In 1776, during the early days of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet entitled “The Crisis.” Upon rereading this pamphlet, I was struck by its relevance to the Crisis we face in the presidential election of 2024.
The Crisis was written in the early days of the revolution when the outcome was in doubt. The revolutionary army, such as it was, was a ragtag group of volunteers as compared the the might of the professional British army and navy.
In the winter of 1776, after having suffered several defeats at the hands of the British, including the loss of New York City, Washington’s army was encamped at McKonkey’s Ferry on the banks of the Delaware River. From August to December 1776, Washington’s army lost 11,000 of his volunteers who just gave up the fight and went home.
Paine’s pamphlet was his attempt to raise the morale of the remaining soldiers and elicit the support of the general public to continue our revolution.
When I thought about it, I came to believe that there were parallels from Paine’s time to ours. Ignoring the clash of arms (so far), the revolution was a clash of two competing views: the patriots who believed in liberty and self-rule, and the Whigs and Tories who supported the rule of elites from a far away place that was imposed on the inhabitants of the American colonies.
To put it in more modern terms, it was a contest between a tipping point and an inflection point. Before the eruption of hostilities, the American colonists urged the continued following of inflection points during our growth where the new nation could follow its own path, gradually traveled with an opportunity to correct course as needed.
Little did we initially understand that our Revolutionary War was not just a tipping point in our history but as it turned, world history as well.
The British regarded the Declaration of Independence as a tipping point, the outcome permanently and severely affecting the two sides, without much if any chance of returning to the status quo ante.
In 1776, the conflict was between two sides, one that wanted a recognition and expansion of liberty rights, free from the invisible hand of unseen elites; the other side sought to impose its will on the political, economic, and property rights in disregard of the impact on those effected.
I see the Election of 2024 in much the same way – a political conflict between those who seek to defend their liberty interests gained by a series of inflection points throughout our history, versus those who would turn this election into a tipping point in the creation of a new and harsher society from which there would be no clear or easy path back.
Yes, the choices are that stark. And yes, I believe that we can prevail against the dark forces of money and power that would transform American society into one that many of us would not want to live in.
In many respects, Paine speaks to us today:
“THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”
Many of us are anxious about the outcome of the November 5 vote. One major candidate, Kamala Harris, is running to preserve our democratic traditions and the rule of law. She has run an expansive and inclusive campaign, not only coalescing the members of her party but also reaching out to members of the other major party. She not only has the support of Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen, but also Liz and Dick Cheney.
The other major candidate, Donald Trump, is antithetical to our democratic principles and traditions, and the rule of law. It is beyond contestation that he conspired and directed the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Since that time, he has continuously sowed doubt about commonly proven and accepted facts. He has worked to systematically destroy public confidence in our governmental institutions. He, along with his running mate, has run a hate-fueled, racist, and misogynistic campaign.
Harris seeks to bring Americans together; Trump seeks to divide Americans. Harris trades in facts; Trumps trades in lies.
Just over the past few days we have seen this contrast regarding disaster relief to millions of victims of two major weather events. Harris has worked to support the first responders and local officials in the affected states. Trump has lied, stating that the federal government has no money to support these storm victims because the money was spent in support of immigrants.
Trumps’s lies were rebutted by state and congressional officials from the accepted states. Each official has given full throated support for the federal government’s action.
Well maybe not all officials. A congressperson from Georgia claimed that the government had the ability to create and direct the paths of hurricanes. She enjoys the support of thousands, and she fully supports Trump. Trump’s response to her comments was crickets.
As evidence that words have consequences, it was reported that due to threats from armed “militia” units (i.e., thugs cosplaying “patriots”) in North Carolina, several FEMA offices had to close and move in order to continue their vital relief efforts.
‘Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them…Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world.”
The United States has been in an evolving panic since the mid-1960s, if not earlier. Incrementally, we have seen divisions over race, gender, and wealth. Those with privilege (e.g., white, male, economically stable) fended off those who sought to close the expanse of the racial, gender, and economic divide.
This process was seen as a zero-sum game, one where those with societal, cultural, and economic privilege would lose so that others might might gain. Those who sought justice for the marginalized and disenfranchised argued that greater participation would expand the economic pie and create a more just and equitable society.
These arguments that began sixty years ago continue today. Because of policies of those in public office that were more sympathetic to supporting the status quo, the gaps between those with privilege and who sought a more egalitarian society widened.
Those who benefited from those policies, especially the economic policies that made them wealthier, were happy to continue down that path.
Those who didn’t benefit from those policies, especially economic policies, became increasingly angry and resentful. They saw their lives becoming more difficult, their standards of living more tenuous, and their opportunities in an ever-changing society becoming more limited by the year.
Feeling left behind by a country that they felt treated them unfairly, people became increasingly angry over the years. And if someone’s angry, there must be a target for their anger. Targets ranged from cultural values, to immigrants, to race, to gender, to sexual orientation, and to political philosophy.
Over time, people felt that their lives were becoming less stable, more tenuous. Many of life’s moments began to be viewed as threats. Everyday concerns became threats. And economically it was easy to see why – a couple of years ago a study found that 40% of American households had savings of $400 or less. Clearly people had fewer resources to meet a medical emergency or even a basic car repair.
Meanwhile what was also true was that corporate CEOs annually earned anywhere between 180%-240% more than their average employee. And over time that employee saw his standard of living eroding because his wages were stagnant while the costs of goods and services annually increased.
Add to that the wealth gap between those economically advantaged and those economically disadvantaged rivals the gap during the age of the “Robber Barons” of the 1880s – 1890s.
In any transition from an “old” economy to a “new” economy, casualties are inevitable. Our transition from an old manufacturing economy to a new service and high skills manufacturing economy was no different.
These casualties saw their jobs offshored to a cheaper labor pool, they saw themselves competing against women and persons of color for the new service jobs, discovered that their skill sets were unsuited for these new jobs, and discovered that the jobs they were able to obtain paid much less than they earned before the transition.
Falling further behind others in this new economy, competing against persons they had never competed against in the past, too often living in once thriving but now deteriorating communities with too many factories, businesses, and houses boarded up, these folks became what FDR termed the “forgotten man.”
But unlike Roosevelt and his New Deal, there was no relief in sight. In fact, too many people living in too many communities felt unseen and unheard.
The fire of resentment and increasing anger smoldered each year waiting for the spark that would ignite it into a roaring blaze. And that spark came in the form of an increasingly available internet.
In its early years, the internet was intended to be a boon to the dissemination of information to the public. Each year, more information was posted and available to anyone with access to a computer.
No longer would information and knowledge be the province of educated elites. No longer would closed off, isolated communities be deprived of access to the wider world. News and information from everywhere in the country and the world at large would be available to all! It was the dawning of a new democratization of America.
Until it wasn’t.
Calling the internet the “Wild West” was a poor analogy. The internet was far more dangerous than Dodge City or Tombstone. Sources of “information” exponentially grew each year. And contrary to the hosannas sung to the new “democratization” of America, not all information sites were equal.
Some sites traded in verifiable, sourced, factual information. Others not so much. And still others became hostile actors, providing propaganda and deliberate and malicious misinformation that would eventually seep its way into the minds of these forgotten people.
Those who felt left behind, who in another age did precisely what was asked of them by their families, their communities, and their country had questions: was I at fault for this; and if not, who was?
There were too many bad actors on the web who were eager to supply the answers. To question number one, no, the plight of these folks was not their fault. Their plight was caused by – fill in any of the rightwing’s favorite subjects…. And seeking answers that confirmed their already established biases, more people turned away from proven legitimate sources of information.
These web sites and the expansion of cable services provided a platform for any individual or group with an agenda posing as legitimate news outlets to stoke the heat in the existing smoldering fire. All it took was someone to light the fuse to start the conflagration.
And down the golden escalator he came. The unlikely savior of those forgotten and left behind.
Forget that this savior of the downtrodden was a person of wealth and privilege. Forget that based on his experience he was totally unqualified for the job he sought – the presidency. Forget that at best he had a very long arm’s distance from truth and facts. And forget that he exhibited anti-democratic authoritarian traits as he sought to lead the world’s greatest democracy.
None of that mattered to the expanding cohort of his supporters. All that mattered was that Donald J. Trump hated the same people and things that his supporters hated.
There is no need to rehash the four years of his presidency, his attempt to subvert a free or fair election, or his actions during the past four years of his post-presidency. Trump’s rage and resentments, his grievances and victimhood not only held his supporters in his camp, but to a large degree radicalized them.
There has long been an authoritarian strain in American politics. Since the First World War to present, this strain becomes more visible and active. Trump is the most recent and dangerous iteration of that strain.
For all their talk of democracy and patriotism, Trump’s supporters don’t care that their champion is the most anti-democratic candidate ever to seek the presidency, and a candidate with an affinity for authoritarian leaders of other countries. Their pretenses to patriotism are empty when they betray the very principles and institutions upon which this country was built.
They care only that he hates who they hate.
Paine continues: Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave…Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave…It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.
Substitute “Tory” and “Toryism” with “Trump” and “MAGA” and see how the above passage reads.
As Americans, we are blessed to be able to vigorously debate and argue about proposed and enacted public policies. Sometimes these arguments/debates can get a little heated, or so I’m told. This happens in our families, in our communities, and in person or on the internet.
But in the heat of verbal warfare, each side wants the government to support our views. If we are honest brokers, and most of us are, there isn’t even a hint that if the government doesn’t support our views, we have a right to change the very nature, structure and rules of our government.
We have processes to affect governmental policies. We can openly debate, publish our views in any forum available, and we can vote to either elect or keep those officials who share our views or vote the rascals down who don’t.
We do this because we know in our souls that there will be no official retribution for sharing unpopular opinions. And we know that if we fail, we can always go back and try again in the next election or the next one or the one after that.
This is the process that keeps us free. It’s what some call Madisonian democracy, where robust exchanges are not merely welcome but are necessary to maintain the integrity of our governmental institutions.
In this election, there are those who do not value the diversity of opinions, the give and take of democracy, or the electoral processes.
In this election, Donald Trump, his MAGA movement, along with his seen and unseen benefactors see elections as the means to seize power. Donald Trump does not see the presidency as a public trust, he sees the presidency as a seat of unparalleled power from which he can reward a favored few, punish his opponents, and I hate to be the first to tell them – ignore MAGA.
As Bob Dylan sung many years ago: “For the politician's gain, As he rises to fame, And the poor white remains, On the caboose of the train, But it ain't him to blame, He's only a pawn in their game.” Although written in response to the assassination of Medgar Evers in 1964, these lyrics apply to how the MAGA masses are being used – as pawns in Trump’s and his cronies’ game.
For all the issues discussed and qualifications scrutinized, this election must resolve the one overlapping issue that makes all scrutiny and discussions possible – the preservation of our imperfect and sometimes maddening democracy. We are a country evolving, we are not a finished product.
Nor are we a chosen society, blessed by the divinity. We are a society of people, bumbling forward, learning as we go, making mistakes, but slowly and incrementally making progress. We have a set of ideals that we have yet to achieve. But we’re trying, we’re a work in progress.
That progress ends with the election of Donald Trump. He tried to change our electoral, governmental, and cultural order to achieve only one goal – his maintaining power.
If you support our democracy, if as Paine wrote in that 1776 winter your heart is firm and your conscience approves that this democracy is worth preserving, if you believe that these principles are worth preserving even at huge personal costs, you have only one choice in this election.
I hope you’ll join me and many of my friends and family and vote for Kamala Harris to become the 47th President of these United States of America. And save democracy.
Comments