Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House

The 2024 campaign is, at its core, a case study in how personal ambition can collide with and obscure the principles of public service. Biden’s arc encapsulates this conflict: Though he entered the 2020 race as a former vice president, longtime Senate veteran, and a “bridge candidate,” intended to restore stability and pass the baton to a younger generation, he reversed course by running again in 2024. This decision, like his decision to run in 2020, was explicitly predicated on his belief that he alone could defeat Donald Trump. This motivation encapsulates the paradox of electoral politics: On the campaign trail, Biden argued that defeating Trump was vitally necessary for the preservation of American democracy. To the extent that this was a sincere belief, it represents a service-oriented goal—something done for the good of all. At the same time, his increasingly quixotic belief that he alone could accomplish this goal demonstrates the overweening ego that drives many politicians and that often leads them into error. Despite his deteriorating health and internal party concerns, Biden clung to the presidency, believing he could muscle through any hardship. This insistence on continuing, even when it became clear he was no longer fit, demonstrates how ambition—particularly tied to legacy—can override service-oriented leadership.

Biden’s eventual decision to step aside was framed as a selfless act, but it came only after undeniable public embarrassment and widespread revolt within his party. Even then, he demanded time to shape the narrative of his exit and was slow to endorse Kamala Harris, suggesting that preserving his image remained a top priority. His late-stage commentary, such as the public insult directed at Trump supporters, continued to draw attention away from Harris and indicated a failure to relinquish the spotlight.

Kamala Harris, in contrast, entered the race under conditions not of her own making. Her rise was largely circumstantial, born out of necessity rather than long-term planning. However, her efforts to balance loyalty to Biden with her own political identity reveal another layer of complexity. Harris consistently defended Biden’s record, even when it hindered her ability to present a clear alternative. Her reluctance to critique him, even when advised otherwise, reflects the difficulty of separating public responsibility from political obligation, especially when loyalty is demanded by predecessors and party insiders.

Donald Trump’s campaign is perhaps the most transparent expression of personal ambition. His desire to win back the presidency and correct the “injustice” of his 2020 loss was personal and performative. He openly obsessed over not just winning, but exceeding his 2016 electoral margins, showing that victory for him was as much about narrative dominance as governance. Yet his base viewed this ambition as synonymous with strength—a paradox that highlights how ambition, when wrapped in populist grievance, can be reframed as public service, even when rooted in self-interest.