On the Unfolding Events in the
United States
Trump, Elections and a Dysfunctional Political Process
- Kathleen Chandler -
Washington, DC, August 1, 2020
Senator Warren's letter
against federal deployments of police forces and
responses to Trump's tweet on delaying elections
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a senior democratic
senator from Massachusetts, on July 28 sent a
letter to the heads of the Departments of Defence,
Justice, Homeland Security and the Interior
calling on them not to deploy the military and
various federal forces under their control against
demonstrators protesting racist police murders and
demanding equality, justice and peace. She not
only expressed the concerns of many among the
ruling elite about Trump's deployment of federal
forces to Portland, Oregon and other cities but
also specifically raised concerns about the 2020
presidential election and Trump's ongoing refusal
"to reassure the country that he would abide by
the voters' will" and peacefully leave office if
he is voted out. It will result in "an
unprecedented test of American democracy," Warren
said. She cited a Washington Post article
with the title: "Trump's assault on election
integrity forces question: What would happen if he
refused to accept a loss?"
 The matter is now
being widely speculated on in the press, among
professors and think tanks, along with concern
that a violent civil war will break out.
Warren's letter as a whole and the fact she included the
military in her call shows the hopelessness and helplessness in which
the U.S. ruling class is mired and its utter humiliation. It is
tantamount to calling on the military to refuse to follow orders from
the Commander-in-Chief should it be called out during the election. The
prospect is already a matter of grave concern given the open split
among military forces during the previous election, with some speaking
out publicly for Clinton and some for Trump, despite the fact that the
military is supposed to remain neutral and serve all presidents no
matter what party they claim to represent.
Following Warren's letter, Trump reinforced
concern about his possible actions in the face of
either an election campaign or election results
which he deems to not favour him. He tweeted:
"With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee
Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most
INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history.
It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay
the Election until people can properly, securely
and safely vote???"
Trump's demand to delay the election met a swift
response from elected officials, constitutional
lawyers and others, all saying Trump could not
legally delay federal elections. It would be
unconstitutional as only Congress has that power,
not the president.[1]
In this regard, Trump's proposal -- or threat --
to delay the election can be seen as a deliberate
provocation to gauge the response. Testing the
waters is one way of working out how internal and
external limitations on those who wield power can
be transcended.
Even Constitutional law professor Steven
Calabresi of the conservative Federalist Society,
considered a close ally of Trump, wrote an
editorial in the New York Times which said
elections could not be delayed. Representing the
views of many Calabresi wrote: "President Trump
needs to be told by every Republican in Congress
that he cannot postpone the federal election.
Doing so would be illegal, unconstitutional and
without precedent in American history." Calabresi
added, "Anyone who says otherwise should never be
elected to Congress again." He called for
Trump's impeachment and removal from office,
something he previously opposed.
While most are saying Trump cannot delay
elections because it would be "illegal,
unconstitutional and without precedent," the more
relevant questions are: If he does, who will stop
him? And with what armed forces? What armed forces
might Trump manage to align behind a deployment to
either delay the election or oppose announced
election results? How are conditions being put in
place to trigger such a deployment? What will be
the pretext?
 Despite
Trump calling himself a law-and-order president, his presidency has
repeatedly made clear that the current government is not one of rule of
law, at home or abroad. Trump's government operates solely on the basis
of the police powers commanded by the presidency, which are running
rampant due to the impotency of Congress and the courts to keep the
presidential powers under control. Using the military against the
American people is how tyranny is defined, not "law and order." Tyranny
is what the U.S. Constitution and the ensemble of its institutions are
supposed to make sure never takes hold. The people from coast to coast
are valiantly opposing this tyranny, day after day after day after day.
They deserve an explanation for what is taking place.
The explanation for what is taking place lies in
the fact that where decision-making takes place is
no longer in accord with what the Constitution
enshrines. The decision-making power in the United
States, at every level, has been usurped by narrow
private interests which have directly taken over
the reins of power. They are simultaneously
engaged in vicious fights amongst themselves to
control all resources at home and abroad and put
down the rebellion of the people demanding change.
Their desperation to make sure the U.S. economic
crisis is dealt with in a manner that favours them
also seeks to make sure they do not lose
"indispensable nation" status abroad.
But so long as control is sought through the
deployment of police powers, their every move
cannot but deepen the anarchy and violence and
destruction of the productive forces. The dangers
to the peoples within the United States and abroad
require their full attention, vigilance and
response based on the people themselves
identifying their own interests.
A state of anarchy prevails whereby none of these
powerful narrow private interests accept any
decision-making above their own. They have formed
oligopolies which function as coalitions and
cartels. These narrow private interests have taken
over the Office of the President and demand that
the president be able to act with impunity. To
serve their interests, they want the power to act
without regard for the law and existing
constitutional arrangements. Trump was chosen as
president as someone who was not part of the
established arrangements and vowed to break the
bonds of the old arrangements with impunity. The
narrow private interests accept no limitations on
their power to act expediently, claiming this is
good for the economy and such things.
 Trump's actions at
the southern border, including separation of
families and detention of children, those
concerning Muslim bans and asylum, the clearing of
Lafayette Square on June 1, the current
deployments of federal forces to suppress
resistance, are all considered by many to be
unconstitutional and against the law. Senator
Warren herself asks to know the legal basis for
the deployments of federal forces taking place.
However, while it is the case that such actions are
unconstitutional and against the law, what the situation shows is that
the Constitution itself is not capable of containing the private
interests which have usurped power at this time. These narrow
private interests do not negotiate, they are not interested in
settlements which curb their powers. They make a killing by striking
while the iron is hot within the anarchy and chaos they create. This is
how and why the fortunes of the richest of the rich have increased
manifold during the pandemic.
Warren's Letter on Federal Deployments
Federal forces in Portland, Oregon, July 28, 2020.
Referring to the exercise of police powers in
Trump's deployment of federal forces to various
cities, Warren expresses the concern among
sections of the rulers that Trump's actions are
not suppressing the resistance of the people but
are further dividing, rather than uniting, the
military bureaucracy and policing agencies. Given
the president has the specific job of preserving
the union while keeping the people suppressed and
out of power, these failures are a serious problem
for the rulers.
Warren, in appealing to cabinet heads and by
including the military, is attempting to unite
these forces to refuse federal deployments and, by
inference, to reject Trump's "law and order" and
use of force as a way out of the crisis.
"You are each responsible for the command of
military or civilian troops and domestic law
enforcement personnel in your agencies. I urge you
not to allow these personnel under your command or
supervision to be used in any future domestic
actions against people exercising their right to
protest," she states.
The inherent danger is that any such refusal by
cabinet heads of the massive policing agencies
and/or the military openly refusing orders of the
Commander-in-Chief could also potentially spark
open and violent civil war. This is precisely the
outcome the ruling class as a whole wants to
avoid.
 It shows that the
danger of civil war remains despite the appeals to
uphold the Constitution and not use the military
at home, which constitutes tyranny, and not deploy
federal forces into non-federal jurisdictions
without permission from state and local
authorities. It also shows that the current
democratic process and institutions are exhausted.
They are supposed to provide the means through
which contradictions within the ranks of private
interests can be sorted out while they unite to
impose their rule on the people.
A modern constitution and democratic process are
needed. This can only be achieved by the people
united in action for their own empowerment. Such a
constitution will enshrine rights as defined by
the people, not the rich. It will codify the
democratic decision-making processes which stand
them in good stead in their fight for justice,
rights and peace. This will end the current
arrangements which protect private
property, wage slavery, indentured labour, prison
labour and outright enslavement of peoples
everywhere and define rights on that basis.
Warren's letter focusses on the additional
conflicts with state and local forces, saying the
federal deployment is being done despite "clear
opposition from governors, mayors, and citizens
who are exercising their First Amendment rights."
She speaks to the violation of rights as a result
of the use of tear gas, targeting journalists,
etc. and then raises the elections:
"These attacks -- in which the President appears
to be using Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
forces as his 'goon squad,' in the words of a
former acting director of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement -- come approximately 100 days
before the election...."
"The partisan use of paramilitary domestic
federal law enforcement forces... raises alarms
about the President's respect for law and
precedent, and whether he will take additional,
more dangerous and outrageous actions to pit
federal forces against their own people in the
months and days leading up to and after the 2020
presidential election.
"The potential for President Trump to activate
domestic forces as his 'personal militia' (as
former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge
put it) is even more disturbing given his ongoing
refusal 'to reassure the country that he would
abide by the voters' will' and peacefully leave
office... I therefore write to seek your
assurances that you will not allow the military or
civilian forces under your control to be used by
the President to suppress dissent and democracy."
She writes, "The deployment of federal
paramilitary forces against civilians is a
historic embarrassment for our nation, and harms
the United States' standing in the world."
Her conclusion is, nonetheless, not rational
given the existing reality of a government of
police powers which by definition does not follow
rules of engagement of any kind[2]
and that crucial institutions such as Congress,
the courts and elections are dysfunctional as far
as sorting out any problems facing the ruling
class.
 Warren asks the
cabinet heads to "identify the specific statutory
and regulatory legal authorities that authorize
that agency or unit" to make arrests, use force,
conduct crowd control, etc. She then again asks,
"Will you commit to refuse to deploy the military
or federal law enforcement forces under your
control domestically against peaceful protesters
or otherwise against Americans in advance of the
November elections, and refuse to deploy in a
manner intended to intimidate voters on November
3? In the event President Trump loses the election
and will not peacefully leave office, will you
refuse to deploy the military or federal law
enforcement forces under your control in support
of his defiance of the voters' will?" She closes,
"This is an urgent matter for American democracy
and for the safety of Americans peacefully
protesting in their communities, and I therefore
ask that you provide me with written commitments
no later than August 3."
It remains to be seen whether she has or will
receive any responses. As a Senator she has no
enforcing powers for the requests and little
ability to convoke a Congressional hearing. At
present both Attorney General William Barr who
heads the Department of Justice and Chad Wolf who
heads the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
are said to be prepared to implement Trump's
actions against the people. Barr especially
favours further increasing the powers of the
President. But the FBI, U.S. Marshals and heads of
the numerous agencies within DHS, such as the Drug
Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives, may not be so ready in
the context of a disputed election and deepening
all-sided crisis. Already, many DHS employees have
opposed the current deployment against protesters
in many cities, calling it "blatantly
unconstitutional," a "descent into lawlessness,"
and saying it serves to deepen the public distrust
of DHS.
 The same can be
said of many of the National Guards called out by
governors to suppress demonstrators. A number
refused outright, while others voiced their
opposition. Indeed active duty Major Adam DeMarco,
responsible for the National Guard at Lafayette
Square on June 1, testified before Congress
saying, "From my observation, those demonstrators
-- our fellow American citizens -- were engaged in
the peaceful expression of their First Amendment
rights. Yet they were subjected to an unprovoked
escalation and excessive use of force," something
he said he found very disturbing.
It should be kept in mind that Trump's
deployments of federal forces, including various
policing agencies, is in part an exercise in
training the various forces to carry out brutal,
illegal use of force against people standing up
for rights. Significant dissent among them is
cause for concern for the rulers and a positive
factor for the resistance. Head of the DHS Chad
Wolf has said they anticipate "unrest" through
November.
Potential for Civil War
After Trump threatened to use the military, in
addition to the military police and National Guard
present in Washington, DC, including at Lafayette
Square, Defense Secretary Mark Esper in early
June also had 1,600 soldiers from the Army's 82nd
Airborne on standby at nearby bases. At the very
same time, on June 3, he expressed his concerns
about use of the military for domestic purposes.
When Trump threatened to use the Insurrection
Act to justify such action, Esper publicly
said:
"The option to use active-duty forces in a law
enforcement role should only be used as a matter
of last resort and only in the most urgent and
dire situations.
"We are not in one of those situations now. I do
not support invoking the Insurrection Act."
Are we to suppose a delay of the elections, or
disputing the outcome, constitute such a "dire
situation?" Or will Esper join people like former
Defense Secretary General James Mattis in opposing
Trump?
Meanwhile, Trump is not alone in indicating
possible use of the military. Joe Biden, who is
seeking the Democratic nomination for the
presidency, is also suggesting that military force
might be used. In June Biden said that if Trump
loses and refuses to leave office he is
"absolutely convinced" the military "will escort
him from the White House with great dispatch." "My
single greatest concern," Biden also said, is that
"this president is going to try to steal this
election. This is a guy who said that all mail-in
ballots are fraudulent."
It is evident then that everything about the
current electoral process is a matter of disputes
which are paving the way for disputed results. Far
from an election being a process which sorts out
who will rule over the next presidential term, the
process itself is in crisis. Former president
Obama went so far as to use a portion of his
eulogy to departed Senator John Lewis to demand
all kinds of changes to how elections, three
months away, are conducted.[3]
 Senator Warren's
open call for defiance by cabinet heads and the
military, the many public conflicts between and
within the presidency, military, Congress and
state and local forces and repeated comments about
an "unprecedented test of" U.S. democracy are
indications that a violent civil war and/or other
foreign invasion could accompany the election
campaign or election result.
As the resistance of the people in the United
States strengthens and broadens, the consciousness
taking hold among the people, is that the U.S.
institutions of democracy and the Constitution do
not serve them -- something that has been well
known for a very long time -- and that furthermore
they are useless to them. They cannot be relied on
to sort out the contradictions within the ranks of
the rulers or between the rulers and the people
who are demanding modern arrangements consistent
with the times and their needs.
The people's refusal to be diverted by the rulers
and the fact that they are sticking to their aims
of achieving justice, equality, security and peace
on the basis of their own efforts inspires
confidence and continues to show the way forward.
Notes
1. Article II of the
Constitution empowers Congress to choose the
timing of the general election. An 1845 federal
law fixed the date as the first Tuesday after the
first Monday in November.
It would take a change in federal law to move
that date. That would mean legislation enacted by
Congress, signed by the president and subject to
challenge in the courts.
Furthermore, the Constitution mandates that the
new Congress must be sworn in on Jan. 3, and that
the new president's term must begin on Jan. 20.
Those dates cannot be changed by the passage of
normal legislation.
2. Rules of engagement are:
a directive issued by a military authority
specifying the circumstances and limitations under
which forces will engage in combat with the enemy.
3. Transcript of President
Barack Obama's Eulogy for John Lewis, Ebenezer
Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia, July 30, 2020.
This article was published in
Volume 50 Number 29 - August 8, 2020
Article Link:
On the Unfolding Events in the
United States: Trump, Elections and a Dysfunctional Political Process - Kathleen Chandler
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
