I believe that knowledge is the best defense against confusion and hopelessness. Knowledge is also the best weapon when forced to fight back against irrationality and demagoguery. An informed citizenry can successfully defend Democracy and our United States.
In my last blog, Preparing for Political Turmoil, I posted the summary from the Transition integrity Project’s report, Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition. (This link is to an offidoc file.) The report is a sobering analysis of what might happen during the election period, then on “Election Night,” and then up to and beyond the Inauguration. The TIP was the effort of a bipartisan group comprised of a variety of people, including those who have served in office, the military, both political parties, campaigns, and political scientists. Using sophisticated gaming techniques, they enacted 4 scenarios to determine what the possible outcomes might be. The scenarios were:
Ambiguous Result – the outcome of the election remained unclear election night and after.
Clear Biden Victory – Biden wins outright in the Electoral College and the popular vote.
Clear Trump Victory – Trump wins comfortable Electoral College victory and 5% popular vote.
Narrow Biden Win – Narrow Biden win, he leads with less than 1% of the popular vote the day after the election and is predicted to win 278 electoral votes.
The report details possible actions taken by both campaigns, their supporters, and the results. It is a valuable read.
But what about if Trump loses the election? What happens to Trumpism and the authoritarian infrastructure that has been built over the last 5 years?
Fear is the mind killer. It is the Tyrant’s most powerful weapon. However, fear is transitory. Being able to anticipate potential events provides stability and resilience. The worse mental state is when we fear the unknown. It is too large to get our arms around and, thus, we are unable to mentally prepare. In such a case, we spiral down becoming more anxious, disorganized, and hopeless.
Preparing for unpleasant possibilities is the first step towards resilient Hope, because you can see both the problem and beyond it.
Below is the report’s analysis.
Appendix C: Will “Trumpism” Survive a Trump Loss?
While it was not squarely in the scope of TIP’s investigation, almost all of the debriefings included some discussion about whether “Trumpism” is likely to survive Trump after he leaves office. President Trump has cultivated and mobilized a significant base; many believe it won’t easily be demobilized after Trump leaves office (“Trumpiness is built in now,” said one participant). There are immediate implications for an incoming Administration.Many observers expect President Trump to try to extend his norm-disrupting influence after he leaves office through an independent media company or partnerships. Participants predict that in the event of a Biden victory, Trump will attack President Biden early and consistently, blaming all problems in the country on a combination of the stolen election and the incompetence of the Biden administration; the message will be clear, consistent, and relentlessly hammered in: “If only the election hadn’t been stolen from me, everything in the country would be great again.” Such a message could fuel political violence. QAnon could play a role in electing far-right candidates to Congress, providing an anchor for exPresident Trump’s proposals.
A minority view was that once Trump is a “big loser,” he’ll lose face with the GOP base and Republicans will move on. If he tries to look like a martyr, these participants suggest, he may come across as merely pathetic. However, if the pandemic and the economy continue to get worse after the 2020 election, it may become more likely that Trump (or a Trump-like figure) will again be a serious contender for the presidency in 2024.
How should anti-authoritarian interests respond? A number of participants urged Democrats to embrace a new playbook. President Obama’s working assumption was that “the fever would break on the back of electoral defeat,” but this proved to be mistaken; throughout the Obama administration, Republicans refused to compromise or engage in customary negotiations over policy, counting instead on blocking every possible Democratic initiative and waiting for their chance to regain the presidency. These participants cautioned that Democrats should not rely on litigation, moral suasion, or merely hoping that Republicans in Congress or state elected office will “come to their senses.” Instead, they should focus on building more authentic relationships with the left’s base, including by publicly supporting the peaceful protest movement that has emerged since late May, rather than continuing to seek conciliation and compromise with the GOP.
There was near universal agreement that in the event of a Trump loss, the GOP’s strategy will be to create trouble for the incoming Biden administration, in order to regain ground in 2022 and retake the White House in 2024. GOP activists (possibly encouraged by Trump himself and by far-right media) may seek to create ongoing street-level chaos and conflict. Meanwhile, GOP party leaders will likely focus on post-census redistricting. Senate Republicans are also likely to try to block one or more Biden cabinet or court nominees as a show of political nerve. If the GOP holds the Senate, even more dramatic blocking actions will be contemplated, tempting the Biden Administration to continue President Trump’s approach of appointing “acting” appointees, thus institutionalizing the nullification of the “advise and consent” role of the Senate in executive branch appointments.
Republicans will likely also push hard on judicial nominations, trying to seat as many nominees as possible before President Trump leaves office. This could potentially include a Supreme Court nomination, which would further undermine the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of many Democrats and heighten demands from the left for “court packing.” Conversely, it is also possible that if the GOP holds the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell could refuse to hold any votes on any Biden court nominees, allowing the vacancies to pile up until a Republican president is again in place to make the appointments.
Some exercise participants noted, however, that there are conflicting interests for the GOP and, in particular, for Republicans running in 2022 in states where moderates have an advantage, as well as for Republican leaders with Presidential ambitions for 2024. Some GOP presidential hopefuls might define their candidacy as anti-Trump (Rubio, Johnson, Toomey), while some Republican Governors might quickly shift back to state priorities such as COVID-19. An early defining battle between approaches will likely take place over choosing the party chair.
TIP offers these preliminary recommendations based on the input from participants in the scenario planning exercises:
• There was no agreement among participants in the scenario planning exercises about what specific actions should be taken with regard to pursuing investigations and possible charges against President Trump and members of his Administration. A new Administration, in partnership with a broad range of stakeholders, could consider a range of options including those used by other countries, such as truth and reconciliation commissions.
• One question is whether to continue the tradition of offering legal immunity or pardons to Trump and his family. There was a lively debate about whether any short-term gain from this diplomatic effort was worth a longer-term risk that corrupt or criminal practices would continue. This may come up during the transition itself, if Trump decides to negotiate an “exit package” for himself.
• More broadly, there needs to be a robust, intentional, and specific strategy to challenge the white supremacist and extremist networks that enabled Trump’s rise to power and were in turn enabled by Trump’s administration. This base will not automatically demobilize if and when Trump leaves office, and it is inimical to the kind of pluralist democracy the founders intended.
• Finally, it is imperative that Congress take decisive action to limit executive power, as happened with in the wake of President Nixon’s abuses of power in the early 1970s. One of the key findings of these scenario exercises is the extraordinary degree of de facto power that a President unbounded by norms or human decency can wield. No president should be able to use the executive branch to settle political scores, damage perceived adversaries, or pursue personal financial gain.
Principles of political decency that had been maintained through norms will have to be codified through law.
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.