Of course holding elected officials accountable to the law is not sufficient to defuse populist movements. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Likewise, democracy has never meant that popular assent is sufficient to make someone a legitimate office holder, only that it is necessary. Subjection to laws *which were themselves passed by elected representatives of the people* is also necessary-- and that is why the law against embezzlement has greater legitimacy than the Islamic laws made by the mullahs: it ultimately comes itself from popular assent. There is no serious pro-embezzlement popular movement in France in the sense that there is a popular movement against, say, hijab laws in Iran.
“you can thereby advert the disaster is pure delusion”.
I imagine if Trump had been convicted for Jan 6, for stealing classified documents, or for violating Georgia election law, I would have felt relief. Not applying the law that is so brazenly broken just leads to more law breaking. The time we are in.
But the relief would have been a delusion because the work of restoring our democracy requires reaching those who have become so disenchanted that they want to burn it down.
We have legalized so much money in politics - lobbyists writing bills & billions spent on campaigns - and even legalized corruption with the Supreme Court defining bribery so narrowly that you have to accept gold bars to be convicted. Congress can’t even stop its members from enriching themselves with their insider knowledge.
So of course people no longer trust in the law or believe that “nobody is above the law”.
So it’ll take persistent effort over time to make the system work broadly for everyone and to allow people time to trust the law again. I mean while I have been impressed by the DMV every time I have visited over the last dozen years my imagine of the DMV is still the sloth in Zootopia.
I strongly favored convicting Trump in the Senate over January 6th, specifically because it would have required substantial Republican support. It didn't happen because Republicans correctly understood that such an action would have shattered the party. But they had the power to do it and the legitimacy to do it and the reason to do it was fresh in everyone's minds.
Not anymore than Jack Smith. The MAGA movement was literally threatening death to representatives and senators. The core Trump supporters would have been outraged by an impeachment vote by those traitorous RINOs.
Meanwhile other elites involved like Cruz and Hawley would have avoided punishment because they used their Harvard law educations to skirt the law, but not break it.
Oh, I don't think they had legitimacy with MAGA -- nobody does except MAGA itself. But they had legitimacy with the rest of the Republican voting public. That's why had they voted to convict they would have split the party -- or, if the numbers were overwhelmingly on MAGA's side, would have prompted them to purge all the RINOs from the party. Which is why they didn't do it.
Think of what has happened in Britain. Boris Johnson took over the Tories by stumping first to vote for Brexit and then for getting it done. He led the Tories to a huge victory on that basis. Then he was a mess in office, and wound up getting booted by his own party for a host of offenses. But what was the ultimate result? Nigel Farage has come roaring back to lead a new right-wing party focused on his issues, splitting the right.
Something like that could well have happened in the U.S. had Trump been convicted after January 6th. Other scenarios are also possible, of course; nobody can really predict.
But the distinction I'm drawing, I guess, is that senators are elected by the people, and if the people don't like how they vote they can throw them out. There's a democratic remedy for popular anger. The legal system -- be design -- doesn't work that way. Ideally, popular anger at the legal system gets expressed in ways that don't attack the system itself but that aim to reform it -- through changes to the law passed by the legislature, changes to the standards for judicial appointments, etc. The populists, though, are attacking the legal system itself. If you use the legal system to try to disqualify them -- even in legitimate ways -- you effectively confirm their argument, in their eyes and in the eyes of those who can be persuaded. So the legal system itself becomes even more of a target.
Ah. I don’t think normal people and especially the formally disengaged and cynical that Trump and right wing populists throughout the west have activated distinguish between politicians, government, and the judicial system. Nor do I think Trump is specifically targeting the judicial system. He’s targeted the federal workforce, Congress, the media, cities, blue state governors, and universities with just as much vitriol.
In respect to elections, Trump has specifically been undermining the idea that you can vote out representatives you don’t want by constantly making up accusations of fraud.
The MAGA movement would have found it illegitimate and therefore it wouldn’t have solved any long-term issues. The Biden Presidency would still have been deemed illegitimate. There may have been different electoral consequences, but the MAGA movement would be seeking another champion. By itself impeachment wouldn’t have led to the restoration of faith in our systems. The same work would have been left to be done.
Also illegitimacy cuts both ways in these judicial & justice department decisions. Not persecuting Trump or Adams or Hunter Biden undermines trust for some group because it’s obvious that the things the we’re accused on doing broke the law. And if I jury agrees that they did them then they should face consequences.
If a populist movement is dependent on one personality, then it's more likely than not a fascist movement. And I'm ok with using the law to decapitate a fascist movement and you should be too.
I value any attempt this thorough at explaining to people not swept into the populist gale how it looks from the inside. So thank you; I think your example of a place that more people would agree does not have functional rule of law is helpful. As for interpretation, I think that many people would agree with your example without knowing anything really about the nation. Say it's theocratic and people will assume no rule of law. Say the government, or even the people, are Muslim, and people will assume no rule of law. Say it as a reporter or opinion writer or podcaster - your word might be enough for people to believe that certain other people have no rule of law. Say it about Ukraine; say it about Canada. It's helpful to see what it looks like from inside the storm. But as you say, the voices can lie, and I want to add that they needn't lie with consistency, strength, or conviction for people to believe it. There's more to the storm in aggregate than bad-faith, low-information hunches. But there sure isn't less than that, and given the political engagement level of the average voter, this might be a very large percentage of the gale. You say they're cheating? Well, sure, why else would my boss be a woman instead of a man?
Of course holding elected officials accountable to the law is not sufficient to defuse populist movements. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Likewise, democracy has never meant that popular assent is sufficient to make someone a legitimate office holder, only that it is necessary. Subjection to laws *which were themselves passed by elected representatives of the people* is also necessary-- and that is why the law against embezzlement has greater legitimacy than the Islamic laws made by the mullahs: it ultimately comes itself from popular assent. There is no serious pro-embezzlement popular movement in France in the sense that there is a popular movement against, say, hijab laws in Iran.
“you can thereby advert the disaster is pure delusion”.
I imagine if Trump had been convicted for Jan 6, for stealing classified documents, or for violating Georgia election law, I would have felt relief. Not applying the law that is so brazenly broken just leads to more law breaking. The time we are in.
But the relief would have been a delusion because the work of restoring our democracy requires reaching those who have become so disenchanted that they want to burn it down.
We have legalized so much money in politics - lobbyists writing bills & billions spent on campaigns - and even legalized corruption with the Supreme Court defining bribery so narrowly that you have to accept gold bars to be convicted. Congress can’t even stop its members from enriching themselves with their insider knowledge.
So of course people no longer trust in the law or believe that “nobody is above the law”.
So it’ll take persistent effort over time to make the system work broadly for everyone and to allow people time to trust the law again. I mean while I have been impressed by the DMV every time I have visited over the last dozen years my imagine of the DMV is still the sloth in Zootopia.
I strongly favored convicting Trump in the Senate over January 6th, specifically because it would have required substantial Republican support. It didn't happen because Republicans correctly understood that such an action would have shattered the party. But they had the power to do it and the legitimacy to do it and the reason to do it was fresh in everyone's minds.
Did Republican Senators have legitimacy?
Not anymore than Jack Smith. The MAGA movement was literally threatening death to representatives and senators. The core Trump supporters would have been outraged by an impeachment vote by those traitorous RINOs.
Meanwhile other elites involved like Cruz and Hawley would have avoided punishment because they used their Harvard law educations to skirt the law, but not break it.
Oh, I don't think they had legitimacy with MAGA -- nobody does except MAGA itself. But they had legitimacy with the rest of the Republican voting public. That's why had they voted to convict they would have split the party -- or, if the numbers were overwhelmingly on MAGA's side, would have prompted them to purge all the RINOs from the party. Which is why they didn't do it.
Think of what has happened in Britain. Boris Johnson took over the Tories by stumping first to vote for Brexit and then for getting it done. He led the Tories to a huge victory on that basis. Then he was a mess in office, and wound up getting booted by his own party for a host of offenses. But what was the ultimate result? Nigel Farage has come roaring back to lead a new right-wing party focused on his issues, splitting the right.
Something like that could well have happened in the U.S. had Trump been convicted after January 6th. Other scenarios are also possible, of course; nobody can really predict.
But the distinction I'm drawing, I guess, is that senators are elected by the people, and if the people don't like how they vote they can throw them out. There's a democratic remedy for popular anger. The legal system -- be design -- doesn't work that way. Ideally, popular anger at the legal system gets expressed in ways that don't attack the system itself but that aim to reform it -- through changes to the law passed by the legislature, changes to the standards for judicial appointments, etc. The populists, though, are attacking the legal system itself. If you use the legal system to try to disqualify them -- even in legitimate ways -- you effectively confirm their argument, in their eyes and in the eyes of those who can be persuaded. So the legal system itself becomes even more of a target.
Ah. I don’t think normal people and especially the formally disengaged and cynical that Trump and right wing populists throughout the west have activated distinguish between politicians, government, and the judicial system. Nor do I think Trump is specifically targeting the judicial system. He’s targeted the federal workforce, Congress, the media, cities, blue state governors, and universities with just as much vitriol.
In respect to elections, Trump has specifically been undermining the idea that you can vote out representatives you don’t want by constantly making up accusations of fraud.
The MAGA movement would have found it illegitimate and therefore it wouldn’t have solved any long-term issues. The Biden Presidency would still have been deemed illegitimate. There may have been different electoral consequences, but the MAGA movement would be seeking another champion. By itself impeachment wouldn’t have led to the restoration of faith in our systems. The same work would have been left to be done.
Also illegitimacy cuts both ways in these judicial & justice department decisions. Not persecuting Trump or Adams or Hunter Biden undermines trust for some group because it’s obvious that the things the we’re accused on doing broke the law. And if I jury agrees that they did them then they should face consequences.
I certainly don't disagree that the notion that there's a silver bullet of any kind is incorrect.
Each of us breaks 20 laws a day. Most just aren’t enforced. And you can always find a judge to interpret the law any way you want.
If you give someone the power to arrest anyone who brakes the law, you give them the power to arrest anyone and everyone.
The law therefore is ultimately a political negotiation.
If a populist movement is dependent on one personality, then it's more likely than not a fascist movement. And I'm ok with using the law to decapitate a fascist movement and you should be too.
I value any attempt this thorough at explaining to people not swept into the populist gale how it looks from the inside. So thank you; I think your example of a place that more people would agree does not have functional rule of law is helpful. As for interpretation, I think that many people would agree with your example without knowing anything really about the nation. Say it's theocratic and people will assume no rule of law. Say the government, or even the people, are Muslim, and people will assume no rule of law. Say it as a reporter or opinion writer or podcaster - your word might be enough for people to believe that certain other people have no rule of law. Say it about Ukraine; say it about Canada. It's helpful to see what it looks like from inside the storm. But as you say, the voices can lie, and I want to add that they needn't lie with consistency, strength, or conviction for people to believe it. There's more to the storm in aggregate than bad-faith, low-information hunches. But there sure isn't less than that, and given the political engagement level of the average voter, this might be a very large percentage of the gale. You say they're cheating? Well, sure, why else would my boss be a woman instead of a man?