In recent weeks, we have seen how the dynamics and trends in the US presidential campaign have changed dramatically: before the failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump, the tycoon’s chances of beating Joe Biden in the race for the Presidency looked quite favorable, especially after the current president’s disastrous performance in the televised debate. The attack gave Trump a huge boost, as it elevated him to the altars of the most extremist Republicans, and he knew how to take advantage of the circumstances to position himself as an “almost martyr” in the eyes of his supporters. All of this came together so that, finally, Biden realized that the best thing for everyone was to leave the campaign; the one who took the baton was Vice President Kamala Harris, in a kind of natural choice. This, on the one hand, gave a lot of hope to the hitherto ailing Democratic campaign, and, on the other, threw the Republicans off balance, who had limited their campaign to pointing out that Biden was already too old, so much so that they have not been able to find a weak point in Harris that they can attack with their criticism.
In fact, Trump has had to act on the defensive in recent days: the “decrepit old man” is no longer Biden, but Trump himself, compared to Harris’s 59 years of age. That is why the loquacious Republican now says that advanced age is not an impediment. He also insidiously claims that his opponent Kamala looks like she is over 60.
In the face of the Republican candidate’s insipid attacks, it is necessary to point out that Harris, contrary to what Trump claims, is not an “ultra-liberal person” – something that greatly frightens the most prudish Republicans – but actually belongs to the most moderate group of the Democratic Party. It is true that she has not been a prominent personality in the internal politics of her party and neither did she have a very showy political career as Vice President of her country. However, taking into account that the undecided are by nature moderate rather than hot-headed, Mrs. Kamala has more chances of getting people who have not yet decided who to vote for to lean towards her, especially since Trump’s campaign is focusing on grotesquely and rudely criticizing her opponent for issues that may seem inconsequential to many: that she laughs a lot, that she made herself darker on purpose (?), that she hates Jews (although she is married to one), etc. The fact that no statements or conduct have yet been found in Harris’s political past that could identify her as belonging to the left wing of the Democratic Party makes her more robust in the face of Republican attacks and closer to minorities, moderates and the undecided.
Days after the attack, Trump chose as his running mate the young senator JD Vance, who years before was a fierce critic of the Republican candidate (whom he even foolishly compared to Hitler). It is worth noting that the political figure who inspires the Republican Party’s vice-presidential candidate is none other than one of the most successful autocrats of our time: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
So much so that Vance has more authoritarian traits than Trump, seeking to gain the support of a somewhat diffuse figure: that of the “white” working class. In addition, he is in favor of greater state intervention, which makes him oppose liberal positions, as he speaks openly of the need to impose a kind of very conservative “public morality”, with which he intends to win the vote of the “right wing” of the Republican Party. Vance himself has already said who inspires him in this fight to restrict freedoms and expand the domain of the State: Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian autocrat. It is therefore not surprising that there are many Republicans visiting Budapest, where they seek to learn the foundations of the autocracy that Orbán is consolidating and which is characterized, if we look at it superficially, by not seeming like an autocracy. This is achieved, for example, by replacing the professional bureaucracy with loyal supporters of the leader (in something similar to the Obradorist maxim of “10% ability and 90% loyalty”). From this “orbanist” inspiration comes the “Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project”, a voluminous guide on what to do in the early days of a new Republican government: economic deregulation, economic protectionism, a strong anti-immigrant policy, favoring fossil fuels, opposition to combating climate change, etc.
For this reason, many scholars of the US political scene consider Vance to be even more dangerous to US democracy than Trump. A possible victory for this Republican couple next November would mean that they would have a clear path to undermine American democratic institutions, fill the main public offices with unconditional supporters, destroy the democratic values that still remain in society and, in international politics, not seriously oppose Putin’s advance both in Ukraine and, most likely, in the rest of Europe.
One of the signals that the current US presidential campaign is sending us is the fact that the political parties, particularly the Republican one, are not functioning well internally. A democracy requires strong and functional political parties, and neither of the two parties has shown solid structures to select their respective candidate, in addition to the fact that they have not been able to generate more youthful, fresh and youthful candidates. Kamala Harris has indeed brought freshness to the campaign, but it was because of Biden’s withdrawal, not because the party structures have taken advantage of her and promoted her to be the candidate.
The problems are more serious in the Republican Party, which has fallen into a gross cult of personality, lacks internal democratic structures, and there is no serious internal opposition to Trump, who has completely taken over the party and its way of thinking and doing politics. In the Democratic Party, in turn, there was no opposition to Biden’s candidacy. He was forced to change his candidacy by circumstances, literally at a quarter to twelve, after he resigned from the candidacy.
This may partly explain the extreme polarization of American society, as the parties do not have strong internal discussion and election structures that favor negotiation, argumentation and contention, so political and social polarization becomes more acute.
Sadly, what we see, especially on the Republican side, tells us that it is no coincidence that autocrats run their parties in this way: without internal discussion, without opponents, without arguments. Let us look at Orbán in Hungary, Erdogan in Turkey or López in Mexico: Does anyone in the respective ruling party dispute or question their instructions? Since when have there been no internal critics in their respective parties? Do party candidate selection processes display strong, transparent and pluralistic democratic structures? Are there serious and institutional consequences when someone lies or becomes corrupt?
The role of leaders played by these characters is evident, as is the idea that they embody the people, like a kind of messiah; in the case of Trump, after the attack he is no longer just the hero who will rescue the United States from decadence, but he is almost a martyr, a victim of the evil and powerful and chosen by God to lead his nation.
One element that characterizes practical politics is, unfortunately, lying. The Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck is said to have said: “There are never so many lies told as before elections, during wars and after a hunt.” The lies we tell in everyday life have more or less serious consequences, depending on the circumstances. The consequences of lying in politics, however, usually have more serious repercussions. Obviously we cannot expect that there will be no lies in a democracy, because human nature would have to be completely transformed, something that is impossible to achieve.
One may wonder whether the aim of populists is simply to govern by means of lies, discrediting the truth. Much has already been written about the ease with which López, Trump or Boris Johnson lie, and about how they insult their opponents – equally easily. In democracies, unlike autocracies – such as the one Maduro is trying to establish in Venezuela – there are many opinions that are freely expressed and that expect to be respected and heard; but for democracy to work, opinions must respect the facts, moving away from lies, which, we have said, is not always possible. That is why we need to recognise that conflict and diversity are essential in a democratic society, as they help to enrich the debate and reflection on the problems that need to be resolved. So we should not be afraid of diversity, which requires respect among all actors. The problem with autocrats of all kinds – including populists – is that they do not respect those who think differently and they automatically disqualify and segregate them. This is not legitimate in any area of our lives, but they do not care.
