Stress testing American democracy

Even before the assassination attempt on candidate Donald Trump, headlines coming from the US were dominated by political violence, contentious Supreme Court decisions on the absolute immunity of the President, questions about President Joe Biden's fitness, and the looming issue of "Project 2025", a roadmap to a government takeover by fundamentalist conservatives. All this is unfolding against the backdrop of the upcoming presidential elections, which will have a global impact, regardless of the winner. To make sense of it all, we spoke with Professor Robert Harmsen, Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences at the University of Luxembourg, professor of Political Science, and current holder of the UNESCO Chair in Human Rights.

The interview was conducted on July 11th, three days before the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Questions regarding this new development were submitted and answered in written form.

Lëtzebuerger Journal: Looking at high-profile incidents like the attack on Paul Pelosi, the attack on Steve Scalise, the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and now the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, political violence, often referred to as "stochastic terrorism", seems to be a soberingly common reality in the US. Will this newest escalation deepen the divides, or serve as a wake-up call to tone down both the rhetoric and associated actions by individuals and movements?

Prof. Robert Harmsen: So far, I think that the predominant response has been in the direction of trying to calm down the tenor of political debate, with repeated calls for ‘national unity’, however defined. That has clearly been the line adopted by both Biden and Trump for whom such a statesman-like posture, beyond corresponding to an obvious national interest, also carries obvious political advantages. Trump’s speech to the Republican Convention in Milwaukee on Thursday evening will be a real litmus test in this regard.

Some more discordant voices have, however, also been heard. There have been attempts to use the assassination attempt to direct partisan advantage, notably on the conservative right (in both the US and Europe). One of the more notable examples of this was Senator J.D. Vance, prior to his nomination as Trump’s running mate. In this regard, Vance’s selection by Trump is itself a clear signal of a campaign that principally will seek to play to the base and not tack to the centre.

More generally, though prediction is always risky, I would not expect a recrudescence of violence during the campaign itself. I would be more worried about forms of (more or less violent) contestation of the results come November, which cannot be excluded.

What effect, if any, do you think will the attempt have on both the electoral campaigns and the election itself?

As noted above, the events will probably moderate campaign discourses somewhat, but won’t change the basic messaging on either side. I also don’t see that this will have much effect on the results in November. The electorate is highly polarised and voter preferences are very largely fixed. While the assassination attempt has no doubt elicited personal sympathy for Trump and still further mobilised an already highly mobilised base, it is unlikely to change many votes.

The real question rather remains that Biden and the Democrats are now clearly behind. Trump has opened up a still relatively small, but consistent lead in the polls both nationwide and in the key battleground states. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see either how Biden might close that gap or how he might be replaced (a discussion that has also dampened down in recent days). If Democrats cannot find a way to reverse the dynamic, they will lose the presidency – certainly in the electoral college, but also quite possibly in the popular vote as well (with knock-on implications for a large number of down ballot races for the House and Senate).