and the reelection bid — Reagan had two full years of falling unemployment and inflation headed into the November 1984 election — it is possible for a president to right the ship of state. But that’s the exception. Usually, recessions are fatal. The reasons surrounding them often do not matter.

And, surely President Joe Biden is now facing a similar risk, where although unemployment is near record lows at 3.6 percent presently, numerous signals of an imminent recession are already out there: the 10-year, 2-year treasuries spread has been inverted for almost a year now, inflation peaked at 9.1 percent in June 2022 and now the Federal Reserve is projecting 4.6 percent unemployment in 2024 as inflation is dipping to 6 percent.

Ominously, the M2 money supply — which peaked at $22 trillion in April 2022 after more than $6 trillion was printed, borrowed, and spent into existence for COVID — has now decreased a bit to $21.1 trillion, and is down 1.9 percent over the past 12 months. One has to go back to the Great Depression and the banking crises of the late 1800s the last time that happened.

And now there is a string of bank failures to contend with, so a recession is almost certainly already baked into the cake. That is no matter what policies Biden, the Fed, and U.S. Treasury decide to pursue — with or without Congress.

That brings us to the $31.4 trillion national debt ceiling. Prior to these bank runs, the Biden administration had been hoping to engage in a game of chicken with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R–California), who has signaled he would like to freeze spending at 2022 levels of $6.27 trillion and simply ignore Biden’s massive new $6.37 trillion proposed budget.

The difference is a measly $100 billion, most of it, about $70 billion, on the discretionary side of the equation. But given the spending, borrowing, and printing binge that Congress and the Fed have been on since COVID, a spending freeze is likely a good idea. It could further help to tame inflation, thus bringing down interest rates so that when we come out of the recession it’s not off to the races again as happened in the 1970s.

Biden, on the other hand, wants to keep spending more, and then when unemployment does go up, spending even more on top of that even though unemployment benefits and thus federal spending will automatically rise during the recession without Congress taking any action. He also thinks raving about Social Security and Medicare spending, or wagging his finger about a national default, will get him what he wants.

But here, the president is wrong. No matter what happens to the U.S. economy on its current trend, Biden will get blame, likely making 2024 a tossup. If Biden wants to throw a national default on top of it because he could not do an easy to reach compromise on discretionary spending — that’s obviously on Biden, who appears willing to steer the ship of state into the abyss rather than cut a single penny from the budget.   

Robert Romano is the VP of public policy at Americans for Limited Government (ALG). The organization says it is a “non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free-market reforms, private property rights, and core American liberties.” 

We Americans tend to think it’s self-evident that our system of government is superior. We value the freedom, independence, and individual rights that are part of our democratic system. We take for granted that we should elect our leaders and hold them accountable.

But we should not assume everyone will see democracy the way we do. Yes, the desire for freedom and self-determination is universal, and rights are essential. But if people don’t see that democracy will improve their day-to-day lives, they may be susceptible to the appeal of authoritarianism.

Samantha Power, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, points this out in a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “Democracy Can Win.” For several decades, she argues, we have focused the promotion of democracy too narrowly on rights and freedoms and given short shrift to economic hardship and inequality. She calls for a new approach, “one that addresses the economic grievances that populists have so effectively exploited.” 

Not long ago, it seemed that democracy could take root and grow naturally. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, newly independent democratic states emerged in Eastern Europe. China became an enthusiastic participant in global markets, mixing capitalism with state control, and opening itself to the world.

But those trends didn’t hold. Russia turned aggressive and hostile, and its imperious president, Vladimir Putin, all but eliminated dissent and democratic opposition. Something similar happened in China, where Xi Jinping cemented Communist Party rule and has threatened Taiwan and other neighbors. Elsewhere, populist and far-right parties gained sway. Even American democracy wavered when Donald Trump refused to accept the 2020 election results and his supporters invaded the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

But Congress certified the election, Joe Biden became president, and U.S. democracy endured. Meanwhile, Putin and Xi overplayed their hands. Putin miscalculated that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would be quick and easy, but Ukraine’s brave resistance has inspired the world and left Russia isolated. International surveys find most people in multiple countries have a negative opinion of Russia. China angered its citizens with its harsh zero COVID policy, which interfered with trade and weakened the economy. When China lifted the policy late last year, infections and deaths spiraled.

As Power writes, these developments should create an opening for the United States and its allies to promote democracy and share its benefits. But Russia and China still have friends. In a recent U.N. Security Council vote, 35 nations, including important democracies like India and South Africa, abstained from denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and calling for it to withdraw.

China, once one of the largest recipients of foreign aid, is now a major source of development assistance, which it uses to wield influence, especially in Africa. Much of the aid is in the form of loans — the World Bank estimates that China holds 40 percent of the debt owed by the world’s poorest countries — making developing nations dependent on China.

Power writes that the USAID is trying to “break down the wall that separates democratic advocacy from economic development.” It is targeting assistance to emerging, fragile democracies. It is taking steps to address the root causes of corruption; promote civil society, the rule of law and a free press; and counter digital authoritarianism and misinformation. 

President Ronald Reagan said 40 years ago that democracy is not “a fragile flower” but that it still “needs cultivating.” That’s a good description of the state of democracy today. It’s up to us to promote democracy — to cultivate it — in ways that benefit all people.        

Lee Hamilton, 91, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.