The Politics of Governance: Remembering What Biden Did for the Country
In the often-polarized political landscape of the United States, public statements can be weaponized to serve sharply contrasting narratives. A recent social media exchange illustrates this dynamic perfectly. Former President Donald Trump posted a strong condemnation of President Joe Biden, declaring, “WHAT BIDEN DID TO THIS COUNTRY SHOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN!” While such a statement leaves much open to interpretation, it was quickly met with a pointed and insightful response from Karly Kingsley, who reminded the public of an often-overlooked aspect of Biden’s presidency: his choice to invest heavily in infrastructure projects in Republican-leaning states.
This exchange highlights a fundamental question: what does it mean to govern for all citizens, not just your political base?
The Infrastructure Act: A Case Study in Bipartisan Benefit
When President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law, it was hailed as one of the most significant infrastructure investments in decades. The bill aimed to repair crumbling roads and bridges, modernize public transit, expand broadband access, and upgrade water systems across the nation. But one notable element stood out—an outsized share of the funding was directed toward “red states,” or Republican-controlled areas.
Critics questioned why Biden would prioritize states that largely opposed him during the election. His response was simple yet telling: “Because they need it the most.”
This decision reflects a governance philosophy that transcends partisan retaliation. While political logic might dictate rewarding states that supported him, Biden’s approach suggested a broader definition of leadership—addressing the greatest needs regardless of political loyalty.
A Different Kind of Political Memory
When Trump says Biden’s actions should never be forgotten, his supporters often interpret this as a warning against what they view as policy failures. However, Kingsley’s response reframes that memory, urging Americans to remember the president’s commitment to governing for all citizens.
In a time where partisan politics often reward leaders for catering exclusively to their own base, Biden’s choice to disproportionately fund infrastructure in Republican states was both politically risky and morally deliberate. It demonstrated a willingness to bridge divides—not through rhetoric, but through tangible investment in communities that may never politically reward him.
Why This Matters for National Unity
Infrastructure is not just about roads and bridges—it’s about opportunity, safety, and long-term economic growth. States with the most deteriorated infrastructure often face challenges that ripple through their economies: delayed goods transport, unsafe drinking water, and limited digital connectivity. By targeting investment where it was needed most, Biden arguably advanced the national interest rather than a partisan agenda.
This action also subtly challenges a broader trend in American politics: the notion that governance should be transactional, with benefits flowing primarily to political allies. Biden’s decision aligns more with the ideal that once elected, a president becomes the leader of the entire nation, not just of the coalition that brought them to power.
The Political Risks and Rewards
Politically, the strategy carried obvious risks. Infrastructure benefits are long-term, and gratitude is rarely immediate—especially from voters entrenched in partisan identities. In fact, many of the communities benefiting from Biden’s policies may continue to criticize his administration, influenced by local political leaders or partisan media narratives.
However, from a historical perspective, such acts often gain recognition over time. Decades from now, when bridges are safer, broadband is universal, and water systems are cleaner, the political affiliations of the beneficiaries will matter far less than the fact that their quality of life improved
Conclusion: Governing Beyond Gratitude
The social media exchange between Trump and Kingsley reflects a deeper truth about political leadership. Biden’s infrastructure strategy was not about winning immediate praise—it was about fulfilling a presidential duty to serve all Americans, even those unlikely to thank him.
So yes, what Biden did should not be forgotten—but perhaps not for the reasons Trump intended. It should be remembered as an example of governing with an eye toward the needs of the nation, not just the demands of one’s political allies. In a time where division often overshadows unity, such choices are both rare and worth remembering.
