U.S. elections and institutional resilience

The dice are cast. The elections are over. GIS does not usually look back, but in this case it is justified as the presidential vote in the United States signals changes to come, with implications for the future.

Illogic dominated right from the beginning. Let us start with the Democrats. It is difficult to understand the reason that one year ago – while quite frail due to his age − Joe Biden was considered the only candidate able to defeat Donald Trump, who had not been nominated yet and was still being contested by personalities such as Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley. On their side, the Republicans had a dilemma: It was believed that no one could win without the support of Mr. Trump, however, he was only ready to support himself.

Signs of Joe Biden’s frailties were camouflaged by Democratic Party leaders and the majority of the media. It was an unfair game they played with an elderly man, and it also reduced the credibility of those around him, his supporters in politics and the media. But it presented the Trump campaign with an advantage – an opportunity to score points on Biden’s age.

Then came the debate. The disastrous dialogue between the two candidates in June made President Biden’s lack of fitness obvious. Nevertheless, it took several weeks to convince him to step back. To the surprise of many, Kamala Harris, his vice president, was then endorsed. Her track record as vice president was unimpressive, yet her candidacy gained momentum. Ms. Harris was portrayed as young and dynamic, and as a woman. Suddenly, Donald Trump was the old man.

Surreal comments by Mr. Trump did not shock his followers, while Ms. Harris had problems convincing voters with her programs and the legacy of the Biden administration. Her main argument of “saving democracy” was not strong or credible enough.

Donald Trump won.

Checks and balances

We should recall the authors of the U.S. constitution in the late 18th century. They were looking for a governance system protecting life, liberty and the freedom of choice (pursuit of happiness) for citizens. In other words, freedom through self-responsibility. The authors chose a system of democracy with checks and balances. As much as they wanted to avoid tyranny from government, they were also afraid that an uncontrolled democracy would lead either to populism or the rule of the street. This led to a thus-far successful governance system.

The president as the executive has an important position, but cannot rule alone. For legislation, the Senate and House of Representatives are important actors. Even if a president’s party has a majority in both chambers, that does not mean that the White House can unilaterally rule through them. The majority of those in the legislative branch have a responsibility to the people of America and the constitution.

Supreme Court justices cannot be dismissed; only when positions become vacant are replacements possible. In his first, term Donald Trump had the opportunity to replace three. But he cannot do this alone either. The consent of the Senate is required. It resulted in appointments of rather conservative judges, which, per se, is not a problem. If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, the nominations would likely have been quite progressive. The Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling on the president’s immunity is on the table and many feel concerned. But even with that, there is no blank check and impeachment is still possible.

Another important factor to hedge against tyranny or mob rule is the autonomy of each of the 50 states in the union. The competence and mandate of the federal government is limited.

Resiliency and threats

Through the check and balances, America’s institutions are resilient. We also have to remember that a free society always has been protected from whichever political side is wielding power. Any political party, movement or persons can try to undermine the system. Attacks can be carried out slowly over time (the technocratic way), or more abruptly. Both are dangerous.

U.S. institutions have proved their resilience for nearly 250 years now. This should provide confidence for the future. The president-elect’s program has valid points, if we put aside some populist remarks.

Personally, as a free marketeer, I dislike increasing tariffs. Unfortunately, protectionism is now becoming a global vice. Yet the U.S. will not − under any administration − remain the sole pillar of free trade.

On foreign and security policy, the American line is unlikely to change very strongly, except in tone. Support of Ukraine has already become lukewarm under the Biden administration. A more decisive position in the Middle East is becoming a necessity. China presents realities that Washington must address, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

Many European countries will need pressure to act. European governments and media appear highly concerned. It would be better, however, if they would worry more about their own policies and resilience on the one hand, and on the other, do more for defense.

This comment was originally published here: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-elections-resilience/