1. As Trump’s Lawbreaking Becomes More Apparent, His Hold on Republican Voters Grows Stronger
Three things have been happening at once:
- Trump’s legal peril is increasing.
- Trump is making things worse for his cases through his public statements.
- Trump is solidifying his position as the front-runner for the Republican nomination.
This week, the recording of Trump showing off classified documents in Bedminster was leaked to the press. I found this recording helpful because it has the text added as subtitles.
First, some background: Trump was apparently miffed by this article in The New Yorker:
What seems to be happening in the recording is this: To refute the claim that he was about to start a war with Iran, Trump waved around a secret war plan, which had been prepared by Milley and his team, and which (Trump claimed) proved that he wasn’t the one who wanted to launch a military strike against Iran. In the recording, he described the war plan as “highly confidential” and said, “As president, I could have declassified. Now I can’t, but this is still a secret. … It’s so cool,”
If you haven’t listened to the recording , you should. It’s stunning. Trump demonstrated that he knew that:
- the plan was a secret,
- the document was classified,
- he no longer had the power to declassify it, and
- he wasn’t suppose to show it to anyone.
Poof. There goes several of the defenses he’s been floating. His first line of defense was that he could declassify the documents just by thinking about them. Next, he said there were no documents at that meetings, so there would have been nothing to declassify. After the tape was released and there were obviously documents, he said by “plans” he was referring to “building plans” and plans for golf courses strewn about his desk. Later, he said, “I would say it was bravado, if you want to know the truth, it was bravado. I was talking and just holding up papers and talking about them but there were no documents . . ” Then he added that he had lots of papers “stacked up” that included “mostly newspaper articles, copies of magazines, copies of different plans, copies of stories, having to do with many, many subjects.”
As everyone knows, a person who keeps changing his story is lying, but Trump doesn’t care and neither do his supporters. People who are caught up in “us v. them” politics want their guy to win by any means necessary. They glorify strongmen and fighters, and lying is another way of fighting. Thus his supporters cheer as he lies.
Trump’s ‘s lead grows after his second indictment
A new national NBC News poll showed that Trump expanded his lead over DeSantis and the rest of the Republican field after his second indictment.
As I’ve said in the past, Trump’s political needs are at odds with his needs as a criminal defendant, and he has made the decision to put his political needs ahead of his needs as a defendant. His hope is that he will become the next president of the United States, which he can do even if convicted on all 71 criminal charges against him so far. There may be complications if he is sentenced to prison by a state court, but if he wins the election (meaning that enough voters vote for him so that he wins the electoral college) he will have all the powers confered to him by the Constitution. He will then seek to finish what he started during his first term: dismantling democratic institutions and establishig himself as a Putin-style autocrat, with the full support of the Republican Party. His campaign promise is to dismantle democratic institutions, so if elected, he’ll be able to claim he is acting on a mandate from the voters. He will enter the White House next time furious and ready to wreak revenge on his enemies.
Given what the Republican Party has become, it is not a coincidence that his hold on the Republican Party is solidifying as his legal peril increases and as his lawbreaking becomes more obvious. In the spirit of “us v. them” politics, his supporters are driven by a desire to avenge Trump and land a blow on his enemies.
The only people surprised by the fact that indictments have increased Trump’s standing with the Republican Party were those who insisted all through 2021 and 2022 that indicting Trump would save democracy and rule of law. (I was about to start naming some of them, but I won’t.) I will point out that even Elie Mystal now sees that even strong indictments will not stop Trump:
Mystal also understands the solution: The only way to beat this is at the polls.
You’ve heard me explain why it makes sense that the current Republican Party will not reject Trump if he is indicted. Now let’s hear from a former Republican insider.
2. The Conspiracy to End America
I was given an advance review copy of Stuart Stevens’ new book:
I read it and liked it as much as I liked his first book, It Was All A lie, so I provided this blurb:
The Conspiracy to End America is two stories in one: It’s the story of how the Republican Party came to reject democracy as a governing principle. It’s also the story of a former Republican insider and political operative confronting the painful truth that the party he once worked for has embraced authoritarianism.
“Pain is the best teacher in politics,” says Stuart P. Stevens. He thus concludes that “the only hope for the Republican Party is for it to suffer crushing defeat after crushing defeat so that it is forced to confront its failures.”
When Stevens talks about the Republican Party rejecting democracy as a governing principle, what he means is they are rejecting rule of law.
(Explanation: A government is defined by how it derives its authorty. A democracy derives its authority from laws rather than the whims of an autocrat.)
People reject rule of law and democratic institutions when those institutions do not produce the kind of country they want to live in. There are not many alternatives to democracy. (Sociologist Max Weber, in his classic essay, “Politics as a Vocation”, says there are three.) There is autocracy, which derives its authority from the word of the autocrat. There are monarchies, but those take time to establish. So people who reject rule of law and democratic institutions must either embrace autocracy or anarchy.
As Stevens puts it: “As is always the case when an authoritarian movement emerges from a democracy, the justification for abandoning democracy in this instance was the danger that democracy itself presented.” (p. 76)
Thus what Stevens means by “the conspiracy to end America” is this: If the Republicans have their way, America will no longer be a rule of law democracy. It will become an autocracy.
It’s important to keep our history in mind: The United States was established as a rule of law democracy, but only a small group of people (white mostly landowning men) were included in “we the people.” For most of our history, all of our institutions (governor’s mansions, Congress, industry, universities) were under the control of white men. There were a few exceptions, of course, but for the most part, the laws protected white men. Others were legally under the dominion of white men.
It wasn’t until the modern Civil Rights and women’s rights movement that this began to change — and the backlash has been fierce. Compare these two pictures. The first is Congress in 1939:
This is from 2018 (I have it handy because I included it in my biography of Thurgood Marshall):
“Theirs is a movement driven by racial fear,” Stevens says. “The United States will become a minority-majority country in only a few more years, and all the Steven Millers in the world can’t stop that. How fast is America changing? In 1980, Ronald Reagan won a sweeping landslide victory over Jimmy Carter, garnering 489 electoral votes and fifty-eight percent of the white vote. In 2008, John McCain lost a not-very-close race against Barack Obama and received . . . fifty-eight percent of the white vote.” (p. 40)
Stevens explains that what is motivating the Republican Party is the “deep fear that the party is doomed.” (p. 131). He said this: “The demographic apocalypse confronting the Republican Party is both a powerful motivation for it to do whatever it takes to guarantee victory and its justification for doing so. If you believe that America was chosen by God to be a white, Christian nation, then the looming specter of a minority-majority America demands action.” (p. 132)
He also says, “Trump ran as a xenophobic racist and once the Republican party embraced him as their leader, it legitimized threads of extremist conspiracies that had previously been limited to the ecosphere of the far right.” (p. 35)
In other words, Trump just brought out what was already there, simmering. He made the subtext into text. He stopped using dog-whistles and openly embraced the anxiety of a certain segment of the population that something vital is being destroyed in America.
Stevens pulls no punches. He says, “Trump’s hate was creating a surge of appeal.” (p. 60)
Stevens talked about how Republican insiders went along with Trump in 2016. “The responses uniformly went like this: “If we, the party establishment, put our thumbs on the scale when Trump loses it will not be because of his xenophobia, his racism, his anger. It will be our fault. We just have to let him lose and start over.” (p. 54)
Stevens would invariably respond, “But what if he wins?” And the answer always was, “He’s not going to win.”
Because in 2016 Republicans argued that they could mold Trump should he become president, Stevens compares the backroom deal that made Hitler chancellor to the way the Republican Party backed Trump in 2016.” Then, “After the Republican party accepted a platform that was nothing more than a fealty pledge to Donald Trump, it abandoned any pretense of being anything other than an autocratic movement.”
Now, here’s the important part: “If Trump is not ultimately the party’s nominee in 2024, its loyalty will pass to the next leader.” (p. 70) In other words, getting rid of Trump will not solve the problem. The GOP will simply look for another Trump-style leader who will similarly promise to eviscerate rule of law to prevent what they see as the ruin of America.
Stavens marches through all the problems we know:
- Dark money in politics
- Republican lies (for example, the lie about election fraud) being used to make the country less democratic
- notions that are both wrong and dangerous, like “we are a republic, not a democracy,”
- gerrymandering
- Republican efforts over decades to appoint conservative judges
- the origins and purpose of the Federalist Society
His conclusion: “It is naïve and foolish but predictable . . . [to] imagine that there is a possibility for the Republican Party to become a “normal” American political party once again.” (p. 41)
So basically he sees no hope for the modern Republican Party.
He offers this solution: The only way to stop the Republican Party’s march toward authoritarianism and rejection of rule of law is for the party at the ballot box. Like Mystal, he understands that the only way to stop the Republican push toward autocracy is at the polls.
3. The Supreme Court
It seems to me that there is a pattern to this week’s Supreme Court decisions: The majority wants to maintain the original contours of the Constitution while rolling us back about 100 years.
The Supreme Court began the week by issuing a decision in Moore v. Harper, in which the court rejected a fringe idea that would have upended our elections and allowed a few people to pick our president and elected officials. Had the Supreme Court gone the other way, elections would have become meaningless. Moore v. Harper was thus a win for democracy and rule of law.
It also seems like the Court released Moore v. Harper first to ease the blow of what was to come.
The next decisions handed down this week were designed to dismantle some of the rights Americans have acquired since the modern Civil Rights and women’s rights movement. As Hillary Clinton put it:
Of course, had Hillary Clinton been elected in 2016, we would currently have had a liberal majority on the Court that would be making very different decisions and reshaping our country differently. Therefore, it seems to me that she has a right to say, “I told you so.”
This is the pattern I see in the Supreme Court decisions: the conservative majority is not interested in creating an autocracy. They are interested in rolling back the clock on liberal progress made possible by the Earl Warren Court (1953-1969). My take—that the majority is not interested in creating an autocracy—is backed up by the fact that they ruled against Trump in his election fraud cases. Trump wanted the Court to validate his election fraud cases and install him as president in 2020. They didn’t try to do that.
Some background: The Earl Warren Court (1953-1969) was the most liberal Court in American history, and arguably the only truly liberal court we’ve had. The decisions handed down during the Warren era entirely transformed America, moving us for the first time toward a true multi-racial and multi-cultural democracy. To take a few examples:
- Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overruled Plessy v. Ferguson and ended racial segregation
- Engel v. Vitale (1962) and School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), enraged religious conservatives when it invoked the First Amendment, which requires the separation of church and state, to prohibit required prayers and Bible reading in public schools.
- Roe v. Wade (1972) guaranteed the right to an abortion (this was handed down after Warren was no longer chief justice, but the composition of the court was still mostly liberal.)
- Then there were a string of cases that reined in law enforcement and protected the rights of citizens and defendants: Mapp v. Ohio (1961), prevents police from using evidence that was obtained in violation of a defendant’s rights; Miranda v. Arizona (1966) held that people must be informed of their rights, Gideon v. Wainright (1963) held that defendants who can’t afford a lawyer must be provided with one at the expense of the government.
- Etc, etc. etc.
The decisions of the Warren Court ignited a furious backlash. Conservatives spent decades working with a single aim: To transform the Court so that it would undo the decisions of the Warren years.
And here we are.
The Solution
The solution is obvious: Make sure that Democrats get elected in the next few cycles, which will again remake the court. Congress has the power to add justices, so a large enough Democratic majority in Congress can create legislation that will redress the balance of the court.
Will That Happen? Will Democrats win the next few elections?
I have no idea. Some of the conversations I have had recently on Mastodon were discouraging. I had people who call themselves “progressives” justify “protest votes” if the Democratic candidate doesn’t “win their vote.” (Me: Unless you vote in a way most likely to ensure progress, you are not a progressive and have no right to claim that label.)
I had another self-avowed anarchist (who claims to be a liberal Trump hater) tell me that the Supreme Court “has always been illegitimate,” which essentially shreds 1/3 of the Constitution. When I asked him if he wanted to shred the other 2/3 as well, he refused to answer. (When he understood he would not win me over to his anarchist views, he called me some very unkind names.)
Whether democracy will survive in America is an open question and depends on the voters. Elie Mystal and Stuart Stevens, two commentators with vastly different backgrounds, outlooks, and experiences, agree.
I was alerted to danger by enraged and ferocious barking
What could be it?
The decisions the court is making to turn back the clock seem rather unconstitutional, but then several decisions this term have done the same elevating religion into the public sphere and with government force behind it, ignoring precedent with rulings like Dobbs, etc. If people refuse to see what’s right in front of them, our democracy won’t survive. The thing that’s so frustrating right now is that while the GOP is attacking LGBTQ+ Americans right now, those supporting such actions are blind to the reality that they might eventually be the target of authoritarian malice despite being the “in-group” right now. They need to remember the following:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
—Martin Niemöller
This sentiment that I first learned in Sunday School as a child has been ringing loudly in my ears ever since 2015. Never again.
Thank you, great information.
Thank you Teri.
Thank you- this post is so informative and helpful as always. Hoping you might give a history of the Federalist Society. Thankfully you have an alert and ready for action guard dog at your house- such a cutie!
your pooch was right on warning you about UPS. Undoing Progress Statewide
Thank you. Excellent.
Thank you again for explaining complicated topics so I can understand them!!
Hi thanks so much Teri. I was just thinking about what would happen to the Supreme Court if the worst happens. Im sure they wouldn’t want authoritarian rule or they’d be legitimate puppets, obsolete.
Thank you, Teri. I hear some voices claiming that, because TFG was aided by Russian disinformation campaigns and because he is under indictment for endangering our national security, that the Justices and judges he appointed are illegitimate and should be removed.
I have to say that I don’t agree. What is your opinion on that?
Secondly, if Democrats gain a large majority in the House, expand their majority in the Senate, and hold the White House, should any of the Trump-appointed Justices be investigated for misleading Congress about their positions on Roe? If they committed perjury during their confirmation hearings, could they be removed?
Thank you.
They are legitimate. Removing judges requires the same impeachment and removal process that applies to a president, so that just won’t happen. The better option is to add justices.
What makes this particularly dangerous is who is in the Republican party. Even before 2020, a majority of white men identified as Republican; I can’t find more recent figures, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was almost 60% by now.
I don’t know if our society is capable of recognizing that white men aren’t average, default humans, the unmarked center, but are in fact becoming a dangerous outlier–*because* they want to be assured of that place at the center of things again.
I have learned so much from reading your blog. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Teri—You have several times referred to the social psychologist Karen Stenner’s studies of the authoritarian personality type. I recommend the following article by Dr. Stenner to your readers. This brief article is relevant to the topics covered in your current blog and provides great insight into the challenge to democracy posed by those psychologically predisposed to authoritarianism.
Karen Stennrt, “Authoritarianism – HOPE not hate”
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2020/11/01/authoritarianism/
Hey! Thanks Teri for the preview of Stuart Stevens’ new book. I got online and requested both the Phoenix and Scottsdale Public Libraries purchase the book. Both have other titles by Stevens already so I’m confident come October, it will be widely available to Phoenix area library patrons. <3
Thanks Teri, great post.
I’m so afraid people won’t take all of this seriously enough and we will lose it all!
Would an attempt to expand the court need congressional approval?
Congress would have to do it. The Constitution gives Congress power to add to the number of justices.
Thank you for confirming that the republicans have to be defeated in every election at city, county, state & federal. Although the former guy needs to be prosecuted & held accountable, only election defeat with keep our democracy.
I also want you to know how much I appreciate your insights & shedding new light on the issues.
Happy 4th to you & yours!
I worry about the Kamala haters in our party.
I’ve heard some say: A vote for Biden is a Vote for Kamala as President and I can’t vote for her.
I just pray they’re a small minority.
Given McConnell’s obstruction, I’m not as confident about the SCOTUS appointments had Hilary Clinton won the electoral college in 2016.
Voting is the solution but given the propaganda purchased by dark money — will enough voters realize that they may have to choose a less than perfect candidate to save our democracy?
Thank you Teri
I did not know there was so much hate in America.
When I grew up in the sixties there seemed to be so much love.
I know there was much wrong, but there seemed to be so much love and wanting to be better.
I did not realize the hateful undercurrents of the conservative movement and their plans to undercut liberal progress and equality for more than white men.
It’s a scary time now, imho.
Thank you for your reasoned analysis.
One of the best pieces I have read that clearly explains the danger to our democracy. It’s the skeptics and the extreme progressives that may be our demise. Just like it was the Hillary haters who elected Trump in the first place. And she was right about every single thing.
I am not a lawyer, so my response to the SCOTUS decisions are filtered through the media’s analysis. But I read the lower court decisions on the 303 Creative case to try to understand how the plaintiff had standing, as well as the focus of the cases. I read the full statement that she wanted to include on her expanded wedding website business. From a layperson’s point of view, if her case was about “freedom of speech,” why couldn’t she have posted her thoughts about marriage, without including the zinger about not creating websites for same-sex couples? Then, anyone looking for her services would be able to determine whether they even wanted to inquire about her services. Let the customer make a decision with their wallet? The lower court rulings seemed so much more thorough in their application of the law in determining why they denied her the relief she sought, and the appeal to the Supreme Court was made because of the composition of the Court.
Thank you for your analysis of law for laypersons. I try to read decisions and am fascinated with their complexity, which also makes it more difficult to determine whether the decisions are “activist.” I tend to think that the decisions by this Supreme Court are the actively trying to turn back the clock.
Who in gods name is manning the early warning system? The fact that the evil, armored brown attack truck to get so close to the front entrance, is a colossal breakdown of the entire system. There’s only so much a small, four legged guard dog can do! Now, let’s tighten our collars and get serious.
Can we wait for “the next few cycles” to preserve democracy? What about those who are currently left behind whose ranks are ever expanding thanks to the regressives on this court? Even if the court doesn’t want to destroy democracy, isn’t that the effect of their rulings on nearly everything? POC can’t catch up now, they will be even further behind in 8 or 16 more years. Why won’t biden consider unpacking the court by adding more judges – like some ethical ones.
He can’t do it. Only Congress can do it. The Republicans now control the House and during his first two years, Senema would have been an obstacle.
Your writings clearly inform the lay reader, both positive and pain, while adding that touch of humor desperately needed to maintain Citizens attention direly required to overcome this continuing sedition insurrection and treason against the American People. Thank You for understanding and remembering the goal!
Always making JJ the final word makes me want to read the entire article, even when painful, just so I can see his angelic face!
Thank You!
Thanks, Teri. I hope JJ got treats!
Thanks, Teri! As usual, you have clearly laid out what each of us needs to do to shore up our democracy: get enough voters to reject the GOP and vote in a “blue wave” to roll back their concerted efforts to take us back to a nation by and for White Christian Nationalist men.
I would be interested in your opinion of the possible impact of a single individual on the 2024 election. I was encouraged to learn of the efforts of the outgoing Miss Texas, Averie Bishop, who has been openly opposed to the policies of the GOP-lead legislature in her state. As the first Asian American to serve in the role, she has experienced racism but has responded by using her position to speak to many students in Texas schools, and has 800k+ followers on TikTok. It is my hope that her visibility can inspire her young followers in many other red states to register and vote Democratic. My partner thinks that I am hopelessly naive, given the state of our polarized politics.
Secondly, I would be curious to hear your opinion about whether a reformed Supreme Court might include an Electoral Court, modeled on Brazil’s, which recently ruled that their former Pres Bolzonaro will be barred from running for any elected office for a period of 8 years in response to his assault on the country’s elections system–actions very similar to Trump’s in our country. (Brazil was wise enough to provide for the court in its constitution, which begs the question if it is possible for Congress to create and authorize a new court in reform legislation, or whether this could only be accomplished in the U.S. via a constitutional amendment.)
Your thoughts?
Yes, would love to understand this in greater perspective. Terri thanks again for uour straightforward explanations, it’s incredibly helpful!
That’s awesome. Thanks for doing that. I do things like that when I can in my own area.
I’m not the sharpest pencil in the tin cup but I have seen a direct correlation between the MAGA Movement Republican Party and the rise of the Nazi Party’s in the 1930s. It appears that everyone who opposes Trump and the MAGAs are afraid to see this or at least to talk about it. I understand that the World wants to forget about Hitler and his gang of thugs, but I see history as a way toward learning how we must approach the future. Why have we torn this lesson from the history text of our minds?
I fear for our Democracy!
Re the Stevens book, obviously this is the nightmare scenario. But if you were to speculate, would autocracy take hold nationwide, or just in certain states? And if only in some states, how would that play out nationally?
Seems the Republicans have had a long game strategy for years. Democrats on the other hand appear to be more reactionary. Is there any such thing as a liberal long game strategy to keep our democracy?
You make a good point that states like California will be able to protect its citizens, but should Trump become president, the ramifications are much wider. For example, Putin would get renewed support.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You and I have read entirely different history books. (I can’t even imagine which books you have read to get that idea).
If liberals had no plan or “long game” we’d still be in the era of racial segregation.
I don’t usualy promote my own books, but my biography of Ruth Bader Ginsburg would answer your question.
(If you need a free copy, use the “contact button” on my Bio Page and I will send you a PDF)
I would prefer neither of these two politicians to be candidates for the White House in 2024. Biden is too old with failing health and Harris is not a strong leader. I would like to see another strong choice as the Democratic candidate. Biden has done a great job, but he, like me at 80, is over the hill.
But, if he is the Democrats choice on the ballot, he will have my vote.
My grandfather made it a point to get people of color involved in the Republican Party in Colorado. He thought it was unfair for towns that were half-Latino to be represented by all-white governments. So he scouted BIPOC to be groomed for office within the Republican Party. When he died in the late 90s, every Republican politician came to his funeral, and they were a diverse crowd.
All that progress has been reversed. My grandfather’s legacy has been erased. All I can say is that in my grandfather’s day, someone like Boebert would not have been allowed to run, let alone win office.
Sounds like your grandfather, like Stuart Stevens, would be heartbroken to see what the Republican Party has become.
Thanks, Teri for pointing out some very simple things that most of the media fails to make clear — For one, if Trump is convicted of all his 70 something charges, he could still be allowed to be president. Such an important point and most media do not just simply state that clearly. They assume you know. (Unless everyone else but me understood that!)
Thanks for the clarity
Right. The Constitution sets out who becomes president, how and when. The Constitution does not contain an exception for people convicted of felons, which would be a terrible idea anyway because it would encourage state prosecutors to engage in political prosecutions.
The only one I wondered about is Kavanagh. There honestly seems to be something underhanded and possibly illegal that happened there to get him that seat.
Thank you, Teri, for another enlightening article! You have mentioned in past articles that getting rid of the authoritarians and Trump will require a political (ballot box) solution, not a legal solution. This is becoming more obvious now that we unfortunately are seeing a direct correlation between Trump’s criminality (with resulting indictments) and his increasing popularity as a candidate for 2024. It’s hard to make sense of what’s happening in any other way. My concern is that the effectiveness of the ballot box as a solution is being compromised by propaganda, gerrymandering, GOP’s making voting more difficult, tens of thousands of voter registrations being purged from state systems, and so on. Propaganda and “alternative facts” will increase votes for GOP candidates and decrease votes for Democrat candidates. I still have to believe that Trump being convicted and jailed would put a damper on GOP votes for him. But I still believe voting is the most important factor, or else I wouldn’t spend hours of volunteer time writing postcards and letters to encourage prospective voters all over the country!
I agree.
Question Teri.
Worst case scenario: the authoritarians win. One thing I’ve noticed is that there is infighting within the GOP. And if they fully took over in an authoritarian gov’t, I foresee a problem for them. Right now, the Catholics & the Evangelicals have lined up together. Given that hard core Evangelicals – the Christian Nationalists who have thrown in for Trump – generally argue that Catholics ‘aren’t real Christians,’ how can that be used to draw a wedge between them? Will they self destruct?
You’ve written about Pinochet & Chile & how that country defeated him. I’m wondering if there is an answer to my question within that.
The Supreme Court has handed gerrymandering a few blows. They have been (mmostly) ruling against GOP gerrymandering, so the Democrats will pick up a few seats.
I agree with you that all of this should hurt Trump in the general election. The only concern right now (as I understand it from political operatives) is a third party spoiler candidate taking votes from the Democrats.
Also, blue states will be punished using every means that a right-wing autocratic federal government can exercise. Trump already tried to punish California by withholding federal disaster relief for wildfires, and the Trump administration also messed with blue states’ attempts to provide PPE and other equipment for healthcare workers during the worst of the Covid crisis. All that is just a small taste of what a far-right GOP administration would do if given power again.
That’s why it can’t happen.
Any GOP presidential candidate will be running on a mandate to overturn rule of law, literally.
Another great post, Teri. I feel sorry for all the Liberals or Independents who may have voted for Trump in 2016 because of all of Hillary’s “baggage” or thought “her emails” were akin to the Third Reich somehow.
If you feel that Joe Biden is too old or feeble (remember he’s fighting a stuttering problem) then may the gods help us.
Vote correctly. Please.
R
Excellent response.
Why do people persist with these vague accusations?
Bob Nixon: take a closer look at Nancy Pelosi and tell me more about how Democrats don’t have any long game strategy.
The thing about Democrats is that they get elected by a coalition of allies who don’t always behave in aligned ways. And yes, segments of that broad alliance can behave in reactionary ways.
Two examples: Trans activists have been stigmatized & marginalized,, so when the GOP uses them as a punching bag to win a few votes by scaring grammas and grandpas & worried parents, their trauma histories can contribute to them sometimes behaving in a reactionary way that doesn’t seem smart politically. Or the Black church ladies leaned hard their entire lives into the support church offers, so they protest at the DMV to deny my gay kid the right to marry a man that he loves. Inconsistent, right?
That doesn’t mean there are no strategists looking at the long game.
Check out representUS for the basic strategy. And maybe pick up an oar and start rowing instead of remarking on how people who ARE working hard for progress in this country are such poor strategists.
> Poof.
He still has a jury “nullification” defense, tho.
I also grew up in the 1960s. Recall the movie “Easy Rider”, one of the better films about that era. It’s timeless in the sense that the film’s heroes were gunned down by exactly the same things we’re talking about today.
Teri
I always look forward to your weekly blog updates.
For those who think that the fear of autocracy is overdone, it can’t happen here, I suggest watching the miniseries, The Plot Against America. It was on HBO and is now available in libraries. The alternative history has Charles Lindberg winning the election just before WW-II.
“the only hope for the Republican Party is for it to suffer crushing defeat after crushing defeat so that it is forced to confront its failures.”
I keep saying over and over — and I will continue saying it over and over — #TheRepublicanPartyMustDie
It must be crushed once and for all and another second party must arise. I say this because this is absolutely *NOT* a fluke of the last 7 years. The party incorporated the attitude of party-before-country by 1968 at the latest (treason in Paris and the Southern Project, both). If you don’t believe a random person on the internet, how about David Corn?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/09/it-didnt-start-with-trump-the-decades-long-saga-of-how-the-gop-went-crazy/
I think this person means that the democrats ignored local politics for years and allowed the right to take over state legislatures, paving the way for the gerrymandering that has been the outcome of the redrawing of lines by republican state legislatures. There is no arguing that the democrats were asleep at the wheel and it will take years for that situation to change, if it ever does. But I hope we learned from the 2016 election that third parties (Jill Stein) and petty revenge make a huge difference. Vote. Biden is doing a great job and I am powerfully sick of hearing about his age.
The Senate *remains* an obstacle. You must have 50 votes + the veep to change rules. We only have at most 49. Manchin and Sinema do not count. To fix this mess, we absolutely must have, next term:
* Dem majority in the House
* 50 Senators who understand the gravity of the situation, plus Manchin and Sinema must be gone
* A Dem president
Again, Teri Kanefield = National Treasure. I have learned so much from you these past several years, and have gotten actively involved in the fight for democracy as a result. In other good news, my 83-year-old mother has joined the fight as well. She writes Postcards To Voters with a group of like-minded friends and can also occasionally be found calling her senators and representative to share her thoughts on important matters. I’m grateful to you, Teri.
I agree, St Terry. My husband and I visited Berlin and the detailed history provided in the Topography of Terror was eye-opening. Heather Cox Richardson, Teri Kanefield, and others have filled in major gaps in my education about history, rule of law, and how government works.
Your big question is why. Why did Ron DeSantis reject the AP curriculum for Black History? Why does Clarence Thomas argue that America’s founding documents are colorblind? Why are people who oppose Trump & MAGAs afraid to talk about prior examples of the slide from democracy to autocracy?
Our current GOP has actively made the choice to try to impose minority rule on the rest of the country in the face of overwhelming evidence they are out of step with public sentiment. They don’t care. They have a plan for authoritarian rule and are implementing the plan. Relentlessly. It’s an unholy alliance of plutocrats and politicians who want power—faced only by a teeming crowd of barely educated voters who delude themselves into thinking “it won’t get that bad for me.” Or, tell themselves, “everything is fine, what’s the fuss about?” Or, “I’m voting for RFK … and I’m a wise and informed voter who understands how all of this works and is interested in exactly ZERO of what you have to say.”
Lots of us ARE talking about it. And a helluva lot of other people don’t want to hear it. I literally got an email from my neighborhood book club telling me (us, but I was the only one doing it) that religion and politics were off limits in our discussions. Even though they picked a book like Newsroom Confidential and the discussion landed on the SAME DAY as the Fox-Dominion lawsuit settlement.
Re young voters registering and voting for Dems, in the 2022 midterms, “(Y)oung voters showed strong Democratic preferences, which contributed to the party’s better-than-expected performance in House, Senate, and select gubernatorial races” (Brookings.edu). Most analysts think that the abortion issue was the top motivation. Given the legislation restricting abortion the Republican-controlled state legislatures and governors are currently pursuing, and some of the R primary candidates running on those restrictions, I expect that issue will continue for young voters.
So I think your partner is wrong. We were higly polarized in 2022 and the Dems won way more than almost any pundit predicted. I live in CA, but I have family in IL, and I plan to canvass for Biden in southern WI – one of the four swing states that will decide the election. And continue donating some more to the Biden campaign to help them in the other three swing states.
Then they’re giving Trump their vote. Do they understand that?
Thank you for telling me this!
Other infighting in the GOP: Rep. Greene called Rep. Boebert the b-word. The divided party always loses the presidency. (See the Dems in 1980, when Ted Kennedy ran against the incumbent Carter in the primary.) So the more division they have now, the better to ward off their win in 2024.
Bless you for your volunteer efforts!
IF Manchin runs again, it will be a tossup, according to the venerable Cook Report. (That’s as of May 3rd. Their assessments will change between now and the election.) If he doesn’t, I doubt whoever takes his place as the Dem candidate could win, since only a third of registered voters are Democrats. If he runs, he has to be supported if you want to ward off an R-controlled Senate.
Sinema is also on the ballot for ’24 and that race is also considered a toss up. . She’s an I. The likely (at this point) Dem candidate is Rep. Ruben Gallego. So you should support him too.
Teri, I just ordered your upcoming book. Looking forward especially to the tools for defending and restoring truth. The second most important thing we have to do after keeping Trump out of the White House.
I read somewhere (might have been one of Stanley Coren’s books) that the reason the dogs HATE posties, UPS, etc., is that they perceive the leaving of articles as an invasion of THEIR territory, because of all the smells of other people on the letters/parcels. So ‘How dare they!!’ is an appropriate response. It makes sense to me. One time my otherwise completely chill dog lost her mind while riding in my van when a Post Office guy in uniform crossed the street in front of us. I was so shocked at her reaction, but later when I read that explanation, it made sense.
@Ande, your comment about the Niemoller quote reminds me of this essay I came across. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1603069956052107267.html
The author explains that there is more to the poem.
Steven’s enumeration of the “problems” understates “republicans lies,” in my opinion. There is a concerted, organized mechanism to promote conservative values in American society in the right wing media. They deliberately and openly (looking at you, Steve Bannon) push republican talking points in order to sway public opinion and elections. They may not be centralized (granted, Faux News, Breitfart, Onanism are competing organizations) but they don’t have to be if they agree and act on the same principles and goals: to radicalize a portion of the viewing population.
It’s authoritarian. It’s analog is the propaganda of Josef Goebbels in nazi Germany. And it’s goal is to make ordinary citizens think their property, their children, or their values are under threat from their fellow citizens. It drives public opinion, normalizes radical behavior, and is designed to shift the Overton window toward the views of a plutocratic minority.
They were all confirmed by the Senate, so no impeachment will happen. I agree with Teri that the court should be expanded, but the Democrats would have to win the presidency, the House, and the Senate. In 2024, winning the Senate will be a huge task.
Not adversarial…have to say as a person in the midst of seeking to learn more of what I didn’t-dont’t know/understand abt Constitution, Federal & States rights, etc and attempting to apply logic (not my strongest strength) to what I learn, it didn’t make sense to me/seemed incongruent that it would be illegal for convicted felons to vote in Federal elections, but not for a convicted felon to become President. I wonder if a lot of other people were making same association (I think we should probably have TWO years of US History in High School, one entirely focused on Constitution & Bill of Rights; States Rights, etc). I’m glad I read the comments & your response–now know/& understand that it isn’t an incongruence, it DOES make sense b/c it blocks interested parties from staging political prosecutions as a means of controlling political opponents. (I also vaguely remembered Spiro Agnew had had to leave office due to criminal activity & I mistakenly conflated the two different scenarios.)
I think we need to rewire our message. Instead of focusing on the negative energy constantly streaming from the Republican party, we should hammer home the progress the Democrats have made. Like energies attract – the Democrats will win the next election, they’ll gain more control of the House and Senate. Whether or not we KNOW it is beside the point. To send that message out again and again, reminding people there is hope is how we will do it.
just wait to read the book. He has an entire chapter devoted to this
Really appreciate the work you do here. I have a question: based on the so-called ‘major quesitons doctrine,” can we expect other kinds of power-grabby made-up “doctrines” to surface on this court in the next few years? And, what’s to keep the right-wing “justices” from setting themselves up as final arbiter of the Executive Branch, literally micro-managing (and invalidating) those policies that don’t pass their billionaire sugar-daddies’ muster? Honestly, what residual faith in the court there is, seems to depend on the notion that a few of the Holy Six are operating in good faith, but I don’t see it. Do you?
Also (and this is asking a lot so feel free to ignore the statement) WHAT specifically would it take, do you think, for the Court to begin restoring Americans’ rights it has summarily removed?
And finally: I too am plagued by those giant brown invaders in the neighborhood. I am barking as loud as I can, and thus far I’ve scared them off. Does JJ have any tips for me?
Yes — thank you for reminding us of the anti-gerrymandering decisions from SCOTUS — that is reassuring. And, there certainly is a scary possibility that there will be a rogue third-party spoiler candidate! That could ruin everything for the Democrats. Unless … Trump decides to run third party out of spite if it turns out he’s not chosen by the GOP to run, after all! A lot can change in the next year! I just read that there is a group of conservative billionaires (!) who are working to make sure that T will not the GOP candidate.
Tried to preorder Stevens’ book on Kindle. Will be looking for another venue for my ebooks. In the meantime I will have to wait to see where we land about the time it’s released. Hoping for a place near Red Bluff this winter. FT RVing doesn’t always follow our plans.
This isn’t an actual comment posting, but rather a statement about I can’t find or know where the Teri Kanefield “Bio Page” and “contact Button” are.
If I could find them, or knew where they are, I’d do whatever is needed with respect to getting a free/used/electroic copy of Stuart Stevens’ book, “The Conspiracy to End America”.
This is becaause I’d REALLY like to read it but don’t have an extra $20 to $30 from my monthly Social Security retirement benefit to spend for it.
Thank you
I’m sure you can order it through a library. Let me know if you have trouble doing that.