Some Disquieting Political Articles

I haven't been posting about US politics here much. Partly, that's a disinclination to fill the blog with political articles, and partly that's because I'm a nice polite Canadian trying to avoid controversy. 

But every once in a while, I come across something that I think deserves attention, and this is one of those times.  

First, here's an article from The Atlantic about how Trump could steal the election. This is not pure speculation; it's clear that the Republican regime is trying several different tactics outlined in the article. 

“We could well see a protracted postelection struggle in the courts and the streets if the results are close,” says Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the UC Irvine School of Law and the author of a recent book called Election Meltdown. “The kind of election meltdown we could see would be much worse than 2000’s Bush v. Gore case.”

A lot of people, including Joe Biden, the Democratic Party nominee, have mis­conceived the nature of the threat. They frame it as a concern, unthinkable for presidents past, that Trump might refuse to vacate the Oval Office if he loses. They generally conclude, as Biden has, that in that event the proper authorities “will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.”

The worst case, however, is not that Trump rejects the election outcome. The worst case is that he uses his power to prevent a decisive outcome against him. If Trump sheds all restraint, and if his Republican allies play the parts he assigns them, he could obstruct the emergence of a legally unambiguous victory for Biden in the Electoral College and then in Congress. He could prevent the formation of consensus about whether there is any outcome at all. He could seize on that un­certainty to hold on to power.

For balance, here are some thoughts by historian Heather Cox Ricardson, from her daily newsletter "Letters from an American" for September 23. 

And, of course, Trump’s declaration has taken the focus off the Republican senators’ abrupt about-face on confirming a Supreme Court justice in an election year. The ploy laid bare their determination to cement their power at all costs, and it is not popular. Sixty-two percent of Americans, including 50% of Republicans, think the next president should name Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement.

The second tell in Trump’s statement is that Trump’s lawyers confirmed to Gellman that their strategy is to leverage their power in the system to steal the election. Surely, they would want to keep that plan quiet… unless they are hoping to convince voters that the game is so fully rigged there is no point in showing up to vote.

Trump’s statement is abhorrent, and we must certainly be prepared for chaos surrounding this election. But never forget that Trump’s campaign, which-- according to our intelligence agencies-- is being helped by Russian disinformation, is keen on convincing Americans that our system doesn’t work, our democracy is over, and there is no point in participating in it. If you believe them, their disinformation is a self-fulfilling prophecy, despite the fact that a strong majority of Americans prefers Biden to Trump.

Trump’s statement is abhorrent, indeed; but the future remains unwritten.

Finally, here's an article from a war gamer (drawn from an actual war game exercise conducted earlier in the year) about four possible scenarios that could lead to a second US civil war. None of them are appealing and most of them would be horrible. All of the scenarios are backed up with historical analogues. The scenarios described, along with its historical analogue) are:

• A Biden blowout (The American Civil War)
• A close Biden win (The Russian Revolution)
• A contested result (The Irish War of Independence)
• A Trump win (The Rwandan Civil War)

And if you this is overblown and all will be well, you need to study your history in more detail.