The presidency is at stake but democracy also

Maurizio Viroli is Professor of Political Communication at USI, Professor Emeritus of Princeton University and Professor of Government at the University of Texas. We asked him for his views, starting with Donald Trump’s speech.

‘Trump spoke at 2.30 Eastern Time and his speech was judged, not by me, but by prominent representatives of the Republican Party with words like ‘ridiculous’, ‘foolish’ or even ‘wrong’. Why was he criticized so severely? In particular, for saying that votes that arrive in the mail shouldn’t be counted. It is one of the most serious sentences that can be uttered in the United States of America. Because American democracy is based precisely on the principle, reaffirmed in this case also by the governor of Pennsylvania, one of the states in which the count was more uncertain, that every vote must be counted and that every vote must count. Trump therefore offended this fundamental principle of democracy. But in him there is no concept of being defeated. It is not part of his mental experience.

The presidential elections are a question of victory or defeat, in fact. The word ‘victory’ was used several times by Trump himself in that speech.

‘In the face of the presidential elections, the key word is in fact victory, because it actually indicates the prevalence of one candidate over the other, of one side over the other. Another aspect has also been seen in these elections, the concern to see if American democracy will really win in the end or if it will be defeated. It’s not just Trump versus Biden. American democracy is involved here: will it stand up to its principles? There are therefore two open questions. And the second question is more important than the first. I have attended several US presidential elections. The idea is that, whether one or the other candidate wins, the Republic remains steadfast, with its rules, its institutions and its procedures. Faced with a president like Trump, institutional stability is in danger’.

How did Trump’s words come to the two Americas?

‘Here, that’s the concept. There are two Americas, two Americas that in fact no longer communicate with each other. For its constituents such a phrase counts for little or nothing, because - generalizing - they do not in fact have a republican conscience, they do not know the rules of democracy, but they look after two issues: work and taxes. Trump has generated jobs and lowered taxes. That’s enough. In fact, there has been no erosion of consensus. For the Democrats, or rather the liberals, as they say in America, such a phrase is offensive, a scandal, but nothing new. Trump’s opponents know Trump’.

‘In case of victory, well, that’s fine. In case of defeat, he will say that he has been robbed, that there has been electoral fraud and that he will refer to the Supreme Court. In cases of conflict, disputes over the vote, the Supreme Court of the individual State decides in the first instance, while the National Supreme Court can decide in the second instance. In this case we keep in mind that currently the budget is 6 to 3, six republican judges and three liberal’.

Joe Biden closed his speech with the concept: ‘Have faith, as my grandmother always said’. Opposing worlds. Yet two sides of the same coin?

‘There is a gulf between a man like Trump and a man like Biden. However, they are both Americans. Biden’s America, just like Obama’s America and even before that of the Kennedys, is America as much was the America of Nixon, the America of the Bushes and as is that of Trump. Anthropologically, a Nixon and a Kennedy are two figures who, both seated at the table, facing each other, would not even have spoken, or perhaps would have been offended. America is a country of very deep contrasts, which can reach the point of incommunicability. However, I must observe that Biden has taken up in this sense too late Obama’s rhetoric of being a unifying force. Speaking more often, and earlier, of the need to unite America, taking up Obama’s ‘Not Red States or Blue States but the United States’

Ultimately what will remain of this day?

‘To paraphrase the American commentators: too early to tell. There are two scenarios. Trump wins, the country remains divided by acrimony and mutual contempt, then he will do as always what he wants. Vince Biden, we’re going to be dealing with Trump’s appeal, so a very dangerous transition period. A transition that we would however experience with a certain confidence because at that point a third figure would become decisive, the president of the United States House of Representatives, namely Nancy Pelosi’.

From the point of view of communication, which aspect struck you most?

‘At USI and in my Political Communication course, we will offer a series of speeches on these elections. Let me give you a summary of the contents: Trump’s political communication was more effective, and by effective, we mean something technical, the ability to respond to the expectations of their supporters, to tell them the words they want to hear. Trump was perfect, even yesterday. Had he not presented himself in that aggressive, vulgar and crude form, he would have lost consensus’.