Virtually no one expects the first 2024 debate between President Biden and Donald Trump to be a substantive discussion of the challenges that the next occupant of the Oval Office will face. But what if it were? We asked 21 Post Opinions columnists to pose one policy question with no easy answer that will define the next four years. Here’s what they came up with.
What should be done about the Black-White wealth gap?
The median Black family has around $45,00 in wealth; the median White family about $285,000. It was remained large, even as more African Americans have college and professional degrees. Republican-appointed judges are very hostile to programs that directly try to make up for past discrimination against Black Americans. Is the right way to address this gap though programs — such as baby bonds — that benefit people across racial lines but provide more money to those with lower incomes? Do we accept high levels of racial inequality, as long as living standards are rising for everyone?
Does one of your parties need to admit total defeat?
In private remarks recently caught on tape, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed doubt that there could be compromise between the left and right in America and predicted that “one side or the other is going to win.” Messrs. President: Would you please tell us if you agree that the only way out of our intractable political debate is for one side to be defeated and disappear? And if not, what’s your theory for how America might become a unified, governable country again?
How do you define victory in Ukraine?
And what steps should the United States take to ensure it?
President Biden has often said that he would support Ukraine for “as long as it takes” — but without defining what end-state the United States is seeking to accomplish. For his part, Donald Trump has merely said he would end the war quickly, without elaborating.
Does victory entail Ukraine winning back all of its occupied land? Some of the land? And, whatever Ukraine’s borders in the future, how will that country ensure its security against the ever-present threat of another Russian offensive? What security guarantees are the United States willing to give Ukraine? Would you favor Ukrainian entry into NATO?
The end state the United States seeks should help determine the amount of aid it gives to Ukraine now: The more ambitious the objectives, the more military aid Washington should provide.
How will you lift up American places that have been left behind?
Both of you have often promised to improve the incomes and opportunities of Americans in parts of the country that have lost well-paying jobs and haven’t fully shared in the prosperity of other regions. Beyond your own records, what would you do going forward to lift up these Americans and these places?
Journalists were briefly obsessed with left-out parts of the country after the 2016 elections, but that focus has largely faded. Trump has profited politically from the anger among such voters, and he might want to make a case for his trade policies. Biden has a story to tell about what his investment programs have achieved, but many voters have not felt their effects — or don’t think much about them at all. Our political divisions owe a lot to these place-based economic divisions.
Contrary to how we often think about them, the “left out” include not only White voters in Midwestern factory cities and coal miners in Appalachia but also Black and Latino voters in rural areas and in the less prosperous parts of even well-off metropolitan hubs. This question would invite policy specifics and give both candidates an opportunity to articulate a vision for a less socially and politically riven country.
What are you going to do about Medicare and Social Security?
Both of you have said you’re not touching entitlements, which is another way of saying you don’t want to do anything to address the problem. Are you just planning on leaving this mess for some future president to deal with?
Medicare’s go-broke date is 2036, and Social Security won’t be able to pay full benefits in 2035, which would mean a 17 point cut to current payments across the board. Not only will neither Biden nor Trump be president in 2035, but that year Biden will turn 93 and Trump will be 89, meaning they may not be around at all.
One option is tax increases; for 2024, the income limit for Social Security taxes is $168,600. Workers pay a 6.2 percent tax on their earnings up to this limit. But tax hikes are never popular even in the best of circumstances, and Congress in 2025 is likely to be closely divided. Another option is means-testing recipients by cutting benefits for the wealthiest retirees; billionaire Warren Buffett is eligible for a monthly benefit of about $3,245. (The highest monthly benefit if you retire at full retirement age in 2024 is $3,822, and if you waited until 70 to collect in 2024, your maximum benefit is $4,873.)
A related question: Can either of you do math, and do you grasp how much additional borrowing in the here and now means more interest payments in the future, which means more incoming revenue has to be used on interest payments?
How central is Europe to U.S. national security?
Europe and members of NATO have been the central focus of U.S. security and defense interests for nearly a century. Should they continue to be? If so, how? If not, why not?
Washington has committed well over $100 billion of aid to Ukraine since it was invaded by Russian troops in 2022 — more than any other U.S. ally has received in recent decades. That support is underpinned by the premise that if Russian aggression succeeds in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s next targets would likely be Washington’s most vulnerable NATO allies in Europe — particularly the small Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
Under NATO’s founding treaty, an attack on any member of the alliance is an attack on all — meaning the United States is obligated to defend its allies. Would Americans support putting U.S. troops in harm’s way to protect Latvia? Should they?
Or would it be in the United States’ strategic interest to refocus its security priorities on Asia, namely China and North Korea, and leave Europe to take primary responsibility for its own defense?
How would you end the Gaza war?
The Gaza war is vexing because it’s so hard to describe the endgame. The unfortunate reality is that Hamas is refusing to give up its leverage and release the hostages unless Israel agrees in writing to a permanent truce. But Israelis — and not just Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — insist that Hamas be demilitarized so it can never launch an attack like the one on Oct. 7 again.
Resolving this conflict is hard partly because the Israeli government is sharply divided about what to do. Israeli military leaders agree with the White House that Hamas’s military capability has been degraded sufficiently that Israel can accept a truce and begin working on a Palestinian transitional governance authority in Gaza. But Netanyahu and the hawks in his cabinet disagree.
Netanyahu has tried recently to make President Biden the villain, infuriating the White House. But really, Netanyahu’s argument is with Israeli military leaders, who think it’s time to stop major operations in Gaza so they can concentrate on Hezbollah in Lebanon and recover from an exhausting eight months of combat.
Then there’s the creation of a Palestinian state. Biden supports a two-state solution. But because emotions are so raw on both sides, he is advocating a gradual “pathway” toward it, with the prize of Saudi normalization for Israel if it helps.
Biden’s handling of an incredibly difficult crisis has had its ups and downs. Trump has not really shown his hand. In an ideal debate, moderators would push Biden on why his plan for a resolution seems stuck — and Trump on whether he has any plan at all.
Should the United States support democracy in the Middle East?
Democracy is one of those things that seems nicer in theory than in practice, in which it’s messy and fractious. Moderates may lose out; far-right or illiberal parties may win elections. This “democratic dilemma” is magnified in the Middle East, where any party with a popular constituency is likely to be stridently anti-Israel and anti-American. President Biden promised to reverse Donald Trump’s predilection for autocrats. He has in some places — but not in the Middle East. At best, he has been indifferent or silent about Arab democracy.
As the past year has shown once again, pro-American Arab autocrats are unable to bring stability to the region — in large part because “authoritarian stability” is a myth. The problem is that the United States is a prisoner of its own policies. It has spent decades supporting and strengthening authoritarian regimes across the Middle East. Those dictatorships dominate the region. Pressuring them to open their political systems would require time, attention and effort. Meanwhile, democratizing societies — particularly young, fragile ones — can be fickle and aggressive. They tend to stabilize only over the medium-to-long term. Elected officials, however, usually only have the short run.
And so U.S. policymakers, despite their ideals and their sometime soaring rhetoric, will be tempted to take the path of least resistance and rely on the devils they know. Meanwhile, the region’s dictatorship problem will continue to fester. Another Arab Spring-like event is likely to come, eventually. The United States, regardless of which party or president governs for the next four years, will do little to prepare. In the Middle East, the short run and the long term are mutually opposed. Many tragedies are likely to unfold as a result.
How should the country mark the 250th anniversary of its independence?
National symbols, such as the flag and national anthem, have been used to divide people rather than unite them. Patriotism has been politicized, resulting in a record low number of people who are extremely proud to be American. There isn’t widespread agreement on the history, character or future of the United States — or the value of democracy and whether diversity is a shared goal.
Nearly 18 months after Inauguration Day, the country will turn 250. Some see it as a moment for celebration and as an ode to American exceptionalism. Others see it as a moment to point out the country’s shortcomings and missteps so that we might reckon with and atone for them. And there are those who see it as a chance to talk about America’s tomorrow and how to move forward.
As president, what tone would you strike for the semiquincentennial commemoration? National anniversaries are political. They point to aspects of the nation’s history and nature that are central to its identity. How can the milestone be used to address our lagging faith in government and democracy — and in each other?
What would you do to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
And what would you do if it gets one?
The Middle East is already in crisis, and Israel’s war against Iranian proxy Hamas could soon expand to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The ultimate disaster scenario, though, would be Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon, which would threaten not only Israel but also Sunni states in the region, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Yet that disaster scenario is becoming more thinkable each day. The Post’s Joby Warrick reports that Iran is embarked on a major expansion of a heavily protected underground uranium enrichment site that could render it capable of quickly assembling one or more usable bombs.
President Barack Obama negotiated an agreement to curtail Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief; President Donald Trump withdrew from it, calling it “the worst deal in history,” and tried “maximum pressure” by sanctions. President Biden attempted to resuscitate the Obama deal, but Iran ultimately wouldn’t go along. Tehran exercised some self-restraint for a time, but that is apparently over.
In short, U.S. efforts over 15 years have failed definitively to forestall a potentially devastating threat to world peace. Any new ideas?
What’s your plan to make homeownership affordable again?
Americans say it’s the worst time ever to buy a home. Data proves it’s the worst time in at least 40 years. Prices are high. Mortgage rates are high. And there are hardly any homes for sale. Everyone agrees we need to build more homes, but most builders aren’t interested in catering to middle-class buyers. And almost no one who owns a starter home wants to move and forfeit their current mortgage rate of under 4 percent. So what do we do? What’s your best idea to ensure the American Dream of homeownership still exists while you get a second (free) stay in the White House?
What should be done about the expiring tax cuts – and the debt?
Tax cuts passed in 2017 are set to expire next year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that extending them would add $4.6 trillion to the deficit through 2034 — and that’s not including the added interest cost. What should be done with the expiring tax cuts — and, debt held by the public approaching $28 trillion, an alarming 98 percent of gross domestic product, why is that enough?
This is a hard question for both candidates to answer. Neither candidate has set out a plan to get the debt under control, and both have locked themselves into unsustainable and unwise positions on the tax cut, although — no surprise here — Biden’s plans are less unwise than Trump’s.
Biden would raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent from the current 21 percent. He would allow taxes to rise on the wealthiest Americans. But he has backed himself into a fiscal corner by pledging not to raise taxes on households earning less than $400,000 annually. That doesn’t leave enough room to get the debt anywhere near under control, particularly considering all the additional spending he supports.
Trump, when he’s not talking crazy talk about replacing the tax system with tariffs, wants to extend the cuts, and probably more. “Instead of a Biden tax hike, I’ll give you a Trump middle-class, upper-class, lower-class, business-class big tax cut,” Trump said at a rally last month. “You’re going to have the biggest tax cut.” How that leads to a sustainable fiscal situation is truly unanswerable.
Should the government try to help young men?
Many young men without college degrees are struggling in modern America. The percentage of them who are working or looking for work keeps dropping. They’re not getting married or buying homes at the rates of previous generations. Their life expectancies have been falling. Is this a social crisis that the government should address, and if so, how?
It’s an ouroboros-like problem: Look for an economic explanation for some of these trends, and it will lead you to a cultural one — and vice versa. Some of the questions they raise, such as how do we foster conditions in which more young men have a sense of purpose, don’t lend themselves to obvious government solutions. But how the candidates respond to this question could tell us a lot about what they think about the country and its challenges.
Donald Trump and President Biden seem to agree on one thing: that standing up to China and protecting American workers requires eschewing the economic consensus that prevailed since the Reagan administration and instead embracing protectionism.
There is, however, broad agreement among economists that raising tariff barriers tends to have damaging consequences for the economy, raising prices not just for consumers but also for businesses that rely on inputs from abroad. Protectionism, moreover, tends to invite retaliation. Studies suggest that the import tariffs put in place during the Trump administration in 2018 and 2019 were entirely passed through to consumers in the form of substantial price increases, ultimately reducing Americans’ real incomes. And the trade war did nothing to raise employment in protected sectors, whereas retaliation by China did cost U.S. jobs.
An additional concern is that protectionism will undermine policies on other critical priorities — most importantly by gumming up progress against climate change. The Biden administration has targeted imports of Chinese climate-friendly technologies such as solar panels, likely slowing their deployment.
Voters, for sure, like protectionism. Despite the adverse economic effect, people in regions more exposed to Trump’s import tariffs became more likely to vote for his reelection in 2020 as well as more likely to elect Republicans to Congress. So ultimately, the question becomes, how will the next president manage the conflict between protectionism’s economic costs and its political benefits?
How will you make it easier for Americans to have kids?
U.S. birthrates hit a historic low in 2023, with the average American woman expected to have just 1.6 births over her lifetime. That’s too few kids for the native-born population to naturally replace itself. So absent a huge uptick in immigration, the country will eventually start shrinking, wreaking all sorts of havoc on the economy and government finances. (Who will pay into the Social Security system for a rising population of retirees to collect benefits?)
Americans are having fewer kids than they themselves say they want; across many surveys, women on average want more than two children, then somehow don’t go on to have them.
Theories about why families are smaller than Americans desire differ, as do the approaches to addressing the challenge. Would the candidates focus on making child rearing more affordable (through child tax credits or child-care expansions)? Or on workplace policies and employer incentives, so that parenting while holding a job is more manageable? Would they focus on availability of fertility treatments — or even basic obstetric care, which is disappearing in parts of the country that have restricted abortion access? What lessons might be learned from other countries struggling with low birthrates?
How would you deal with the crises in Myanmar and Sudan?
Besides the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, two civil wars causing catastrophic human suffering are raging in Myanmar and Sudan, with the latter facing a growing risk of a new genocide. Do you believe the United States has any obligation or national interest in intervening to stop the mass slaughter of civilians? What criteria would you use to decide?
The decision whether to intervene in overseas conflicts has vexed previous administrations. Under the U.N. Genocide Convention, the United States has a legal — not to mention moral — responsibility to intervene to prevent genocide. But successive administrations have often ignored that responsibility. The 2011 Libya intervention is often cited as a failure because it led to regime change with no plans for the day after.
Intervention does not have to mean military force. Other tools include sanctions, diplomatic pressure and providing weapons, defensive gear and intelligence to fighters on one side of a conflict. That could be done in Myanmar, where militias such as the People’s Defense Forces and ethnic regional armies have made battlefield gains against the military regime — but could do more with American help.
Is social media harming kids? And what should we do about it?
Parents have long fretted over their children’s technology habits. But this year, lawmakers have started worrying, too. From the U.S. surgeon general’s announcement that he wants “warning labels” for social media to Los Angeles public schools’ decision to ban smartphones all day on campus, institutions are getting serious about the possible threat to the rising generation. Are these tools, in what psychologist Jonathan Haidt has called “the great rewiring,” causing a mental health crisis and destroying young people’s brains?
Perhaps an even harder question is how to respond. The science on whether and how Instagram, TikTok and their ilk — or hours of screen time in general — are hurting kids is uncertain. Many LGBTQ teens and tweens in particular say they rely on their devices to find supportive communities. Plus, regulating apps whose primary purpose is enabling expression invites difficult constitutional questions about free speech. How would you characterize the dangers posed by device addiction, and how would you propose to counter them?
If China attacks Taiwan, would you send the U.S. military to intervene?
Sending the U.S. military to defend a small island democracy could spark a wider war with America’s chief rival that ropes in America’s top regional allies. But failing to stop China from forcibly taking Taiwan could have perilous consequences for democracy worldwide.
Simply answering the Taiwan question means abandoning the decades-old U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity,” under which successive presidents have refused to say whether the United States would come to Taiwan’s rescue. This policy was meant to preserve a status quo between Washington, Beijing and Taipei that seems increasingly shaky.
President Biden has repeatedly said he would send the U.S. military to aid Taiwan if China invades. The details are sketchy. Would U.S. assistance resemble Biden’s Ukraine effort, which includes weapons and cash, but not U.S. troops? That strategy wouldn’t get the job done in Taiwan.
Donald Trump has never said whether he would defend Taiwan. Many of the Taiwan hawks who staffed his first administration likely won’t return. Trump considers Chinese President Xi Jinping a friend. Would he send Americans to fight on behalf of the Taiwanese? A nervous region awaits his answer.
Should the United States have a digital privacy law?
Artificial Intelligence has the capability to compromise an individual’s sovereignty over their image, likeness and voice. Should people have an inalienable right to control those parts of their individuality? Is a deepfake of a public figure a form of free speech? Since the Communications Decency Act of 1996, social media platforms — which distribute almost all of the digital content in the world — have been exempted from the legal standards other publishers (including The Washington Post) are held to. If a platform distributes harmful information about a person, out of negligence or malice, should we penalize it? How would we enforce those penalties? Good luck, guys.
Would you require Medicare to cover medications to treat obesity?
No presidential candidate wants to deny people health coverage or overhaul the exceedingly popular Medicare program. Obesity is a serious medical condition closely linked to cardiovascular disease and early death. So surely, insurance should cover medications that reduce obesity and its consequences.
The reality is more complicated. In the last few years, GLP-1 drugs, a class of diabetes medications, have proved remarkably effective in treating obesity, which affects more than 40 percent of American adults.
Federal law prohibits Medicare from paying for the drugs if prescribed just for obesity. A reversal could upend the entire health-care system.
An analysis from a Senate committee found that if just half of Americans with obesity took a GLP-1 drug, such as semaglutide, the amount spent on these drugs would exceed the total spent on all other prescription drugs. The annual spending by Medicare and Medicaid could be as high as $166 billion. This would effectively bankrupt these federal programs.
Proponents of GLP-1 drugs argue that treating obesity would reduce downstream health-care costs, but many economists disagree. A candidate who answers “yes” to this question should be asked a follow-up: Would you raise taxes to cover the cost, and if not, are you prepared to end Medicare as we know it?
How will you keep Americans safe from climate change-related disasters?
More than half of American homeowners, according to a recent survey, are worried about the dangers posed by climate change — including severe storms, floods, heat waves, hurricanes and wildfires. Among millennial homeowners, the concern is even higher. Meanwhile, 2023 broke records as the costliest year in U.S. history for weather and climate disasters, with the cost to taxpayers topping $92.9 billion.
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as has been accelerated by the Inflation Reduction Act and U.S. participation in global climate treaties, is critical, but it’s only a partial solution. Aggressive action globally to replace fossil fuels could prevent further warming, but some of the elevated disaster threat has already been baked in because of past emissions.
Asking or enticing Americans to leave their homes in high-risk areas such as floodplains and wild lands is not a popular idea, even if it’s the best way to keep them safe. Home insurance companies are increasingly pulling out of hazardous areas, leaving disaster relief as the primary remedy for damage to people’s property and lives posed by a warming climate. This comes at too high a cost, both in lives and dollars. Some states and localities have better zoning and building codes than others, but far too little has been done nationally given the fast-growing risk. What new policies would you push to keep more Americans safe?
