For my final post before Tuesday’s election, I turn over most of the space to two of my preferred publications: The New York Times and The Atlantic — with a listing of ultra-worthy articles published in the last couple of days.

I will spare you citations to articles that cover predictions as to who will win on Tuesday. We’ll know that soon enough (and I remain optimistic that Harris will prevail).

Rather, I focus here on a plethora of articles that assess the current state of our country as it sits on the verge of this most consequential of elections — with an emphasis on the unique dangers that Trump represents.

If this election were a jury trial, the case against Trump would be overwhelming. He’d be convicted on all counts. However, the final result is instead dependent on the court of public opinion — which has a different standard. If you are somehow still undecided here — and seek assistance in these last hours — read even a small selection of the following columns. The answers you seek will become very clear.

From The New York Times

There Will Always Be a Trump. That’s Only Part of the Problem:

“I’m writing those words in the context of a presidential contest that already represents a national failure. Even if Kamala Harris wins on Tuesday, there should be relief, not lasting joy. The United States will have come within an eyelash of electing a man who tried to overturn an election to cling to power.”

Donald Trump Is Done With Checks and Balances:

“Most Americans have lived only in a world where democracy was secure, where democracy was assumed. On Tuesday we’ll decide if we want to stay in that world or leave it behind.”

What I Truly Expect if an Unconstrained Trump Retakes Power

Let’s Not Blow It Again

All the Demons Are Here

I’ve Covered Authoritarians Abroad. Now I Fear One at Home

Will Democracy Ever Not Be on the Ballot?

There’s Something Very Different About Harris vs. Trump

and an Editorial Board statement that sums it all up:

You already know Donald Trump. He is unfit to lead. Watch him. Listen to those who know him best. He tried to subvert an election and remains a threat to democracy. He helped overturn Roe, with terrible consequences. Mr. Trump’s corruption and lawlessness go beyond elections: It’s his whole ethos. He lies without limit. If he’s re-elected, the G.O.P. won’t restrain him. Mr. Trump will use the government to go after opponents. He will pursue a cruel policy of mass deportations. He will wreak havoc on the poor, the middle class and employers. Another Trump term will damage the climate, shatter alliances and strengthen autocrats. Americans should demand better. Vote.

Of course, even if Harris wins on Tuesday, the battle will not be over. We will have have to contend with the inevitable Trump counter-attack: false claims of fraud and stolen elections, echoing what happened in 2020 — but with much greater preparation this time:

Trump, Preparing to Challenge the Results, Puts His 2020 Playbook Into Action

Monitors, Once Meant to Prevent Election Fraud, Now Seek to Prove It

The Army of Election Officials Ready to Reject the Vote

And from The Atlantic

No One Has an Alibi:

“Donald trump’s presidency was mitigated by his ignorance, idleness, and vanity. Trump did not know how the office worked. He did not invest any effort to learn. He wasted much of his time watching daytime television.

Defeat in 2020—and Trump’s plot to overturn that defeat—gave him a purpose: vengeance on those who bested him.

A second Trump presidency will have a much clearer agenda than the first. No more James Mattis to restrain him, no more John Kelly to chide him, no more Rex Tillerson to call him a ‘fucking moron.’ He will have only sycophants.”

Trump Needs Help

The Unique Danger of a Trumpist Oligarchy

and

How Republicans in Congress Could Try to Steal the Election

A personal postscript

I have claimed Trump is a fascist. I have said he is a threat to our democracy. Both are true.

But to clarify: When I say Trump is a fascist, I mean that, based on his past behavior and his own words during this campaign, I believe autocratic control is his goal. People like Putin are his idols; that’s who he aspires to be; a dictator. And I believe he will seriously attempt to achieve those goals. As The New York Times succinctly put it: When he says he will do things like prosecute his enemies and use soldiers against citizens, “Believe him.”

But do I believe he would end democracy within his first weeks of taking office? Of course not. Democracy will not instantly die if Trump wins. It will be more like a gradual erosion until the transition is at some point completed. So what about over the longer haul? Will Trump be successful in his autocratic aspirations before his term ends in four years? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

But that’s not the sole criteria by which we should judge the danger a Trump victory represents. Even if things never go quite that far, we are far from out of the woods.

What also matters is what Trump, explicitly or implicitly, will attempt to do. And how far he will actually succeed. And how much negative impact that will have on our daily lives. Do we really want a country where the survival of freedom and democracy requires a constant fight against the efforts of a President determined to undermine them? Where each dawn we awaken with a fear of what the coming hours will bring — with a President who will keep testing and retesting our willingness to tolerate his abuses? Is that what we want for our future — even if some form of democracy ultimately prevails? It is questions like these that most of the articles cited above (as well as my own prior posts here) attempt to address.

Whatever happens next is up to you, the voter. If the worst happens, don’t say you weren’t warned. 

I firmly believe Trump is a fascist and that his threat to democracy is very real. The claim is based not only on what Trump has already done (which is bad enough, as I argued in my prior column), but on what he has promised to do if re-elected and on his absolute ability and intent to carry out those threats. He will act on them. As The New York Times shouted from its op-ed page yesterday: When Trump says these things, BELIEVE HIM.

I pair this with the vulgar lies — and incoherent rants — he (and his allies) spew at every opportunity — as in his racist hate-filled Madison Square Garden rally last night — and I remain stunned that his candidacy can survive this rhetoric. But somehow it does.

The hard face-slapping truth is that, in the final weeks of the campaign, Kamala Harris has not widened her lead. On the contrary, Trump has narrowed the gap. Like just about everyone, I take polling data with a huge grain of salt. But when almost all of them show the same trends, you have to take notice. I would still rather be Harris than Trump, but not by as much as I had hoped or expected at this point.

Nothing Trump has said or done in the last few weeks should have improved his chances of winning; on the contrary, unless doing nothing more than shoring up your hard-core base with lies and fear-mongering is the way to go, he remains his own worst enemy. That’s why I am reluctantly forced to consider that Harris’ seemingly stalled campaign is more a case of what she is or isn’t doing. Something is not clicking for her. As Robert Reich put it today:

“In more recent weeks, she’s focused mostly on Trump’s particular threat to democracy. Her campaign seems to have decided that she can draw additional voters from moderate Republican suburban women upset by Trump’s role in fomenting the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

That’s why she’s been campaigning with Liz Cheney and gathering Republican officials as supporters. And why she has chosen to give her closing message on the Ellipse — where Trump summoned his followers to march on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Yet when she shifted gears from the economy to Trump’s attacks on democracy, Harris’s campaign stalled. I think that’s because Americans continue to focus on the economy and want an answer to why they are still struggling economically.”

What’s the chicken and egg here? Has her campaign stalled because she shifted her focus to threats on democracy? Or was the decision to shift precipitated by a slowing of progress already happening for other reasons? Or was the shift decision independent of any of these considerations — and was going to happen anyway, exactly as planned. I don’t know. Still, it is a troubling sign. I have argued that the shift was exactly the right thing to do at exactly the right moment. I confess to having some doubts now.

Update: A New York Times article today offers a bit of encouraging news on this front.

Trump, on the other hand, gets by with making no arguments at all — other than “Things are horrible now and I will make them better. Trust me.” It seems pathetic. But it remains a tight race.

It’s apparent that a significant portion of this country is either unpersuaded that Trump is the danger that he clearly is — or they don’t care. I will never understand how such a self-evidently unqualified and vile human being can be even close to winning. But I cannot deny the reality of it.

I’m not sure that any sort of course-correction is needed at this point. The Harris campaign has done — and continues to do — an amazing job overall. And there really isn’t much time left to do any correcting anyway. Still, for whatever it is worth, my recommendation would be to keep hammering on democracy issues. Definitely. It’s critical. But just as importantly, perhaps more so, emphasize why a vote for Harris is a vote to make people’s lives better — economically, socially and every other way imaginable. Because it is! Whatever your problems are — Trump is not the solution!

Harris is still favored to win. I believe she will do so. But it’s going to be a nail-biter. Hang on.

When critics of Donald Trump assert that he is a “threat to democracy” and a “fascist,” his defenders often respond by scoffing. The implication is that the fascist claim is too extreme to be taken seriously. I agree that fascist is an extreme assertion — not to be made lightly.* But that doesn’t make it untrue. Extreme claims are sometimes deserved. This is one such case — as I have argued before.

Trump’s defenders (when they aren’t completely lying) typically offer two more specific arguments against labelling Trump as a fascist. Let’s take a closer look at each one — and see why each is wrong.

Things will be different (and worse) this time

The first argument is: “We survived Trump’s first term as President without our country succumbing to autocracy. Why should we think things would be different this time?”

Here’s why:

1. Yes, we survived the four years of Trump but not unscathed. There was (to cite just a few of the most salient examples) Charlottesville, the botched pandemic response, the separation of children from their parents at the border, the Muslim ban, hush money payments leading to a felony conviction, and two impeachments with the latter one centered on Trump’s actual attempt to overthrow our democracy — culminating in the violent insurrection on January 6.
2. Trump attempted to do much more damage than he accomplished. Among other things, he wanted the military to shoot George Floyd protesters in Washington in 2020. He was restrained by the military leaders and the people who worked for him…who now describe Trump as both a threat to democracy…and incompetent (yes, you can be both!). The problem going forward is that these people would not return to power with him — if he is re-elected. He will instead be surrounded by lackeys who will be eager to carry out his threats unrestrained.
3. Trump himself is worse now than he was four years ago. His threats are more dire and more explicit. At the same time, his cognitive abilities are markedly diminished. He can speak both of the “enemy within” and Hannibal Lector. Trump is telling us he intends to behave as a fascist. We should believe him.

In other words, the first Trump administration was not nearly the joy ride his defenders would like to claim. And there’s every reason to believe a second administration will be far worse.

The level of support for Trump is not a shield against claims of fascism

The second argument is: “Trump cannot be a fascist because half the country is supporting him.” How could so many people, so the argument goes, support someone if he was that dangerous?

Beyond the obvious circular fallacious reasoning of this statement — and beyond the excellent rebuttals offered in a New York magazine article — I would add one more: In 1933, Germany held its “last free and fair elections before the Nazis seized power the following year.” The Nazi party, with Hitler at its head, got 33% of the vote: over 11,700,000 people. While not a majority (because several parties were competing), the Nazis got a greater percentage of the vote than any other party. And it quickly led to Hitler’s complete takeover of the country. You know the rest.

So yes, it’s definitely possible to both be a fascist and have huge popular support. And yes, Trump can remain a threat to democracy even if his initial attempts at autocracy failed.

Addendum

* Trump is somehow held to a different standard. He uses the term with no sense of caution at all. He has accused Harris of being a “fascist” (and a “Communist”) — obviously with no evidence — so many times that people don’t even take notice anymore. This is just another example of Trump’s typical propensity for projection: accusing others of that which you yourself are guilty. That’s also how, with the deepest of irony and hypocrisy, GOP Congressional leaders can criticize Harris for her singular use of the term, with no reference to Trump’s much more frequent and baseless usage.

Trump is a fascist.

Period. Full stop.

That what John Kelly, Trump’s longest-serving Chief of Staff, said. As if that wasn’t enough, Kelly added that Trump often spoke positively of Hitler and wished our generals were more like Hitler’s.

“Trump is a total fascist.”

That’s what retired General Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Trump administration, said. For good measure, he added that the former president “is now the most dangerous person to this country.”

In case you’re wondering, a fascist is someone who: “exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.”

Trump is viewed as a fascist because these are the ideals he aspires to, as repeatedly evidenced by his own words and actions — most recently with his comments referring to people such as Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi as the “enemy within” and promising he would punish them if he is elected.

Other members of the former President’s staff have chimed in to support Kelly’s and Millley’s assessments. These are not partisan attacks. These are heart-felt beliefs from people who worked with Trump and knew him best.

Trump’s defenders, as per usual, are trying to gaslight the country — telling them that Trump didn’t really say what he clearly said. It’s not working.

Vice President Harris has picked up this baton and is now running with it — stating that Trump is indeed a fascist.

This is shaping up to be her closing argument.

There is debate as to whether or not this is the best strategy. I believe it is definitely the right way to go.* However, it requires more than just name-calling. You have back it up with convincing evidence that Trump is truly the danger to this country that the label implies. I obviously believe you can.

Trump stands exposed. And Americans have a clear choice. Either you vote against Trump because you are against electing a fascist as President, no matter what your other policy preferences might be — or you’re okay with, and perhaps even prefer, the leader of our country be a fascist. Harris is correct to frame the stark choice this way.

Shockingly, given the lunacy of Trump supporters, I expect most of them will go with the latter. But surely there must be enough sane voters left to hand victory to Harris. If I am wrong, then I despair for the future of this country.

Addenda

* I don’t mean to suggest that the economy is irrelevant to how people vote. It obviously isn’t. As this New York Times article makes clear, many working class voters continue to view it as the decisive factor:

“Working people worry much more about payday than they do Jan. 6. Fair enough: But why turn to a lying, abusive billionaire to help them solve their economic problems? Their explanation is simple. Times were good when Trump was president.”

I could argue that they are wrong to not worry about Jan. 6. If Trump truly becomes a dictator, they won’t see a return to the country they yearn for. And I could argue that Trump isn’t likely to lead the way to a better economy in any case (most economists worry much more about a coming Trump economy than a Harris one).

But evidence suggests this will likely fall on deaf ears. Which is my point. At this stage of the campaign, Harris is unlikely to gain many new votes with a sole emphasis on her already-stated economic plans. The voters interviewed in this article are so obviously committed to Trump that nothing Harris could say about the economy would change their vote. My cynical self suspects that many of these people would be in Trump’s camp even if they felt Harris would be better for the economy. They are his “base.”

So yes, Harris should continue making her economic case. But I firmly believe that the primary hope for shifting any remaining votes is to stress the danger to democracy that Trump poses.

Update: October 27: New York Times columnist Janelle Bouie agrees with our assessment here, writing: “To my mind, it is now the only story worth telling about the 2024 presidential election. It should be the only thing Americans talk about between now and Nov. 5. And every one of Trump’s allies and surrogates should have to answer the question of whether or not they agree that their boss is a “fascist to the core,” as Milley put it.“