EDITORIAL –
Donald John Trump will join the club of one-term presidents when he leaves office at midday on 20 January. He has become the 14th man to lose a re-election bid (10 if you do not count those presidents who also lost their party nomination) and the first since George H.W. Bush in 1992. His presidency will undoubtedly go down in the history of the republic as one of the most controversial, with the handover of power to Joe Biden being reminiscent of an aspiring autocrat: reluctant to acknowledge his leadership’s faults while viewing elections as merely tokenistic and a formality. With his controversial tenure climaxing with the Capitol Riots during the electoral college count on 6 January, Trump departs the White House with the worst approval and disapproval rating of any out-going president in modern history.
In the final days of this Administration, an evaluation is required to understand the problems that propelled Trump to the highest office, not a mere lambasting of the President or other prominent individuals from all sides of politics who are constantly targeted by either left-leaning or right-leaning news outlets. This article aims to provide this desired analysis so to understand why the last four years will be a turning point in American history.
I – POLARISATION IN THE ELECTORATE – RECENT OR LONG-STANDING
It has become apparent from modern media coverage that the Western world has become increasingly polarised in political belief and in our tolerance for the opinions of others. Yet, this is not a recent phenomenon and is not caused by one person or a result of one period in history. We instead need to note the following considerations:
- There has always been an underlying polarisation of political belief in the United States, through race relations and differences in geographical priorities;
- Media coverage in recent years has further inflamed tensions, especially in the wake of economic devastation and political instability; and
- The current tensions reflected by recent violence are a breaking point which has been seen during other periods in modern history.
This section will focus on the first and third points, looking at the long-standing polarisation in U.S. politics and other similar events.
The United States has become increasingly polarised in modern history, with a Pew Research study from 2014 indicating that Democrats are moving to be more consistently liberal and Republicans moving to be more consistently conservative. With this study being undertaken before the Trump Presidency, it is important to recognise that the U.S. population was already moving apart ideologically. That same study had 92% of Republicans to the right of the median and 94% of Democrats to the left of the median. When the same study was undertaken in mid-2017 at the beginning of the Trump Presidency, ideological divides further exacerbated to 95% of Republicans to the right of the median and 97% of Democrats to the left of the median. Pew has not conducted the same study for 2020, but it can be hypothesised based on responses to the election results that this trajectory has continued.
Prior to the elections of Barack Obama in 2008 and Ronald Reagan in 1980, studies were undertaken by Keith T Poole which analysed polarisation since the establishment of the United States. The studies determined that polarisation was rooted in:
- The importance put on geography by Founding Fathers and the first congresses, creating an inland and coastal divide;
- Ambiguities in the U.S. Constitution and disputes between the thirteen colonies regarding the powers of the federal government opposed to state governments;
- Rifts created by slavery between the North and the South, reinvigorated by increases to cotton production in the late eighteenth century;
- The emergence of mass-based political parties which represented divides in key political issues, starting from territorial issues and slavery to modern questions on taxation and immigration;
- Exacerbation of differences by the Civil War which further tore apart the North and the South, with these tensions persevering through the Civil Rights era; and
- Urban and rural divides which impact all states due to redistribution and districting of congressional districts.
These points also allude to other periods of major polarisation in which there were threats to America’s existence and wellbeing. During each of these periods there was either major fracturing of political units, violence and protests, and reordering of the political system. For example, during the Civil War over 1,000,000 Americans were killed while the Civil Rights Movement saw the death of countless protesters, including the 41 Civil Rights Martyrs. These events also saw the implementation of pivotal laws in an attempt to calm strife, albeit with mixed results.
Like most countries, the United States has weak points ingrained in its system, making it prone to political instability, with tensions becoming inflamed over decades and culminating in violence, protest and radical reform. While it is arguable that the Trump Presidency has accelerated increasing polarisation through the rhetoric espoused by the White House and supporters of the President, this may be a similar turning point to other periods in history, with the outcome now dependent on the response the Biden Administration takes when power is formally handed over.
II – THE MEDIA AS A TOOL FOR POLITICAL POLARISATION
Media coverage of U.S. politics has substantially changed in recent history, with further options and greater accessibility meaning that Americans are more informed… or is it misinformed? Recent media coverage has been organised to spin political news stories by those seeking to further their interests or assist political allies. This has been abetted by social media coverage which is highly unregulated and unchecked, meaning nearly anything can be posted by anyone.
With the commercialisation of television, networks have tailored their content to meet the consumer’s demands. This has only become more of a fixation of executives through rating numbers and audience share statistics. This has also been mirrored for online content in which media companies track traffic so as to attract a wider audience. This has resulted in major splits in the target audience of various news networks with respective news outlets focusing on voters’ specific bases. A study conducted by Pew in 2020 showed that 65% of Republicans/Republican leaners trust Fox News while 67% of Democrats/Democrat leaners trust CNN as a source of information. In contrast, 67% of Republicans distrust CNN, and 77% of Democrats distrust Fox News. This divide has grown astronomically since Pew’s study in 2014, with Americans growing more polarised over their media sources.
Besides targeting specific bases, news outlets have systemically “organised to polarise”, as noted in the Harvard Political Review (HPR). In the HPR analysis, Fox News was described as a political operation masked as a news channel spearheaded by the late Republican operative and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. During the Nixon Administration, Ailes came up with the idea for a conservative network, entitling his plan “A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News”. However, it is naïve to just believe these are tactics of conservatives.
While MSNBC began as a liberal counterpart to Fox News, it shifted in a partisan direction due to the high ratings the network got in its criticism of the Bush II Administration. This was largely profitable for the network and led them to hire strong liberal figures such as Rachel Maddow to push this agenda further. CNN (or as Trump called it the ‘Clinton News Network’) now rivals MSNBC’s position as a liberal stalwart for news, with producers trying to increase audience share through further criticism of the Trump Administration and the composition of expert panels with individuals with polar-opposite ideologies, creating an environment for heated debate.
Besides television, social media has exacerbated societal divides, spreading misinformation that further intensified during the Trump era. Barack Obama was notably the first U.S. President to use social media, with his campaign utilising Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Myspace to convey policies and messages to supporters. Donald Trump, however, will go down in history as the first U.S. President to misuse social media to the extent that he has now been banned or suspended from all major social media outlets, including the removal of his infamous Twitter account. He has personally used his accounts to further provoke his already aggravated base and spread misinformation. When Trump’s accounts were suspended, online misinformation about the election plunged by 73%. However, Trump is just one cog in the machinery of politically-charged social media.
Politicians and extremists have utilised their accounts to spread misinformation and hate speech and to protect their own political interests. Facebook alone has had to increase its oversight of online content, removing 9.6 million hate speech posts in the first quarter of 2020, up from 2.5 million posts in the first quarter of 2018. A NewsGuard analysis by Kendrick McDonald also found that unreliable news on social media increased from 8% in 2019 to 17% in 2020. This was a result of higher use of Facebook due to COVID-19 and the presidential election.
All of the major political events mentioned in the previous section, albeit large, did not have unison national collaboration due to the absence of a rapid means of communication. This meant they were fragmented and localised. Social media now fills that void, and all sides of politics have utilised such tools of mobilisation to either inspire peaceful protests or incite mass violence. The Storming of the Capitol is evidence of this from the part of the Right. The Left have also utilised this tool through multiple protests in the early days of the Trump Presidency and with the Black Lives Matter Protests in 2020, with the latter resulting in over 14,000 arrests and over 20 people killed throughout the United States.
While the media has abetted in the polarisation of politics due to commercialisation and lack of social media regulation, we cannot overlook the increased spotlight that this President has enjoyed. Although this is difficult for the media to avoid due to the exceptional times we live in and the unorthodox approach of the outgoing administration, the constant spotlight put on President Trump as opposed to his predecessors has accelerated deepening rifts by evoking the delicate emotions and feelings of the American people who currently face unprecedented challenges.
III – CAPITOL RIOTS – WHO IS REALLY TO BLAME?
As previously mentioned, Trump concludes his term with the worst approval ratings of any outgoing president while hiding in the gold gilded cage of the White House due to the recent political violence. The Trump Administration did pledge to build a wall, but no one envisaged it would have been built to protect the beleaguered President and politicians from attack after the events of 6 January. This has overshadowed his previous four years, with the President to be remembered by history for this direct attack on American democracy along with an unprecedented second impeachment. However, discussion needs to be had on who besides Trump is to blame for inciting violence. We need to realise that the answer is not black and white and requires further analysis besides just casting blame on Trump.
This attack, the first breach of the Capitol since the burning of Washington in 1814 by the British Army, has been linked by most media organisations to extremism fuelled by questions over the legitimacy of the election. As reported in the mass media, this violence was mainly orchestrated by far-right extremist groups, including white supremacists. By way of historical background, roots of protest go back to Trump himself. On 18 December 2020, he tweeted the following:
“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”
This Tweet came after the Trump Campaign lost all major legal battles and failed in their quest to overturn electoral certifications in key swing state. Supporting Trump’s effort to demonstrate anguish against the electoral college count was Women for America First and their chairperson Amy Kremer. Kremer toured the country to encourage attendance at what became the Storming of the Capitol. Kremer’s calls for protest may not have directly caused the violence, but it is one example of Trump-allied organisations calling individuals to the Capitol to demonstrate against the legitimate election results. To make it worse, Kremer continued to reject the election results publicly. While Women for America First tweeted it’s dismay over the violence, Kremer criticised Vice President Pence for counting the electoral college votes and then rejected the Georgia Senate election’s legitimacy.
Kremer is merely one example of the rhetoric that contributed to the Storming. Many more organisations were also present and sparked the violence, including the Proud Boys who Trump told to “stand by” in his first debate against Joe Biden. Reports have now emerged that three days prior to the attacks, Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, sent a cryptic message to supporters that they should invade the Capitol. Investigations are also ongoing relating to Republican members of Congress who may have provided assistance, including Andy Biggs (Arizona), Mo Brooks (Alaska), and Paul Gosar (Arizona) who are denying claims they provided organisers reconnaissance tours. This shows us that Trump did not act alone in influencing and planning this event. He was supported by hundreds and thousands who assisted in calling for violence, albeit they merely mirrored his divisive rhetoric.
The United States Capitol has seen similar threats in the past. One of these was analysed in the Washington Post by Lauren Pearlman who reflected on the 1968 uprising in Washington D.C. Coordination between federal and local agencies resulted in plans to stop violence at the Capitol. During those riots, 15,000 people were arrested with only 13 deaths over the four days, with two at the hands of police. However, the Capitol Riots demonstrated a huge failure on the part of Capitol Police and law enforcement agencies to take seriously the threat posed by extremists. The lack of coordination among agencies allowed this assault on democracy to continue without as many barriers. Yet, it is not the police or law enforcement who are to blame. Those who were and continue to be stationed at the Capitol and in Washington D.C. should be commended for their service.
So far, we have multiple organisations and key members of Congress as potential points of blame for organising this insurrection. There are also key longer-term considerations as previously discussed, such as media coverage and growing polarisation. Regardless of all these factors or supposed causes, the rhetoric of the current president cannot be discounted in any way. While he made no direct call for violence, he did tell his supporters prior to the electoral college count to “fight like hell” and suggested the following:
“We’re going to walk down [to Congress]”… we’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”
This call was made to a part of the population who were already furious that their champion lost the presidency, who were being adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and who were thereafter being spurred on by a President who continued to incense their anger and frustration.
When considering who is to blame, there is one obvious answer. But it is much more complicated. There are countless to blame for the organisation of this horrific and truly saddening event. Even so, this was clearly inspired by the President himself, supported by allies and family, through a lack of care on his part to control his rapport and temperament, especially during such times when further incitement and inflaming of tensions would be highly unwise.
IV – RECOVERY AND LOOKING PAST TRUMP
President-Elect Biden will commence his term with the Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress, meaning it should be somewhat easier for the White House to pass their agenda in the first two years. Besides this, the experienced public servant has demonstrated a bipartisan record in Congress and as Vice President. However, Biden also begins his time in office facing a deeply divided America which is in need of unification and recovery, including:
- Restoration of faith in American democracy since the Capitol Riots;
- Federal plans regarding COVID-19 vaccine rollout and pandemic restrictions so to further protect Americans;
- Economic recovery projects to reinvigorate the U.S. economy; and
- Resolutions to controversial Trump era policies and executive orders that have further polarized the electorate.
Biden will not be rid of Trump anytime soon. The soon-to-be former President will still make major news headlines for the impeachment trial which also threatens to ruin Biden’s first one-hundred days in office. Such a shadow from previous single-term presidents has never really occurred in U.S. history. This has even hampered his plans prior to the inauguration, with Biden not receiving the media attention incoming presidents deserve, with journalists giving Trump’s misfortunes yet again another spotlight.
In order for America to move forward, it cannot look backwards. The White House and Congress need to continue with the important business of managing the country, especially during such turbulent and unprecedented times. The media needs to play a role in this as well, placing an onus on policy discussion and on the non-Trump agendas, ensuring that there is less chance of inciting violence or a false rhetoric regarding the legitimacy of the incoming administration.
American democracy is wounded – the bald eagle has been shot at – but the assailants have missed. It may be frazzled by the recent attack, but in the right environment, one of peace, calm and stability, it will regain its composure and strength.
