COMMONSENSE VS BLUSTER: AMERICA’S UNIQUE POLITICAL ADVENTURE

 The forthcoming election is one in which the adventurous perception of the electorate should be deployed in defence of the popular will rather than in defence of privilege, argues LINDSAY BARRETT

The emergence of Kamala Harris, a middle aged woman of Jamaican and Indian heritage, as a credible contestant for the Presidency of the United States of America reflects the spirit of adventurism that has become an integral factor in the governance of the USA in recent years. This element of democratic adventurism has been an important aspect of the competitive methodology of electoral choice in the American polity ever since Barack Obama became the first black President of the USA in 2008. In an ironic twist it was the same factor of adventurous choice that led to the election of an irredeemable autocrat named Donald Trump as Obama’s successor. In spite of the fact that Trump used terminology that was profoundly anti-democratic as the core sentiment of his political vision in his campaign for office in 2016 the political system accommodated his worst attitudes to a surprising extent. As a consequence, although he conducted a deeply misogynistic campaign against Hilary Clinton, and actually failed to gain a popular majority he was able to claim victorious ascendancy through the deployment of electoral votes. In his response to Kamala Harris’s challenge to his effort to return to office Trump’s blustery abuse has made it plain that he expects to use the same tactic against her.

 It is clear that Donald Trump’s approach to political contest is based on personal conceit and opportunism, two elements of human behaviour which he is adept at deploying. Before he entered the political arena in 2015 this aspect of his personality had been successfully utilised in his career as a reality show host on television, and he transferred this success to the political arena by assuming that the electorate would succumb to his blustery blandishments. He was proven right in 2016 but after four years in power the insubstantiality of his presumptions had begun to be recognised by the average voter and he lost the attempt to hold on to power. However, his response to public rejection has been so vehement that he has provoked the worst instincts of public disenchantment in the American electorate. His response to Kamala Harris’s emergence has shown that he intends to use this emotion to provoke the adventurous spirit of American political sentiment to support and justify his most selfish attitudes. In confronting this reality Kamala Harris has adopted exactly the opposite formula of contestation by articulating a vision of governance based on common sense rather than bluster. Donald Trump on the other hand has chosen to accelerate his annoyance in response to Harris’s calm sense of sanity and good order in the hope that some irrational elements of the electorate will be inspired by his habitual bluster.

 The gravest danger that this situation poses is to the survival of a sane and stable order of democratic governance in America. While the sense of adventurous competitive choice might have encouraged diversity and change, as in the case of the election of Obama, it was the same spirit of adventure that led to the experimental selection of Donald Trump in 2016. The major challenge that has evolved from this conjunction of boisterous rhetoric and systematic decision-making is for common sense to become the motivation that ignites public sentiment as opposed to conceited bluster. It is however very dangerous to assume that the outcome of this interaction will always result in the best and most representative result for the electoral community. The eventual result of such adventurous contestation can lead to some of the most distressing results if the process is allowed to be manipulated by formal allies of the more opportunistic participant, and Donald Trump is clearly hoping to be able to take advantage of any such opportunity. In that case Kamala Harris’s team of supporters and the Democratic Party’s officials must be extraordinarily vigilant over the conduct of the forthcoming polls. They must campaign energetically in the so-called battleground states in the weeks before the elections with the effective objective in mind of mounting serious defence of controversial results after the elections, especially if Harris is declared victorious.

 In the days, weeks and months following the polls Donald Trump’s penchant for blustery rhetoric and manipulative conspiracy theories will be unveiled most vehemently if Kamala is declared the winner. If she loses the contest he will probably mount a boisterous verbal assault on her credibility in order to regale his supporters with proof of his superiority and to justify his dysfunctional victory. In such an event the ascendancy of his blustery character will be revealed in all its splendor and Kamala Harris’s attempt to consolidate the common sense view of earlier government decisions will be rubbished totally by the machinery of state led by Donald Trump. The unique element of this electoral competition is not only defined by the unusual origin of the Democratic Party’s candidate but also by the dangerous consequences that are threatened if she loses. For this reason, some knowledgeable observers have described the forthcoming contest as the most vital and controversial Presidential contest to take place in the USA for more than a century. In fact, this is one contest in which the adventurous perception of the electorate should be deployed in defence of the popular will rather than in defence of privilege. Kamala Harris has demonstrated the eloquence of common sense in only a few days while Donald Trump has for a long time exhibited the undeniable resilience of self-willed bluster. The American electorate now has a unique opportunity to demonstrate the relevance and true value of its adventurous decision making to preserving genuine democracy at the polls.

· Barrett is a Jamaican-born Poet, Novelist and Journalist