(Dys)functional America?

By Miljan Vešović

Some years ago, at the time of the migrant crisis, Brexit and independence referenda in Scotland and Catalonia, a joke circulated in our region that, instead of the Balkans being integrated into Europe, the Europe was balkanized. The events of the last weeks and months suggest that the joke is on the US as well.

Indeed, even the cursory perusing of the media about the situation in the US can tell us that it doesn’t look good. The main presidential candidates are an eighty-year-old whom the opposition accuses of using his influence to help his son's business dealings and a seventy-seven-year-old against whom four separate court proceedings are being conducted for serious felonies. The Congress hasn’t been operational for several weeks because the Republicans (who have the majority) cannot agree among themselves who will be the Speaker of the House. Protests by supporters and opponents of Palestine or Israel alternate in large cities, and a huge number of migrants cross the Mexican-American border every day like the said border simply wasn’t there.

For a long time, since the beginning of the second decade of this century, the political discourse in the USA has also been "balkanized". Republicans and Democrats sling previously unthinkable insults at each other. Bipartisanship is no longer a desirable outcome. Populist, "anti-establishment" politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are at the peak of popularity.

It is possible to point out three important reasons why the things stand like that.

Firstly, the political (and, narrowly speaking, electoral) system of the USA, based on electing candidates first in primaries and only then in general elections, helps the "hardliners". This is because a candidate, in order to even have a chance to compete for office, must first satisfy the party base in the primary. And by the nature of things, the party base is much more “hard line” than the general electorate.

Secondly, technological development has caused that people in general, and American voters (keeping in mind that the USA is one of the most technologically developed countries) in particular, are exposed to an information overload. The human brain is not able to process that amount of information, so "filtering" is necessary. This filtering is usually done on the basis of political orientation - those media and profiles on social networks that are closest in terms of views are listened to, read and followed. This gives the power to those media not only to influence the formation of opinions about social phenomena, but also to prioritize policies for their audiences.

Here a prosaic example - an average Republican, who follows the right-leaning media and commentators on Musk's X (formerly Twitter) will read much more about the crisis on the Mexico-US border than about Trump's refusal to concede defeat in the 2020 elections and his attempt to change the outcome. On the other hand, an average Democrat who follows left-leaning media and commentators will hear much more about abortion than about the fact that some Democrats support Hamas.
Thirdly, the so-called "culture wars" also contributed to pronounced political polarization in the USA. Ever since the 1960s, the ideas of political liberalism at that time (racial and gender equality, "sexual revolution", "positive discrimination", openness to diversity, etc.) have become dominant in the political discourse. Out of conviction or necessity, conservative politicians also accepted them to a greater or lesser extent. However, these days a lot of people share the conviction that liberalism has gone too far.

The following phenomena were particularly criticized: hypersensitivity to perceived (often contested or hyperbolized) discrimination (the so-called "woke" culture); teaching that racism in the USA is "systemic" and one of the purposes of the existence of institutions, and not caused by the behavior of racist individuals/groups (the so-called "critical race theory"); the application of political correctness at every opportunity and the use of gender-sensitive language even in situations where it really sounds absurd (for example, saying "pregnant person" instead of "pregnant woman") and cases when individuals who do not adhere to these rules have been subjected to a kind of social isolation ("cancel culture").

The negative impact of these phenomena not only on internal politics, but also on national security has also been pointed out. There are opinions that ideologies such as "critical race theory" were in fact deliberately disseminated by Russian and Chinese "agents of influence" in order to weaken social cohesion in the USA and erode trust in its institutions.

These phenomena, combined with a general decline of trust in the US federal government and politicians in general (which has been more or less a constant on the US political scene since the "Watergate" affair) caused a fierce anti-establishment backlash that, among other things, was crucial for the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 elections.

The problem can arise, however, when the so-called "anti-establishment" politicians go too far to the other extreme and threaten/challenge those achievements of liberalism or institutions that are proven to work well and, therefore, also weaken social cohesion. Election denialism or relativization of the actions of racist and ultra-right-wing individuals or groups, to which conservative-oriented politicians sometimes resort, also fall into the same category,

The situation is further complicated by external factors that are quite unfavorable for the US. The American economy felt the consequences of the Covid pandemic, Russian aggression in Ukraine, the growing threat of terrorism and constant crises in the Middle East. Pronounced inflation, a sharp rise in gas and real estate prices made the average American voter's perception of the state of the economy quite negative. This despite the fact that economic indicators speak of stabilization, slowing of inflation and falling unemployment. However, these positive effects have not yet made the citizens’ pockets deeper.

All of this has the effect that the Biden administration, Congress, the Supreme Court and also the Republican Party and former President Trump have, according to almost all polls, a negative approval rating. Moreover, the majority of those surveyed would not like Trump and Biden to be presidential candidates, but prefer that both of them go into political retirement and thus give a chance to other, preferably younger, candidates.

However, the general electorate is one thing, and voters in primaries are another. And in the primaries, as things stand now, the matter is clear - a convincing majority of the Democrats will vote for the current President, and a convincing majority of the Republicans for former President Trump. Provided that this remains so and that these two are also formally nominated as presidential candidates, it can be estimated that Biden still has a better chance of winning. For two main reasons.

Firstly, in a situation where both main parties register an increase in the popularity of the "hard" left (Democrats) or the right wing (Republicans), the Democratic Party still shows a greater ability to act in a unified fashion. This was clearly seen through the election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Unlike the Republicans, that, at the time of writing, still haven't decided who their candidate is, the Democrats are united around the minority leader, Congressman Jeffries. In political conditions where the electorate is "bombarded" by both parties with catastrophic scenarios and slander campaigns aimed at opposing candidates, it is natural that those voters who are not clearly party profiled (and there are a very large number of independents the USA) prefer the "lesser evil" - an option that seems to them to be more stable and safer. And for now, it's still Biden and the Democrats.

The other reason is much more prosaic - Trump will effectively lose his candidacy and the presidential race if he is convicted of any of the crimes he is accused of. This despite the fact that the regulations do not prohibit him from running for office or being President, even if he is convicted. However, practically speaking, the situation that someone leads the USA and the free world from a jail cell is probably unimaginable. In addition, if he is convicted, Trump's argument that the charges against him are in fact persecution by political opponents will be largely moot. It is one thing when someone is prosecuted by a Democrat prosecutor. It is another thing when that same person is convicted by a jury of his peers.

What is significant, however, is the fact that, throughout history, the USA and its system have managed to overcome much more serious challenges than the ones they are facing now. Also, precisely because of the strength and rootedness of the institutions, as well as because of the federal organization of the state, the USA has been designed to successfully absorb political and social divisions. Most of the issues that directly affect the average voter, and therefore burden them the most, are resolved at the state level, not at the federal level. The ferocity that Americans sometimes display in political debates is more akin to an angry discussion between fans of two rival football clubs than to a prelude to a civil war.

The vast majority of Americans, whatever their political views, have a more or less entrenched opinion that they live in one of the best places in the world, and they are aware of the importance of this. It is precisely the "glue" that holds the USA together and something that makes the country stable and functional. As long as the situation is like this, it is unlikely that social cohesion in the US and political stability will be seriously threatened.