Joe Biden's Farewell
And other noteworthy farewell addresses by outgoing presidents
In less than 24 hours after I write this, another U.S. president will be taking office. By then we’ll also have heard another inaugural address. Before that, though, I wanted to ponder President Joe Biden’s farewell address to the nation last week and to consider it in the context of a few other noteworthy presidential farewell addresses.
Biden’s farewell address to the nation
Joe Biden’s farewell address this past week showed us, in 20 minutes, the best and the worst of the Biden presidency.
On the downside, the speech was delivered in a soft voice and the president tripped over his words multiple times. Like it or not, perceptions matter in politics and Biden was never the best of communicators, even before his skills were worn down by time and age. As a result, throughout his time in office he struggled to seize the public’s attention, which is not helpful for a president in our attention-seeking age. These flaws were all on display during his Oval Office address.
On the other hand, Biden’s strengths were also on display. He is a decent man and a committed public servant who has an unwavering belief in American democracy and institutions. The president has legitimate concerns over the weakening of the foundations of American government and he gave a thoughtful speech expressing these apprehensions. Biden focused particularly on the concentration of power at the top levels of government by an oligarchic elite and what he called a tech-industrial complex.
This same message, delivered earlier in his presidency and/or by a more talented communicator, may well have changed the discourse during the recent election, a point picked up on by late night hosts and others.
“I mean, I agree,” said Seth Meyers, “but why are you giving us a to-do list on your way out?”
Or, as Jimmy Fallon put it: “Where was this guy? Biden couldn’t sing ‘Happy Birthday,’ suddenly he pulls out ‘oligarchy’ and ‘tech industrial complex’?”
Other presidential farewells
After watching Biden’s address, though, I started thinking more about farewell addresses by other presidents and wondering where Biden’s remarks fit into this tradition.
George Washington delivered the first farewell address by a president (in writing), but few of his successors continued the practice until more than a century later. Aside from Andrew Jackson in the 1830s, most presidents left office without a formal farewell until the idea was revived by Harry Truman who, in the early days of television, read a goodbye speech from the Oval Office.
Most presidents since Truman have followed this custom and have given some form of a farewell address. Mostly, these talks consist of thanking voters for the opportunity to serve as president and extolling the successes of their administrations.
There have been a few instances, however, where a departing president also included a warning to the nation about a particular topic. Here is a brief overview of the four most prominent presidential warnings, including Biden’s.
George Washington
The first presidential farewell is still one of the most famous. It was even the subject of a recent book by John Avlon: Washington's Farewell: The Founding Father's Warning to Future Generations.
Washington’s address was a 32-page handwritten speech published in a Philadelphia newspaper. While he discussed a variety of topics, his warnings about partisanship are the words that have most resonated through the years. As I’ve noted before, political parties didn’t exist when the Constitution was written but partisan factions did arise during Washington’s presidency, led by Alexander Hamilton on one side and Thomas Jefferson on another.
This development concerned Washington and he warned Americans about “the baneful effects of the spirit of party.”
The nation has obviously survived more than two centuries now with political parties and it hasn’t been all bad. In the best of times, parties are a welcome and important part of democracy, as it turns out, because it allows different factions to have turns in power and helps prevent authoritarianism and corruption in government. In the worst case scenarios, however, whether in Civil War era or with today’s polarization, Washington’s warning is quite a bit more prescient.
“The alternate dominion of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge … leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism,” wrote Washington. “The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual.”
Dwight Eisenhower
Eisenhower, the man who led the Allies to victory in World War II and then served as president during the 1950s, also left office with a warning to the nation. It was about a topic with which he was intimately familiar, the workings of the U.S. military.
As Supreme Commander of Allied Forces during the war, Eisenhower obviously believed in the importance of the military. Moreover, one of the impulses behind the interstate highway system funded during his presidency was to support national defense. Nevertheless, the former general warned in his farewell address that if a permanent military and an arms industry were necessary, the nation also had to ensure that it didn’t control government or take over the budget. He coined the term “military-industrial complex” and suggested the military’s needs had to be balanced against other national needs.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment … This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience … Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications … In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Barack Obama
Barack Obama skipped the more traditional Oval Office speech for his farewell address and instead delivered a talk to an audience in Chicago.
Obama knew he was president at a hinge moment in U.S. history. He’d just completed eight years as the country’s first Black president but had seen a backlash arise to his presence in the White House. He was leaving the presidency to Donald Trump, an outsider at the time who’d first gained political prominence as a promoter of the anti-Obama birtherism movement. And, as a writer himself and an observer of American politics and history, Obama was aware of the forces were driving the nation’s increasing polarization.
So he delivered a speech that extolled the promise of America even as he warned about challenges that were threatening to further divide the country, including economic inequality, partisan polarization, racial tensions, and the fraying of democracy.
On inequality, he declared that “democracy won’t work without a sense that everyone has economic opportunity.”
On racial tensions, he urged whites and Blacks to strive to understand each other’s struggles, noting that Blacks need to be empathic toward “the middle aged white guy … who’s seen his world upended by economic and cultural and technological change,” while whites similarly need to understand that “the effects of slavery and Jim Crow didn’t suddenly vanish in the ‘60s.”
“If every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hard-working white middle class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades will be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves,” Obama said.
And on democracy and polarization, he said:
“Without some common baseline of facts, without a willingness to admit new information and concede that your opponent is making a fair point … we’ll keep talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible.”
Joe Biden
Biden, meanwhile, also made what was to some observers a surprise decision to talk about challenges facing America in the years ahead.
Like other presidential farewell warnings, he highlighted an issue that is a concern for defenders of democracy. In this case, the increasing intermingling of wealth and political power, particularly now by billionaire tech titans. In a nod to Eisenhower, Biden also coined a term — the “tech-industrial complex” — to describe these challenges and the potential danger they pose.
Biden on oligarchy:
“Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.”
And on the promises and pitfalls of technology:
“I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well. Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit…
“Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our time — perhaps of all time. Nothing offers more profound possibilities and risks for our economy and our security … But unless safeguards are in place, AI could spawn new threats to our rights, our way of life, to our privacy, how we work, and how we protect our nation.”
Do these speeches matter?
I find it interesting that Washington didn’t belong to a political party, while Eisenhower, Obama, and Biden were all turning the White House over to a president of the opposing party. So not much was done by their immediate successors in terms of trying to tackle these issues. In essence, the presidents were speaking to history as much as to their fellow Americans.
But it’s also true that Washington, Eisenhower, and Obama were not wrong in their observations.
While the back and forth between political parties can provide protection from corruption and authoritarianism in government, Washington was also right more than two centuries ago in diagnosing that partisan sniping had the potential to turn toxic and in turn create a desire for a strongman who might upend democracy.
Eisenhower saw the risks inherent for government if politicians couldn’t manage the demands of a powerful military linked to a domestic arms industry. Today, the military takes up a large portion of the federal budget, and military bases or contractors are important to nearly every Congressional district, which makes it nearly impossible to reduce the share of federal spending that goes to defense.
And Obama was not wrong about the dangers that inequality, racial tensions, and polarization pose to democracy. It’s likely that Biden isn’t wrong, either, about the risk of mixing great wealth and technological power with politics.
Presidents who observe the times in which they live can, in fact, have important insights to share with the nation they lead. Whether that nation pays attention to those insights, though, is another matter entirely.
Brilliantly researched and articulated. Thanks so much Bob for your wisdom and insights on the content and impact of presidential farewell speeches.