George Friedman, in an apparent attempt to assuage our fears, tells us that the present election is far from apocalyptic in its implications:
The United States now knows who the candidates of the two major political parties are. One of these two will most likely become president of the United States in January. As usual, each candidate and their partisans are predicting total catastrophe if the other wins. There are also claims that there has never been an election like this in history. As is normally the case, the candidate of the party out of power is claiming that the United States has reached a catastrophic point because of the current government. The other candidate is saying that the country is not collapsing but that it will collapse if the opposition’s candidate is elected.
This is pretty normal stuff, including the belief by much of the public that there has never been such an election before. But that is wrong. There have been others with much more at stake. The 1860 election resulted in a civil war that killed 600,000 soldiers on both sides. In 1968, the leading candidate of the Democratic Party, Robert Kennedy, was murdered after winning the California primary. Martin Luther King Jr. had been murdered a few months before and the Democratic Convention was held amid massive riots outside the convention hall. In the end, Richard Nixon was elected, about which no more needs to be said. In the 2000 general election, there was a recount in Florida and the case wound up in the Supreme Court. The Democrats continue to claim the election was stolen.
I think the situation is much worse than he suggests. I don’t believe that most voters in 1860 knew that electing Abraham Lincoln to the presidency would lead to a bloody civil war. That’s a post hoc judgment on Mr. Friedman’s part.
There are similarities between the 1860 election and the present one. It was conducted during a low level insurgency (I don’t know what else you’d call the murders of police officers that seem to be taking place on a weekly basis). The degree of rancor was high. It had a strongly regional character. If a significant proportion of the population come to believe that they need to fight to preserve their way of life, the resemblance will be even stronger.
I think a better analogy would be to the election of 1828 or 1832. Yes, those were apocalyptic. They were foundational. American politics hasn’t been the same since.
Either 1800 or 1828, in both cases there was a widespread belief, particularly among those supporting the ultimate victors that something had gone terribly wrong with the Republic, and its essential nature was in grave jeopardy. Both sides thought the opposing candidate was entirely unacceptable, either they were radicals or corrupt or under the influence of foreign powers.
My assessment would be that we have a really transformative election about once a generation and we’re due.
And we’re due what we get, good and hard.
I’m not sure the early 1800’s is really comparable but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be fearful. Friedman may well turn out to be correct, but it seems to me much of his justification boils down to assuming we’ll continue on a trend.