As we approach an election that will likely deliver an emphatic defeat to the President, two prominent Republican Senators, Ben Sasse and John Cornyn, offered criticism of their party’s leader, but no condemnation of either his campaign to delegitimize the election or his musings about jailing his political opponents (including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden). Washington Republicans refuse to acknowledge these expressions of an increasingly authoritarian chief executive as causes for concern.
Meanwhile, the United States Senate, controlled by a party dominated by a shrinking base — mostly white, mostly men, shrugging off the twin crises of a raging pandemic that is hardly slowing down and a struggling economy months or years away from full recovery, is rushing toward confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court. Why the rush? Ronald Brownstein offers an analysis that puts the issue into context:
The historic number of Americans who stood in long lines to cast their ballot in cities from Atlanta to Houston symbolizes the diverse, urbanized Democratic coalition that will make it very difficult for the GOP to win majority support in elections through the 2020s. That hill will get only steeper as Millennials and Generation Z grow through the decade to become the largest generations in the electorate.
Every young conservative judge that the GOP has stacked onto the federal courts amounts to a sandbag against that rising demographic wave. Trump’s nominations to the Supreme Court of Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Barrett—whom a slim majority of Republican senators appears determined to seat by Election Day—represent the capstone of that strategy. As the nation’s growing racial and religious diversity limits the GOP’s prospects, filling the courts with conservatives constitutes what the Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz calls “the right-wing firewall” against a country evolving electorally away from the party.
Small-d democratic governance is antithetical to the success of the contemporary Republican Party. Voter suppression and gerrymandering are central tenets of the GOP’s electoral strategy, while the party has come to rely on the courts to stifle the aspirations of a burgeoning American majority.
(Image of Donald Trump intoning, “Lock ’em all up,” from WZZM13 on YouTube.)
Describing (on day two) what was happening at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing as comparable to a puppet theater, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse offered a backgrounder on “a $250 million dark money operation” that led to the Amy Coney Barrett nomination.
He jabs three Republican members of the committee, Senators Chuck Grassley, Ted Cruz, and Chairman Lindsey Graham, as well as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for their “hard-to-explain hypocrisy” (though, of course, unprincipled political opportunism and the embrace of raw political power is not all that hard to explain). He also punctures the charade that Republicans have performed each day at the hearing: that Democrats’ attention to Roe v. Wade, Obergefell, and numerous Obamacare cases is inexplicable, since Amy Coney Barrett has pledged to rule fairly, without any bias except a commitment to the letter of the law, in whichever cases she is presented with as a justice.
Senator Whitehouse and his colleagues know that the idea of Barrett as a blank slate is ludicrous, no matter how much Republicans pretend otherwise. These cases have been in the crosshairs of the conservative legal movement, the party’s conservative evangelical base, and Republican elected officials since each of the respective SCOTUS rulings were handed down. The right to abortion, to gay marriage, to affordable healthcare — even when one has preconditions that before the ACA would have precluded having health insurance — are at stake.
In each case, the GOP has fought fiercely to overturn the ‘liberal’ rulings, yet in the hearings this week, Republican senators appeared baffled at the idea that somehow confirming the Notre Dame professor as a justice would lead to any reversals, much less any real world consequences. But of course, Professor Barrett was chosen because there is in her record virtually no wavering from the party line — championed with immense infusions of corporate dollars — on any of these issues (or any others to which the GOP and its donor base are committed).
While illustrating the connections between deep-pocketed right-wing foundations, huge corporations, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Judicial Crisis Network, the Federalist Society, and the Trump White House, the senator explained the “scheme with the same funders selecting judges, funding campaigns for the judges, and then showing up in court in these orchestrated amicus flotillas to tell the judges what to do.”
The lesson on a very impressive, highly successful decades-long campaign by corporate interests to capture the federal courts is much more illuminating than 28 minutes of Q & A with the nominee would have been.
The transcript is available from the Center for Media and Democracy, but it’s worthwhile to watch the presentation, which included helpful visual aids.
The opening statements of Senators Kamala Harris, Sheldon Whitehouse, Any Klobuchar, Chris Coons, and Cory Booker on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. [Editor’s choice.]
(Image: Senator Whitehouse invokes Senator Cornyn via PBS on YouTube.)
We can’t let ’em cheat. We can’t let ’em. . . .Our country is at stake . . . Our country is at stake, because these people will destroy our country. We can’t let this happen. And this is a scam. They know it, the media knows it, but the media doesn’t wanna cover it. They know exactly what’s going to happen and so do I. But the Democrats know better than all of us what’s gonna happen.”
We wanna have — get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very trans — you’ll have a very peaceful — There won’t be a transfer, frankly. There’ll be a continuation. The ballots out of control. You know it. And you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it better than anybody else.”
The relentless campaign to deny the integrity of the upcoming election is part of a larger Republican plan, set out in plain sight, to throw the election to Donald Trump.
In How Democracies Die, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt describe the informal rules or norms that serve as the guardrails of our democracy, forestalling a democratic breakdown – and a Republican Party more than willing to plow through those guardrails to gain political advantage. As the authors explain, “political leaders, and especially political parties,” play the critical roles in preserving democracy. The GOP has shunned this role.
Nearly two decades after the ascendency of Newt Gingrich, after Bush v. Gore, and half a dozen years after publication of Mann and Ornstein’s It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, no political observer in 2018 (when How Democracies Die was published) could have been surprised by the indictment of the pre-Trump GOP, and not simply of the party since Trump’s takeover.
The book, which I read in early 2019, is a warning to small-d democrats. I regarded the warning as less urgent, and the threat as less imminent, on that first reading than I do now. I recognized then that the Republican Party continued to trash democratic norms and that Trump had pushed the GOP even further off the rails, but I believed that our institutions would protect us. We were safe from the worst. We would vote Trump out of office, just as we had rejected the Republican majority in the House in November 2018.
But the Republican Party has become increasingly extreme with each year of the Trump presidency. So, the passages that I regarded as perceptive observations have become alarming portents. As our country loses prestige and influence abroad, and as the chaos at home betrays our image as the world’s greatest democracy, our democratic institutions appear less robust than they did even a short time ago.
Shockingly, today the United States of America doesn’t seem a world away from Venezuela, Turkey, or Hungary (to cite a few of the countries discussed in How Democracies Die where people still cast ballots, but authoritarians rule). The threat of a free and fair election — offering a judgment on Donald Trump’s presidency — being subverted so Trump can stay in office regardless of the will of American voters is right upon us, here and now in 2020.
Recognition of this impending threat has come in stages.
On August 19, election-law expert Richard Hasen wrote about the broad Republican strategy:
After reports from NPR and the Washington Post (on August 22 and 23, respectively) that upwards of 500,000 mail-in ballots had been disqualified in the Wisconsin primary jolted me, on August 24 I posted, “Democrats desperately need a Plan B.” If a half million votes could be lost in a single primary, maximal Republican interference in multiple states in a general election could be much more consequential. The GOP is preparing to pull out all the stops to prevent votes from being counted (the successful strategy in Florida in 2000), so Trump doesn’t face a reckoning.
By September 10, when Ronald Brownstein wrote the essay, “Democrats Won’t Cede the Streets This Time,” the previously fantastical idea (an authoritarian leader subverting a free and fair election in the U.S.A.) was widely anticipated. Not only did Democrats expect Trump to try to steal the election, they expected Republicans to employ shock troops (as they had in the well-orchestrated Brooks Brothers’ riot of 2000) to intimidate officials responsible for tabulating votes.
Hasen’s assessment now is that the Republican Party’s plan — to muck up the works and then, when bedlam breaks out, disregard the voters and declare Trump the winner — is “a five-alarm fire” that threatens democratic rule:
I initially shrugged off Trump’s attacks on the credibility of the election because he had done the same thing in 2016 — even after winning (when he claimed that 3 to 5 million illegal votes had been cast, unfairly depriving him of a popular vote victory). I regarded the continuing crusade as just blather and bluster. (And it would be were it not for the complicity of the Republican Party and its leadership.)
I shrugged off Trump’s tweets about postponing the November 3 election, which I took as evidence of his insecurity (after consistently trailing Joe Biden in public polling for more than a year) and his ignorance (of the structure of our governing institutions). Moving the date of the election was not a viable possibility — and so not the way to steal an election.
I never regarded as likely the suggestion that Trump would lose the election, but refuse to budge from the White House. That’s not where the threat lies, as Barton Gellman explains:
A lot of people, including Joe Biden, the Democratic Party nominee, have misconceived the nature of the threat. They frame it as a concern, unthinkable for presidents past, that Trump might refuse to vacate the Oval Office if he loses. They generally conclude, as Biden has, that in that event the proper authorities “will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.”
Trump’s state and national legal teams are already laying the groundwork for postelection maneuvers that would circumvent the results of the vote count in battleground states. Ambiguities in the Constitution and logic bombs in the Electoral Count Act make it possible to extend the dispute all the way to Inauguration Day, which would bring the nation to a precipice. The Twentieth Amendment is crystal clear that the president’s term in office “shall end” at noon on January 20, but two men could show up to be sworn in. One of them would arrive with all the tools and power of the presidency already in hand.
The linchpin: “if his Republican allies play the parts he assigns them.” Trump is Trump. He sends signals. It is his Republican allies — in Congress, on Fox News Channel, in a handful of legislatures and statehouses across the country, and at the Supreme Court — that could pull off the heist.
The Republican Party has moved unwaveringly toward a fulsome embrace of Trump’s authoritarian impulses. At every fork in the road — whether to enable Trump’s authoritarian incursions or to take a principled stand to defend democratic institutions — Republicans in the House and the Senate have chosen the former.
Consider 2020; that is, just the past nine months:
Apart from Mitt Romney (who acknowledges that he has no followers in today’s GOP), Republicans in both the House and the Senate were unanimous in refusing to hold Donald Trump accountable for his shakedown of Ukraine’s President Zelensky. This was a choice. The rejection of principle, in favor of raw political power, with the recent Supreme Court vacancy was a choice. The loudest voices among Washington Republicans have reinforced Trump’s campaign to delegitimize the election; other Republicans remain silent (implicitly standing behind Trump). Everyone — the vocal and the mute — has made a choice. Finally, the namby-pamby statements after Trump’s rejection of the principle of a peaceful transition represent a choice. (Not that a more definitive rejection from today’s Republicans, while still weeks away from the election, would count for much.)
The Republican Party has rejected Congressional oversight, Constitutional checks and balances, the rule of law, the sanctity of the vote and of democratic elections, conservative principles and policy commitments, and much else where this president is concerned. The party has collectively made choice after choice to go all-in with Trump wherever he has led.
In my August 24 post, I raised this question:
But — stop and consider for just a moment all that we’ve witnessed over the past three and a half years — are there any grounds to believe that, say, Mitch McConnell would object to a transparent theft of the election if he thought that he could get away with it?
I would not have thought to write those paragraphs at the beginning of the year, much less in early 2019, after first reading How Democracies Die. Even understanding that the GOP was an insurgent outlier, which employed voter suppression as a primary electoral strategy, I would have regarded this contingency as a bridge too far. But here we are.
I’ve written more than once about the go-to play in the Republican Party’s game plan, which Steve Bannon described as “to flood the zone with shit.” Republicans in Washington and state capitals, on FNC and talk radio, in social media and on the streets are always prepared to flood the zone with shit. Lies, conspiracy theories, denials, misdirection, and ceaseless vilification: that’s the route to creating chaos. Republicans are amply prepared to follow their authoritarian leader if, when push to comes to shove, they think they can get away with it.
Near the beginning of Donald Trump’s term, Levitsky and Ziblatt wrote:
We know that extremist demagogues emerge from time to time in all societies, even in healthy democracies. The United States has had its share . . . . An essential test for democracies is not whether such figures emerge but whether political leaders, and especially political parties, work to prevent them from gaining power in the first place—by keeping them off mainstream party tickets, refusing to endorse or align with them, and when necessary, making common cause with rivals in support of democratic candidates. Isolating popular extremists requires political courage. But when fear, opportunism, or miscalculation leads established parties to bring extremists into the mainstream, democracy is imperiled.
Once a would-be authoritarian makes it to power, democracies face a second critical test: Will the autocratic leader subvert democratic institutions or be constrained by them? Institutions alone are not enough to rein in elected autocrats. Constitutions must be defended—by political parties and organized citizens, but also by democratic norms. Without robust norms, constitutional checks and balances do not serve as the bulwarks of democracy we imagine them to be. Institutions become political weapons, wielded forcefully by those who control them against those who do not. This is how elected autocrats subvert democracy—packing and “weaponizing” the courts and other neutral agencies, buying off the media and the private sector (or bullying them into silence), and renewing the rules of politics to tilt the playing field against opponents. The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it.
Thus far, choice by choice, the Republican Party has failed both critical tests.
The authoritarian threat — as the country’s November election approaches — is nearer, more imminent than I had imagined just months ago. Killing democratic rule is not just an exotic foreign affair, it’s something that could happen here. The contemporary Republican Party has a plan for stealing the 2020 American election — if only a viable opportunity presents itself. It is up to democrats (and Democrats) to make sure that tabulated ballots, not chaos and chicanery triumph.
I. Does Joe Biden take office on January 20 with a united Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate?
I’m not a political strategist or a pollster. I don’t know how the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the machinations of Mitch McConnell, the calculations of Republican Senators, or whatever Joe Biden and Democrats do or say will affect the outcome of the November 3 election.
But whether or not McConnell succeeds in seating a Trump nominee between now and January isn’t as significant as what happens after January 20.
If McConnell’s gambit fails (and a Trump nominee isn’t confirmed), if Joe Biden is elected and takes office, and if Chuck Schumer becomes the majority leader, then Joe Biden will name the justice to replace Ginsburg. If McConnell corrals Republicans to confirm Trump’s nominee, if Joe Biden is elected and takes office, and if Chuck Schumer becomes majority leader, Democrats will be in a position to increase the size of the Supreme Court to 13.
What’s constant: Biden must win and Democrats must control the U.S. Senate. This is a high stakes election. Nothing has changed with the passing of an extraordinary woman with a monumental legal legacy.
II. A separate point: There is a downside to increasing the size of the Supreme Court.
The move would hardly be unprecedented, nor would it be unjustified, as Edwin Chemerinsky notes:
One way for Democrats to make clear they will not tolerate Republicans trying to fill this seat in advance of the election would be for them to pledge that, if they take the White House and Senate in November, they will increase the size of the Supreme Court to 13 justices.
The number of justices on the court is set by federal law, not the Constitution. Since its beginnings, it has ranged from having between five and 10 members. Since the 1860s, it has remained at nine.
When President Franklin Roosevelt suggested expanding the Supreme Court in the 1930s to overcome court hostility to the New Deal, he was repudiated for trying to pack the court. But the current situation is different. This would be a response to chicanery by Republicans.
What happened with Garland’s nomination was unprecedented, and Democrats rightly believe it was a stolen seat. After Scalia’s death in February 2016, President Obama moved quickly, nominating Garland the next month.
But such a move would pose a risk to democratic governance, as we learn in Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s book, How Democracies Die. They warn (in Chapter 9) regarding a familiar Democratic activists’ refrain:
In our view, the idea that Democrats “fight like Republicans” is misguided. First of all, evidence from other countries suggests that such a strategy often plays directly into the hands of authoritarians. . . .
And (to cite their admonition regarding impeachment to make a more general point):
Even if Democrats were to succeed in weakening or removing President Trump via hardball tactics, their victory would be Pyrrhic—for they would inherit a democracy stripped of its remaining protective guardrails.
I get it. But in 2020, two years after publication of How Democracies Die, it’s past time to escalate the fight. Trump and the Republican party have trashed way too many guardrails to overlook. And as Trump has become more aggressively authoritarian, we have learned that for Washington Republicans no outrage is too great to accept. Their only calculation is purest power politics with no allegiance to democratic norms or values. The only reasonable option for Democrats (and democrats) is to push back within Constitutional restraints — even if it’s necessary to make basic changes, where there was formerly bipartisan agreement (such as the size of the Supreme Court or the number of states in the union).
We are here because of the Republican party’s increasing unwillingness to accept limits on political action. To up the ante on that tendency, to meet it, is itself a grave threat to democratic governance. But an even graver threat is to remove any mechanism of consequences or accountability. Then there is truly no limit or disincentive to corruption, law breaking and bad action. That reality is precisely the one in which we currently find ourselves.
Donald Trump’s Attorney General, Bill Barr, spoke at Hillsdale College yesterday. While his remarks on numerous themes drew a great deal of attention, Dahlia Lithwick focuses on his continuing attempts — with Trump — to undermine confidence in balloting on November 3 (“Bill Barr Would Like to Undermine Your Faith in the Election”).
Barr, like Trump, is no longer content to blame foreigners and malign faceless vote tamperers. He also warned Kass that greedy mail carriers were apt to get in on the action: “A secret vote prevents selling and buying votes. So now we’re back in the business of selling and buying votes. Capricious distribution of ballots means (ballot) harvesting, undue influence, outright coercion, paying off a postman, here’s a few hundred dollars, give me some of your ballots.” Just to recap, then: Your mail-in ballot is unsafe because foreigners want to forge it, Democratic governors want to steal it, antifa operatives plan to harvest it, oh, and Dot, your friendly neighborhood letter carrier will also gladly break the law in order to sell it. This narrative need not be provable or coherent; it’s enough that it’s rinsed and repeated on a near-daily basis in the media.
What Barr is actually performing here is the time-honored, Bannon-christened, Putin-sanctioned electoral practice known formally as flooding the zone with shit. What he wants most of all is for voters to doubt the capacity for the November election to be conducted fairly. That is why he told Blitzer that any effort to make voting safer in the midst of a pandemic—and of course that’s what the push for mail-in balloting was attempting to redress—is by definition tantamount to “playing with fire.” Under the pretense of concern for voter confidence, Barr jowlishly invents one reason after another to undermine it. . . .
Barr’s philosophy of the Justice Department is functionally indistinguishable from Donald Trump’s. The main difference is the level of sophistication in which they are expressed. Trump’s view is summarized by his aphorism “The other side is where there are crimes” — which is to say, by definition, Trump and his allies are innocent and whatever his opponents are doing is illegal. It’s either “lock her up!” or “dirty cops!,” depending on which party is at issue. Barr’s theories have multisyllabic terms and are decorated with historical references but boil down to the same two-track approach to justice.
Bill Barr is the Attorney General Donald Trump has long sought. Trump complained to Don McGahn [as quoted in the Mueller Report, v. II, p. 50], “I don’t have a lawyer,” and expressed the wish that Roy Cohn were his attorney.
Bill Barr will go to any lengths — will “invent one reason after another” and employ “multisyllabic terms that are decorated with historical references” — to do Trump’s bidding.
Last month, election expert Richard Hasen assured us that “there is still time to keep the presidential election fair.” Of course time is not the limiting factor. Noting Donald Trump’s attacks on the integrity of voting and unsupported GOP claims of voting fraud, including a “particularly ludicrous” scenario that Bill Barr has raised repeatedly, Hasen offers several steps to ensure a free and fair election.
For Congress: offer funding for the states to cover the additional costs of running an election during a raging pandemic. “This should not be a partisan issue,” he writes, though of course it is. Congress could also provide oversight of the Postmaster General to ensure that no measures impair mail delivery prior to the election. But if Mitch McConnell is opposed, Congress will be stymied.
For the states: implement procedural reforms to ensure a timely and transparent process. Again, a sticking point will be among Republicans in key states in position to block any procedural changes. Nonetheless, Democrats are in charge in some states, while in others, Republican officials are on board with free and fair elections.
For voters: request mail-in ballots soon and vote early.
For the media: educate the public that counting all ballots will take many days, that this is not evidence of fraud, and that no candidate can credibly declare victory before enough votes have been counted to determine a winner.
The media has begun to communicate this message. That’s good news and so are steps that several states have begun to take to streamline the process of voting and tabulating votes.
The bad news is that Congressional funding (and effective oversight of the post office) aren’t on the horizon. And, in some states, there will be few checks on Republicans who are willing to engage in mischief.
In a previous post, I suggested that the fiasco in Florida in 2000 could well be a less ugly version of election larceny headed our way in 2020. Thus, Democrats’ Plan A for voting — encouraging voters to vote by mail — was too vulnerable to the possibility of Republicans stealing another election.
Pennsylvania is a key battleground with a history of voting breakdowns, as Politico reports:
With concerns about an Election Day debacle rising in this critical swing state, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf privately convened a group of Philadelphia Democrats recently to underscore the consequences of another vote-counting fiasco like the one that took place in the June primary.
The city took more than two weeks to count all of its votes due to a massive surge in mail voting amid the coronavirus pandemic — and a repeat performance might make it unclear who won the presidential election in the key battleground state long past Nov. 3.
The fear: if an Electoral College victory hinges on Pennsylvania, and there are hundreds of thousands of ballots yet to be counted, Donald Trump could cry fraud and claim victory. We’ve seen this coming for months. Trump has sought to delegitimize vote by mail, making it more likely that his supporters will vote in person on election day, while Democrats — taking heed of the raging coronavirus — have urged their voters to cast ballots by mail. This raises the possibility that Trump could be ahead in the count in the early morning hours of November 4, while Biden’s winning votes have yet to be totaled. That’s the red mirage [see definition at Chidi’s Corner], which we could see in a number of states across the country.
Even if Trump is behind, he and Fox News Channel will be free to raise a ruckus if votes are being tallied many days later. And of course even if Biden wins and takes office, the outrage and chaos manufactured by Trump and company could be a Trumpian GOP theme throughout the Democratic president’s tenure in the White House.
Hasen has endorsed legislative changes to streamline voting and counting votes. And called on Congress to help fund such efforts. Republicans, who control the Pennsylvania General Assembly, have resisted Democratic Governor Tom Wolf’s proposals to do so. Nor has Congress acted.
Fortunately, a first step of Plan B — free of Republican obstruction — has surfaced in Philadelphia. The nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life has awarded the city a $10 million grant
to help fund upgraded equipment, satellite offices, personal protective equipment and other materials. Wolf has also raised more than $5 million to help municipalities implement mail-in voting and educate voters about their options, said Jeff Sheridan, his political adviser.
City election officials said the additional money puts them in a vastly better position than they were in June. They expect to open at least 800 polling places in Philadelphia in November, compared to fewer than 200 during the primary. Most of the $10 million in nonprofit funding is going toward costly equipment that will enable them to print, sort and scan ballots more quickly, according to the city’s grant agreement.
That’s good news. Here’s hoping funding for free and fair elections surfaces in other states across the country.
I’ve been following American politics since I was teenager in the mid-1960s (that’s 50+ years). I had never before witnessed anything like what we’ve seen during the Trump era, essentially since that golden escalator ride five years ago, but especially during his tenure in the White House.
Trump’s transgressions against democratic institutions and practices, common purpose across our political divides, and a commitment to Constitutional limits and the rule of law have grown increasingly aggressive. The past week has been beyond anything I would have thought likely — certainly not three and a half years ago, but not even early in 2020.
First, there is the torrent of lies from the Republican National Convention. I’ll remark on a prominent theme of the convention later in this post. Limiting our focus now to the whoppers the President told, consider Daniel Dale’s review of Trump’s 70-minute address Thursday night. Definitely worth a listen (20 or so lies and misleading half-truths in 3 1/2 minutes flat):
Indefatigable fact checker, Daniel Dale, reviews many of the lies Trump voiced during his acceptance speech.
That’s one speech, from a man whose lies since taking office total more than 20,000 (as of July 13, 2020).
More troubling than the lies, though, are the chronic violations of law and of customs that have served our nation by nurturing democracy and boosting unity.
Let’s begin with the Hatch Act, which both parties have mostly respected — at least until Trump, and the staging of a television extravaganza with political speeches by Melania and Donald Trump on nights three and four of the Republican National Convention on the south lawn at the White House.
Congressional Democrats, although outraged, were powerless to stop these breaches, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s video endorsement of Trump, convention videos of Trump issuing a pardon and observing a swearing in of immigrants as new citizens, and the other executive branch personnel participating in and preparing for the RNC. Congressional Republicans either murmured mild disapproval or acquiesced in silence. Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was an exception: “Nobody outside of the Beltway really cares. They expect that Donald Trump is going to promote Republican values and they would expect that Barack Obama, when he was in office, that he would do the same for Democrats.”
The Trump administration had long since expressed contempt for this law. Kellyanne Conway had this to say after openly violating the law in spring 2019: “Blah, blah, blah. … If you’re trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it’s not going to work. Let me know when the jail sentence starts.”
Since no president in the 231 year history of our republic has ever commandeered the White House for a political convention in the midst of his campaign for reelection; since no previous president has been so willing to disregard the law, past practice, and democratic values; and since Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced admiration for authoritarian rulers; the spectacle (in the image at the top of this post) brings to mind something more akin to 1930s-era Europe, when democracy was at bay, than to an American reelection campaign.
I promised to return to one theme of Trump’s reelection campaign — a portrayal of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party that presaged a dystopian future. The comments of Congressman Matt Gaetz about the Democrats ware representative:
Kimberly Guilfoyle took a similar tack and added a slam at California:
As a first-generation American, I know how dangerous their Socialist agenda is. My mother, Mercedes, was a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. My father, also an immigrant, came to this nation in pursuit of the American Dream. Now, I consider it my duty to fight to protect that dream. Rioters must not be allowed to destroy our cities. Human sex drug traffickers should not be allowed to cross our border. The same Socialist policies which destroyed places like Cuba and Venezuela must not take root in our cities and our schools.
A handful of excerpts from Donald Trump’s speech (all focused on disqualifying a middle of the road Democrat who has been in public life since his first election 50 years ago without revealing his covert subversive agenda) illustrate the Trump campaign’s reelection strategy:
This is the most important election in the history of our country. At no time before have voters faced a clearer choice between two parties, two visions, two philosophies, or two agendas.
This election will decide whether we SAVE the American Dream, or whether we allow a socialist agenda to DEMOLISH our cherished destiny.
. . .
Your vote will decide whether we protect law abiding Americans, or whether we give free reign to violent anarchists, agitators, and criminals who threaten our citizens.
And this election will decide whether we will defend the American Way of Life, or whether we allow a radical movement to completely dismantle and destroy it.
At the Democrat National Convention, Joe Biden and his party repeatedly assailed America as a land of racial, economic, and social injustice. So tonight, I ask you a very simple question: How can the Democrat Party ask to lead our country when it spends so much time tearing down our country?
. . .
If the left gains power, they will demolish the suburbs, confiscate your guns, and appoint justices who will wipe away your Second Amendment and other Constitutional freedoms.
Biden is a Trojan horse for socialism. If Joe Biden doesn’t have the strength to stand up to wild-eyed Marxists like Bernie Sanders and his fellow radicals, then how is he ever going to stand up FOR you?
The most dangerous aspect of the Biden Platform is the attack on public safety. The Biden-Bernie Manifesto calls for Abolishing cash bail, immediately releasing 400,000 criminals onto your streets and into your neighborhoods.
When asked if he supports cutting police funding, Joe Biden replied, “Yes, absolutely.” When Congresswoman Ilhan Omar called the Minneapolis police department a cancer that is “rotten to the root,” Biden wouldn’t disavow her support and reject her endorsement — he proudly displayed it on his website.
Make no mistake, if you give power to Joe Biden, the radical left will Defund Police Departments all across America. They will pass federal legislation to reduce law enforcement nationwide. They will make every city look like Democrat-run Portland, Oregon. No one will be safe in Biden’s America.
. . .
If the Democrat Party wants to stand with anarchists, agitators, rioters, looters, and flag-burners, that is up to them, but I, as your President, will not be a part of it. The Republican Party will remain the voice of the patriotic heroes who keep America Safe.
. . .
If the Radical Left takes power, they will apply their disastrous policies to every city, town, and suburb in America.
Just imagine if the so-called peaceful demonstrators in the streets were in charge of every lever of power in the U.S. Government.
Liberal politicians claim to be concerned about the strength of American institutions. But who, exactly, is attacking them? Who is hiring the radical professors, judges, and prosecutors? Who is trying to abolish immigration enforcement, and establish speech codes designed to muzzle dissent? In every case, the attacks on American institutions are being waged by the radical left.
Always Remember: they are coming after ME, because I am fighting for YOU.
We must reclaim our independence from the left’s repressive mandates. Americans are exhausted trying to keep up with the latest list of approved words and phrases, and the ever-more restrictive political decrees. Many things have a different name now, and the rules are constantly changing. The goal of cancel culture is to make decent Americans live in fear of being fired, expelled, shamed, humiliated, and driven from society as we know it. The far-left wants to coerce you into saying what you know to be FALSE, and scare you out of saying what you know to be TRUE.
. . .
So tonight, I say again to all Americans: This is the most important election in the history of our country. There has never been such a difference between two parties, or two individuals, in ideology, philosophy, or vision than there is right now.
Our opponents believe that America is a depraved nation.
. . .
For contrast, Donald Trump mentioned Joe Biden by name 41 times. The former vice president failed to utter Donald Trump’s name once at the Democratic Convention.
Finally, there’s the failure to govern, to lead, to accept the responsibilities of office as the president.
Let’s reflect on what passes for public policy in Trump’s U.S.A.
More than 183, 000 Americans have died from COVID-19, while Donald Trump has refused to even make a plan for crushing the virus. This past week, consistent with Trump’s oft-spoken wish to reduce testing, the CDC stealthily changed its testing guidelines (before the director walked this back, slightly, after an outpouring of criticism from the medical community).
The unbridled Kellyanne Conway clearly articulated the strategy for Fox News, “The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order.”
"The more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who's best on public safety and law and order" — Kellyanne Conway makes a case that the killings of peaceful protesters will benefit Trump politically pic.twitter.com/ClJ6ArrbkE
Look, it’s gonna be a close election. As I said in my speech, you can win three million more votes and still, you know, not get elected because of the Electoral College. It all comes down to the Electoral College.
If it’s a close election, like say Biden, you know, say Biden wins. What do you think Trump will do?
Look, I think that they have a couple of scenarios that they’re looking toward. One is messing up absentee balloting.
Right. Of course. Yeah.
They believe that helps them. So that they then get maybe a narrow advantage in the Electoral College on election day. Because remember we’ve seen a couple of cases, like in Wisconsin, where they did everything they could to mess up voting. But because courts had ordered absentee ballots to be counted if they were postmarked on election day, Democrats actually won some important races there.
In the recent Michigan primary, I was told, in Detroit the Republicans had forty lawyers challenging absentee mail-in voting. And a local reporter, talking to one of the lawyers he knew, was told it was a dry run for November.
So we’ve gotta have a massive legal operation. I know the Biden campaign is working on that. We have to have poll workers and I urge people who are able to be a poll worker. We have to have our own teams of people to counter the force of intimidation that the Republicans and Trump are going to put outside polling places.
This is a big organizational challenge. But at least we know more about what they’re going to do.
And, you know, Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is gonna drag out. And eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch. And if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.
Plan A is encouraging voters to send in ballots by mail. That seems foolhardy, since Republican lawyers will be in place in key states across the country to challenge votes, delay the process, and hope for another result like Bush v. Gore delivered in 2000 to stop counting votes — or to muddy the process so much that one or more Republican controlled state legislatures throw all their electoral votes to Trump (as the majority in Bush v. Gore asserted that the Constitution sanctioned)*.
In 2018, I mailed my ballot on Oct. 29, eight days before Election Day. Yet every time I checked the website of the Miami-Dade County Elections Department in the following week, I got bad news: “Ballot not tabulated.” Maybe the system was backed up, I thought. I called the office on Nov. 7, the day after the vote, but the woman on the other end of the line said my ballot still hadn’t arrived. No way would it be counted.
Ten days later, I received scanned copies of each side of my ballot envelope. On one side, there was a Nov. 9 postmark. On the other, the Nov. 14 arrival date. My ballot had spent half a month traveling 10 miles across town. And I was in good company: 3,429 other people in Miami-Dade had sent ballots that were deemed late and thus not tallied, according to the late-ballot log I obtained from the Elections Department. Of those, 2,105 had postmarks on or before Election Day. One was postmarked Oct. 17. Statewide, county supervisors discarded more than 15,000 ballots for lateness, as required by Florida law.
Trump can’t win the election unless something unforeseen and dramatic happens between now and November 3 that somehow turns things in his favor. (Not likely.) But his chances of stealing the election — in plain sight as we all watch — are better than we might have anticipated a relatively short time ago.
Republicans can’t be counted on to side with democracy if a victory in the presidential election hangs in the balance (or if a Republican majority in the Senate is in play). Yes, Republicans in Congress pushed back on Trump’s suggestion that we postpone the fall election. But — stop and consider for just a moment all that we’ve witnessed over the past three and a half years — are there any grounds to believe that, say, Mitch McConnell would object to a transparent theft of the election if he thought that he could get away with it?
Consider all of Trump’s enablers. Isn’t the same cynical calculation in play for each of them? If Fox News Channel and the rest of the conservative media universe were on board, nearly half the country would be convinced, if Trump claimed a victory, that Trump had won (or that McConnell had held his majority).
Democrats had better come up with an alternative to Plan A, because that’s a slender reed to hang our fortunes on. We need more than that to protect majority rule. We can’t count on democratic norms; or the rule of law; or legitimate, non-partisan rulings from the courts. Bipartisan consensus on all that stuff is long past.
We can’t count on the timely, reliable delivery of mail; or competent, conscientious county officials tallying votes; or innumerable workaday procedures not to glitch out and effect the outcome. Most of the 550,000 uncounted primary votes — and the delayed and uncounted ballot mailed in by the op-ed writer — are just kinks in the system, not likely the result of bad faith. But in anything resembling a close election, glitches and kinks could determine the outcome. Let’s add Republican bad faith to the mix, because we have that aplenty.
If Republicans decide that half the country (or close enough) is with them, they will not hesitate to muck things up so badly that an outright theft becomes possible. Tweets. On-air rants. Legal challenges. Organized outrage. Manufactured chaos. All in the service of stealing an election (as they hurl that accusation at Democrats).
Republicans with reservations will stay silent. The shouters will have the floor — until it’s time to claim the victory. Then they’ll all accept whatever they’ve managed to pull off.
It would be much uglier than 2000, but that won’t stop them. Ugly works for them.
* “In its infamous 2000 decision in Bush vs. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court remarked that although every state legislature had given voters the power to vote directly for the president and to allocate the state’s electoral college votes, state legislators could take back that power at any time.“
