[ad_1]
The part of the debate between Trump and Biden that must worry and worry the world is the last. For the first time in the history of the United States, a candidate, or rather an outgoing president, makes it clear before the vote that it is not at all obvious that he will accept the result. Among the unspecified news of the ballots, they obviously voted for Trump, found in a single basket from a single state and muttering about the fraud already underway, Trump essentially said what, on the pages of the Corriere, we had feared weeks ago: the possibility. of a stagnation in the fundamental electoral mechanism that governs American democracy. Failure to concede victory would be an absolute novelty in more recent American history. A tragic novelty. Because it would take place in a climate of extreme radicalization, of which the debate was a disturbing and distressing mirror. And it would take place at the heart of a double global crisis, dictated by the pandemic and its devastating economic and social consequences. If the United States stagnated, if Trump supporters, now organized into militias, took to the field to protect their president at all costs, the world, starting with the markets, would fibrillate in a dangerous way.
Trump attacked Biden head on, head on (here the stain from the presidential debate). seemed to be looking for a vote against. Definitely a winning strategy when faced with a challenge, harder to sustain when you’ve been in the Oval Office for four years. He praised himself, amid blatant lies and blatant omissions, to the point of blatantly asserting that there was never a president who did what I did. With all due respect to Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and many more recent. Among those, there are articles from the summer of 2015 to testify, which predicted Trump’s victory in the Republican primary and his election to the White House.
But now something is wrong. I think I’ve seen all the televised presidential debates. In engraving the famous Kennedy – Nixon and from contemporary knowledge all subsequent ones, from Ford – Carter to the present day. I have never seen a show similar to last night. A fight was aired and Trump displayed, from the get-go, an aggression that could certainly galvanize his most extreme supporters, but he seems, as an outgoing president, more of an expression of weakness than of security. On the other hand, Trump came to the debate tested by the New York Times revelations about his tax bills and by the confusion, bordering on denial, with which he faced the pandemic that is hitting the United States. Biden, as expected, never struck down, despite the wealth of argument and the vulnerability of the opponent at his disposal. Apparently the television is not his size. The most effective choice was to address often, with his eyes and words, directly at the spectators rather than at his opponent. But you could tell he wasn’t calm, he wasn’t sure. Despite this, according to a CNN poll, six out of ten viewers would have won the challenge.. Not said that, as we should never trust polls. Clinton was also judged the winner in televised clashes with Trump, but then, despite the primacy in the popular vote, she lost the presidency.
The United States vote has something more complex. However, at the end of the confrontation, there remains the feeling of a president forced to violently attack his rival, to use an aggressive, excessively aggressive technique. And unable even to condemn white supremacism and its extreme theories. Another fact that distinguishes the modest debate on Tuesday night from the others is the complete absence of foreign policy. As if the United States had now taken refuge in its lair, “America First”, and decided to abdicate the leadership role of the Western world. Globalization, the new geopolitical balances, the technological revolution, the transformation of work and social classes, education have been completely left out of the shouts and insults that clouded the Cleveland night.
Two Americas have emerged, perhaps never so irreconcilable as today. This should also make theorists think about overcoming political and value differences. But their moods have been felt, more than ideas, more than programs. More convulsions than dreams. The impression is that of a stagnant countryparalyzed by politics and tones alien to its tradition. With good news. The New York Times investigation and the objective way in which a reporter from Fox, a network close to Trump, conducted the debate, confirms us that the American press remains, to a large extent, a factor of democratic balance.
The question from which we started remains, sharpened by Trump’s explicit admission in the final part of the debate. Will the United States be able to have a duly elected president in five weeks? If the outcome of the electoral trends is not obvious, and it is not, what should concern everyone in the world is the risk of a democratic crisis in that country. If it happens, the consequences, for the lives of all of us, could be truly dramatic.
September 30, 2020 (change September 30, 2020 | 11:41)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
[ad_2]
