Yesterday was a dark day in American history. A dark day that was pointless, unnecessary, and humiliating for our country. The sight of our Capitol being overrun by a mob is something that will remain seared in my mind as long as I live. Thankfully, the police and national guard restored order and Congress defiantly did its duty by certifying Joe Biden as the winner of the presidential election.

What happened yesterday, while outrageous, infuriating, and saddening, was not, however, surprising. Yesterday’s attempted coup was the end result of four years of endless demagoguery in the White House. As I have warned since before he won the nomination, Trump embodies the type of demagogue the Founders attempted to thwart by creating a government of checks and balances, including the Electoral College. Trump has never displayed any respect for our institutions, holds checks and balances in contempt, wants to be a dictator, turns Americans against each other for his own gain, inflames the worst passions of the masses who worship him, and has engaged in endless corruption while in office. Our institutions will survive his presidency, but have been tested, attacked, and weakened by the relentless battering ram of Trump’s demagoguery. Ironically, our saving grace might well be Trump’s incompetence and short attention span. Nonetheless, I fear that a future demagogue will be smarter, subtler, and better able to destroy our republic.

All our lives, we have been told that America is “exceptional” and that our constitutional system is the greatest political system ever devised by the minds of men and women. As yesterday, and really all of Trump’s presidency has laid bare, we are just as susceptible to the lure and threats of autocracy as any other country. George Washington creating important republican precedents that have guided America for over 200 years: the two-term limit, voluntary relinquishing of power, deference to the Senate in treaty ratification, rejection of titles of nobility, and so on. That, in combination with Madisonian checks and balances, largely allowed us to keep a functional democratic republic capable of defending itself against internal demagogues, such as Huey Long, Father Coughlin, Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, and Andrew Johnson. These checks, balances, and procedures, however, depended upon the good faith of human actors, which is always a risky foundation, but had more or less worked.

Then came Donald Trump. If any figure is the anti-George Washington, it is Donald Trump. George Washington was a great war hero, Donald Trump faked bone spurs to avoid serving in Vietnam. Washington was quiet, subdued, and cautious in speech, Trump is loud, brash, and unfiltered. Washington twice relinquished power that he could have held for the rest of his life, while Trump is desperately trying to cling on to power that expires in less than two weeks. Washington was the consummate republican, while Trump is the consummate autocrat. Washington understood the necessity and brilliance of checks and balances, while Trump views them as obsolete impediments to his will. Washington breathed life into our political system, while Trump has actively attempted to destroy it.

Trump’s presidency has been a chaotic circus. The sheer volume of scandals, alone, is impossible to process. Petty and divisive rhetoric are not only commonplace in his White House, but are expected. The staff and Cabinet turnover rates are jaw-dropping. Even more astonishing has been his complete abdication of leadership during the Coronavirus Crises (including the economic recession). The last four years have been nothing but a chaotic jump from crisis to crisis (many of which are either self-inflicted or self-exacerbated) that has divided Americans to an extent not seen since the Civil War.

Naturally, we would expect our institutions to keep him in check and restrain at least the worst impulses. In many cases, the institutions held, such as when Georgia’s Secretary of State and Governor refused to even attempt to unilaterally change the results of their state’s elections, just because Trump wanted them to. However, Trump’s conquest of the Republican Party has prevented many of these checks from fully functioning. The weak state of our national parties allowed Trump to get the nomination in the first place. Our pointless Electoral College has forgotten its original purpose and rather than preventing Trump’s election, made it possible, even though he lost by millions of votes in 2016. And Trump’s commandeering of FOX News, talk radio, and cult-level control over millions of GOP primary voters largely made him untouchable over the last four years, at least as far as elected Republicans are concerned.
​
Last year’s failed removal via impeachment illustrated this perfectly. Despite Trump’s actions being an impeachable high crime, only one Republican had the courage and fortitude to vote to remove Trump from office: Mitt Romney. Every other elected Republican cowered out of fear of being the subject of mean Tweets and allowed him to remain in office. Consequently, impeachment is no longer a viable check against the executive, as long as the president’s party controls 34 Senate seats, except MAYBE in the most extreme, indisputable cases of criminal activity. Trump has taken advantage of that reality in too many cases to even begin listing.

What has always been the most dangerous feature of Trump himself, however, has always been his autocratic propensities. Most of Trump’s policy positions are malleable or dispensable to him, but the one constant has been his belief that autocracy is good and necessary for governance. As our nation’s top diplomat over the last four years, Trump has always had better relations with international despots and illiberal leaders than with the leaders of western liberal democracies. Trump believes that nations need to be “tough” in order to survive, which usually means engaging in war crimes and police brutality, and views formal governing obstacles as useless impediments to the will of the leader. Trump loves the idea of power and envies those who are able to wield it with minimal resistance, such as Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdogan, Mohammad bin Salman, Kim Jong-un, and Rodrigo Duterte. Such beliefs are completely at odds with the ideals of our constitutional republic, but are core features of Trumpism. As such, Trump has made it a point to pardon and celebrate those who have acted in accordance with his vision of being “tough,” such as Clint Lorance, Joe Arpaio, the Blackwater mercenaries, and a few others convicted of war crimes. Autocratic impulses are central to Trump’s philosophical outlook on governance.

Trump’s cult-like control over large swaths of the American public, however, has been perhaps his most demagogic feature. Being popular and drawing large crowds does not, by itself, make one a demagogue; George Washington was practically a demigod to the Americans of the early republic, but he was not a demagogue. Demagogues set themselves up as the “voice of the masses” and declare war (usually figuratively, sometime literally) against the existing establishment. They stir up the people’s worst impulses and emotions in order to wield extraordinary political power. In many cases, the demagogue and the movement become so fused as to be inseparable; the leader literally embodies the people in the minds of the followers. Political scientists since at least Plato have feared demagogues and warned against them, because demagogues will use legitimately-earned power to destroy republican institutions and set themselves up as dictators. They will consolidate power through any means at their disposal and wield the power of angry masses to secure an indefinite hold on their power.

Donald Trump has embodied all of these features. If there is any way in which he differs from the classic demagogue, it is that he is not some military hero and great conqueror, but rather a game show host. That minor difference aside, however, everything else fits to the letter. He has turned a great political party into his own cult of personality, to the point that the 2020 GOP did not even bother to make a platform, instead preferring to let Trump’s ideas and preferences substitute for a broad statement of ideals. His rise to power and presidency have been marked by rhetorical wars against the “establishment,” especially the political establishments and mainstream media. He has the backing of a substantial portion of the country, and at an unhealthy degree, in many cases. Trump uses rallies to stir up his base, threaten opponents, and above all, to bask in the praise and adoration of his cult-like following. Moreover, he has continuously undermined faith and trust in our institutions, especially our elections. He has successfully convinced a large number of Americans that the election was “rigged” against him, despite providing no proof, whatsoever. He did that in 2016, as well. And he is totally fine with undermining our governing institutions, such as Congress and the courts, when they do not give him what he wants. It is difficult to argue that Trump has not succeeded in turning Americans against our republican forms of government and the democracy underpinning it.

And that takes us to yesterday. Any honest observer would have told the mob that Trump’s attempt to override the Electoral College vote was doomed from the start and that Trump had lost the 2020 election fair and square. Purely out of selfish reasons, Trump has dragged the country through endless litigation of the 2020 election, with a putrid record in court of 1-62 to show for it. There has not been one proven case of election fraud carried out on behalf of Biden in 2020, much less anything remotely close to even suggesting that millions of voters deserved to be disenfranchised out of fairness to Trump. If Trump was capable of accepting reality and conceding the election, yesterday would never have happened. Instead, his vanity and historically-fragile ego caused him to deceive thousands of his most loyal followers with lies about “voter fraud” and a “stolen election.” Four years of demagoguery resulted exactly as political scientists have said it would, with a mob uprising designed to overthrow democracy and install their hero as a dictator.

Many Republican members of Congress aided and abetted this uprising, out of either fear of Trump, or out of selfish hopes that they could be the natural successors to Trump. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and the House Republicans who also joined in the effort to overturn the election all know, deep down, that Biden fairly won the election and that their “objections” to the Electoral College votes were nothing more than vain posturing to a cultish base. Cruz seems to have a tradition of kicking off his presidential runs with pointless stunts that have no chance of success, but are good for fundraising and establishing his conservative street cred with the most radical elements of the base. In a healthy and functional democratic republic, elected officials would shoot down these asinine conspiracies and tell the truth to the people, rather than coddle them with lies. Moreover, a healthy political party is not tied to the identity of one person, but the Republicans have allowed their party to become one man’s cult of personality.

Consequently, yesterday’s mob uprising was horrifying, but not surprising. Trump has constructed a cult that is exclusively loyal to him, to the point of rejecting democracy in favor of a Trump-led dictatorship. Four years of letting Trump get away with practically everything has finally culminated in an attempt to overturn our very republic, itself. As mentioned earlier, Trump’s incompetence and goldfish-caliber attention span have aided our institutional safeguards against his attempts to be a dictator, but there is no guarantee that the next demagogue will be as stupid, manipulable, and easily-distracted. I have greater hope, however, in our professional public servants. While the elected national Republicans have largely failed to protect the country from Trump’s demagoguery, ordinary public officials at the state and local level, as well as the national bureaucracy, have resisted Trump’s maniacal attempts to subvert democracy and become a dictator. Figures like Brian Kemp, Brad Raffensperger, Al Schmidt, and others have endured relentless attacks from Trump and his followers, and yet did their duty. If America is “exceptional” in any meaningful way right now, it is because of the resolve of ordinary public servants to follow the Constitution, do their duties, and not allow the most powerful man on Earth to intimidate them.

Nothing about the American Experiment is guaranteed. The presidency of Donald J. Trump has made that all-too-clear, as he has relentlessly attacked the very foundations of our political system with a battering ram of demagoguery, hoping that he can become the dictator he wants to be, and establish a hereditary political dynasty. Going forward, we must be ever-more vigilant against the rise of similar demagogues and reaffirm our commitment to constitutional republican democracy. We must elect people committed to public service and the Constitution; people who will not depend upon others to do the unenviable task of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. We must always endeavor to protect the system, even if it means sacrificing policy goals. The American Experiment is too important to lose to the tyrannical impulses of demagogues, but it is not immune from these impulses. It is up to us to save, protect, and maintain it. 

PS: Pence and the Cabinet need to begin the 25th Amendment process to remove Trump from office. Yesterday was entirely Trump's fault and he cannot be entrusted with power any longer; not even for two weeks. And Congress, once it reconvenes, needs to begin impeachment proceedings and this time, actually convict him and bar him from ever darkening another political office ever again. 

​One of the most famous episodes of Community involves a comparison of the possible timelines resulting from the toss of a die to determine which of the friends should go and retrieve the pizza that has just been delivered to the apartment building. Although a seemingly-trivial matter, the timelines established by this act of random chance vary considerably, with couples forming, accidents happening, and even the entire apartment going up in flames (spawning one of the most famous gifs of all time) depending on which number the die landed on. Today, I want to do a similar thought exercise, looking at how well the GOP is doing in a parallel universe in which Hillary Clinton won the presidency in 2016. In other words, how is the GOP doing on Earth II?

Election Night 2016 turned out to be quite the heart attack for the Earth II Democrats. Hillary Clinton, despite facing the worst candidate in American history, won the election by the skin of her teeth, winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maine’s Second District by a combined 106,000 votes to win the election 289-249. Trump’s success in flipping Ohio, Florida, and Iowa startled the Democrats, and the election rang even more hollow as the Republicans maintained control of the House and the Senate (with 52 votes). Therefore, despite their pledge to respect the outcome of the race, the Republicans commit to keeping Antonin Scalia’s seat vacant indefinitely.
Clinton’s presidency never really takes off. Despite a good economy that keeps on getting better, the scandals and controversies of the past plague her from the start. The Republican Congress holds endless hearings on her emails and investigate every conflict of interest they can possibly find. Clinton’s approval ratings generally hover around 45% and she lacks the Congressional support necessary to pursue any kind of agenda, least of all the bold agenda she desperately wants to pursue.

Clinton’s unpopularity immediately begins to drag down the Democrats at all levels. In Virginia, self-appointed Senator Terry McAuliffe is one of many Democratic defeats in the 2017 state elections, losing to Congresswoman Barbara Comstock in a low-turnout election marked by strong Republican energy. Moreover, incumbent Governor Ralph Northam loses badly to Ed Gillespie, and the rest of the statewide ticket also falls. The Virginia Republicans maintain and expand control of both chambers, and the election is viewed as an ominous warning of things to come in the 2018 midterms.

As it turns out, the 2017 elections did prove to be a harbinger of bad things to come for the Democrats. Facing the best imaginable Senate map in 2018, the Republicans expand their Senate seats from 53 to 61 by holding all of the few seats they have to defend, and adding MT, ND, WV (with Manchin flipping parties), OH, FL, MO, IN, and MI to their collection. Meanwhile, Speaker Ryan also has a good night, adding a handful of House seats to their sizable majority. The Republicans also do well at the state level, holding on to all of their governorships and even defeating PA Governor Tom Wolf. Perhaps the only disappointment for the GOP that evening comes from New York, in which Governor Andrew Cuomo easily defeats Donald Trump in the race for governor. By midnight, Clinton looks even more powerless and vulnerable than ever before.

In 2019, the Republicans begin jockeying for next year’s presidential elections. Energized by their victories in 2018 (and yet still scarred by the memory of Donald Trump’s disastrous run), they turn to popular South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley as their standard bearer. Clinton, meanwhile is bogged down by a scandal involving Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation that results in her impeachment. The removal effort fails on a party-line vote in the Senate, but she and Bill now bear the stigma of being 2 of the 3 impeached presidents in American history. The end of 2019, of course, is marked by the emergence of a strange and deadly virus out of China that threatens the world. Clinton brings attention to it, but the Republicans assert that she is trying to distract from the impeachment.

In 2020, the Republican primaries end fairly quickly, as Haley sweeps the early contests and eliminates all of her competitors (even though Texas Senator Ted Cruz sticks around until he is completely out of money). Florida Senator Marco Rubio emerges as the likely VP nominee, given his early endorsement of Haley and general popularity.

Unfortunately, however, the Coronavirus soon makes its presence known and throws the world into chaos. The United States is not spared from its path, but President Clinton takes up her role as Leader of the Free World and leads America through the crisis. Clinton’s measures, however, are not well-received by the Republicans and so there is some degree of resistance to her calls for lockdowns and preventative measures. By the end of summer, 40,000 Americans are dead and the economy has entered a recession.

Haley, however, has toed the line between electoral opponent and Leader of the Loyal Opposition. Haley endorses many of Clinton’s actions, lending bipartisan legitimacy to social distancing measures, which save many lives. Haley enjoys approval ratings north of 60%, while Clinton’s sink to the mid-30s. In the debates, Haley calmly, but effectively, dismantles Clinton and expands her lead in the national polls to double digits. 

By Election Day, 50,000 dead Americans is simply too high a death toll for Clinton to overcome. The Haley/Rubio ticket wins the General Election with 55% of the national vote, the Republicans expand their Senate majority by flipping Michigan, expand their House majority even more, and solidify their hold of state governorships and legislatures. Haley goes into office with 2 Supreme Court picks at the ready, and the expected retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy coming by the end of the term.

Consequently, the Republicans on Earth II are poised to control American politics for the next decade and the Supreme Court for even longer. Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio are the faces of the New GOP, while Donald Trump sulks in exile in Mar-A-Lago. There are still many challenges to face, but it is a good time to be a Republican.

Last night, John Krasinski concluded an 8-episode web series entitled, “Some Good News.” The YouTube series, which launched shortly after the Coronavirus shutdowns began, instantly became a global phenomenon, spawning countless (very much approved) copycats around the globe. Krasinski’s episodes quickly became a weekly source of hope for millions of viewers around the globe, and each week featured something special, heartwarming, and tear-jerking. Different episodes featured: COVID hospital workers going to Fenway Park, a virtual Hamilton performance by the Broadway cast, a virtual Prom, a virtual graduation (which was extra special for me, since I graduated this past weekend from UVA, albeit virtually), and a wedding that featured the cast of The Office. Krasinski’s imagination and heart for the people of America and the rest of the world made this web series a rare source of light in a time when people desperately needed hope more than ever before.
 
As I finished watching the last episode, trying desperately to hold back tears to maintain my façade of stoicism in front of my wife, I was reminded of a scene from Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit, when Galadriel asked Gandalf why he had chosen Bilbo Baggins for the quest to the Lonely Mountain.
 
Galadriel: Mithrandir, why the Halfling?
Gandalf: Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I have found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay... simple acts of kindness and love.
 
Never before have those words rang truer than they have today, and “Some Good News” has illustrated the truth of those words on a weekly basis. In every episode, the heroic people who have been changing the world for the better have been the ordinary people; the hospital workers risking their lives for others, the children who have found creative ways to bring smiles to the faces of others, the people who have defeated Coronavirus (and cancer) and brought hope to those living in despair, and the countless other ways in which people doing small acts of kindness and love to those around them, even virtually. Krasinski’s episodes have genuinely touched the soul of humanity and demonstrated the power of the simple acts of kindness and love.
 
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the leaders we have elected to lead us through these crises. Donald Trump, as gifted an actor and entertainer as there is, has simply been incapable of bringing genuine hope to Americans that we can get through the twin crises of the virus and the recession. Trump’s bravado and attempts to mimic inspiration have fallen flat, especially when juxtaposed with the great rhetorical leadership of his predecessors: George W. Bush after 9/11, FDR after Pearl Harbor, JFK after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and Ronald Reagan after the Challenger Explosion. Trump’s bold and brash proclamations have usually been enough to rally his base, at least, but throughout this crisis, he has juggled dismissiveness of the virus, blame on everyone but himself, conspiracy theories, demagogic rants against the media and every other opponent he has, and false hope that never resonated with anyone. His daily press conferences, a far cry from FDR's Fireside Chats during the Great Depression, became daily circus acts that tried to take the place of his beloved campaign rallies, but culminated in the viral misunderstanding that Trump may or may not have mused about the possibility of injecting people with disinfectant. Usually, presidents are able to guide the country through these kinds of crises with inspiring words and genuine hope. Trump has unquestionably failed in that regard.
 
Returning back to the Hobbit example, Trump’s attitude seems far more in line with Saruman’s, that is only a great power that can defeat these crises: hydroxychloroquine, immigration bans, the strength of America’s economy, and even warm weather that will make the virus magically disappear. For all of Trump’s populist posturing over the last five years, he has truly failed to be any kind of champion of “the people” throughout these ordeals, and his focus has not been on protecting the people, but on protecting himself from the political fallout of these catastrophes. Trump has rarely, if ever, publicly grieved for the tens of thousands of lives lost from the virus (and, indeed, often spreads doubt about the veracity of their numbers), and his act has failed to pay him dividends this time, as he can no longer coast on the good economy and other conditions he inherited. This has been the ultimate test of his leadership and ability to unite the country and, thus far at least, he has failed dismally. 
 
That is why John Krasinski’s show has been so important: it has filled a void in the American soul that, for the last 90 years, had usually been filled by the level-headed optimism of figures like FDR, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush (who made a video recently conveying the kind of message the American people have been craving from their president), and even Barack Obama. In a time when it has become so easy to give in to a fatalistic mentality that we are at the end of days, between the virus, economic depression, murder hornets, earthquakes, and everything else going on, Krasinski’s simple YouTube web series has fought back against the cynicism, nihilism, and despair, and given genuine hope to so many people that we can get through this together. And he has done it by focusing on the small acts of love and kindness done by the ordinary folk. In doing so, he has reminded us that “no matter how hard things get, there is always good in the world.” Or as Samwise Gamgee put it in The Two Towers, “there is some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for.”
 
I hope Mr. Krasinski does not take too long a break from this show, because these crises are far from over, but I thank him for bringing some genuine rays of light into this exceptionally dark time. 

This is my first post in a long time, and the first since defending my dissertation. I am glad to be back on here. 

Four years ago, tomorrow, I made one of the biggest decisions of my life: I renounced my allegiance to the Republican Party. It was a rather agonizing day for me, especially being only ten days removed from casting what was, at the time, the proudest vote I had cast in my life; a vote in the Virginia Primary for Marco Rubio.  I concluded, however, that Trump’s nomination was inevitable and that it would take the Republican Party down a path I could not follow. I never intended, at the time, for it to be a permanent decision, but it is looking more and more like I will be camping out in the political wilderness for a very long time.

What has happened between March 2016 and March 2020 has continuously shocked me to the core. The Republican Party, especially in the time since Donald Trump’s upset victory over Hillary Clinton, has become unrecognizable to me. Policy-wise, they have retained many of the features of the pre-Trump GOP, but they have reversed course on trade policy, gone berserk on immigration, embraced massive government spending, and embraced a foreign policy that has been completely ad hoc, reactionary, and devoid of guidance. But the bigger, and more important, changes have not been in the strictly policy-oriented realm, but rather to the very heart and foundation of the party. A party that I once believed was about limited government, freedom, and goodness in politics has become entirely devoted to Donald Trump, trolling the left, bringing down intellectuals, and trying to forestall the day when whites are no longer the majority force in American politics.  It is clear that I have no place in what the GOP has become.

The most disheartening thing about the last four years, however, has been the extent to which the Republicans have embraced not only a demagogue, but demagoguery, itself. The mantra, “he fights!” has become more than just an excuse to vote for Trump; it has become the justification for anything Trump does. “Owning the libs,” as “Comfortably Smug” often does on Twitter is now one of the only two purposes of the Republican Party, the other being to defend the Religious Right in their overblown culture wars (as though America is the Roman Empire under Diocletian). The Republicans now believe principled statesmanship to be a characteristic of weak, mushy pushovers who are unwilling to do what needs to be done in order to win these exaggerated conflicts. It is a foolish and short-sighted view, but a dominant one among the Republicans, who believe that we are one election away from becoming the Soviet Union. It has also been disheartening to see Republican after Republican I once respected bend the knee Trump, such as (and this is only a partial list): Nikki Haley, Ben Sasse, Marco Rubio, Elise Stefanik, Mia Love, Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, and on and on it goes. One thing they have taught me is to always trust that a politician will place his self-interest above everything else. I thought that each one of these figures would be instrumental in restraining Trump, but they have all fallen. 

I do believe this year’s election is an important one; probably the most important one in which I have yet voted. But I do not believe it is important for the reasons Republicans do. I do not believe that it is the ultimate showdown between socialism and capitalism (especially now that Joe Biden appears to be well on his way to the nomination). I am heartened by the efforts of the Democratic Party to avoid making the same mistakes the GOP made four years ago, when certain candidates could not set aside their egos in an effort to defeat Trump. I believe this election is important because the future of America’s experiment with republican democracy has never before been this imperiled.

Donald Trump’s presidency has been an abject disaster. The economy he inherited has done well, in spite of this administration governing in perpetual crisis mode, whether because of scandals or some other crisis manufactured by the White House. The economy, however, is not how Trump’s presidency should be judged. It should be judged by the disastrous effects he has had on the foundations of our political system and the institutional prestige of his office. The last three years have seen America’s presidency descend into a never-ending circus with Trump as the Ringmaster. Between the endless turnover of his staff, the rage Tweeting at 3 in the morning, the usurpation of emergency powers, and Trump’s expressed desire to rule from the Oval Office with an iron fist, Trump’s presidency has operated exactly as I predicted it would: incompetent demagoguery.

As I stated four years ago when I left the Republican Party, Trump is exactly the sort of president the Founders feared the most when they created the office. He is a classic demagogue, in the sense that he believes himself to be the “voice of the People,” he disregards laws and guidelines that he believes are inhibiting his ability to act as the People’s Champion, he is willing to tear down institutions and obstacles that stand in his way, and he is ultimately interested in becoming a dictator. Theoretically, our system should have constrained his power. The Electoral College, if it operated as designed, would have consisted of wise individuals who would have recognized the threats he poses to our very system of governance and rejected him. Ironically, the College became the means by which he gained access to the White House, having significantly lost the popular vote in the general election.

In office, we should have expected Congress to restrain him, but the Founders never counted on congressional parties becoming this subservient to the president (they actually feared the opposite: that a legislative President would become a creature of the legislature). As such, despite deserving impeachment more than any other president in American history, except Richard Nixon, Trump survived, with only 2 Republicans willing to challenge him (one of which had become an independent before impeachment, anyway). To add insult to injury, Trump completely thumbed his nose at everyone following his acquittal by trolling the American public with a video clip that promoted the idea of an eternal Trump dynasty, set to the “The Hall of the Mountain King.” Trump made it clear, at that point, that he no longer feared any checks against his power and would troll the American people with propaganda that was profoundly un-American. And even when Trump engaged in one of the most blatant usurpations of power in American history by reallocating Congressionally-appropriated funds for the Pentagon to his border wall project, most Republicans backed him. He now feels free to interfere in judicial proceedings, uses pardons to reward loyalty, and is openly vindictive towards good public servants who blow the whistle. Even during a crisis, Trump cannot stay focused on his actual job, as he seems to believe his real job is managing public relations and polling numbers. Everything I predicted about his attitudes towards governance has proven true.

I, therefore, tremble at the thought of a second Trump term. If Trump wins reelection, it will validate, in his mind, everything he has done, and he will feel freed to up the ante even more. Lacking the ability to be reelected, and seemingly-bolstered by a vote of approval from the American people, he will amp up his efforts to dismantle institutions that stand in his way, and he will tighten his grip on the Republican Party and any other levers of power that he can. The circus will not only continue, but will be amplified tenfold, as Trump basks in the glory of a second victory. Republicans in Congress, who are already terrified of him, will be complete and utter slaves to his will, and the cult of personality will only become more entrenched. This is not a battle of policy; it is a battle to preserve republican governance from a president and a party that seek to replace it with autocracy. Four years of demagoguery is enough. We have to stop him. And the Republican Party needs to suffer a crippling defeat in order to have a chance of returning to sanity and being competitive in the long-run.

I am glad I made the agonizing decision to leave the GOP four years ago. Despite being a Ph.D. student at the time, I still did not appreciate just how tinted the lenses of partisanship truly are. Leaving the GOP allowed me to see a dark underbelly to the party that I simply refused to believe was there. As a party member, I was in denial about the power of racism in the contemporary GOP, and the exaggerations of the Religious Right in their culture wars. And I never realized just how Machiavellian the party was in pursuit of power; how the ends always justified the means, and this idea that the GOP is the party of any kind of values was nonsense. I still believe, of course, that many Republicans and conservatives have the right intentions when it comes to most things, but leaving the party removed some rather large blinders from my life, when it came to my former party. As lonely as being in the political wilderness can seem sometimes, I feel like I have become wiser and it has allowed me to keep a clear conscience, while the GOP continues down its path of insanity.  
 

This morning, I came across an interesting article published on RealClearPolitics, entitled “Come Back, Never Trumpers! All is Forgiven!”  Intrigued, I clicked on it, interested to see if this was a genuine attempt to extend an olive branch to Never Trumpers (of which I am one) or if it was something else, entirely.  As expected, what I got was a condescending, half-baked article that completely missed the point of why I, and many others like me, opposed Trump in 2016, continue to do so in the present, and will in next year’s election (and beyond, if necessary).  The author, Frank Miele’s, main argument is that Trump has proven himself to be an ideological conservative as president and, therefore, is automatically preferable to any Democrat put forward in next year’s election.

This very argument essentially forms the main cleavage between Never Trump holdouts and former Never Trumpers. It is the difference between those who opposed Trump purely on policy and ideological grounds, and those who opposed him for other reasons.  There are other reasons for the differences between the two camps, but if I had to identify one reason as the principal reason for the split, it would be the one side’s willingness to embrace Trump because they believe he will deliver some goodies for Republicans and conservatives.  Miele lists several such benefits from the Trump White House: the promise of a wall, tax cuts, deregulation, and above all, judges.  Perhaps just as importantly, Miele gushes on about Trump’s willingness to defend us from intersectionality, Green New Deals, open borders, and the media. Miele concludes that true conservatives have no choice, but to undo the “mistake of your lives” and support “a president who fights for conservative principles instead of just talking about them.”

Miele’s argument might hold some water if policies and ideologies were the only considerations with regard to the presidency.  I will admit that Trump has governed as more of an orthodox conservative on certain, but not all, policies than I envisioned.  He has thrown some bones to social conservatives, for instance, in return for their devout loyalty.  Trump recognized the power of Supreme Court appointments to both shape his legacy and buy the loyalty of the vast majority of the Republican Party, especially single-issue pro-life voters, and given his lack of interest and understanding of jurisprudence and judicial philosophies, gave them two Justices and received unconditional loyalty.  A few other gestures, such as moving the Embassy to Jerusalem or backing “religious freedom” measures, solidified his support from these segments of the Republican Party, as did his signing of Paul Ryan’s tax reform (his only significant legislative achievement). And for the border hawks who made his nomination possible in the first place, Trump played hardball (at the expense of the military and the Constitution) to secure some funding for some construction.  If policy was the only thing that mattered and Trump was scoring the conservative victories his supporters claim, Miele’s argument could at least be justifiable.

But policy is not the only thing that matters.  It is, in fact, a rather secondary consideration for fitness of office that should be the focus of debates after the far more important initial considerations: competence, ethics, temperament, and wisdom.  Trump failed on all of those accounts before becoming president, and his conduct in office has done nothing to change my initial assessment of him on those traits.  Day after day, Trump subjects the country to paranoid rants, conspiracy theories, immature name-calling, demagogic accusations, lies, scandals, and clownish theatrics completely unbefitting of his office.  Any semblance of ethics has been thrown out of the window by a man who uses the office to benefit his holdings, engages in nepotism, and has no qualms about colluding with foreign powers to undermine his opponents. He has no vision for anything, and his approaches to any kind of governance are usually ad hoc, reactionary, and guided by woefully incomplete or misguided understandings of the core issues.  He is the Great Divider of Americans, exploiting wedge issues, anger, mistrust, and tensions for his own gain, rather than the First Citizen of the United States who seeks to unite the country and transcend partisan divisions.  He is the most anti-Constitutional president America has had since Woodrow Wilson, determined to bend the other institutions to his will or circumvent them, at all costs.  He views checks and balances as archaic impediments to his power, and openly expresses envy of autocratic tyrants of other countries (and befriends them at a much higher rate than he does the leaders of liberal democracies).  Trump should not be in charge of a gun club, let alone the Free World.  We rarely had to debate these types of issues in past elections, because we could always confidently assume that no matter who won, the government would be in the hands of stable and decent leaders who would not humiliate the country, shred the Constitution, or act like a demagogue. 

The other part of Miele’s argument is, predictably, to raise fears about Democrats gaining power and destroying all that is good and right in this country, essentially echoing Sohrab Ahmari’s standard trope.  Speaking solely for myself, I do not believe that America is on the precipice of some kind of dystopian existence brought about by the left.  There is nothing that gives me cause to believe that America’s last hope is to reelect a loutish bully to “fight” against the media or the Democratic Party.  Sure, I would vehemently oppose a Green New Deal and not be happy if a litany of other progressive policy proposals ever came into law, but I would trust in the icy, indomitable will of Mitch McConnell to kill any of that nonsense.  He may not be doing much to check Trump, but you can be sure he would be a legislative graveyard for President Warren (who I will not vote for).  And if President Warren circumvented him with bogus emergency declarations, then Republicans would only have themselves (and Donald Trump) to blame for giving bipartisan blessing to such extraordinary usurpations of power.  A second term of Trump, on the other hand, fills me with terror, as he would be buoyed by the implications of a second general election victory and by virtue of being barred from future electoral prospects via the 22nd Amendment, would be free from the restraints of the reelection incentive.  He has been unhinged and unpresidential in a first term while seeking reelection, which means his second term would be a ceaseless maelstrom of his antics and incompetence.

Miele also makes the common argument that “the other side is fighting dirty, and so must we,” and makes the laughably absurd claim that “if the Democrats are fighting without rules, they are going to win unless they are met with a determined opponent willing to do anything to preserve and defend the U.S. Constitution and the country founded upon it.”  Trump has no interest in defending the Constitution; he only wants to defend his own power.  He may be willing to defend the interests of his allies, but only insofar as they advance his own interests and power.  We are talking about the guy who claimed that Article 2 of the Constitution gives him “powers you wouldn’t believe,” but “no one talks about it.” The Constitution deserves a better defender than one who only accidentally defends it, on occasion, and other times actively seeks to displace it for being “archaic.”  As to his first point that Democrats “fight without rules,” all I can say is that partisan lenses blind one to the dirty play that one’s own party engages in all the time.  Republicans, especially in the Age of Trump, engage in hypocrisy and cowardice that I could never have imagined before I left the GOP.  Miele may accuse us of “shivering in exile in a self-imposed gulag of superiority,” but being in the political wilderness is a blessing by virtue of allowing one to truly understand and appreciate just how single-minded the parties are in pursuit of power and how devoid they are of anything resembling ethics and values, as the consequence of that single-minded pursuit of power.

So, no, Mr. Miele, I must turn down your offer of “forgiveness” for being a Never Trumper, and I will continue to persevere in the political wilderness, rather than rejoin a sinking Titanic.  I have many regrets in life, especially in the political realm (such as putting too much faith in Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse), but opposing Trump is not one of them.  Perhaps the only thing I will gain in the long-run is the respect of my future children for not giving in to the siren song of political power and bending the knee to Trump.  If all I gain is the ability to look them in the eyes and say that I never supported a madman who was unfit in every way to be president, it will be worth it. Some things are more important than slightly reduced income tax rates (which are offset by Trump’s tariffs, anyway…), and that is what you fundamentally misunderstand about those of us who were loyal Republicans, but still refuse to bend the knee to Trump.
            

When one thinks of Donald Trump, there is one word that hardly ever comes to the mind of the average person: consistency.  Trump’s rhetoric and actions on everything from trade policies to foreign war to criminal justice reform to the vision for his border wall often change on a dime, and usually for no discernible reasons beyond the personal politics of the parties involved.  Trump is not an ideologue, even if he has governed more conservatively (in some respects) than most people expected.  Most things he says and does are on an ad hoc basis completely divorced from common ideologies or anything resembling academic theories on such matters.

However, there is one element of Donald Trump’s personal political compass that has remained remarkably consistent from the first day of his campaign, and that is his belief that brutality and strength go hand-in-hand, and that America would be better served by an autocratic strongman.  On the campaign trail, in diplomatic capacities overseas, and in the Oval Office, Trump has made it abundantly clear that he respects brute strength and craves the power it entails.  This is not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination, political scientists have studied Machiavelli’s The Prince and contemplated the raw truths behind his contention that it is better to be feared than to be loved.  Among American presidents, however, Trump stands alone in his willingness to publicly endorse policies and measures of cruelty and brutality.

On the campaign trail, Trump stood alone among all serious contenders for the White House by openly expressing support for American troops committing war crimes.  Trump, for instance, had no qualms with troops murdering the families of captured terrorists, no matter how young or old the family members, or how guilty or innocent they may have been.  Trump justified this by invoking an apocryphal tale of General “Blackjack” John Pershing committing war crimes in the Philippines by lining up Muslim POW’s, executing them by dipping bullets in pig’s blood, and leaving one alive to tell the tale. Trump’s contention was that we needed to be “tougher” in order to defeat terrorists and be respected all around the world, and to him, “toughness” means “brutal actions that strike fear into the hearts of the enemies.”  In a normal campaign, this might have been a scandal that would have sunk other candidates, but for Trump (who had scandals emerging on a daily basis), it faded into the background.  

Since winning the election, Trump has said or done little to dispel the notions that his campaign rhetoric was just that.  If anything, his conduct in office has served to affirm his campaign rhetoric, particularly when he is overseas.  Unlike Barack Obama or George W. Bush, Donald Trump’s closest overseas friends and allies do not generally come from liberal western democracies, such as the UK, EU, Canada, and so on.  Trump’s closest allies, instead, seem to be more autocratic and, in the case of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, totalitarian.  Figures like Rodrigo Duterte, Viktor Orban, Mohammad bin Salman, Recep Erdogan, Vladimir Putin, and Jair Bolsonaro have replaced our more traditional friends, such as Angela Merkel, Theresa May, Scott Morrison, Justin Trudeau, and Emmanuel Macron.  The first set of leaders generally have more power to “do things” and often exercise their powers in dictatorial and illiberal ways. Trump respects that, and seems to envy them and crave that kind of power for himself.  He abhors the latter list’s inability to just “do things” and their more cautious approaches to matters such as restricting immigration and fighting crime.  He sees their classical liberality as a weakness, rather than a strength, and prefers to converse with the autocrats.

On the homefront, brutality has been Trump’s preferred course of action whenever possible, and he likes to reward those are brutal.  His zealotry on border issues, for instance, has split families apart and subjected innocent people to harsh imprisonment conditions.  When it comes to electoral politics, Trump almost always includes some mention of his endorsed candidate being “tough on crime,” even if it has no bearing on the office the candidate seeks. And he is willing to dish out pardons, or hire for his administration, people like Joe Arpaio and David Clarke, both of whom gained notoriety for their excessively brutal methods of dealing with prisoners. And this week, rumors abounded that Trump would pardon American troops convicted of war crimes, as well as Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL who has not yet been tried for a litany of truly horrifying crimes, in time for Memorial Day. 

To Trump, war crimes are just a matter of troops “doing their jobs” and being “tough.”  He has no conception of the higher ideals that American troops are supposed to represent in their uniforms; ideals that give Americans the moral high ground in such conflicts.  Wars are not Tolkien-esque struggles where all the good are on one side and all the evil are on the other, but Americans expect their troops to serve honorably and make their nation proud.  That means punishing the bad apples on our side when they break the rules.  It is rarely clear-cut, as wars often force the troops to choose between bad options. Marcus Luttrell, for instance, was the only member of his squad who survived a mission because they decided to adhere to the Rules of Engagement, rather than murder a child.  And therefore, when a soldier is court-martialed, it is usually for actions that are indisputably criminal, such as the murders Eddie Gallagher is alleged to have committed.  Court martialing is not done lightly, and so the soldiers Trump wants to pardon are not the agonizing grey-area cases, but rather the indefensible cases.  As such, these pardons should be viewed not as a way to honor our soldiers during Memorial Day, but as an insult to every American who died honorably in service to their country.

And so by pardoning these soldiers, Trump is sending yet another message that he condones war crimes, and still believes that brutality is strength and strength is good. His worldview is a vile brand of social Darwinism in which jungle law should prevail, and hindrances, such as ROEs and checks and balances, do not exist to hinder the powerful. This president is testing the endurance of our Madisonian checks on the executive, and it is up to Americans of conscience to send the message that such conduct is unacceptable and unamerican. 

Broadly speaking, my dissertation is on Trumpism vs. Reaganism and how Trump was able to win the support of conservatives who had previously emphasized the importance of ideological purity for winning their vote. As such, a part of my dissertation will be devoted to identifying the common rationales used by those who consider themselves philosophically conservative, yet supported Trump in the general election, if not earlier.  Today, I came a little bit closer to solving that puzzle by watching Dinesh D’Souza’s absurd, but undeniably influential, “documentary” Hillary’s America.

Cinematically speaking, I have seen worse films. When I was a child, I had to endure Spy Kids 3D: Game Over, a film lacking any semblance of a plot.  When I was in high school, the long-term substitute for my Mythology class showed us an Italian version of Oedipus Rex that could have been improved upon by a six-year old director.  And a few years ago, I willed myself through the mercifully-short “feature length film” of Kirk Cameron’s Saving Christmas- a film so bad, I would rather pour hot sauce into my eyes than ever watch it again. D’Souza’s movie, purely in cinematic terms was better than these, but not by much. The few attempts at acting the movie makes were so bad that they made Hayden Christensen look like Sir Christopher Lee. And a couple of the settings were just mind-bogglingly absurd: why would the DNC allow D’Souza to walk around their building, by himself, until he finds their secret basement that contains the “big secrets” of the Democratic Party’s history? And why would Hillary Clinton allow D’Souza to walk around her headquarters, find her secret basement with the files of all her secret plots, and then cover the walls with the evidence to show how all the plots are connected (the way a paranoid conspiracy theorist living in a windowless room would)?  From top to bottom, the movie is a cinematic disaster (although I get what he was trying to do with the national anthem blaring at the end; a person who fully bought into this movie would probably be crying patriotic tears at the end, I just laughed).

Now, D’Souza would likely dismiss this criticism as just the angry ramblings of some butthurt progressive (or worse).  I am not a progressive, nor am I particularly threatened by the message of the film. However, I cannot pretend that the movie was some kind of cinematic classic, or anything. Even mockumentaries, such as Borat, are cinematically far superior to the product that D’Souza put out.

Now we turn to the real reason for this critique: the message of the film, itself.  D’Souza takes a long, meandering route to essentially tell his audience that the Democrats are a party that, from its founding until today, has really been an evil cabal of Lex Luthor-like criminal masterminds hellbent on “stealing America” from good, innocent Americans. D’Souza basically puts every single sin in American history at the feet of the Democratic Party, while highlighting all of the best points in the history of the Republican Party.  In other words, he rewrites American history so that the Democrats are Mordor and the Republicans are Gondor. As mentioned above, D’Souza’s entire argument is a long, meandering one that can make even the most attentive viewer forget the central thesis he is trying to argue.

D’Souza first ties his grand thesis to his personal life. D’Souza, who pled guilty to violation of campaign finance laws in what was undoubtedly the most useless criminal scheme of all-time (finding ways to pay more money to Wendy Long than he was allowed), interviews some prisoners who tell him about the grand schemes they had conducted that led him there. These insurance schemes form the framework for how D’Souza casts and understands the motives and actions of the Democrats for the rest of the film. He essentially argues that everything the Democrats do, and have done, is analogous to a con, while the Republicans are always the good guys.  Ergo, the entire history of the Democratic Party is one of crime, corruption, schemes, and evil.

As such, D’Souza starts with Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, and a personal hero of President Trump (a fact that D’Souza conveniently omits). D’Souza rightly points out Jackson’s support for slavery and his oppression of Native Americans. But, as he does with his coverage of the Democrats from the 1830’s through the 1960’s, he fails to make a convincing case as to why that history is politically relevant today (ie: why current Democrats should have to answer for Jackson’s misdeeds and failures). It has been nearly two centuries since Jackson put the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears and enslaved human beings. Yet D’Souza’s entire argument rests on the assumption that the Democrats have not changed since then; that the Jackson coalition is still what drives the party and that the same is true of the Republican Party since Lincoln and other former Whigs created it.

The political science literature is quite clear that D’Souza’s thesis is not only wrong, but comically absurd. Yes, the South was a one-party region for a century after the Civil War so that the antebellum racial caste system of the South could endure. Yes, they found other ways to essentially enslave African-Americans again, through sharecropping and other methods (see Doug Blackmon’s excellent book on this) and utilized Jim Crow laws to ensure the endurance of white supremacy. And yes, they were united under the banner of the Democratic Party. But, the makeup of the Democratic Party has changed substantially over the course of American history, with 1932 and 1964 especially standing out.

In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ushered in an era in which the Democrats would reign supreme for nearly 50 years, forging a coalition of white liberals, working class whites, Jews, African-Americans, Catholics, and Southern Democrats. However, for the next thirty years, the tenability of the coalition was shaky, at best, as tensions between the northern and southern wings over some issues, chiefly civil rights, constantly threatened to tear the party apart.  FDR and Truman did their best to appease both wings, but by the late 50’s, it became clear that the northern wing was gaining the upper hand and intent on quashing the southerners (see my colleague, Boris Heersink’s work on the DNC in 1956). And then, as everyone but D’Souza seems to know, the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 proved to be the final straw and the Democrats began to lose the Solid South.

D’Souza would counter, as he does in his film, that the “Big Switch” is a myth, and he uses as his proof the fact that very few Democrats in power at the time ultimately became Republicans. While technically true, this is a grossly misleading reading of history that is a hallmark of D’Souza’s partisan hackery. He ignores the fact that Southern Democrats had major incentives to stay with the party- the seniority system put in place by Speaker Rayburn as a way to mollify the tensions between the two wings of the party meant that switching parties would cost the representatives and their districts a great deal of power, influence, and federal funds. The South’s switch to the GOP required several decades for these politicians to die or retire and thus lose their seniority and all of its perks. But at the presidential level, the South became a reliably Republican voting bloc starting in 1964 (with a few exceptions, such as 1976 when the South rallied behind Jimmy Carter, and 1968 when the Deep South backed George Wallace). In some places of the Old South, particularly in the Appalachian regions, the Republicans have still not taken control of state and local offices, even if those districts voted overwhelmingly for Republicans in presidential elections. The Big Switch is real; it just took decades for the GOP to capture Congressional seats and even longer to really take over state and local positions. D’Souza completely ignores all of this in his cursory dismissal of the political realignment that was sparked by the Civil Rights Act.

As for the Republicans, D’Souza lionizes them, while omitting the unpleasant facts that Lincoln’s GOP is nothing like the current GOP.  The Republican Party that ruled America for nearly 70 years bears little resemblance to the Reagan/Bush GOP, and only some resemblance to Trump’s GOP.  First, the current GOP is the party of white America; a party that seeks to minimize the influence of people of color in the national system by incarcerating minorities at high rates, barring felons from voting, being demagogues on immigration-related issues, and finding other creative ways to suppress minority votes. The only common ground the Trump Era GOP has with the Lincoln GOP is that they are for tariffs and massive infrastructure programs. But even that commonality is only a recent change- the Romney/Ryan ticket of 2012 was for free trade, cutting spending, and especially for cutting entitlements. If the GOP can flip that much that quickly, then it is ridiculous to try to argue that the Republicans of 1860 are the same as the Republicans of 2016.

And, to be fair, the current GOP is less racist than the Republicans of 1860. As much as the Lincoln Republicans were abolitionists, they still were not paragons of egalitarianism. Racism was still a powerful force in the North, and remained so long after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. But in the time since 1860, the Democrats have become far less racist by becoming a party of multiculturalism, while the GOP has lost its former African-American base and picked up the white South. I do not know of any Republicans who believe that we should be enslaving POC, but there are portions of the Republican base (which have become more prominent in the Age of Trump) which argue for “racial realism” and spread fears of “white genocide” and other such concerns. Most of the GOP’s white nationalist rhetoric is thinly veiled by phrases like “defending western civilization” and “America First,” but they are less racist than they were in 1860, just not as much as the Democrats have become.

Most of the rest of the movie follows similar patterns. D’Souza correctly points out, for instance, that the eugenicists and racial Darwinists of the early 1900’s were “progressives,” but the sad truth is that such beliefs constituted the common ideology of the era. Teddy Roosevelt, often considered a GOP icon by people like D’Souza, was a staunch adherent of the Aryan Myth and advocated benevolent colonialism to “civilize the savages” in the Philippines, Cuba, and other parts of Central and South America.  Although D’Souza would have the audience believe that it was just progressives who believed this, TR’s successor, conservative icon William Howard Taft, served as the Governor of the Philippines during Roosevelt’s presidency and expressed his belief that it would take 50 years of occupation before the Filipinos could even begin to conceive of liberty and freedom. The Progressive Era, in short, was a period during which white supremacy and the Aryan Myth were the dominant ideologies, believed in by people of both parties across the political spectrum. Neither Republicans nor Democrats were heroes of racial equality during this time.

In short, D’Souza’s work is a hyper-partisan rewriting of history that lacks any sense of nuance or context.  It is a hit job that portrays the Democrats as the eternal villains of American history and the Republicans as the eternal heroes. It is a film that ignores the complexities of party development and the evanescent nature of dominant issues in American political discourse. Its purpose is quite clear, of course- to scare the American people by painting the picture of an Orwellian future caused by the election of Hillary Clinton, the heir apparent to this “secret, dark history” (which is not the least bit concealed by actual historians and political scientists) of the Democratic Party.  That might actually be the most annoying part of D’Souza’s work- his ludicrous assertions that historians and political scientists have conspired to cover up the racist history of the Democratic Party, when in fact, there are countless books out there about the history of the Democrats and it is covered in any half-decent high school history class. But D’Souza acts like it has been memory-holed by a cabal of liberal academics (for what it is worth, I still consider myself to be a conservative libertarian, even though I left the GOP almost 3 years ago). The only value of the movie is to better understand the mentality of Republicans and conservatives who held their nose to vote for Trump in 2016 which, fortunately for me, is a focus of my dissertation. But anyone who wants a true, intellectually honest understanding of American political history should run the other way. 

PS: Follow Kevin Kruse (@KevinMKruse) on Twitter if you want to see thorough, scholarly debunking of D'Souza on a frequent basis. 

Last week, our nation was rocked by a series of terrorist activities- from the synagogue shooting to the string of failed pipe bombs sent to prominent liberals.

Naturally, as these things go, the conversation almost immediately went to a debate over who deserves the blame for these attacks.  Liberals blamed President Trump and his rhetoric, especially at rallies, and noted that they often take on violent dimensions. Conservatives blamed the media for not being held accountable for their own violent rhetoric.

Ultimately, though, the blame should fall 100% on the shoulders of the terrorists who carry out those attacks. They, alone, are responsible for their actions, and I deplore anyone who suggests, otherwise.

However, it is still incumbent upon the president to take the first step to truly attempt to unite and heal this nation.  Our nation is too polarized- not just ideologically, but culturally and socially.  Trump did not create these divisions, but he has exploited him to degrees that are harmful to our nation’s health.

Trump and his conservative allies have, predictably, placed the blame on the media for fostering their own flames of public discontent.  And sure, the media do share some of the blame for their reactions and spins that sometimes cross the line into violent rhetoric.

Trump, however, has a far more powerful microphone than any of them have. The presidency is a bully pulpit that commands a truly unique position within the system of American politics.  The president, alone, speaks as the nationally-elected representative of the American people, but more importantly, the president functions as the “First Citizen” of our republic.  This concept, a foundational pillar of classical republicanism, is woven into the very fabric of our Constitution (see the Federalist essays on the presidency) and was brought to life by the presidency of George Washington.  This idea is that the president is the first among a nation of equals, and as such, he must serve as a role model who transcends the bitter and petty disputes that are natural to any free and fair system of government.  The president must be judicious, cautious, and cognizant of the weight of his words. He must be a figure who can unify the nation and be the model of civility that other politicians and figures in the media generally fail to be.

President Trump, however, is anything but the nation’s “First Citizen.”  Instead of the republican virtue exemplified by George Washington, Trump is the model of vile demagoguery that the Founders feared above all else.  Whereas Washington prudently thought through everything he was going to say before uttering any words to the public, Trump Tweets with reckless abandon on a dizzying array of topics.  The Tweets are often conspiratorial or insulting in nature, and sometimes even jeopardize national security and international relations. But he reserves his worst behavior for the media.  In addition to Tweets he should never make about the media, Trump also directs his audience to boo, harass, and curse at the media at just about every rally.  The ritualistic jeering is eerily reminiscent of the “Two Minute Hate” ritual in George Orwell’s classic, 1984.  To say that the President should not be encouraging such behavior at rallies should seem self-evident to anyone who has had even the most cursory look at the formation of the office and the conduct of its subsequent officeholders, but alas, it is a behavior that Republicans and conservative media figures are more than willing to defend.

Again, the fault for terrorism should always fall squarely on the terrorist.  For example, we do not blame the Beatles for Charles Manson’s attempts to start a race war.  Nonetheless, President Trump should do some honest reflections on how he has contributed to an overly-hostile national political environment.  Perhaps some media outlets should, as well, but Trump needs to step up and, at the very least, cease with the demagogic red meat he throws to his base.  That means quitting the ritualistic hate sessions at his rallies that he directs at the media.  That means not labeling the press as the "Enemy of the People," a phrase that is among the most demagogic a politician can utter. That means thinking before he Tweets and not Tweeting things that are unhelpful or dangerous to the health of our political environment.  That means not whining all the time. He is our Commander in Chief and the First Citizen of our nation, and he should act like it.  Even if the media do not start covering him in the manner he would like (which I imagine would be akin to Sean Hannity’s endlessly-glowing praise of him), he still has the responsibility to be the role model and example who can heal the nation. 

Amidst all the craziness and confusion regarding the allegations of attempted sexual assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominee to the Supreme Court, a familiar argument has reemerged- that the Democrats should pack the Court the next time they are in power. This time, however, supposedly-serious pundits, like Sean Davis, have started to argue that the GOP should do the same thing in order to punish Democrats for borking Kavanaugh. Like last time, I am horrified by these arguments and I now think the time has come for the country to consider a constitutional amendment to protect the Court from partisan packing. Below is my proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution:

I. The size of the Supreme Court, except in the case of vacancies, shall be set at nine. Any change in the size of the Supreme Court shall require a 2/3 majority in Congress.
II. Should the requisite majorities be reached, the number of new or eliminated seats must be an even number.
III. Should the requisite majorities be reached, the Senate Leader of the President's main opposition party shall submit to the president a list of nominees from which the president must nominate to fill half of the new seats, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. No justices confirmed to the new seats will be seated until the justices filling all new seats are confirmed
IV. If Congress shall vote to reduce the size of the Court, the abolished seats will draw evenly from justices nominated by presidents of each party. When an abolished seat becomes vacant, the President shall, with the advice and consent of the Senate, nominate a temporary Justice to the Supreme Court whose commission shall expire when a seat occupied by a Justice appointed by a President of the opposing party to the first seat becomes vacant.

My proposed amendment would, first of all, constitutionally codify the size of the Supreme Court, which is set by statute, but can be changed at any time. The amendment would require supermajorities in both chambers of Congress which can theoretically be reached, but are nearly impossible in practice to reach, especially on such a contentious issue.

However, it does provide an avenue for changing the size of the Court if there is a good reason to do so- one that has enough bipartisan support to merit consideration. And even if one party reaches supermajority status in both chambers, the integrity of the Court is still protected by section III of the amendment.

Section III prevents the Court from being packed for partisan reasons by preventing any shifts in balance of power that would result from adding more justices. It accomplishes this by ensuring that half of the proposed new seats be filled by justices associated with the other party. In other words, it removes the primary incentive for court-packing, which is to change the balance of power on the bench.

Finally, Section IV provides a way to reduce the number of justices, if there is a compelling reason to do so. Like Section III, however, it prevents a party from altering the size of the Court to suit political purposes by eliminating the seats of judges they do not like.

This amendment, I believe, would seriously help to eliminate the temptation both parties are facing to destroy the Court forever by packing it in a partisan manner. Violating the Norm of Nine will inevitably create an endless judicial war where each side packs the Court every time they gain power. Consequently, every election will only be about judges, and the Court’s reputation and prestige will diminish as the institution is recognized as a purely partisan body that has lost all sense of judicial independence. A constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent this, as every other norm of the nomination and confirmation process is on life support, at best. 

Yesterday, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr. Tweeted out the following:

“We have been duped into viewing politicians as royalty when our Founders intended them to be only temp public servants. Complaints @realDonaldTrump is not “presidential” are because he acts like one of us-exactly why our Founders fought in Rev War to win independence from royalty.”

​Setting aside, for the moment, the hysterical hypocrisy of the son of Jerry Falwell (founder of the Moral Majority) arguing that character is unimportant for a president, it is worth asking ourselves how important character is for our politicians, especially the president. Ever since Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton became the nominees of their respective parties, questions about character may seem somewhat quaint and moot. Regardless, it is a fundamental and foundational question for republican governance that is still important and must be examined. Let us first look at Falwell’s claim and the logic he presents before broadening the scope.

First, Falwell claims that Americans have been “duped into viewing politicians as royalty, when our Founders intended them to be only temp public servants.” The claim about the Founders’ intentions for political careers is mostly true, but if Americans view politicians as “royalty,” the fault is not with those who demand high standards of conduct from their leaders. Consider that America has one true royal family, the Kennedys, whose prominent leaders (Jack, Bobby, and Ted) were all known to be womanizers and worse. Sure, they had some redeeming qualities, but not nearly enough to argue that they were somehow too virtuous for their offices. Of America’s three other royal families- the Bushes, Clintons, and Trumps, only the Bushes can credibly claim to be a family of mostly virtuous members. So, whatever the merits of claiming that Americans have been duped into viewing politicians as royalty, it is ridiculous to try and connect that with demanding high standards of conduct from our public servants.

Second, Falwell claims that Donald Trump “is not ‘presidential’… because he acts like one us.” Firstly, the claim is patently ridiculous. Trump has lived a playboy lifestyle of luxury and vice that 99% of Americans will never come close to experiencing. Secondly, Falwell must really take a dim view of his fellow man if he believes that the average American is as boorish, immature, and insecure as Trump acts in public. Thirdly, the office of the presidency is supposed to be held by someone “to whom so important a trust can be confided…characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue” (Federalist 68). In other words, the office of the presidency is supposed to be held by persons who are more worthy of their station than the average Joe. The very existence of the Electoral College was supposed to be a safeguard against electing dim-witted commoners or dangerous demagogues. The electors were supposed to be an independent group of well-educated citizens who would select the man they judged to be the ablest, most virtuous, and most distinguished for the job. This is not an endorsement of monarchy or royalism, but rather the finest expression of republican governance that the leader selected indirectly by the people be the one most worthy of it. “Acting like one of us” is exactly what the Founders wanted to avoid, otherwise they would have made the process more democratic.

Finally, Falwell claims that the Founders fought the revolution to break away from royalty. This, by itself, is plainly true, however, he critically misapplies it to those who demand high character from the president. The quintessential example is President Washington- a man who modeled his life after the classical example of republican virtues, Cincinnatus. Washington, who could have ruled as an elected monarch, destroyed American prospects for a monarchy by ruling as the purest example of a virtuous republican leader. Washington was a man who lived and died by public approval of his actions. Ergo, he exercised consistent restraint all the time and did nothing that would appear to be at odds with his commitment to classical republicanism. He never lashed out at his critics (and there were some, despite his universal popularity, particularly after John Jay returned from England with a neutrality treaty that half the country despised) and did everything he could to be free of scandal and impropriety. So, while Falwell may try to connect demands for high character with royalty, the truth is actually the opposite of what he claims: good character is key to self-governance.

And that leads us to the broader question of how important character is for self-governance. Obviously, no person is perfect (as all of human history teaches us), but that does not mean that we just have to accept a Hobbesian state of nature where everyone is evil and liable to kill each other. Hence, we have erected a system of self-governance that does not demand perfection, but crumbles without principles.

Our system, conceived and constructed by James Madison, succeeds and thrives in one of two ways: first, it can be populated by the kind of public servants that the Founders envisioned and Falwell, himself, claims to want- presidents and politicians who are committed to the public good, place country over self, and have the experience and wisdom necessary to truly represent the interests of their constituents. This would protect the American people from factions and the rise of demagogic tyrants who use the power of government to benefit themselves.

The second way is a safeguard against the breakdown of the first way. Recognizing that man is inherently flawed and must be restrained in order to protect the liberty of others, Madison’s system divided power and set the ambitions and vices of men against each other. The interests of the many would be enough to neutralize the concentrated interests of the few, or so he reasoned. Congress could impeach the president, the judiciary could strike down laws, the president can veto bills, and so on. But even this system that constrains the ability of evildoers to act, some measure of virtue is still required- the other actors in the system must be willing to exercise their power to check other actors who are acting in bad faith.

America’s (quick) descent into parties has made it far easier for demagogues to circumvent the Madisonian safeguards. Demagogues buoyed by majority support can harm the liberty of minorities without recourse. The Electoral College is no longer an independent body of statesmen, but rather a body of partisan creatures whose votes are entirely dictated by the popular outcome of their state. Ergo, the check against the masses has disappeared, and therefore, a crucial check against the election of a demagogue.

Virtue, therefore, is critically important for self-governance as the Madisonian safeguards fail. If the leaders are of good character and are committed to be the kind of virtuous, selfless leaders the Founders envisioned, the Madisonian safeguards are not necessary. And yes, the Madisonian safeguards exist for situations when our leaders fail to live up to this ideal. But they utterly fail when there is no character or virtue among our leaders, such as cases when party trumps country. Elect statesmen and our constitutional republic functions well; elect demagogues and America will descend into tyranny.

Jerry Falwell, Jr., therefore, is completely and utterly wrong. While it is true that the Founders detested monarchy and fought a revolution to overthrow it, they did not want a system where the president acts like “one of us.” They wanted a virtuous republican statesman who conducted himself with the maturity and gravitas the position required. Donald Trump does not do this. He is the embodiment of the kind of “man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. [A man with] Talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity…” His conduct, particularly on Twitter, is more akin to a conspiracy theorist or immature teenager than to the kind of president that the Founders created. Virtuous presidents make the safeguards less necessary, and the safeguards, themselves, are not foolproof when there is little virtue to be found in our leaders. Character and virtue are not traits of royalty, but rather fundamental pillars for the success of republican self-governance.

*PS: I would like to believe that the first Jerry Falwell would be utterly ashamed of his son and his son’s unbelievably sycophantic behavior towards the president. Donald Trump’s adulterous past, alone, should have been sufficient for the heir to the “Moral Majority” to reject him and any kind of alliance with him (to say nothing of Trump’s vanity, materialism, boorishness and pride, as well as the allegations of sexual abuse made against him). Instead, Falwell not only ignores such behavior, but promotes Trump as the greatest thing to ever happen to the Religious Right. His rejection of the notion that our leaders need to be of good moral character is a complete rejection of the idea of the Moral Majority. Junior’s message elevates politics and policy outcomes above any other consideration- religious, moral, or otherwise. Both he and Franklin Graham have been advancing this idolatrous view of politics that is very much at odds with the messages of their fathers. 
​