The US electorate (at least those who have not already cast their votes) goes to the polls today to choose a new president, senator, congressman, governor, mayor, and ratcatcher. The presidential campaign has been the most vituperative I can recall and has given rise to anxiety that the losing candidate’s supporters – whether militias driving pickups and toting semi-automatic weapons (including the Proud Boys who have been following the instruction to “stand back and stand by”), or masked rioters with bricks and molotov cocktails – will take to the streets.
The election itself and the accompanying scenario represent a living illustration of the “Three Sanctions” and their relationship.
One of the major underlying differences between the two parties is the view of the proper boundary between the cash and market-based sanction and the political sanction. The party of small government (and by extension, the dispute of states’ rights over federal responsibility, which goes back to the Founding Fathers*), is less inclined to recognise the market failures that others see requiring the intervention of government. On the other side, the interventionist Democrats recognise the merit of anti-trust measures need to curb monopolistic excess and deliver the benefits attributed to the market system; recognise that unfettered markets result in huge social inequality and that post tax income disparities in the US are way beyond anything required to provide incentives to maximise the nation’s overall material wellbeing; and fear for the future of the environment under a government that does nothing to address the externalities of unregulated commerce.
The threat of a violent response to the outcome of the election represents a potential failure in the political market-place, which depends on a degree of consent and recognition of the legitimacy of a constitutional settlement, anchored in a document drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to meet the needs of thirteen small former colonies on the east coast in age bounded by limited horizons, communication, scientific understanding and technology. We will see in the next few days whether the political marketplace in the United States is operating under sufficiently favourable conditions – particularly consent for the constitutional settlement – for those who are disappointed by the outcome not to resort to resort to third sanction to address their sense of powerlessness and injustice. Even if they do not, the very fact of the threat that they might should prompt a deep search for an enhancement of the constitutional settlement to reduce the risk of political market failure.
*The diligent student of US history will recognise that during the mid 20th century, the alignment of the parties on this issue switched over