UEA Lasdun Lecture: Broken Democracy? Lessons from the American Election

Liam Heffernan: 00:00:19

Hello, it's Liam here and as you can hear from the noise behind me, this is a very special episode of the podcast.

It's actually the latest in the University of East Anglia's Lasdun Lectures, which this time was focused on the US Election and the fallout in the two days between Election Day and recording this live panel, I was joined on stage by a couple of familiar voices and a couple of other experts from uea. So I'm going to hand over to this live, unedited, untouched feed of the whole event which we're able to share with all of you right now.

So I hope you enjoy and remember, follow the podcast and review rate and share it wherever you can.

Professor Julian Blow: 00:01:07

Okay, a very warm welcome to you all and it's really nice to see so many people here and I think this is going to be a very interesting event. Just to introduce myself, I'm Professor Julian Blow. I'm the Pro Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation.

e University of East Anglia's: 2024

We have a wonderful turnout here on campus in the Enterprise center tonight and also a very large audience joining us from across the globe via livestream. I'm incredibly proud to introduce this esteemed panel who will provide us with a varied and rich exploration into the events from the past two days.

Rebecca J.

Fraser is professor of American History and Culture with a specialist expertise in history of race and slavery in the United States, along with the politics of protest of black Americans in the long 19th century.

Toby James is Professor of Politics and Public Policy and Distinguished Fellow at the School of Policy Studies and Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University Canada.

He is Co Director of the Electoral Integrity Project, an international research project which produces innovative and policy relevant research on how to improve elections. Dr. Suzanne Doyle is Lecturer in International Relations at UEA.

Her research interests include nuclear history, transatlantic relations, US and British defense policy, security studies and and the Cold War. And Emma Long is Director of the Arthur Miller Institute for American Studies and Head of Department of American Studies.

She has a particular interest in the U.S. supreme Court and the role of the Constitution in shaping American politics.

American Studies graduate in: 2023

So and now without further ado, please join me in welcoming.

Liam Heffernan: 00:03:50

Hello everyone. I'm used to podcasting, so standing here in a room with so many of you is a little bit terrifying. So be kind, please.

It's really great to be here, though, particularly this week. It's been quite a week. I don't think many of us have had much sleep, but it gives us a lot to talk about.

But before we dive into the discussion, I'd like to just move along the panel and give everyone a chance to just introduce themselves and explain their areas of expertise.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:04:24

Hey. So, hello, I'm Rebecca Fraser.

I'm professor of American History and Culture, with particular interests in the politics of resistance to white power and privilege, and particularly in the 19th century. But I also moved far beyond the 19th century, looking at contemporary America.

And I teach and I research around things like reproductive justice in the us.

So yeah, I'm going to be talking tonight, hopefully about the discourses of race and gender that kind of sort of impacted the campaigns, but also why America has still not yet had a female president.

Toby James: 00:05:19

Hi, everyone. It's great to see you all here.

My name's Toby James, so I'm based in the Department of Politics and International Relations here at UEA Affiliations in Canada as well. And that's partly because I co direct something called the Election Integrity Project that Julian was just introducing.

Where the focus is really on when elections go wrong, what problems we get with elections and how we can go about trying to improve those elections. So I'm probably going to geek out a bit on some of the electoral rules.

I mean, one of the standout things is that this is supposed to be a landslide election and we're seeing major change. We're going to hear from everyone what those changes might be.

And yet it's actually an election in which roughly only 30% of Americans actually voted for the winning candidate. So there's some strange kind of contradictions going on here. And very happy to to answer questions and hear your views on some of those.

Suzanne Doyle: 00:06:19

Hi everyone. I'm Suzanne Dole. I'm a lecturer here in international relations.

So my research interests really focus on foreign policy and defense, particularly nuclear weapons. And I look at the UK's nuclear weapons system. So I do a lot of work on the US UK relationship, which is obviously interesting to discuss.

So I'll be kind of talking about the foreign policy aspects and some of the kind of uncertainty and unsettling ways that the result could impact that.

Emma Long: 00:06:50

Hi, everyone, everybody. Sounds really interesting. I'm sort of bringing up the rear here. I'm Emma Long.

As you probably saw from the picture, my interests are in the US Supreme Court and the Constitution thankfully for peace and security in the United States, the U.S. supreme Court did not have to get involved in this election, which was something that many of us feared might happen if it was really close.

So I may be talking less about the Supreme Court tonight, sadly, because. Bit like Toby, that's where I geek out regularly.

But what I will probably be talking more about is the general political context of this election, about the divisions in American politics, a little bit about why Trump has appealed to so many voters and why Harris and the Democrats were unable to challenge that. So thank you.

Liam Heffernan: 00:07:44

Thanks, everyone.

To kick us off, Toby, I'll come to you because this whole session is called broken democracy, which itself suggests that there is or there was a working democracy. So it'd be nice to understand what that means.

Toby James: 00:08:04

Yeah, no, thank you. I think it's really important to have some sort of clear and shared understanding about what we mean by democracy to start with.

And that's not just because I'm an academic and I really like to spend lots of time thinking about definitions.

But I think it really does speak to the heart of the debate that we're actually hearing in America in many ways, because usually there's two extreme different views of what democracy could mean. There's kind of a minimalist model, a model which basically, democracy is elections.

And if you have an election and that election is fair and free and clean and both parties accept the outcome, then tick box. This is a democracy. And in many ways, obviously, this time the US Passed that tick.

However, I mean, personally, I would favor a more expansive view of what democracy is. Maybe I'm just a bit more demanding and a bit more as it were. But I think elections are really important.

But I think a kind of real form of democracy would also include important political institutions. So you'd have to talk about freedom of the press to be able to say and report what they want to say.

Emma's work's really important, thinking about the Supreme Courts, because we need to have political institutions that can check the power of a president that is there. We need to have a civil service that is strong and is independent and again, can follow evidence. Again, really demanding now.

But we also need to think about things like political culture. We need to think about how people can be empowered or disempowered through the form of political culture that we have.

We have open discussion debates. It's not dominated by either racism or transphobia or other inequalities.

I think also part of the problem that America is trying to work through and every society is trying to work through is I think that there are some basic economic things that also form part of, part of a democracy for people to be able to have to be not living in poverty. And America has about 11% living in absolute poverty to have a basic quality of healthcare, but also education as well.

And if you have all those things, then I think you can probably feel some cracks in democracy in America, but also around the world as well.

Liam Heffernan: 00:10:38

So when we think more politically about the democratic process, do you think that the rise and fall and rise again of Donald Trump is a sign that the American democracy is working or not?

Toby James: 00:10:57

I mean, in a sense, what we've seen in this election is a clean election, although I think there's some problems that I can come onto.

The result was accepted, something which we never thought, we always thought we could take for granted in America as supposed to be a leading democracy for the world. So this was some strong evidence of democracy in place. But I guess the questions then come is what's going to follow?

I think there's been lots of concerns raised about what Donald Trump as president might do in terms of potentially purging parts of the civil service, putting in place partisan appointments. Again, I'm going to.

Emma's going to be the expert here, but when you think about the Supreme Court decisions, this is potentially a president who's going to have the most power that a US President has ever had, able to relieve himself of some of the crimes that have been put against him. But also, you know, some of those restrictions are in place. So I think there's a real, very dangerous moment, I think, in many respects.

Liam Heffernan: 00:12:13

Yeah. I mean, Emma, I thought we'd have a bit more to talk about in terms of the Supreme Court with this election, but apparently not.

But I am keen to hear your thoughts on the role of the Supreme Court and indeed the whole justice system.

o deep into the whole Project: 2025

Emma Long: 00:12:37

Yeah, I mean, we've been talking about the Supreme Court for a long time, right from Trump's first term. He put three Supreme Court justices on the court, which gave it a conservative majority.

We've seen the consequences of that in a whole range of things.

Perhaps the one that's most obvious here, or we've seen most coverage of, is the overturning of access to abortion and the return of that to a state by state issue rather than national protection.

But there have been other things that the the court has done, including actually making it more difficult for certain people to vote or undermining some of the protections that prevented people, making it more difficult for them to vote. Reducing some of the power of the federal government agencies that Trump will now have control over if he chooses to keep them.

I suppose the court plays a really big role in the US System. It's very different from the UK Supreme Court. It's there, it's a branch of the US Government.

ourt the US has had since the: 1930

We don't yet know quite what it will do in this context because we don't know what Trump's going to do. So that I'm a historian, I get uncomfortable when you ask me to predict what's going to happen. I deal with the past.

I can try and help you understand what happened. Don't ask me to predict.

But also Trump's legacy at the lower court level, we're already seeing in terms of more conservative judgments that then the Supreme Court doesn't have to deal with, can just let stand on everything from drawing of electoral districts to reproductive justice rights and so on. So the legacy of Trump's first term on the courts is already being felt.

And quite how that will play out will depend on what his new administration does, I think.

Liam Heffernan: 00:14:40

I mean, we're talking about the right wing of Trump in the US but actually it seems to be reflecting a broader global trend of moves towards conservative government. So, I mean, Toby, back to you. How does America's electoral system and sort of government at the moment compare with the rest of the world?

Toby James: 00:15:00

Yeah, I mean, I think there's been a lot of talk about the rise of the right and the rise of the far right.

I mean, I think in terms of thinking specifically about the actual result here, maybe one of the biggest themes that we're seeing around the world is actually incumbent governments falling from office. So it's not, you know, if you look at the news from about a couple hours ago, you've seen Germany, for example, the ruling party falling apart there.

If we go back over previous elections and that have taken place over the last couple of years, so many times you've seen incumbent governments losing in conditions in which inflation has been rising and as a result of COVID and as a result of the war as well. And this has kind of fallen through to hit parties in power, as it were, in terms of the quality of election.

So I did promise, I did warn people I'd Geek out a bit and I have got a slide. So if I can appear behind us, appearing behind me.

I mean, I think on the one hand, American elections do get a lot of criticism and there's often seen that, you know, America is supposed to be. Some people say America is a leading democracy around the world and their elections are wonderful for other people. Elections in America are terrible.

The Electoral Integrity Project evaluate elections around the world. You can see the darker green, the better quality election. And the US is towards the top.

It's not as bad as many people say, but it's equally not the leading election. But if you look on the next screen, next slide please.

There are different parts to the electoral process and there are some areas in which the American elections go really well and function and there are some areas where there's significant problems. So for example, gerrymandering, as the historians will tell us, has always been.

There is a current problem as lawmakers try to amend laws to make it easier for themselves to win. And as I said earlier, one crucial problem potentially of the US system is the fact that it's a winner takes all system.

So it's not fair to smaller parties. So when Americans have a chance to vote and choose, they were just choosing between two options, two candidates.

And I think that's, I think there's one lesson, one thing to think about is that, you know, we have the same system in the way in the uk, winner takes all politics creates divisions. It creates one party with absolute power and it creates other people with absolutely no power.

And that, that doesn't tend to create very stable, inclusive democracy.

Liam Heffernan: 00:17:50

I mean, on the subject of division, how important do you think equality is in a fair and I guess integral democracy?

Toby James: 00:18:00

Yeah, I think it is the cornerstone.

I mean, I think the wonder of elections and democracy is that everyone is sort of equal before the ballot box or should be equal before the ballot box. In theory, they going to the polling station or wherever you vote these days and everyone's vote should count equally.

In practice that doesn't happen anywhere to some greater or lesser extent because maybe some votes count more, maybe some people have more knowledge, some people have more choices. But I think that principle of equality is absolutely the bedrock.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:18:35

Would you agree, Toby, that everybody has the need to have access to that equality though?

I mean, sort of we've seen in the states where, you know, sort of particularly African Americans have been, you know, sort of blocked from voting in various ways. They've needed, you know, sort of an address or, you know, sort of a home residence and you Know, sort of they haven't got one or, you know, sort of.

Is that an aspect of equality in terms of democracy that, you know, sort of you. What you would want to see.

Toby James: 00:19:06

Yeah, absolutely. You'd want that to be possible. It should be as easy for one person to vote as the next person.

But I think what we've seen over the last, particularly the last 10 years has been the introduction of voter ID laws in some states that has made it more difficult to vote. And that has an uneven impact because some people are more likely to have that form of identification than others.

And probably the lawmakers know that.

Emma Long: 00:19:34

It's probably just as well. Sorry.

Just as well to point out, I think estimates suggest about 11 million Americans don't have voter ID and therefore are exclude would otherwise be eligible from voting, but can't. And they are often at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale because unlike.

So this year, of course, in the UK we had the first time where we had to show ID voting, but the government had put in place the facility where if you didn't have a passport or driving license or some kind of form that you had to pay for, you could get a free id. Right. That would allow you to vote. They don't have that in the US you have to pay.

And depending on the state that you live in, you're looking at costs of between 75 and $175 to get the both in terms of, like, the travel that it takes to go to where you need to do it and the paperwork and photos and all the rest of it, which puts it out of the, the realm of many, many Americans, and they don't have an alternative. So, of course that's also working to keep people from being able to vote.

Liam Heffernan: 00:20:39

Yeah. And Becky, I want to come to you because I think questions around equality and diversity are going to dominate the agenda over the next few years.

I was hoping we'd have a very different conversation tonight.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:20:53

I was, too.

Liam Heffernan: 00:20:56

The presidency has been and still is very white male dominated. What do you think the outcome of this election has done for challenging or reinforcing that white male president stereotype?

Rebecca Fraser: 00:21:15

Well, it hasn't shattered any glass ceilings, has it? So it's really, really important that Harris ran for the presidency. I mean, sort of as a woman of color, you know, sort of.

oria Woodhull, but she ran in: 1872

we've got Hillary Clinton in: 2016

And it's really interesting that Trump has won against both Clinton and Harris.

I mean, what that tells us about the ways in which the Trump campaigns in particular are, are they're drenched in discourse around, you know, sort of masculinity, thinking about, you know, sort of sexism bordering on misogyny, racism, you know, so we saw it, all, right?

And it tends to be that, you know, sort of Trump can say something that's quite, you know, sort of racist, I would suggest, or, you know, sort of sexist, but he just gets away with it all the time. And it's just like, well, that's just Trump. And so, you know, sort of.

And I think it's really, really important, but this was an historic moment for the American electorate, and I just. I'm still trying to work through and process, you know, sort of what this means. Will. I think she will be a role model and, you know, sort of.

And you can't be what you can't see. Right. So.

But it just remains to be seen what happens as regards whether, you know, sort of any more women will put themselves forward in subsequent, you know, sort of presidential races.

Liam Heffernan: 00:23:53

Yeah. I mean, I would also point out that of the three elections that Trump has ran, the only one that he's won was against the other old white guy.

I mean, I don't want to pigeonhole American voters into some sort of sexist bucket here, but, I mean, why. Why did that happen?

Rebecca Fraser: 00:24:16

I mean, from its very inception, Mark Han, a historian of the revolutionary era, argues that America, the US Was founded by white privileged men for white privileged men. And I think, you know, sort of. And we've seen that time after time after time after time.

And given that, you know, sort of the nation has been, you know, sort of founded on these grand principles of liberty, democracy, equality.

It, you know, the fact that it's not living up to those kinds of, you know, sort of massive principles is really sort of interesting in itself, but speaks back to this notion of the US nation being created by men for men. But, you know, so with a grammar of manhood that was around, you know, sort of privileged, white.

you know, sort of victory in: 2008

So whose masculinity was, you know, sort of were the electorate going to, you know, sort of favor more? Right.

Liam Heffernan: 00:25:39

lost and how Clinton lost in: 2016

What does this tell us about America ever being able to elect a woman, let alone a woman of color, as president?

Emma Long: 00:26:10

Everyone's looking at me. Not my area either.

I mean, I think sort of along the lines that Becky was saying, in some ways, I think it shows that women are still judged by a different standard when they run for office and when they run for power and possibly in every other way, too. But we've got limited time tonight, so.

But I think, you know, one way to think of this is if Harris had behaved the way that Trump did, not only would she have lost the election, she'd have lost by a landslide. Right. She would have.

She'd probably have barely got to the election because she'd have been written off as being too aggressive and she'd been pulled up on all those inconsistencies that have been let slide with Trump.

So, you know, women have to walk that line between being they want a powerful leader, but you can't be too powerful as a woman because you have to be likable. And if you're not likable, then we're not going to elect you because we don't trust you.

And, you know, it's amazing anybody gets any female candidates or female identifying candidates get elected.

But I wanted to actually ask you a question, Becky, because obviously Harris was asked quite a few times during the election about being sort of the second female candidate and the first woman of color to run for president. And she kind of shut it down. She didn't want to engage in those discussions. She wanted to kind of.

Her response was, americans want the best person for the job. It doesn't matter what our identity is. Do you think that it was a mistake for her not to engage in that?

Do you think she could have lent into it more?

Rebecca Fraser: 00:27:53

I do, completely.

And I was reading a New York Times op ed last night written by a black female scholar from unc, and the title of the op ed was the Way Harris Lost Will Be Her Legacy.

And throughout this piece, it was just such a beautiful piece, and so in mourning for what was, you know, sort of lost in terms of, you know, sort of this grand historic moment. But they say in this op ed that, you know, sort of Harris needed to have leaned in more to her race and gender.

I mean, like in the way, you know, so Clinton did that. Too much Hillary Clinton, but also the connections with Clinton in terms of, you know, sort of that political dynasty of the Clintons.

You know, her name was already sort of known and out there and she was already derided by many, right. In the, you know, sort of American political system.

But, you know, sort of, I think, you know, sort of for Harris, this was a huge historic moment in terms of the first woman of color.

And she knew, you know, sort of, she knows that the kind of, you know, sort of deep sacrifices women of color make every single day in the United States, right, for, you know, sort of the kind of lower pay they're willing to accept to come and save the company, which in fact, actually is what, you know, sort of she did, right? You know, sort of she stepped in when Biden stepped down and stepped out of the race.

And, you know, she didn't have enough time to sort of really sort of develop an agenda of her own or, you know, so when she said, you know, so when she was questioned, you know, sort of what would you do differently to Biden? She was like, well, you know, sort of nothing.

I think the actual question kind of took her by surprise because, you know, sort of she hadn't had time to even develop those kinds of things. She didn't have a proper kind of run up. And so I think sort of.

And of course, she lost the election for various reasons, not just because of her gender or her race, but I think she needed to have leaned into that more to actually suggest or celebrate the what could be, right, what could be if the American electorate made this historic choice. And so, yeah, I do think that.

Suzanne Doyle: 00:30:33

But would that have convinced the voters, the demographics we saw that just did not vote for her?

You know, I caution about making this too much about gender and that partly be me trying to hold onto some hope here that actually this was people voting against kind of continuing as it was. They wanted change. It was led by economics. You know, the exit poll suggests that.

And I worry that if the interpretation is too much about gender, that reinforces the ceiling. It makes it kind of impossible that any party would choose a woman again. Whereas actually, was it really about that?

Yes, we certainly saw stereotypes, you know, these stereotypes about, oh, we want to elect someone strong, that's not a woman, is it? They can't talk about foreign policy. But that doesn't Seem from what I've seen to be the leading overall factor of what people were voting for.

Toby James: 00:31:39

Yeah, I think it was close. I mean, it was close to a historic moment. And I think obviously all of this was true.

All these, all these barriers were there, but it was also because she was vice president to a president whose popularity went down and who really kind of struggled. And this could have been a tipping point, contingent moment.

So, I mean, I guess the other thing to think about is how long it takes, how long people have to be in the American system to be a presidential candidate. Donald Trump was, became made his name in the 80s through TV shows. Joe Biden was, you know, on the scene so long, a long, long, long time ago.

e having to be someone in the: 1980

So I mean, it's not enough to say, you know, to wait and everything else, but there is, I think there is some progress and it could have been so different.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:32:49

But I also would add that there are only 151 women in Congress at the moment. Right. That's 28.2% of 535 seats. Just, I mean, sort of thinking about that number. And women actually are 51% of the population in the United States.

So, you know, so going back to, you know, sort of equality and, you know, sort of does, you know, sort of a good democracy need equality at its heart? Well, you know, sort of go right back. Right. And say.

And increase those numbers and also, you know, sort of think about sort of the number of women of color in sort of that 28.2%.

So I think, you know, sort of we need to start right back and think about sort of how equality works at the Congress, the level of Congress and, you know, sort of work that through and elsewhere.

Toby James: 00:33:42

Right. Because obviously Donald Trump didn't come from Congress, he came from business.

So promoting within business, within all walks of life that feeds through the system.

Liam Heffernan: 00:33:51

Yeah, I mean, I'm going to move this along in the interest of time and there'll be opportunities for all of you to ask a lot of questions about this afterwards as well. But Suzanne, you touched on foreign policy. I want to come back to that.

There's a lot of concern outside of America about what a Trump second term could mean, especially considering the war with Ukraine, everything happening in the Middle East. I mean, should we be scared?

Suzanne Doyle: 00:34:26

So I don't want to be too alarmist here. Okay.

So given the current state of geopolitics, I think it would be wise to pay attention to the threat of great power warfare, and certainly more attention to that threat than we've paid since the end of the Cold War. And as we know, there's ongoing wars, and it's a concern really of how Trump will navigate that and how adeptly he will navigate the challenges.

So, you know, on the big scale, the US Is the global hegemon. It's the leading power. And so it has worldwide ramifications. Who is the leader?

You know, someone asked me yesterday, why are you so upset by this result? I was like, well, it has consequences. I may be in the UK but it has consequences. And on the big scale, we always see the rise and fall of empires.

Well, currently we're seeing kind of arguably a move towards a decline in the US the rise of China. It's like, okay, well, how does what Trump does now play out? And what are the longer term ramifications of that? How can it be navigated?

And what Trump brings is really a very real break in the post war consensus of US foreign policy.

US foreign policy since World War II has largely been one of consensus around collective defense, around strengthening what we call the kind of US Led multilateral order. That's not really how Trump approaches things. He is very unpredictable.

And so it's very difficult, actually to assess his foreign policy because often he, like, works from the gut, it seems. He kind of reads things, he makes instant decisions. So there's that unpredictability. But there does seem to be two general things he does.

He's very transactional in his approach. And again, it's like, how adeptly, therefore, can he navigate certain things? And he is very. He's very transactional, as I said.

And it's like, how does that play into foreign policy? And as I said, he also works around his gut. And he also has this interesting reluctance for the US to engage in oversea wars. So of course there's.

How will that play into the conflicts that we're currently seeing? Again, when you go into the detail of it, it's not really clear actually what he said and what it'll do.

So with Ukraine, it's very well known that he said, you know, we need to draw back on US Contributions. There's been an assessment of that that that would mean that Ukraine would essentially end up a neutral state.

Some people assessed that would mean kind of a puppet state, so they wouldn't be allowed to join NATO, that Russia would be able to take the kind of land and territory they currently have concern about the longer term ramifications of that deal. But then you also see what Trump supporters say and what other assessments say.

And they say, well, Trump doesn't want to be seen as a loser, he doesn't like to be seen as a loser. He's not going to let the US do that. So it's like, okay, well how's that going to play out?

And then assassins in the Middle east again, it's quite difficult, given his unpredictability, to figure out what he's going to do there. He has been seen as a kind of more vocal supporter of the Israeli regime in what they're doing. He doesn't support Biden's approach on a ceasefire.

He has provided support for settlers in Israel. At the same time though, he's been telling Netanyahu, you know, you have to stop the killing.

He doesn't seem, again, this is very difficult to assess. He doesn't seem to support Netanyahu vision of all out victory. Again because of how he kind of doesn't like to be involved in wars overseas.

He can't seem pursuing that to its final end. My real concern actually is how he might respond to Iran and the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons.

So it seems likely that Iran will pursue nuclear weapons. One of the, there's not a lot of options now for the US to stop that, other than perhaps a deal, what he's called a deal, some kind of economic deal.

If he can do that, he'll make a great deal. Or perhaps some kind of military attack.

He tends to dislike the, he seems dislike the use of US military force overseas in kind of endless, well, what he sees as endless wars. But there's a clear goal, clear definable goal. He might do that. And so there's like, how is he going to approach all these challenges?

Unpredictability will be the center of it. And also this kind of transactional nature. And I didn't even get to discuss threat of China, so there's more.

Liam Heffernan: 00:40:15

I could say it's a conversation for another day, I think. What about the special relationship between the UK and the us Obviously we've sort of switched governments, haven't we?

We've gone labor, the US has gone back to conservative. So what's that going to mean, the special risk relationship?

Suzanne Doyle: 00:40:37

It's not a term I actually like very much because I think of it as a kind of political rhetoric term rather than the reality of it. Okay, so I'm not going to say this is the end of the relationship. It's always had difficult moments, there's always been moments of tension.

And actually the relationship is sustained by the institutional relationships that underpin it. And it's unlikely that those will change.

If you go to a military race in the uk, for example, you will generally find US forces on those military bases. They have very close institutional relationships.

And the same if you go to a US Air base or somewhere in the us there's always someone British who's there.

Emma Long: 00:41:20

But.

Suzanne Doyle: 00:41:21

So that institutional relationship is likely to continue as long as Trump doesn't see it as too much of a, we're not getting anything out of this. But it really could test the US UK relationship like never before because of that transactional aspect.

And it's really important to realize just how important that relationship is to British foreign policy and defence. Since World War II, it's really where their eggs have been placed.

decades. It cannot be like in: 2016

It's like, no, this is actually something which looks like a longer term pattern, perhaps. Is this now a shift since the World War II consensus?

And so a primary challenge that I think the UK faces, this transactional nature of Trump, does he feel that the UK is giving enough in return for the kind of assistance the US supplies, for example, Trident nuclear missiles or the designs of the new warheads, they come from the us so what might he ask for in reply in return? Previously, other administrations, including the Carter administration, the Reagan administration, all asked for things in return for those deals.

What will Trump do? It's probably to the next level. And then there's the other core issues that we're seeing discussed. You know, there is the relationship with labor.

Labor feels they've done enough preparations, they knew this and they expected this result. But there's also the impact of US tariffs on imports, on the economy. How will that affect labor's growth plans?

How will that play into the dynamics with the European Union? And then you've got the kind of divergence foreign policy views that they're going to have.

It's always kind of been the case that British policymakers go, what are the US doing? We kind of do the same. We can't quite do that to the same extent. And then also the key relationship with NATO.

So there's a lot to unpack there as well.

Liam Heffernan: 00:43:49

But when just thinking about the UK I mean, if Keir Starmer waits until the last possible moment to call an election, you know, this is. Trump can't run again. This is second term in office. So he'll be gone before the next general election.

So isn't there an element of just running down the clock on Trump?

Suzanne Doyle: 00:44:09

That could be a good plan, maybe, but it is going to dominate their entire four years. And if we talk about the threat to incumbent governments that we are seeing in the world, well, labor have got a clear agenda.

They need economic growth. They need stability.

Well, how do they do that with the Trump administration and the impact that administration could have on the global international order and the global economic order. So they've got to play within that field.

And I think it could have ramifications for certainly labor going forward and then kind of what comes afterwards for the British electoral system? Because we think about the last election, I don't think there was widespread enthusiasm for Labor. It was a vote really against the Conservatives.

What happens if people feel in the UK we have not had the change we wanted?

Rebecca Fraser: 00:45:10

Do you think as well, Suzanne, that Elon Musk is, you know, sort of as probably someone who is going to be in addition to Trump's sort of cabinet, Is he a risk to Britain and the relationship with actually Starmer, I mean, like, you know, sort of. They. It's well known that they don't like each other in terms of that transactional kind of relationship.

Do we think, you know, sort of that this will create issues?

Suzanne Doyle: 00:45:39

I think it could. I mean, we saw in the, during the general election the influence of Elon Musk.

And I think, you know, from a democratic standpoint, having one person with that much influence and money is problematic. And I think it feeds into some of the issues we're seeing in the US Democracy, but also the British.

But again, you know, how is he a charismatic individual that's very influential. I find that difficult to assess.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:46:11

Have you seen him speak? I mean, like, he's not a very good speaker at all. So I don't know. But, you know, so it's just, you know, sort of the.

Was it a million dollars a day for every person that, you know, sort of signed up to vote for Trump and, you know, sort of a. Where does that sort of go in terms of that support?

Suzanne Doyle: 00:46:34

I just barely a dent in his pocket.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:46:36

Yeah, I know.

Suzanne Doyle: 00:46:37

And then it's also his expansion into space and the security of space and having business people taking over that dynamic, which is not receiving as much attention, as it should do within defense circles. How does all that create uncertainty?

I don't particularly want various things in space that are not government controlled and under some kind of regulation.

Liam Heffernan: 00:47:07

I think there's a lot of people that wouldn't even want anything on Earth that's controlled by musk, to be honest with.

Before we open this up to the floor, I do just want to come back to Emma for some final thoughts, I guess, on just the complete uniqueness of this whole election cycle. I mean, would it be a stretch to say that it's potentially the craziest in US History?

Emma Long: 00:47:31

I think that's probably fair. I was just thinking about Toby, how Toby opened and kind of the different ways of thinking about the electoral cycle. Right.

Because on one hand, the American election ran almost as it should do. Right. If you think so. Started out with the candidates announcing that they were running.

We had the primary season where the parties decided who their candidates were going to be.

The normal state by state process and the endless campaigning, and that led to the conventions, and the conventions launched their candidates off into the general election cycle.

And we've now had the election which has returned a winner without any of those messy things about the electoral college that have been such a problem in recent elections. So in that way, the election's gone the way it should. Right. The process has been followed. Outside of that, nothing has been as you would expect.

You've got the fact that Donald Trump's only the second president in history to have served one term and then tried to come back, not to run directly while in office, but to come back afterwards. He's a convicted felon. That's a first. Let's hope that's not a trend that's going to catch on.

He's got a whole load of other court cases and of course, we don't yet know what will happen with those. Now he's been elected, but you've got that side of things running on.

You got two assassination attempts on Trump, any one of which in a previous election cycle would have dominated the story for weeks, but kind of came and went because there's so much else going on. So you've got all of that.

You've got, as we've already talked about, you've got the first woman of color running for the presidency, which is a hugely historic moment, irrespective of the outcome. The importance of representation is fundamentally important here. So that makes it historic regardless of how the outcome goes.

So there's been an awful lot. I think one of the reasons that Almost nobody was predicting the outcome of this beyond the polls, suggesting it was closer than it turned out to be.

Is that that every time you thought something was settled, something didn't.

And I mean, before we even get to the point that the whole start of that process, Biden had gone through the primary process, the party was ready to nominate him. He had a disastrous presidential debate which basically led to a coup within his own party. Who said, we can't win with you?

We're not sure that the Republicans criticisms aren't accurate. You need to step down and you've got somebody who's literally on the cusp of being nominated by the party stepping down.

Harris comes in at the sort of pretty much at the last minute in American election terms, trying to run a campaign and doing what they can to do that.

So it's, you know, he said on one hand, the process from a distance, big picture worked without, as you would expect, everything when you get close up is just about as unpredictable as you could manage, which probably fits, given Trump's general unpredictability.

Liam Heffernan: 00:50:55

Yeah. Well, on that note, I think we should probably give everyone else a chance to ask questions. So the floor is yours, guys. Any questions out there?

Hands are up.

Toby James: 00:51:12

Thank you very much for that.

Suzanne Doyle: 00:51:13

It was really informative. As Trump is the oldest elected president.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:51:19

Now, do you think Vance hasn't received.

Suzanne Doyle: 00:51:22

Enough attention about his possibility of becoming president and being almost a bit of.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:51:26

A dark horse, sort of like, what.

Suzanne Doyle: 00:51:28

Is his qualities and values and things like that?

Emma Long: 00:51:33

Anyone again, is that back on? Yeah, it is. Everyone's looking at me. Yeah. I absolutely agree. I mean, Trump sucks all the energy up. Right. It's for him, it's all about him.

And in a way, Vance looks like a kind of Trump light version that he was picked because he was kind of a very much like Trump and Trump wanted to double down on that. The result of that is that there hasn't been an awful lot of scrutiny of superficial. Yes.

t around the World or Project: 2025

Rebecca Fraser: 00:52:34

And age seems to be the thing that's never discussed. Right.

You know, sort of, except for when Biden, you know, sort of everyone was like, oh, you know, sort of he needs to step down because he's far too old. But isn't Trump, like, only, like, four years younger than him or something?

You know, so, you know, sort of there's these two old white guys vying for, you know, sort of one of the biggest positions in, you know, sort of world politics. And sort of how long are they going to last? And, you know, what happens in terms of succession. Right.

I mean, sort of to, you know, sort of think about, you know, sort of the recently brilliant TV series. Okay, so who is going to, you know, sort of take that crown? So, yeah, really interesting Four years feels.

Toby James: 00:53:18

Like a long time in politics right now, let alone in American politics.

And we know the attrition rate that there was in Trump's inner circle, his advisors and the role holders probably won't last that long, given if the first administration's anything to go by. So whereas you'd usually expect the VP to be the next in line, it's just, yeah, anything can happen.

Emma Long: 00:53:44

I'm thinking about the question of age, actually.

There's a really interesting piece on Salon, I think, a little while ago, pointing out that, you know, everybody was talking at the beginning of the year, everyone was talking about Joe Biden's age. Right. And was he mentally capable? Was he fit to run for president? But if you.

I don't know how many of you have watched Trump's speeches all the way through two hours. Yeah, I find it something of a challenge, has to admit, to watch them all in one sitting. But, I mean, there have.

There have been lapses from Trump, too. Right. And some very strange behavior and some real incoherence. And I'm not going to list them because we'd be here all night. But this.

This article was pointing out that the media has not jumped on those in the same way that it did with Biden.

And I think some of it is that, well, it's just Trump being Trump, so it's pushed to one side, but it feels like a little bit of a double standard there. That age was a big issue for Biden, but not for Trump, somehow. And, you know, it's worth. I mean, he's been elected now.

It's not going to affect what happens going forward, but I think it's an interesting part of this campaign.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:54:57

Well, it was the same when John McCain was against, you know, sort of Barack Obama. So Barack Obama comes in as this, you know, sort of bright young thing, but, you know, sort of McCain was very much. Oh, you know, sort of.

Is he too old? You know, sort of. And I don't know how old McCain was at the time, but, you know, sort of, but probably a lot younger than Trump or Biden.

So, you know, sort of it has.

And I think there you can see the ways in which masculinity is competing right around, you know, sort of things like age, things like, you know, sort of, oh, is this man too old to lead this country, be a kind of founding father, provide and protect for us, et cetera, et cetera. And that is the crux of what we're talking about. The reason why it's men who are so continually in this role is that notion of the founding father.

Right. So sort of the notion of the father will take care of it, the paternalistic protective role.

Washington being elected and: 1789

So, you know, so it's really interesting when we think about the other kind of intersections around age that, you know, so actually, yeah, that's a recurring thing. And you know, sort of military record as well as, you know, sort of also, you know, so really apparent in every single race.

Liam Heffernan: 00:56:22

Okay, I hope that answered your question.

Suzanne Doyle: 00:56:26

Sorry.

Liam Heffernan: 00:56:28

Any other questions? Alan, let's go on this side. Where's the mic?

Toby James: 00:56:44

Hi.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:56:44

Thank you.

Emma Long: 00:56:45

Do you think that America's Democratic fatal.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:56:48

Flaw is the fact that it's meant to be separation of powers between the President, judiciary and Congress, but Congress chooses the judiciary, and if you're in the Senate, you have far more power because you tend to be a conservative minority in the Senate that then get to.

Emma Long: 00:57:05

Dictate who sits on the Supreme Court.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:57:08

And the Senate chooses all of the.

Emma Long: 00:57:11

Federal judges from all levels.

Rebecca Fraser: 00:57:13

Do you think that's the ultimate flaw?

Suzanne Doyle: 00:57:17

We're looking at you, Emma.

Emma Long: 00:57:19

Yeah, I'm beginning to fit sense of pattern here. I think it's a problem.

I mean, it's there partly because, of course, for historical reasons, thinking back to the founders and the historical context in which they wrote these provisions and they wrote the Constitution, which made sense then and perhaps make less sense now, but Americans have largely been resistant to large scale constitutional amendment at the federal level.

Part of the issue that you're talking about has been made worse by partisanship, by the fact that sort of a Republican Senate would refuse to appoint judges nominated by a Democratic president and vice versa, which has meant that, you know, the courts become caught up in the bigger political battle that's going on at the national level. And what that's doing is politicizing the judiciary in ways that I think is both dangerous and was never originally intended.

I can talk all night about the politics of the judiciary. So I should probably keep it there because otherwise you'll be here at midnight and wishing you hadn't asked the question.

But I think the short answer to your question is yes, I think it's part of the problem, but it's not necessary. It's certainly not the only one and perhaps not the, the, the main floor in there. We've got a question down here on the front row.

Gentleman in the red shirt.

Liam Heffernan: 00:58:53

Yep. The mic is coming for you. Thank you. Hello. Yeah, Just to say, I think the.

Toby James: 00:59:05

Good news on the age front is that we're probably going to get Mark.

Liam Heffernan: 00:59:08

Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, you know, it's going.

Toby James: 00:59:12

To be the younger businessman maybe, which leads into my question, really, which you.

Liam Heffernan: 00:59:15

Talked about equality in democracy. My biggest concern with the US system.

Toby James: 00:59:20

Is you've got to be a multi billionaire to be president.

Liam Heffernan: 00:59:23

Which alludes to my point about businessmen. Obviously. I don't know the exact situation in.

Toby James: 00:59:29

The UK where there's a limit on the spend of campaigns and it's, you know, a few million maybe. To me it seems like you cannot.

Liam Heffernan: 00:59:37

Be president of the US without having hundreds of millions of dollars behind you.

Toby James: 00:59:42

Which is not equality to me. Your thoughts?

Rebecca Fraser: 00:59:47

Absolutely. I mean, you know, sort of, I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head.

I mean, Emma and Toby will know much more about, you know, sort of the cost of those kind of presidential campaigns. But you know, sort of it's interesting that white working class men went in their droves to Trump in terms of support. Right.

And suggesting that sort of Trump really spoke to them. But in what way? Sort of given that sort of.

He's a billionaire who sort of has sort of sort of bought up several sort of hotels and sort of finance deals. And when he did his sort of speech he was like, well, you know, so to Robert F.

Kennedy, you know, sort of you can be the health star, but you know, I want the oil, I want the oil. So, you know, so, you know, so there's a kind of disconnect there, right, between you know, sort of.

And it's the real divide at the moment in the U.S.

i've heard from one commentator is between those who are educated and those who have a ba, right, and those who don't and it's the money in their pockets. Right. So you know, sort of. And again we're back to, you know, sort of, that kind of sort of provider and protector.

You know, how do you provide and protect for your family if you've got no money. Right. So, you know, sort of. And there's a real kind of, you know, sort of curiosity there that they're going for.

Trump is, you know, sort of as, you know, sort of the man who is going to save. But it's a quick fix, right, because it's like, yeah, I'll solve that today, I'll solve that today. But they want to believe him.

So, you know, sort of. It's a really. I think it's a really interesting question, actually.

Toby James: 01:01:41

Yeah, I mean, money's a huge issue. Absolutely. Undoubtedly. So just so happens, I looked on the Federal Electoral Commission website. Biden spent $890 million, Harris spent $881 million.

Trump only spent $355 million. So, you know, so clearly money is a entry. You know, you have to be. Have loads of money in order to stand as a candidate in a U.S.

presidential election. And that is a barrier, as a very significant barrier, I would say. America is not alone, though.

That is, I think, when we do our studies on electoral integrity projects, when we look at election quality around the world, money is the biggest problem around the world in elections. And so there are still issues in the uk, for example, there are issues everywhere.

And I think what's particularly important about the US is the size of the country. And so you need to have a big reputation in order to reach out.

So sometimes people joke, oh, maybe a popular star or a sports personality could stand. And some people say, well, that's not taking politics particularly seriously.

But actually, in a way, there's a strange kind of equality to that, because actually breaks up money. It's not necessarily the way we want to go, but it does just show how this.

You need something, whether it's money or something else, to actually get into US politics, and that is a barrier to equality.

Liam Heffernan: 01:03:09

We haven't even talked about the primary campaign.

Toby James: 01:03:11

Exactly.

Liam Heffernan: 01:03:12

Ron DeSantis spent so much money in Iowa, I think it worked out thousands and thousands of dollars for every vote that he got, and he came third. So, I mean, it's madness. But, Tana, do we have any questions online?

Rebecca Fraser: 01:03:24

Yes, we have a question from Deborah, one of our online attendees, and she says, what does the panel think about the impact of social media and whether it has had a significant influence on voters? I think we're all floored by that question.

Suzanne Doyle: 01:03:43

We just don't know yet.

Toby James: 01:03:45

Yeah, yeah, that's right. I mean, it's just changing so much election by election, and so there need to be lots of studies.

If you were thinking about doing their Dissertation, the master's dissertation, the PhD then do do that. But yes, it can make a difference. You know, people are careful in terms of what they don't believe, everything they see online.

But studies have been shown that actually where fake accounts target particular segments of the population, it does change views and values. It does make a difference.

And so the real problem, again it's a global problem, like money, is how disinformation, misinformation is shaping the electorate, not just in US elections, every election. It's a real, real problem problem.

Rebecca Fraser: 01:04:32

And we've gone back to Elon Musk, right again because, you know, sort of owns Twitter or X or whatever it's called now and you know, sort of, and can, you know, sort of very, very easily set the agendas, right, in terms of, in terms of what people speak about, you know, sort of affecting and impacting on, you know, sort of certain, you know, sort of issues around, you know, sort of the American presidency. So we will wait and see. But I think, you know, sort of it's, it's pretty obvious.

Suzanne Doyle: 01:05:05

I think it definitely played a role because Harris ran a campaign that was very traditional. She kind of ticked the boxes. She had a strong ground campaign. She spent a lot of money on that ground campaign.

They were knocking the doors, they had the ads. We saw that, you know, the spend by Trump was considerably lower.

So how is he reaching these kind of low propensity voters that he thought he could get out to vote and did vote for him?

Well, the gap seems to be social media, but as a scholar, until I've seen more of the evidence, I feel like, well, we need a bit more information to really back that up.

Liam Heffernan: 01:05:47

Any more questions? Let's go for someone in the middle. Give the people a micro some work.

Toby James: 01:05:53

Over there.

Emma Long: 01:05:59

Hi.

Rebecca Fraser: 01:06:00

So thank you for the panel tonight.

Emma Long: 01:06:02

I wanted to ask about your opinion on lack of education. So we saw that switching to Republican.

Rebecca Fraser: 01:06:09

Was primarily anywhere but the west coast.

Emma Long: 01:06:12

And around the Northeast and the Canadian border, primarily areas affected by like repression.

Rebecca Fraser: 01:06:19

you guys believe that Project: 2025

Emma Long: 01:06:28

Will abuse the future greater ill educated.

Rebecca Fraser: 01:06:31

Electorate and especially those who are vulnerable.

Emma Long: 01:06:34

To both misinformation and the QAnon theory to win?

Rebecca Fraser: 01:06:39

I mean, that is if there are.

Emma Long: 01:06:41

Any other elections considering Trump said that people won't need to worry about voting ever again.

Rebecca Fraser: 01:06:47

I don't know if that was at.

Emma Long: 01:06:48

His Madison Square Garden rally or one.

Rebecca Fraser: 01:06:51

Of the other ones, but I think.

Emma Long: 01:06:53

Conspiracy theories played a big part in his election and was wondering your opinion.

Rebecca Fraser: 01:06:58

On that in regards to ill education. Do you want to take that in there?

Emma Long: 01:07:05

I mean, it's very clear, you know, the educational divide in voting is very clear and actually has been for a little while. And I think Becky alluded to a big part of it which is in the US and to some extent elsewhere as well.

Educational attainment links directly to income level. Right. And your life chances.

And I was reading something the other day which pointed out that if you look at the scale of voters, the gap between white women with a master's degree and white men who didn't finish high school, effectively it's the biggest gap of any on the electoral spectrum. And it's because what this article was pointing out is that those groups live in completely different Americas, right?

Their experience of the United States and what is going on is fundamentally different.

Those white working class men, because of de industrialization, because of the rise of the Rust Belt, because of outsourcing, because of a whole range of issues of the modern economy that are affecting other places too. Their chances are, their economic chances are limited. And someone like Trump comes along and says, I've got the answers to your problems.

And you can understand when people who are struggling on day to day, they don't want to hear Harris's five minute explanation, right, of what the economic policy would be. Even if you look, even if when you look at it from a distance, you think, okay, that makes sense.

What they want to hear is someone like Trump saying, I'm going to fix your problem and I'm going to make sure that everybody is better off. So, yeah, education is fundamental. And we have seen constant attacks on the education system in the United States from everything.

I mean, I have friends who are teachers in the U.S.

and you know, they tell me about the impact that these laws are having in their states and whether that is not being able to teach about America's racial history and therefore address issues to do with racial inequality across the United States, whether that's issues to do with gender identity and how that plays a role in creating inequality. And in some states it's going more broadly than that.

So the teachers are actually really scared about what they can and can't teach because conservatives particularly have been very effective at getting themselves elected on school boards and getting rid of people at schools that they say are teaching what they don't want.

So there's an attack on education and access to what people can learn, as well as the economic difficulties of people being able to stay in education. And that feeds Right into life chances and experiences and so on.

I think I saw something which effectively said, if you can't put food on the table, why are you worried about issues of abortion? If you can't feed your kids, you don't have the luxury of being able to think about those issues or vote on those issues.

So I think, yeah, it's an absolutely fundamental question, and there's lots more that could be said about that because it's affecting lots of different issues. But, yeah, undoubtedly it's playing a role in what's happening in the electorate more broadly.

Rebecca Fraser: 01:10:35

I would add to that as well that education is empowerment. Right. Which is why they denied education to enslaved peoples for, you know, sort of.

For sort of until emancipation, when freedmen schools were set up.

And abolitionists, black abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, credited his freedom to education to the actual fact that he learned to read and write through bribing little white children with pieces of bread. You know, sort of. So if you teach me my letters, I will, you know, sort of give you these crumbs from the kitchen table.

So, you know, sort of an education is empowerment.

And it's not just empowerment in terms of thinking about the ways in which people learn about what is freedom, but also its empowerment in terms of economic empowerment. It allows you to go from that unskilled job to sort of something better.

So education and empowerment are sort of two terms that I think are vital moving forward and thinking about your question.

Liam Heffernan: 01:11:51

So, yeah, we have time for one more question. Who wants to take it there in the middle?

Emma Long: 01:12:08

Thanks. My question is primarily for Toby because it relates to election integrity.

This election cycle, we've heard Trump described as an existential threat to democracy, people saying that democracy is on the ballot.

Trump himself has made several statements that are in admiration of autocrats in other countries, Russia, North Korea, and has made comments that I think this person alluded to that, you know, you wouldn't need to vote again if I was elected. And of course, you know, he attempted to overturn the results of the last election that he was unhappy with.

How much of a threat do we actually assess Trump to posing to the threat of free and fair elections in the future?

Toby James: 01:12:55

Yeah, an enormous threat. I mean, with. I mean, I said earlier on that this was an election that went well because it was.

There was a clear result and it was respected by both parties. If the result was different, it's pretty clear by the sounds of things that the result wouldn't have been accepted.

And there's quite a lot, quite a large movement, not necessarily always directed by President Trump of election deniers attempts to put in place on election boards people who would not necessarily have certified the results.

And we could have been sat here right now in a situation in which the result was unclear and potentially we might not known the results until January.

So for that to be the case, we can say that the election was all rosy because this candidate run is pretty terrifying and we don't know what happens next. Trump says all sorts of things, so maybe in those two hours, it doesn't necessarily mean he's going to do those.

But, you know, it has been pointed out that he has said that he would purge opponents or would look at criminal sanctions against opponents, which is, again, a very serious violation of democracy. There's been some suggestions that electoral officials may themselves be subject to criminal prosecutions.

So it is a very, very serious threat and something we need to kind of watch very carefully into the future.

Liam Heffernan: 01:14:32

On that note, thank you all for attending this tonight. It's been great. And to our panelists as well, it's been a really fascinating panel. Please join me in giving them a hearty round of applause.