Slowly, painfully and alarmingly, US President Donald Trump has been conceding the US presidency to US president-elect Joe Biden. Over the weekend, Trump’s close friend, former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, called his delay “a national embarrassment,” joining judges, aides and other US Republican politicians.
The world has erupted in a chorus of derision at the state of US democracy, polluted by corruption, fake news and money.
Countries whose leaders would not dream of risking an open election, let alone conceding one, mimic Moscow in ridiculing the “obvious shortcomings in the American electoral system,” while Beijing celebrates by preparing to jail a clutch of Hong Kong democrats.
The reality is the opposite: US historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr said that the US constitution regularly takes its grand coalition of diverse peoples to the brink of disintegration, shows them disaster and pulls them back.
Trump in 2016 was a populist candidate who ran for election on a pseudo-revolutionary ticket against the Washington establishment. Although he won fewer votes than his opponent, former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, a US Electoral College biased to protect the interests of small states against big ones gave him the presidency.
In office, Trump ran up huge debts, was a bully and a xenophobe, and relentlessly attacked all centers of establishment power.
The economy boomed — and US political participation soared. At this month’s US presidential election, the turnout of 67 percent was the highest in more than a century.
Biden’s popular lead over Trump was not much bigger than Clinton’s in 2016, and the Electoral College tilted his way, rather than against.
INCREASED SUPPORT
However, Trump’s popular vote rose and did so among surprising groups, including Hispanic, black and female voters. His “outsiders” stuck with him and told him to finish the job.
Exit polls showed that what helped to give Biden the victory was increased support among white men. Many of them were saying that they had gotten the point of Trump and wanted to be rid of him.
Almost as large a group was warning that it felt ignored and alienated, and that no one should take democracy for granted. It has flashed that warning not once, but twice — Trump might yet return.
Of all the great political unions that emerged from the age of empire, the US has proved the most robust, with a hesitant nod toward India. Such unions are seldom entirely stable. Their survival requires constitutions capable of accommodating disparate peoples, regions and interests — and to do so peacefully.
The US constitution, so baffling to outsiders, was designed in the 18th century to bind together a union rightly seen as vulnerable. Yet it built what became the world’s dominant great power and while delivering leaders as diverse as former US presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it has survived them all.
Few would contend that Trump has been anything other than an aberration, but if he was testing the US constitution to destruction, it passed the test.
Biden should receive every support in restoring his country’s dignity and good faith, and other unions — not least that of the UK — should look to their own.
They all have their Trumps in waiting. All have lessons to learn.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS