Who can bridge the US divide?

As the president’s assertions of voting fraud fail in the courts, the US must look to its past and other nations on how credible associates can appeal to him to concede.

Reuters
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell arrives at a Republican meeting on Capitol Hill Nov. 10.

Call them peace committees. Or simply groups of respected elders who put principle before party or person. In many countries, they have played a pivotal role before or after a tense election to remind citizens of higher purpose than partisan gain or personal loyalty. Now, with the United States in postelection stress over President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claim of victory, the U.S. may be ripe for quiet intervention by a few truth-telling seniors in the Republican camp.

The U.S. has a strong precedent for saving its democracy through gentle persuasion of a president by a trusted few in his party. On Aug. 7, 1974, three top Republican lawmakers told President Nixon in person that he lacked support in Congress to stay in office after it became clear he had lied about the Watergate cover-up. The next day, Nixon resigned.

“For me, this is a sad day. I admire Richard Nixon, for the many great things he has done for the people of America and the people of the world,” said one of the three lawmakers, House Republican leader John Jacob Rhodes. But, he added, the entire system of government relies on principle and, in Nixon’s case, the principle of equal justice under the law must prevail.

For Mr. Trump, his assertions in at least a half-dozen lawsuits alleging voter fraud have so far been proved false or baseless. His use of the courts may be legitimate, but the lack of evidence erodes his legitimacy in not conceding the election or in trying to cling to power through his command of the executive branch. As that legitimacy disappears and the integrity of the vote count further emerges in Joe Biden’s favor, it opens a door for GOP politicians – those who are both legitimate in the eyes of the public and closest to the president – to quietly ease him toward a handover of the Oval Office come Jan. 20.

An example of this unusual type of democracy protector at work happened in Nigeria’s 2015 presidential election. Fearing violence like that in a 2011 election and a postelection standoff, 14 presidential candidates and their parties agreed to the setup of a national peace committee. The panel consisted of esteemed clergy, statesmen, businesspeople, and a former head of state. The point was to remind citizens – and the losing candidates – that they have a civic identity beyond party, ethnicity, religion, or other volatile differences and that identity includes respect for an election outcome.

The committee was able to persuade President Goodluck Jonathan to concede despite postelection tensions. For the first time in Africa’s largest economy, a president agreed to a peaceful transfer of power to a duly elected rival. “Nobody’s ambition is worth the blood of any Nigerian,” Mr. Jonathan said. For an election in 2019, a new national peace committee again helped in reducing violence and avoiding a postelection standoff.

In several countries, from Kyrgyzstan to Bolivia to Ghana, local or national groups have been set up to mediate between rivals during elections or referendums. They often included credible religious and traditional leaders who advocated at high levels for a peaceful political outcome. With wisdom they provided a moment of truth and a voice of unity.

In the U.S., it is Mr. Trump’s ardent supporters as much as Mr. Trump who need and could then accept an American-style peace committee speaking to the president. The news media, Democratic leaders, and low-level Republicans have failed at that in this era of high distrust. A widely respected group of senior Republicans – who are seen representing the ideals at stake – might both persuade Mr. Trump and heal the nation’s widening breach.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Who can bridge the US divide?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2020/1112/Who-can-bridge-the-US-divide
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe