The key question about Trump and January 6 - one most pundits celebrating the Court’s decision are arrogantly dismissing - concerns the demands and limits of democratic self-defense in the face of extremism.
Re-posting this, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling:
The idea that this SC ruling proves beyond doubt that those who derided the attempt to disqualify Trump were right - not just right in predicting the decision, but right on substance and in declaring there’s nothing to be done but “let the ballot box decide” - is ridiculous. 2/
Is the enforcement of the rules and restrictions laid out in the constitution optional? It’s hard not to notice how a lot of people seem to regard some parts of the constitution as a lot more binding than others, and are rather quick to discard the Reconstruction amendments. 3/
It is true that putting Trump behind bars or barring him from holding office ever again would not make the radicalizing anti-democratic forces that have fueled his rise go away.
But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be done until the next election rolls around. 4/
Since January 6, and especially since the January 6 Committee referred Trump to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, the discussion has disproportionally focused on the risk of doing something - and tended to neglect the considerable dangers of doing nothing. 5/
“Fascism must be defeated at the ballot box” - I see little value in presenting such platitudes as some kind of deep political or historical wisdom. If the threat is real and imminent, must we not mobilize all the resources our democratic system of government has at its disposal? 6/
If anything, we have extremely over-normalized Alex Jones, Newsmax, Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch (Fox News++), Elon Musk Twitter.
I wish I had the language skills to make the case that "Separation of Church and State" means separation of fact from mythological media, inclusive of Bible and Fox News both. Charm vs. Reason
The courts vs democracy? Frankly, I find all this “let the people decide” talk remarkably backwards. The people decided, Trump lost, and attempted an auto-coup. January 6 was the anti-democratic part. In Colorado, the system didn’t conduct a pre-emptive strike – it responded. 7/
It’s exceedingly unlikely now that January 6 will have any legal, constitutional consequences for Trump before the election - proving that a politician is beyond reproach if he has enough of a radical following as well as the support of a radicalized party and legal movement. 8/
Trump could not be clearer about his authoritarian desires. If he can just return to power four years after January 6, without ever facing any real consequences and while explicitly declaring his intent to establish a vindictive autocracy, democracy will not persist. 9/
These are the stakes that must inform the current discussion. How can democracy defend itself against extremists without becoming that which it seeks to defeat in the process? Democracy has to exercise restraint in self-defense – but it must be equipped and willing to fight. 10/
What if a decision like the one in Colorado were to lead to a terrible “backlash” – to a violent response by Trump loyalists and MAGA fanatics? That is a distinct possibility. But that doesn’t make the decision “undemocratic.” It only underlines how far down the road we already are. 11/
More on Trump and the historical struggle over how to defend democracy as it has crystallized since the 1930s in the discussion over the concept of “militant democracy” here:
@tzimmer_history No one seems to understand that if Fascism is on the ballot, we've already lost. We're doomed. We can't be trusted not to vote it in. It's happening.
@tzimmer_history and there is nothing nobody can do to stop that. This has always bothered me about how people interpret the second amendment. If we are allowed to have guns to stop an oppressive government, then the secret service is not allowed to protect the president. That is a violation of my right
Add comment