Reflections On the Night Before the 2024 Election
The 2024 election is likely to be close and while that's not untypical of many recent elections, the scale of violent political rhetoric and authoritarian outlook appears to be significantly greater than has previously been common in American elections. One of the questions that has come to my mind this evening is how to evaluate the tangled rhetoric and actions of a Presidential candidate who has, at times, seemed at best to have a very clear talent for demagoguery, and at worse to be on the verge of dementia. Generally, when a person is clearly signaling a course of action it’s a good idea to consider the likelihood of their following through. Trump throughout this campaign, as well as in previous campaigns, appears to have typically adopted a “heads I win, tails you lose” outlook towards opponents. E.g., there’s no possible way he can honestly lose, and if the vote count suggests that - the vote count is clearly wrong, and most likely because of criminal action by his criminal opponents. As an aside it is also worth mentioning that Trump has significant personal stake in the outcome, if he loses he’s at the very least looking at courtroom time, while if he wins he gets a Get Out of Jail (and Court) Free card. The signaling has been that key opponents are going to be subject to a weaponization of the Department of Justice if Trump emerges victorious. If he loses, well that is beyond the realm of possibility and any means at all are worthy of use to prevent such a miscarriage of justice.
Therefore, in the event of a situation where Trump loses there are very likely going to be at least two channels of action to attempt to make that outcome go away. On the one hand, the legal challenges will come out full force at both the Federal and State levels. The challenges don’t have to be legitimate (there are always some legitimate issues in elections), but ultimately, gumming up the works in the choosing of electors and counting of votes will potentially cause enough delay in the process to throw the election to the House of Representatives. The constitution requires that if the Electoral College fails to provide a majority for any candidate, then the task of choosing the President falls to the House, but in a state by state rather than individual vote. The Representatives of a state, by majority vote, determine who that state will support, with each state getting one vote. Since the Republicans tend to be in the majority in smaller states, the majority of states would seemingly fall in line behind the Republican candidate, and Trump would be chosen the President (even if Democrats receive the majority of votes overall in the House). This will likely be the golden grail in Republican actions and strategy as it was somewhat in 2020. However, signaling from Trump on down seems to make it clear that the strategy will be followed with much vigor and determination, with the benefit of experience, and the incentive of higher stakes for Trump than previously. The success at convincing a very significant proportion of Americans of electoral fraud with virtually no evidence and simply as a matter of repeating a mantra, has provided a guidebook for actions to encourage discrediting belief in and acceptance of voting outcomes. This is undoubtedly in line with a Putinesque interest in undermining American strength and power to get back for America’s perceived role in reducing the Russian position in the world political system.
The extra-legal means to counter a Trump loss is likely include the activation and use of what in third world countries are known as paramilitaries – armed, extreme, and violence oriented right-wing operatives who attempt to intimidate or eliminate opposition. The January 6 invasion of the Capitol could be viewed as a testing ground for these kinds of actions although they go back further (see “Brooks Brother’s Riot in 2000, and Ku Klux Klan activities during much of the pre Voting Rights era). The potential of violent paramilitaries attempting to overthrow a free and fair election is becoming a very real possibility that needs to be considered in preparing for the aftermath of the election. In the event of such actions, the reactions of local law enforcement bodies (and local citizenry) will be critical to their success or failure. Professional (and non-partisan) law enforcement will continue to “serve and protect” but there are clearly significant numbers in the law enforcement community (such as the so-called Constitutional Sheriffs, and the “Oathkeepers”) who represent political views that are aligned with Trump and right - wing paramilitaries. Local citizenry is hampered, and somewhat intimidated by misinformation, apathy and right wing bias in much of the social media. The degeneration of Twitter since Musk took over could be a prime exhibit. So the tendency to turn a blind eye is very likely assist in the success of the extra-legal as well as legal methods of overturning unliked election results even if there is no basis of evidence for such actions.
So, will this election lead to increasing political violence in America? My guess at this point is that the system will hold. But the system is becoming ever creakier and more rigged as the Supreme Court makes increasingly clear it’s political orientation and the authoritarian outlook becomes more prevalent. Will this election represent a clean break from America’s uneven pattern of E Pluribus Unum and the mosaic/melting pot, to a more Vichyite direction in an age of nuclear weaponry and unprecedented potential for electronic surveillance? While America was founded with enlightenment ideals and soaring hopes for a “Land of the Free,” this also coexisted with the existence of racism, slavery and stolen lands. The ideals proved strong enough, at least for a period of time, to overcome the darker tendencies that have also been prevalent in our history. Will this election mark a break from the ideals and rhetoric of rights that was part and parcel of the founding of this country. For better or for worse, we shall see.