People pushed back against my list with complaints that the consequences were not harsh enough and what about all the other horrible people? "Huh, Teri? What about them? Well?"
For about 2 years, I updated my list of consequences, and when the usual chorus of "there are never any consequences" would show my list.
I stopped when I realized it didn't matter how long the list was, the chorus of "there are never any consequences" would continue.
Another tactic I tried was explaining that the criminal justice system cannot solve a political problem. I did things like cite the evidence about deterrence.
When people insisted that putting them all in jail would solve the problem, I explined that (1) not everything bad is a crime (2) bad things also happen in prison (3) prison sentences have limits and people often come out more hardened.
@Teri_Kanefield You can't win or change it. Trying to respond to these people who are incapable of understanding the complexity takes time away from your expert analysis that we all desperately want to read. Please continue to help us understand how this all works and why. We get it. And it's the only way to keep our sanity and raise ourselves above the emotions. Thank you for all that you do! Give up on the ones who can only think about how they feel and just want to complain.
@Teri_Kanefield No problem, I can understand it, you are the big expert.
I just wanted to point out that you're probably mostly correct (you are not clairvoyant either) in a legal sense, the average person is seeing that a normal soldier who leaked embarrassing classified data got the book thrown upon him, got immediately arrested, before the trial, etc.
DJT takes cartons full of classified stuff home, refuses to give them back, shares them with foreigners, and runs again for President. 🤯 🤯🤯🤯🤯
@Teri_Kanefield precisely. The problem is that we don't have a "loyal opposition". The loyal in that term means "to the country and its principles".
We have a nihlistic opposition who believe that democracy is useless because they are getting their way less and less (sucks to be a minority).
Democracy requires loyal opposition.
The only way to have a democracy is to allow people to have anti-democratic views and opinions.
That's the catch.
People with anti-democratic views and opinions will try to win office and force their government on everyone else.
That is what they will try to do.
When I post my "to do" list and explain that democracy is slow grinding work and requires lots of civil engagement, people say snide things. (One person yesterday referred to it as my "cut and paste" list.)
Adding: I'm so sorry if it seemed like I was complaining about negative responses.
I do that sometimes, I guess.
This was more like a revelation: they keep thinking the opposition will disappear.
It's either ignorance of how democracy works or authoritarian tendencies.
I generally only block people who are aggressive when negative (probably because they're more likely to be coming from an authoritarian personality rather than ignorance of how rule of law works.)
@Teri_Kanefield
I've see this more and more and it's pretty disappointing.There's a faction of the left that is a direct reflection of the authoritarian right, and it's a lot of the same people who bash Merrick Garland. They don't care at all about justice, they want revenge.
@Teri_Kanefield@rickmalek: Throughout all of this I've been impressed with Garland. He's dedicated to the law as he should be. However this all turns out, I have no qualms that Garland and his team have done their jobs.
I've not lived through anything this complex before, but as I wrote in a recent blog post, it's given the public quite an opportunity to learn about the law. Granted, it would have been better had we not had a former president who took the actions that Trump has, but it's been quite educational.
@Teri_Kanefield
I've always thought of opposition to be a feature of democracy rather than a bug.
When we remodeled our kitchen everyone in our family had fierce opposing opinions on which material to use for the countertops. It was utterly ridiculous, and slowly we collectively came to a general agreement. In the end we all agreed the process lead us to create a more perfect kitchen. 😀
@robhon@Teri_Kanefield This is the strength of the Democratic Party, which is often described as "herding cats" and a weakness. We are the people who discuss and compromise. We don't necessarily find perfection, but we find something that works.
@robhon@Teri_Kanefield i blame Gingrich for the complete package of partisan rancor we are suffering from. I don't know, are the House offices still separated by party? Ending that protocol seems like it should be a first step to returning collegiality to Congress.
@jhavok@robhon@Teri_Kanefield
He was one of the first real thugs. He played dress up and tried to act like some sort of intellectual type (especially with the little half glasses) but was a partisan mean spirited hack
@robhon@Teri_Kanefield By my limited understanding of the founding of our democracy, compromise and consensus were, and are, key. This is where the GOP has strayed too-far from the rails. Tea Party, and then GOP, and MAGA, believe that our democracy can survive or thrive without compromise. This test of theirs is killing us.
@Teri_Kanefield I agree with you. Democracy is hard. At a combined meeting of my small town’s planning and zoning commission, town council, and other boards to discuss options for increasing affordable housing, several said “We need to make them build what we want” and got mad when I said that’s not how our legal authority works. It’s a university town & developers want to build high return apartments for students. We can make that hard, and incentivize AH, that’s all.
@IcooIey Whenever I used to say "Democracy is hard" I added, "If you don't believe me, run for local office and try to get something done."
It took us years to get a traffic light we badly needed. People were darting across 4 lanes of traffic because they didn't want to walk a mile to the intersection.
@Hey_Beth@Teri_Kanefield But there is sensible opposition, it is just that in the US these days it is between factions of the Democratic party: people who are trying to solve problems in good faith but disagree on how. There used to be some Republicans with some sense, but they are terrified of what the base will do to them if they don't go along, so they don't have anything to contribute.
@Teri_Kanefield Concern over whether this thread of explanation constitutes "complaint" is as understandable as it is incorrect. Any sound of "complaint" that you may hear in your head, is not a tone that overwrites the general humor of your efforts.
It's frustrating to work so hard, to understand a thing—only to interact with so many who believe they understand it, too—without doing the work. I can only imagine the effort that goes into your many Social Media posts. With very few errors, too!
@Teri_Kanefield I appreciate your thoughts. For me my concern isn't with people who are undemocratic or anti-democratic. For me, and this is the conversation about Substack, it's when we accept fascism and neofascism as an acceptable form of ideology.
Fascism (and neofascism) replace political discourse with violence and threats of violence. At that point freedom of speech that is required in a liberal democracy becomes moot as terrorism, which fascism is by definition, is not protected speech.
I truly despise the "paradox of tolerance" and I have never in my life heard it deployed in any way other than in support of intolerance.
Adding: I don't believe the human race is capable of so much tolerance that the paradox would apply.
Political psychologist tell us that 1/3 of the population has an anti-democratic personality. One mark of the anti-democratic personality is intolerance.
@Teri_Kanefield@va2lam@philip_cardella: Hmm. If the only situation in which the paradox applies is to tolerate intolerance, then it seems that the answer must be that the limit of tolerance is that level of acceptance.
I recall discussions with my ex-husband and my mother many years ago where he complained that my mother and I were intolerant of intolerance. I never realized there was an articulated philosophical paradox associated with that though.
This thread helped clarify a lot of "paradox of tolerance" questions I had. I really VALUE people's heterodox and weird and iconoclast thoughts, and don't like the thought of suppressing anyone, so it was hard for me to draw a line. But the fact is that I just don't think what we're currently doing works, and considering tolerance as part of a social contract, rather than a blank check for bigotry, seems like it would work better.
"[W]hile you are debating, your opponent is merely using debate. The fact that you are engaging means they have already succeeded.
Once you're willing to debate whether one group of people or another should be abused, then abusing and expelling people from society is something that is up for debate. It's on the table. It's listed on the exchange."
@Teri_Kanefield@holyramenempire@goodreedAJ@va2lam@philip_cardella
The so-called "paradox of tolerance" is really a case of people making an absurd fetish of tolerance. Yes, in a free society we should tolerate disagreement in general. No, that does not mean a free society must, should or even can tolerate all types of disagreement. For instance threatening violence is a crime, has been one since time immemorial, and it is right for the state to punish threats.
@Teri_Kanefield I appreciate all the work you have done and especially for introducing me to Learned Hand. I have only read his Wiki bio and I want to learn more.
I'm curious about what you mean by consequence. Yes, trump and his businesses have been indicted and sued. He's lost one defamation case and, while the damages are still being determined, his business has lost the fraud case against him. The monetary damages he must pay are definitely consequences of his actions. But as far as criminal proceedings, he has not yet seen any consequences, though we have.
So, are the charges consequences? Or only finding of guilt?
Not at all. But I can't tell you how I am using the word because I never use the word.
I argue with people who do :)
Adding: The point of my thread was "I finally understand what is going on in the minds of people who throw around complaints about how there are never consequences.
@Teri_Kanefield@Mary625 I think a lot of people say "Where's the beef consequences?" because he has been indicted on 91 charges, from election interference to conspiracy to classified materials charges and espionage, and so far he really hasn't incurred much in the way of actual penalty. No fines (yet), no jail terms (yet), the delisting of all of his New York businesses was appealed. (And I'm not sure what's happened there since.) The press is still treating him as just a normal political candidate, his base still accepts his every word as gospel, pollsters are still pushing him like the horse they bet on on Derby night. (Makes you wonder what he has on them.)
The process is grinding along, but in the eyes of most people, there really hasn't been much in the way of visible consequences. A lot of people are demanding, "Why isn't he in jail yet." Especially when they see the GOP solidly behind him and trying their best to make all of the charges and prosecutions un-happen.
There are consequences in process, and I for one fervently hope they all come home to roost, hard. On him and on all of his so-far-unindicted co-conspirators in Congress. But I can understand people looking at 91 felony indictments and no actual criminal sentences handed down yet, and asking "Where's the beef?"
I stand by my pronouncement: At this point, anyone complaining that there are no consequences either doesn't understand or doesn't like democracy and rule of law.
I can help the former. I can't help the latter. When I spot them, I block them.
For more, see "There are no Yankees here" on my blog. It's the pinned post.
@Teri_Kanefield@Mary625 A lot of people ARE very ignorant about how both democracy and the legal system work. I'll freely confess to being ignorant of the finer details, especially compared to a professional such as yourself. But I think there are a lot of people who won't really see him as having suffered consequences until and unless he is found guilty and sentenced.
@Teri_Kanefield
I am beginning to believe many people are saying consequences when they actually mean punishment. In their mind an indictment is an intermediate state prior to being freed from punishment. This would make an indictment something other than a consequence and decidedly less than the punishment they would mete out.
@Teri_Kanefield Teri, you say, "Obviously one state can't decide for everybody." But it seems that each state can decide for themselves. Isn't that the right of each state under our federalist system? Each state decides who appears on their ballots. Seems fair. Secretaries of state in each state can interpret the mixture of the US Constitution qualifications and their own state laws & decide. With SCOTUS's previous interventions into presidential elections (Bush v. Gore) I do not trust them.
@Teri_Kanefield I know you’ve been careful to say that you’re not here to “give people hope”, but your level-headed, expert takes are what gives some of us hope. It’s not that we only want to hear good news — some of us just want to know what’s what. That in itself is a source of hope.
@Teri_Kanefield Love your perspective and reading your blog. As I read this thread I kept thinking of how social media and the siloing of news consumption has changed over the years. The internet allows for an explosion of the "Many" in the "One to Many" relationship. Individuals and news producing companies can have an outsized influence and ability to spread misinformation at a mind numbing rate. Which creates large groups of people with a slanted view, on both sides.
@Teri_Kanefield I think we're in a space and time where a lot of things have kind of come home to roost.
Since WWII, the emphasis for most of America was on making money with the assumption that the world would run itself if we just ran the profits up high enough.
Gen X wasn't, for the most part, raised with some vision of the world they were obligated to build. Coupled with the "make money at all costs" vs. Boomers pulling up the ladder after them, we don't have the larger perspective civics.
@Teri_Kanefield I think it's mostly fear. People are very, very afraid that a totalitarian opposition is going to take power and try to kill or otherwise eliminate them. It's not an unreasonable fear. The question is just what to do about it. Liberal democracy seems at least at first glance like it simply has no defenses against this--we have to risk the bad guys taking power and just murdering us in every single election. It grinds you down.
I've been reading a lot of Adam Silverman's posts over on Balloon Juice--he (unlike most of the regulars there) sounds like a lot of your respondents. He frames everything in terms of war. He says we're at war, a soft civil war that is part of a larger global World War III, and the Republicans realize this but Democrats and the administration don't.
But war and democracy are fundamentally incompatible--if our modern politics is a war then we've already lost the struggle for democracy, and need to give it up for the duration (and how long is that??) and fight a possibly violent battle for mere survival. That is basically how a lot of people on the other side see it.
I'm hoping the war frame is not the correct one--Adam is a military-oriented guy and tends to see things in war terms. But it's an open possibility.
Precisely. I have struggled with these people for years. They resist the idea that you can't just pass and enforce a law that makes it illegal to be anti-democratic.
For the past few years, I've found myself more often writing about the problems I see among Trump critics / liberals / etc with unrealistic expectations and an anger-outrage cycle leading them to embrace authoritarian tactics.
That's why I wrote the series beginning "There are no Yankees here."
You can meet them and mitigate their influence, but you can't vanquish them. An entire one-third of the population is wired that way, and it's our hard job to take seriously the need to manage them.
@Teri_Kanefield@accretionist You clearly can't do that completely, but there are better-than-nothing approaches. See: Germany. Outlawing their symbols, ability to "do it in the open", etc. does put them at a useful disadvantage.
@Teri_Kanefield@accretionist Germany outlaws antidemocratic parties (Article 21 of the Basic Law). For instance, the federal supreme court banned the far right Socialist Imperial Party in 1952 and the Communist Party in 1956.
Whether this would be feasible under the US constitution and legal tradition is a different matter
I don't know how enforcement works in Germany, but I'd venture to guess that the Nazis don't say, "Oh no! There is a law! We'd better learn to love liberal democracy. Let's all be good boys and girls now."
Anyone who thinks that is how fascists will react to a law is more naive about fascism than I'm sure Germans are.
More likely, because of Germany's past, voters (and the public) are savvier about this particular issue.
I think I understand now that the courts will not save democracy. It's up to all of us to do that in November.
As someone somewhere suggested, maybe we should just get rid of the 14th amendment, section 3, if we don't intend to enforce it. Though, that would mean all you have to do is get elected president and you can commit crimes willy-nilly for the next four years.
@Teri_Kanefield it’s a version of the so-called Paradox of Tolerance, yeah? At some point, there’s a line and inciting a violent insurrection attempt seems like as good a line as any.
Is jail going to reform an 80 year old serial offender? No.
Should we ban him from the ballot? I think so.
Does that meaningfully impact the near- or far-term chances of us losing our democracy to an entrenched, fascist party? Not really, no.
@Teri_Kanefield
America had a pretty easy run of democracy for most of the past 60 years. "Easy" to be pro-democracy when the vast majority of voters and politicians are too.
But it's been increasingly hard over the past 10-20 years as media has fractured into bubbles, an entire party has abandoned democracy and 30-40% of the voters seem to have abandoned it too.
Of course, you are right. But I really worry of there's a critical mass to sustain democracy. Thank goodness for the young.
@TCatInReality Quite honestly I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that the US government started propagandizing the idea that capitalism=democracy as an excuse to topple left leaning governments elsewhere (or ones that got in the way of US corporations). That and equating communism with authoritarianism/fascism while being, well, fascistic in the McCarthy era. The end result is that many Americans don't understand political systems at all and think capitalism=democracy.
@Teri_Kanefield that's a way to ensure democracy is destroyed. Americans worship fully unrestricted speech uncritically and then get confused about why fascists keep gaining ground.
You can't defeat fascism with debates and elections, because fascists constantly manipulate these settings in ways that aren't technically illegal, even if unethical, knowing that their opponents can't or won't use the same cheats that they use.
Liberals keep handing fascists the rope to hang them with
@Teri_Kanefield interesting thoughts, thank you.
Said that, in Europe there are quite few cases where democracy has laws that does not allow anti-democratic parties to take power, and freedom of speech is also limited.
I know Americans see it all of nothing, but there are much more nuanced takes. In general, system has to be able to withstand attacks like in America. There is no guarantee America system can do that.
I’m curious to know if you’re familiar with Lowenstein’s concept of “militant democracy” and if so, what you think of it? @tzimmer_history introduced me to it and it seems relevant here.
@Teri_Kanefield@jsdodge I write a piece on the intellectual history of the concept of “militant democracy” and then discussed how it was adopted in post-war West Germany where it is explicitly endorsed by the Constitutional Court. To make it sound like I’m advocating for some frightening totalitarian idea - when it’s literally just a piece discussing Germany, and not even advocating for such an approach to be adopted in the same way, just discussing it - is unbelievably disingenuous.
@Teri_Kanefield@jsdodge You know, I’m perfectly happy for you to just ignore me and my work. But I have to say, if someone with a big audience like you is making disparaging comments like this, misrepresenting my work in an extreme way, all while admitting you haven’t even read what you are lashing out against…
@Teri_Kanefield@jsdodge “Before you tell me I’m wrong … please read and consider my arguments.” I guess that is not a courtesy you are willing to extend to others.
I have not mentioned you or criticized you in any way since you attacked me on Twitter. I’ll go back to ignoring you now, and I’ll ask you to do the same.
@Teri_Kanefield
How do you square this with Popper's Paradox? Intolerance is being weaponized principally by White Christian Nationalist Fascists to intimidate their enemies and to hand the White House to Trump. How can we defend democracy?
@Teri_Kanefield one of my earliest memories is of my grandmother, a Democrat, and her elder sister, a Republican, sitting on a couch, drinking strega, and discussing which form of communism the USA should adopt as capitalism was obviously failing the vast majority. This was around 1961. We seem to have great difficulty today with having reasoned discourse from different viewpoints, accepting even if we don’t understand each other, but trying to understand
Between 1920 until somewhere in the 1960s the parties were in harmony. Harvard profs. Ziblatt and Levitsky, in their book, How Democracies Die, say it's beause during that era, neither side was for civil and women's rights and both were govened by white men.
@Teri_Kanefield that’s an unfortunate reality, and I think of my grandmother and great aunt, how well read they were, their accomplishments, and despite that, how their accomplishments were behind the scenes; one in the corporate world, and one in the small business world.
@Teri_Kanefield I appreciate this work you've done Teri, thank you. I have learned a lot and I am really impressed with the detail and rationale in your recent article.
I take the view there are many paths to rid a democraric state of anti-democratic semtiment absolutely. education being a good example. but I fully appreciate the context of here-and-now USA is what you're speaking to, and in that context I fully agree with you: there is no possibility of it at all.
@Teri_Kanefield I think that’s spot on. In my experience working in small-d “democratically-run” community organizations, I found that many, many participants interpreted “democratic” to mean, “I get what I want, because I’m right.” And these often were otherwise mild-mannered, nice middle-class liberals. But convinced that the democratic outcome was the right one, because they were righteous and wanted the right thing. Anyone who wanted otherwise must not believe in democracy.
@Teri_Kanefield
This nails it for me... The criminal justice system can't solve a political problem. Very similar to applying technology solutions to people problems...it don't work well, if at all. Given your hypothesis that there will always be antidemocratic forces in a democracy, how does a political system that gives outsized power to the minority (aka antidemocratic factions) survive? Asking for a friend....
@Teri_Kanefield I think another misunderstanding that non-lawfolk have is that the system isn’t deterministic. It’s not like maths or coding where (almost always) A+B=C. The outcome of a trial can vary wildly based on the mood of the judge and/or jury (aka never piss off a judge). To many, the concept of justice depends on determinism: if A, then B. And it doesn’t work out that way.
@Teri_Kanefield Ok, it's not exactly your personal problem, the problem is a bit with the US legal system. It frustrates quite a bit of the population, would be my diagnosis, from the outside (I'm European. Conceptually it's the same here, but a magnitude or more not as bad.)
Justicia is very much, not blind to skin colour nor how rich the defendant is.
If a white cop kills a black youth, it's a surprising great win for justice if the cop gets 14 months.
@Teri_Kanefield If the black youth had defended himself and killed the cop during that defence, the DA would probably be discussing the death penalty. Even if in this alternative universe we know that the black youth had reason to fear for his life, and thus most likely the right to even use deadly means to defend himself, right?
Same thing about the bail. The normal perception is that bail is set at a level depending upon the means of the defendant to make him reappear.
@Teri_Kanefield Basically, yes, there are consequences, and for a billionaire level defendant surprising many.
But for many normal people, these consequences simply do not line up with what they would experience (and what they know from themselves, family or acquaintances) for simple "law breaking" like a DUI, with what they have seen is happening to #P01135809 Donald Trump.
Or put differently, what would happen to normal citizens that threaten SCOTUS justices? That regularly threaten riots?
Andreas, I think that you need to go to my blog and read and see if you want to follow me.
I really don't need to be lectured this way.
When you begin reading, one of two things will happen. Either you will find that you can learn from me or you will find that we are as far apart as a Nazi and a puppy and we will just annoy each other.
This country is in a constant state of becoming, ideally. Someone said we've had 60 years of democracy, I wonder if it's even that much.
Institutions and ideals are grand things but not if you allow people who don't care about ideals to use your own ideals to tie you in knots.
Personally I don't think taking Trump off the ballot is a great idea... politically. I do think our ... extraordinary court is in a unique position to do it with credibility.
I have a hard time buying that there is a "one correct" way to interpret the collection of old documents and events as law. It will always be a decision informed by the people making it, current political conditions, and public expectations.
What matters is that some large portion of the public expect that it will come from "the text" and "case history" we expect a good story.
Not just one that is technically correct, not just one that "feels fair" but both.
@Teri_Kanefield
Are you aware of anyone arguing from the 13th amendment? It prohibits involuntary servitude except where the "party shall have been duly convicted."
The drafters knew how to require additional steps before allowing execution of a provision, and chose not to do so with the 13th amendment.
Absent evidence from Congressional debate records or from the drafters themselves, it seems this self-executing argument it's contrary to to any Originalist interpretation.
If you read my blog post, you'll see that the issue of whether it is self-executing is more complicated.
It's easy to argue "yes, it is self-executing" but that doesn't resolve the problem of what procedure is to be followed. Section 3 cannot be enforced in the same was as other Constitutional provisions.
@Teri_Kanefield
You wrote "someone has to decide for the nation as a whole" if Trump can be on the ballot.
Why?
The manner of choosing Electors is up to the individual states. There isn't even a requirement that there be an election. Given that elections are state functions, why is there a need for national consistency?
I think part of the issue is that while hundreds of people have been tried for the Jan 6th insurrection, none of the people who orchestrated have. It's been 3 years and Trump has not been tried. One of the people who came up with ideas of how to overthrow the government, who should be in prison got voted in as speaker of the house. Jim Jorden had nothing done to him for ignoring a congressional subpoena. These are the type of things people are upset about.
@Teri_Kanefield I agree with your premise. I’m certainly guilty of wanting to get rid of anti-democracy elements and am frustrated by how many Americans disagree with me.
One point I view differently is your list of consequences. A huge chunk of that is “indicted,” which for most Americans is a consequence regardless of outcome. But for the rich and powerful just seems to be a cost of doing business. Until the guilty verdicts and sentences start piling up, it’s hard to see it as a consequence.
@Teri_Kanefield The Learned Hand quote is very good. He argues that the law can't save us, but the spirit of liberty can. Unfortunately, we live in a society where many think that the liberty of one group impinges on the liberty of their own. And what protects the liberty of one group from the other is the law, which you so articulately lay out. So we must follow the law, but the law can't solve a political problem, which is the kind of problem we have. So bottom line, we are screwed.
@Teri_Kanefield I wanted to thank you for the post yesterday, but i didn't stumble on it again, and i forgot.
It was not the answer i hoped for, of course, but it's an answer that makes a lot of sense, and i'm better for having had that reality check.
I still think it would be a good decision to remove him from the ballot, but i understand it's a lot harder to achieve, and for good reasons, that i though it was.
If it helps, I was one of those people initially, and you have persuaded me off the rage machine. Facts do matter to me. And seeing the consequences piling up for sure helps. While you can’t convince everybody, that doesn’t mean you are wasting your time.
Add comment