December 19, 2024 - 6:00pm
One of the founding “Never Trumpers”, Bret Stephens, has used his latest column in the New York Times to distance himself from that effort. He wrote this week that it’s “time to drop the heavy moralising and incessant doomsaying that typified so much of the Never Trump movement”. Stephens’s column has already ignited a fierce debate online, and it raises a charged question: can some Never Trumpers make peace with populism, if not Donald Trump himself?
For years, the question of whether Trump should be the Republican nominee for president consumed the Right — but that topic has now been superseded. After Trump’s hostile takeover of the GOP in 2016, a MAGA establishment has solidified. In the 2024 Republican primary, he garnered the vast majority of Congressional endorsements and won the primaries in a romp. His decisive victory in last month’s election was a major political vindication, but it also changed the terms of the debate going forward. Squabbles over whether pundits should back Trump or not seem increasingly retrospective. Instead, what matters is the direction of policy during his second administration, and what comes afterwards.
That could provide an opportunity for some of Trump’s old critics on the Right, if they show some flexibility. Despite its succinctness in branding, “Never Trump” is not a unified movement, and Never Trumpers have different paths ahead. Some might go the way of the Lincoln Project and essentially become an adjunct of the Democratic Party. Stephens’s column indicates another path: re-engaging with populism in order to diagnose the issues that have given it such resilience and addressing those challenges.
On the level of raw politics, Trump’s conservative critics have strategic incentives to make some populist rapprochement. Turning support for the President-elect or populism into an absolute litmus test — either oppose Trump in all things, or be cast out into the darkness — is no glue for a centre-right political coalition. As it stands, almost every elected Republican has either supported Trump or at least expressed a willingness to help him govern. Insisting that the only decent Republican is one who has joined the “resistance” might win invitations to the MSNBC green room but will have little pull with GOP voters.
As Stephens notes, Never Trump and Trump’s opponents more broadly have hurt themselves by being too closely identified with the technocratic establishment. Combined with the cascade of “expert” failures, the elite-led culture war has alienated much of the American public. Foes of populism invoke the importance of “democratic guardrails”, but Joe Biden’s presidency has been a Gotterdammerung of the norms — from his calls to eliminate the filibuster, to the novel prosecutions of his political opponents, to the recent Hunter Biden pardon.
Foreign policy might also give some Never Trumpers a reason to distance themselves from the Democratic Party. While many of those within the movement emphasise foreign policy as a reason for their opposition to Trump, the security situation under Biden has significantly deteriorated. Instead of seeing him as a chaos agent, much of the American public views the President-elect as representative of stability abroad. New polling from the Manhattan Institute has found that voters gave Trump a 9-point edge over Kamala Harris on foreign policy; after immigration, foreign affairs was judged to be his strongest issue. This is not because the US public has turned isolationist. In the same poll, a plurality of Americans — and a supermajority of Republicans — supported a “peace through strength” foreign policy. But it does indicate that voters have soured on the Biden administration’s combination of sclerosis and NGO-washed “idealism”.
A deeper reckoning is at the heart of Stephens’s column. Trump’s surprise win in 2016 gave birth to an elite-led alliance that portrayed him and his supporters as an existential threat to American democracy. For all its ferocity, this alliance not only failed to stop Trump but indirectly empowered him. It widened the field of political conflict, and its no-enemies-to-the-Left psychology allowed an identity-politics vanguard to capture the Democratic Party. Even by its own standards, that project of existential crisis has a legacy of ashes. Instead, revitalising American democracy might require learning some of the lessons of populism.
Yet even if populists are riding high right now, history has a warning for them. Some 20 years ago, supporters of Pat Buchanan were thoroughly marginalised within the GOP, but the implosion of the Bush presidency allowed for the ascent of the outsider Trump, who carried with him many of the themes of Buchanan’s presidential runs. If Trump and the populists fail to deliver, a similar political revolution could occur.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWell, the never-Trumpers had better admit defeat. They lost. Trump is a much a threat to democracy as he ever was, but that is what the American people wants, so that is what they are going to get. Still there is no point in moaning about it – the task now is to admit defeat and work out the best way of managing in what is now enemy territory.
As for ‘revitalising American democracy’, that will have to wait till the people gets tired of Trump and want something else. Better not hold your breath.
Vote me down.
Voting this up.
Though Trump is no threat to democracy (this is democracy !). And the four years will go by in a flash. People get far too worked up about things which usually never happen.
The amusing thing is that the never-Trumpers will admit defeat far sooner than the Democrats who still appear to be in denial.
I don’t know. The transition period from Election Day to Inauguration seems to be dragging on forever
Still 30 more days
Does it ever give you pause for thought that every populist in the world – and there are many of them – have all been smeared as threats to democracy? Populists in France, Germany, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Argentina, El Salvador have all been called threats to democracy – every single one of them. Are they all threats to democracy – even the ones that have been elected and not installed authoritarian regimes?
Not really, no – because I would not agree on the threat to democracy thing in other cases. Progressive people may say it, but I think they are wrong. Threats to decency, horrible policies, destructive, promoting discord and destroying the consensus and agreed rules needed to keep the system working? Maybe, to varying degrees. Promising fake solutions, smashing things up without having anything better to replace with – like Brexit? Certainly. I dislike these people, generally. But going to install a dictatorship? No.
Take Meloni, in Italy. She is a fascist, in the precise historical sense. Her party counts its history back to post-war fascist parties, and before that to Mussolini. She rejects the post-war Italian consensus that counts the Republic back to the resistance against Mussolini and the postwar constitution, and has no particular problem with her young members giving fascist salutes, as long as they are reasonably discreet. She is working to get a powerful presidency (strongman style, but then almost every government has tried to change the electoral system to suit themselves). She extols the greatness of the Italian Nation, going back to the Romans, in a way that Benito too could have said. I do not like any of that. But she is clearly not going to outlaw the opposition, have her blackshirts march on Rome, or invade Ethiopia. She is sticking to Democracy (Italian style) – certainly a lot more than Trump
Centrist Technocratic nowadays Authoritarian Liberal Neo Liberal just want to blame everyone else for their failure(s). They can’t understand why everyone doesn’t want to be like them and agree with them on everything.
It’s remarkably consistent that basically everywhere in the western world populist groups have emerged with anti-establishment viewpoints at about the same time and been treated as dangerous radicals by the so-called ‘centrist’ parties of those nations. It’s even been observed that the populist parties don’t much agree with one another on much of anything. The only issue they have in common is opposing immigration. Beyond that, they have different platforms and different areas of concern, different policies towards the Ukraine conflict and the Gaza conflict, etc. yet they all get painted with the same brush. It sure looks like centrist parties and organizations are acting in concert with one another, hitting MAGA and the AfD with the same cliched accusations of radicalism, racism, etc. To me, it’s obvious this is a group of internationalist leaders, centrists, oligarchs, etc. pursuing a unified global agenda with or without the people’s consent and facing opposition which is as diverse and varied as the countries themselves. One would think given recent events they’d start making more efforts to hide their agenda, but they seem almost as incompetent as they are delusional.
They are indeed as incompetent as they are delusional! Western elites are fundamentally delusional, and that disconnect with reality makes them incompetent on a strategic level. They got to where they are through gaming social approval, which means they don’t have much need for routine competence either. People are done ignoring it.
Do you realize just how delusional you are Rasmus. You pretend to be a thinking intellectual but actually you are clueless. Not only is Trump not a threat to Democracy in the US, he will enhance democratic practices. But I guess you regard having somebody with senile dementia as President, a fact hidden by White House staff for 4 years, going after opponents, especially Trump, with lawfare, changing accepted norms (e.g. trying to institute a fillibuster and expand and pack the Supreme Court), as perfectly democratic. Get over it. As for Meloni she is absolutely not a facist. She is a right of center politician, something the UK could well do with as the person in charge, rather than the completely shambolic disaster of Starmer and the current Labour government.
I’ve voted you down. I’ll rescind it if you can provide a plausible explanation for why “Trump is a [sic] much a threat to democracy as he ever was”.
If it includes the so-called “insurrection” following the 2020 vote, i’ll not rescind since Trump isn’t allowed to run for the office of President again.
What on earth do you – and those who influence you in the msm – think Trump is going to do which “threatens democracy”?
Well, since you ask:
Systematically and openly harass and weaken anyone who disagrees with the Trump, establishing the principle that anyone who disagrees with the President is an FBI target.
Change the electoral system, voter registration, election and counting procedures, gerrymandering etc. in a way that reduces the Democrat vote by maybe 5%, or more if he can find a way.
Further colonise the courts so that judges are pro-republican.
Destroy the power of the government to act against private companies, and make sure the companies who benefit are run by his friends.
Prepare the ground – politically and legally, so that if the Republicans ever lose they can claim fraud and step right in and overturn the result.
The big one is that Trump will remove all the limits on the President’s right to to anything he damn well likes. Now imagine that his side risks losing, and all that untrammelled power might go to AOC. Would the Republicans really accept that risk when it means that other can do to them what Trump has done to others?
“His” side? Your whole argument rests on that? It’s a fallacy. As we all know, the side that Trump’s on is his own – and America’s. The GOP are merely a vehicle.
Trump (or any other President) will never have the power to “do anything he [or she] damn well likes”, and you know that. Again, it’s just all media tropes. Try again. My vote stays down.
You are living in cloud cuckoo land. But then what would one expect from a British establishmentarian who is totally clueless about politics and the political system in the US. Get over it. You are seriously suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, bordering on psychopathy. Perhaps you should take a course of haloperidol or chlorpromazine. That might calm you down and bring you back to your senses.
As to your first point, pot meet kettle. They’ve systematically and openly harassed him, and America has a long history of politicians harassing each other politically. The case that established judicial review was basically the outgoing Adams administration doing something petty to annoy the incoming Jefferson administration and them trying to get around it. Politicians harass each other constantly through media stories and scandals. They have usually avoided using things like the FBI to investigate each other, but let’s remember the FBI is only about a century old. Let’s be honest here. Has any President or former President been more investigated by the FBI and everybody else than Trump himself has been? Am I to believe that the investigations of Trump by the FBI and others during the Biden administration were all completely legitimate but the ones Trump may or may not pursue in the next four years will be totally illegitimate. This is a double standard.
Second, he can’t unilaterally change the electoral system. That would require an amendment to the constitution. He can try to exploit technicalities in the procedure, but so can anybody else. Democrats did it in 2015 when they appealed to electors to ‘vote their conscience’ to keep Trump out of office. It’s the same crap. Trump tried to get Congress to refuse to certify the election, a formality and the Democrats tried to get the electors, whose only role is basically to go to Washington and vote according to the laws and the popular vote of their state to overrule said laws and the will of the people in their state to keep Trump out of office. Neither of these acts should be celebrated and both should be criticized. The fact is neither side has as much respect for the process as they should and that’s a damned shame. I’m not sure which side is worse, because they’re both pretty awful.
Presidents have always appointed federal judges that are political allies and friends. This goes back all the way to the founding of the Republic. The myth of objective non-partisan judges was just that, a myth, and at this point it should be well and truly busted. This is not new or unprecedented. The only thing that is unprecedented is Trump acknowledging the reality of the situation, that these are political appointments and the appointees are ideologically aligned with the people who appoint them in most cases.
You’re accusing Trump of siding with big business and cronyism when it’s a known and established fact that Trump was outspent by the Harris campaign by a margin of over 2 to 1, largely because of large and affluent donors, while Trump’s campaign was funded largely by many more small donations from working class and rural voters. Further, cronyism isn’t exactly unprecedented. From the mid 19th century when the first big business tycoons emerged in the railroad industry, they have courted political parties and individual politicians and meddled in political affairs. The notorious railroad magnate Jay Gould was deeply involved with presidential candidate James G. Blaine, a corrupt politician if ever there was one, who lost to Grover Cleveland. In the case of Trump vs. Harris, most of the wealthy tycoons favored the other candidate, whatever the campaign messages said. Only in the final few months before the election did a handful of wealthy people like Elon Musk endorse Trump. They gambled that Trump would win and that they would have some influence in the new administration in the same way other companies have always done. It’s often been the case that large corporations made donations to both parties and opposing campaigns just to curry favor regardless of who won.
What’s good for the goose. Either side can now make fraud claims, but they need at least some evidence. The accusations from 2020 did correspond to statistical irregularities that, while certainly not proof of fraud, do raise certain questions, questions that have become more pointed in light of the discrepancy in vote totals from 2020 to 2024. All of this is wildly irresponsible, but both sides can, and probably will continue to do it now that the precedent has been set. It goes back to neither side having sufficient respect for the process or the people.
Finally, the President can’t remove all limits on the President’s right to do anything he likes. The limits of presidential authority are set by the Constitution. He cannot unilaterally pass laws. Congress must approve of any new laws. He cannot declare a particular law unconstitutional or judge individual cases of citizens breaking federal law because those are the domain of the federal courts. He cannot unilaterally impose measures that infringe on the powers of the individual states because of the 9th amendment. Such disputes will be mediated by the courts, and while his judicial appointments can influence such matters, he can’t force those he didn’t appoint to take his side or retire/resign. Trump can claim he has these powers or rant about what he’s ‘going to do’ but saying is not the same as doing. It’s absurd to claim Trump will magically wave some kind of wand and wish all these checks and balances away. I’ll grant that a sufficiently popular President might get away with something like that, particularly if he/she had military backing, but we’re talking about a man that won with about half of the total popular vote and only by 1.5 percentage points. It’s a decisive victory but not exactly a historic landslide.
I think you’re being a bit of a Chicken Little about this Rasmus. I don’t think the sky is actually falling here. What exactly happened from 2016-2020 that was so egregious that you fear for our nation under a second Trump administration? As I recall, it was a relatively uneventful four years, and much of it was spent on an inconclusive investigation of Russia’s attempt to influence the election with obviously fake Facebook posts propagated by bots that basically anybody can get if they know where to look .Trump spent most of his energy fighting scandals like that or pointlessly feuding with the media while governing like a fairly normal Republican. He said a lot of things out loud and to the media that probably should have been said quietly in private but almost none of what he said translated into any concrete action. The major event was COVID, which was either a natural disaster that nobody could have prevented, or a case of bad laboratory procedures and insufficient safety standards for which the CCP should shoulder most of the blame.
To start with, you are quite right that both sides show disrespect for both the process and the people, and both sides have done a lot of dirty tricks over the years, in all the areas we are talking bout. That does not mean that Trump is just ‘acknowledging the reality of the situation’ – he is making it significantly and likely permanently worse. Or rather – the fact that you can get a decisive win and majority approval when behaving as he does means that from now on a lot of the brakes are gone. As you say: “now that the precedent has been set”.
One comparison is lying, in the abstract. Everybody agrees that it is wrong to lie. On the other hand, everybody lies, a lot of the time. But as long as the norm is respected (even if in the breach) lying has a cost. You have to limit it, lest you are disqualified in the eyes of others, your words are ignored if it is shown you lied, and it is possible to have an argument based on truth. As they say “Hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue”. Once you establish that it does not matter if your words are true or not (both Trump and Vance have form here, as it happens) argument is impossible. It really becomes just a question of who has the power, and those French philosophers claim. Another parallel is the laws of war. War is horrible, and the laws of war are neither that restrictive nor that well respected. Consider the Allied bombing of German cities in WWII, just as an example. But the Geneva Convention, the rules of war etc. serve as a way to keep it within bounds. As long as both sides acknowledge them and both sides respect them (up to a point) war is less horrible than it could have been, and both sides have an incentive to keep it that way. If you kill surrendering enemies, the enemy will kill your troops too. Back to the US: While both sides recognise certain limits you can keep things from going out of hand, and have a system where both sides can afford to lose, knowing that they might win again next time.
On the Supreme Court. It is clearly untenable that all the most important political decisions are taken by nine unremovable partisan appointments. Both sides try to twist it, sure, but for the system to work there has to be something that limits the shenanigans and permits both sides to have some trust in the system and their ability to keep having input. My personal uninformed opinion is that the Supreme Court kept a lot of authority in part because the judges were socialised to respect the law and to write the kind of opinions that would still be read with approval by their peers a hundred years later. Originalism is at least a coherent doctrine that does not permit its followers unlimited license. Roe v, Wade may have been wrong, but could at least be defended as a response to radical changes in family organisation and medical technology. But when you invent constitutional principles out of thin air in areas that were already covered at the start, as the Supremes did with presidential immunity recently (or with the Dred Scott decision before the civil war), the courts become merely weapon in a political fight.
On elections I have heard of a number of things that the Republicans could do. If you mandate compact electoral districts everywhere that would amount to a mandatory gerrymandering: keep those pesky Democrats bottled up in the cities and get guaranteed Republican majorities from everywhere else. Would it be against the constitution to give arrangements for federal elections back to the states, so that each state senate could make for whatever election or selection system that the governing party preferred? The various measures for purging voter rolls, making it harder to register, and limiting get-out-the-vote campaigns coincidentally have the effect of hurting Democrats and not Republicans. There are surely ways that could be intensified. There are enough examples from around the world of a democratically elected ruler who can control the courts, control or neutralise the media, harass any opposition, tweak the electoral rules – and stay in power forever. With presidential immunity, the power to pardon his henchmen, and a sizeable minority of die-hard supporters it can be done. Just how sure are you that the US system is Erdogan-proof?
On election fraud: Could you please link me to a convincing presentation of that evidence for fraud you claim? I have yet to see it. If it is just that people found it hard to believe that Biden could get many more votes than either Hilary or Kamala that is not convincing. After all, a lot of people, himself included, found it hard to believe that Trump could ever lose.
On lawfare, finally, it is certainly nothing new, and both sides have done it. In actual investigations you have Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Stormzy Daniels and the various economic Trump cases. How about Watergate, though? Do you think that was lawfare too, and that Nixon should have been allowed to continue his presidency without disturbance? And if you have prima facie evidence for collusion with foreign intelligence services, or for trying to overthrow the election, do you not think that should be at least investigated?
The biggest danger Trump poses is that he is erratic, reckless, ignores reality in favour of his ego, refuses to accept limits, and acts by instinct. NOT the kind of man you want to have in charge of the US military. If he did not do anything disastrous last time (like bombing Mexico) it is to a large extent because the people around him, the administration, ‘the swamp’ as you call it, pushed back. That is actually one of the functions of the administration and its procedure rules, to serve as repository of acquired wisdom (as it were) and to make it harder to do anything crazy or corrupt. In the new presidency the ability to push back will be removed. Trump is doing his best to get rid of any limits, across the board. He is putting diehard loyalists into all positions, he is pushing for the power to fire bureaucrats (so no pushback there) he is pushing to get rid of FBI vetting of his appointments (if he wants a potential Chinese spy, he will damn well have her!). A main function of all those bureaucratic procedures is to make it harder to be nepotistic or corrupt. Remove the limits, and what do you think will happen?
I don’t believe the 2020 election was stolen. There were probably individual instances of fraud given the size of an American election and the chaos of mail in ballots and COVID, probably from both parties, but i deem it highly improbable that it was nationally coordinated or affected the outcome. There were, however, statistical anomalies that raise questions. I believe there are simple and innocent explanations for these but I recognize the possibility of other explanations. Such questions should be investigated for the sake of the integrity of elections.
The same goes for Russian interference. Had the Russians actually conspired with party officials to forge votes or change ballots, that would have been serious. Once it was clear that the Russians didn’t actively interfere with the election itself or change votes, that should have been the end, but it wasn’t. I honestly don’t care if they made fake ads or dishonest social media posts, because any common criminal or organization can do the same. Frankly their basically advertising for one candidate isn’t any worse or more inappropriate than multinational corporations doing the same thing, and they do, every election. When they ban all corporate donations and superPACs, I will care about Russia or China or the EU putting their finger on the scales. All these organizations and nations are equally pursuing their interests and equally have no business meddling, but until they’re all banned from doing so, I don’t want time and money wasted on these kinds of wild goose chases. The Russian investigation was a politically motivated boondoggle that accomplished nothing and told us nothing we shouldn’t have already known. I will concede it was marginally less stupid than the Lewinsky investigation, but that’s about all. Nixon wasn’t an investigation at all. The media uncovered the scandal and Nixon resigned before there was very much formal investigation, because there was proof, because he was paranoid and taped every conversation he ever had. I think this is a good case for why it’s important to have a free press and why government should be transparent. I don’t approve of government surveillance on private citizens but politicians should be scrutinized and taped. Transparency in government should be the rule, not the exception.
No I don’t trust bureaucrats to act in the people’s interests more than politicians, even Trump. Why should bureaucrats be less political than anybody else? Why should they be less corrupt, less apt to defer to their own ideology and their own political bias?Because they’re supposed to be? Because they claim to be? Am I to believe these people are all entirely apolitical and impartial, that there are no Democrats or Republicans among them or that they are evenly distributed despite no law requiring such? They just say they’re being impartial and we have to take them at their word because……. why? That’s the answer i want. Why are they more reliable than elected leaders, and if they are doesn’t that imply you don’t actually believe in democratic rule? If the people’s chosen leaders cannot be trusted, who can, and why? You can’t simultaneously claim to favor democratic rule while suggesting unelected officials should have authority over democratically chosen officials. Either defer to the democratic process or admit you’re not really a small d democrat and openly declare yourself a supporter of something other than democracy. Either the people are sovereign, and that means all the people, or they’re not. You can’t have it both ways.
I’m pretty confident that the American system is about as Erdogan proof as a system can be made. No system will be perfect but the American system where powers are divided both horizontally between branches and vertically between the national government and states provide a robust defense against that sort of autocratic or one party government. It would be mightily difficult in a nation so large and diverse as ours to put together a level of popular support that could overcome even a standard level of friction between the branches and levels of governments and between the states. At this moment of political division, anyone attempting to do what Erdogan or his opponents did would probably trigger a second civil war, in which everybody would lose.
The states already do have broad authority to conduct elections by the way. Technically speaking there are no national elections in the US. The electoral college is state by state, 50 statewide elections. Senators are by state. Representatives are by districts within state and state law and state governments decides how district lines are drawn and by whom. Your worst case scenario exists already. It can be changed by a Constitutional amendment but that process is difficult even in times of relative political harmony. I have many ideas about how to change it to make it more fair, but all are basically impractical for that reason.
Everyone can read the Constitution and the law. Everyone knows the rules. Embracing a purely cosmopolitan agenda in the American system that favors policies held by large numbers of people spread over very small areas is objectively a poor political strategy in the American system. Nobody forced the Democrats to do this but they did. The consequences are on them if they can’t convince rural voters or moderate their positions. They need to come up with better policies that appeal to a broader coalition of voters. Unchecked globalism, bureaucratic rule, and woke values are not popular enough among enough people over a large enough area. If you’re dead set on the policies then at least come up with a better argument. The standard Trump is a threat and all you all you Trump voters are wrong and the experts know best argument is empirically failing at an increaimg rate. You might even be right, but as the boy who cried wolf learned, it doesn’t matter whether you’re right if nobody believes you.
We need to end this and break for Christmas. But I shall make a final comment. If you have a link to someone exposing those ‘statistical anomalies’ I’d still like to see it.
You are quite right that it does not help banging on about Trump being dangerous. A majority of the voters want Trump, and if there are reasons not to have him they do not want to hear them. But as for myself I will not pretend to accept he is not dangerous. Some skilled person needs to come up with a way to manipulate people into voting for something different from what they want – which is, again, Trump, incipient authoritarian or not. But I shall leave that to the professionals.
It is true enough that Trump cannot be re-elected, and that the multilayered US government is hard to take over wholesale. But whatever changes Trump can make to tilt the playing field and condition the press to favour the Republicans will still be there waiting for his successor. And all the restrictions on naked nepotism, unashamed polical persecution of enemies etc. that he removes will remain removed whoever takes over. States may have broad authority to conduct elections any way they like, but as a practical matter they all hold elections and they all respect the results. They do not push their formal authority to he limit. That might change.
What makes bureaucrats less political is that 1) they know more about likely consequences, 2) they are all socialised to respect the tenets of their chosen profession. When Boeing was run by engineers it was agreed that the purpose of the company was to build airplanes that did not fall down. When the financiers took over that changed. Similarly law enforcement share the purpose to stop the bad guys, EPA personnel the purpose to protect the environment, judges to uphold the law, diplomats to have effective relationships with other nations. Doing their jobs badly for a purely political purpose is possible, but has a cost. Politicians’ job is politics, so they do not feel the same limits. They are needed to take the overall decisions – and to manage decisions when information is scarce – but it is good to have those decisions tempered a bit.
Oh, and BTW, the biggest problem about Russiagate was not that the FSB ran propaganda campaign, but that they hacked the Democrats mail servers and published the results, and that Trump encouraged them.
As for your comment on Watergate, I take it to mean that as long as popular opinion supports a president he should be immune from law enforcement and free to do whatever he wants. To which my only anwer is ‘Hugo Chavez’. But then, if that is what you want, it is your democratic right to get it.
You’re so funny, Rasmus Fogh.
The whole “Threat to Democracy” line is propaganda. Just stop. Democrats changed all the voting rules in 2020, suppressed speech, hid their candidate from scrutiny and still barely won. They had a machine operation already in place to collect ballots from heavily populated areas. At the very least, it was a rigged playing field or maybe you would call that “Equity.”
Then in 2024, they refused to allow a real primary election and installed a candidate that received zero votes. Unfortunately we didn’t get to see the “Superdelegates” weigh in.
So let me ask you this- What is your definition of “Democracy.”
Not to mention the Democratic efforts to bar Donald Trump from the ballot for an “insurrection” that never happened, and all the other lawfare cases brought against him. That the Democrats can do all that anti-democratic abuse of power and then accuse the Republicans of being anti-democratic is hypocrisy at its sheerest. The Republicans are anti-Democratic, but not anti-democratic.
Come on. Trump tried top steal the election. Do you really think that he should be allowed to get away with that unscathed?
No Trump absolutely did not. All he asked for is that the election be investigated. Remember only 40,000 votes spread over 3 states separated Trump and Biden. As it is, it’s probably good that Trump lost because now he is wiser in the ways of Washington, and has a vastly superior team behind him.
Donald Trump did try to overturn the results of the election, just as many losing candidates do. Some of what he did, or what his supporters did, was silly and over the top. But none of it was illegal. He did nothing others have not done before.
The only thing of importance was that Donald Trump left office on the appointed day without incident (leaving what Joe Biden called a “shockingly gracious” but private letter to his successor behind). He accepted the loss. Had he made any attempt to stay in office illegally, then he should be scathed. Otherwise, no.
The efforts by Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith and Fani Willis to prosecute Donald Trump were undemocratic and highly improper. That the Democrats condoned and even now defend those efforts says all you need to know about which party is antidemocratic.
Donald Trump still, to this day, has not admitted publicly that he lost. Indeed, he recruiting for his new administration only from people willing to say that he did not lose. As for ‘others have done it’, there is a difference between just saying aloud that ‘he did not really win because he lost the popular vote’, or ‘vote your conscience’ and an organised, systematic attempt to pressure people into falsifying the the result. That was ‘an attempt to stay in office illegally’. If you think Trump is innocent even so, fine, he would have been acquitted eventually. But claiming that he should not even be put to trial is ridiculous partisanship.
You just don’t give up, Rasmus …
Democracy? A system where power is decided by vote, with agreed rules that candidates follow, and where both sides follow the rules and accept the result even if they lose. I would add the rule of law, where law enforcement is objective and not at the whim of the government. Trump is down at least three, here: He refused to accept the election result on a spurious pretext, he tried to overturn it, and he is openly boasting that he will persecute those who were against him, not because they broke the law (like he did) but for revenge.
As for your rigged playing field: both sides do it, and the Republicans are if anything doing more, with gerrymandering and removing valid voters from the rolls. Machine operations for getting out the (legitimate) votes are within the rules, So is the process that replaced Biden with Kamala. And Biden did not have any obligation to appear in public, and more than Trump had an obligation to publish his tax returns or do more debates. If you do not like what the candidate does, just vote against him (or her).
What are you talking about regarding removing va;lid voters from their rolls. Are you saying that illegal aliens and legal non-US residents have a right to vote. They don’t. Are you saying that dead people have a right to vote. They don’t. Are you saying that a person living in State X but was previously a resident of state Y has a right to vote in State Y. No they don’t. May I suggest you don’t talk about things you know absolutely nothing about.
I am saying that the Republican efforts are removing lots of valid voters from the rolls, too. And that this is not a coincidence, they are deliberately casting their net as wide as possible. The goal of the operation is to make it as hard as possible for Democrats to get to vote, the rest is just a pretext.
Democracy is where power is given to despicable, worthless incompetent individuals based on a popularity contest where they promise to give away other people’s money.
A terrible basis to run a country
Still there is no point in moaning about it – the task now is to admit defeat and work out the best way of managing in what is now enemy territory.
.
So, this is your way to democracy! To declare your country as enemy territory and fight against your fellow citizens.
.
Down, f.cking Pol Pot! Down to the cesspool!
My question to you is “can you articulate exactly how Trump represents a ‘threat to democracy'”? Genuine question, asked in good faith.
I will say people who don’t live in the States, even well educated ones, tend not to fully understand how American “democracy” works. Having family in Denmark (Med dit navn jeg antager at du er dansk og derfor ikke Amerikansk), I’ve often heard similar charges. “you guys have elected a Dictator” – this coming from a country where the Prime Minister and her party can pretty much decree any law they want, so long as they can find the votes. The executive AND the legislative are combined in to single entity.
I can certainly see how someone outside of US can perceive the US presidency as an emperor-like role. That’s a feature, not a bug. The founders designed our system to have a single, unified voice representing our interests abroad. And that role comes with a lot of muscle and influence on the international stage.
However, as any wannabe imperial president will tell you, domestic politics are very much a different animal. There’s no waving of the hands and removing “democracy” – you’ve got to work through the Congress and also ensure that your decisions stays in good graces with the Courts. And even the most popular presidents find their dreams dashed by the machinations of Congress.
But more importantly, what outsiders (and many insiders) don’t understand is the role of the sovereign State. I would say most Americans who don’t live in DC are largely unaffected by the Federal government (and the Presidency) in their daily lives (except on April 15th). Our lives are largely governed by the state government, not the federal. For most Europeans (and everyone), the idea that a region can do its own thing is anathema to the centralized design. Syddanmark is an administrative (i’m old enough to remember the Amts) body with little to no executive power. That’s very different from the governor of Nevada (or any other state) who has true executive and policy making powers, subject to their legislature.
TLDR;
What most people mean when they say “Democracy is under threat” is “this new guy is going to do things that I don’t like”. Funny how Biden’s unilateral decisions on student debt, redefine genders in our educational system and the numerous other unpopular things he did were celebrated.
In short, no need to light a candle for American Democracy – despite it’s many imperfections, it continues to thrive.
The answer to ‘what Trump can do to threaten Democracy’ is in another post.
I will not deny that I do not understand the US. But your comparison to Denmark illustrates another side of how democracy works (or does not).
Democracy consists not just of a set of formal rules, but on the generally agreed set of behaviours that the various players accept and live by, which are of course influenced by the rules, but go beyond them. First and foremost of course is that you accept the election result even if you lose, and that any power you take for yourself will sooner or later be given to your opponents – that is two points already where Trump has failed, BTW. The point about ‘can decree any law they want‘ may be a problem in a two-party system, where a smallish group of activists can hijack one of the two parties, and where you can conceivably keep the other guys out for extremely long periods. In Denmark it is imply not an issue. The electoral system makes for multiparty coalitions, which means that everybody needs to play nice to be allowed in the deals and there is always someone else who can take your place if you misbehave – or someone else to vote for if one party gets carried away. Also, electorate and parties both are invested in having the system work. There are no linguistic or separatist parties who do not feel they belong and are happy to hold the system to ransom, and tactics like shutting down the government would simply not be tolerated, by either politicians or voters.
Seen from Denmark the vaunted US system is a Mexican standoff where everybody has a veto, decisions cannot be taken, and sabotaging government is a routine tactic. Which is presumably why some of the most important and far-reaching decisions end up in the Supreme Court – where they manifestly do not belong – simply because that is the only body actually able to take decisions. Of course it is a lot easier in a tiny, homogenous country.
Anyway, this shows another way where Trump is damaging democracy. Things were bad enough already, on both sides, but with Trump’s open contempt for any kind of restrictions, rule, or level playing field he is moving the system irretrievably towards total war. Since Nixon it has been held (at least in theory) that you should not politicise the FBI or the justice system, to avoid at least the appearance of using them just as a power tool. Post-Trump that is gone. The same with pardons. When Trump openly promises to use his immunity to disregard the law and his pardon power to protect his henchmen, the other side has no reason to hold back either. In fact, if Trump is going to abuse the justice system to persecute e.g. Hunter Biden, there is no moral reason why Biden should not abuse his pardon power to protect him. After all, that is how things are done. And, now the American people have shown that Trump is the way to go, the way they will be done in the future.
What are you talking about. It was Biden’s DOJ and Biden’s FBI that were politicized. Two tier justice. If you were a democrat you were fine. If you were a Republican you were persecuted, the FBI would raid your home guns ablazing, and they would rifle through your’s wife’s lingerie. Isn’t it interesting how the Democrats and their sympathizers in the UK always accuse the other side of doing exactly what the democrats are actually doing or intend to do.
Democracy under threat means that the Democrats dream of absolute, totalitarian power is under threat
Thanks to all for some very constructive disagreements (hence so many answers).
In the absence of proven cases of election fraud, I take great issue with characterizing any democratically elected leader as a ‘threat to democracy. Democracy is not a specific end result, a specific policy, or a specific person, it is an idea, that the people are sovereign over themselves and their nation, and that the people are the only legitimate source of sovereign power. In an autocracy, the highest authority is the autocrat, who is the ultimate authority in all things. He is the king, the king’s word is law, and the king can do now wrong. In a democracy, there is no king, the people collectively are king. Under truly democratic principles, there is no person that is unacceptable as a leader unless the people deem them so, there is nothing which is unacceptable unless by the people’s will. Within such a system, the democratic process must be followed, and held sacred, because it represents the sovereign will of the people. If individuals are allowed to subvert the process, we are, by definition, no longer a democracy. The USA was, contrary to popular belief, not founded as a democracy (though some advocated for this). It was a representative republic. It technically still is, but most Americans believe in democratic principles and the ultimate sovereignty of the people over themselves and their country.
For example, if one accepts that the American election was legitimate and the election was not somehow ‘stolen’, then Trump cannot be a threat to democracy because he was chosen in a democratic election through a constitutional process that proceeded legally and has been repeated numerous times throughout history. In a democracy, the people cannot be wrong because they are sovereign. Trump did not, for the record, take power in a coup d’etat or with military backing. In his absolute worst moment, Trump made one very poor attempt on Jan 6th to use legal technicalities to subvert the democratic process and have Congress refuse to certify the results of the election. He should be, and has been, criticized for his actions. However, balance and fairness demand that other attempts to subvert the process are treated similarly. The democrats did something similar in 2016 when they asked electors to ‘vote their conscience’ rather than follow the legal requirements of the constitution, tradition, their personal integrity, and their relevant state laws. In both cases, individuals and supporters of one side or the other tried to take advantage of procedural issues most Americans weren’t even aware existed and pressure individuals to lay aside the established process and do something unprecedented. One appeared much worse than it actually was thanks to a riot that got out of hand due to insufficient security, a mistake unlikely to be repeated. I will however, note that Trump at least based his claim on the popular sovereignty of the people, maintaining that widespread fraud had caused his loss, thus subverting the usual process and abrogating the popular will. He had no proof and few believe the election was ‘stolen’, but Trump could at least claim that he was appealing to democratic principles. In 2016, the appeals to electors were based simply on keeping Donald Trump out of office. The fact Hillary did in fact win the popular vote provided some cover for them to appeal to democratic principles, but the fact remains that this is the process that has been used for a very long time and there have been other occasions where the loser of the popular vote won by the established procedure. In the end, both these efforts were unprecedented in living memory, neither were particularly well thought out, and thankfully neither was successful. In those cases, in those moments, the democratic process could be said to be threatened but in each case the democratic process prevailed. May it always continue to do so regardless of irresponsible politicians.
The people were aware or could have easily researched all these facts in the run up to the 2024 election. They could have decided that Trump’s actions disqualify him from office. Instead, by a slim but clear majority of the people in the popular vote and a strong majority in the constitutional process of the electoral college, the people chose Trump. They have, in effect, pardoned his behavior in a manner not dissimilar to how Mr. Biden is handing out pardons left and right to his political allies for various reasons. If the people’s chosen leader has the power to excuse crimes, surely the people themselves have that power as well. I honestly wish everyone could have more respect for the process, and I further wish that greater care was taken to protect the integrity of the process, but who am I.
With respect Rasmus, it is disingenuous to support democratic rule only when it produces results you consider acceptable or desirable. To declare a man who won an election less than two months ago a ‘threat to democracy’ is, to me, an insult to the entire concept of popular sovereignty. It suggests that you do not, in fact, believe in or advocate for true democracy, but for your own viewpoints. For the most part, there’s nothing wrong with that. Sitting governments can and should be criticized for their mistakes and their policies should be questioned. However, I would say declaring the other side a ‘threat to democracy’ in order to promote your viewpoint is pushing the very same boundaries Trump does. It shows disrespect for the process, certainly not as much as Trump did in 2020, but disrespect nonetheless. If in our quest to defeat monsters, we become monsters, we have already lost. I can sympathize with your frustration. We live in trying times. There are, in a sense, always threats to democracy as there are always forces which will seek to abrogate the popular will and gain power over people but we as Americans are in the unfortunate position of having threats to democracy on all sides, both within in the form of undemocratic forces seeking to subvert rule by popular sovereignty for rule by oligarchs, autocrats, economics, international organizations, or experts and without in the form of totalitarian, autocratic, and fundamentalist regimes in China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The enemy is not only at the gates, the enemy has spies and subversives in the city trying to replace democratic rule with some other form. There are many threats to democracy in our era, and in my judgement Trump is by no means the most dangerous or the most capable. By all means, continue to criticize Trump. I have no doubt he will do and say many things worthy of criticism, but let’s at least try to respect the process and leave behind the histrionics and hyperbole. As you can see, it hasn’t worked anyway, so why keep beating a dead horse? I’m also not sure declaring the whole country to be enemy territory and regarding those who disagree as enemies to be fought rather than equal citizens to persuade to your side with logic, evidence, and debate is wise or constructive. I rather think this attitude perpetuates conflict and makes compromise more difficult regardless of who it comes from.
At any rate, I always vote you up Rasmus because I don’t like discussions to get too one-sided and unlike some other commenters, you can actually make coherent logical arguments, write in complete sentences, and express your view without petty name calling.
I think you are mixing two things up here. There is no doubt that Trump is the legitimate and legitimately elected president of the US. He is what people want. Whether he is a threat to democracy is a different question entirely. Erdogan, Orban, Modi, Mugabe and even Putin were all elected, and at least their first victories were reasonably free and fair. Just because he came in by a free and fair election does not mean that he (or rather his party – he cannot run again personally) will keep the election free and fair if it means that they might actually lose.
The people of the United States of America have chosen Trump, but that does not mean that he is not a threat to democracy. It just means that even if he is, a majority of the American people do not care.
Rasmus, you are really are off the wall. But what does one expect from an ignorant englishman when mouthing off about politics in the US based on zero knowledge other than what they glean from the MSM that was virulently anti-Trump.
Well he can’t legally run again. Presidents are limited by a Constitutional amendment to two terms. It is possible to repeal such amendments, but very difficult, and probably impossible in our current climate. If Trump tried to change the rules unilaterally without the constitutional authority or just ignore them to retain power, then that would be undemocratic and at that point he would be a threat to democracy. That hasn’t happened yet. Until it does, I think it’s unreasonable and counterproductive to label the man a threat to democracy. Again, people in the MSM have been saying this for eight years. Empirically speaking, it seems that this strategy has not been successful and maybe made things worse. I’m suggesting maybe a new approach is in order. Accurate or inaccurate, right or wrong, the threat to democracy rhetoric did not really convince voters. it’s time to try a different message and strategy to appeal to people.
I would disagree with you on 1 point. As far as the 2020 election is concerned, close to 50% of the US electorate believes there were shenanigans going on and that the election could well be stolen. The US has a long history of this sort of thing both in Chicago and NYC (remember Mayor Daly, the usual dead people voting in Chicago, and Tammany Hall in NY).
Is it that high? Well that’s not great to hear. In any democratic/republican system of government, it’s pretty important for people to have faith in the election process. My logic is simply logistical, how would individuals committing fraud and putting in extra votes know how many and in what states to do it to turn the election. How many would have to do it to change the results? Which places are most vulnerable to fraud. Stealing an election purposefully is just too complex. I’m open to the possibility of fraud occurring but it’s one thing to claim there was fraud and another to claim it was coordinated at a national level and changed the results. Biden and his advisors should have recognized the importance of election integrity and done an investigation just to reassure voters of the integrity of the process, but he didn’t. Maybe it simply never occurred, or maybe our politicians are so corrupt and power hungry they don’t care about the process.
Further, I’m not blind and I don’t ignore evidence that contradicts my viewpoint. I’ve always maintained that the 2020 election was not stolen and it was irresponsible to claim that it was without definitive proof, but I have to admit that the discrepancy in overall vote totals from 2016 to 2020 to 2024 makes me…. uncomfortable. It’s such an outlier, and the additional votes that showed up overwhelmingly favored one candidate by such a wide margin that it raise questions. Big outliers can have innocent explanations though. I still believe Joe Biden was the best candidate in 2020 and had he not gotten so much worse in such an obvious way, he would have been a better candidate in 2024. He’s simply more affable and likable than Harris or Hillary, so I think that the extra votes reflect a combination of a lot of extra mail in ballots plus having a much better candidate, but I can’t prove that. Democrats of course have nobody but themselves to blame for the situation and the whole affair reflects badly on Democratic leadership. If you select a VP because of her gender and skin color rather than her political skill and her ability to win an election, you risk things like this happening. I think the outlier in the vote totals is just that, a fairly normal outlier with a fairly normal explanation, one candidate was way more popular than the other two and they all ran against the same person, so the entirety of the extra votes for that one better candidate appears odd. Unfortunately, because there was no investigation, we will probably never know.
“The USA was, contrary to popular belief, not founded as a democracy (though some advocated for this). It was a representative republic.”
Yes. This mostly explains Bad Captain’s claim that American lives are more influenced by the state they live in than by the federal government. However. I do think it’s more accurate to state the U.S. was founded as a Constitutional Republic.
In a 1787 journal kept by one of the delegates to the US convention, James McHenry of Maryland, wrote: “A lady [Elizabeth Willing Powel] asked Dr. [Ben] Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”
I’m less convinced we’ll be able to keep it under Democractic party rule since Dems are more inclined to centralization. They are more apt to force their views on the entire nation through an ever growing, powerful federal government.
I think our founders really messed up when they failed to apply term limits for members of Congress. We end up with politicians far more interested in securing a stay of power for themselves rather than develop viable plans for the country’s long-term health and prosperity.
Trump’s legacy will be an “Eat the rich except me” mindset among voters. Bret Stephens and his liberal cohort are now at the top of the menu for the middle class, workers and disadvantaged. The Democrats who rule the party have for too long succeeded in fooling Americans that they have their interests at heart. His desperate attempt to change the conversation will only strengthen Trump. The next four years will be popcorn time for the uncommitted.
I disagree. At least half of Trump’s base are Bible believing Christians (not simply Cultural Christians). The “Eat the Rich” class warfare mentality doesn’t fly with people committed to being fair to others. There are also alot of pragmatic liberals that are now on the Trump Train. There are alot of very welcoming Trump voters that aren’t going to automatically judge you by your household income or even past positions.
If Brett Stephens wants to moderate his position he’ll be welcomed into the fold. Maybe not by all but at least half. We do not purge people into the permanent wilderness.
I take your point about the failings of the Democrats, but what has always baffled me is how Trump has been able to convince people that he has their interests at heart. I can confidently say that at all points in his life, Trump has had only one person’s interests art heart – himself.
Right because you haven’t listened or tried to listen and just assume everybody else sees the world through the Lens of Victim/Oppressor.
Under Trump my disposable income was higher, the cost of living was lower, crime was lower, the border was managed, the world wasn’t on fire and the federal government wasn’t orchestrating a “whole of government” speech control, equity regime.
Spoken like a true denizen of the MAGA echo chamber.
Your “confidence” doesn’t reassure me, Maverick Melonsmith.
Yeah, that’s why he’s fearless in the face of assissanation attempts. Pure selfishness.
All I know is that the flood of articles coming out now, and the acknowledgment from the left about how we imbeciles on the right were right all along is having a profound impact on my mental health. After 8 years of being told to ignore what was very plain to see with my own two eyes, the vindication is rewarding. I’m so glad that I didn’t cave in to the insanity and agree that up was down and black was white.
The sheer number of fabrications and outright lies that were being reported as truths was stunning. I have saved a compendium of these lies for my grandchildren to read someday. Perhaps they will acquire critical thinking skills vs. the current generation of lemmings.
…we can certainly do with some taller timber Warren.
I appreciate this author’s analysis, surprisingly gentle and with good facility in language.
I see the censorious thugs at Unherd are hard at work again. 20 comments, yet only three are visible.
No idea. I strive to always be civil, probably to a fault. I think the big problem is that if one post in a single comment chain gets reported the whole thing gets taken down until it’s investigated and sometimes one chain os most of the comments. The technical limitations of the website design may be a factor here, and we know how petty people can be, so I try to give Unherd the benefit of the doubt.
I am getting used to it. I think that there is a mechanism where any post that gathers lots of downvotes fast will be taken down automatically and most likely be reinstated manually later. It is silly and a real pain, but at least it is not due to malice or active censorship.
I have been making that point for a while. Unherd uses wordpress for the articles (and by extension comment section) and there is a clear pattern of posts that hit about net -10 to -20 suddenly disappearing. What is worse, the entire branch is removed until the “offending” post is reinstated.
There are occasions where comments are immediately swallowed – probably the result of a keyword detector. I had a long post suffer this the other day and it is extremely frustrating.
Try and avoid the downticks just because you disagree with a post, folks.
That’s a good theory. You might be right. If so that’s just plain lazy. There are better ways to accomplish things. We have AI now. Surely there’s some AI engine that can monitor for comments that break the rules or use racial slurs or what have you.
It is certainly achievable but I would not expect it to result in better behaviour.
The simple solution, should the downvote hypothesis be accurate, is to disable that feature and rely on manual reporting only. There really isn’t anything worthy of removal from these comment sections outside of very rare posts. The flagging system ought to be sufficient.
Additionally, a system that relies on downvoted posts as curation, is a tacit recognition that unpupolar opinions should be censored. This is clearly not a position held by many on this platform (and, in fairness, the platform itself).
Disagreement often leads to the best discussion points. Even a genuinely bad post can have good responses that are worthy of being seen but are removed due to the absurd mechanism that is in place.
Just to exemplify the point – I note Rasmus’ post (and attached thread) disappeared for a while and while I don’t agree with the conclusion, it is a reasonably well argumented post that contains valid points. It is not a troll post or spam.
It also has a lot of good responses and debate, the things that we want to see in a lively comment section.
All of that is removed because of (if our assumptions are correct) the stupid downvote system. I certainly cannot see why anyone would report it even if they disagreed. Unless some Trump supporters are so thin skinned they’re practically flayed.
Yes I agree completely with both your points. Downvotes are a poor criterion to decide what gets taken down. Unherd has rightly stood by the right of free speech and people’s right to have and express unpopular views in the public debate. It’s a bit off putting that their comment mediation policy doesn’t seem to reflect that commitment, but then these are writers and editors, not web designers. It may simply be something they can’t get around with the technology. Someone mentioned that Unherd runs on WordPress, which is a pretty simple blog/internet publishing software system that’s basically a free service where you pay for extra services and such, so it has some pretty severe limitations.
I personally am glad we haven’t run Rasmus off entirely. The comments lean pretty hard in a populist direction here. It’s good to have someone around who can make an intelligent argument for the other side. Honestly he’s better than probably 90% of the MSM in terms of actually using reason and evidence to make a coherent argument rather than just repeating a bunch of neoliberal dogma as though it was gospel truth handed down by the Almighty. I personally enjoy debating with him.
While it should be the role of Never Trumpers to oppose Trump’s worst excesses, mostly they need to play a waiting game. With any luck, Trump won’t live to see out his term, and then it’s “game on”, as Trump doesn’t really have an heir (I know Vance would be President, but he is in most senses a “common or garden variety” member of the Religious Right – in other words, a known quantity).
Spoken like a true leftist – wishing harm on political opposition. It’s turning into the defining trait of the Left.
It has always been a definite g trait of the left.
It’s weird. When I comment on the Guardian, I get the impression that people there think I am to the Right of Attila the Hun. For the record, my political perspective is “Small government, low taxes, individual freedom, capitalism as a driver of economic activity, strong military”. Also, I favour binning all that “net zero” nonsense. I guess all that counts as Leftist nowadays. Oh, and I supported Trump in 2016 (although that was more due to a dislike of Hillary than a like of him).
Yeah, I am the sort of “true Leftist” who venerated Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan back in the day. I guess the term “Leftist” means something different nowadays.
Ah yes the Morning Joe Republicans. Very principled. So committed to principles that the principles of commitment are fluid.
The left has no monopoly here- Trump wished a firing squad on Liz Cheney, the death penalty for Gen. Milley- and encouraged his supporters to beat up protestors at his rallies.
Actually, I think JarJar will have a greater chance of not living out his term than Trump
Who?
Whether ‘Never Trump’ Republicans thrown in the towel or not one can already see many GOP legislators beginning to grasp he’ll fast become a lame-duck and offers them less and less patronage going forward. As a result they go or stay rogue much more. C’est la Vie for second termers.
Last nights House vote being a case in point. Two days before that decision they are sharing the Gaetz investigation conclusions showed they have their own agenda’s and score-settling too and fact that embarrasses Trump’s judgment in the first place entirely secondary. Watch for 1-2 other picks to unravel. (Was it Gabbard that said Assad a friend and ally of the US…jeez what judgment).
Trump will find as time proceeds the field of Foreign Policy gives him a bit more latitude than he has at home wading through Congress treacle. And that’s another gravitational force that counteracts the US withdrawal into itself. But he’ll have to fall in with the Republican consensus or do little of value but spend alot of time on Airforce One checking out future potential condominium plots.
His only hope is he hits the ground running and gets the vast majority of what he promised done in year 1. Unlike most 2nd termers he had 4yrs to prep so that’s in his favour. But already his appointments show the chaos theme likely to continue and the whole tariffs are wonderful and let’s borrow more undermining what did give him some half decent economic results pre-pandemic. Given he won’t give a stuff about getting re-elected he can of course forget most of his promises, (and has already) to the ‘left behinds’ and ‘little guys’, this give more time for the Golf course and afternoon naps as befits his age. But he may find the gradual realisation he’s not getting listened to quite as much after a short honeymoon quite painful.
This is a speculative rant that reeks of bias. You’re entitled to your opinion but this kind of analysis doesn’t persuade any undecided people to your side or seriously give supporters pause.
I detect you may have recognised the truth in elements of it though that even you can’t deny, but that being uncomfortable you double down. Understandable. You have much Sunk Cost in this.
I would prefer it if articles about politics could focus on the voters and the myriad issues we need to deal with. Focusing on Party politics just encourages the very same people who have captured our government, dragged it to a stop and pushed it off the road.
Only a RINO could compare a marginal figure like Pat Buchanan, as accurate as his analysis was, with a political force of nature like Trump.