You all sent me some great questions. Here we go.
Q: Hello Teri, I saw this one article on Medium that’s engaging in pure fearmongering nonsense by saying the U.S. has “already lost” and because it was written by a guy from Sri Lanka(who was there when the coup happened) it’s getting a depressing amount of prominence in social media so I was wondering if you could personally address this article and counteract all of its blatant falsehoods and ignorance? Since your husband was in Chile during Pinochet’s tenure I feel like you’d be the best person to speak out against this kind of doom and gloom nonsense which isn’t remotely helpful to anyone except the GOP and their supporters as it only promotes defeatism.
I didn’t include the link so I don’t give it more exposure.
Here is the basic reasoning:
- A coup in X country was carried out by stupid people and was considered a clown show.
- The coup in X country succeeded.
- Trump’s attempted coup is being carried out by stupid people and it’s treated like a clownshow.
- Therefore: Trump’s Coup will succeed (or has succeeded)
Problem #1: The conditions in the United States in 2020 are not the same as conditions in Sri Lanka, or, say, when Pinochet pulled off his coup, or when the Bolsheviks had their Revolution.
See this post about the Big Bang theory of democracy.
Problem #2: The reasoning is faulty. It wasn’t the stupidity of the actors that allowed the coup to succeed: it was other factors.
I have seen smart people on Twitter basically argue this, including people who should know better.
Problem #3: How “coup” is being defined. In this article, “coup” is defined as an elected official overstepping his power, and basically “cutting” (the meaning of coup) into the democracy.
Trump has been overstepping his power since he came to office. Moreover, most presidents have (in one way or another) used their power in ways that stretch the limits of their authority. Did you know that Lincoln suspended writ of habeas corpus? By the definition in that article, Lincoln pulled off a successful “coup.” (He angered a lot of people who called him a tyrant, and he violated the constitution. But a coup? No.)
Now, there is a way that the current coup is succeeding: It is spreading disinformation and causing a larger split between people who are in touch with reality and those who are not.
The real danger is disinformation, and people choosing “alternate” news sources. Democracy is based on rule of law, and rule of law requires truth, or a shared factuality. It requires what social scientists call the public sphere–the place where citizens discuss ideas. When the social sphere becomes too badly damaged, democracy becomes impossible.
Similarly, too much income inequality makes democracy impossible, and right now, the US is approaching dangerous levels of income inequality.
We’re approaching the level of income inequality we had in the 1920s. The Republican Party is doing everything they can to tip us even farther, which would create what Heather Cox Richardson calls our third oligarchy (the first was slavery, the second the age of robber barons).
Trump’s coup will not succeed. He will not stay in office.
The real danger to Democracy comes if the Republicans keep control of the Senate and then expand their power in 2022. They will continue to push policies that make the rich richer, and give too much power to too few individuals. That’s how democracy might die– slowly, by strangulation.
Q: I just read the article 2020 Election – How Trump’s Stupid Lawsuits Could (and should) Backfire on the GOP. A very interesting article.
However, I am left wondering if it misses the point of these Stupid Lawsuits?
That is, perhaps the only purpose is to create noise and advertising to convince guillible folks to donate to “Legal Defence” funds.
The Grifter & Family can then milk these funds. Legal credibility or outcome is irrelevant.
I’m pretty sure the point of the lawsuits is that Trump believed they would work. Why not? This sort of thing has always worked for him.
My guess is that Trump isn’t stalling, or positioning himself to exit in exchange for a pardon. He thought he’d be able to pull the levers and pressure and strong-arm people and remain in the White House.
I suspect he’s shocked that it isn’t working.
As it became clear it wouldn’t work, his lawsuits turned into a way for him to retain power after he’s out of office by maintaining control over his base of voters.
Q: The Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body of 100 people. Why does one person—the majority leader— have so much power that legislative decisions, judicial appointment confirmations, etc. are decided by him alone. It is apparently a deliberative body of one person when it comes to saying no.
The Senate can decide how it structures itself. The Constitution leaves it up to each House of Congress to structure its own rules. The fact that McConnell has so much power over the Senate is more about the nature of people on the far right: They tend to fall in line. They get behind a leader.
Democrats (and left-leaning people in general) tend to splinter. They tend to be more individualist. If you put 5 Democrats into a room, you’re likely to end up with 10 opinions.
Fascists by nature fall into lock step. They like uniforms. They like simple messaging.
I’ve written about this at length elsewhere. See, for example, this post about how a diverse party makes messaging complicated, while a party that represents the interests of a narrowly defined group (whites who prefer a hierarchy) has an easier time with messaging and maintaining order among their ranks.
Q: In the US legal system are there consequences (i.e. fines at least?) for those who bringing completely frivolous or vexatious cases before the court?
They can be sanctioned and disbarred. Some states allow an action to be brought against a lawyer who is bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Ordinarily, lawyers get in trouble when a court gets annoyed. Because these lawyers are representing the President of the United States, they’re probably getting some slack.
The way to get in trouble with the bar association is when someone files a complaint. Like this:
Q: You wrote this: “I suspect Trump’s insistence that there is rampant fraud in Georgia will keep Republicans home.”
I don’t understand — why? Are you distinguishing here between Republicans and Trumpists?
What I meant was this: If you tell people that elections can be easily rigged, they’re likely to stay at home. Why vote, if your vote won’t count?
This was my beef before the election with election “gurus” insisting that Georgia’s machines can be easily hacked. In fact, if you’ve followed me for a while, you know I’ve tried to persuade people that in fact, the changes put in place by court order since 2018 have made the Georgia machines secure. It was a losing battle. Left-leaning Twitter insisted that the Georgia machines are insecure and a disaster waiting to happen.
Ironically, it was Trump who suppressed the vote in Georgia by telling people that mail-in ballots are fraudulent. Georgia secretary of state Raffensperger said that Trump lost the general election in Georgia because so many Republicans who voted absentee in the primaries didn’t vote in the general election. Raffensperger literally said the Republican ‘absentee’ vote didn’t vote.
If Trump keeps insisting that there is rampant fraud in elections, people who believe everything he says will be less likely to vote.
(As it turned out, the manual recount in Georgia showed that the machines were, in fact, secure.)
And check this out:
American in Germany here. Needless to say, watching the after Election Day circus is almost as distressing and maddening as the last four years! It is clear that the Biden camp has won the election fair and square. Trump continues to try to turn over results without any success. But in his state of denial, Trump continues to mislead the country thereby putting into question the entire voting process. He’s behaving like an dragon in a bookstore torching everything in sight and making irrational decisions putting the country in a very compromised/dangerous position. Searching for ways to create more havoc, as if there weren’t enough, including the withdrawal of troops in Afghan and Iraq and looking into a possible strike on Iran. Could he be forcibly removed for the sake of the nation, since it is very obvious that what he is doing is based on revenge and not logic? He is definitely a greater danger now than ever.
There are only two ways to remove a sitting president (1) impeachment and removal and (2) if he goes into a coma or undergoes surgery or is otherwise not capable of performing the duties. Both options require the Senate to be on board. It has occurred to me that the House should impeach him again, but as a practical matter, there isn’t time.
I’ve read “opinions” that a President can be impeached even after leaving office, and that as a result, there would/could be a domino effect that would lead to a complete loss of lifetime benefits normally received by outgoing Presidents. It may even result in (or make easier) the reversal of policies and even some appointments made by the impeached former President. Is ANY of that true?
A president cannot be impeached after he leaves office. Impeachment is one step toward removal. Impeachment also doesn’t result in reversal of policies or undoing appointments.
Should Trump pardon himself, wouldn’t that be an admission he was guilty.
I’m pretty sure he can’t get away with self-pardon, but if he tried it, he’d frame it as a way to protect himself from political harassment.
Q: Is there a way for the Biden Transition Team to force the release of funds? Can they circumvent trump and talk to members of the WH staff about the transition? It seems odd that one woman in the GSA can hold up everything and threaten peoples’ lives and health.
It would be possible to file for a court order, but doing so takes time. I’m sure the Biden team has weighed options and just decided to work around Trump.
Remember, Biden understand how to do this job. He has access to people who have worked in all corners of a presidential administration. Harris is getting intelligence briefing.
The transition in 2000 didn’t begin until December 12. Yes, the delay is blamed for weakening our defenses against terrorists, but Biden and Harris come to the job with more preparation than George W. in 2000.
The larger question is how the GOP can stand by for this nonsense.
Gerrymandering meant that Republicans did not have to attract moderate voters. Instead, Republican candidates had to worry about challenges from further right. Over time, they became more and more extreme. At the same time, without competition, they fielded increasingly weak candidates, who doubled down on inflammatory rhetoric rather than advancing viable policies.= HCR. Especially the fielding weak candidates part