The Threat of No Concession

As the over-inflated hype of the conventions piddles away into horrendous untruths and obvious evasions by the candidates, one question seems especially relevant:

What if the United States is less stable than supposed, and more likely to be destabilized by internal rather than external threats?

Professor Juan Linz, of Yale University, compared the long term results of Presidential and Parliamentary democracies in a study titled The Failure of Presidential Democracies. Based on the length of past and current governments, he claimed presidential democracies, such as the United States are less stable than parliamentary systems such as the United Kingdom. No presidential democracy, aside from the States, has survived longer than one hundred years. He highlighted five issues limiting the stability of presidential systems.

As the President and Legislature are both elected independently they can make competing claims to legitimacy and “the will of the people”. This is not true of Parliamentarian democracy where the executive is chosen from among the Legislature. Competing claims leave no one with the supremacy to implement a solution to a crisis, and can lead to division as different branches pull the nation in opposite directions.

The President embodies two positions; the Head of State (the symbolic position to speak for the nation) and the Head of Government (the actual running of the political system), unlike Prime Ministers who only represent the government. The President can use his symbolic position during times of crisis to bolster his partisan politics, referring to his will as a mandate from the people (which the legislature has as well).

The fixed terms of the presidential system ignore crisis and the changing needs of the nation, leading to rigidity. Parliamentary systems allow extended leadership, but also swift elections as parties fall out of favor or a new solution is required.

A presidential system contains only two parties, and therefore no coalitions. The winning side decides the agenda assuming they control both the Legislature and the Executive. Parliamentary government may seem less forgiving to minority parties, because controlling the Legislature means controlling the Executive, but the ruling party is often a coalition of smaller parties. To survive long term, parties must be willing to compromise or risk being ostracized from future coalitions.

And finally, a parliament appoints its executive through elected members of the legislature. The Prime Minister is elected by his own legislative body. And for this reason political outsiders, who are more likely to destabilize the system and have no history of public service, are nearly impossible. This is compared to the United States where a candidate need only needs a well known face and a pile of cash to risk the attempt.

In the United States, will the political outsider of the presidential campaign recognize the validity of the victor if he loses? The answer has become more relevant based on his recent attempts to inflame voters, especially as he embraced the criminalization of Clinton as a campaign tactic. In early June he said Clinton, “Has to go to jail.” and then oddly, as if it was a new idea, in July replied, “I'm starting to agree with you,” to supporters who chanted, “Lock her up.”

The tacit support, the comments by Trump, and the speech by Christie at the RNC had already insinuated Trump would reject the results of November 9^th, if he failed to win. Then he made it overt on an August 1^st campaign rally where he said, “I'm afraid the elections going to be rigged, I have to be honest.”

If he means, wealth confers an advantage, one could reasonably agree with him. If he means politicians receive an advantage, with a similar boost for celebrities or generals, he's right. Or if he means it's beneficial to be handsome, to know certain people, or have the support of the media, he is only saying the truth.

As everyone understands, certain actions or characteristics will aid in the quest to become president. There are others characteristics detrimental to the same goal. This should be obvious. Trump is most certainly complaining about his media exposure, which is absurd for a few reasons; the media coverage during the primary benefited him, and he should have the support of Fox News. But at that station, he's managed to incite a minor civil war by his callous behavior: one faction has his back and the other calls him out for his behavior.

But if Trump means the Democratic party will orchestrate a campaign of voter fraud, he's wrong. To begin, the federal government regulates the outline of the election, but doesn't organize or oversee the presidential election. Congress determines the day, but voting by the public and choosing of the members of the Electoral College is done by the states. Currently, thirty-one states have a Republican Governor in office, and Republicans also control thirty-one state state legislatures. To believe national or local democrats would or could illegally alter the results is preposterous.

If anyone could interfere with the results and steal the election from Trump, it would be the party he is currently wrecking. Until recently Trump refused to endorse John McCain and Paul Ryan, and Republican legislatures could (but won't and shouldn't) interfere. They won't interfere illegally, but imagine if (for some incredible reason), neither Trump or Clinton earned a majority of the electoral votes. Would the House, controlled by the Republicans, choose Trump or Johnson?

What would Trump do if he lost, and who would he blame? He could lash out at Democrats for cheating, or the Republican establishment for failing to line up behind him. Either way he will be a desperate man, seeking exoneration for failure and a hint of fame. Neither will do anything more than follow the normal routes of politics.

But what if Trump either implicitly (or explicitly) supports a riotous mob, who through his incendiary statements are inconsolable and driven to insurrection?

How well could the United States deal with this?

Democrats were unsurprisingly incensed when the Supreme Court, along party lines, decided to annul the recount in Florida and secure the presidency for George W. Bush. Yet, Gore never claimed it was rigged, complained, or exhorted his supporters to create havoc. Instead he offered congratulated President Bush, and offered assistance.

The United States has never suffered a demagogue to achieve the ultimate power, has never seen a military coup in the name of preserving democracy, nor failed to peacefully transition from one party's president to the other (The only exception being the Civil War, but the Confederacy never claimed the election was unjust, only that they wouldn't accept it). When Thomas Jefferson relieved the Federalists of the Presidency, observers worldwide believed John Adams might refuse to give it up. Democracy was new, untried, and foreign Kings couldn't imagine resigning instead of resisting.

Fortunately President Adams was succeed by President Jefferson with only the regular bickering, which is to be expected, and the United States has seen calm transitions in its two hundred plus years.

Donald Trump has threatened the bedrock of democracy, that the loser of an election concede and prompt their followers to engage politically rather than violently. To destroy the legitimacy of elections and of the future president is worse than almost any other action he could take.

If he continues calling for violence in the face of failure, he will ruin the very country he supposedly loves, and the only one which continues to defy the odds for Presidential Democracy.