In a recent speech, Kamala Harris praised the late Republican Senator John McCain and former Senator Jeff Flake, even committing to include a Republican in her cabinet. In stark contrast, Donald Trump has called for deploying the National Guard and military against what he describes as "radical left lunatics" threatening chaos on election day.
It’s hard to argue that Trump is appealing to middle America; he remains the extremist in this race. Yet some might view his brand of extremism as a necessary antidote to the "politically correct" elite. The argument goes: why not dismantle the old America, even if it means allowing Trump to undermine his adversaries, benefit his allies, and politicize the federal government? What’s there to lose?
In reality, a lot. If you have a spouse, children, a home, a 401(k), or a job, the stakes are high when considering a candidate whose former top general described him as a dangerous fascist—an individual who seeks unchecked power over you and your property. America was founded as a counter to such authoritarianism. Its global dominance has been built on principles that prevent individuals from being victimized without consequence.
This foundational principle has attracted investments that enhance the value of your home, job, and retirement savings. The world trusts the U.S. dollar and invests in our stock markets precisely because we adhere to the rule of law. Have you noticed anyone eager to invest in countries led by Trump's authoritarian allies, like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un? The decline in foreign investment in China is largely due to the absence of rule of law, deterring investors wary of arbitrary governance—exactly what Trump has hinted he would impose on his opponents if elected.
Furthermore, Trump's extremist rhetoric is not merely harmless bravado. His fabrications, such as claims about FEMA neglecting Republican hurricane victims, have inspired dangerous actions, like militias hunting FEMA agents in North Carolina. Similar incidents arose from his misleading narratives about immigrants, resulting in community unrest in places like Aurora, Colorado, and Springfield, Ohio.
Is it accurate to assert that Trump’s tenure was more peaceful than Joe Biden's, despite ongoing conflicts abroad? Certainly, there are wars now in Ukraine and the Middle East, but what about the turmoil in the U.S. during Trump's presidency? If Biden is blamed for international conflicts, isn't Trump accountable for the violence in Charlottesville, where three people died and 35 were injured due to white supremacist actions? Shouldn’t he have intervened to prevent the injuries and deaths during the George Floyd protests, which also caused over a billion dollars in property damage? Furthermore, can he evade responsibility for the over one million American deaths attributed to his dismissal of COVID-19's dangers? And what about the incitement of an angry mob at the U.S. Capitol in 2021, leading to more than 140 injured police officers and multiple fatalities? Which scenario is more destabilizing for American families—domestic chaos or international strife?
In contrast, no one can rightfully attribute similar violence to Vice President Kamala Harris. Has she led an extremist campaign? Is she merely a diversity, equity, and inclusion advocate? Harris could have chosen a more ideologically extreme running mate, yet she selected Tim Walz, a middle-aged white former football coach and licensed hunter. She does not fit the extremist mold.
Perhaps you believe that Harris’s ambiguity renders her ineffective and that at least Trump is straightforward. Unfortunately, that clarity comes with serious consequences.
Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former complex litigation judge in Connecticut and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of *The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It*.
Comments
Post a Comment