By Hibberd Kline
Hugh Mackenzie asked me to comment on the US election and aftermath from “an American point of view.” It is an American point of view, not the American point of view, since there is no consensus in the US as to the meaning and implications of this election. One thing that is clear is the massive fissure running through the American body politic. With 97 percent of the vote in, Biden had 50.8 per cent of the national popular vote to Trump’s 47.4, a difference of 3.4 percent. According to the “Progressive” cable networks (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc.), the divide pits urban, college-educated voters and reliably Democratic minorities against rural, high school-educated and blue collar Americans. Considering the percentage of voters who voted against Trump’s personality, the slim philosophical majority could be the opposite of what it appears.
The touted “Blue Wave” that would sweep Biden into the White House, expand Democrat dominance in the House of Representatives, and give the Democrats a solid majority in the Senate did not occur. Instead the Republicans made respectable gains in the House leaving the Democrats with the smallest majority in that chamber since 1919, and Republicans appear headed to keep control of the Senate by a very slim margin. What this shows is that the Republican state candidates on the ballot did better than Trump, and that Trump’s personality, not Republican policies, was his downfall. The better showing by Republican congressional and senatorial candidates compared to Trump reflect ballot splitting and indicates that many voters actually considered the issues and the candidates’ stands on them and voted for the Democrat in the national presidential race, but for the Republican in the state races. In other words, the “Progressive” shift of the Democratic Party was not embraced by the electorate and the Democrats do not have an overwhelming mandate to enact it.
As the President-Elect indicated in his victory speech, the first and greatest task of the Biden Administration must be to somehow bring America back to a state of civil discourse rather than yelling past each other, and to return to government by compromise rather than all or nothing total war. Given the personalities of the legislative leaders and the fact that the next generation has learned their trade under these people, this is a dubious undertaking. Legislative leadership aside, it is a tall order with the general populace so evenly divided, so committed to their respective camps, and primarily receiving the “news” through platforms run by algorithms designed to reinforce attitudes by feeding the viewer content they like rather than neutral reporting.
Toward the end of the campaign a new and major obstacle to a national dialogue arose. For the first time in US history, Freedom of Speech, guaranteed to the American people by the First Amendment to the Constitution, effectively was being suppressed. Efforts to suppress free expression go back to the beginnings of European settlement, but never before has the mechanism existed to actually silence certain views. Discourse today is via social media, which is controlled by a few private individuals. Under the guise of “fact checking” the cable networks from MSNBC to FOX have stopped broadcasts in midsentence and social media platforms including Facebook and Twitter have frozen accounts on the grounds that posts were incendiary or inaccurate in the opinions of these private parties.
Western Democracy is premised upon the free expression of ideas, right or wrong, so that public debate can grind toward consensus. Today’s truths can become tomorrow’s anathemas. Social media has become what the Supreme Court terms a “public forum.” Under this doctrine, once a medium of expression such as a public notice board in a university commons or a location such as Hyde Park Corner is opened to the public to express political or social opinions, it is open to all opinions, not just those acceptable to the entity, public or private, that controls the medium or location. Facebook, Twitter, etc. seem to have become such public forums and thus have no right to prevent expression by blocking or suspending accounts, or interrupting broadcasts. Prior restraint of expression in a public forum is unconstitutional, except in circumstances of imminent danger to public health and safety, such as yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. It will take a decision of the Supreme Court to apply the Public Forum Doctrine to social media. Such a ruling is necessary if America is to rebuild its political center and make and accept the compromises necessary to reunite the body politic.
President Trump’s recent firing of the Secretary of Defense and other changes in top personnel at the Pentagon have spawned rumors of military action to keep him in the presidency. This is highly unlikely. As a retired Colonel of Marines I have taken the oath of enlistment numerous times to, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic….” The oath is to defend the Constitution, not a geographic area, not a population, but the Constitution, a system of checks and balance, of procedures, of limits upon the exercise of power intended to constrain government, to prevent a momentary majority of society from tyrannizing a minority holding different opinions, and opening to those in the minority the possibility that through public discourse they may become the majority. The oath goes on to say, “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States … according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Articles 90, 91, and 92 of the UCMJ clarify that only lawful orders are to be obeyed. Any order to maintain President Trump in office after his term expires on January 20, 2021 would be contrary to the Constitution and an unlawful order. Such an order would be refused with distain.
In summary, America is deeply divided about who we are and what we want to be. Trump is out, but his policies were acceptable to roughly half of the electorate. It is imperative that Americans come together, but the nature of our communications as well as the intensity of our beliefs will make this difficult to achieve. Difficult is not impossible. The US has been through some highly divisive times before and through combinations of political exhaustion and new challenges America has survived to advance to new strengths. Bet is: “These United States” will do it again.
Hibberd V. B. Kline, III holds a history degree from Harvard College and a law degree from the University of Virginia. Hibberd served on a US Senate staff and has been active in state and local politics. As an officer in the US Marine Corps Reserve, Colonel Kline’s career began with Vietnam and ended with the Gulf War. A retired lawyer, he has authored several books on the American Civil War. He lives in Kansas City, Missouri with his Canadian wife, Christine.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Paul Whillans says
I obviously should be embarrassed to offer commentary on a opinion written by an author so much better informed and qualified than I. But I have thought about this a great deal as it is a Western democracy issue (including Canada) not just a US issue.
It is in my mind simply a platitude to suggest that an individual, Biden needs to or even can bring America back too a level of civil discourse. Certainly, a “personal” manner of speaking can offer a kinder or gentler environment in which discussion take place. But what policy or substantive concessions can or should Biden offer.
An interesting case in point which will arise. And that is should Biden and his Department of Justice get involved in prosecution of Trump, his family or his business after January 20th. Certainly, prosecution of the Trump world will inflame the divisions whether or not Biden plays a role. As such, perhaps in the name of national unity, Biden may be inclined to tell prosecutors to “stand down”. But the judiciary is meant to be independent, so any action (direct or indirect) to either promote or dampen these prosecutions would be wrong and unconstitutional (in every Western Democracy). Longer term any interference in the judiciary may be harmful.
Similar issues will arise immediately after January 20th. And any incoming administration will need to carefully consider what concessions are beneficial or ultimately more inflammatory.
It seems to me that real problem to be addressed, is the entrenched two party system that creates these somewhat artificial tribes. If Canada has an advantage, in my humble opinion, it is the existence of other parties in which the electorate can express themselves. A good example, is the Bloq Quebecois. I like many were somewhat horrified when a “separatist” party was formed and garnered significant support in Quebec. But years later, I realize that the outlet that that party provides did much to hold Quebec in the country by maintaining an on going dialogue. Perhaps, a “Western Party” is a necessary vehicle as well.
Lastly, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted in no other country would she [as a “democratic socialist] and Joe Biden be in the same party. This just shows how contrived a two party, big money system becomes.
I think the time has come for western democracies to expand the choices through which electors can express their wishes. It may be “pop psychology”, but I am convinced that if citizens feel heard, the anger diminishes (even if they do not “get their way). This can be done in one of two ways (or a combination). Get rid of “first past the post” and create a system of proportional representation. And get “big money” out of elections and thus level the playing field.
Susan Godfrey says
Thank you so much Mr. Kline for taking the time to write this piece. I’m always appreciative of writing that is concise, cohesive and offers a point of view that offers me a chance to escape into “thought” for a time in an otherwise mundane existence! That said, hopefully without seeming pedantic, doesn’t the Constitution come originally, as all declarations, from a defining set of ideas or ideologies? One of the American ideologies defended by the Constitution is “the right to defend”. It seems to me that some of the free speech dogma comes with a perplexing propensity for violence defended by said Right. Is it possible that the Constitution should be made more relevant for the 21st century? An ideology that is truly true, and right, will survive the test of time. I believe it is much more important to protect the vulnerable and disenfranchised than to have unbridled free speech (ie. hate speech). There are many more points to ponder but I will (thankfully for the reader) leave it at that! Thank you again.
Anna-Lise Kear says
Good wishes on building the political centre. Mr. Whillans ideas have merit.
Over and above the judicial investigations and prosecutions which may occur, populism, and the “cult” of DT and Trumpism need a spot of sunlight examination. As has been mentioned, Trump is not done with testing all the boundaries (legal/ethical), nor maintaining popularity. If true as reported, he is now using influence with the RNC with a chosen staffer to head the organization. He will leverage the power of his cult followers to maintain significant pressure for his future leadership. He cares little for non-wealth policy – RNC can determine whatever they wish- he just wants to be campaigning in 2024, to mainline the adulation to sustain his insatiable narcissism, and to have a source of income in the meantime.
As an outsider, the amount of money allowed for campaigns during elections could feed a country.
Robin Yule says
Mr. Kline has written an excellent commentary except as regards social media and free speech. One cannot compare Facebook with Hyde Park corner in any real way; something that reaches 40 or 50 persons at most is vastly different to something reaching hundreds of millions.
Free speech is vital, no doubt and freedom of the press of course. It was ironic that Trump and the Republicans complained bitterly about minor limitations on Twitter but advocated shutting down CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and more.
Social media are very, very difficult phenomena to deal with. To date, finding a method for restraining hate speech, foreign influence and internal attempts at sedition while maintaining rights to express opinion has proven elusive.
As with so many things covered by law, there will have to be some sacrifice of freedom to provide a benefit to society worth the price. I hope there is considerable discussion on this issue in Canada as well as the rest of the world as it has huge implications for the future.
JOHN WYDRA says
I am left leaning in my politics. The funny thing is Social Media knows this and when I visit this sites I am bombarded with articles with a leftist lean and like it, but it is not giving me an opposite view. I’m getting a very myopic view of life. What we need is devil’s advocate clause for the algorithms that give us only what we think we like. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy Hugh McKenzie’s articles. He is centre right and I am centre left, but I agree with him 75% of the time. There is a middle ground where we can all survive content.
Hugh Holland says
The underlying problem is inequality that is growing in many countries, but none more than in the USA. There are simply too many people left behind by automation and outsourcing to low-wage countries that has been going on since 1980 to enhance corporate profits that were never shared with those affected. The affected were supposed to transition to higher-skilled jobs but the US never made the enabling investments in re-training and universal portable health care. The end result is growing poverty, addiction, crime and homelessness. If one want to take a look at how to solve this equation, take a look at the Scandinavian countries. They are not the “socialist disasters” that many seem to think. They rank at the top of virtually every international comparison except size of course. And their national Debt to GDP ratio is among the lowest. The US will never solve their problems until they change their mindset.
Karen Wehrstein says
That’s a good Republican commentary you’ve found there, Hugh. Thanks to Mr Kline for writing it. With the USA as fervently divided as it is, it would be journalistic malfeasance not to find a Democratic counterpoint. That would be the way to include crucial topics in American politics that Mr. Kline is ignoring, e.g.:
.
– Democracy itself being in danger. Lack of respect for the will of the people has been increasingly demonstrated by the Republican Party in the form of voter suppression, gerrymandering, false accusations of voter fraud, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by a majority Republican Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell’s refusal to seat an Obama-selected Supreme Court judge during an election year and hurry to seat a Trump-selected one less than 60 days from an election, collusion with a hostile foreign power (Putin’s Russia) to interfere with an election, Trump’s current refusal to accept the reality of his loss and his false claims that he actually won, and many more aspects I could name. It did not start with Trump. These things have been going on for decades.
.
– Health care. Most Canadians think that the USA, being a developed country, has something like our OHIP in Ontario. It does not. This is why so many Canadians are unaware of such routine American realities as lack of coverage for pre-existing conditions, co-pays, loss of health insurance due to loss of job and medical bankruptcy. (Google these terms to find out.) In Canada you will not hear of, for instance, parents taking a child who has swallowed a bottle full of pills to a hospital parking lot and hoping she pulls through on her own so they won’t have to take her in, because they know the cost could ensure she never goes to university. In the USA situations like this are commonplace. What Americans do not realize is how much the stress of living this way affects their collective physical and mental health.
.
– Mass disinformation. Mr Kline touches on this but implies the problem is differing opinions. It is not; it is a wholesale dissemination of, in the unforgettable words of Kellyanne Conway, “alternative facts,” i.e. lies. Currently a strong majority of Republicans think that Trump won the election when he lost in a landslide (by American standards) — not only because he is saying so, but because it’s being echoed by right wing “news” organizations in news and social media. It has been found in studies that a crazily high percentage of Fox “News” viewers think Barack Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim. The Republican Party has actually accepted candidates who are Qanon followers, believing a conspiracy theory that is essentially Hitler’s rationale for the Holocaust, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” updated. These people say, absolutely seriously, that Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of babies. Democracy requires informed voters, which requires that news media be accurate in their reporting, whatever their opinions are. That sacred commitment to factual truth is in big trouble south of the border.
.
And finally: race and racism. It’s not a coincidence that in many cities, Black voters have to wait hours in line to vote. It’s not a coincidence that Trump’s specious lawsuits to throw out millions of votes all happen in Black-dominated areas, or that Barack Obama is accused of crimes even though his administration was squeaky-clean (0 indictments, a rarity). It’s not accidental that Black parents, as soon as their sons are old enough to understand, have to have what is called The Talk with them, about how to survive encounters with police without being shot. There is a reason that the police killing of George Floyd sparked such angry demonstrations: he was actually just one of a long list of Black men and women killed by police despite having committed only minor crimes or being completely innocent, just going about their business. He was the tipping point.
.
Find a good Dem writer who can discuss these points and others better than I can, Hugh, if you want Doppler readers to fully understand American politics.
Hugh Holland says
Well said Karen Wehrstein. Regarding democracy itself being in danger, you could add that the 2010 decision by the US Supreme Court in favor of the Republican organization called “Citizens United” completely gutted US election campaign contribution laws. That was just one more initiative in the 40-year campaign by the Koch brothers to ensure that “Big money wins”. It takes an extraordinary effort by ordinary citizens to stand in voting lines for 10 hours or more to overcome the handicap. Thankfully that is what happened this year. And that is why the Economist Intelligence Unit ranks the US as a “Flawed Democracy” and # 25 in the world for democratic practices.
Karen Wehrstein says
Thanks, Hugh H., and you are absolutely right about that very Orwellian-termed decision, “Citizens United,” which I should have mentioned. For those who don’t know, it basically made money talk much, much more in American politics, opening the door to the insane nine-figure-costing campaigns that have become routine now, and big private donors such as the Koch brothers having much more power — a very bad thing in a country that is already beginning to see the destructive effects to society of income inequality.
.
Which segues nicely into thanking you for covering that in your comment, Hugh, as I left it out. What people who do not oppose increases to income inequality apparently aren’t doing is looking far enough back in history. Sometimes it doesn’t just damage a society, but can destroy it, or at least its elites, sometimes very bloodily. Someone in France once said “90% of citizens are dying of starvation, the other 10% of indigestion.” The king of the time took no real action and shortly thereafter he, his family and most of the nobility went to the guillotine, and the French remain proud to this day that they did it. That’s just one example.