A general problem in these American elections is that the climate of rhetorical violence and the spread of conspiracy theories is a double-edged sword. Whoever uses it will also suffer from it, and unfortunately, the attempt on former President Donald Trump and the very bizarre interpretations given in the heat of the moment—and that will no doubt continue to circulate—are the product of this atmosphere. It is a Pandora’s box that has been opened, which should, instead, be closed because, right or wrong, the decisive issues of the elections are four:
- Public order. People, the middle class, feel that crime is increasing.
- Immigration.
- Inflation.
- Some people believe there is a problem with the American decision-making process, which is too slow and too cumbersome.
On all these four themes, Trump is strong. If not for the January 6, 2021 episode—whether you call it an insurrection, a rabid protest, or an attempted coup—if there were no attempt to deny the legitimacy of President Joe Biden’s election, today, probably, Trump would have the wind in his sails for his re-election. Trump’s arguments on all these four issues seem stronger than Biden’s.
Biden and the Democrats dispute these issues, but they are always controversial. For example:
- There’s inflation, but there’s economic growth.
- There’s immigration, but there are also labor shortages because the economy is growing.
- Crime can be a matter of perception because statistics can show one thing and the opposite.
- The system’s efficiency is laborious but avoids mistakes that could complicate things.
However, the key argument against Trump is his violent rhetoric, his plan to reform the American “deep state,” and to change America through populist rhetoric. If we removed this populist rhetoric today, Trump’s chances of being re-elected would be much higher.
Thus, it is in Trump’s best interest to lower the tone and completely change his strategy, to stop with this populist rhetoric, clearly abandon conspiracy theories, and move to the center. Here are the undecideds, those who might change their heart at the last minute and vote for Biden not because they are convinced of Biden’s program but because they are frightened by Trump’s radical agenda. This could help America regain its unity. If it doesn’t, then the legitimacy of the democratic process is in jeopardy. The process hinges on both candidates being willing to step back if the polls negatively affect them.
In the 1960s and 1970s, America was swamped by violent protests. There were Soviet infiltrations, the Black Panthers, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and John Kennedy. It was a much more violent and harsh moment than now. Even then, despite these assassinations, the American establishment—the central part of America—found unity, which helped to overcome the drama of the Vietnam War and to turn the Cold War around.
Today, from an external perspective with an eye from Italy, but mainly from China, where I have been for many years, society is divided, but not to the levels of violence of the 1960s and 1970s. However, the division at the top seems more dramatic and dangerous. Presidential candidates, in this case, Trump, are still disputing whether they lost the 2020 elections or not, casting a shadow over all American institutions.
If one election is questioned, the next and the one after that will also be suspected. Therefore, the entire institution of the American system is distrusted, including Trump’s future possible election. If Trump were elected tomorrow, doubts would remain, just as doubts abound about the 2020 elections, and the same would happen in 2024. Thus, it is a double-edged sword. Hence, it would be helpful for everyone to regain a path of social and intellectual peace.
The Roman Republic was based on the election of two consuls who ruled one day each, alternating. At the end of the day, one of them would give way to the other. This forced the two to coordinate. The American democratic system, with its division of powers, obligates or should obligate candidates to coordinate. The illegitimacy of one means one’s own illegitimacy, so if Trump declares Biden illegitimate, it casts doubt on Trump as well.
What is essential at this moment, more than ever, is to save the American institution at all costs. Its “deep state” may not function perfectly, but it has been, so far, the guarantee of relative stability in the current world. If this fails, not only will America fail, but everything will fail. There would be problems for Russia and China because profound American instability bears two risks: the explosion of America with unpredictable consequences or the externalization of internal contradictions, accelerating wars and conflicts. Today, it might be against Russia, and tomorrow, it might be against China; who knows what else?
This opens up a hazardous scenario. With René Girard, the favorite philosopher of Peter Thiel, the new vice president’s candidate mentor, we can say there has been an attempt at sacrifice; blood has been drawn from Trump’s ear. We can and should draw a line on violence and look forward. Who wins is not essential as long as the American system wins.
Words and Future Diplomacy
Easy rhetoric is not limited to domestic politics but dangerously extends abroad. Last week, Trump reportedly threatened to withdraw support from Taiwan if the island (considered a rebel province by Beijing) didn’t pay more for its defense. Taipei’s stock exchange crashed.
It is about substance and how you present it. The famous difference between a bug and a butterfly is a word, and as scholastic monks in the Middle Ages would put it: nomina nuda tenemus. Words carry meaning. In a practical sense, making love tenderly or raping can both produce a baby, but the first is likely to be brought up with love and care, while the second might be killed at birth or before.
To be very practical, if the narrative is put simply, countries in Europe or Asia may decide to do just that—cut a deal with Russia or China, which demand less protection money. And then what will the US do? Accept it? Start a war against the ex-allies now protected by the big guys America wants to cut a deal with? There are signs of this. There is talk of a continental defense system in the EU, and the re-elected EU president Ursula von der Leyen talked about having a vice president of the Commission on Defense. They can be signs of growing wary about possible US pushes or changes of heart. After all, Russia, the EU’s main threat, is an economic midget. If the EU were to put its heart into it, it could soon have an army to wipe out Russia until Vladivostok without the US.
The confusion sown by Trump’s statements broke a delicate balance on Taiwan, one that Beijing itself didn’t want to crack despite the official rhetoric. Taiwan is now scared: will the People’s Republic of China (PRC) push to bend Taiwanese wobbling domestic consensus? Or will the US try to make up for the misunderstanding by pushing the bounds of strategic ambiguity, making the PRC lose face, and leading things to slip out of control?
In Taiwan, there are people who, rightly or wrongly, believe the USA betrayed the KMT after World War II by failing to back it against the Communists. They also think the USA betrayed the KMT again when it cozied up to the PRC during the Cold War. These people made lots of money with Beijing and believed that Beijing was more reliable than Washington. So, they argue, it is better to have a deal directly with Beijing than to be dealt out to Beijing by Washington. This has consequences all over Asia. Theoretically, it creates opportunities for China, but it could also mean that Japan, Vietnam, and India might take things into their own hands and form an anti-China alliance independent of the US.
Moreover, in Asia, it’s not the case that, without the US, Asian countries will just surrender to China. It’s much more complicated. Japan historically was never invaded by China, so why should it be now? India is the same, and Vietnam has fought northern invaders for thousands of years. These three countries alone have a larger population and similar economic and technological heft to confront China. In theory, they could manage without the US.
The US is an alliance and a restraint to alternative regional defense geometries. Its presence is helpful in the EU, Asia, and Russia or China, which otherwise could face a more bellicose environment. Trump has now opened the gates to new thinking in the region and the world. Can the genie be put back in the bottle? And if so, how?
Bargains
There is talk that Trump wants to pursue some Yalta-like grand bargain with China and Russia, sacrificing smaller states. It would unleash a time of chaos. Many smaller countries would try to cut their deals with the Chinese or Russians. Purges and uprisings in many countries could follow.
The situation is very different from that in Yalta in 1944 (when the US, USSR, and Great Britain divided up the world among themselves shortly before the collapse of Germany and Japan). Then, the USA got more than it started with; this time, it would get much less than it started with.
And what could the USA be without its present empire? In Asia, Japan or South Korea, Vietnam, India, and Indonesia, unwilling to be peddled to China, could turn against the US and the grand bargain.
Trump’s statement on Taiwan has a grain of truth. Spending on your defense and deploying your people is a sign of your independence and commitment to independence. If the USA pays for you fights for you, many may misunderstand—don’t you want your independence? Do you believe the USA is the enemy? Each country should decide this. The USA can assist a country, but fighting a war in its place is wrong. The national soldiers can soon believe their problems are with the Americans, not the enemy, as has happened in the past in many areas with an overbearing US army presence. The USA can look like a colonial power, which it isn’t. From there, anything can go wrong.
The practical message to each country is the same: pull yourself together and make up your mind. But saying this underlines the USA’s sense of responsibility and freedom. It is about global security, of which America is a necessary fulcrum. But forgetting the world’s worries and concerns weakens everybody, starting with one that has the most to lose – the United States.
