By Matt Underwood Kamala Harris’s role in overseeing the upcoming electoral count is undeniably a significant event, particularly considering the context of Donald Trump’s presidency. It represents a conscious effort to restore a fundamental aspect of American democracy, a process that Trump deliberately disrupted. The very act of Harris taking on this responsibility signifies a return to established norms, a clear contrast to the actions of the previous administration.
The fact that this is even a noteworthy occurrence highlights the extent of the damage inflicted during the Trump era. The casual disregard for established procedures and the blatant attempts to subvert democratic processes have left a lasting impact on the political landscape. This makes the simple act of adhering to established protocol a powerful statement.
There’s a palpable sense of relief among many that the electoral count will proceed according to established norms. The fear of a repeat of the January 6th insurrection, fueled by unfounded claims of election fraud, has loomed large. Harris’s involvement offers a degree of reassurance, a tangible symbol of the system functioning as intended.
However, the situation is not without its complexities. Some argue that simply adhering to established norms is insufficient to address the underlying problems within the political system. The deep divisions and polarization remain, the threat to democratic institutions persists, and the very notion of “norms” is itself being challenged.
The cynical viewpoint suggests that this focus on “restoring norms” is a superficial gesture, a way to maintain the appearance of stability without addressing the root causes of political dysfunction. Others see it as a necessary step, a foundation upon which to build a more resilient democracy. The argument here is that without adherence to fundamental processes, the very possibility of addressing deeper issues becomes impossible.
The critics raise legitimate questions about the effectiveness of this approach. They express concerns that a return to these norms may be insufficient to counter the powerful forces that are undermining the integrity of American democracy. The question becomes whether symbolic gestures of adhering to norms are sufficient in the face of an actively hostile political movement dedicated to dismantling democratic institutions.
Furthermore, the deeply ingrained political polarization makes any attempt at restoring normalcy a challenge. The lack of trust between opposing factions, coupled with the pervasive spread of misinformation, creates an environment where even the most basic procedures are subject to intense scrutiny and distrust. Restoring trust and the perception of fair processes is far more complex than restoring any particular process.
Nevertheless, the simple act of Harris overseeing the electoral count carries symbolic weight. It’s a public affirmation of the importance of adhering to established procedures, a rejection of the chaotic and norm-shattering style of the Trump administration. This symbolism is crucial, providing a degree of stability and reassurance in a politically turbulent climate.
Ultimately, the success of this effort to restore democratic norms hinges on more than just one individual’s actions. It requires a broader commitment from all participants in the political process to uphold the rule of law, respect the democratic process, and engage in respectful dialogue. It demands a collective effort to heal the deep divisions within society and restore trust in the institutions of government. The long-term effects of this process will depend on a multitude of factors that go far beyond the symbolic restoration of process.