In the last two weeks, despite trailing vice-president Biden in every poll, president Trump has encouraged his supporters to believe that he can only lose a “rigged” election. In interviews he has referred to shadowy groups stoking the current protests, and warned of violence if there is a disputed election. These baseless assertions have been amplified by conservative media and have breathed new life into conspiracy theories which have overwhelmed entire sections of the main social media platforms. Predictably, this has begun to alter norms of acceptable speech.
Last week, Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s “Mad Money” called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “Crazy Nancy” during a live interview. (Cramer later apologized saying that it was “a tongue in cheek attempt to make a point about the harsh tone” of Washington politics.) That same week a senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services, alleged in a Facebook video that: “There are scientists who work for this government who do not want America to get well, not until after Joe Biden is president.”
Although little more than provocative in themselves, these incidents suggest a pattern. Trump intends to sow doubt pre-emptively so that he can have maximum flexibility when election-related snafus occur. In one much-discussed scenario, he could declare victory on election day if early returns are in his favour, then use the courts to prevent delayed mail-in votes from being counted. When the House Judiciary Committee raised this scenario with the Attorney General in July, his answer was less than reassuring. Congressman Greg Stanton asked “If the president asks you to intervene and try to stop states from counting legal ballots after Election Day, will you do the right thing and refuse?” Barr replied: “I will follow the law.” If Barr means that he will continue to finesse the legal process in order to shield the president and his allies, and advance their interests, the statement is practically meaningless. In January, when New York Congressman Hakeem Jeffries asked Barr whether he would leave office even if Trump refused to recognise the election results, Barr replied “Well, if the results are clear, I would leave office.”
Trump has always relied heavily on ambiguity and innuendo, partly because of his chronically weak grasp of facts in any given situation. This is hardly a controversial point. Woodward’s books, and many other exposés, have furnished many examples of Trump’s cluelessness in most areas of governance. But he also has what might be called strategic vagueness, the sort which allowed him to pretend that the coronavirus would disappear “like a miracle” rather than do the hard work of organising a coherent response to the challenge. Vagueness also suits his blustering temperament. Having used a lunatic conspiracy about Obama’s birth to gain political prominence, Trump has spent much of his time in office railing at a ‘deep state’ which frustrates his political agenda. Worryingly, his base’s willingness to treat such appeals to victimhood seriously has never been greater.
A recent study by the Pew Research Center found Republicans almost four times more likely than Democrats to believe that mail-in votes will create major voter fraud. Other polls indicate that more than half the party believe or partly believe the conspiracy-laden nonsense of Q-Anon. This all bodes ill for November. With ample recent experience of the upheaval that can result from disputed elections and contentious referenda, it is chilling to watch an American president deliberately encourage similar chaos in his own country.
