The Road to the US Elections: What is on the Ballot, and What to Look Forward to

November 5th is the day of the US elections! And I’ll be honest, I thought at this point on the Road to the US Elections we’d be reflecting on the lighter matters; like the success in President Trump’s campaign: his 15-minute job at a fast-food franchise, the garbage truck response to Biden’s remarks – just really all the key and hilariously notable and amusing moments in the election, because beyond the comical and cheerful impact, they certainly reveal an important shift in the dynamics between politicians and voters – which we certainly will address at a given time. But, it appears more pertinent to highlight what is at stake in these elections, and of course what to look forward to – especially for people who are yet to make a decision, or even those who believe they are libertarians, but are no longer trusting of Democrats to be the party that champions libertarian ideals. With tomorrow being November 5th, I’d like kindly to take this opportunity to talk more to this demographic.
WHO DO YOU TRUST TO UPHOLD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?
During the Global Special Prayer Day for the US with the highly esteemed Pastor Benny, he told a story about his journey immigrating to the US (he was born in Israel, then immigrated to Canada and then to the US); and he mentions that he had to memorise the Constitution of the US when immigrating to the US. Then he said something striking: he said, “Only God could have moved the founders to write a document like that.” And when you think about what is encapsulated in the US constitution, and how America is set up as a constitutional republic, and note a mere democracy, you understand the gravity of these words from Pastor Benny.
In particular, the rights enshrined in the US constitution have a protectionist mandate, which is to say they are aimed at preventing an abuse of power by the government, and further legislate inalienable rights and freedoms. This includes the first amendment which protects free speech, and then additional provisions, such as when Congress passed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing slavery, before the Civil War had ended; and then the 14th and 15th amendments, which established the citizenship and suffrage of African Americans, and other races – all taking place in the 1860s. What these amendments and provisions show is that the US constitution is based on the recognition that: (1)firstly, there are certain inalienable rights that should bind all in a country; and (2) secondly that a government can be the antagonist against its people, thus necessitating the establishment of laws that would bind any government to uphold the inalienable rights of the people.
With tomorrow being election day, here’s a question to ask yourself if you have not already cast your vote in the early voting period: who do you trust to uphold the US constitution? This abridged context and interpretation of the US constitution highlights that there are essential values on the ballot and inalienable rights that are also on the ballot. Constitutional republicanism – which is aimed at preventing the tyranny of the majority – is also on the ballot. Really, the essential and constructive foundational principles and values of the US are on the ballot. So who do you trust to uphold them?
THE LEFT CLAIMS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS A THREAT TO THE COUNTRY
I think it is not a mistake that constitutional provisions and values are associated with the Right. Many people on the left, including prominent democrats, like Elon Musk also mentioned, are incredibly anti-constitution!
The New York Times even had a publication arguing that the US constitution is dangerous – in fact the writer of the article, known as Jennifer Szalai, went so far as to say the Constitution can be considered one of the “biggest threats” to the country. And among the reasons given for this claim is that Jennifer Szalai argues that “The United States Constitution is in trouble” due to the fact that former President Donald Trump was able to become president through the Electoral College.
Let’s talk about this. So, in essence, in the United States, the Electoral College is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years during the presidential election for the sole purpose of voting for the president and vice president. The process is described in Article Two of the Constitution. The number of electoral votes exercised by each state is equal to that state’s congressional delegation which is the number of Senators plus the number of Representatives for that state. And so, the US has a direct vote, where citizens vote for the president, and also the electoral college, where the presidential electors also make a vote, representing the choice from their state. Well, the electoral college gets a lot of criticism, but when you understand why it was created and enshrined in the constitution you realise the constructive reasoning behind it.
And the reason it was enshrined in the constitution is that when the Electoral College was created, James Madison hoped it would avoid the silencing of minority opinions by an overly influential majority. Madison worried that factions might arise within the country that would harm the nation as a whole. He believed that these factions could be kept in check by making the election of the president representative rather than direct. For those who support the Electoral College, the system is crucial to maintaining the rights of individual states, specifically states with smaller populations. And so, defenders of the Electoral College argue that this system stabilises the nation and prevents big city populations from dominating national elections. In essence, the electoral college prevents the tyranny of the majority – it serves as a check and balance to the majoritarian inclinations of generic democracies.
Then secondly, critics of the electoral college also point to swing states as an example of why the process does not truly represent the will of the voters. Many political analysts, politicians, and voters have asserted that candidates often focus their time, money, and effort on only a few swing states. Meanwhile, they argue, candidates pay little attention to those states that have a history of always supporting the Democratic or Republican candidate, thus ignoring the individual interests of many voters. But, this is neither true nor inherently bad. First, parties and candidates understand the importance of retaining the states they have already won because that factors into their win. This is why candidates do not skip over these states but rather campaign there as well. However, candidates also are supposed to be tactical and take into consideration a strategy for the effective distribution of resources; and so, yes, they will try to win swing states – the comparative benefit of this is that it heightens competitiveness and the duty for a presidential candidate to articulate good policies, in order to gain the win against another candidate. In the absence of this, we have candidates that are comfortable with the guaranteed votes they will likely receive. And if those votes come from states with bigger populations, then the will of the people in the smaller states ceases to have an impact.
So, once again, this shows that the US Constitution required a great deal of divine inspiration for it to be put together the way it has. It does not erase the direct vote, it serves as a check and balance to abstract democracy, which creates a tyranny of the majority. And – honestly – the real reason for heightened opposition to the electoral college is because Trump beat Hillary Clinton by a significant margin through the electoral college in 2016, and likely will beat Kamala Harris in similar lines; but at least NYT writer Jennifer Szalai was honest about that.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT PROGRESSED FROM ANTI-CONSTITUTION RHETORIC
But, having refuted the Democrats claim about this alleged danger of the US Constitution, although it is not the only one they have referred to (in fact we’ve discussed this previously in light of the first and second amendment); I’d also like to signify where this anti-constitution rhetoric from the left and democrats stems from, through an analogy, borrowing from South Africa’s political landscape. In South Africa, the Democratic Alliance party has never won a majority in the national elections, and they may not for a while. The reason is that it comes from an understanding and argument from especially Black South Africans that it takes more than a rebrand or a public relations project to change the foundational tenets of an organisation. This is because the Democratic Alliance, which was formed in the year 2000 actually came through the merger of the Democratic Party, Federal Alliance, and the New National Party; AND the New National Party was the successor of the National Party). Now, the National Party, which was founded in 1914, was the party which ruled the country from 1948 to 1994. Its following included most of the Dutch-descended Afrikaners and many English-speaking whites. The National Party was long dedicated to policies of apartheid and white supremacy, but by the early 1990s it had moved toward sharing power with South Africa’s Black majority.
In light of this historical context on how the Democratic Alliance party came about – not only has it made Black South Africans less trusting of it; but the works of the DA party prove its segregation foundations. 30 years into the democratic dispensation, but the DA is still known for segregated development and racialised service delivery. For instance, in the beautiful city of Cape Town, the Democratic Alliance has predominantly won that city and overall the province of the Western Cape. From history you’d know that Cape Town is where the Dutch colonists arrived, and many of them predominantly set up shop there. But, driving in from the airport, one of the places you will see is what is really an enclave of black South Africans that was created by the Apartheid regime. Khayelitsha was established in 1985, when the Apartheid regime forcefully relocated people from the growing black population around the city. Today Khayelitsha has a population of approximately 2.4 million, of which 90.5% are Black African. And despite the picturesque vineyards and beaches and beautiful houses in Cape Town, many residents and Kayelitsha still live in shacks and have to walk 200 metres to access clean water. You see the same thing in the municipalities then win in the Kwa-Zulu Natal province.
I bring up this analogy to say that just because democrats have rebranded themselves as a liberal party that supports the rights and freedoms of all, does not mean the foundational tenets of the organisation, which prompted the party to defend slavery have changed. This is why, today, the democrats have instituted modern day slavery through immigrant smuggling and trafficking enabled by their handling of the border and immigration crises. This is why today over 300,000 immigrant children are missing under Kamala Harris’ border tzar reign. This is also why Democrats have the gall to say free speech should be conditional? And also why even the people of colour in the organisation, like Barack and Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris essentialise racial and gender segregation – it is what they are built on, and what they continue to propagate in the Biden-Harris administration!
ADDRESSING THOSE YET TO DECIDE WHO TO VOTE FOR, AND LIBERTARIANS
This then brings us to the people yet to make a decision, and the libertarians who have been taught to believe that democrats champion the values of liberty; but are no longer convinced that they can trust democrats. At the same time, a number (but certainly not all of you) equally express the concern that you are perhaps not won over by Trump’s personality or his remarks. In addition, you may not believe that his policies cater to all Americans, especially those who are not conservative.
Firstly, I will state categorically that you are entitled to vote for who you think is the best choice. However, I’d like to speak to the information you consider. For instance, today, we’ve established that Democrats have not changed the foundational tenets of the party that have been against liberty for all, hence their policies today are just modernised versions of what they stood for in the past, like when they supported slavery. We see this also in how Democrats in the present have a conditional approach to inalienable rights where they want them to apply to those who agree with them – which is basically a dictatorship. Well, if you share this concern, I’d like to highlight that you are not the only person who has had this critique of the Democrat party.
What this means, in essence, is that Democrats are no longer the party of the people. They do not champion your rights and liberties, they champion corporate and globalist interests at the expense of the will of the people. Think about it: did you imagine that the same Democrat Party that says women have boldly autonomy to choose what they do with their body would also coerce you to take COVID jabs that are revealed to have been a bio-weapon? Would the democrat party that says it cares about the middle class spend billions on wars, resulting in inflation, and at the expense of domestic issues? Would the democrat party that said civil liberties are for all co-opt social media companies to censor speech? It certainly would not – except that was never the essence of the party.
Then on Trump’s policy, for those yet to decide and the libertarians, who have been taught to believe that Trump will end democracy – ask yourself, who has defended inalienable liberties (like free speech), enshrined in the US constitution, for ALL? Even on abortion: Trump could have taken the stance to ban abortion because he does not agree with it – but he DID NOT! Instead, he gave the people in states the right to make these laws, because he understands that people in different states are not homogeneous. So, kindly ask yourself if you can trust Kamala Harris (a candidate from an administration that weaponised the institutions of the country against a political opponent) to protect your liberties? And part of the consideration is this: do you trust that you will not be at the receiving end of the subjective applications and manipulations of the law by an administration led by someone like Kamala Harris?
Then, finally, on Trump’s personality and remarks. First, most of the heinous things Trump allegedly said are the consequence of cherry-picked sentiments, where the context is removed, and also video manipulation – they do the same thing for Kamala Harris, but only to try to make her look good, or make it look like she answered a question directly. This is actually why Trump is suing CBS news, following the infamous ‘60 Minutes’ interview that was edited. Secondly, some of the perhaps more aggressive things he says, like calling some “radical lunatics” are actually not without context.