Interesting observations from political theorist Corey Robin:
One fascinating phenomenon that I’ve been noticing in the last couple of weeks is how, despite Trump’s winning the election, a fair amount of both reporting and commentary in the media, including on the left, has not only fallen silent on the question of his authoritarianism and/or fascism but, more important and more interesting to me, has simply proceeded as if democracy is going to continue as it has in the past....
Take this article, in the Washington Post, about the Democrats’ plans for the next midterm election, in 2026. Authored by longtime national political correspondent Michael Scherer, the article reports that the Democrats are actively recruiting candidates to contest Republican victories not just in blue states like California but in some of the most charged swing states like Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin, all of which went for Trump.
There’s no sense or mention that Trump or the Republicans are going to use their control of the national political apparatus or intimidation of the media or the courts to shut down or compromise elections in any way. Nor is it a foregone conclusion, according to this article (and other articles), that the Republicans will hold on to their majority in the House. (According to an article in the Times, the Republicans certainly don’t think that they will.) Instead, Scherer offers a straight report on the Democrats’ plan to win back the House using all the traditional tactics and strategies that political parties in a democracy have always used. (And, indeed, according to another article in the Times, up-and-coming Democrats are tripping all over themselves in the contest to lead the party, so eager are they to take on Trump and the Republicans—not usually the response of leaders of a party under siege from a tyrant or autocrat.) As far as I can tell, no one commenting on the article has blinked an eye about this rather remarkable assumption—rather remarkable given all the commentary, prior to now, on what Trump means for democracy....
Writing under the headline “Democrats Are Overdue for New Leadership,” Chris Lehmann, the Nation’s DC Bureau Chief, voices cautious optimism about the movement of younger Democrats in the House to contest the grip of older Democrats. Lehmann sees the efforts of representatives like AOC and Jamie Raskin to take over the ranking leadership positions on various congressional committees as “a salutary recognition of the need to reinvent the party in basic ways.” Both representatives, he writes, are “effective and innovative prophets of party renewal.” He quotes a political scientist that the Democrats have “got the ability, if they act as a team, to make things very hard for Donald Trump and his agenda"....[T]here’s not a note...of foreboding about the closure of democratic possibilities. Whatever authoritarian crosswinds or repressive obstacles the Democrats may come up against in their effort to reinvent themselves go unmentioned. The possibility of Democratic renewal in the coming months, on the path to Democratic victory in 2026, on the path to relevance in the years beyond, is a genuine one.
A few observations and prognostications of my own:
(1) Trump, like any Mafia boss, cares only about power and the well-being of his clan; he cares not at all about democracy or democratic values. However, it would be very, very difficult to do away with elections, given the huge role of the states in organizing and running them and given the default assumption of everyone, even in his own party, that elections will happen. The only way he could do that would be with massive use of political violence, which would require the backing of the military. His nominee for Defense Secretary, the Christian authoritarian Pete Hegseth, shares Trump's desire to undertake a political purge of military leadership. We know that the military includes leaders, like Mark Milley, who are actually committed to the Constitution and democracy; we also know the military has included raving lunatics like Mike Flynn. If Trump moves to politicize the military (and elevate the Flynns currently in the ranks), and does not meet opposition, then all bets really are off. The U.S. military has a very powerful tradition of deference to civilian rulers. The military also has a duty not to obey clearly illegal orders. A politicized military leadership will no doubt defer to Trump, and find his orders to be not clearly illegal, if he tries to use force to end (or more likely "temporarily suspend" as it will be put) democracy.
(2) I don't consider the latter the most likely scenario, although it's obviously possible. Most contemporary authoritarians in former democracies (e.g., Orban in Hungary, Modi in India, Ergodan in Turkey) use nominally lawful means to sustain their power, and that would be Trump's first route, I would expect. The problem is that the U.S. Constitution is almost impossible to amend, and there would not be support in the Senate or House, or in a sufficient number of states, for amending it to permit him to run for a third term. So that is off the table. A more realistic scenario is that Trump's designated successor (maybe Vance, if he proves loyal enough; more likely DJT Jr.) secures the nomination in 2028, runs in the election, and then, if he does not win, Trump uses the power of his office to steal the election, not necessarily with brute force, but through federal investigations of electoral fraud, bad faith disputes about legitimate electors, and so on. The risk of a stolen election in 2028 is very high, unless the Republican candidate actually wins, and at least while Trump is still President.
(3) Another scenario, also likely, is that Trump does not serve all four years. He is 78, obviously in physical and mental decline, seriously overweight, and his health history is a closely guarded secret, no doubt for a reason. In the case of death or disability, Vance would become President. I have no reason to think Vance has a principled commitment to democracy, given his involvement with reactionary forms of Catholicism, but Vance is also not Trump: he lacks charisma, he lacks Trump's street-brawler instincts, he's not obviously a sociopath, and he has shown no ability to command the loyalty of any voters (he only won his Senate race in Ohio because of Trump, after all). Without the threat of Trump endorsing opposing candidates, even Republican elected officials will have no particular reason to do Vance's bidding. Far more likely is that a fight will begin to claim Trump's mantle, and as we know (vide Kari Lake, Mark Robinson), Trump's most devoted loyalists are mostly nuts and unelectable. So the Repulican Party is more likely to collapse into in-fighting between crazies than to demonstrate the cohesion required to steal elections. (Remember, too, as we saw in 2020, there are still Republican officials at the local level who are committed to democracy and democratic norms. Most Republicans are not Trump loyalists, after all; they are folks who, for reasons of family and history and geography, have just "always" voted Republican, don't really pay attention to Trump craziness, and like voting every couple of years. They won't go to the ramparts to defend democracy, but they aren't going to end it because J.D. Vance wants to.)
Recent Comments