In reality, it was a minor event preceding the election: two promotional materials endorsing Trump and Vance unceremoniously placed on my premises without my agreement, likely when I wasn’t home or was preoccupied with sleep. The incident left me feeling uneasy for reasons beyond the breach of my privacy. As a policy, I never display any political endorsements—whether in the yard, on my vehicle, or via a lapel badge. There’s a sense of neutrality I uphold because of the political topics I write about; it’s more ethical to not publicly pick sides.
To achieve this unsolicited endorsement, someone trespassed my premises, a lawful breach that cannot be ignored, especially in the light of the fervor and extreme acts that politics can forge. For instance, a gentleman in Texas found himself accosted by the law on felony charges for assaulting an elderly poll worker who merely advised him about the legal prohibition of his pro-Trump cap at the polling center.
There have been instances where ballot boxes were set on fire in certain states, posing an attack on democracy itself. Aggressive actions coupled with unspoken threats present a fairly grim portrayal of the future of a politically fragmented nation. At the root of this aggressive behavior are individuals who undoubtedly believe that their actions are justifiable.
President-elect Donald Trump, who supporters have long followed, has always been at the center of these actions and beliefs. Despite having been indicted for felonies and facing federal charges, he continues to portray himself as a perpetual innocent victim. There is a deeply ingrained mentality of ‘rules for others, exemption for self’ that exists, one that his Department of Justice will probably affirm.
Across the country, apprehensions grew as people foresaw another march to the Capitol if the 2024 election was not in Trump’s favor. Conversely, there’s little worry among citizens–both Trump’s supporters and opposers–that Vice President Kamala Harris or her supporters, despite their disappointment, will partake in relaliation or manifesto declaration, as Trump’s supporters did in their assumption of a Harris win.
In the minds of Trump and his supporters, the sole determining factor of a fair election was seen as a victory for Trump, and they got it. Hence the National Guard troops under the charge of Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who were previously in ‘standby status’, can now breathe easy. All the claims of fraudulent activity? Suddenly a moot point. Most Americans harbor confidence that there will not be an insurgence following the election.
It’s also worth noting that I have the utmost certainty that the vice president, after overseeing the electors’ certification process, will be in attendance during the swearing-in of the new president, a customary American tradition that Trump chose to ignore in the past. Is this disdain for democratic practices set to become standard, where one faction upholds democratic rituals while the other camp openly threatens to resist and retaliate if things don’t pan out in their favor?
Trump played on the emotions of fear and anger, manipulating them as his strategic and effective closing argument. He relentlessly attacked his opponent, sparking excitement at turbulent political rallies. Trump may initially rejoice in the triumph, but he should also realize that a significant segment of the population fear him—more than any of his scaremongering claims of violent immigrants plotting to terrorize suburban households.
Despite these concerns, I hold scant hope that Trump will change. His action of prohibiting certain journalists from attending his election night’s event sadly indicates his disregard for press freedom, one of the constitutional liberties that form the bedrock of our democratic system.
Trump, who persistently alleges without any proof that his victory was taken away in the 2020 election, has assured that he will extend pardons to those who participated in the attempted insurgency on January 6, 2021, individuals he lauds as ‘patriots’ and ‘captives’. Furthermore, he has speculated openly about an infallible method for combating crime—an aggressive ‘crackdown’ led by law enforcement immune to prosecution. This approach, aimed at ‘cleaning up’ urban zones he constantly belittles, is unfortunately in line with his rhetoric.
It prompts the question: which political party really supports law and order? After an intensely fought election, a very fatigued nation is beckoned to look ahead. However, if the next step after such a clash is to surrender to those who resort to verbal abuse and intimidation, then we cannot call such a move ‘progress’.