By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.
Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice
In January 2016, I wrote a commentary about the reasons why then presidential-candidate Donald Trump should not be elected President. In November 2016, I wrote an open letter to then President-elect Donald Trump with the concerns I had for his presidency. Now in January 2021, I write about the implications of outgoing-President Donald Trump’s presidency, especially in light of the riots that occurred just one week ago at the U.S. Capitol. In each of these instances, my comments not only address concerns about Donald Trump but also concerns for the broader context of our country. And as the U.S. is just a week away from the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden, it is significant that we understand both sets of concerns if there is to be true progress in the aftermath of the recent riots.
Donald Trump the candidate did not have the character, temperament, or political experience to be President of the United States. But he was elected. Donald Trump as president became a divisive and polarizing figure for many. But he also garnered the support of many others.
To understand the dichotomy of Donald Trump as President, we need to understand the precursors in our country that led to Donald Trump’s election. Donald Trump becoming President was the result of an amplification of a range of issues that had long been part of America but that are surfacing in more apparent ways in recent years. He was elected President because of two major factors -- a very disgruntled far Right and a dissatisfied right and center of America. The establishment had "failed" these segments by not hearing or responding to their concerns. Working class, rural communities, and others who did not feel an alignment with the view of the Democrats, gravitated to Trump who in some ways spoke their language or at least seemed to indicate an understanding of their points of view. The disgruntled and the dissatisfied existed before the Trump presidency and under various previous presidencies. But Trump tapped into their emotions and amplified them in a way that other candidates had not recently. And in the process of doing so, he also tapped into something further and of greater concern -- extremism.
Beneath the various issues that our country has been facing both before, during, and presumably after the Trump presidency, is also a rising tide of extremism on both the far Right and the far Left. Trump emboldened, both directly and indirectly, the extremists on both ends of the spectrum with his rhetoric and actions over the past four years, and especially in the past week. But Trump is not solely responsible for the extremism in the U.S. The nature of U.S. politics and the nature of our parties and media also contribute to the rise of extremism.
The divisive nature of American politics pre-dated Trump, but over the past four years, the far Right and the far Left have increasingly demonstrated their unwillingness to hear from the other side, to cooperate, and to compromise. As divisions have increased, segments of both the far Left and far Right no longer respect the values, principles, or institutions of our country. As such, during the past four years in particular, the extremists followed those political divides to increasingly and more openly become associated directly or indirectly with the far Left and the far Right. As each side has become more radicalized, extremists responses against these values, principles, and institutions have intensified.
In addition, both the major political parties and media in general have deepened and widened the impact of Trump and the rise of extremism based on their own approaches and rhetoric in response to a myriad of political concerns in the country. They have repeatedly placed Trump front and center no matter what their position about him. Taken together with the broader context in the country, the parties and media have sparked extremism on both ends of the spectrum and Trump has been the lightning rod. Extremism has thus become more apparent in the U.S. in recent years, though these segments have existed for a long time in this country.
Extremism then began to seep into the current political process. While the Left (and some center and right) rejected the presidency of Donald Trump, the far Left extremists wanted to destroy the Trump presidency. Similarly, the Right (and some others) rejected the election of Joe Biden, but extremists in the far Right wanted to destroy his election results. As such, rejection has given way to riots, mobs, and violence. It is no longer a matter of agreeing, disagreeing, or debating issues. It is about using force and coercion to get what each side wants – power and control.
The riots that occurred at the U.S. Capitol one week ago were particularly shocking, but they were not a surprise. Extremists on both ends of the spectrum had demonstrated an anarchical and violent streak against our country for some time. And they often work within the fringes of protest. Anarchical groups like Antifa and radical segments of BLM who were at the center of violent riots in 2020 were an indication that the extremes were now moving out from the shadows of the Left. And the white supremacists and mob who stormed the Capitol indicated that the extremes on the Right were also pursuing violent means to anarchical ends. Each instance of chaos and violence furthers the likelihood of a counter incident on the other side and deepens the impact of anarchists and extremists in general.
In this past year especially, extremists are crossing literal and figurative societal boundaries with significant impact. By destroying property, defacing monuments, storming the Capitol, threatening institutions and individuals, and causing loss of life, extremists are demonstrating their penchant for lawlessness and anarchy. The recent storming of our halls of government, invading government officials’ offices, and the forced entry to the floor of the House seems surreal unless you realize that these institutions and locations are the very representations of what the extremists want to destroy. When they violate boundaries of civil society, they are pursuing their ends.
In the aftermath of last week’s violent riots, our government and our people stand in unusual and significant points of decision-making. Both the government and the people need to determine not only the impacts and implications of the extremists’ actions, but also the bearing that President Donald Trump has in inciting or at least not quelling the mobs. Vice President Mike Pence now has to exercise his own conscience in certifying the elections and choosing to or declining to invoke the 25th amendment against Donald Trump to strip him of his presidential power. Congress needs to determine whether to pursue impeachment or censure – both of which require time for investigation and process. In addition, businesses, particularly media entities, are making decisions to censor and block Donald Trump but their actions can also have wider implications for the people beyond Trump’s presidency.
While these decisions are challenging, their implementation difficult, and their implications wide, they only address the immediate concerns about Donald Trump. They do not address the broader concerns about extremism. And it is likely that whatever decisions are made, they may further deepen the political divides and further amplify the extremes.
To move forward, not just in a Joe Biden presidency, but for a more free, peaceful, and democratic America for years to come, the United States must recognize the need to fight extremism on all sides. That fight needs to be bipartisan and inclusive of a range of other perspectives. This requires consensus among various segments of the U.S. on some key pillars for our society:
1) Human Rights: Unless all sides are committed to ensuring human rights, extremists will always have a foothold to violate those rights. By protecting and respecting life, thought, speech, and other civil aspects of society that are inherent in human value and dignity, we position our society for justice rather than extremism.
2) Rule of Law. By applying the rule of law, we would hold those that engage in violations of law, including riots and violence, accountable no matter the party, the position, or reason. While human and civil rights allow us to disagree and event protest, they do not allow us to be violent and destructive. The rule of law applies boundaries and works in coordination with human rights. As such, the rule of law is a powerful guard against extremist actions.
3) Pluralism: By encouraging a diverse and pluralistic society, we are allowing a range of perspectives and a strong context that even allows disagreement. A pluralistic society requires room for many voices, even those that we don't want to accept. But pluralism is an extension of human rights and rule of law. Viewpoints may diverge, but no viewpoint gives anyone the right to infringe on others lives and liberties. Pluralism allows us to coexist, and when possible integrate, but only to the level that doesn’t conflict with human rights, laws, and values as a whole. Pluralism grounded in human rights and rule of law also guards against the actions of extremist factions.
4) Governmental integrity: We live in a constitutional democracy and democratic republic. That means that we the people establish institutions and elect officials. We then rely on those institutions and officials to guide and make decisions on overall policy on behalf of those in our society. Respecting the structures, institutions, processes, and representatives of our government is essential to making this system work. But what is also essential is the integrity of those who serve in those roles. We must use the channels and institutions we have and work with our representatives to institute, implement, and enforce just laws and policies. And that can only happen through mutual trust and respect. That requires much cooperation and compromise but also integrity. It is a necessary combination to ensure that extremists do not step into the voids and exploit conflicts.
5) Media integrity: The Media should report the news and not create the news. Real, fake, or otherwise, the current news sources are mostly biased and not serving the needs of our society. The Media can be a powerful force for information and influence, but should not use that power to manipulate and coerce people into certain perspectives. In doing so, they also open up opportunities for extremists to exploit media outlets for propaganda.
These and other key pillars need to be recognized, promoted, and protected not only by our government, but also by our media and by our people in our many contexts. While Donald Trump and the current versions of extremism are our concerns today, the issues of extremism will continue beyond his presidency and even beyond Joe Biden’s presidency. To safeguard our country from anarchy and violence into the future, we must rely on these pillars even when we disagree and even when it’s difficult. Justice in and for the United States lies in how we respond and rebuild, and how we uphold these pillars, in the aftermath.