As we approach November 3, speculation about the regularity of the upcoming election has become a virtual cottage industry. External circumstances like the Covid-19 pandemic have obviously contributed to the atmosphere of anxiety. But the main cause for the climate of fear are the words and deeds of President Donald J. Trump. As the Executive he took an oath to defend the constitution, and nothing is more vital to constitutional good order than confidence in the electoral system. If "we the people" are not persuaded that our leaders were elected freely and fairly, none of the rules the Constitution contains to constrain them are worth a fig.
Any president who took his oath of office seriously would work tirelessly to calm fears about the upcoming election and work impartially to implement practical solutions to the challenges of the pandemic. Instead, Trump has stridently and gratuitously broadcast indictments of the electoral process itself, warning of a "rigged election!" He has turned every effort to work around the threat of the pandemic into a partisan conflict, impugning "vote by mail" plans as a scheme to defraud. Our system requires opposing parties to come together in good faith to assess the will of the people, and Trump is making that impossible by turning every question about electoral process into a zero-sum "us versus them" dilemma.
Why is he doing this? One plausible explanation is that, like the scorpion in the parable who rides the frog, Trump simply cannot help injecting poison into the system because it is his nature. He is a congenitally insecure and belligerent character, he has spent his almost four years in office feuding with legions of foes real and imagined, and so he is just acting true to form. Even if this were the whole explanation, the situation would be bad enough.
But Trump's attacks on the election are more and more difficult to read as spontaneous expressions of his "quirky (read 'obscenely malignant')" character. The President likes to cultivate the appearance of buffoonery and poor intelligence, but he can read a poll as clearly as anyone. With less than sixty days left to Election Day, it is looking increasingly unlikely that Trump can win a fair election, even given the advantage he enjoys in the Electoral College. It takes no great feat of deduction to understand that someone who knew that he was not likely to win a regular election, and was yet determined to remain in office, would work steadily to undermine the integrity of the election itself.
Is it silly to think that this is afoot? Let's look at the facts. In 2016 Trump made at least paltry attempts to speak to constituencies beyond his base supporters. He gave, for example, speeches in which he asked African-American voters "what do you have to lose?" by voting for him. There was a latent racism even in these remarks (as they painted a portrait of Black America that was condescendingly bleak), but they were at least pitched to giving some white Republicans the impression (or the rationalization) that Trump was not wholly hostile to the interests of African-Americans.
Very little of even this form of fake conciliation is on display from Trump in 2020. The Republican National Convention featured set-pieces like a naturalization ceremony involving people of color (some of whom, amazingly, were unaware that the scene would be broadcast), but none of these displays of tokenism rose to the level of efforts made in 2016 to counter charges of racism. Meanwhile, despite the fact that support for the Black Lives Matter movement reached as high as 63% in polls this summer, Trump and his surrogates have persistently condemned BLM supporters as "traitors" and "terrorists." Why would you use such Manichean language about a movement that enjoys the support of a majority of the electorate, if your ambition was to win at the polls?
Race is the prime point upon which Trump is stoking conflict and anger, but it is far from the only one. On a series of hot button issues, ranging from the measures to remediate the pandemic, to questions of foreign policy, to the parameters of the election itself, Trump has launched inflammatory attacks and used radically polarizing rhetoric, without any regard for bringing together a coalition that might resolve questions democratically. To the contrary, Trump has given encouragement and voice to tendencies of the political fringe that can only ever be persuasive to a minority fragment of voters: expressing "appreciation" of the QAnon movement and hinting darkly to one interviewer that Joe Biden was in the grips of a cabal of black-clad agents flying around the country on commercial airliners, equipped with nefarious gear.
Why would you act this way, if your goal was to win an election that is less than sixty days away? Unless one credits Trump and his advisors with very little intelligence, one cannot believe that this is any kind of strategy for electoral victory. They are making very little effort to replicate the techniques ("what have you got to lose?") that secured them the surprising victory of 2016. Meanwhile, they are working assiduously to sow doubt that the election itself will be fair and authoritative.
Even more disturbing is the degree to which the president and his supporters are encouraging violence. Demonizing the Black Lives Matter movement as "treasonous" and "terrorist" has, predictably (deliberately), motivated some of Trump's supporters to take up arms against it. Trump's refusal to condemn the shooting of two BLM protesters in Kenosha by a seventeen-year-old Trumpist is a gross betrayal of his oath of office. Whatever the young man's blame or innocence in the case itself, the duty of a president in such an instance of political violence is to urge calm and make peace. Instead, Trump has pushed to keep the wheel of violence spinning, cheering on supporters in Portland who, in the wake of the Kenosha killing, rode through Portland firing paintball guns and gas canisters at BLM protesters. The death of one of Trump's supporters during that demonstration was execrable but again predictable, and one cannot help but suspect that the whole point of the exercise itself was to incite such a response.
Creating a climate of fear and hatred naturally develops a situation in which peaceful protest becomes impossible.Trump is effectively engaged in a campaign of mass intimidation. His negligence is creating conditions in which anyone who comes out to march in defiance of his administration must fear for their lives.
Is this deliberate? In a sense, the question of Trump's intent is irrelevant. He is already engaged in flagrant violations of the law and of constitutional and political norms. Refusing to disclose his tax returns. Refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas. Refusing to acknowledge interference in the election by Russia. Using the White House and other federal facilities for partisan purposes in violation of the Hatch Act. Virtually every day he demonstrates that he cannot be held accountable, and challenges his co-partisans and supporters to choose between their support for regular constitutional order and their support for Donald J. Trump.
How can anyone assume that this game of brinksmanship will stop at the election? When I propose to friends or family, for example, that Trump might order the counting of mail-in ballots to cease at 11 PM on November 3 (on the claim that they are fraudulent), they typically answer, "He can't do that!" But he can't hold a campaign rally on the White House lawn either, and that is already in the rear-view mirror. The question of whether Trump can do something or not always ultimately boils down to the question of "who will stop him?" The same would apply to an order to cease counting mail-in ballots. Governor Cuomo of New York would probably stop him. Governor DeSantis of Florida would probably not.
That brings us back to the question of Trump's behavior in these last weeks of the campaign. By setting the American people against one-another, he is systemically disabling the last mechanism by which he might be held accountable. Trump does not really have it in his power to engineer an outcome for this election. But as President he can completely sabotage the operation of the electoral process itself, so that the machinery of the transition grinds to a halt. The only force that really has any hope of preventing such a maneuver is concerted civil protest by an overwhelming number of conscientious Americans. In the hypothetical case of his ordering a stop to the counting of mail-in ballots, for example, unless millions took to the streets to oppose that order, Trump would undoubtedly get away with it.
Can millions be counted on to protest abuses of power surrounding the election? Right now I would venture to say that the answer to that question is "yes." But in the next sixty days much could change. If we see more chaos, more violence, and more polarization, the will to engage in civil protest (or the discipline to ensure that it remains civil) could wane very rapidly.
No one need believe that Donald Trump is directing a complex conspiracy to "steal" the election. However intelligent he may be, such a sophisticated enterprise would be beyond anything he had shown himself capable of before. But one does not have to posit that he is maneuvering in subtle ways to falsely "win" the election, only that he has no intention of ever conceding that he lost it. He has shown that he is willing to abuse his power to any degree in pursuit of his own interests. Anyone who insists that Trump will not interfere with a final counting of the vote out of an unwillingness to destroy our democracy must explain on what basis they can argue that he has ever demonstrated such an unwillingness. For my part, I have no trouble believing that the man who told us he trusted Vladimir Putin over the FBI, who separated thousand of migrant children from their parents, who stole money from charity, who is on tape bragging about committing sexual assault, and who has committed a host of other obscenities in the light of day and on camera, would lose very little sleep over having left democracy in ashes.
We as citizens are faced with dire and frightening challenges in the weeks ahead. Voting is of course vitally important, but voting is very likely not going to be enough, no matter how overwhelmingly the electorate decides in favor of Joe Biden. All of the other methods of civil engagement are likewise urgent- volunteering, public displays of support, letters to elected officials, and monetary donations. But none of these might suffice. In the end, the only way that we might secure a clear accounting of the election is by taking to the streets in civil protest. And there is the rub. Donald Trump is maneuvering to make civil protest more dangerous than it has been in recent memory. By stoking anger and fear, he is trying to drown out the voices of civil debate with the clamor of malignant violence.
We cannot let this happen. We must be brave and we must be disciplined. We must repudiate violence, but we must not neglect the duty of citizenship. We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied into silence or despair. If like the heroes of the Civil Rights movement or the veterans who risked their lives defending America did before us, we accept risks and face down dangers by speaking out, we shall prevail. If not for our own sake, we must do so for that of our children. Those of us who grew up enjoying the blessings of democracy have an obligation to preserve them for those who will come after us.