Even if Joe Biden is elected President, Trump’s supporters, with or without Trump, will persist in their efforts to turn our democracy into an authoritarian regime.  Authoritarian regimes are forms of government whose essential characteristic is centralized power, exercised by one person or a small group of people who limit the political power of the governed.  Trump’s election and his success in recruiting officials who are willing to undermine our democratic institutions confirm the presence of those who favor authoritarianism over democracy.  Other Trump supporters believe authoritarianism will enhance and protect their financial interests.  And some want authoritarianism because they think it will slow social change, solidify their social status, or maintain white supremacy.

While the number of those supporting democracy has been greater than those supporting authoritarianism, authoritarianism has always had supporters in this country.  Together these authoritarian supporters probably account for no more than a third of the American electorate. Another ten to fifteen percent of Americans are willing to accept authoritarianism because they do not see how it will diminish their opportunities.  When the first colonists arrived in North America in 1607, the authoritarian English king, James I, ruled.  While the colonists declared their independence from England in 1776, they did not formally gain their freedom until they had defeated the British in 1783. 

The most profound American struggle between democracy and authoritarianism took place between the factions writing the U.S. Constitution in 1787.  One faction represented by Alexander Hamilton proposed a governing plan that gave widespread power to an executive.  Other factions proposed more limited executive powers.  But support for American authoritarianism did not end with that struggle, nor with the successes of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the defeat of fascism in World War II. 
​
Authoritarians continued their fight.  They muted their message and weaponized their money to roll back the New Deal and sabotage democratic institutions.  As the Republican Party became increasingly comfortable with authoritarianism, Donald Trump was able to capture the party and begin the final phase of making America an authoritarian country despite most voters supporting democracy.  This march toward authoritarianism is, of course, being aided by the Republican Party’s contempt for the truth and debasement of the rule of law. Also, Trump and Republicans are using several structural obstacles embedded in the Constitution to bring about an authoritarian regime.  

​As the Democratic Convention unfolded last week, we were shown one inspiring montage after another and presented with speakers broadcasting messages of warning and hope. Citizens from across the spectrum of the Democratic Party and even into the Republican Party lent their voices to the cause of defeating Donald Trump and electing Joe Biden our next US President.
 
Two of the most powerful speeches came from former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, Michelle Obama laid out the need for change. Her assessment of Donald Trump’s shortcomings as President was reinforced by the Republican defectors who spoke at the convention in support of Biden. Barack Obama reminded us that the struggle to make this country work for all its citizens is nothing new. Heroes of the past put their faith in what could be rather than what was, and were able to bring about structural reform. These speeches were focused on character - the self-serving, amoral character of Donald Trump, which has led us to a state of chaos, and the empathetic and diligent nature exhibited by Joe Biden, which will enable him to lead us to a better place.
 
Joe Biden’s acceptance speech was a knock-out by all accounts. His warmth of character and dedication to his life’s work as a public servant is undeniable. Biden’s choice of running mate says good things about his desire for an inclusive administration, and his record in supporting pro-gay rights legislation and authoring anti-domestic violence legislation speaks to his willingness to get ahead of the curve on issues he believes are moral imperatives. His capacity to persevere serves as a role model for us as individuals and as a nation. Joe Biden is undeniably a survivor, and if we trust him to lead us, maybe we will be too.
 
Biden/Harris will be a tough ticket to beat come November - at least I hope so. My only negative comment on the week’s proceedings was the over-use of quasi-religious imagery and language. If the word “soul” had been tied to a drinking game, we all would have been wasted by the end of each night.
 
They say there are no atheists in a foxhole, but no doubt there are quite a few in the Democratic Party. Voters are unlikely to object to a President who holds strong religious convictions. Many of the heroes of the civil rights era were deeply committed to their faith in God. But it is not a good idea to leave the impression that the Party is pinning its hopes on a supreme being. When trust is tied too closely to a God concept - explicitly or implicitly - you will turn off some voters and bolster the cynics among us.
 
“Faith” will be necessary as we work our way out of the current morass, but it would be wise to make clear that where we must place our faith is in the “small d” democratic process. The definition of religion is a belief in things unseen. If we believe in our founding principles, that all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights, and have faith in the democratic process, we can bring about a country far better than the one we see today. God willing.

Political pundits believe that a vice-presidential selection can make a minor but significant difference to the ticket in a presidential election outcome.  Some studies have found that the choice of a vice-president can make a one percent difference.  In the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016, the percentage difference between the winner and the loser ranged from .5 (George W. Bush versus Al Gore in 2000) and 7.2 percentage points (Barack Obama versus John McCain in 2008).  In such close elections, a percentage point, is a substantial difference.

The effect of a vice-president on a ticket is usually measured by the number of votes the ticket receives that can be attributed to the favorability of the vice-president.  In 1960 some of the voters who saw John Kennedy as young and inexperienced may have been relieved by his older and more experienced vice-presidential selection, Lyndon Johnson. As a result, Johnson may have increased the number of voters supporting the ticket.

Another way of weighing the effect of a vice-president is to consider the halo effect that a vice-president choice creates for the presidential candidate. Voters can consider the social, racial, and political characteristics of a vice-presidential candidate to be either contrasted to or matched with those of the presidential candidate.  Voters may have contrasted the urbane, youthful, Northeastern, John Kennedy with the uncouth, middle-aged, Southern, Lyndon Johnson.  This contrast may have enhanced Kennedy’s youth and vitality to voters who found those characteristics favorable.