Trump v. Biden - How worried should I be?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

It's practically certain that the US presidential election this year will be Trump v. Biden. The polls and betting markets are basically giving each candidate a 50/50 chance of winning. I find this shocking and sad, considering the age and unpopularity of both candidates.

The rhetoric for this election feels more insane than ever. Both parties have been framing their potential loss as the end of the country / end of democracy. While the Republicans are clearly further down the path of election-result denialism, I fear neither leader/party will accept an electoral defeat no matter how clear it is. And we might not even get a super decisive result - there is a spooky scenario where the race is so close that there won't be a clear winner for several days after the voting takes place (or, God forbid, it has to get decided by the supreme court).

Is political violence a likely outcome? It became fashionable to speculate about Trump-inspired violence after Jan. 6, but these fears proved to be way overblown. No doubt a Trump victory would inspire huge protests and, so far in the 2020s, many US cities don't seem willing/able to stop big protests from descending into riots.

Would a second Trump victory really be the end of US democracy? Putting aside Trump's demeanor and policy preferences, I found his behaviour between November 2021 and January 2022 to be totally disqualifying - if not in a legal sense (they've tried everything lol), then by common sense. Reelecting someone who indulged in that behaviour really does seem to put the US on a different, less democratic path. A second Trump term would be staffed by only the truest of true believers. Trump clearly does not accept any limits to the power of the presidency. But these factors didn't make Trump all powerful in his first term - the courts slowed him down, congress slowed him down, the military didn't join his side on Jan. 6, etc.

[CaptainFritz28]

I don't like either Trump or Biden. I don't think very many people really do (except for the extremists in either side), and I think everyone is already tired of the fact that this is just a redo of 2020.

Both sides have proven that they're willing to use violence for political ends. The riots after the 2016 election and the January 6 attack prove that. No matter the outcome, there'll be violence.

So yeah, you should be worried. But not too worried. We've gone through worse as a nation, I think if we don't all lose our heads we can handle this too.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I guess that leaves open the question, if there's violence, how much will there be? Have, for example, the most extreme Trump supporters become more or less radicalized since 2021? How might the US public respond to a widely publicized incidence of violence against a political figure (e.g., if something like the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi attack were successful) or partisan-style violence in the streets?

And I wonder whether the "we've gone through worse" cliche is on the knife's edge of no longer being true. I wasn't around during the height of the Cold War, the Vietnam draft, Watergate, etc., but I don't think it's ahistoric to suggest that the US is in a political pickle that's at least comparably bad. There's a quantifiable erosion in bipartisanship that shows no sign of correcting itself. Likewise, animosity between voters is reaching an all time high. There's a presidential candidate saying in advance he won't respect the outcome of the election unless he wins (for a second time, no less) who still has a coin toss chance of genuinely winning.

You don't seem as worried about a Trump presidency as I am. While I equivocated a bit in my first post, I believe that, at a minimum, a second Trump term would be disastrous for democratic norms in the US, with the downside risk that Trump actually achieves some of his plainly stated goals (an end to rule of law vis-a-vis the President, an end to term limits, etc.). For all Biden and the Democrats' flaws, Biden's reelection doesn't raise those particular concerns.

[CaptainFritz28]

with the downside risk that Trump actually achieves some of his plainly stated goals (an end to rule of law vis-a-vis the President, an end to term limits, etc.)

I'd actually really like to see where Trump has said these things. People talk about it all the time, but he didn't do it when he was President, and I'm curious when he has said it. I really would like to see where he has said this, because if he has, that would be a pretty clear mark against him.

[CaptainFritz28]

And I wonder whether the "we've gone through worse" cliche is on the knife's edge of no longer being true. I wasn't around during the height of the Cold War, the Vietnam draft, Watergate, etc., but I don't think it's ahistoric to suggest that the US is in a political pickle that's at least comparably bad.

I suppose I was thinking of the 19th century, and times like when an effigy of John Tyler was burned on the White House lawn while he was president.

[CaptainFritz28]

Have, for example, the most extreme Trump supporters become more or less radicalized since 2021?

I think that he has lost a lot of his radical support, but gained a lot of "I'm tired of Biden" support. Some people might even vote for Trump just so that if he wins, he can't run again.

But that's just my perspective. I could be wrong.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

with the downside risk that Trump actually achieves some of his plainly stated goals (an end to rule of law vis-a-vis the President, an end to term limits, etc.)

I'd actually really like to see where Trump has said these things. People talk about it all the time, but he didn't do it when he was President, and I'm curious when he has said it. I really would like to see where he has said this, because if he has, that would be a pretty clear mark against him.

This underscores the problem with demagoguery. Trump is just a firehose of wild and contradictory statements. The line between serious and jest gets blurred. His supporters always have a sliver of plausible deniability.

The most direct statement comes from a campaign speech, where Trump said “We are going to win four more years and then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.” If you google this phrase you'll see it's widely reported. Of course, this contradicts other statements he's made explicitly saying he will not seek a third term. Was he joking the first time or the second time? Likely even he doesn't know.

Trump and his legal team made the argument that a President is and should be immune from prosecution for actions taken while President. Desperate legal tactic, or a genuine desire to put make the role of President more like a King?

These are two among many examples where Trump says outrageous and illegal shit, then walks it back with a wink. Obviously the election-result denialism is the most dangerous. At a certain point, you should become more concerned with the pattern than any particular instance - this is a tactic Trump uses for his own benefit and it's a dangerous game to play at this level of politics.

[learnedSloth]

I'm not particularly worried. Here's why:

19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(Matthew 6)

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm not particularly worried. Here's why:

19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(Matthew 6)

Would this sanguine approach apply in all circumstances? If I'm a German in 1933 and they're burning down the Reichstag, I should just chill out and hope the afterlife is better than what's about to happen to my country? Isn't that an abdication of moral responsibility and, if it were a universally-held view, an end to political and moral progress?

Even if I believed in the afterlife, I think I would still be pretty concerned about what will happen in my mortal life.

[learnedSloth]

I don't believe that worrying is that ubiquitous prerequisite. If it were, I would be worrying more than I know.

[CaptainFritz28]

I'm not particularly worried. Here's why:

19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(Matthew 6)

Would this sanguine approach apply in all circumstances? If I'm a German in 1933 and they're burning down the Reichstag, I should just chill out and hope the afterlife is better than what's about to happen to my country? Isn't that an abdication of moral responsibility and, if it were a universally-held view, an end to political and moral progress?

Even if I believed in the afterlife, I think I would still be pretty concerned about what will happen in my mortal life.

I think there is a difference between doing what you can to change the world for the better and worrying about the world. After all, I can't change who wins the election. I can research the candidates and then vote for the one I deem best, but then I shouldn't worry about what will happen, because there's nothing that my worrying will do to make anything better.

So I stand corrected; earlier I said you should worry but not a lot, instead I say don't worry at all.

Also, I suggest you research Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was a Christian during the rise of the Nazis struggling with what to do, and some of his writings are pretty on point regarding this topic. (Spoiler alert: he was part of the plot to kill Hitler and was executed for it.)

[orathaic]

with the downside risk that Trump actually achieves some of his plainly stated goals (an end to rule of law vis-a-vis the President, an end to term limits, etc.)

I'd actually really like to see where Trump has said these things. People talk about it all the time, but he didn't do it when he was President, and I'm curious when he has said it. I really would like to see where he has said this, because if he has, that would be a pretty clear mark against him.

This underscores the problem with demagoguery. Trump is just a firehose of wild and contradictory statements. The line between serious and jest gets blurred. His supporters always have a sliver of plausible deniability.

This just highlights Trump in a nutshell, he doesn't believe anything he says, he just keeps saying what he thinks his supporters want to hear at any given time


So the question is, what will he do if re-elected. And given that his words are not worth the paper they are written on, what can you base your predictions ón?

Boden is a safe bet, he is the least extreme, middle of the road, candidate possible. Liberals may like him, but left-wingers can't stand him, the extremes of the Democratic Party want real change, healthcare, gun control, bodily autonomy, etc. and Boden wants to maintain the status quo so massive corporate donors remain happy.

This is the most conservative of Democrats, conservative in the small c sense.

I don't know if he can best Trump, but the economy seems to be doing so much better than expected... I can see turnout among the left being poor/voting for a 3rd party candidate. The question is how many Nikki Haley supporters will defect to vote Democrat.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I'm not particularly worried. Here's why:

19 ¶ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
(Matthew 6)

Would this sanguine approach apply in all circumstances? If I'm a German in 1933 and they're burning down the Reichstag, I should just chill out and hope the afterlife is better than what's about to happen to my country? Isn't that an abdication of moral responsibility and, if it were a universally-held view, an end to political and moral progress?

Even if I believed in the afterlife, I think I would still be pretty concerned about what will happen in my mortal life.

I think there is a difference between doing what you can to change the world for the better and worrying about the world. After all, I can't change who wins the election. I can research the candidates and then vote for the one I deem best, but then I shouldn't worry about what will happen, because there's nothing that my worrying will do to make anything better.

So I stand corrected; earlier I said you should worry but not a lot, instead I say don't worry at all.

I'm Canadian so I can't even vote in this election. I don't expect my worries, or lack there of, will affect the outcome.

Yet, I still find it pragmatic to worry a bit at least for my own sake. Had I known COVID was coming further in advance I may have made different decisions about my career and personal finances. I can't change the world on these big issues, but I might prepare for the future differently on the basis of whether next year is likely to be just a continuation of the status quo, or the start of a much more volatile period. Being Canadian there are just a lot of practical questions — Will it be safe to visit the US in the post-election period? How might a political disruption in the States affect Canada's economy and politics? etc.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

^ Of course, if you're American you have many more options to get involved beyond voting.

If I were a US citizen, I would be even more concerned about having the right view on this election. Because if it really is the case that, say, Trump round 2 comes with unacceptable risks, then there's a lot more one could/should do to prevent it beyond just voting against him.

[CaptainFritz28]

I guess we may have different definitions of worry. When I think of worrying, I think of spending time thinking of all the possible terrible outcomes of a decision that I cannot control. This is not, to me, the same as weighing the positives and negatives that could result from that decision in order to ensure that I make the right decision. So when it comes to voting, I do weigh what could happen if one side or the other gets elected, and the positives ans negatives that could result, but then, once I have made the decision, I don't worry about it, because there is nothing I can do about it.

[CaptainFritz28]

Thus, I don't worry about what's happening in the Red Sea, unless concerning myself with it is necessary to cause change for the better. I learn about it, and keep up with the news, but I don't worry about it, since worrying isn't going to change anything.

[CaptainFritz28]

But that's all semantics. I think the point you're trying to make is whether there is a good chance of violence resulting from the election. I think there is, either way it goes. I don't think I can do anything about it, since the area where I live has never had problems with that and I don't expect we will this year. I don't think there will be pre-civil war levels of violence, but there most likely will be violence. It's a sorry state that our nation has come to.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

But that's all semantics. I think the point you're trying to make is whether there is a good chance of violence resulting from the election. I think there is, either way it goes. I don't think I can do anything about it, since the area where I live has never had problems with that and I don't expect we will this year. I don't think there will be pre-civil war levels of violence, but there most likely will be violence. It's a sorry state that our nation has come to.

I guess I think about "worry" as an emotion that drives rational actions. I eat when I'm hungry, I drink when I'm thirsty, and I prepare differently for the future when I'm worried.

I have a number of practical decisions to make that are somewhat tied to how wild things get in the US:

I'm considering honeymoon destinations, but don't want to be book a vacation in a US city that's being burned down.

I've got a cushy government job that I hate and would love to leave, but I might be very happy to have the income stability if political volatility in the States turns out to be terrible for the economy.

I've been involved in a small way in Canadian politics and may want to get more involved if I suspect that, in response to craziness in the US, Canada goes a little off-the-rails.

[Jamiet99uk]

Trump should be in prison.
Biden is too old.

[CaptainFritz28]

But that's all semantics. I think the point you're trying to make is whether there is a good chance of violence resulting from the election. I think there is, either way it goes. I don't think I can do anything about it, since the area where I live has never had problems with that and I don't expect we will this year. I don't think there will be pre-civil war levels of violence, but there most likely will be violence. It's a sorry state that our nation has come to.

I guess I think about "worry" as an emotion that drives rational actions. I eat when I'm hungry, I drink when I'm thirsty, and I prepare differently for the future when I'm worried.

I have a number of practical decisions to make that are somewhat tied to how wild things get in the US:

I'm considering honeymoon destinations, but don't want to be book a vacation in a US city that's being burned down.

I've got a cushy government job that I hate and would love to leave, but I might be very happy to have the income stability if political volatility in the States turns out to be terrible for the economy.

I've been involved in a small way in Canadian politics and may want to get more involved if I suspect that, in response to craziness in the US, Canada goes a little off-the-rails.

That all makes sense. I suppose I define worry a little closer to anxiety than you do, but by your definition I don't think it's a bad thing at all.