TWO CHOICES, TWO WORDS: INSIDIOUS OR INSIPIRING

 

As the campaign cycle draws to a tense close, with only a few hours remaining before election day, the two presidential candidates have provided voters with messages that are as clearly contrasted as night and day. I should start by explaining to my Republican friends that this is not a news story. It is an opinion piece, in which I am stating my position and observations as clearly and honestly as I can, unfettered by any editorial line. I am an independent observer and writer, beholden to no editorial board or party line. And speaking in pure umpirese, “I calls ‘em like I sees ‘em.” 

The only thing I have to gain or lose by sharing my outlook is the off chance that I it might, in some small way, prompt someone undecided to make what, for me, is the only appropriate decision. Or, at least, to give some thought to the points I make.

Other than that, this essay, like all others that I write and share, is a way of logically coming to grips with my own doubts and fears. It is a vehicle for ordering my own thoughts, of accumulating information and seeking to distill it into knowledge, and of achieving what I feel to be a reasonably educated opinion.

That said, though it pains me a little to admit it, I’m almost grateful to Donald Trump for his campaign performance during these final days before elections. My gut feeling is that he has done more in a few short days to swing women and undecided voters toward Harris than all of the spin-masters working for the Democratic campaign put together. He has, in short, done everything he could to underscore everything that has gone into the formation of an enormous body of never-Trumpers, which now includes a not insignificant number of Republicans and Independents. He has even convinced—as indicated by most recent trends and polling—many who have never voted Democrat, never voted for a woman, and never voted for a minority, that there’s no responsible choice in this historically consequential election but to hold their noses and vote for Kamala Harris.

Faiz Shakir, former campaign adviser to Bernie Sanders for the 2020 Democratic primary campaign, stated it most succinctly. According to him, Trump has “focused on die-hards and the likely-to-be-inclined”—in other words, the fawning MAGA crowd who unconditionally stroke his pathologically oversized ego. “For anyone who didn't like the behavior, conduct and management of his last presidency,” Shakir continues, “he gave them nothing."

Indeed, in these last days of the run-up to Election Tuesday, Trump has given all but his most fanatical supporters less than nothing to cling to. Just to recap, his final rallies and statements before the election have been a litany of lies and complaints about the election he lost (and still doesn’t concede he lost), suggestions that he should have “stayed in office” in spite of that clear loss, rampant conspiracy theories about fraud in an election that has yet to take place, and insults and threats to his opponent and her supporters.

As if that were not enough, he has doubled down on, and vastly expanded, the kind of violent rhetoric that he has used and promoted since he first ran for office in 2016. The freshest of these violence-laden messages happened Sunday at a Pennsylvania rally when he suggested he would be okay with members of the campaign press corps being shot. (He apparently has “having people shot” on the brain lately). Specifically, he said,  “I have this piece of glass here but all we have really over here is the fake news, right? And, to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don’t mind that so much, coz…I don’t mind, I don’t mind that.”

Last week at a Wisconsin rally,  Trump ranted for a full four minutes about his mic. He talked about "knocking the hell, out of the people backstage” who had given it to him. He also called the organizers/workers “stupid”. Then, complaining that the microphone was “too low, too low,” he started pretending to have oral and manual sex with the mic stand. I mean, his acting was quite good in this case, so there was no doubt about what he was mimicking, even if he later claimed he was pretending to “eat a corndog” (and speaking of dogs, this lame explanation is sort of like, “the dog ate my homework”).

Earlier, he vented his fury against staunchly conservative Republican Liz Cheney for putting country before party and supporting Kamala Harris. He ranted about Cheney’s being “a war hawk” and suggested she should be facing “nine (gun) barrels pointed at her face.” Trump supporters immediately started scrambling to spin what we all heard—and, even though it came from Trump, were shocked by—saying that the statement was taken “out of context.” Apologists claimed that what he meant to say was that if she were a “war hawk”, she should be sent into battle and have to face gunfire “the way our troops do.” But that simply doesn’t wash, because there is no appropriate or didactic context in which a politician can suggest that an opponent—whether from their party or any other—should have guns pointed at his or her face.

I’ve asked Trump Republicans—rhetorically, of course—and ask them again now, if Liz Cheney were to say that, Trump, because of his behavior in the January Sixth Insurrection (2021), is a traitor to his nation (which, as a key member of the J-6 Committee investigative team, she very likely believes), would they, in all fairness, find it acceptable for her to say that he should face a firing squad? And would “context” be considered an acceptable justification for her saying it if she did? In other words, what sort of righteous outrage would we have had to listen to from Trump supporters if Cheney had suggested gun violence against Trump instead of the other way around?

There have been numerous other instances of violent rhetoric from Trump in the run-up to tomorrow’s election, but I rest my case. Suffice it to say that words matter, and especially coming from a perpetually angry cult leader like Donald Trump. Words not only matter, they also spark deeds. Just ask the one hundred forty police officers injured during the January Sixth Insurrection at the Capitol Building, or the family of the one who died at the hands of Trump’s rioters. Ask relatives of the Trump supporter who was shot to death seeking to breach the congressional chamber, where members of Congress were cowering in fear for their lives. Ask, as well, stateswoman Nancy Pelosi and her husband whose lives were ruined when a crazy Trump supporter, pumped up by his cult leader’s violent rhetoric, broke into the Pelosi home, hoping to find the Speaker and kill her, but instead settled for beating her spouse’s skull in with a claw-hammer.   

Trump is also telling people, in no uncertain terms, that he plans to be a dictator. All you have to do is listen to the not-so-subtle dog whistles. In these last days of the campaign, in practically the same breath in which, for the umpteenth time, he suggested that former Speaker of the House and former House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were “horrible people”, Trump told a crowd that he would be going after his enemies if he became president. And he added that he might very well use the National Guard “or even the military” to do it. He also suggested he would go after “disloyal” (to him) general officers within that military, including decorated generals like John Kelly, who was once Trump’s closest adviser, and now, based on his experience with him, describes the former president as “a fascist.” Or like General Mark Milley, who was the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump—and may very well have successfully kept the ex-president from slapping the US under martial law and ruling by decree.

For someone like myself, who has not only lived through but actually had to survive a military dictatorship, as an opposition newsman and foreign correspondent in Argentina during the nineteen-seventies and eighties, these words are chilling. Not only that, but they also underscore what I’ve been warning about in the US since the turn of the century. Namely, that giving ever-increasing power to the Executive Branch—as has been happening since the Reagan Era—is dangerous, and has a cumulatively pernicious effect. I warned long before Donald Trump reared his ugly head, that while strong central government might seem attractive when people want someone to “keep them safe” and when those holding the power act judiciously and wisely, it only takes one despot, one madman, to abuse that expanding power and end up overthrowing the existing order.

In case some of you haven’t noticed, that time is here! Donald Trump is that despot, that madman, and he has already proven that he is perfectly capable of seeking to hold onto power by force. Our checks and balances, the guardrails that maintain the division of powers, managed to hold in 2020, when, for the first time in history, a president refused to uphold the peaceful transfer of power and sparked an insurrection to try and remain in power, despite certifiably failing to win a free and fair election. The guardrails held, as I say, but only barely. And only because there were a handful authentic small-d democrats who defended them—then-Vice President Mike Pence, House Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Schiff, former Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, some (but certainly not all) members of Congress, and, with uncommon courage and resolve, the Capitol Police, among others.

But it seems clear as day to me that American democracy, the two-and-a-half-century-old experiment dreamed by the framers of the Republic, simply will not survive another term of the Trump Era. While we have whistled in the dark for the past four years after experiencing the most consequential interruption of representative democracy since the Civil War, and pretended that everything is okay, it is not. The Trump Era has done grave damage to the fabric of the Nation. It has weakened the floor of our democratic institutions, cast fabricated doubt on our election process, born false witness against Trump’s opponents, and divided Americans as they have never been divided since the Southern slave states declared their rebellion against the Union in 1861.

In the closing of her campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris’s message could not be more distinct from her opponent’s.  While Trump’s campaign has been dark, seeking to picture the US as a horrible, dangerous place that only he can fix—and only do so by force—Kamala Harris’s rallies have been upbeat, buoyant, and full of positive visions for the future. The enthusiasm has been electric and the crowds huge—despite Trump’s attempts to dismiss them as “fake news”.

Harris’s points have been clear and easy to understands. She has aptly described Trump as “a petty tyrant”, adding that "These United States of America, we are not a vessel for the schemes of wannabe dictators. The United States of America is the greatest idea humanity ever devised."

"America, we know what Donald Trump has in mind,” she said. “More chaos, more division, and policies that help those in the very top and hurt everyone else. I offer a different path."

Appearing to speak to still undecided voters, the vice president said, "This is not a candidate for president who is thinking about how to make your life better. Donald Trump has spent a decade trying to keep the American people divided and afraid of each other. That is who he is, but America, I am here tonight to say that is not who we are."

She pointed out that while Trump consistently threatens and demeans his opponents, "I don't believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. He wants to put them in jail. I'll give them a seat at the table."

Reminding voters of the support she has received from Liz Cheney and other Republican politicians, as well as of some two hundred thirty former Trump administration officials who have vowed to vote for her, she added, "We have to stop pointing fingers and start locking arms. It is time to turn the page on the drama and the conflict, the fear and division. It is time for a new generation of leadership in America."

Harris has also shown a kind of humility that marks another stark difference with Trump. She has told more than one audience, "I'll be honest with you. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. But here's what I promise you. I will always listen to you. Even if you don't vote for me. I will always tell you the truth, even if it is difficult to hear."

It seems to me, putting aside issues, policy and governance that will all only take shape when the votes are counted and the winner is inaugurated, the choice tomorrow, for those who have yet to cast their ballot, is clear. The Nation can elect a tyrannical narcissist, who has already demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that everything he does is self-serving and aimed at consolidating his grasp on absolute power to the everlasting detriment of democracy, the Constitution, and American traditions, and a man who will alienate the rest of the Western world from America. Or it can elect a new generation, a forward-looking leader, who will, for the first time, bring a woman’s vision to the office, who is sincere and inspired in her patriotic verve, and who will do everything in her power to create social harmony while upholding justice both at home and abroad.

Today’s the day. Today we choose whether to advance into the light, or to slip inexorably backward into darkness.