Trump “Unites The Right” in the 2020 Campaign

This article is part of a series I’m writing about President Trump and how his actions as candidate and incumbent have been “critical” in transforming the Republican party and American politics.  The preceding article covered Trump’s 2016 rise to power and his efforts as president to dictate new political norms from within the federal government. This article describes his aberrant behavior during the 2020 presidential campaign, when he began treating voters as suspicious actors, while using double-speak to open the door to right-wing political violence.


As a first-term president seeking re-election, Trump had reasons to fear defeat. He had just narrowly escaped being found guilty in the Senate for abusing his powers. His unconventional conduct as president had been called out incessantly. Now, in the November election, the millions of Americans who thought he’d crossed the line would have the opportunity to use the power of their votes to get rid of him. Citizens across the country would weigh in on his performance and render a verdict as to whether he should continue in power. Instead of accepting the sovereignty of citizens as paramount, Trump sought to control the election process in response to the “threat” his fellow-citizens posed. By autumn, his willingness to foment violence to remain in power was obvious.

The 2020 presidential campaign unfolded amid these conditions: bellicose rhetoric from the president, civil unrest, a dangerous plague.  Increasingly, the president expressed hostility and resentment toward the nation’s people: toward any American who criticized him, dissented, or was unmanageable or disorderly.  Many of his own administration he forced out.  In a nation based on toleration, Trump was openly intolerant.  COVID vaccines had yet to come out and the disease was still raging, spreading whenever people gathered.  Given the dangers of congregation, public places were deserted, with most Americans avoiding human contact and operating from home.

Under these conditions, the election season was peculiar.  Stumping, rallies, and debates occurred amid bitter wrangling over public-health precautions and the social and economic costs of covid containment. The energy that normally flowed through mass gatherings went into social and mainstream media instead.  The incumbent Trump railed against his own medical authorities, notably Anthony Fauci.  Trump took the side of Americans who resented masking and social-distancing.  To be fair, these and other covid-prevention regulations were onerous. They created hardship, disrupted household economies.  They curtailed essential, everyday activities such as working, shopping, worshipping, running a business, and studying.  In this matter, however, Trump again seized on what would work to his political advantage, rather than selflessly defending government policies that, while inconvenient, were best for the nation and the most humane.  Instead, he denounced life-saving measures as tyranny.

Protests against covid “lockdowns” occurred in several states where high fatalities had prompted strict containment.  April protests in the Michigan state capital of Ann Arbor drew over 20,000 protesters, including armed militias.  On social media, Trump fanned these protests, styling them as a cry for freedom at the expense of political order and majoritarian rule. The libertarian-leaning demonstrations became another node of political unrest in a fractious time. At the same time, the president was indifferent to the high covid rates devastating cities and other areas with mainly “blue” (Democratic) constituencies.

Meanwhile, former vice-president Joe Biden emerged from a field of 26 contenders to sew up the Democratic nomination early on.  Once again, Bernie Sanders was a contender, initially outperforming Biden, as did two other progressive candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.  Biden, however, secured the support of influential South Carolina congressman, Jim Clyburn, just before that state’s primary.  Clyburn’s support proved pivotal.  As the highest ranking African-American in the US House, Clyburn enhanced Biden’s position with respect to black voters in his state and beyond.  The impact of the alliance between the two men went beyond that, however, influencing Biden’s choice of running-mate (Kamala Harris), tilting the Democratic party toward black progressivism (as expressed in BLM), and arguably locking in what the party’s ideological cast and leadership succession would be in 2024.   By Super Tuesday, Sanders and others had withdrawn from the race, uniting behind Biden in a pitched race to defeat Trump and Trumpism at the polls. 

At the state and county level, the covid pandemic posed special problems for election officials. They were responsible for running the election in ways that honored every eligible citizens’ voting rights.  States implemented and expanded procedures for voting early or by mail, so that voters could exercise their rights without going to the polls.  Some localities authorized the use of ballot drop-boxes, so that voters could return their ballots personally, given that the pandemic-era postal service was understaffed and the mail was slow.  When an early debacle snarled the Iowa caucuses, the need for the most infallible voting procedures possible was driven home.  In the end, the conduct of the 2020 election was highly creditable, thanks to all involved, from the secretaries of state on down to the local election officials who impartially run the polls.

Regardless, Trump endlessly assailed the integrity of the election procedures.  He hadn’t won the popular vote in 2016, so higher Democratic turnout this time could mean his defeat.  Conventional wisdom held that expanding ballot access would work to Democrats’ advantage.  So, he and his surrogates did everything they could to impair and discredit pragmatic covid-related innovations in voting, especially those adopted in swing states and Democratic cities.  It was an unsportsmanlike strategy.  Should Biden win, Trump was poised to claim that Biden’s victory was a hoax, that the people’s choice was somehow suspect and illegitimate.  At bottom, Trump was taking aim at the will of the people and their Constitutional rights. 

Welcoming political militants into mainstream Republicanism was another aspect of Trump’s 2020 campaign.  Trump’s willingness to condone violence against ordinary citizens was evident as early as 2017, when, on August 12, neo-Confederate white nationalists and other “alt-right” groups gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, to protest the impending removal of a statue memorializing pro-slavery general Robert E. Lee.  This so-called “Unite The Right” rally attracted many members of racist and anti-Semitic white-power groups (including neo-Nazis, Three-Percenters, and the Ku Klux Klan).  Incendiaries such as Richard Spencer, Enrique Tarrio, and Nick Fuentes all took part.  On the eve of the rally, this ragtag army of bigots marched in a torchlight procession, chanting slogans such as “Jews Will Not Replace Us,” “You Will Not Replace Us,” and “White Lives Matter.”  The next day saw the groups return, some armed with clubs and riot shields, while a diverse array of counter-demonstrators (including church leaders, BLM activists, and civil rights advocates) also gathered.  The event turned deadly, with a neo-Nazi protestor, James A. Fields, Jr., ramming his car into counter-protesters as they were leaving the event, wounding eighteen people and killing a young woman, Heather Heyer.

After the protest, Trump equated the two sides’ actions without excoriating those who had transgressed the bounds of legal protest to commit violent crimes.  He eventually settled on a very fuzzy vision of events, blandly asserting that there were “some very fine people on both sides.”  Violating long-standing norms and the laws of civil society as articulated in the Bill of Rights, Trump instead signaled his acceptance of militant hate groups, as long as they were working in support of his side.

In the months before the 2020 election, Trump’s hospitable attitude toward the “right kind” of political violence became more pronounced.  He ignored that fact that all such violence was, and is, illegal and unconstitutional.  As president, his sworn duty lay in upholding the rights of all citizens and defending principles of self-government.  These, Trump neglected.  After all, they conflicted with his reelection, his overriding goal.  This personal aim was far dearer to him than the rights of others or the onerous limits the Constitution imposed.  Trump became ever more obdurate about his absolute right to power, even as it became obvious that millions of American voters, perhaps a majority, wanted to see Biden in the presidency.

Trump and his associates Roger Stone and Rudy Guiliani began cultivating friendly relationships with white supremacists, notably Enrique Tarrio, who led the Proud Boys.  Tarrio took part in the Unite the Right rally: he advocated violence against blacks and denied the epic horrors of the Holocaust.  His group attained widespread name recognition during a live presidential debate in September 2020, when moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if he planned to distance himself from far-right hate groups: would he ask them to “stand down”?  Trump refused to criticize the Proud Boys, whose name was put forward as an example.  Instead, Trump insisted that antifa groups were the real problem and asked the Proud Boys to “Stand back and stand by.”  Right-wing groups were elated, with members of the Proud Boys taking Trump’s callout as an endorsement of their violent proclivities.

From this, proponents of alt-right violence learned that, though they might suffer arrest, they had nothing to fear from the president: Trump was neutral on their brand of political violence and perhaps even an ally.  These groups gained more visibility as a consequence, becoming a recognized but problematic element in mainstream politics.  Tarrio would end up in jail after his group vandalized a black church in Washington DC, but his criminality hardly mattered. His group and others like it were uniquely committed to Trump’s re-election, fully identifying his success with theirs.

Another unusual form of pro-Trump agitation re-emerged on social media in September 2020: a thought campaign known as “Stop The Steal.”  This was a propaganda campaign that political operative Roger Stone began piloting in 2016.  It was a social-media campaign aimed at fomenting mass opposition and unrest in the event that Trump’s rival won.  In 2020, “Stop the Steal” became far more salient, both because it caught on with Trump’s base and primed them for action in case he lost.  Millions of Americans came to believe that the election process was corrupt and unreliable, and that Democratic malfeasance was somehow to blame if Donald Trump lost.   The prospect of a Trump loss became inadmissible to those whose minds were infected with “Stop The Steal.”  They were primed to distrust the truth of election results.  This lack of faith was like a dagger in the heart of a self-governing nation.  “Stop The Steal” birthed an unfounded hostility toward electoral majorities at odds with the nation’s central principle that “the people rule.”

Amid a dangerous plague and a racially and politically charged atmosphere, the American people at last cast their votes.  They voted in person, fed their ballots into drop boxes, put them in the mail.  Some voted early from their covid hide-outs; others stood in long lines on November 3rd to vote in booths the old-fashioned way.  Turnout was massive.  Citizens were eager to assert their rights and make their voices heard.  The US Census Bureau estimates that 66.8% of all eligible voters cast ballots in the election, a level of participation not seen in many years—in decades, really.  In all, over 158.4 million votes were cast in the presidential contest, the most ever in American history.

Because of the enormous volume of ballots and the laws governing the counting of mail-in ballots, state returns trickled in over several days.  After several days of suspense, the Associated Press and other reliable news organizations ascertained on the morning of Saturday, November 7, that Biden had won. Conservative outlet Fox News called the race for Biden when results from Pennsylvania and Nevada showed him winning those hotly contested states. In the end, Biden scored a 4.4 percent advantage over Trump in the popular vote, garnering 81,282,632 votes to Trump’s 74,223,234 (a difference of over seven million votes).  Likewise, in the Electoral College, Biden was the clear victor, ending up with 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232. He prevailed there by a 74-vote margin.  It was hardly a squeaker. Despite all the obstacles and Trump’s extraordinary efforts to intimidate citizens and discredit the election process, the citizens had spoken and Biden had won.

Respectfully submitted,
Susan M. Barsy, Ph.D.

Image: Screenshot of alt-right demonstrators opposing the removal
of a statue of defeated Confederate leader Robert E. Lee
at the “Unite The Right” Rally in Charlottesville, VA in 2017,
(footage from this source).

Lincoln and the Broken Politics of His Time

On this day in 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born.  He was born into an American heyday, when the new United States (having fended off the British in the War of 1812) were mushrooming.  In 1809, the nation consisted of seventeen states, the westernmost being Ohio, along with a vast territory that pioneers were flooding into, appropriating from natives, and organizing.  Lincoln was born to one such pioneer family and grew up in Illinois, which became a state when he was nine.

By the time Lincoln became president, the number of states had doubled.  The nation stretched to the Pacific.  His milieu was morphing as quickly as he was, a reckless proliferation the politicians could barely control.  The gargantuan Lincoln, with his terrible grooming, was a perfect embodiment of this rough hasty time. Continue reading

Why The Republican Party Must Die

Dear Readers, Thank you so much for watching and commenting on last week’s video about living through a paradigm shift. I truly appreciate our dialogue, which you enrich every time you choose to go public with your thoughts.

This week I discuss the troubling political situation we face in the wake of the January 6th insurrection. This 12-minute video covers three points: 1) On the 6th, we saw the emergence of an unprecedented kind of violent anti-federalism, whose adherents come from all regions and classes of American society.  2) These elements pose an ongoing threat to the rule of law. Most of the people who perpetrated and participated in the violent attack on the Capitol, and federal government itself, have not been called out or held accountable.  3) The Republican Party has chosen to harbor and defend these elements, thwarting every effort to identify seditious people and temporizing when it comes to the threat that militant anti-federalism poses.

We can’t sit on the sidelines waiting to see what new horror the Republican Party sanctions. We must encourage the formation of a new centrist third party to draw off support from the Republican Party and hasten its demise.


WHY NOT GIVE TO AMERICAN INQUIRY?

Your donation helps ensure that American Inquiry remains freely available to all, instead of being hidden behind a paywall. Contributions can be made in any $10 increment by clicking the quantity button. Your total will appear on the subsequent payment page. Many thanks!

$10.00

Critical Elections: An Exchange

In December 2017, about a year into Donald Trump’s presidency, high-school student Nicole Plummer came to me with some questions about critical elections and the 2016 election that brought Trump to power.  Our exchange highlights the role of retrospection in determining whether an election has been critical.  A critical election leaves the party system changed by reconfiguring party ideology in a lasting way.

Here, without further preamble, is my exchange with Miss Plummer.


Q: Can certain tell-tale signs be observed in the time leading up to a critical election?

A:  Typically, critical elections occur when the nation faces an underlying problem that the existing parties can’t admit to or solve.  The problem is big enough to influence all society and the nation’s future. In a critical election, the problem is not only admitted, but an approach to it is offered that the majority of people assent to in an enduring way.

Critical elections happen when people are bored with prevailing political ideas or ambivalent about what candidates are offering. So I imagine that if you looked back at periods before a critical election, you might find lackluster voter turnout, a rise in the percentage of unaffiliated voters, and perhaps also new splinter groups (which are trying to find the right formula for mobilizing the electorate in a new way).

During the campaign leading up to a critical election, one might observe the following: 1) appeals to previously neglected blocs of the electorate; 2) campaign planks (i.e.talking points or principles) that are truly new or innovative; 3) iconoclastic individuals, whether candidates or, in rare instances, their managers, espousing a new vision of society; 4) signs that the political ideas being promoted are being wholeheartedly adopted not just by a cadre of leaders but by a wider swath of society.

Remember that the concept of a critical election is something observers have made up to help differentiate among elections and distinguish their results. Many election cycles feature some of the characteristics above, but it ends up being a matter of degree.  For example, the Tea Party succeeded in bringing a new cadre of conservative opposition leaders into national politics during Obama’s presidency, but this faction failed to broaden its appeal to the extent needed to become a dominant party. Likewise, Bernie Sanders is iconoclastic and has articulated several goals new to mainstream politics, but so far he hasn’t converted all Democracy to his way of thought.

Q: Why are critical elections important for a functioning democratic society?

A:  Critical elections refresh the identification that should exist between leaders and the people. When a leader (or group of leaders) capable of mobilizing the political structure around new and more relevant ideas comes along, the populace benefits.  That’s because the dominant party will then mirror, and do all it can to meet, the American people’s needs and desires. What bothers many people about today’s Republican party is that its actions don’t correspond very well to the needs and concerns of the populace (who don’t want to see their insurance premiums go up or their health coverage disappear, for instance). Similarly, many Americans don’t care about the protection of union workers that is a hackneyed Democratic theme.

Q: Was one of the six critical elections that you identified more influential than the others?

A:  The election of 1860 prompted states to secede, triggered the Civil War, and put slavery on the path to extinction (which directly affected millions of enslaved people), so I would say that election had the most profound effect on America, both subsequently and on those who were alive at the time.

Q:  Are Democrats and Republicans here to stay? Will these two parties just keep evolving their policies or will they eventually give way to new groups based on changing ideologies in the U.S.?

A:  I don’t know. Ironically, it’s hard to say which of these parties is more messed up. The Republicans are in a state of inner crisis despite holding almost all the power. The Democrats have ideological unity but are  indifferent to the fact that millions of Americans find their message unpalatable.

The two major parties are not just vehicles for ideas; they are also bureaucracies that do not want to be extinguished.  In the 2016 election, both Trump and Sanders decided it was more to their advantage to work from within these structures rather than go out and find enough likeminded people to start an effective third party. To start a new party, one would have to assemble and coordinate a group of like-minded peers working to organize similar parties in a number of states.  Will Trump’s climb to the top of the Republican party actually change it into a more salient party, though?  It’s hard to say.

Q:  If you had to pick one almost critical election from U.S. history, what would it be? (i.e. an election that was monumental but didn’t quite meet the criteria)

A:  Barack Obama had the opportunity to change the Democratic party into something new in 2008 but failed to do so because his ties to the party establishment were too slight. He became president at too early an age–if he had stayed in the Senate longer, he would have ended up being a much more effective party leader.

Obama was a centrist looking to find a way beyond big New Deal-type governance.  His major achievement, creating universal access to health care, was significant in that it sought to benefit every American, not just those in need.  His presidency eschewed identity politics.  His second inauguration envisioned a nation that was republican, enlightened, and fully inclusive.

Q:  Do you believe that critical elections need to coincide with social, economic, or political upheaval?

A:  No, they bring change to the society afterward.  Critical elections often follow periods of staleness, stagnation, or cultural drift.

Q:  Why do you think reforming our parties is so difficult at this moment in political history?

A:  Historically, politicians did not have the “tools” of social science (polling, marketing techniques, etc.) so their sense of what would work with the electorate had to be more instinctive. They took up positions that were shaped by their direct knowledge of and intuition about the people.  Also, once in office, they were more confident in using the powers delegated to them, without needing to consult their constituents on every little thing. Trump and Sanders were both remarkable during the campaign, in that each had a few fervently held beliefs that they truly believed in, and that they held to despite what anyone else (e.g., the media) thought. They each were taking a risk that Hillary Clinton was incapable of taking. If you want to be a leader, you’ve got to lead, not just obey your constituents, your paid consultants, your political friends.

Q:  What is your opinion on how politics and campaigns are currently run? Was it better back in the “good-old-days” or has campaigning simply evolved with society to meet the needs and interests of the general populace? Is this evolution good or bad?

A:  The people have the power to effect change. When their will is aroused, change does occur. (Look at the drastic change that’s followed from the 2016 election.)  American politics swings back and forth like a pendulum. Critical elections occur when effective leaders channel the popular will into effective results.  When the right kinds of leaders come up, the reigning ideology changes in a “good way” and the political system becomes endowed with a positive (if also scary) new dynamism.

As recent partisan conflict testifies, the falling away of an old ideology and the birth of a new, widely supported one can take an excruciatingly long period of time.  In Lincoln’s time, escalating sectional tensions ate into the regnant parties for more than a decade before the iconoclastic anti-slavery party he was part of broke through.  Initially a “fringe movement” that recast its message to broaden its mainstream appeal, the Republican party scored an electoral victory that put Lincoln in power.

Q:  Does the 2016 election have the potential to become the 7th critical election? Is it too soon to tell?

A:  In a critical election, the character of the entire party changes in a lasting way.  Will Trump’s ideas really gain traction with establishment Republicans?  I have a feeling that many on Capitol Hill loathe the president and are just waiting him out.*  Some of Trump’s ideas—his concern about the quality of life for displaced and forgotten American workers and his understanding of how this issue is associated with immigration, domestic security, and the specter of our country’s hegemony giving way to that of China—define potent fears that other US leaders should countenance and address in a more palatable but still firm way.  We urgently need a slate of federal goals the whole nation can embrace—otherwise, society will keep deteriorating, and social goods we all prize will be lost.

* Liz Cheney’s ouster from her leadership role in the House yesterday confirms that 2016 was “critical” in that Donald Trump shattered the bland traditionalism of the Republican party, replacing it with a cult of personality.  Those who remain in the party in 2021 overwhelmingly support Trump and his dangerous lies.  His vicious character and indifference to the Constitution have driven away millions, weakening the party and forcing many of its former leaders out.  Where will this disaffected part of the polity go?  Will the coming year will see the birth of a constructive centrist party, perhaps under the leadership of the redoubtable Mitt Romney?

RELATED
Yes, It’s Scary, But Is It a Critical Election?
On Critical Elections


WHY NOT CONTRIBUTE TO AMERICAN INQUIRY?

Your donation helps ensure that American Inquiry remains freely available instead of being hidden behind a paywall. Contributions can be made in any $10 increment by clicking the quantity button. Your total will appear on the subsequent payment page. Many thanks!

$10.00

 

The Grim Dawn of 2021

New Year’s Day in my corner of the world was wet and grim.  The temperature was in the thirties, and rain fell on the unmelted snow.  The freezing mix formed big slushy puddles, glazed the steps seditiously, left icicles on the downspouts.  Gradually the trees and bushes sank under the weight of the ice forming on their boughs.  The patio grew too dangerous to cross.

Then, after night fell at around 4:40, the ugly grey day morphed into a snowy night.  The tree boughs, now brilliant with snow, arched lower.  By 10pm, the branches of a birch tree taller than the house had drooped to within just a few feet of the ground!  It was weird and beautiful.  Stressful for the trees.  I photographed them before going to bed, knowing I might never see the like again.  At night, I heard a few too-heavy branches fall from somewhere, landing on the roof of the house with a thud.


I want to say “happy new year,” but it would be insincere.  It’s impossible to greet this January with optimism, to pay lip service to the notion of “being better.”  Mortal and political dangers lie immediately ahead, threatening to push the US, already battered from the numerous crises of 2020, into a state of irremediable catastrophe.  What 2021 immediately demands is stamina, renewed vigilance against the coronavirus, and the guts to face down Trump-related threats to our government and national security.


Just as I went to bed the other night wondering whether the birch tree would snap in the night, so I wonder whether the government of the US will survive the week.  Extraordinarily, in the next few days the pressures that have been building on the nation will culminate.

  • This week, we will see whether Congress will allow Trump to destroy the United States or whether it will at last defy him, uphold the Electoral College, and be true to the will of the people and the Constitution.
  • We will see whether Trump will win his struggle to control the Republican party or whether his efforts will produce an all-out schism.
  • Will Mitch McConnell find a way to prevent the challenge to the Electoral College from going forward?  Only if anti-Trump forces in the Senate find a way to avert the EC challenge will the Republican Party, as we know it, survive this week.
  • Donald Trump’s conniving to hold on to an office he knows he lost is a self-interested quest that has nothing to do with his Constitutional duties.  He is a criminal and a grave threat to national security.  With the prospect of an ugly showdown in the House and Senate looming, calls for Trump’s impeachment or resignation are likely to grow.

Will the forces of good be strong enough to keep the nation from buckling under this week? The answer will come in the next 36 hours.