The spread of conspiracy theories and facetious violence in these American votes are both a double-edged sword, which is a common issue.
However, the attempt at former president Donald Trump and the very crazy interpretations given in the heat of the moment– and that will undoubtedly continue to spread – is the result of this atmosphere.
It is a Pandora’s package that has been opened which should instead be closed that, right or wrong, the significant problems of the primaries are four:
- Public purchase. Folks, the middle class, feeling that violence is increasing.
- Immigration.
- Inflation.
- Some people believe there is a concern with the British decision-making method, which is too slow and very troublesome.
On all of these four elements, Trump is powerful. If not for the January 6, 2021 event– whether you call it an uprising, a wild opposition, or an attempted revolt – if there were no attempt to deny the legality of President Joe Biden’s vote, today, perhaps, Trump would have the wind in his sails for his re-election.
Trump’s claims on all these four concerns seem stronger than Biden’s. Biden and the Democrats dispute these problems, but they are always questionable. For instance:
- There’s prices but there’s economic development.
- Immigration is present, but because of the economy’s expansion, there are also labour scarcity.
- Violence may be a matter of view because records may reveal one thing and the other.
- Although the system is tedious, faults that may complicate things are avoided.
But, the key reasoning against Trump is his aggressive language, his plan to reform the British “deep state”, and to transform America through nationalist rhetoric.
If we removed this nationalist language now, Trump’s chances of being re-elected would be much higher.
Therefore, it is in Trump’s best attention to decrease the tone and totally change his approach, to quit with this populist rhetoric, evidently abandon conspiracy theories and move to the center. Here are the undecided, those who might make a last-minute decision and support Biden, not because they are convinced of Biden’s plan but because they fear Trump’s extreme agenda.
This might aid in the regaining of American unification. If it does n’t, then the legitimacy of the democratic process is in jeopardy. If the elections have a negative impact on both prospects, the outcome depends on their willingness to take a step back.
In the 1960s and 1970s, America was swamped by harsh demonstrations. There were Russian incursions, the Black Panthers, and the killings of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and John Kennedy.
It was a much more harsh and unpleasant situation than it is now. Even then, despite these assassinations, the British establishment – the northern part of America – found cohesion, which helped to conquer the episode of the Vietnam War and to change 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. Therefore, it would be beneficial for everyone to reclaim their social and intellectual harmony.
The Roman Republic was founded on the choice of two consuls, who alternatedly ruled each day. At the end of the day, one would eventually surpass 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.
Russia and China would have issues because of the profound instability of the United States, which would have unanticipated consequences, or the externalization of internal contradictions, which would cause more frequent 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 presidential candidate’s mentor, we can say there has been an attempt at sacrifice, blood has been drawn from Trump’s ear.
We can and should expect positive outcomes from violence. As long as the American system prevails, who wins is not necessary.
Words and future diplomacy
Easy rhetoric can be dangerously extended abroad, not just domestic politics. Trump reportedly threatened to withdraw Taiwan’s support from China if it did n’t pay more for its defense last week. Taipei’s stock exchange crashed.
It is about the quality of the substance and how you present it. Words like nomina nuda tenemus and a bug can be found in the middle of the Middle Ages, as scholastic monks would say. Words carry meaning.
To be very practical, if the narrative is kept simple, nations in Europe or Asia might decide to strike a deal with Russia or China, which demand less protection money.
And then, what will the US do? Accept it? Start a conflict with the former allies who are now under the control of the powerful Americans who want to strike a deal with?
There are signs of this. Ursula von der Leyen, the re-elected EU president, has suggested creating a vice president of the Commission on Defense.
They might indicate that you are becoming more cautious about potential heart-changes or pushes in the US. After all, Russia, the EU’s main threat, is an economic midget. If the EU were to put its weight into it, it might soon have an army to annihilate Russia until Vladivostok itself without the US.
Despite the official rhetoric, Beijing itself did n’t want to break the delicate balance between Trump’s statements and the confusion sown by them. Taiwan is now scared: will the People’s Republic of China ( PRC ) push to bend Taiwan’s wobbling domestic consensus?
Or will the US try to correct the misunderstanding by pushing the boundaries of strategic uncertainty, causing the PRC to lose face, and causing things to veer off track?
In Taiwan, there are people who, rightly or wrongly, believe the US betrayed the KMT after World War II by failing to back it against the Communists. They also believe that the US once more betrayed the KMT when it cozied up with the PRC during the Cold War.
These people believed Beijing to be more trustworthy than Washington because they made a lot of money with China. Therefore, they contend that concluding a deal with Beijing is preferable to having it done by Washington directly.
This would have repercussions throughout Asia. Theoretically, it opens up opportunities for China, but it also might lead to Japan, Vietnam, and India forming an anti-China alliance independent of the US.
It’s not the case that, without the US, Asian countries will just surrender to China. It’s much more complicated. Why should Japan be the only country that was historically never invaded by China? India remains the same, and Vietnam has fought northern invaders for a long time.
Together, these three nations have a larger population and comparable economic and technological prowess to rival China. In theory, they could manage without the US.
Alternative regional defense geometries are restrained by the US as an alliance. Its presence is beneficial in the EU, Asia, Russia, or China, where it might otherwise encounter a more bellicose environment.
Trump has now opened the door to fresh ideas in the area and around the world. Can the bottle be refilled with the genie? And if so, how?
Grand bargains
Trump is said to want to sacrifice smaller states in favor of a Yalta-like grand bargain with China and Russia.
If so, it would unleash a time of chaos. Many smaller nations would attempt to strike their own deals with Russians or Chinese people. Many nations may experience uprisings and uprisings as well.
The situation is significantly different from the one in Yalta in 1944, when the US, USSR, and Great Britain divided the world between themselves just before Germany and Japan’s collapse. Then, the US got more than it started with, this time, it would get much less.
Without its current empire, what could the US be like? In Asia, Japan, 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. Your independence and commitment to independence are demonstrated by the way you spend your money on your defense and by deploying your people. If the US pays for your fights, many may misunderstand—do n’t you want your independence? Do you think that the US is the real enemy? Each nation should make a decision.
The US can help a nation, but it is wrong to start a war instead. As has happened in previous years in many areas with an overbearing US army presence, the national soldiers can soon accept that their problems are with the Americans, not the enemy. The US can look like a colonial power, which it is n’t. From there, many things can go wrong.
The key to understanding each nation is the same: unite yourself and come together. However, stating this underscores the US’s sense of responsibility and freedom. It is about global security, of which America is a necessary fulcrum.
However, ignoring the world’s worries and worries weakens everyone, starting with the US, which has the most to lose.
Appia Institute first published this essay, and it has since been republished. Read the original here.