Commentary. The vote in November comes down to competing views on race and ‘national security.’

The risk of implosion and the American referendum

What is the point of speculating who gains votes with the insurrection of blacks in Charlotte? This is a useless, cynical and wrong discussion, especially if the obvious implication is that Clinton should now take a harder stance, take the side of the police and not let her opponent keep control of the “security card.”

In other words, that she should not do what she did — and what Barack Obama did, after the latest attacks in New York — which is to maintain a soft and weak (but reasonable!) position.

Of course, we are a few weeks from the presidential elections. And anything that could be considered a “disorder” or that arouses “fear,” will be exploited on that topic and will be used to play dirty. This usually favors the right. Indeed it seems designed to catapult Trump to the victory, regardless if African Americans injure policemen or if an Islamic lunatic sows panic in New York City and the surrounding areas with unexploded homemade bombs.

But let’s not jump to conclusions, especially if they are patently wrong. Just to stay in focus: If the angry whites who claim they will vote for Trump now have other good excuses broadcast on the media to go to the polls and reward The Donald — and who knows how many others who won’t admit they also plan to vote for him — it is equally clear that the black electorate will respond positively to the rather lame “joke” of “their” president: If they do not vote for Clinton, or rather, if they do not go to the polls and will not vote for the democratic candidate, Obama will consider it a “personal insult.” And in some swing states, the black vote will make a difference.

Commentators, including our own, would do better if they ask a more substantial question before imagining a Democratic Party that, in order to beat Trump, should pursue him on his own turf.

At this point, the stakes on Nov. 8 are evident. It is a referendum for the voters between an America that values and protects inclusion and that, in the wake of Obama, invests in its “diversity” and, on the other hand, an America of everyone against everyone, with the white component presumptuously and unnecessarily struggling to recover the centrality and hegemony that it’s gradually losing.

Today more than ever, America is the mirror of the world. Its population is the puzzle of all cultures, ethnicities and religions in the world.

The black and white America is far in the past, when the whites were a majority controlling a black minority. This is what the Obama presidency represented, he does not come from a black ghetto; he is the son of a Kenyan immigrant, who became president of a multi-color, multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation. He has tuned its international policy with this incredible, rapid, profound demographic transformation of his country, in conjunction with globalization.

Based on the new demographics, he tried to strengthen democracy, both at home and abroad. Did he do it? Could he have done more? Could he have done more, especially for blacks? He has done a lot for blacks; however, he’s trying not to be the African American president, but the black president of all Americans. Was he not understood?

Books will be written about this “groundbreaking” presidency, but in the meantime, America might respond by electing a president who overturns that vision and that path. If America fails to contain itself and to link together the parts it is made of, and which are constantly changing, it risks implosion.

This is the problem of “national security.” The national security issues are really inside, not outside. The risk is that the same conflicts that grow across the world will take up space and develop on American soil. The gamble of the realist Obama is that only an inclusive, open and truly “multi” America can be a solid superpower, with the qualifications to lead and do something to contribute to world peace.

Recently, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the gun lobby that has five million members, aired in the white rural areas of swing states a shocking video that portrays a woman in her sleep. She then realizes the presence of an intruder in the house and rushes to the phone, but it will take 11 minutes, says a voice, before her cry for help is answered. Then the classic scene of police cars, ambulances, the lights up at the house of the victim after the crime. The message: It is better to have a gun than to give Clinton the power to kill who knows how many women at night. The NRA spent $5 million for these commercials out of the $15 million allocated to support Trump until November.

How can you not connect this offensive NRA propaganda with Trump’s attacks against minorities, immigrants and blacks? For the Democrats and their candidate, it is no longer a matter to compete or not with Trump on the ground of “fear,” but to oppose him systematically in order to avoid feeding the very atmosphere that encourages his ascent. And leads to his victory.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Your weekly briefing of progressive news.

You have Successfully Subscribed!