In 2020, Trump tried to ignore the results of the election. His efforts were incompetent, but he was plainly searching for the button that says, “President for Life” – then push it. And despite my blanket view that politicians are extremely power-hungry, I think that Trump was much more eager to become President for Life than any major U.S. presidential candidate in living memory. The other candidates over the last century, in contrast, were basically normal Americans who happened to be extremely power-hungry. Even FDR didn’t try to use World War II to postpone the 1944 election – and that would have been a fairly easy sell.
The upshot is that if Trump runs for the Presidency again, he will very likely try to ignore the electoral results again. And this time around, his supporters are planning ahead. While Biden, not Trump, now has the incumbency advantage, this is a troubling prospect for anyone who values an honest democratic process.
The standard reaction so far has been to take maximum advantage of unified government – and ramp up aggressive partisan rhetoric. This makes sense if your goal is to get the policies you want. Sure, the Republicans will try to undo some of them, but due to status quo bias, you’ll probably get to keep most of the policy changes you pass.
However, if you value the small-d democratic process over big-D Democratic policies, there is probably a better path. Namely: Strive to put Republicans’ minds at ease.
How? Take the initiative to de-escalate partisan tensions. Conspicuously refrain from pushing for more government spending, more regulation, or more taxes. Declare victory on Covid and return to normalcy. Drop the rhetoric about “systemic racism” and end controversial indoctrination in public schools. In short, make peace from a position of strength. Say: “If we Democrats were half as bad as Republicans claim, we’d be pushing all kinds of crazy policies. Instead, we’re giving the country a much-needed four-year vacation from acrimony. For us, the preservation of American democracy has top priority.”
Would this work? Not on everyone, and certainly not on every Republican. Yet it would probably sway tens of millions of non-Democrats. And since the next election will otherwise be close, that’s crucial. Furthermore, since Trump will probably be too old to run in 2028, and no successor is likely to enjoy similar devotion, that takes the country out of the danger zone. Woke Twitter will hate you, but in exchange you avoid turning the U.S. political system into an imitation of Russia’s, Turkey’s, or Hungary’s.
Some will object, no doubt, that Republicans are so crazy that they’ll paint the olive branch as a dagger-in-the-back. And they’re obviously right about some Republicans. I can’t imagine my strategy winning over Trump himself. Fortunately, that’s not necessary. As usual in democracy, you only need to win over the marginal actors. You don’t even need to convince them to change their vote. Just convince the marginal actors that the end is not nigh – that turning the U.S. into Australia or Venezuela is the furthest thing from your minds. Once convinced, plenty will simply stay home. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Appeasement often works.
Why, though, you may ask, should Democrats have to bear this burden? If Republicans are endangering democracy, shouldn’t they be the ones who strive to put Democrats’ minds at ease? The answer is that life’s not fair. Republicans simply care less about democracy than Democrats, so they’re not going to spend political capital trying to save it. Hence, their opponents have to pick up the slack. As Galadriel tells Frodo, “This task was appointed to you. And if you do not find a way, no one will.”
Admittedly, I could be wrong about Democratic priorities. Perhaps getting their way today matters more to them than the fate of American democracy tomorrow. Or maybe they just want to throw the dice and hope everything works out.
READER COMMENTS
Corey
Nov 2 2021 at 2:41pm
Democrats have to win primaries! Most members of congress are in safe districts and have a greater chance of losing a primary than a general election. Any attempt to govern from the center would be immediately met by an attempt to replace that person from the left.
Scott Sumner
Nov 2 2021 at 2:58pm
I’ve also argued that the Dems should be reasonable to prevent Trump from winning. But I cannot agree with this:
“Furthermore, since Trump will probably be too old to run in 2028, and no successor is likely to enjoy similar devotion, that takes the country out of the danger zone. ”
The core problem isn’t Trump; it’s that the US has become a banana republic where elections are no longer trusted. That’s not going away after Trump passes from the scene. The America I grew up in is gone (politically, the economy is still doing fine.)
If you want a left wing analogy, it would be like arguing that if we remove CRT from schools then things will be fine, children would no longer be indoctrinated. That won’t work either; these forces (radical Wokism and right wing authoritarianism) are too deep.
Even worse authoritarian nationalists are in our future—people more competent than Trump.
Mark Z
Nov 2 2021 at 6:12pm
It’s possible, but it would probably entail the GOP settling into a position as a permanent minority party. Demographic trends are pushing the electorates strongly in the opposite direction. Younger generations are both further left and less prone to move rightward as they age than previous ones. I think the Brookings Institute’s rather dire – for the right – predictions are the best forecast, give or take a few years.
MikeW
Nov 2 2021 at 7:15pm
This could be alleviated if the Democrats would work with the Republicans to enact reasonable voting-security measures. They seem to be resisting any such measures, though.
Nathan
Nov 2 2021 at 3:26pm
Bryan, I would like to have a bet with you. I’ve sent you an email.
Everett
Nov 2 2021 at 3:42pm
“Indoctrination” goes both ways, It’s just that far fewer on the left listen to the leftist equivalents of Fox News and the like, so don’t typically get as outraged about rightist indoctrination.
At this point in time plenty of states have successfully fought back against non-democratic governments to create democracies. The successes against catastrophes equivalent to climate change are far fewer in number.
Should the Democrats give up on the successes of the 60s that they sacrificed so much to gain in order to save a democracy that’s trending toward Jim Crow again? Would the democrats conceivably be in a position to re-win the gains of those battles in this future “saved democracy”? Hyperbole, maybe, but the forces exist pushing toward those ends. E.g. Black citizens can’t even politely exercise their 1st amendment rights anymore without being call un-American by a huge section of the populace (taking a knee to the star spangled banner). These trends will not suddenly reverse if democracy is saved.
Lillian Tara
Nov 2 2021 at 5:00pm
Indoctrination does go both ways, but it’s overwhelmingly the left running the show in higher education, and it’s creeping its way down the levels.
“far fewer on the left listen to the leftist equivalents of Fox News” – source? On the occasions I browse a Carlson/Gutfield-esque program, it seems pretty clear they make no claims to being unbiased. It’s dogmatic rhetoric, certainly. But the leftist equivalents of Fox are by no means less of an influence on the left. The ideology is dispersed, and there are more sources of left-wing media to begin with. But the scale at which it’s happening not only in the media but in the schools has nothing comparable in the right. You could argue perfectly reasonably that if Republicans ran the schools/media they’d push their own agenda, but as of now they don’t have the luxury.
As for the kneeling, that’s not an unreasonable point, but consider it from the perspective of the average GOP voter who thinks (fairly accurately) that we’re seeing a polarization of patriotism. The kneeling is within the context of the systematic racism doctrine that is part of the overarching leftist ideology. Leftists are openly anti-Western, and these opinions seep into even moderate Dems’ views.
Maybe the left isn’t as outraged about rightist indoctrination because there’s not exactly much to be outraged about.
Everett
Nov 3 2021 at 11:01am
“far fewer on the left listen to the leftist equivalents of Fox News” – source?
Based on the Ad Fontes Media bias chart 7.0 (January 2021) the leftist video equivalent to Fox News (TV, not Web) is something called FSTV. The online equivalents to the television Fox News are things like Daily Kos and Alternet. Other rightist TV media equivalent to Fox News back then are OAN and Newsmax.
I don’t absolutely know the viewing statistics of these leftist sites. I’d never before heard of FSTV, but had heard of and infrequently read Daily Kos and Alternet. Fox News TV has viewing statistics in the millions.
The more recent 8.0 media bias chart (September 2021) has MSNBC’s “The Reid Out” as the equivalent of the entire Fox News TV, with The Young Turks as a more leftist equivalent. This is probably getting into the same order of magnitude of viewing of Fox News, but with more limited programming. Newsmax TV is now equivalent to a couple of leftist media called Wonkette and Palmer Report. I may have heard of Wonkette, but have never read it. OAN TV no longer has a listed leftist equivalent.
And that’s not even looking at talk radio. There is leftist talk radio, but based on listener statistics rightist talk radio is far ahead in listeners.
Mark Z
Nov 2 2021 at 5:38pm
“Should the Democrats give up on the successes of the 60s that they sacrificed so much to gain in order to save a democracy that’s trending toward Jim Crow again?”
How? Virtually every institution in America, including many state ones, are moving toward greater overt discrimination in favor of black people.
“Black citizens can’t even politely exercise their 1st amendment rights anymore without being call un-American by a huge section of the populace.”
Anymore? Try kneeling for the national anthem in the 50s. I’m pretty sure it’s gotten way more acceptable, not less, in recent years; indeed some athletes are increasingly pilloried for not kneeling. And huge sections of the populace think everyone who expresses recently mainstream political opinions are bigots. Great swaths of the public presumably think many people are going to hell for practicing the wrong religion. Being thought of as un-American by many of one’s fellow citizens is pretty unremarkable and par for the course. Very few Americans aren’t hated by at least a third or so of the country for something they believe.
Anonymous
Nov 3 2021 at 10:48am
Maybe he means Jim Crow with Asians and whites the victims?
Everett
Nov 3 2021 at 11:08am
No. I searched to refind this article:
And found a couple more in Texas alone:
third:
And that was like a ten second search in which I opened stories only on the front page of results on DuckDuckGo.
MikeW
Nov 4 2021 at 2:01pm
I can see why you object to those things, but I’d say it’s hyperbole to contend that they are in any way comparable to Jim Crow.
Everett
Nov 5 2021 at 1:06am
@MikeW
The top one is effectively a campaign that greatly encouraged a family to leave a place.
No, it isn’t at Jim Crow. But without pushback would it continue staying just at the level it is?
Everett
Nov 3 2021 at 11:32am
Hi Bryan. I posted a response to Anonymous that had three links giving counter evidence to Anonymous’s guess that I’m talking about other than Black citizens (and the Holocaust in the last link). It seems to have been eaten by the spam filter.
Everett
Nov 4 2021 at 11:43am
Thanks Bryan.
MarkW
Nov 2 2021 at 5:20pm
In 2020, Trump tried to ignore the results of the election.
I think he truly believes he was cheated by fraud (he’s not that smart, and is certainly no statistician). He tried to twist arms to (legally, but dubiously) prevent the election from being certified. How much worse was this than the 2000 shenanigans (e.g. the attempted selective Florida recount) and claims of cheating?
His efforts were incompetent, but he was plainly searching for the button that says, “President for Life” – then push it.
I also don’t see that. I think he was searching for the button that says “second term”. I don’t buy the ‘wants to be president for life’ stuff (nor do I think his supporters would back him if he did).
How? Take the initiative to de-escalate partisan tensions.
LOL — that is definitely not in the cards from the Dems any time soon. They pretty much know they’re going to lose at least one branch of Congress next year (if not before if Manchin crosses the aisle), so far from de-escalating, they’re desperately trying to push through as much as possible from the progressive wish list before the window of opportunity snaps shut. And not only that, but the whole Democratic media infrastructure (NY Times, CNN, Washington Post) absolutely depend on partisan tensions for their audience and subscription revenues.
Republicans simply care less about democracy than Democrats
LOL, again. The Democrats who ginned up the phony ‘Russian Collusion’ charges starting with a dodgy ‘dossier’ from the Clinton campaign and then leaked and lied their way past the FISA court on their way to an attempted lawfare coup by impeachment? The Democrats who started with ‘the deep state is a myth’ and transitioned to ‘the deep state resistance is awesome!’? The Democrats who no longer believe in ‘unfettered’ free speech and are working to strong-arm big tech into censoring their opponents? The Democrats who sicced the IRS on opposition non-profits under Obama and are now siccing the justice department on parents speaking up at schoolboard meetings? The Democrats who oppose due process in sexual assault cases? Those Democrats?
I have to say, you’re usually clear-eyed and calm, but you may need to poke your head out of the ‘beautiful bubble’ a bit more. Maybe start by reading Glen Greenwald on substack. Personally, I’ve never been able to stand Trump from as long as I’ve been aware of him, and I certainly didn’t vote for him, but this is a bit unhinged IMHO. This is the kind of stuff I expect from people like Naomi Wolf or Crooked Timber, but not EconLog. Oy.
MarkW
Nov 2 2021 at 5:39pm
As for Greenwald, I guess I could have saved my breath and linked to this piece.
Joe Denver
Nov 2 2021 at 11:25pm
Agreed. Bryan is usually spot on, but this piece seems particularly weak.
Andre
Nov 3 2021 at 9:30am
“Bryan is usually spot on, but this piece seems particularly weak.”
The mind reading is particularly jarring.
Mark Z
Nov 2 2021 at 5:50pm
I guess the question I’d ask is: why aren’t they already doing what you suggest? I think politicians (or their consultants) generally know more about how to get elected than we do. They may have reason to think that the loss of enthusiasm from the base would cancel out any gains they made in the middle, for example, if they followed your strategy. And this may reflects that the Democratic base does care more about policy than procedure. Moreover, in the long run, Trump probably helps the Democrats by driving more young people into their ranks, so only among the moderate or risk averse voters is it likely seen as worth it to make such compromises.
DeservingPorcupine
Nov 2 2021 at 6:41pm
If they wanted to steel themselves against accusations of fraud, I think they should agree to relatively popular and common sense things like voter id laws.
Everett
Nov 3 2021 at 11:22am
Great. Now lets do so in a way that doesn’t disenfranchise citizens who are disproportionately black.
https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/voter-photo-id-law-research/
Sorry to beat up on Texas with my last couple of posts. It’s completely coincidental on my part.
zeke5123
Nov 3 2021 at 12:17pm
How much would you trade your right to vote in a single election? Probably somewhere around 5 dollars? What about your right to fly? Your right to buy alcohol? Your right to drive?
This talking point seems silly to me, because if there truly is an issue of meaningful numbers of people not having IDs, then the case isn’t “we shouldn’t have IDs for voting.” The case is let’s get those people IDs because those people without ID are locked out of things that on a WTP standard are more important to most people
Everett
Nov 4 2021 at 12:05pm
I agree Zeke. States should be required to fund mobile units to travel to people’s homes and make them IDs. For free if they can’t afford the charge.
If IDs are going to be required by the states to exercise the rights of citizenry then the state should provide those IDs from the taxes going in to the general fund.
MikeW
Nov 4 2021 at 2:10pm
I suppose it makes me a white supremacist or something, but I have always felt that, if someone is unwilling to make any effort to do the things necessary to vote, including getting an ID and becoming reasonably informed on the issues, then we are probably better off if they don’t vote. The only possible exception I can see is if someone is actually unable to leave home because of sickness or something. It should be possible to make some sort of arrangement for people like that.
Everett
Nov 5 2021 at 11:50am
Well Mike, according to the links I posted at least those people who went to the polls without ID, and filled out the forms allowing them to vote, did indeed “make any effort”. They just weren’t able to go all the way on a particular issue that you happen to find important, for whatever reason.
How is the requirement to find time to get, collect the requirements for, and to pay for a voter ID really any different than a poll tax?
MikeW
Nov 5 2021 at 2:14pm
Everett — Let me just say that the purpose of requiring ID is to help prevent fraud. I don’t think a poll tax helps to prevent fraud. As others have said, we require ID for all sorts of things; requiring it for voting does not seem unreasonable.
DeservingPorcupine
Nov 3 2021 at 12:25pm
Just because a policy causes some racial ratio to change doesn’t mean that’s a bad thing or that we should care. Murder laws disproportionately affect blacks. Requiring an id to vote is just plain common sense, and we should do it.
(I don’t care if there are studies of questionable value showing that fraud is relatively rare. Murder is also relatively rare.)
Mark Z
Nov 3 2021 at 4:39pm
Just because black people are less likely to have IDs doesn’t mean voter ID laws disproportionately prevent black people from voting. See recent research that voter ID laws don’t have much if any effect on turnout, either in general or specifically on minorities. Probably because people who don’t have IDs and plan to vote can fairly easily get or replace and ID in time, since elections aren’t exactly surprise events. Meanwhile, the kind of people who can’t be bothered (or figure out how) to get an ID tend to be the kind of people who don’t vote anyway.
Everett
Nov 5 2021 at 11:56am
Thanks for the link.
-0.1% adds up to about 160 thousand voters in the last election. And the fact that this can be overcome by “However, the likelihood that non-white voters were contacted by a campaign increases by 4.7 percentage points, suggesting that parties’ mobilization might have offset modest effects of the laws on the participation of ethnic minorities.” indicates to me two things and a question: 1) a comparative detrimental impact on those citizens not contacted by campaigns and parties that might exceed -0.1%, and 2) outsourcing of a fundamental function of government to partisans. The question is what would have been the turnout if partisan contact had been equal and the ID barrier to voting had been removed?
MikeP
Nov 2 2021 at 10:17pm
The Democrats who want to end the filibuster? Those Democrats? Or the ones that want to pack the court? They are going to save democracy?
Democrats took advantage of the pandemic to institutionally change the way people vote, gaining 1-1.5% of an advantageous change in 2020 and in the foreseeable future. When Republicans try to draw things back to the way elections were run in 2018, they are called anti-democratic and worse.
It would be nice if we went back to Clinton and the end of the era of big government. But despite owning all media, owning all academia, winning the culture war on every level, Democrats must still pay obeisance to the sociopathic progressives.
No. Democrats are not going to act like moderates again any time soon. Only the sane old guard such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi are saving us from utter disaster.
Jose Pablo
Nov 2 2021 at 10:35pm
Only the sane old guard such as Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi are saving us from utter disaster.
Only, maybe, by the time being. “Economic socialism” is the destiny of every single democracy in the world.
Name just one democracy in which the size of the government (not even in “absolute” terms, just as a % of GDP) has been reduced overtime. There is none.
And the “government growing” ratio over time keeps growing
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GovernmentGrowth.html
Ken Schulz
Nov 4 2021 at 11:20pm
Yes, as nations develop and become wealthier, their citizens are able to buy more and more beyond the barest necessities of food and shelter. Eventually they find that by acting collectively, they can buy protection against many of the risks of life – of losses to flood, fire, poor health, loss of income, aging, and more. Some of this insurance against risk will be provided by the market, some is only sustainable if provided by the people as a whole – by government. And most of us prefer to live in a world where we can plan for the future with less concern for random events that could dash our dreams and hopes.
Jose Pablo
Nov 5 2021 at 1:17pm
“most of us prefer to live in a world where …”
That’s wonderful! and it is up to you (meaning “most of us” according to your recount) to hold these religious beliefs about government. Just don’t confiscate my money using force to recreate this heaven on Earth, please.
And a “fact-based warning”: really big governments does not seem to foster “development and wealth” (you have very relevant examples out there) much less protect their citizens against “random events that could dash our dreams and hopes“, quite the contrary. So, it seems to be a government size that is counterproductive to these (so well intentioned!) ends. If the government keeps growing forever, at some point, it has to hit that “counterproductive size”. Some of us do believe it has done so long time ago.
And last, if you want to really understand what the government is about (and the real reasons behind their growth) read some of the abundant literature about public choice theory that is out there. You will realize that your beautiful narrative (I am about to cry) has nothing to do with what happens in the real world.
Everett
Nov 7 2021 at 12:22pm
I’m sorry Jose but private property rights infringe on my fundamental liberty to do what I want with what I find.
Those who would trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither security not liberty.
😀
Jose Pablo
Nov 7 2021 at 9:23pm
What is this “fundamental liberty to do what I want with what I find” coming from?
As far as both parts are willing to enter the trade you mention, you “deserve” whatever you get out of it.
MarkW
Nov 3 2021 at 7:38am
There was a bit of encouraging news for those hoping for more moderation from both parties in the results yesterday from Virginia — from the Dems because they lost in a state that Biden carried by 10 points and from the Reps because they won while keeping Trump at arm’s length.
Ryan M
Nov 3 2021 at 1:16pm
Bryan, this is abject nonsense.
The reason Trump and many republicans cried fraud in 2020 was because there was a massive amount of fraud. Whether it ultimately made the difference, and whether Trump had the election “stolen” from him is something I wouldn’t even begin to claim to know, but that there was fraud is undeniable. It is nothing new, and it is something that is rather common to democratic politics, unions, etc… (the actions of public sector unions are scandalous, yet generally ignored).
Furthermore, why on earth would you claim that believing you’ve been cheated out of a single 4-year term somehow amounts to pressing the “president for life” button? Do you honestly believe that Trump would have attempted to gain another term after his second? That is based on literally nothing except your own derangement.
I have never liked Trump, I have never supported Trump, and I sincerely hope he doesn’t run again, because he will lose. But I wasn’t at all disappointed with the 4 years that he was in office, in spite of my extreme skepticism. And if you think the Democrats’ problem is anything except their radical leftism and a sincere desire to turn America into a one-party socialist state, then you are insane.
What you’re “suggesting” Democrats do could be simply rephrased as: “stop being Democrats.” Probably not going to happen anytime soon. And I have some advice for you: Stop obsessing about Trump. Literally the only thing that is going to “save the democracy” is going to be for voters to roundly reject the Democrats’ agenda (hopefully we saw the beginning of that last night!), to elect any Republicans who are willing to scale back our massive socialist push, and to re-assert and actually enforce our constitutional protections. Not just the notion that our constitution is an enabling document – which is amazingly important, and lately ignored – but the notion that our constitution is the law of the land, and cannot be summarily dismissed when enough of the population becomes frightened.
You should be a heck of a lot more worried about the fact that our constitution has been effectively suspended for the past 20 months (I live in WA state, and can personally attest to that fact) than you should be about anything Donald Trump could ever conjure up.
Everett
Nov 4 2021 at 11:58am
Paragraph 2: Source?
Paragraph 3: It’s based on Trump mentioning a liking of systems in which the leader remains leader for life. And also statements such as these:
https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/donald-trumps-craziest-quotes-as-us-president-201911
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/09/13/trump-says-he-will-negotiate-third-term-because-hes-entitled-to-it/?sh=2d09a822287c
I’m not going to argue the rest of your statements except to say please try to break out of your bubble enough to research the other side’s takes on these issues. You don’t have to agree with them, but please see them for what they are.
Everett
Nov 4 2021 at 12:01pm
Oh fine, one last thing.
Far less than what happened in WW2 when it looked like the Japanese could hit the west coast.
Far less serious than what happened in the Revolutionary, Civil, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam wars when innocent young men were given a choice of going to war, prison, or another country.
MikeW
Nov 4 2021 at 2:17pm
What is your point here? Are you defending Japanese internment, suspension of habeas corpus, etc.? Or are you just saying that anything is OK if it isn’t as bad as those?
Everett
Nov 5 2021 at 1:15am
I wasn’t even thinking about Japanese internment or the suspension of habeas corpus. I was instead thinking about infringements on liberty such as blackouts and air-raid drills, rationing, prioritizing materials for the war effort.
COVID has been very serious. And in the beginning of it the ultimate seriousness of it was unknown, but plausibly on par with a major war.
Is Ryan M the kind of person who will oppose conscription, and the infringements on liberty seen during prior wars under various party administrations? Or is Ryan M the kind of person who will only oppose these degree of infringements in this case?
I, for one, think conscription should be eliminated. Anything short of conscription (such as current COVID responses) I’m willing to discuss the pros and cons of.
MikeW
Nov 5 2021 at 2:27pm
Everett — I get you. You are thinking of the fight against Covid as a kind of war, and so the kinds of things we do in a war, like rationing, curfews, etc., are appropriate. I think the key question about that is the severity of the threat. In the beginning, we didn’t know how bad the pandemic was going to be, so pretty much everyone was willing to let governments do fairly extreme things (like forcing “non-essential” businesses to close). As time has gone by and we have learned more about the real threat level, there has been a big divergence in opinions. Personally, it seems to me that many policies are being driven by the most neurotic among us rather than actual data and analysis.
Everett
Nov 7 2021 at 12:30pm
I just wish 99% of the populace had been willing to wear masks, socially distance, and take other proactive measures to prevent spread for a couple of months, instead of the 50-70% of the populace it actually was.
But no, too much of an infringement on liberty. And it’s not here so we shouldn’t have to take precautions, except now it is here and spread everywhere but still, “my freedom!”.
Yeah, I think the state governments went overboard with shutting down businesses in remote rural areas early on. But the counter to this wasn’t insisting that personal liberty to pretend as though nothing serious is happening. The counter was a middle ground of common sense precautions for the sake of one’s fellow citizens.
MikeW
Nov 7 2021 at 4:09pm
I’m not sure where you’re getting 50 to 70 percent. I remember seeing much higher numbers than that. I assume we’re talking about last year, during the initial mask mandates. Certainly, when I was out at grocery stores or whatever, I don’t remember seeing anybody unmasked back then. We still (or again; it was off for a while during the summer) have a mask mandate here, and I still see almost everyone in stores wearing masks. And yet, Covid has not gone particularly well here (New Mexico).
Ryan M
Nov 4 2021 at 2:26pm
Hillary Clinton has still not admitted that she lost in 2016. Democrats and the Media continued to talk about “Russian Collusion” and describe that election as stolen, even to the point of imeachment, for the entire 4 years of the Trump Presidency. And it is Republicans who are a threat to democracy?
Trump did nothing while in office that came anywhere close to the actions of Obama/Biden with respect to expanding the powers of the executive, thwarting separation of powers, checks and balances, etc… He challenged the validity of the 2020 election, which would have given him a second (not a lifetime) term, which is no more than what Democrats are still claiming about his win in 2016.
I don’t like Trump, and I don’t want him to run in 2024. But Caplan’s assessment is utterly unhinged; it does not do him, nor anyone associated with this blog, any credit.
Everett
Nov 5 2021 at 12:17pm
She conceded the day after. What more do you want?
Yes, because Republican supporters are the ones who actually broke into the capitol building seeking to overturn an election in violation of the rule of law. Equivalent things haven’t happened from Democrats since the 19th century.
Biden wasn’t President. I’m not blaming Pence for the actions of Trump. And according to my reading of the Constitution the Senate should have given Garland a hearing and then denied him on a vote, yet they didn’t even do that for partisan reasons. Which had been unheard of.
I’m reading from an obviously partisan site to gather these points. I’m doing so to highlight that you aren’t looking at this issue from the other side’s point of view, not because I necessarily agree with them: Trump violated the emoluments clause. Obstructed justice. Appointed people to cabinet positions who abused their power enough to face criminal charges (though most of this is Flynn). Unlawfully transferred money from the military to build the wall. Encouraged insurrection. Said he pay the legal bills for those who committed assault and battery on his behalf.
Everett
Nov 5 2021 at 12:25pm
“Threat to democracy” in the case of the US means a threat to democratic elections. It doesn’t, at least in my eyes, mean threats to the balance of powers between two democratically elected branches of government.
The only “threat to democracy” that Trump is guilty of is seeking to overturn democratic elections on zero non-fabricated evidence.
Ryan M
Nov 5 2021 at 6:44pm
Democrats claimed that the Republicans’ legitimate use of the legal process for nominating Supreme Court Justices was a “threat to democracy,” and that the only way to save democracy was to pack the court. Many democrats are still claiming this.
And whether Hillary Clinton “conceded” the day after or not, she has been banging the “2016 was illegitimate” stolen election garbage to this day! The media still talks about “russian collusion” as fact, even as the truth is beginning to emerge that this whole thing (which was the basis for 4 years worth of congressional investigations and impeachment hearings!) was a hoax at best, and illegal actions on the part of Hillary’s campaign itself at worst.
You can argue that Trump has acted like a clown, but in his 4 years in office, he did nothing that even remotely constituted a “threat to democracy,” nor has he done anything since leaving office that comes anywhere close. To suggest that Republicans are a threat and that Democrats are somehow committed to truth, fairness, and democracy, is disingenuous in the very least. More likely, it is absolutely unhinged Trump-hatred (and, as I’ve said, I dislike him extremely!) allowing a person to speak intellectual jibberish.
Everett
Nov 7 2021 at 12:35pm
RyanM
The US Park Police used tear gas to clear out people exercising their first amendment rights on US soil, so the President and military leadership could have a photo op. This hasn’t happened since the bonus army murders in 1932.
Gabriel R
Nov 3 2021 at 2:02pm
I agree, Democrats must change strategy. However, Democrats have focused on election reforms at the state level, such as voter id laws, when the real issues should be on the federal level. Trump was able to “officially” challenge the election in Congress because of the Electoral Count Act Of 1887 which violates the role Congress has to only count the EV votes.
Noshoes
Nov 3 2021 at 9:06pm
I agree with Bryan about Trump’s intentions. I don’t believe Trump was joking in the following quote.
“He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida aired by CNN. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-praises-chinese-president-extending-tenure-for-life-idUSKCN1GG015
.
MarkW
Nov 4 2021 at 4:48pm
First of all, those remarks were in 2018 — not during the 2020 campaign or its aftermath, but more to the point, if you listed to the actual audio (start listening about 1:05), he’s obviously joking and the crowd is laughing. File this one with Reagan’s “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” The left at the time had vapors about that too.
Everett
Nov 5 2021 at 12:02pm
I would buy that Trump is joking in a genuinely joking manner (not a ha ha only serious manner) if he had the same sort of personality as Reagan, and if he hadn’t backed it up later on with an “entitled to another four after that”.
When someone tells you what they want, believe them.
MarkW
Nov 6 2021 at 11:56am
Pretty much every two-term president would like another term, if it were possible, and I seem to remember this kind of four more years! chant for more than one President about to leave office. But everybody — including Trump and his supporters — knows that ‘four more years’ is unconstitutional and is simply not going to happen.
Niko Davor
Nov 4 2021 at 9:18pm
My first surprise is to read Caplan defend “an honest democratic process”. Caplan openly opposes democracy. Caplan long supports undermining laws he doesn’t like and undermining voting preferences he doesn’t like. The charitable interpretation is that a noble end justifies dishonest means.
Next, Caplan suggests that Democrats take half a loaf, compromise, and forfeit their positions on everything except immigration, to reduce partisan tensions. When Caplan believes in an issue he dismisses “backlash”, and pushes go-big no-compromise tactics; he’s written several posts on this. When Caplan disagrees on an issue he suggests that people he disagrees with be the bigger person, compromise, and lose.
Lastly, Caplan suggests that Trump’s challenges to election outcomes is a grave threat to democracy itself. He’s not endorsing the Democrats or saying they are saints or saying that they haven’t challenged and attempted to undermine every major election they’ve lost in the last twenty+ years, but his view seems entirely partisan, like that of a CNN or MSNBC pundit.
Niko Davor
Nov 7 2021 at 4:35pm
Caplan is a very intelligent man. Many of his ideas are high quality, worth reading, and even fascinating. His political commentary is less than honest. It’s his blog, he’s free to write whatever he wants, and we are free to read it or not.
Comments are closed.