It’s over. And yet it isn’t. The culmination of a year’s worth of controversy, high drama, and intrigue, punctuated by the insertion of a new candidate just over a 100 days prior to the actual event on Nov. 5. Alas, the buildup to the Presidential Election in this, the year of our Lord 2024 all but assures that extravagance and spectacle will likely continue well into the rest of the month.
Given the real prospect of fireworks in a time frame involving neither the Fourth of July or the New Year, a brief overview of the circumstances that brought us here is in order.
The political process and
the shadow of past disputes
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed it ourselves.”
—Abraham Lincoln
Given that this is the latest in a political progression 200 years in the making, the Tuesday schedule transpired thusly:
Eligible Americans went to their individual polling destinations and once there, selected a particular candidate and running mate for president and vice president respectively. In our two-party system, they select individual candidates, but in actuality they are voting to select their State’s electors, who actually vote for President. In essence they are telling their individual State (California) which candidate they want to vote for at the meeting of electors, hence the often discussed differences between the Electoral College versus the Popular vote.
Generally the victor in presidential elections wins a majority in both the Electoral College and the popular votes, but there have been notable exceptions. The most telling occurrence in recent history was the 2016 race. This was an episode wherein businessman turned media personality Donald J. Trump ascended to the highest office in the land, winning a majority of the Electoral College, although he lost the popular vote.
In 2020, he failed in his bid for reelection by losing 232 electoral votes to eventual winner Joseph R. Biden’s 306, and 46.9 percent of the popular vote to Biden’s 51.3 percent. This paved the way for the discord, dissension, and polarization that continues to this day.
Factors that contributed to this turmoil include the influx of voting by mail, as a response to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, giving disgruntled elements of the body politic an opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of the election. This year’s iteration of the election, the continuation of vote-by-mail, and especially the expansion of the early voting process will almost certainly add fuel to the flames of election impropriety and voter fraud.
These allegations, claims, and contentions were in place well before the actual date of the election.
Four years later and the aura of 2020 still lingers over us. More specifically, the events of the following Jan. 6, 2021, wherein disgruntled citizens stormed the Capitol outraged by the outcome of the election two months previously. In all, six people were killed, including one policeman in an apparent coup d’état by supporters of then–President Trump. In essence an insurrection took place to prevent Congress from carrying out their duty to certify the election’s outcome. This historical precedent is a major source of the anxiety and stress affecting voters and passive political onlookers alike.
Addressing contingencies
“I have been very careful about making sure that Americans know that this is their choice to make, and my job as a Canadian prime minister is to stand up for Canada whoever they elect.”
—Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
“Let’s see what happens tomorrow; who gets the majority if there is a result afterward. We will decide only after the entire electoral process in the United States is completed; we will not make any statements until the process is finished.”
—Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum
To be fair, as the election wound down, the current principle contestants have conformed to the tried and true traditions of American politics by reiterating their campaign promises, swaying potentially undecided voters, and above all avoiding additional controversies raised by a scandal-hungry press.
This does little to stymie concerns both internally and across the globe. The ebb and flow of American politics has a direct impact on the economy of most of the global community, and internal security is especially stressful for our immediate neighbors in the Western Hemisphere.
As this story went to print, the following events transpired:
–More than 75 million votes had been cast nationwide prior to Election Day, Nov. 5, excluding Alabama, Mississippi, and New Hampshire, which do not offer this option.
—The neighboring western states of Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have already put their National Guard components on high alert.
While Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris to return to the White House, already there have been rumblings among Democrats that the proverbial “deck” had been stacked against them. There’s no truth to that assertion. What is true is that the American electorate is far, far different than a generation ago. The United States–like an increasing number of nationstates in both hemispheres–is looking for a “strongman” to guide them through uncertain times.
Harris failed to secure much of the “blue wall” which included Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Georgia. These were states that she campaigned heavily in but, in the end, the voters opted for a different path.
Much will be said about the so-called “Bradley effect” in which exit polls saw a favorable response among White voters to elect a Black person to high office, but in reality they didn’t (or couldn’t) fulfill a noble ideal to trust and have faith in a non-White person to represent them on the world stage. The late Tom Bradley, former mayor of Los Angeles, had positive polling heading into the 1982 race for governor of California, only to lose when many White voters ultimately voted against him against George Deukmejian.
Crystal stairs and glass ceilings
“May that work guide us even in the face of setbacks toward the extraordinary promise of the United States of America.”
—Kamala Harris addressing supporters from campaign headquarters at Howard University in the wake of her defeat.
The loss of a political election is, needless to say, a disappointment to all on the side of the vanquished. Harris’ loss is the second time a woman has vied for the Oval office and been denied. This particular election brought with it considerable emotional baggage in the form of aspirations for minority women of color and the newly arrived (Harris is the product of immigrants from India and Jamaica, respectively).
This particular outcome brings up long entrenched issues of race and gender, especially with the return to power of an individual who has been directly or indirectly associated with the aura of sexism and racism, even before he entered the political spectrum.
Conversely, this election result drudged up fears of an intolerable regime of fascism based on Trump’s stated intention of ruling with an iron fist (on “…day one”) upon regaining the Presidency, and utilizing the military to subdue opponents who dared challenge him. The specter of authoritarian maneuvering such as closing the borders, and initiating mass deportations as well as prosecuting past revivals resonate with the memories of tyrants of a not-so-distant past.
For her part, Kamala Harris avoided the example set down four years previously by her opponent by offering a conciliatory phone call late on Tuesday. She then presented a positive front to the disappointed followers assembled before her, while alluding to the collective fears shared by more than a few.
“I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time, but for the benefit of us all, I hope that is not the case,” she said diplomatically.
In closing, the campaign that came up short is still a remarkable achievement, coming close to the glass ceiling, if not actually breaking it. The pathway upward is still there for those to recognize as Langston Hughes observed long ago, that it is still not a crystal stair.
