Antonio Navalón
We have reached the end of a journey that, however you look at it, began in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided to annul some votes and accept others, giving George W. Bush the victory over Al Gore. On that occasion, the state of Florida decided the election by a razor-thin margin of 537 votes in one of the closest races in modern U.S. history.
Al Gore, Bill Clinton’s vice president and apostle of climate change, who warned that if we did not change, nature would change us, was left at the gates of the presidency by a judicial decision. Despite the tiny difference in votes, he accepted his defeat. He did so without attempting to retaliate nor to sabotage the validity or authority of the result issued by the highest legal instance of the country. As a true statesman and for the good of his nation, he preferred to take a step back to prevent uncertainty from affecting the political and legal functioning of the United States. Almost 25 years have passed since that historic election. At the speed with which history moves today – driven by the communications revolution and technological encroachment – this event may seem more distant than it really is.
George W. Bush was the first Supreme Court-elected president in the modern era. The first president of the YouTube era, with whom the communications revolution was already beginning to crystallize, was Barack Obama. And the first president to be a child of Twitter was Donald J. Trump. It is dangerous and wrong to think the global revolution affects only those who understand what is happening. The revolution of social networks, the virtual world, the inability to discern between truth and lies, and the ability to mobilize the masses not through demagoguery but through unrestrained rudeness that can lead to violent manipulations affecting us all. Despite the modern world’s problems, we have not yet been in a river of blood. However, current ethical, political, and social conditions make such a scenario possible.
Inevitably, just as we know that Barack Obama succeeded George W. Bush, we must accept that the upcoming November 5 election has characteristics of this new era that affect us all. Are we choosing between “Guatemala and Guatepeor”(Guatebad or Guateworse)? Will a second Trump term be the end of the democratic system? Trump is not only a populist politician who, against all odds, has already been president of the United States. He is accused of multiple crimes and convicted, even if the sentence has not yet materialized. In the coming weeks, Donald Trump is not only gambling with the possibility of returning to the Oval Office – with which he could once again manage his family’s resources – but he is also gambling with his freedom.
We live in strange times when it is difficult to establish objective criteria. It is not just a matter of asking politicians not to lie or steal—demands that seem impossible to comply with—but for societies to reflect on how they destroy their own systems by electing, through voting, what they later regret.
Will it be Trump, or will it be Harris? No sociological expert can predict with certainty the outcome. Moreover, how long will the moods of societies, which often seem to ignite with the fragility of a match, last? If there is no obligation to judge political performance with truth, why should we think these moods will last beyond a passing flare?
It is difficult to know where we stand sociologically. Latinos already constitute a significant minority in key presidential battleground states, and their vote could be decisive. There could be a tie, but the mobilization generated by Vice President Harris introduces big unknowns: how and how much will women and young people vote? In the Trump-Biden fight, many did not feel they had a candidate of their own. But who has financed the candidate this time? How does this mobilization, which seems as new as the one we experienced with Barack Obama in 2008, shape up sociologically?
The world has changed, but on November 6, the 800 US military installations worldwide will still be there. Armies and military capabilities will be as important today as they were in World War II. After the election, power will no longer depend only on economic and financial capacity, for the United States has a formidable competitor in China. However, if there were to be a confrontation, China’s internal structure could make them the hypothetical victors.
Regardless of who occupies the Oval Office, the fact remains that Mexico will continue to be the main internal security problem for the United States. None of the contenders can ignore that without solving Mexico’s problems, there will be no continuity for the United States. The worst that can happen is not an invasion or the presence of the U.S. military on Mexican streets, but that the battle against Mexican instability – today confused with the cartels – will intensify. Whoever the next president is, he or she will not be able to escape the need to understand how the cartels became co-owners of running the country.
If Trump wins on Nov. 5, he will confirm the theory that, in times of weakness, societies look for a strongman capable of blowing it all up but with the temperance to maintain control. If, on the other hand, Harris wins, it will be clear that societies are constantly looking for change and opt for the leader who most closely resembles the moment they are living in.
The coin is in the air, and the election is set to be a very close and controversial contest. I do not know what the world will be like from here on, but as a Mexican, I know that what is coming is the end of a cycle in which we will inevitably be among the most affected.
Further Reading: