Monthly Archives: December 2024

The threat to democracy isn’t over; It’s just getting started

Posted on by

Stop me if you’ve heard this…

“Democracy is doing just fine, thank you. We’re headed for a peaceful transfer of power. The government is still functioning. There are no riots in the streets.

What about all that talk before the election about Trump being a threat to democracy? Turns out, it was exactly that: just talk. Sure Trump made some wild claims during the campaign. But that’s just Trump being Trump. Don’t take it seriously. Nothing to see here…move along.”

Sound familiar? I’m sure you’ve read or heard something along these lines — certainly from Trump supporters but even from some on the left who desperately want to believe that things aren’t as serious as they are. 

Unfortunately, such statements are misguided at best — and a deliberate distortion at worst. To see just how distorted the rhetoric can get, here’s a quote from an obviously right-wing op-ed that recently appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune. [I’m not going to cite the link to the article, or the author’s name, because I don’t want to provide undeserved publicity to such drivel].

“Democracy proved to be a terrible campaign concept in November. For ‘Save Democracy’ to work, there would have had to have been a real, obvious threat to democracy and, as much as Democrats tried to speak it into existence, voters did not believe that Trump was that threat. This is what Democrats are failing to see. Democracy is not at stake. And voters know that what Democrats want is not to preserve democracy for democracy’s sake, but as one of many means to justify their ends.”

So…what’s wrong with all of that? Just about everything. Here’s why…

Yes, it was a “free and fair election.” But that means very little about what is yet to come.

Was the election in November “free and fair”? For the most part, yes. But not because of efforts by Trump and the GOP. It was successful despite their efforts, We had to run a gauntlet of right-wing attempts at voter suppression and election manipulation to keep it fair. Thankfully, almost all the legal challenges against these anti-democratic actions were successful.

The other reason the election remains viewed as “free and fair,” ironically, is because Trump won. Had he lost, it is certain that Trump would have declared the election a fraud and proceeded down a road similar to what we saw in 2020 — which led to the January 6th insurrection. And his MAGA supporters would have followed him. So much for democracy being safe.

But in the end, as to whether or not Trump represented (and still represents) a threat to democracy, none of the above matters. The primary concern regarding democracy was never the election itself. The concern was always what would happen after the election — should Trump win and return to power. The concern was about Trump, once back in the White House, attempting to dismantle our democracy. And that is exactly where we now are.

There are already ominous signs about what is about to be unleashed. In Timothy Synder’s book On Tyranny, his first lesson in fighting tyranny is “Do not obey in advance.” Yet unforced capitulation is exactly what many corporate CEOs, government officials and (most especially) the supposed mainstream media are already doing — out of greed, a desire for power, and/or fear.

The post-election period, rather than dissipating fears about a looming autocracy, are confirming just how accurate those fears are.

Yes, Trump won. But that makes the threat to democracy that much more serious, not less so.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: The number of people that voted for or against Trump has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he remains a threat to democracy. The MAGA world wants you to believe this is not the case; but it is.

Such people (as evidenced by the op-ed I cited above) argue that Trump’s victory proves he is not a danger: “After all, if he was so dangerous, the voters would have recognized this and he would have lost.” That may have almost been true a couple of decades ago — when anyone with Trump’s baggage of scandals, lies and criminal behavior would have never even gotten the nomination. But it’s certainly not true anymore — mostly thanks to a silo consisting of right-wing social media, Fox News, and disinformation campaigns. 

In any case, history tells us that even the most heinous dictators can garner enough support to win a democratic election — and then proceed to dismantle the freedoms and protections that permitted that election. It happened with the rise of Hitler in Germany [*] and the ascent of Putin in Russia, to cite two prominent examples from the last hundred years. Make no mistake: The path from a democratic election to autocratic rule is well trod — and we are already traveling down it.

Finally, even if you were inclined to accept the fallacious notion that voting totals correspond to the degree of threat that Trump represents, the election results mean that, for a huge swath of this country, the threat is very real. Trump’s margin over Harris, on a percentage basis, was extremely narrow — only 1.62 percent.

Yes, the claims about Trump and autocracy were a campaign issue. But that doesn’t make them any less true. Far from it.

Did the Democrats hope to that their warnings about Trump’s fascist plans would lead to his defeat? Absolutely. But that doesn’t make the warnings any less true. Trump has openly promised to lead this country down the road to autocracy — dismantling government institutions and using his office for personal gain and revenge — without regard for norms or legal constraints. This is exactly what autocrat-wannabes do. In an obvious bit of projection, Republicans may try to persuade the public that they are the victims rather than the perpetrators here. Don’t be fooled.

In the end, the “proof will be in the pudding.” A year from now, we’ll have a much clearer sense of where our democracy is heading. If my view is accurate, much of what I have been saying here will have moved from a warning to a reality. That doesn’t necessarily mean Trump’s supporters will have abandoned him. We know from history that dictators can maintain their popular support — at least for a while — even after they assume autocratic rule. The critical question will be — will it be too late to change course? Or will Trump have amassed so much power that — as with the dictators of the past — he can suspend our freedoms with impunity? Will 2024 turn out to be the last “free and fair” presidential election in this country? Stay tuned.

______________________

* Synder quotes this incredible passage from a German Jewish newspaper in the 1930’s: “We do not subscribe to the view that Mr. Hitler and his friends, now finally in possession of the power they have so long desired, will implement the proposals circulating in [Nazi newspapers]; they will not suddenly deprive German Jews of their constitutional rights, nor enclose them in ghettos, nor subject them to the jealous and murderous impulses of the mob. They cannot do this because a number of crucial factors hold powers in check… and they clearly do not want to go down that road.”

Where do we go from here?

Posted on by

As we await the looming return of Trump to the White House, we are faced with a dilemma: How do we oppose what Trump intends to do? What does opposition even look like in 2025? What exactly do we hope to stop from happening? And can we realistically hope to accomplish that goal?

Given what Trump and his minions are already doing (in terms of nominations and policy announcements and pressure campaigns), I am concerned that we are woefully unprepared for what is to come and how to respond to it.

From what I’ve seen, almost everyone in the mainstream media and the Democratic party — and even in progressive activist groups — seem to be assuming that our system of government will largely remain intact — with its checks and balances in place — and our opposition can work within it.

But what if they’re wrong? What if the system stops working?

The ACLU — and other groups with a legal emphasis — talk about challenging Trump in court. Activist groups talk about the narrow majority in the House and how we might put pressure on representatives to stop Trump-supported legislation. And Democrats talk about the need for long-term strategic changes that will enable them to be more successful in future elections. This is all well-and-good.

But I believe we need to prepare ourselves for a future where none of these tactics will yield much in the way of success. What if our legal challenges fail (especially likely for cases that wind up in the Supreme Court)? What if the narrow majority in the House holds — and almost all Trump legislation successfully passes there? What if the GOP-controlled Senate abolishes the filibuster to prevent Democrats from obstructing Trump’s agenda? What if election laws are changed so as to make it almost impossible for Democrats to win in the next election? And what if Trump shatters every remaining norm and even some laws to attain his goals — and dares anyone to stop him? And what if there seems to be no one with any power who is willing to stand up to him? What then?

None of this strikes me as beyond the realm of plausibility. Such are the times we live in.

Or consider this: Imagine that 6 months from now, Donald Trump declares martial law and says he is suspending the Constitution. What should we, as individuals in the opposition, do in response?

A common immediate reaction to this question is:

“Whoa! You’re moving too fast. We’re not there yet. We’ll deal with that if and when things really get that bad. It’s all too unlikely to warrant worrying about now. Anyway, if Trump tried something that extreme, Congress would step in and stop him.”

Maybe so. But maybe not. After all, we just spent the past few years shouting from the rooftops that this was the most critical election of our lifetime. It was an existential moment with the future of democracy on the line. We decried Trump as a fascist and an autocrat-wannabe, a criminal and a national security risk.

Was this all just campaign hyperbole or did we really believe it? If it’s the latter, then shouldn’t we be acting like we believe it? Isn’t it better to consider our options now, in the calm before the storm — rather than wait until the catastrophe is upon us?

If not now…when?

Or as Robert Reich wrote recently:

“I’m surprised at how many of the people I speak with are in denial. They tell me “Trump is just bluffing,” or “He’s not so stupid as to try these things.” Or they say “the Constitution is strong enough to withstand Trump.” I fear they’re wrong. He’s nuts, he and his minions will try these things, and the Constitution is already near the breaking point.”

So what happens after it breaks?

Or as John Stoehr (of The Editorial Board) similarly put it:

“Either the Democrats meant it when they said Trump is a menace to democracy and the rule of law – or they didn’t. Either they meant it when they said that now’s the time for choosing – or they didn’t. 

Honestly, I’m not sure they meant it.”

“With the rightwing media apparatus, Donald Trump erased facts. With a new corrupt administration, he’ll try erasing history. And he will succeed if the Democratic Party does not speak for it and fight.”

But how do we fight back effectively? I don’t have a sure answer (but will offer some thoughts in a future column). But I do know it will require more than we seem ready to do at the moment. It will take more than marches and protests, that’s for sure. I believe this will be the key question for the next few years. The answer will determine the future of our country — or indeed if our country has a future.