How can you defend a president who is a danger to democracy?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
How can you defend a president who is a danger to democracy?
Michael Gerson March 14, 2019
A friend just returned from some time with a group of wealthy conservative donors. “They were ambivalent about Donald Trump two years ago,” he said. “Now they are vociferously pro-Trump. There’s a psychological study to be done here.”
Those in and around Republican politics have seen this dynamic at work. In spite of past misgivings, most GOP partisans seem to have accepted the idea that President Trump is their guy in the broader culture/political war. They have rallied to his defense in a way reminiscent of how Democrats rallied to President Bill Clinton during his scandal and impeachment.
The problem, of course, is that Trump — unlike Clinton — is incapable of effective outreach to less partisan voters. To the contrary, he has confirmed public suspicions about his unfitness and instability. There is no measurable sense in which Trump has grown into the office he holds. He remains defiantly nativist, instinctually divisive, habitually offensive. A significant portion of the voting public has gone from ambivalence about Trump to alarm, hostility and disdain.
So, in the 2018 midterm elections, Trump tried to nationalize the election on issues that motivate his party — appealing to those voters who are excited by exclusion. And GOP partisans responded by turning out in large numbers . But it was not nearly enough to counteract greater public fears.
In other words, the politics of partisan mobilization works only if you don’t scare the rest of America to death. Republicans have come to the defense of a man who is incapable of widening his appeal. And this has opened up a reality gap between the GOP and the rest of our political culture. The rift between Republican perceptions of the president and the view of the broader public has grown into a chasm. This is now the main political context of the 2020 campaign.
Why have Republicans fallen in line with a politician who has sometimes targeted their own party and leaders for populist disdain? Why have conservatives come to the defense of a leader with decidedly unconservative views on trade and foreign policy? Why have religious conservatives embraced the living, breathing embodiment of defining deviancy down?
This phenomenon would benefit from a psychological study. Those who violate their own beliefs for political gain — elevating the ends of politics over the means of character — become mentally invested in their choice. Admitting that Trump is a chaotic and destructive force in U.S. politics would require self-judgment. There is a reason that enablers enable — because a more objective self-assessment would bring guilt and pain.
At one level, the reality is not complex. Trump is a populist demagogue who gains permission for his brand of politics by giving favored groups certain ideological benefits — particularly a tax cut, regulatory relief and conservative judges. I happen to agree with some of those decisions. But they are part of a system or structure that was created to provide legitimacy for a general lowering of political and moral standards.
At the level of raw politics, this deal has worked. A president who panders to the religious right may end up being more reliable than a leader who is actually a religious conservative and thinks for himself or herself. Pandering is utterly predictable. Conscience makes distinctions.
But there is a downside to the deal. This particular demagogue requires not just consent but approval. And not just approval but obeisance. So religious conservatives end up blessing what Pete Buttigieg, a 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful and the mayor of South Bend, Ind., memorably called “the porn-star presidency.” Deficit hawks vote for massive increases in debt. Economic conservatives accommodate the instincts of an economically illiterate leader. Military hawks endorse a foreign policy that resembles President Barack Obama’s, except with more praise of dictators and less backbone.
To ensure the political triumph of their views, these partisans must publicly dilute and discredit those views. Trump offers true believers an uncomfortable arrangement: What you would save you must first defile.
The historical judgment on that deal depends on how destructive Trump ends up being to our public order. Making the case for Trump requires his advocates to consistently minimize his vices. Rather than conceding Trump’s demolition of public standards of honesty and decency, his supporters pronounce him a little rough around the edges. His racial bias is dismissed as straight talk or rhetorical excess. His testing of constitutional boundaries is an excess of zeal. His cruelty and crudity are, when you get used to them, just part of the show.
But if, as I suspect, Trump’s deception, indecency, racism, viciousness and lawlessness are uniquely dangerous to our democracy, his enablers will find their deal more difficult to explain.
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
Do not comment on the seeder. Any comments about the seeder will be referred to the moderators for removal.
If Trump could change, he might have a glimmer of hope. But he can't change. 2020 will be no different from 2018 when he got his ass handed to him.
Simple, John. The people who defend Donald Trump do not care about democracy. At best, they are indifferent... but sadly many of them, perhaps most of them, are fervently anti-democracy. They would happily see Donald Trump as absolute ruler.
I don't know John you guys did a pretty good job defending Obama didn't ya?
I mean prior to Bill Clinton, a president didn't need defending, A president just was by being duly elected....
Since Clinton, a president must not only be elected, but acceptable as well.... (election is no longer a valid adjudication of acceptable)
Ok.... It's just a measure of how divided the nation has become.... ie how well the people who want a divided nation are doing their job.....
And they have been doing a very very good job of it the last 26 years or so.....
We have to face the fact that the vast majority of Trump supporters don't care about decency or honesty, if they did never in a million years would they continue to support Trump.
Michael Gerson, the author, is a Republican who worked in the Bush white house. . He is one of the many prominent Republicans who oppose Trump in the media, because they know that he is unfit, unhinged, and a threat to our nation.
There were of course, no such number of Democrats who felt similarly about Obama. That is just one of the discrepancies Trump apologists try to sweep under the rug.
Reckoning day is coming and all the trash will be swept out.
i think he's a complete an utter asswhole, as are most of his defenders , imo
Yeah, he's an evangelical "Establishment" republican, of course he would be against anything outside the establishment..... He was Bush's speechwriter and responsible for the speech bush gave outside the National cathedral after 9/11.....
Yep, the trash will be swept out thank god.... (coming sooner than anyone expects)
Maybe, or maybe he's just against having a pathological liar in charge of our country. It's amazing the way you people find something wrong with everyone but Trump, when he is the one who has everything wrong with him.
I'll grant you that a lot of underinformed people were not familiar with Trump prior to when they voted for him in 2016, but no one has an excuse any more.
The decent people of America have to stand up to Trumpism. It is happening, but we also have to contend with the media tendency to normalize any outrageous thing if it can increase their own popularity or finances. So there is an ongoing attempt to normalize the piece of shit. We will see if America is willing to stand up. If Trump, a pathological liar, gets re-elected after a blizzard of lies, cheating and unimaginable ignorance it will be the lowest moment in the history of the country.
Whatever remnants of decency there are left in the Republican Party should be planning how to convince him not to run next year.
There are remnants of decency left...?
The only reason Obama needed any defending was because of the racism and bigotry bestowed upon him by republicans and continues to this day as the comment shows.
The man was a one term senator from Illinois who did not even finish one term and is said to have not even showed up half the time while the Senate was in session. Yep, real qualified he was...
So, IMPEACH TRUMP!
If Trump is that great a danger then impeaching Trump becomes a moral imperative. Of course, it appears that it will be necessary to remove Nancy Pelosi before anyone will try to do the right thing.
never seen anything like this total FCKN ABORTION
Mama should have made daddy use a condom - or swallowed.
Fact is that up to now, they have nothing concrete to impeach him on and they know it. At this point it is all posturing. If the left can come up with anything conclusive that stands up in a court of law then by all means impeach him and be done with it. I'm all for it, otherwise they should give it a rest...
Look , Trump is not fit for office. He is phenomenally dishonest, he is spectacularly and completely corrupt, and he is a monumental ignoramus. And I am not exaggerating one bit.
Those three facts in themselves disqualify him. This back and forth about "beyond a reasonable doubt evidence" is ridiculous.
Open your eyes for god's sake.
You aren't tired of Trump lying to you? You aren't sick of seeing this moron mis- state fact after fact that even 10 or 12 year olds know? You aren't fed up with his personal corruption?
Find another republican or conservative to run if that is what you want in office. That's fine. But stop pretending this piece of shit Trump is acceptable.
Then IMPEACH TRUMP already. What other justifications are needed?
Why has it become impossible for Congress to protect the country and do the right thing? Is winning elections really more important than protecting the free world from a dishonest and corrupt President?
John, you keep trying to tell I support Trump when I have told you repeatedly I do not. Again, prove where I have said I approve or support him? You cannot and you know it! But because I have said I do not share your views, you automatically think I support him and accuse me of such. That is pretty hypocritical on your part. You tell me I need to open my eyes, but fail to heed your own advice...
I suspect he/she is doing so under multiple registrations.
You really don't understand what she said do you Nerm
So, explain what Nancy Pelosi meant.
Isn't Pelosi's statements consistent with the precedent set by James Comey?
Good Grief! Shit like this is why I end up defending Trump all the time. There is plenty he says and does that I disagree with, but saying he is a danger to democracy is just beyond stupid. Democracy is doing just fine, but these hysterics with TDS say this apocalyptic crap and people just nod their heads and say "yup!"
There isn't even a crappy argument offered in this article that substantiates the claim that Democracy is in danger. There is nothing to suggest that people have lost the right to vote, that Congress can no longer pass laws, or that anyone who voted in 2016 or since has seen their vote uncounted or changed. And in fact, the House just switched from Republican to Democrat control, so Democracy seems to be rolling right along.
Maybe a more important question would be "why have liberals insisted on attacking at every turn someone with decidedly unconservative views on . . . well . . . lots of things?" You'd think they'd support some of his ideas since they campaigned on a lot of it within the last decade or two. e.g., infrastructure spending, criminal justice reform, pulling troops out of foreign wars, improving (not scrapping) NAFTA, and yes - border security.
I think the answer is pretty obviously that they are more interested in political power than they are in serving the country and they don't actually believe in much beyond achieving and protecting that power.
I remember when failing to accept the results of an elections was cause for alarm because it was a "threat to democracy".
I wonder whatever happened to those folks who said that?
well,
one of them is POTUS, no ?
The rigged system he played like Putins Monkey grinding his organ
donor card till raw
Um, NO. Your little darling Hillary said that failure to accept the results of an election was a threat to democracy. I am rather surprised you didn't recognize her words. Well, not really surprised all that much. It doesn't sit well with you now, so of course she must not have said it, right?
LMAO!
my litle darling Hillary..?
Show me ONCE, Where i EVER said such.
I've ALWAYS stated i was never a fan of the Hil,
but compared to Trump...
WHAT DA FCK
Actually everyone who loves liberty and our Constitutional Republic should be an enemy of democracies as our founders were.
The democracy the Democrats call for is nothing more than communism with a different name
Ben Franklin said it best: "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”
— John Adams (1797-1801) Second President of the United States and Patriot
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent."
Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the U. S.
"In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”
— Noah Webster (1758-1843) Father of the Dictionary & American Patriot
“All such men are, or ought to be, agreed, that simple governments are despotisms; and of all despotisms, a democracy, though the least durable, is the most violent.”
— Fisher Ames (1758-1808) Founding Father and framer of the First Amendment to the Constitution
“Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, laws, under no form of government, are better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind.”
— George Washington (1732-1799) Father of the Country, 1st President of the United States
"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."
— Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the U. S.
“The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness, which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be, liberty.”
— Fisher Ames (1758-1808) Founding Father and framer of the First Amendment to the Constitution
“But between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
— John Marshall (1755-1835) House Member, Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
"Democracy is the most vile form of government...Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
— James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
— Winston Churchill (1874-1965), British Politician & Leader.
“Democracy: The worship of jackals by jackasses.”
— Henry L. Mencken (1880-1956) American Writer
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
— Henry L. Mencken (1880-1956) American Writer
“It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.”
— James Fenimore Cooper (1789–1851) American historical novelist
“Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.”
— Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Irish Playwright and Novelist
How Can You Defend A President Who Is A Danger To Democracy?
Greed
I was going to say criminal avarice but greed sums it up quite nicely, too...
His opponents openly discuss packing the Supreme court.
Nothing he's done approaches that type of threat to our system of governance.
It's not President Trump that's trying to alter the democratic voting process in this country. It's the Democrats
It's not President Trump that's trying to lower the voting age in this country. It's the Democrats
It's not President Trump that's allowing illegals to vote in this country. It's the Democrats
It's not President Trump that's launched an waste of money / time investigation into nothing. It's the Democrats
And all because they lost an election to the "New Guy".