Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Welcome to everybody. Welcome to Chatham House. I’m Leslie Vinjamuri. I direct the US and Americas Programme here at Chatham House. We are really honoured today to have two of the sharpest, best thinkers, not only extraordinary scholars, deeply accomplished, but also, really great on, you know, linking up their scholarship to everyday commentary in a big and terrific way. Before I introduce them and say just a few words about the topic of today’s event, I do want to recognise Ruth Bader Ginsberg. People are gathering right now to recognise her, to mourn her, the loss of what – such an extraordinary woman, who did so much for women’s rights, for equality under the law, she is being recognised today and lying-in-state at the US Capitol. So, it’s really been an extraordinary moment for US, for the United States this week.
We are going to talk about politics today. We wouldn’t normally time it this way, but it was hard to know how the timing of this would work out. So, with all due respect to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and I mean that very, very, very sincerely. We’re here to talk about the 2020 US Elections – Leadership, Democracy and the Presidency. We know that this is a big topic. Yesterday we surpassed the 200,000 mark, 200,000 Americans have died of COVID, unemployment is 8.4%, we’ve seen the Black Lives Matter protests, an unprecedented wave of protests, beginning in late May across the United States, and we’ve watched the politics over the Supreme Court, we’ve watched intense partisanship and polarisation in the Unites States, and we’ve followed Dan Drezner on Twitter, to learn more and more about this, and his regular columns in The Washington Post.
Dan Drezner is Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He has written many, many books, and most recently in 2017, The Ideas Industry: How Pessimists, Partisans, and Plutocrats Are Transforming the Marketplace of Ideas, you should read it. But he’s written a lot, a lot else, which you should take very seriously, and he’s very well-known for his work on sanctions. But follow his column, and follow him on Twitter, he’s really, really interesting and engaging and you’ll learn a lot about American politics right now by following him on Twitter.
Professor Mick Cox is an Associate Fellow on the US and Americas Programme at Chatham House. He’s Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics. He was the Founding Director of LSE Ideas. He also was the first leader of the US Study Group, which became the US and Americas Programme at Chatham House, which began just after 9/11. So, Mick has a long and distinguished career, one of the leading voices, leading scholarly voices on our understanding of the US and its role in the world, not only in the UK, but he’s very well-embedded in US international relations circles.
So, I think our audience today, both of you will know, Dan you might know a little bit less well, is very steeped in US politics, as is all of Europe, certainly all of the UK. We know that we are about 41 days out from the elections, which we all understand to be the most important, probably in our lifetime, for any number of reasons, and I would say policy comes pretty far down the list, actually. And policy is really, really important. But questions of democracy, of legitimacy, of the Presidency, of leadership, questions of science, truth, the role of expertise in public discourse and policymaking, all of these things are on the table. So Dan, let me start with you and I should say to our audience, Dan has a sharp finish at 3:28, so we’re going to kind of come to Dan and Mick and then take a few questions, go back and forth before we really come back to Mick fully, ‘cause we want to make sure to draw on your expertise, Dan, and then Mick and I will carry on until 3:45. We are on the record. Please tweet and link yourself up to Dan Drezner on Twitter. Take the opportunity, ‘cause he’s very – you know, if Dan retweets you, you’re in trouble, and it’ll keep you up all night. He has quite a following.
Dan, America’s democracy and America’s election, you know, some of us think – you know, we listen to people who tell us that we might be heading for a constitutional crisis in the elections, in particular that it’s not going to be election week, it might be election month, it’s certainly not going to be election day. And Fareed Zakaria as you know, is on CNN saying, “Please,” to the Supreme Court, “please don’t decide the election and let the states decide the election.” So, can you answer two questions for me, kind of together? One is, you know, how worried are you about democracy in America? And the second related question, you know, if you could answer them both together, is how worried are you about, you know, the operational side of democracy, just simply in this election? So those are two big questions, they’re separate, but they are related, can you give us a stab at those?
Professor Daniel Drezner
Sure, let me start with a quick preface, which is I do have to correct you on one manner of the introduction, namely my latest book is not actually The Ideas Industry, it’s The Toddler in Chief: What Donald Trump Teaches Us About the American Presidency…
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Oh yeah, of course.
Professor Daniel Drezner
…which bases the formulation for my response here because I’m very grateful to Chatham House, since they published an excerpt from that book in their January issue. And I also owe a debt to Mick Cox, who played a vital role in the early stage of my career, being the Editor of the Review of International Studies, and one of my first peer-reviewed publications was with RIS. So, you know, I will always owe Mick a great debt.
So, when we talk about the, sort of, state of American democracy, writ large, I would say that I’m – as an American, I’m kind of on a knife-edge property, because there are reasons to be extremely pessimistic, which I will get into in a moment. But there are also reasons to be extremely optimistic. On the optimistic side, it is worth pointing out that since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, we’ve had a number of elections, you know, in the form of mid-term elections, special elections, and what have you, and frankly, you have more people voting than at any time in the last 50 years. You know, Donald Trump has, you know, if he mobilise – a lot of people talk about how Donald Trump mobilises his base, but what that overlooks is that it mobilises the opposition even more. And it’s not a coincidence that since Trump has been President, the Republican Party writ large has lost a large number of seats in Congress, in State Legislatures, Governors, and so on and so forth. You’ve also seen a dramatic upsurge in social movements, and protests, and political organising. This was true from the very day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, when you had the Women’s March, those have been, you know, replicated year-after-year, the sort of increase in protests after the killing of George Floyd, this summer also demonstrates the degree to which you have a mobilised public, in ways that you had not had, you know, even five years ago.
At the same time, you’ve also seen the response from the Trump administration, which has been to mobilise, for lack of a better way of putting it, the carceral state, the course of apparatus of the Federal Government. You’ve seen this in the form of how the Trump administration has handled immigration, for example, in terms of imposing far more draconian measures on people trying to cross the border, illegally, but nonetheless, that traditionally was a misdemeanour, and would ordinarily not require the, sort of, extreme measures that the administration has taken. And in response to both the pandemic and to the protests, you’ve seen, you know, increases, in terms of travel bans and the use of Federal Officers as a means of trying to contain, and in some cases, clearly antagonise protestors in the streets. This isn’t to deny that protestors have occasionally been violent, and that does, indeed, should prompt a response from state and federal officials. But nonetheless, there are many instances in which the federal officials have actually made things worse rather than better. So, you know, we’re at a time of serious social foment, and really the only modern analogy I can think of to this in 1968. That’s how far you have to go back to, sort of, see this kind of turmoil within the United States.
Now, in terms of the election, again, it’s a knife-edge, but I’m not going to lie, I’m pretty worried, because this is entirely about Donald Trump’s leadership. So, on the one hand, if you took at the, sort of, state of the race, putting a few exceptional matters to one side, you know, if you’re someone who is not a fan of Donald Trump and not a fan of the super-empowered Presidency that Donald Trump embodies, you should be relatively optimistic. Joe Biden is leading in most national polls by an average of seven points or better, depending upon the average that you take. If you look at The Economist prediction model, if you look at the FiveThirtyEight prediction model, they both give Donald Trump roughly an 80% – or, sorry, Joe Biden a roughly 80% chance of winning the election.
Now, US electoral rules are complicated, but I’m going to take your word, Leslie, that everyone in the – d in attendance knows the arcane, you know, details of the Electoral College. But nonetheless, there’s also a scenario whereby a lot of people are worried about, will this election drag out, will it drag out? The key state to look at will be Florida and the reason for that is that Florida’s election machinery, the year 2000 on the contrary, has actually modernised significantly, and the odds are extremely good that we will know who won Florida the night of the election. And simply put, if Joe Biden wins Florida, Joe Biden has probably won the Presidential election. The odds of Donald Trump winning, without Florida, are extremely low, and require a really weird confluence of events.
Now, if Donald Trump handily wins Florida, that is also probably a signal that Donald Trump has probably won the election. There are more scenarios where Joe Biden can win the election, without winning Florida, but if Trump wins by a margin of, let’s say, five points or so, that’s probably a sign that he’s going to do reasonably well in the election. The nightmare scenario is if Trump barely squeaks by or if there’s, you know, it’s a close race which, unfortunately, it’s Florida, so that’s a relatively decent chance. And this is where I do start to get nervous. And for those of you really, you know, want to promote your anxieties, I would highly recommend reading Barton Gellman’s story in The Atlantic, which just came out this morning, which describes a whole array of nightmare scenarios whereby Donald Trump might try to essentially rewrite the election on the fly.
It is safe to say that President Trump has demonstrated a decent fondness for illiberalism and, you know, generally speaking, sort of, personal leadership. And he’s also displayed a clear willingness to flout both the law and the norms, and we see this, if nothing else, in the eagerness with which he wants to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat on the Supreme Court with a staunch Conservative. And there’s a variety of ways in which you have to be worried about whether or not, on the margins, there are certain things that stack the deck in favour of Republicans.
One is, is that because we are in a pandemic, there will be much larger mail-in voting, and so – and Democrats – you know, polling suggests Democrats are going to rely more on mail-in voting. The problem is that the rejection rate of mail-in ballots is something on the order of 5-10% in some states. Pennsylvania’s the most notorious example of this, you know, and you can dispute the reasons but, you know, you’re talking about a world in which in Pennsylvania that could lead to the disqualification of up to 100,000 votes, that’s enough to decide the election, or to tilt the election one way or the other. And so that’s a source of concern, you know.
Another source of concern is Trump’s use of federal forces to potentially try to constrain, you know, protests or even just efforts to get people to the polls, there are reasons to be concerned, you know, on that front. And then, the final and really, in some ways, the most disconcerting aspect of this, is the GOP’s rock-solid support of Donald Trump, no matter what Donald Trump does. Which is to say, that traditionally, Presidents that have exceeded their authority have been checked by their own party, and what has changed in the United States, over the last 50 years, has been the rise of polarisation to the point where Donald Trump’s one unvarnished political success has been to remake the GOP in his own image, and we see this in the ways in which, among other things, the GOP has lined up solidly behind him to try to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg, less than 50 days before an election, despite the rank hypocrisy of what happened in 2016.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Dan, that’s great. I want to say to the audience, I’d love to get two questions from Dan, he’s going to go in about ten minutes ‘cause he has to teach a class. So, put your questions in the chat. I’m going to call your name out. Let me ask Dan one really quick question, before we take those, and then turn over to Mick. And that is, if – do the – if Trump is re-elected, okay, rather than if Biden wins, in a serious way, and I know you would, but, you know, say it takes – say it’s either Florida or it takes a little while, but it ends up being Trump through one mechanism or another, and we can set the scenarios aside for now. But if Trump is re-elected, what is your estimation, in terms of the effects on democracy in America, you know, four years, term two, you know, there’s lots of questions about whether he has the Senate or not, but what is the overall effect? I mean, is this, kind of, like, yeah, it’s not great, there’s a lot of bad stuff, the wheels come off, but at the end of the day, America’s democracy is robust, and you gave us reasons to think that it is, social movements, protests, more people voting, people active, people, you know, fighting it out through the courts to pushback, or do you have a much darker view on what the implications will be of a second term?
Professor Daniel Drezner
Yeah, I’m not going to lie, if Donald Trump is re-elected, I have a much darker vision, because if Donald Trump is elected, first of all, that means there is a very strong probability that the Senate will also be controlled by the GOP. So, essentially, it would be a persistence of the status quo. The bigger concern I have is that if Donald Trump is re-elected, in any sort of legitimate way, Donald Trump will view that as a complete validation of everything he has done for the last four years, and indeed, will probably take what he’s done in the last four years and push it to the nth degree, because he will have, you know, seen his re-election as a mandate. So, yeah, I think you would see an enlargement of federal forces, designed to constrain the power of cities. I think you would see the use of every tool in the Federal Government’s arsenal to essentially attack urban communities that are generally perceived as friendlier to Democrats and more hostile to Republicans.
The census would be badly abused, I’m assuming, and I think you would see redistricting that would result in gerrymanders that would, you know, stack the deck further in favour of the Republican Party. You would also see a federal judiciary that would be fully staffed, you know, staffed even more than it already is, with nominees from the Federalist Society. That might actually be one of the fewer checks on Trump because, while all of those will be staunch judicial Conservatives, they are probably not going to go along with the most egregious element of what Trump does.
But that said, in some ways, the uniqueness of Donald Trump as a leader is twofold. The first is, there is no norm that he is unafraid of pushing beyond, you know, or destroying. And second, because he really lacks any sense of shame, he doesn’t feel the, sort of, moral reprobation that ordinary, you know, Politicians do if they violate a norm. And this is always – I always said that this was the distinction between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump didn’t tell the truth at various times. The difference was, you could tell when Hillary Clinton didn’t tell the truth, and she actually felt bad about it. Donald Trump does not and so, yeah, I think, you know, the drift in the United States towards illiberalism, in a world in which Trump is recognised as having been re-elected, is pretty powerful. And indeed, if Donald Trump were to actually be re-elected, I think there is a not insignificant chance of the 2024 nominee for the GOP for the Presidency, would be Donald Trump Jr.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And a quick question and then over to you, Mick, ‘cause I have a question about the rest of the world, from the audience, for Dan, if Trump loses, will he leave? Do you think he’ll leave? Do you think he’ll leave the White House? I mean, are you worried, or do you think this is hype on the part of the Democrats and others?
Professor Daniel Drezner
I have mixed feelings about this. I understand the concern, and I do think that it’s worth, you know, gaming this out, and I think, you know, our good colleague Rosa Brookes, for example, has been leading this thing called the Transition Integrity Project, sort of, trying to game out scenarios by which it’s a close election or how would the Trump campaign and the Trump Presidency react. I think the degree to which Trump would actually try to stay in power is, in part, a function of how close the election is. The one scenario where, you know, with the Transition Integrity Project, where this wasn’t an issue was, if there was a Biden blowout, and by the way, there’s a decent chance there will be a Biden blowout. In fact, there’s about as much chance that Biden will win handily by, like, 400 electoral votes, as there will that Donald Trump will eke it out. There scenario was is that he goes, and I would tend to agree with that.
The one way in which I think that might actually – the one small source of comfort I have about Donald Trump is that even though Donald Trump has an illiberal, authoritarian mindset, he is also the laziest authoritarian in history, He’s really bad at actually being an authoritarian because he usually keeps spilling his plans, and also, he doesn’t necessarily follow it through. So, I have no doubt that Donald Trump, you know, consistent with the Toddler in Chief argument, would pitch a fit. He would throw a temper tantrum. He will try to raise all sorts of things. If it becomes very clear, however, that Donald Trump has lost and, you know, the states of Florida, and Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and so on and so forth, certify the results for Joe Biden, then you’re in a scenario where Donald Trump can say anything he wants. He will be escorted out at noon on January 20th 2021, and that’s the one thing I do have some relative confidence in.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Thank you for that, and I should say the reason I ask you about Trump winning is because I think we are accused rightly of focusing too much on Biden too, and I, you know, after my recent trip to the US, I can see that it’s far from obvious, and we know this from the polling, which way it goes. But you’re right, right, and it’s a Biden blowout, it’s a very real possibility.
Professor Daniel Drezner
Right, we tend to focus on what happens if Trump wins, and that’s a fair – you know, that possibility is obviously one contrary to the polling and would obviously have severe consequences. But in some ways, a Biden blowout would have equally severe consequences, because it makes it that much tougher for Trump and the Republican Party to try to contest the election.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
So, Mick, what we’re going to do, before you give us your remarks on the rest of the world, hold those for now, but first what I’d like you to do is to respond to what Dan has just said. Give Dan your response, Dan gets a minute to come back to you, before he goes, but tell us your reaction to what he said about democracy in America, and also about the transition.
Professor Mick Cox
No, I think Dan put – I think Dan framed the problem very clearly. I mean, at one level, one thing Trump has done is to mobilise his base and mobilise the opposition, there’s no question. I’ve seen, in my students coming to the LSE, Dan, I mean, the increasing politicisation of those students from where they were about four years ago to where they are today. And I think that’s broadly speaking true right across the country and, of course, in turn, there’s a reaction to that from others who will be Trump supporters. And that’s come out most graphically, tragically and divisively on the whole question of the Black Lives movement – Matters, which I think we also need to take into consideration. And I’d also like to ask you a question of where you think that’s going, and the impact that’s going to have on the election, ‘cause it seems to me you made the analogy with 68 quite right, how did Nixon win in 68, apart from being the World President? He won by basically playing the race card on riots.
Professor Daniel Drezner
Hmmm hmm.
Professor Mick Cox
And I’d just like to get your thought on that, and I know it’ a controversial question in the States, I’ve been following this quite closely, there’s big division on – in the opposition as to how one should play that particular card. But no, broadly speaking, I agree with you. The one thing I would add, and you hinted at it, I mean, it’s simply the question of violence. Not just with the Black Lives Matters movement, I’ll put that to one side, but from over here, we’ve been watching a lot of guys with a lot of guns wandering up and down city streets, standing outside State legislatures, not just shooting one another, but also intimidating. And it seems to me, again, I’d like to take your – even if Trump were to win by a margin or Biden were to win by a margin, this is my second question to you, Dan, and I’ll let you know come back on it, ‘cause I know you don’t have a lot of time. What is the potential for really some very serious violence, politicised violence following an election, whatever the outcome? I’ll just leave you those questions.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Don’t answer that yet, Dan, ‘cause I’m going to bring Tricia in, she’s got a great question that I think we need you to answer in particular. Tricia, do you want to unmute and go ahead and ask the question?
Tricia
Yeah, can you hear me?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yes.
Tricia
So, obviously, there’s been a lot of talk, you know, Trump acting like some sort of kleptocratic leader like Belarus, you know, obviously not wanting to come down because of the consequences that might be there when he does get – if he does get booted out. So, how realistic, Dan, do you think it is that Trump will be prosecuted for financial malfeasance and all his other, sort of, various corrosive practices, if he has to step down? And if he does get prosecuted, will that be a victory for American democracy?
Professor Daniel Drezner
Hmmm hmm.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Okay, Dan, over to you.
Professor Daniel Drezner
Okay, so all I have to do is answer these three questions in four minutes. Alright, on Trump being prosecuted if he loses, I think the odds are about 100% on this. Not necessarily by the Federal Government, mind you, but certainly by the State and City of New York, which are already, by the way, you know, putting forward prosecutions on this. And the reason it matters if it’s the state and local officials doing it, is that one of one of the concerns is that well, will Donald Trump pardon himself before he exits the stage?
First on, I’m not sure you can – legally, it’s questionable, whether you can do that. But more importantly, the Presidential Pardon power is only limited to federal crimes, it’s not – it has no power over the state and local law enforcement. So, I do think that you would probably see it, because among other things, Donald Trump has violated the law multipole times. So, I think there’s grounds for a prosecution. As to whether it’s good for democracy, there I have – you know, it’s a tough call, because on the one hand, as I said, Trump’s probably violated the law multiple times, and particularly if federal officials go after him, I’m sure he’s violated federal law. On the other hand, the tradition of democracy is, is that you don’t punish political losers. That political losers know that if they leave office, they are not going to be shot, or hung, or any of these things. Now, I do think that legal prosecution is not quite as bad as those things, but nonetheless, the sort of politicisation of prosecution is a worrying concern.
Okay, with regard to Mick’s questions, the first is on the question of violence and an upsurge in political violence. First of all, I would say, we’ve already had an upsurge of political violence. There is no way you can look at the clearing of Lafayette Square and not conclude that that is an example of political violence. There is no way you could look at, you know, the, you know, rioting that has taken place occasionally in Portland, or Seattle, or Minneapolis, or elsewhere, and not conclude that that is political violence. The question is whether there will be a sustained upsurge, and here, this might sound like a joke, but I am nonetheless, you know, partly serious, I am counting on the laziness of Americans here, to a certain extent, which is, it partially depends on the how the vote goes. But if the re-election is widely perceived as free and fair, yeah, you’re going to have people who are exercised about it, but I don’t think, you know, much like the voters in Lake Travis in Austin, Texas, you know, the boats are going to sink, you know, which is to say that I think you’re go – you’re not necessarily going to have that much of an overly violent reaction. And indeed, I think the evidence for this can be seen in how things played out in 2016, which is despite the fact that Donald Trump got three million fewer popular votes, nonetheless, there was an orderly transition, although in that moment, part of it was is that Barack Obama made it very clear how this was going to go. We don’t know how Donald Trump is going to handle this, and Mick, I apologise, but I forgot your first question.
Professor Mick Cox
Well, it’s really about the Black Lives Matter…
Professor Daniel Drezner
Oh right, okay.
Professor Mick Cox
…and the impact that’s going to have on the election and the issue of law and order. The question of race as a fundamental.
Professor Daniel Drezner
Right, so, this is actually a great way to…
Professor Mick Cox
The election itself.
Professor Daniel Drezner
This’ll be a great way to exit, because I would argue, this is really going to be the most interesting natural experiment in American political history in the last 50 years. You’re absolutely correct that in 1968, the perceived unrest generally benefitted Nixon and Nixon ran on a law and order campaign that by and large benefited him and he, you know, swept his way into power. Although, I would add, with a plurality of votes, in no small part because George Wallace was running, and George Wallace was an even bigger illiberal than Richard Nixon was.
That said, what is fascinating about the Black Lives Matter movement and what has been fascinating about the polling data over the summer, has been the degree to which you have seen a genuine shift in American perceptions on this, which is by and large Black Lives Matter was generally perceived as relatively popular in the immediate wake of the George Floyd protests. And indeed, when we you poll, you know, Americans and particularly suburban Americans, by and large their sympathy lies with George Floyd and with, you know, the protestors.
Now, this support has dimmed somewhat over the summer, I think, as you’ve seen more and more unrest. But also, that support hasn’t necessarily lessened support for Joe Biden or – and it also hasn’t necessarily lessened perceptions that there is a race problem, you know, the racism problem within Police forces in the United States. And so, in some ways, one of the things I would encourage attendees to read, and if you haven’t read it, Mick, I would also encourage you to read it, is a great APSR article by Omar Wasow, who’s a Political Scientist at Princeton, who basically argues that – and this is going to be the interesting question going forward, that public perceptions of protest hinge crucially on whether they are seen as lawbreaking or law-abiding.
That if protests are widely viewed as peaceful, then sympathy tends to lie with the protesters if – you know, in that situation. If, on the other hand, they are viewed as unruly, then you see, you know, perceptions switch to, you know, Police forces. And you can argue to some extent that’s what happened in 1968. I think, and I really have to go, that the fundamental question in an election which, you know, in a post-election environment, is how will the media treat, you know, protests? Will they treat them as violence and looting and rioting, or will they view at as peaceful protests that the State is trying to repress? And with that, I really do have to go.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Thank you very much, have a great class. We’ll have you back soon.
Professor Daniel Drezner
Thanks.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Mick stick with us, we’re going to carry on this conversation. Thank you so much, Dan. I think that last comment was really important because, of course the comment about the media is critical. We’ve seen what CN – very interestingly, CNN started to do very quickly was to show images of peaceful protests, because in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing, so much news media suddenly was focused on violence and it is being, there is a little bit of a war of the medias.
Mick, I’m going to turn to you to talk about both what Dan said, but especially how America and America’s democracy is viewed from abroad, and what you think this election means for the rest of the world. Just to remind the audience, the Pew study that was done over the summer of global attitudes of America, 42% of the people in this country, the United Kingdom, have a – do not have a good image of the United States right now. Sorry, only 42% of the people in this country do have a good image of the United States right now, it’s lower in France and Germany. And only 19% of the people in this country trust President Trump to do the right thing in world affairs. I’m not as surprised by that, if I’m honest. But the 42% image of the US as a whole, it’s worrying. So, tell me, what does this election mean? Is this just, you know, one of those, you know, many blips like George W. Bush II, or is this fundamentally different and the stakes are much higher?
Professor Mick Cox
I do think it’s fundamentally different, Leslie, it – as somebody who devours opinion polls and then tries to ignore their findings, knowing that they’re only going to be temporary, if you go back to George W. Bush, whom you mentioned, don’t want to get too historical about this, but it took George W. Bush eight years to become unpopular abroad. Trump was unpopular abroad, particularly in Europe and not everywhere, was unpopular from day one. You look at those, you know, the perceptions of Trump as a – as this, kind of new, kind of, populist President, it just slumped almost on day one. Now, it was an uneven slump, some parts of the world, of course, Trump remains relatively popular.
I noticed the Prime Minister of Hungary, Mr Orbán, is supporting Mr Trump. I would imagine that the Israeli Likud Party is pretty enthusiastic about Donald Trump. Indeed, you might say, as a generalisation, that most authoritarians in the world might be fairly enthusiastic about Donald Trump, maybe with the exception of the President of China. That does tell you quite a lot, and we looked at that Pew, as we talked about it the other day, Leslie, and it shows what I think what we already knew, that this is not a President who sells abroad very well, particularly amongst his allies, America’s allies, and in other democracies. It’s the nature – if you’re going to say, “America Great Again and America First,” don’t be surprised, therefore, that when others who are not American, you know, kind of perceive this as being highly critical or highly negative about them. And I think this is a very profound shift, I think, and this is what worries me about the upcoming election, apart from the things that Dan Drezner was talking about so eloquently and so well, as ever. It isn’t what maybe happened inside the United States, it’s the perceptions of the US, ‘cause at the end of the day, we don’t necessarily have to call the United States the ‘indispensable nation’, but we do have to say it plays a fundamental role, a central role, that no other region or no other nation in the world can play, or actually wants to play.
So, that’s one reason to be very worried, in a more historical, global sense, not just about what it means for America, but what it might mean for the notion of the transatlantic relationship, and relations in the world more generally. I think Trump has, in a way, whether consciously or not, I think the withdrawal of America from leadership, I think has been encouraging to many of those around the world who, in broad terms, don’t like what we now call the West. And I think that it’s not been so surprising to see Putin, and Xi Jinping, and others actually looking, you know, like they’re on a bit of a roll. So I think Trump is so different, I mean, I’ve always thought that, you and I have discussed this many times here in London, and if he were to win and I think, as Dan says, I think not only the consequences at home, but the consequence abroad, I think, are going to be absolutely vitally important. This is why I think a Biden President, even though he may not be the most charismatic President we’ve ever seen in history, nonetheless, I think would make an enormous difference externally, for America.
The other thing to take into consideration, in terms of perceptions of the United States, you can’t rule it out, Dan mentioned this, today, tragically, 200,000 American deaths. The way America is perceived as handling the most terrible crisis, and health crisis, pandemic, which has faced all of us, since the end of World War One, since the great flu pandemic, the way American has handled this, and I’m not going to let the UK off the hook on this one, has actually done huge damage to notions of US competence, of US belief in science, a US – a belief in America’s ability to get things done, you know.
America’s great selling point, and it has many, it has a lot of soft power, but one of its great selling points has been a notion of competence, can-do, get things done, often one would compare the Americans and their efficiency with the kind of Europeans who are slightly less efficient, that was always the kind of cliché, if you wish, you know. What this pandemic has done, I think, has really been to undercut that. And I think what it’s also done, and I’ll end here, Leslie, ‘cause I know there’s a lot of people who want to come in on this, I think it’s done two other things.
One, I think it’s – I mean, I’m sorry to say this, it’s not something I really like saying, but I think it’s done China a lot of favours. I’ve called China’s COVID period crisis a game of two halves. It began badly for China, and there is still a legacy and there are things we still need to find out more about. I’m not a great fan of the way that China handled the crisis in the beginning. But all perceptions are that since then it looks like it has handled it in a way, which you couldn’t do in a liberal democracy, but nonetheless, in that sense, China looks like it’s winning the COVID war and America is losing it. And this pandemic is so important for the next 20/25 years, I think. How the world will playout will playout in a post-COVID world, and who is seen as handling that better, I think, will emerge with much greater degree of credibility and soft power, and at the moment, America’s way behind on that. So, take Trump and COVID together, you have, I’m afraid to say, what we might call a tsunami, a perfect storm of problems about America’s role and position and perceptions of America in the world.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Okay, I have two quick comments to that, but while I’m responding very quickly, I want Jasdev Rai, and Stella Howell, and Neil Brown to be prepared to ask their questions, so if you unmute. But Mick, just two things very quickly. One is the other thing, you know, this perception that the US is handling COVID very badly is confirmed by the data. Only 15% of people in the UK think that Trump – of everybody polled in that Pew poll, only 15% think America is handling this well. But it’s also crowded out, you know, the States that have done so well. Governor Cuomo…
Professor Mick Cox
Absolutely.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…tremendous job, you know, his daily briefings were extraordinary, right, and the numbers demonstrate the response that New York has had. But the story is completely lost. So, it tells us something about, you know, at the end of the day, you need a strong central government, even in a federal state like the United States, or the successes are lost, and the lessons are probably lost.
The other thing, I mean, I take your point on China versus the US but, you know, the polling doesn’t show it, American attitudes…
Professor Mick Cox
Oh yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
…to China have gotten much, much worse during the pandemic, and that gives, you know, a lot of scope for taking a much harder line on China.
Professor Mick Cox
Absolutely.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I don’t know what the European attitudes are, I’d be surprised if they were better. But there’s another story, right? Through COVID there’s still more and more and more highlighting of China’s human rights record, with respect to the Uighurs, with respect to Hong Kong, which has taken place during all this. So, I mean, there’s another story too, which I think you maybe undersell, and this, kind of, you know, America’s losing and China’s getting credibility, I think – I just think that, you know, you can come back to that. But first let’s go to Jasdev Rai, and if you unmute and go ahead and state your question. I think you have to unmute, Jasdev. Okay, let’s come to Stella Howell first, and then we’ll come to Jasdev. Stella [pause].
Professor Mick Cox
Can he hear?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Stella, I’m going to read out your question, unless you’re unmuted. Stella writes, “Why do you think Trump constantly refers to China as the cause of the pandemic? The cause of the pandemic requires investigation.” Great question, and maybe you could say more about how you think that will playout as well. And let me also read out Jasdev’s question while we’re here. “Apart from Europe, is this election really going to have any effect on the rest of the world, as most of the world has already adjusted to America’s lack of leadership?” Those are two great questions and go ahead.
Professor Mick Cox
Okay, I’ll have a go at that, and maybe you’d like to say something too, Leslie, ‘cause I know you have many good things to say on it. On the – Stella, thank you for that question on China. Well, you know, if one is looking for cause, deep causes, profound causes, immediate causes, then the immediate cause of this does seem to be a mishandling of that crisis, immediately in the latter part of last year within China, withholding of information, the kind of typical system, of an old Stalinist system, which hides information, does misinformation, doesn’t test – doesn’t tell the rest of the world what is really going on, for fear of losing, you know, some degree of credibility, and that certainly lost us a lot of weeks. I’m not an expert on that, but I listen to a lot of people who are experts on that. So, I think even those who don’t want to bang on about China, and bang the anti-China drum, would accept that there are questions to be asked and need to be answered by China, which they resist, as we have seen. Their relations with Australia, by the way, have deteriorated dramatically, ‘cause the Australian Prime Minister said, “Well, perhaps we need to setup some international investigation into the origins of this.”
So, I think we can take it back to China, the really big larger question is not where it began, although that’s part of the question, the question is, why it spread, how it spread, why it has gone global. And I think, you know, we talked throughout the 1990s, and indeed the last 20 years, about globalisation, what globalisation did, how it increased, generate more wealth. Well, it also is an illustration of globalisation. I mean, we never thought this would be a measurer of globalisation, but global travel means a global pandemic.
You know, when I, when I look back on my notes, Leslie, from throughout this terrible period of time, which we’ve all had to live through, some of us in a much more difficult situation than others, and I’m not one of the victims at the moment, thank goodness, you look back, everybody says, “Oh, it’s in China.” And then we looked at you, “Oh, it’s in Italy,” or maybe in Spain, and as late as February, I’m kind of writing things like – but then suddenly, it goes – it comes here, and then it goes around the world. So, I think what – we are actually one of the most extraordinarily global moments the world has ever known. You know, this is really, really quite dramatic, and I think, Stella, in answer to your question, I think, yeah, I mean, let’s go back to the question of China, and we can debate what Leslie raised, and that’s another question to be discussed. But I think we also need to take onboard how and why this has spread. Why, in the end, and this is the conclusion I derive from this, we cannot have simply and only national solutions to this. We’re going to end up with an arms race in vaccines. Who gets it first, you know, how’s it going to be used, who’s going to – you know, this is crazy. I mean, this is why I’m still in favour of the World Health Organization, warts and all, because it’s only through the WHO and through international organisations such as the UN and other multinational bodies, which Trump of course dislikes enormously, that we’re going to get a proper global, ethical, answer to this. So, that’s the answer to your question, Stella, I hope, rather overlong.
Hey, yeah, great question, the second one’s very good, will it have any effect at all? Well, maybe, we who are inside the bubble of foreign policy analysis, want to make it have an impact, for the obvious reason, this is what we get off on and this is what we talk about. And by the way, Trump, although I’m no great Trump supporter, you may have gathered by now, Trump’s been enormously helpful for the study of US foreign policy. You know, I always say at the LSE, if we put on a public lecture on US foreign policy and you put the name Trump in, and it adds another 200 people to the audience.
You know, I think this gets back to what Dan was earlier – a huge stimulus to thinking about the United States, not always in a very positive light. But I do think if – this election will have effect, because at the moment, I think, this is my own take on this, Leslie, correct me if you think I’m wrong, I’m sure you don’t think I’m wrong, but you might want to do that, I don’t mind. I think, at the moment, most of the blasts abroad against America is against Trump. I think it’s very much directed against Trump. I’ve not detected the same level of anti-Americanism, which I detected certainly though the G W Bush years, even in the UK. I think they see it as Trump, not as America. I think, however, if the election were to go a certain way and if Trump were, say, to win, I think that would then stimulate a much greater degree of anti-Americanism ‘cause people would now say, “Well, it ain’t just Trump, it’s America.”
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Okay, so, I have to comment on that last point. We’re going to go a few minutes over. For those of you who can stay, we’ll go an extra, sort of, four or five minutes, because we have a few more questions. That’s also what Ed Lewis has, you know, famously said many times in the Financial Times, that the world will give America a pass once, but not twice and you’ve said it and many people have said it. I think it’s very unfair. I’m sure that it’s partly…
Professor Mick Cox
I’m sure it is, yeah.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
And I think there is a point when people need to move on, but anybody who’s on this call or at your meetings at the London School of Economics knows better, right, because they understand the electoral institutions in the United States, and the very high bar that it sets. It is not a popular vote. Hillary Clinton won by three million, Donald Trump lost by three million. We just heard Dan Drezner say that, you know, Florida, I mean, you know, how many of us are from Florida? It’s a great state, I’m not from there. And if Florida is what, sort of, sways the election, that is not America, that is one state where it’s a really, really tough battle and where, by the way, Michael Bloomberg knows it and he’s putting $1 million into that race, and he’s helping felons vote, felons who have – who are not able, who’ve served their prison sentences, but have not paid their fines and are being held up from voting unless they do. He’s helping them pay their fines, so that they can vote. So, you know, there’s a lot going on.
Professor Mick Cox
Let me, let me come back to you quickly on that, Leslie. I think it is unfair and I’m not encouraging it, indeed, I’ve spent most of my life in academia, countering crude forms of anti-Americanism and stereotypes about the United States, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But we live in a very unfair world and all I’m trying to say is that those who want to, if you like, advance their own cause, whether it’s a Russia, or a China, or any other person in the world who is illiberal and antagonistic to the United States and what it stands for, I think that they will have a bit of a field day after November if Trump were to win. I think they’d be in a weaker position, that’s the only thing I want to say to you, if Biden were to win.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Okay, so let’s go onto this question, which really, kind of, leads on. I’ll very quickly answer that, you know, why are 5-10% of mail-in votes disqualified? There are all sorts of electoral rules, for example, the State Supreme Court in Pennsylvania ruled just recently that if mail-in ballots aren’t inside an envelope, which is inside an envelope, two envelopes, they won’t be counted, and that, you know, if it’ a really close race, that could matter a lot. So, there are a lot of things are disqualified. You know, voting by mail-in is not typically what Americans have done, they’ve gone and they’ve, kind of, punched the ballot. We know we’re not going to be punching anymore because of Florida 2000, but it’s still a little bit tricky. I mean, I’m doing it right now, trust me, it’s not straightforward. But we have a question here about Biden, from Wilhelm Muir. Wilhelm, would you like to speak your question, if you unmute?
Wilhelm Muir
Yes, which is, if Biden wins, do we have a chance at a – a very unusual chance at a reform moment? And I was hoping Dan would get a chance at this, but Mick, please go ahead.
Professor Mick Cox
When you say reform moment, Wilhelm, what sort of reforms are you talking about, internationally or within the United States itself?
Wilhelm Mur
Within the US.
Professor Mick Cox
And maybe Leslie would be better placed to answer that, I – reform of what, of the health system? I’m pretty sceptical on that, of the electoral college system, I would be pretty sceptical about that. One area I would simply say is, I think – and maybe Leslie, you can come back ‘cause I know we don’t have too much time, internationally, I don’t think we’re going to see major reform, but I think international institutions will work a lot better, I’ll be honest, with a Biden Presidency than it has done clearly with – so that won’t be a reform of those institutions. It would simply be an ability to get those institutions to work, whether it’s the European Union with the United states, whether it’s the UN, whether it’s the World Health Organization. We might also go back to a proper nuclear arms relationship with Iran, etc., etc., etc. But within America itself, I’d be interested to hear what Leslie would say. I’d be sceptical, but Leslie you may have a different take on that.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
You know, it also relates to another question, which was asked, which was about what happens if Donald Trump wins, but he loses the Senate? So, I guess, part of my answer to the reform question, you know, you do have to look at not only who wins the White House, but how much of a mandate do they have to legislate. And this is going to matter a lot for any kind of reform that’s a domestic reform, that requires fiscal spending, right, welfare, different way of thinking about unemployment benefits, ref – you know, the sanctity of the Affordable Care Act not only comes down to the Supreme Court, which is obviously a huge question right now, but it also could come down to potentially some legislation. So I think part of it, you know, is that mandate question, but the US, you know, the US, in this pandemic moment which is extraordinary, and even when there is a recovery and a vaccine and therapeutics, there’s still going to be inequality that we now – you know, I hope that we now cannot deny, and racial inequality, income inequality, and that is – that together with the unemployment and the longer-term trends, whether it’s automation or, you know, a loss of a certain segment of jobs, is moving America, as is the progressive wing of the Democratic party, as is the Trump base, towards wanting more from the State. And Biden might have the moment to do that. He certainly has the party to do that, from the progressive side. He has the crisis to do that. If he has the Senate, he arguably has two years where, you know, he has more capacity to do that. But there are a lot of barriers and in the short-term, there’s just going to be a lot of short-termism and so, you know, I think it’s uncertain, but there’s certainly an opportunity there.
Professor Mick Cox
I think, to just get back to Wilhelm, just to come back on the direct question about what happens inside the United States itself? I think there are two things, which will become much more apparent, I think, if Biden were to win, and also, to take the Senate, as well as the House. One, I think there’s going to be a big push on further Police reform. I can’t see that not happening, in the context of what’s been happening over the last six months, not just because of what happened to Mr Floyd, but many, many other events. Clearly, you don’t want to defund the Police, I assume, but you do want to, kind of, see a major reform of the Police, which is fit for purpose, but only in part, and I think therefore, that might be a very important area of reform.
The other thing, and this is more my wish list rather than anything which might happen, but I think we also might see a much more fundamental rethinking of the health system in the United States. Now I’m not the one who, kind of, stands back and says the health system is failing in the United States, you know, it’s a bit more complicated than that. It’s a federal system, different places have done pretty well, some places have done very, very badly. But what this has exposed, it seems to me, about the US and indeed, it’s exposed it about the UK as well, Wilhelm, if I might say, is our health system is simply not up to the mark, when dealing and coping with a fundamental crisis of this order. And I would hope that this could be now seen as the necessity for the basic human security of the overwhelming majority of Americans, and not just those who think, you know, you shouldn’t have a nationalised health system. But there’ll be deep resistance, by the way, to both of those reforms, however important and necessary I think they are.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
I want to bring in Mary Dejevsky for the last question, and it’s a very focused question and Mary, it’d be great if you could speak your question. But I think even though you’re asking it in a very focused way, you’re clearly getting at the bigger question of how resilient is US democracy, even in the face of a leader who seems to not respect many of the norms? So, Mary, if you could go ahead and…
Mary Dejevsky
Can you hear me?
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Yes.
Professor Mick Cox
Yeah.
Mary Dejevsky
Good. Yes, Dan Drezner has a very particular take, and half of America seems to be very panicked that if Trump loses the election but refused to leave the White House. Can you think, over the time that President Trump has been in power, of any occasion where he’s actually ignored a decision that’s gone against him in the Supreme Court?
Professor Mick Cox
Leslie? I can’t think of one myself.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
It’s a good question, isn’t it?
Professor Mick Cox
Yeah, it’s a good question. I don’t think so. Of course, by then, he’s going to have maybe a large majority on the Supreme Court, but it’s a fair question, Mary. I mean, it challenges us to – would he, you know, would he really dare? I mean, it depends on the size of his majority and whether the Senate goes as well. But say he loses badly, as Dan said he might do, and loses the Senate as well, is he going to dare, even with a very Conservative Supreme Court, even more so by then, possibly, than now, would he dare, dare, dare, dare do that? And I – with Dan and with you, Mary, I think he would be very, very cautious. You know, you’ve got to make a difference between his rhetoric and his caution, and there’s a lot more caution in Trump sometimes than his rhetoric would suggest. He’s playing it up now to put the fear into everybody that I’m going to make a big fuss if I were to lose, but we’ll have to wait and see. The bully often backs down when reality faces the bully.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
The only thing I would add to that is, you know, the things that Donald Trump has done that are damaging to America’s democracy, in my view, have been below the level of that, that very blatant disregard for the law. It’s at the level of, you know, expectations of appropriate behaviour that are held amongst a particular community of people, i.e. Americans, about behaviour in a democracy. He’s violated those all over the place and with, I would argue, lasting effect. But for me the real question about the scenario that you’re, sort of, intimating, especially when it comes to, you know, if the Supreme Court were to get involved in the election is, what would Americans do if he tried to steal the election and not leave the White House? That’s where I sort of think, God, you know, there are guns in America, there are white militias on the street, there’s the Black Lives Matter movement, there are people who are very upset on both sides. If the President didn’t respect the outcome of the election, what would Americans do? Would they roll? Or would this be, you know, would this be something very different? I hope that, you know, it doesn’t come to that. But it is something I think about a lot. At what point would people say, “No”? And, you know, I really hope we don’t get to that. But it is a very – if the President – it’s not just whether Trump complies, it’s what the American people do if he doesn’t, and what his Party does if he doesn’t.
I think we’re at the end. We’re at the end ten minutes ago. We’ve had really great questions, but we have a series, so we have, I think, five more of these before the end. And the next one Henri is telling me is on Wednesday the 30th of September, that is actually I think the day after the Presidential debates, is that right? 4pm on Wednesday, we’re looking at healthcare during the pandemic, it’s bound to be something that’s talked about in the Presidential debates, I think, in Ohio next Tuesday. You should tune in, in the middle of the night and listen. The topics were announced last week. They’re all domestic, the – you know, how they performed, the economy, the Supreme Court, racial justice, but that’s where America is and we’re 41 days away, we’ll be, you know, a week less, five weeks away next week. So, we look forward to seeing you again, and thank you so much for joining us. Mick Cox, thank you, as ever.
Professor Mick Cox
Thank you, Leslie, very nice to meet you.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Please return and speak again very, very soon.
Professor Mick Cox
Yeah, we’ll be in touch.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
That’s everything.
Professor Mick Cox
Alright, bye everybody.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
Bye. Bye, Mick.
Professor Mick Cox
Cheers.
Dr Leslie Vinjamuri
See you soon.
