Democrats and never-Trump Republicans assert that Trump must not be reelected because he threatens the Constitution. Peggy Noonan goes so far as to say, in her most recent WSJ column, that Kamala Harris should move to a more centrist position on a range of issues in order to improve her chances of winning and thereby negating Trump’s perceived threat to Constitutional government.
The problem with this formulation is that the Democrats don’t much like Constitutional government, and indeed don’t much like the Constitution itself. (And by ‘Democrats’, I mean not only the Democrat officeholders and politicians, but also the larger Party, including the academics, bureaucrats, and media people who are the party’s ideologues and the beneficiaries of its polices and who think themselves entitled to be the kingmakers or prince-electors of America.)
For example, here is Hillary Clinton, calling for Americans to be civilly or even criminally charged for ‘misinformation.’ Here is Kamala herself, asserting that Trump has lost his free speech privileges and that his Twitter account (this is from 2019) should be taken down…and expressing dismay that social media sites can speak directly to millions of people without any level of oversight. Tim Walz says ““There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech”…the definitions of which, of course, he surely expects to be edicted by people ideologically aligned with himself. Democrat Representative Jamie Raskin has been a leading figure in Congress opposing efforts to investigated and curtail massive censorship programs coordinated by the Biden administration.
Many academics and journalists–representing professions that are highly Democrat-aligned–have attacked the very foundations of free speech and constitutional government. For example: New York Times book critic Jennifer Szalai scoffs at what she calls “Constitution worship.” In another New York Times piece, titled “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” two law professors (one from Harvard and one from Yale) called for America to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, is author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” published last month. There are more examples at the link.
Democrats have also called for expanding the membership of the Supreme Court, for purposes of what used to be called court-packing, and been extremely tolerant of the ‘heckler’s veto’…indeed, often now the ‘thug’s veto’…to shut down speech which is considered Badthink.
This is not a matter of a few rhetorical excesses; there is clearly a very broad-based and muli-layered movement against free speech–and toward further centralization of power–among prominent and influential Democrats.
When Democrats cast themselves as defenders of Democracy, I am reminded of the phrase ‘guided democracy’ as employed by the Indonesian ruler Sukarno to describe his system.
Many people forget that most official oaths are not sworn in favor of “the current administration of the United States government”, but to the Constitution of the United States.
Lots of actual traitors out there now.
I consider it to be highly likely that this could be the final election in this country that can be possibly considered to be real. Or it could not. In the absence of a societal belief in the legitimacy and integrity of the electoral process, there is no basis for claiming consent of the governed. At which point the Social Contract breaks down.
What are the odds that either side will consider the election results to be legitimate if they lose?
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai….Roger Simon cites Mark Halperin that “millions of Democrats would suffer from a psychological collapse that would create the “greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country”.
I hope not. The fact that Trump has already been president may, if combined with the right kind of words and actions from Trump, minimize this…and maybe we can all try to be calming influences on the anti-Trumpers in our lives.
Roger Simon link:
https://americanrefugees.substack.com/p/who-will-the-dems-replace-kamala
bobby b….treason is defined very narrowly in the Constitution, for good reason:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
I don’t think violation of the Oath could be considered treason under this clause, unless it were accompanied by some kind of action clearly favoring an enemy.