It should be counted as a mercy that the results of the presidential election were clear on the morning after Election Day—and not just because this issue of the magazine had to go to press at noon on Wednesday, Nov. 6. There were many possible scenarios in which we could have been waiting on small margins in one or more swing states as mail-in ballots were slowly counted, and subsequently subjected to litigation, in order to determine which candidate had eked out the win. Americans can and should agree that the country is better off without days or weeks of uncertainty about election results, no matter what they think about the outcome.
Similarly, it could be counted as a mercy that, unlike Donald J. Trump’s victory in 2016, the Electoral College and popular vote results seem likely to be in agreement in this election, and that, unlike in 2020, Kamala Harris can be reliably counted upon, as the defeated candidate, to concede her loss and, as the sitting vice president, to preside over the certification of electoral votes in January.
I expect that many readers are not ready to feel grateful for such mercies at this point. But the reason that both God’s mercy and God’s providence are mysterious is because God’s goodness is more powerful than human sinfulness and God’s design is neither dependent on our successes nor overwhelmed by our failures.
That also means, of course, that some claim about mercy and providence could be made, and would need to be made, if the election results were reversed, or if votes were still being counted as we neared Thanksgiving Day, or even if we were in an active constitutional crisis. Mercy and providence would still have the last word and would still need to be among the first words on our lips in gratitude and in supplication.
As Brother Joe Hoover, S.J., wrote in an online piece for America on Nov. 1, if we learn more deeply why Teresa of Ávila could say and mean “Let nothing disturb you,” and apply it even to election results, then we will have more freedom to work for justice “without clinging to expectations for the political outcomes that we previously insisted God bend in our direction.”
Work for justice will certainly be necessary. Mr. Trump campaigned on the promise of mass deportations, which would tear families apart and destabilize communities across the country. His running mate, JD Vance, estimated that they could aim to remove as many as one million people per year. It is impossible to imagine such a policy being carried out justly or effectively, except insofar as the effect being sought is deeper fear among immigrants and deeper division in our nation. The willfully cruel family separation policy from Mr. Trump’s first presidential term offers a clear reminder of how serious this situation is. Our immigrant brothers and sisters will need voices raised up in their defense, and the Catholic Church especially must be a champion of solidarity with them.
On other fronts, while it is impossible to know at this point which of Mr. Trump’s campaign threats of retribution against his enemies he may attempt to carry through, he is likely to further erode constitutional norms and work against limits to his own power, as the editors of Americafirst warned in September 2020 and have repeatedly cautioned against since. While the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s victory should not be questioned, it also must not be treated as a license to ignore checks and balances. Mr. Trump’s political opponents will need to rise to the occasion of opposing overreaches without turning every disagreement with him into a full-blown crisis and will need to cooperate even with his allies whenever possible to safeguard democratic norms.
Beyond the questions of justice and human dignity for immigrants and basic constitutional norms, there are an enormous number of prudential questions on which people of good will may agree or disagree with Mr. Trump’s policy proposals. On those topics, the first challenge is to understand what Mr. Trump’s victory at the polls means. Were people voting primarily against the Biden-Harris administration’s record? Or were they voting affirmatively for Mr. Trump’s policy proposals, and if so, which ones?
Regarding both economic and foreign policy, many people seem to have been voting for a return to the (pre-Covid-19) first Trump administration. But neither Mr. Trump nor anyone else has the power to simply roll the clock back, despite his claims that if he had been in office for the past four years, we would not have had inflation or the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
Still, there is a kind of déjà vu as we look toward the start of a second Trump administration eight years after the first. The divisions in American society highlighted by Mr. Trump’s first election are at least as deep today as they were then. But perhaps the strange working of mercy and providence is evident even there, keeping us attentive to the need for conversion and reconciliation. If providence works at all, then it works through both victory and defeat, through cooperation and resistance. Thus, greater unity, when we eventually reach it, may be recognized not as a triumph over an enemy but as a gift to be shared.
