What Happens Next? Post-2020 Election Thoughts

    With the 2020 election coming to an end, many liberals and centrists, and those simply weary of the Trump administration's foibles, gaffs and missteps (both real and perceived - some argue manufactured by the media), are celebrating the ascension of a Joe Biden-led administration. Despite this 'winning effort' by the Democratic party, one has to ask why over 70 million citizens saw fit to cast votes for a second Trump term. It may seem utterly ludicrous to some and hence they will simply wave this away, expecting to largely move forward with a new administration (which, legislatively speaking, will be hampered at every turn). But in reality, society has to ask what will become of that large swath of the population and moreover, why did they arrive at their conclusion in the first place. No doubt, each political era has its unique set of circumstances to grapple with and both sensible and nonsensical decisions and policy arise out of these eras. Despite these unique features, history is often cyclical and each generation has to grapple with a combination of the baggage of their predecessors as well as new issues presented by advancing technology and burgeoning (or regressing) philosophical paradigms. In our current political atmosphere, Trump appealed to the principles of protectionism - seen in his ruthless immigration policy, vow to return blue collar manufacturing jobs to the U.S., tariffs on Chinese goods, and a pledge to cease America's endless wars (along with troop extraction from countries engaged in long-standing conflicts), protection of religious freedom, and an embrace of conservative ideals. There is also the perception that he would beat back the efforts of the extreme far-left who all supposedly champion gender ambiguity, increased LGBTQ rights, critical race theory, socialism, and communism. Whatever one thinks about the basis of that perception and their threat to America's long-term viability, these fears are real in the minds of many on the right. All in all, Trump presented himself as a no-nonsense strong man who would, by fiat (or executive order), prevent the far-left's nefarious agenda from being cemented, not only in the form of policy, but also into the very ethos of America. In contrast, on the left, many fear that another Trump-led presidency will hurl us toward open fascism or dictatorship. Again, whether those perceptions are founded in clear thinking and analysis, they are palpable among the left. Economic and policy analyst, Matt Stoller, in his book Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy wrote about the political climate at the time of The Great Depression. Similar questions of the likelihood of America falling into either a dictatorship or communist bastion were held by the populace. Some prominent figures even began to openly question if a dictatorship was indeed a viable option:

American intellectuals and businessmen began embracing increasingly autocratic ideas. A movement called "technocracy" became a fad; technocrats sought to replace elected politicians with engineers and scientists who could plan without the need to respond to voters. Liberty magazine published an essay, "Does America Need a Dictator?" written by Wilson advisor Colonel Edward House. Unless economic circumstances improved, House wrote, "we are almost certain to have trouble." House wrote that "there is to be found considerable sentiment favorable to a Mussolini sort of dictatorship in conservative circles in America." And this, he argued, might be the optimistic scenario, with the alternative being Russia in 1917. On the first day of 1933, the President's Research Committee on Social Trends, assembled by Hoover and financed by Rockefeller, came out with the dour prediction that without national planning, there could be no assurance against a violent revolution.

Roosevelt told advisor Rexford Tugwell that "there was latent... not far below the surface of our disrupted society, an impulse among a good many 'strong' men, men used to have their way, mostly industrialists who directed affairs without being questioned, a feeling that democracy had run its course and that the totalitarians had grasped the necessities of the time. People wanted strong leadership; they were sick of uncertainty, anxious for security, and willing to trade liberty for it."

Roosevelt told Tugwell he was picking up "talk of this kind,' as "it had been passing around in clubs and business gatherings for some time as the depression ran on and as disorder threatened." Americans would be willing to turn to dictatorship if they found a military demagogue to follow. It was happening in German and Italy as legislatures in those countries "were even now voting themselves out of office." One man who could bring this about in the US., a man "endowed with charm, tradition, and majestic appearance" was, Roosevelt told Tugwell, Douglas MacArthur. The "Nazi-minded among American leaders recalled with approval" how MacArthur had dispersed "with tanks and tear gas" the "unemployed veterans, " during the Bonus Army episode, in what became known as "the Battle of Anacostia Flats."

FDR was able, via policy, to stave off any sizable influence from both ends of the spectrum with dictatorial power at one end and communist rule at the other. His New Deal was essentially a successful compromise, in this vein. Our current society has to seriously ask similar questions. Will Biden's new administration rein in corporate power? Will he pass any new progressive policies? Was Trump's administration veering towards dictatorship? If Biden's new administration is ineffective, will we get something worse than Trump in 2024? One can only hope that, ultimately, any near-future policy will be steered largely in favor of the most vulnerable Americans who have been economically impacted by repeated economic crises.