After a divisive election, will the US be able to come back together again?

Two weeks before the US presidential election on November 5, we have Kamala Harris, who took over the Democratic ticket from President Joe Biden, up against Republican contender Donald Trump, running for the third time. This presidential campaign has not been the norm, especially when we consider the extraordinary concerns over the sitting president’s faculties and the assassination attempts on Trump. The criticality of this election lies not in who wins, but in how the loser’s supporters would react. As the United States crumbles internally and declines globally, the last thing it can afford is to increase the political chasm. From our vantage point in Australia, the US presidential election is a spectacle unrivalled in global politics. It has all one can expect: sex scandals, ad hominem attacks, passionate supporters and clearly biased media coverage, just to name a few. And that is even before a candidate for each party has been chosen. Once there are two final two contenders, they are squared off against each other, much like in a boxing match. This election has seen one candidate trying to hold the moral high ground, and the other not attempting to have one at all. Today’s political landscape is a far cry from when Republican candidate John McCain in 2008 corrected a woman during a Minnesota rally after she referred to Barack Obama, who would go on to win the presidency, as an “Arab”. McCain, even in the face of a booing crowd, called him a “decent” man. One cannot imagine that happening today. If competition is healthy, then how healthy is hyper-competition when it comes to US politics? Over time, the traditional adversarial approach of competing to see whose ideas were best for the country has moved ever closer to a win-at-all-costs approach. Trump’s entry has elevated this type of politics to a new level, with his marketing abilities and bombastic approach leaving other contenders in his wake. The genesis of his political path was the “birther” controversy, a discredited theory that Obama should not be president as he was born outside the US. This was Trump’s first shot across the political bows. As many have pointed out, Trump is the symptom of a much greater malaise. Today’s political rot can be traced back to four key events from the 2000s: China’s ascension to the World Trade Organization, the US “war on terror”, the 2008 global financial crisis and the election of Obama as US president. What unfolded were unnecessary wars, a draining of public finances, hyper-outsourcing, the Great Recession and the rearing of racial divides, all largely within a decade. Large social changes take many years to become visible but the consequences can be measured, primarily through societal cohesion and wealth disparity. If a nation’s health is measured by the size of its middle class, for the US, this has fallen to half its population in 2021, from 61 per cent in 1971, according to the Pew Research Centre. The middle class is important because it tends to elect centrist governments, with policies that do not pander to either ends of the political spectrum. When this middle class begins to thin out, the displaced start to move towards adopting increasingly extreme liberal or conservative views, which then leads politicians to pander to each. Irrespective of who wins the presidential election, the reactions will be large, loud and frenetic. And while we don’t know exactly what the response will be, old ones such as charges of foreign interference, election rigging and fake news can be anticipated. But the danger is likely to come from reactions that are unpredictable and yet unknown. Moreover, even with political psychosis at elevated levels, one can expect it to reach new highs. This is the primary problem. The US political establishment’s focus for too long has been primarily directed at political opponents, and the passage of time has shown its corrosive nature. Trump all but accused the US government of dysfunctionality in a recent interview on a Patrick Bet-David podcast. Should Harris win, she will have the support of the establishment. Should Trump win, he won’t. This means he will attempt to force through policies he feels the country needs. Resistance will be fierce, and it will be more to do with sheer spite than an objective critique. In the absence of a bipartisan consensus, expect either authoritarianism or paralysis, but either way, the problem only compounds. And while the left and right keep on fighting, the US’ global standing keeps on slipping, with its primary geopolitical blunder being the unity of three foes, namely China, Russia and Iran, which have since established a troika that is challenging US power. The issues above are also buttressed by a plethora of domestic social and economic matters. Looking at this election, one must wonder whether the voting public can overcome their hatred of the other side. Can the never-Trumpers live with the former president for four more years? Is the US ready for its first female president and one of colour? And, just as importantly, can the US overcome its internal differences for the greater good? Or is this simply a naive proposition? Except for the last, the answers to the above questions must all be “yes” – otherwise terminal decline will set in. What happens after November 5 is anyone’s guess, but the hum of history suggests that the scenario of the US’ terminal decline, while not pretty, is not impossible.

After a divisive election, will the US be able to come back together again?

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Harris will have the support of the establishment but not Trump. The possibility of the the US going into terminal decline looms large

Harris will have the support of the establishment but not Trump. The possibility of the the US going into terminal decline looms large