FEAR FACTOR DOMINATES ELECTORAL STRATEGIES

"The only thing we have to fear is .... fear itself." Franklin Roosevelt's memorable proclamation, uttered during his first inauguration address on March 4, 1933, has been firmly entrenched in our political history. Short of the inauguration speech expected next January, both camps in the developing presidential election campaign seem thoroughly committed to employ the fear factor as well. President Trump aggressively cautions his political base that an electoral loss would unquestionably result in a radical socialist takeover of the country. Democratic candidate, former Vice President Biden, warns that four more years of Trump would lead to obliterating our democratic and constitutional values, thoroughly eliminating our country as we know it. In short, both candidates claim that their opponent would destroy our country's democratic framework. The fear of failure has become the most significant operative concept in either campaign. During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump ran as an outsider intent on shaking up the "deep state." His base of support cared little about his policy ideas. It enjoyed the president sticking it to an entrenched Washington elite. Ending up with a more conservative judiciary was a bonus. Almost four years later, the president goes to great lengths to defend his record in office, something unexpectedly made more difficult with the coronavirus pandemic, something the administration has been ill-equipped to come to grips with, and a tanking economy which still features 14 million unemployed, and a country $26 trillion in debt, $4.7 trillion more than the previous year. What was once a promising issue for the president, evaporated almost over night. No wonder that the Trump re-election strategy required significant re-engineering. Volatile, violent demonstrations, emanating from multiple "Black Lives Matter" flash points, provided the administration with what it felt it needed. Taking a page from a successful tactic employed by President Richard Nixon, it adopted the "law and order" mantra, focusing more on order than law. Infusing federal troops into cities experiencing significant unrest not only inflamed the demonstrations, it served to cement Mr. Trump's narrative that he was the defender of the fatherland. He quickly claimed: "I'm the only thing standing between the American Dream and total anarchy and chaos." "Do you want to be ruled by the radical left-wing mob, or do you ant to stand tall as free men and women in the greatest country on earth?" "We're going to have an election that is all about the survival of the nation." On the other hand, aside from heavily criticizing President Trump's handling of the ongoing pandemic, Democrats zoom in on his perceived affinity for autocratic leaders and dismissal of constitutional norms, are spreading fear of an impending Fascist dictatorship. Their playbook comes straight out of 20th century Europe, including: despotism of a single leader, suppression of the courts, (erasion of the independent judiciary), militarization of domestic life, and the merging of most economic life with governmental purposes. All of this obviously depends on a very liberal interpretation of facts on the ground. Mr. Biden now has the advantage of 3 1/2 years of history to work from. Whether either strategy will work is difficult to tell. Mr. Trump's base may not care what policy prescription the president is offering. Many of its members tend to favor style over substance. They like Trump because he fights the Washington elite in the way he does, no holds barred. Democrats essentially coalesce around an anti-Trump strategy, realizing hesitantly that so far their cause outpolls the president's in most states. One of their major fears is that, because of the expected influx of mail-in ballots, routinely declared suspect by the president, Mr. Trump could appear to have seized a decisive victory on election night, thanks to a delay in counting these ballots. Trump may declare himself the victor - crying foul as his lead evaporates as additional votes are counted, and challenge any loss based on the mail-in ballots, claiming the election was rigged. Our fear is that this spectacle could well turn into a serious constitutional crisis. Theo Wierdsma

DEBUNKING THE THREAT OF MARTIAL LAW

President trump's recent mantra defining himself as a "law and order" president, ordering hundreds of federal law enforcement agents into cities suffering from aggressive demonstrations, have renewed fears that he might declare a national emergency or impose martial law, potentially affecting the November 3rd election. Back in July, Mr. Trump already suggested that the November election be delayed "until people can properly and safely vote." And more recently, his head of Homeland Security was quoted responding to criticism of unasked for federal interference in cities like Portland and Chicago, stating: "I don't need invitations by the state mayors or state governors to do our job. We're going to do that whether they like us or not." Mr. Trump's continued slippage in the polls, and his continued attempts at changing the narrative from his mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic to violence in cities demonstrating for "black lives matter" promoting himself aggressively as the antidote and savior of America as we know it, continues to feed the rumors. Although our president is known for breaking constitutional norms and acting outside of constitutional bounds, the short answer to these rumors is decidedly "No!" He absolutely does not have the power to declare martial law, or to change the timing and scope of our presidential election. Martial law, the displacement of civilian authorities by the military, is nowhere to be found in our Constitution, and no act of Congress defines it. The 10th Amendment to our Constitution stipulates that all powers not expressly relegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. This includes police powers. Thus far the administration has paid little attention to these legalities. However, states have already taken them to court, and the magnitude of recent incursions won't compare to what would need to happen on a national scale to potentially threaten the election. President Trump has made a point of hiding behind the Insurrection Act of 1807, which allows him to deploy federal troops against the will of local authorities in certain circumstances. State approval is not required when the president determines that a situation in a state makes it impossible to enforce U.S. laws, or when citizens' rights are threatened. However, the Insurrection Act only covers military assistance in localized situations, not the all encompassing military involvement martial law would allow. Under the latter provisions the president would be able to censor the press, enforce a curfew, detain civilians without charge, and, in Mr. Trump's mind, presumably allow him to affect he scope, content and timing of the upcoming election. Since World War II, we have only declared martial law nine times, five of which intended to counter resistance to federal desegregation decrees in the South. Among these, President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to enforce high school integration against the wishes of Arkansas in 1957. And President Kennedy federalized the National Guard to force integration of the University of Alabama in 1962. Scholars are clear: Our president does not have the power to move the date of the election. Article II of the Constitution empowers Congress to choose the timing of the general election. An 1845 federal law fixed it as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. At the same time, the Constitution specifically stipulates that the new Congress be sworn in on January 3rd, and that the new president begins his or her term on January 20. Alan Dershowitz, a legal scholar and a staunch supporter of our current president, puts it this way: "Were the president to claim that both the violent disruptions and the spread of the coronavirus justified the use of the military or the suspension of certain basic rights, he would be embarking on unchartered waters, and so would the courts." Theo Wierdsma