In perhaps the second-most liberal city in America, ruled by authoritarian busybodies who protect billionaires while virtue signaling their devotion to the homeless—yes, I mean San Francisco—the voters decided to deploy their super weapon. Yes, I mean democracy.
Interesting thought experiment, but I think it assumes several facts not in evidence:
1. The complete unwillingness of the Legislature (the *First* branch of gov't) to act as a check on unfettered Executive power. The fact that the Senate (normally the most measured of the branches) failed to convict him for his role in January 6th is all the evidence that we need that *enough* Senators found it advantageous to continue to go along with Trump instead of holding them accountable (on behalf of those that elected him).
2. The Judicial branch has zero command authority over police forces. That's what the Executive branch is for. And without an independent arm to enforce their rulings, I doubt that we were far away from a Jacksonian "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." moment where a court would rule against Trump, and he'd ignore it.
3. Trump was (fortunately) slow to learn that he could replace members of the administrative state resisting his actions with more pliable alternatives. He eventually learned this lesson, and would be applying it with gusto in his second administration. The administrative state would resemble the current RNC more than anything else. You'd have an Attorney General Jeffrey Clark with no compunctions about interfering in elections or anything else Trump wanted.
4. You assume that after his second term ended, Trump would be in a different situation with a lesser ability to motivate his follower than before. Given that we lack any meaningful checks on a President's authoritarian impulses, that Trump wouldn't meddle in the 2024 election to ensure that his hand-picked successor ascended to the office of POTUS. He'd certainly emulate his role model Putin, who's stayed in power despite term limits by swapping offices with Medvedev[1] and still be in a position to exercise power (and avoid ANY democratic accountability) as he saw fit. And from the camp that was fine re-interpreting the Constitution and over a century of SETTLED election law, who's to say that some Claremont flack wouldn't find a way to reinterpret the 22nd Amendment as to effectively neuter it, when Congress stays silent and the courts are unable to enforce their rulings?
At the end of the day, the thing that I'm convinced Trump that he was finished was the military stating that they would not be involved in Trump's schemes, even though that option was being discussed in December[2]. Democracy didn't save us from Trump - it was our standing military who stood firm by their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. (Trump demonstrated whatever power "democracy" held over him in the weeks after the election.) Had Trump won in 2024, it's not clear that he would have not used his additional time as Commander in Chief to RNC-ize that institution into something that WOULD have interfered in a duly-conducted and legal election in 2024.
America is MUCH better off for Trump losing in 2020. Any violence that you think would have been averted would have just been postponed until 2024, as Trump remaining in office for another term does nothing to weaken the sources of power that he's trying to exercise now, and he would have had another full term after which he learned "how to President" to accelerate the corruption he introduced his first term.
Feb 17, 2022Liked by Steve Berman, Chris J. Karr, David Thornton
Perhaps. As you said, it's hypothetical. Still, I believe America needs this clarification we're going through now. The Left isn't winning, despite being in control of DC and most of "Legacy media". If November brings the "red wave" we expect, it won't even be in control of DC anymore for the following two years.
I think this needs be pointed out: for all the comments about "leftist violence", the bigger threat appears to be "rightist violence" - and there appears to be an argument that rightists should be appeased by giving them power in order to avoid violence. Am I off on this? Since when does appeasing those threatening violence if they don't get their way a good thing?
I love the new attitude. We should just let the most destructive and disgusting humans just have their way. That way they won't be as disgusting or destructive. Makes perfect sense.
Interesting thought experiment, but I think it assumes several facts not in evidence:
1. The complete unwillingness of the Legislature (the *First* branch of gov't) to act as a check on unfettered Executive power. The fact that the Senate (normally the most measured of the branches) failed to convict him for his role in January 6th is all the evidence that we need that *enough* Senators found it advantageous to continue to go along with Trump instead of holding them accountable (on behalf of those that elected him).
2. The Judicial branch has zero command authority over police forces. That's what the Executive branch is for. And without an independent arm to enforce their rulings, I doubt that we were far away from a Jacksonian "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." moment where a court would rule against Trump, and he'd ignore it.
3. Trump was (fortunately) slow to learn that he could replace members of the administrative state resisting his actions with more pliable alternatives. He eventually learned this lesson, and would be applying it with gusto in his second administration. The administrative state would resemble the current RNC more than anything else. You'd have an Attorney General Jeffrey Clark with no compunctions about interfering in elections or anything else Trump wanted.
4. You assume that after his second term ended, Trump would be in a different situation with a lesser ability to motivate his follower than before. Given that we lack any meaningful checks on a President's authoritarian impulses, that Trump wouldn't meddle in the 2024 election to ensure that his hand-picked successor ascended to the office of POTUS. He'd certainly emulate his role model Putin, who's stayed in power despite term limits by swapping offices with Medvedev[1] and still be in a position to exercise power (and avoid ANY democratic accountability) as he saw fit. And from the camp that was fine re-interpreting the Constitution and over a century of SETTLED election law, who's to say that some Claremont flack wouldn't find a way to reinterpret the 22nd Amendment as to effectively neuter it, when Congress stays silent and the courts are unable to enforce their rulings?
At the end of the day, the thing that I'm convinced Trump that he was finished was the military stating that they would not be involved in Trump's schemes, even though that option was being discussed in December[2]. Democracy didn't save us from Trump - it was our standing military who stood firm by their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. (Trump demonstrated whatever power "democracy" held over him in the weeks after the election.) Had Trump won in 2024, it's not clear that he would have not used his additional time as Commander in Chief to RNC-ize that institution into something that WOULD have interfered in a duly-conducted and legal election in 2024.
America is MUCH better off for Trump losing in 2020. Any violence that you think would have been averted would have just been postponed until 2024, as Trump remaining in office for another term does nothing to weaken the sources of power that he's trying to exercise now, and he would have had another full term after which he learned "how to President" to accelerate the corruption he introduced his first term.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin-Medvedev_tandemocracy
[2] https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/trump-didn-t-sign-newly-unearthed-2020-election-eo-we-n1287959
Perhaps. As you said, it's hypothetical. Still, I believe America needs this clarification we're going through now. The Left isn't winning, despite being in control of DC and most of "Legacy media". If November brings the "red wave" we expect, it won't even be in control of DC anymore for the following two years.
I think this needs be pointed out: for all the comments about "leftist violence", the bigger threat appears to be "rightist violence" - and there appears to be an argument that rightists should be appeased by giving them power in order to avoid violence. Am I off on this? Since when does appeasing those threatening violence if they don't get their way a good thing?
I love the new attitude. We should just let the most destructive and disgusting humans just have their way. That way they won't be as disgusting or destructive. Makes perfect sense.