KRONIKK: 2. september starter rettssaken mot 14 individer mistenkt for medvirkning i terrorangrepene mot det satiriske bladet Charlie Hebdo og det jødiske supermarkedet Hyper Cacher i Paris tidlig i januar 2015. Minnet om disse grufulle dagene lever ennå hos alle franskmenn. Såret må nå åpnes igjen.
Foto: Colourbox.com. Hva vil rettssaken som begynner i dag i Paris fortelle om attentatene fra januar 2015?
Rettssaken var planlagt å vare fra 4. mai til 10. juli i år, men ble utsatt på grunn av koronaen. Den vil vare til 10. november. Det er den første rettssaken som handler om et jihadistisk angrep i Frankrike siden rettssaken mot Abdelkader Merah i 2017.
Protester verden over
Denne rettssaken vil bli filmet for å kunne studeres i ettertid. Det er første gang for en terrorsak i Frankrike. Gjerningsmennene fra januar 2015, brødrene Chérif og Saïd Kouachi og Amedy Coulibaly, ble drept av antiterrorpolitiet 9. januar 2015.
De etterlot seg 17 omkomne og 18 sårede. 17 barn mistet sine foreldre som følge av den ekstreme volden som rystet en hel nasjon.
Franskmenn mobiliserte massivt for å vise avsky mot terrorisme.
11. januar 2015 samlet en protestaksjon rundt fire millioner mennesker. Ikke siden Frankrike var blitt befridd etter 2. verdenskrig, hadde man sett så mange individer marsjere under samme slagord: «Jeg er Charlie!»
Utenlandske statsledere gikk også sammen med daværende president Hollande for å vise solidaritet med et terrorrammet Frankrike. Den liberaldemokratiske modell sto på spill.
Holdt sammen tross frykten
Mange trodde at januar-angrepene var et engangstilfelle. Man senket garden. En første blodig påminnelse kom mot slutten året.
13. november 2015 gjennomførte ti menn seks angrep med automatvåpen og vester fylt med sprengstoff. Angrepene kostet 130 liv og 413 skadede.
Så skjedde det igjen i Nice.
14. juli 2016 kjørte en mann en lastebil inn i folkemassen som feiret nasjonaldagen. Angrepet kostet 86 liv og 500 skadede. Franskmenn har opplevd en terrorbølge som siden 2015 har krevd 258 liv. Landet vaklet, men bristet ikke. Borgerkrigen mange varslet, kom ikke. Religionskrigen mange fryktet, uteble.
Alle i Frankrike fortjener en medalje for dette. Samfunnet holdt sammen tross frykten.
Men medaljen har en bakside. Man måtte lære å leve side om side med terrorisme over tid. Prisen for mer sikkerhet for samfunnet og for borgerne ble en innskrenkning av individuelle friheter. Unntakstilstanden som ble innført etter november 2015 for å hindre flere angrep, ble først opphevet i november 2017. Store deler av den ble tatt inn i lovverket.
Tre svakheter
Angrepene i januar 2015 avslørte tre svakheter. En av dem var forståelsen av jihadistisk terrorisme som nytt fenomen.
Etter terrorangrepene i mars 2012 ble kontraterrorkapasiteten ikke styrket. Etterretningen, særlig på lokalt nivå, ble dårligere. Varsler om mulige angrep mot Charlie Hebdo ble ikke tatt på alvor.
Man manglet også kunnskap om kontakten mellom aktørene i Midtøsten som ville slå til mot franskmennene, og individene i og utenfor Frankrike som kunne være mottagelige for rekruttering.
En annen svakhet var spriket i befolkningen. Allerede 11. januar 2015 var det flere som av ulike grunner «ikke var Charlie». Bladet ble anklaget for å ha stigmatisert islam og muslimer. Man kunne fordømme drapene og samtidig ha forståelse for motivasjonen bak dem. Debatten om ytringsfriheten overskygget debatten om islam i et sekulært Frankrike og fremveksten av militant islamisme i franske byer.
En siste svakhet var forskjellen mellom reaksjonene etter angrepet mot Charlie Hebdo og etter angrepet mot Hyper Cacher. Allerede i mars 2012 skulle folk ha inntatt gatene for å protestere mot Merahs drap på tre barn i alderen fire til syv år og en rabbiner på en jødisk skole i Toulouse. Men mobiliseringen uteble.
Den lot også vente på seg i 2015. Debatten om ytringsfriheten overskygget den om antisemittismen. Og den er ikke blitt mindre relevant etter 2015. Jøder utgjør 1 prosent av Frankrikes befolkning. Over halvparten av alle rasistiske angrep som er begått i landet, er rettet mot dem.
Spørsmål må besvares
Rettssaken som starter, er viktig for ofrene, overlevende og etterlatte. Hva som kommer ut av den, er uvisst. Rettssaken mot Mehdi Nemmouche i 2019 – han angrep det jødiske museet i Brussel i 2014 og drepte fire personer – endte opp med «stille jihad,» det vil si at den tiltalte nektet å uttale seg. Senere skrek Nemmouche ut sin uskyld.
I vårt tilfelle er gjerningsmennene døde. Man får ikke høre hva de tenkte før angrepene, og om de angrer på noe i dag. De andre tiltalte vil kanskje løfte litt av sløret.
Rettssaken betyr mye for Frankrike som sekulært og multikulturelt samfunn. Terroren i januar 2015 var ikke blind. Den var faktisk mer målrettet enn angrepene i november samme år. For at rettsoppgjøret skal lykkes, må ovennevnte svakheter tas opp og følgende spørsmål besvares. Hvorfor ble ikke angrepene avverget? Hvorfor ble franske muslimer forført av terrorgrupper i Midtøsten?
Og til slutt: Hvorfor ble franske jøder igjen mål for terror?
2. september 2020 publiserte AreaS medlem Franck Orban en kronikk i Aftenposten om rettssaken mot 14 individer som er mistenkt for å ha medvirket i terrorattentatene i Paris i januar 2015 og som begynner 2. september 2020 frem til 10. november.
Cite this article as: Daniel Lees Fryer, “Love and Mutual Aid in the Time of Corona,” in PanMeMic, 05/06/2020, https://panmemic.hypotheses.org/326.
With the growth and increasing visibility of mutual aid during the coronavirus pandemic, Daniel Lees Fryer looks at how mutual aid groups and the individuals involved in them are represented in the media.
Amidst the chaos and tragedy of the coronavirus, one of the things that has impressed me most has been the emergence and response of mutual aid groups and networks. For those not familiar with the concept, mutual aid is basically about people getting together to help each other out, sharing skills and resources for the benefit of all. Mutual aid groups are typically small, grassroots, community-based organizations or affiliations that help provide essential goods and services to local residents, especially in times of crisis. Right now, in the current pandemic, that includes providing or distributing food and medicine, stopping housing evictions, offering a point of contact for those in isolation, or helping out kids with their homework when schools are closed. Some mutual aid groups also organize solidarity funds for those whose often precarious livelihoods are most heavily affected by the pandemic (health or care workers, restaurant workers, sex workers, etc.).
The idea of mutual aid isn’t new—as long as there’s been community, there’s been mutual aid, some might say—but the concept or its popularization is usually attributed to Peter Kropotkin. Writing in the late 1800s and early 1900s, Kropotkin argued that humans and other living organisms flourish best when they cooperate, both within and across species, and that cooperation or mutual aid is key to their survival and evolutionary development. Kropotkin was a scientist, activist, and anarchist thinker, and his concept of mutual aid is one of the tenets of modern social anarchism. Although not all mutual aid groups (or the individuals involved in those groups) identify as anarchist, they’re usually leaderless, nonhierarchically organized, and directly democratic, sharing a sense of social justice and the need for direct action. That’s part of what makes them so interesting when they catch the attention of conservative and liberal media.
I’m thinking primarily of digital media here, the kinds of texts we might find in online newspapers and other news outlets, but much of what I’ve noticed likely applies to print media too. (Note that most of the articles I refer to here are in English. I’d be interested to know how mutual aid groups are represented in other languages and in other places where they’re actively responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Sorry for being so Anglo- and Euro-centric.)
The typical “mutual aid in the time of coronavirus” article (examples here, here, and here) contains most of what you’d expect. There’s the personal perspective, featuring an activist, an activist group, and/or someone from the local community in need of aid. There’s also a broader social and political narrative: what impact coronavirus has had on the local community, how that compares to other communities, how mutual aid addresses the problem, and what potential challenges it faces; and, of course, a brief account of what mutual aid is and how it works—like the one I gave above. There are also articles that are more like public service announcements, providing details of local groups and networks and how to get involved (examples here and here).
Activists in these news stories are typically portrayed up close and personal (examples here and here): eyes front, stern face, maybe a smile or a mask. Sometimes they’re shown at greater distance, turned away, in a state of activity, carrying boxes or bags of food or medicine (example here as well as previous examples). They’re generally described as creative or innovative (particularly with regard to digital technologies), often selfless and enthusiastic, generous and supportive, caring and compassionate, and sometimes exhausted and overwhelmed by the amount of help needed. One article refers to mutual aid groups as providing “meaning, purpose, and connection”. Others argue that, while necessary and important, such groups can’t or shouldn’t replace the kinds of services governments and local authorities should be providing but aren’t (examples here and here).
Those in need of aid—the sick and the elderly, for example—are often represented in similar ways: up close and personal, stern-faced or smiling; or anonymous, at a distance, in profile, face covered by a mask. They’re variously described as scared, desperate, and forgotten or neglected (by the state), but also grateful and relieved for the help they get and the “community spirit” they experience. One article describes their predicament as “heart-wrenching”, another as “life-threatening [existenzbedrohend]”.
In addition to the sources mentioned above, I had a quick look at the Coronavirus Corpus. “Mutual aid” occurs there at a relative frequency of 2.30 instances per million words. In comparison, the Corpus of Contemporary American English, COCA, contains just 0.34 instances per million words. In the Coronavirus Corpus, “mutual aid” collocates with “groups” and “networks”, as well as “local”, “solidarity”, “together”, “grassroots”, “volunteers”, “resources”, and “organizing”, to name a few. Not since the Occupy movement of 2011-2012 has reference to mutual aid been so frequent in the media, at least according to the corpora I’ve looked at.
Which kind of brings me back to part of what interested me about mutual aid in the media in the first place. Mutual aid can challenge existing forms of social and political organization (or the lack thereof). Yet the idea of mutual aid seems so simple, so everyday or commonplace, so natural maybe, that its radical or revolutionary potential might be overlooked. When The Telegraph, the Daily Mail (I’d rather not link to the Mail), or Conservative councillors write about or promote mutual aid, are they aware of that potential, or do they see a different kind of potential, perhaps one in which volunteerism replaces waged labour and poorly funded public services?
Maybe.
Mutual aid groups do things that governments or local authorities can’t, won’t, or shouldn’t do. They meet people’s immediate needs, offer care and support, and help (re)build and maintain communities. Think of the Black Panther Party’s free breakfast programmes, or the legal, financial, and physical aid offered to people threatened with eviction from their homes. While it might be easy to suggest that these are all services a well-functioning state or local authority should or could be taking care of, and maybe some already do, it misses part of the point of mutual aid as formulated by Kropotkin; namely that, given the right conditions, people don’t really need the government or local authorities in order to thrive (and, historically, generally haven’t had much use for them either). Indeed, the state might be the very reason they’re not able to thrive in the first place if it helps maintain inequality and threatens certain people’s lives or livelihoods. That’s not to say that all activities and services funded and organised by the state are bad, or that they aren’t important or essential; just that maybe they don’t need to be run by the state and can be more effectively done at a local community level, coordinated through wider networks or federations. This is of course part of what mutual aid is all about, and something many of the current mutual aid groups and networks talk about too (see example here). Very few of the “mutual aid in the time of coronavirus” articles make this connection, however, even though several make reference to Kropotkin. That seems a shame, but perhaps isn’t surprising given the political or ideological positions of different media and those who write for them. Still, it’s nice, among all the other coronavirus news, to see masked activists get such positive media coverage for a change and to see how effective and wide-ranging mutual aid groups can be.
Denne kronikken er skrevet av AreaS medlem Daniel Lees Fryer og er publisert på PanMeMic 5. juni 2020. Kronikken kan hentes der.
Politiet angriper demonstranter med hester på Trafalgar Square. Foto: James Bourne
KRONIKK: 31. mars 1990 ble det store demonstrasjoner i Storbritannia mot innføring av den nye koppskatten («poll tax»). I London ble det opptøyer. 30 år senere vekker fortsatt koppskattdemonstrasjonene og -opptøyene sterke minner om folkelig opprør og det som skulle bli begynnelsen av slutten for Margaret Thatcher som statsminister.
Koppskatten
«Community charge», som det egentlig het, ble lansert av Det konservative parti i 1987 og ble først innført i Skottland i 1989. I 1990 stod England og Wales for tur. Skatten skulle lanseres i Nord Irland året etter, men det ble det ikke noe av.
Margaret Thatcher
Skatten fikk raskt navnet «poll tax» (hode- eller koppskatt) etter en lignende skatt som ble innført i 1381. Den gangen ble koppskatten en av grunnene til «bondeopprøret» (også kjent som «den store oppstanden»). Den førte til store demonstrasjoner og opptøyer, og både rikskansleren og riksskattmesteren ble drept da demonstranter stormet Tower of London 14. juni 1381.
«Community charge» var i likhet med den gamle koppskatten en personskatt hvor alle skulle betale samme beløp for kommunenes sosialtjenester, uansett inntekt eller formue. (Studenter og arbeidsledige fikk avslag.) Den nye skatten skulle bli mer rettferdig enn den eksisterende eiendomsskatten: «Hvorfor skulle hertuger betale mer enn renovasjonsarbeidere?» spurte den konservative politikeren Nicholas Ridley. Men dette var langt fra rettferdig skattepolitikk. 70% av befolkningen måtte betale mer under det nye skattesystemet, og noen familier måtte betale 2-3 ganger det de hadde betalt under eiendomsskatten. Samtidig gikk toppskatten ned fra 87% til 40%. Dette ble sett på som en klar omfordeling av ressurser fra de fattige til de rike, og innføringen av den nye skatten skapte enorm og bred folkelig motstand. Nærmere 80% av befolkningen var i mot innføring av den nye skatten i følge meningsmålinger fra Times/MORI.
«Can’t pay, won’t pay!»
Allerede i 1987 ble den første Anti Poll Tax Union (APTU) startet i Glasgow. To år senere var det over 1000 slike grupper i hele landet. Disse grasrotorganisasjonene oppfordret alle i lokalsamfunnet til å stå sammen og nekte å betale koppskatten. APTU’ene ville forstyrre og stoppe innkreving og betaling av skatten. De jobbet aktivt i gatene og i rettssalen.
Buttons som oppfordrer til betalingsnekt.
De fleste politiske partiene og fagforeningene var også mot innføring av den nye koppskatten. Men ikke alle støttet betalingsnekt. Labours leder Neil Kinnock kalte det for nytteløs fortvilelsespolitikk («fruitless» og «a policy of despair»). Labour ville ta tilbake politisk makt fra De konservative og nølte med å støtte sivil ulydighet og aktiviteter som kunne anses som ulovlige.
Slaget ved Trafalgar Square
Det ble flere protester mot koppskatten. Den største skjedde 31. mars 1990 i London, en uke før den nye skatten skulle innføres i England og Wales. Over 200.000 deltok.
Demonstrasjonen skulle avsluttes i Trafalgar Square, men med plass til kun 60.000 ble det raskt ganske fullt. Det gjorde at flere måtte stoppe og vente i Whitehall, en av veiene inn til Trafalgar Square. Statsministerens bolig, 10 Downing Street, ligger også der.
Folkemengden ble forsøkt flyttet fra Downing Street-området, men det ble for lite plass. Da politiet begynte å arrestere demonstranter, satte flere seg ned i protest. Ridende politi presset demonstrantene vekk fra Downing Street og inn mot Trafalgar Square. I den trange plassen ble presset fra politiet tolket som provokasjon, og demonstrantene svarte med å kaste flasker, plakater og stein. Konfrontasjonen eskalerte da politiet kjørte biler inn i folkemengden. Opptøyene fortsatte ut på natta, både i Trafalgar Square og i West End-området.
Mediedekningen, spesielt i tabloidavisene, ga i etterkant inntrykk av at ansvar for opptøyene lå hos demonstrantene og en liten gruppe bråkmakere. Politisjefen skyldte på anarkister. Statsministeren skyldte på marxister. Andre snakket om «hooligans» (innenriksministeren) og «enemies of freedom» (opposisjonslederen Neil Kinnock). Det ble til og med spekulert i om det ble innleid aktivister for å skape uro. Men politirapporten året etter opptøyene mente at hverken anarkister eller marxister stod bak. I stedet ble det blant annet påpekt at politiet var dårlig forberedt og at det å kjøre biler inn i folkemengden ikke bare var livsfarlig (ingen ble heldigvis drept), men også bidro til å øke konfliktnivået.
«Maggie out!»
Koppskatten ble ikke skrinlagt med det første. Det ble innført i England og Wales som planlagt i april 1990. Men allerede etter det første året var det anslagsvis 17 millioner i Skottland, England og Wales som ikke hadde betalt. Myndighetene og rettssalene ble overbelastet med innkrevingssaker, og inntektene til kommunene forsvant.
Prestisjeprosjektet til Thatcher lå i ruiner. Mistilliten økte innad i partiet. Thatcher ble utfordret om posten som partileder. Hun vant med knapp margin, men allerede i november 1990 gikk hun av som partileder og statsminister. I 1993 ble «Community charge» erstattet med «Council tax», noe som lignet den gamle eiendomsskatten.
Koppskattopprøret samlet folk på tvers av politiske interesser. 30 år senere står det fortsatt som et symbol på et vellykket folkelig opprør.
Kilder
Burns, Danny. 1992. Poll tax rebellion. Stirling: AK Press.Bagguley, Paul. 1995. Protest, poverty and power: a case study of the anti-poll tax movement. Sociological Review 43(4), 693-719.
AreaS Medlem Daniel Lees Fryer publiserte denne kronikken på Radikal Portal 31. mars 2020. Den kan hentes her.
How will American voters react to more uncertainty concerning the spreading of Covid-19 and to a presidential election that is expected to split the USA? Illustration: Colourbox.com
AreaS member Robert Lewis Mikkelsen recently published an article online for Cappelen for English in secondary schools. It is entitled “All of the People: The American Presidential Election of 2020“. It comes in connection with a larger program entitled “Election Watch.”
All of the People: The American Presidential Election of 2020
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Abraham Lincoln, Republican President, 1860-1865.
The presidential election on November 3, 2020, will be extraordinary. For the first time since the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 – an election that set off the Civil War – there is a chance that the losing side may refuse to accept the results. In a sense, then, it is not just the next President that will be decided, but possibly the very future of American democracy itself. Why have things become so serious? This article will briefly suggest some of the factors that have led to this time of crisis.
The Bitter Political Divide
Over the last decades, American political life has split into two waring sections that view one another with deadly suspicion and mistrust – the Democrats and the Republicans. (1) There are many reasons for this, but underlying all of them has been an increasing inequality in the country that has weakened the trust of many people in the existing political structures and the politicians who run them. This had led to a bitter “blame game” in which each of the two sides attacks the other for undermining the American ideal that “All men are created equal.” (2)
During the administration of Donald Trump, these mutual accusations have reached a boiling point with each of the two sides regularly charging the other of lying, giving out false information or misusing governmental power for their own benefit. When the Democrats gained power in the House of Representatives in 2018, they immediately investigated whether the Trump campaign had illegally worked together with the Russians to defeat their presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, in the election of 2016. They then went on to attempt to impeach the President (remove him from office) for misuse of power for allegedly attempting to force another foreign power (Ukraine) to help undermine his expected Democratic opponent in the upcoming election of 2020 (Joe Biden). Their effort was blocked by the Republican controlled Senate, which refused to agree to impeachment. (3)
For their part, the Republicans under Trump, have regularly portrayed the Democrats as dangerous, left wing radicals bent on taking the money of the working people of America in taxes and giving it to their supporters around the nation, often identified with minorities like blacks, Hispanics or recently arrived immigrants. Democrats are also often accused of encouraging illegal and violent protests that undermine law and order. Recent Black Lives Matter protests around the nation have often been cast in this light. (4) Republicans have also regularly attacked the media for spreading “false news” and reflecting only the views of a Democratic Washington “elite” dedicated to keeping its governmental privileges and wealth, rather than serving the people. This elite is often identified in conspiracy theories with a “deep state” that wishes to hold on to power no matter who is elected. Views like these that have led President Trump to regularly refer to his chief political opponent in Washington, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, as “Crazy Nancy.” In sum, the political atmosphere has become poisonous, affecting almost all aspects of American life. (5)
The Corona Crisis
On top of this political crisis has come the greatest health crisis to hit America in a century, the corona virus pandemic. As this is written, fully 6.5 million Americans have gotten COVID-19 and more than 193.000 have died. Some estimates put the total number of deaths by January 1, 2021 to over 400.000. (6) This is by far a greater number than any other nation in the world. When COVID-19 started, President Trump and his administration refused to accept the seriousness of the pandemic, claiming that “We have it under control. It’s going to be fine.” and “It will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away.” Eventually, the administration was forced to recognize the gravity of the threat and take measures. These turned out to half-hearted and confusing, however. Rather than showing strong federal leadership, Trump largely left it to the 50 individual states to grapple with the illness. In part, this was because President Trump refused to listen to the advice of his scientific advisors to act quickly to enact strong social and economic restrictions in the nation. (7)
The corona crisis put President Trump in a dilemma. He has never been a very popular president. His polls average about 40-45% approval ratings. (8) His main claim to success during his first three years of power had been an expanding economy. That was to be his main argument for reelection in 2020. The corona crisis took away this argument. The virus caused the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930s. Local and state measures against COVID-19 forced businesses to shut down across the nation. Unemployment skyrocketed. The federal government was forced to go into greater debt to help both employers and employees survive.
In the face of this economic catastrophe, Trump – and many other Republicans – began to again downplay the severity of the virus. Many suggested that the economic damage of the “cure” of social restrictions was worse than the “disease” of the virus itself. Many of the states that had voted for Trump in the election of 2016 – often rural states in the South – began removing their corona restrictions and “opening up” their economies as quickly as possible in the spring of 2020. The hope was to return to economic prosperity before the election in November. The actual result was – predictably – a resurgence in the number of corona cases across the nation (see graph below, per August 28, 2020). (9) This, in turn, has caused increased economic damage.
There is little doubt that President Trump’s handling of the on-going corona crisis will be one of most important issues in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential campaign. As of August 27, 2020, 58% of Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of corona. But the country remains deeply split on partisan lines. Almost 80% of Republicans still supported Trump’s corona polices, while fewer than 9% of Democrats did so. These numbers have hardly changed at all since the crisis began last March. (10)
Donald Trump and Democracy
To this politically, economically and medically explosive situation in the United States may be added the character and nature of Donald Trump himself. More than any presidential election in living memory, the upcoming vote will be a referendum on the man as much as his policies. To put it mildly, President Trump is a person of strong opinions and shifting moods. This makes him both unpredictable and interesting. He loves to keep public attention focused on him. He often does this by making unexpected and often alarming statements. This makes him a good campaigner, but a constantly controversial figure. He has often challenged established political traditions and Constitutional practice during his first term, portraying himself as a champion of the people shaking up corrupt professional politicians in Washington. He seems to take delight in this. For example, when his supporters chanted “Four more years!” at the recent Republican National Convention, he replied “If you want to really drive them crazy, you say 12 more years” – a clearly illegal suggestion since the Constitution sets a limit of 8 years, made up of two 4 year terms, for any President. (11)
Statements such as these cause Democrats and others to fear that President Trump’s actions could undermine Constitutional government and trust in American democracy. And he has added to these fears by repeatedly claiming that “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if this election is rigged.” By questioning the result of the election even before it is held, some worry that Trump is preparing the way to stay in power by claiming fraud if he loses. He has often made such claims of election fraud in the past, but most recently he has tied his accusations to fraud in mail-in balloting.
Because of the corona crisis, many voters have decided to vote by mail this year in order to avoid the risk of being infected at a polling station. Trump has claimed that Democrats – who use mail-in ballots more than Republicans – will used them to steal the election. “Mail ballots, they cheat. Mail ballots are very dangerous for this country because of cheaters,” said Trump. “They’re using Covid to defraud the American people.” Though studies show no evidence of massive mail fraud in America, this has not stopped the President from warning, in a tweet:
His suggestion for putting off the Presidential election caused jaws to drop around the nation. It was quickly slapped down as unconstitutional by the Democrats – as well as Republicans of his own party – but it serves to show how even fundamental rules of American democracy may be tested in this Presidential campaign. (12)
Looking Ahead
As this is written, the Democratic Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, is leading Donald Trump in national election polls by an average of about 7% points. He has enjoyed that lead throughout 2020 and some believe that Trump’s warning about mail fraud reflects the President’s realization that he may lose the vote. Certainly, the Democrats interpret it that way. “The president is afraid of the American people,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said, “He’s been afraid for a while. He knows that on the legit (in an honest election), it would be hard for him to win, so he wants to put obstacles to participation.” (13) Democrat Ron Klein put it this way, “It’s very troubling to have the person who has the biggest microphone put out those kinds of thoughts (about fraud) and intimidate and scare people into thinking that no matter what the outcome, they’re not going to believe it’s fair. That’s a threat to democracy itself.” (14)
Will the result of the presidential election in 2020 be challenged by one side or the other? It is possible, if the vote is close. It has happened in this century, although in a peaceful fashion (unlike the Civil War of 1860). In 2000, the presidential contest between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush ended up being decided in the Supreme Court many weeks after the election. That was caused by the votes in one state, Florida, being so evenly split between the two candidates that recounts were necessary – and then those recounts were challenged in the courts. In 2020, it is hoped that the majority of the winning candidate will be so great that no questions of fraud or recounts can be raised. On the other hand, it is feared that it will be so close that the supporters of one side or the other will reject the result and flood out onto the streets, turning a peaceful election into civil conflict.
Both Republicans and Democrats claim they represent all of the people of America. It will soon be the chance for all of those people to make their choice. Stay tuned.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) See Access to English, Social Studies, pp 195
2) See Access to English, Social Studies, Background: In the Pursuit of Happiness, pp. 312 – 314
3) See Access to English, Social Studies, Congress – legislative power/ The President – executive powers, pp186-187).
4) See Access to English, Social Studies, Facts: Views on the Black Lives Matter Movement, p. 366
