Where do we go from here?

I have not had that much new to say about our political circumstances in the last few months. I feel somewhat more pessimistic than I did in May, in large part because the Supreme Court has gone much further to “accommodate” Trump than I expected (largely though interim rulings that do not actually ratify his absurd constitutional claims, but still allow him and his Administration to work their will for now.) I am also somewhat shocked by the BREADTH of his Administration’s attack on existing institutions and practices, including their (at least partially successful) efforts to bend leading academic institutions to their will. And while the actions of ICE have contributed to a substantial decline in the number of Americans who support the Administration’s immigration policy, it is horrifying how many are apparently OK with masked men with no official insignia grabbing people off the street and taking them away based only on some belief that they MIGHT be undocumented immigrants.

On the other hand….it seems clear that his policies as well as other aspects of his behavior (Epstein!) are costing him popular support rather than building it. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo writes that in history, would-be authoritarian leaders have rarely if ever been able to consolidate power in the face of opposition by a clear majority of the population (see for example his Backchannel column on July 21)

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-and-the-american-people-two-ships-crossing-in-the-night/sharetoken/06d2eb12-3946-4104-a1ca-79b78484f2d2

and suggests that this bodes ill for Trump’s authoritarian project in the longer run. So perhaps I and many others are being TOO pessimistic…

So I am left where I have been most of this year, supporting legal and political opposition to the President and his Administration while not committing myself to believing that his defeat is either likely or unlikely…

Meanwhile, I continue to think about what we might do in the future to make another Trump less likely (if we get the opportunity.) I still think that if we retain our current Constitutional order and voting practices, we must build safeguards into the process by which candidates are nominated that do not allow a skilled demagogue to win a major party nomination based only on support from primary voters who mostly know little and feel little responsibility for their choices.

I suggested in an earlier post that perhaps each party could select a relatively small representative sample of their members who would then be tasked with LEARNING ABOUT THE CANDIDATES AND THE ISSUES for an extended period (months) before selecting the party’s candidate. I continue to think that this would lead to better qualified candidates. However, on reflection, I now think that even if such a panel was representative, most 21^st Century voters would not accept being left entirely out of the candidate selection process. I am now thinking that instead, such a panel (perhaps augmented with party professionals?) might be tasked with certifying a limited number of would-be candidates who would then be authorized to participate in a party primary contest. In this context, individual panelists would probably be asked to vote for a number of candidates who they would deem acceptable, rather than a single favorite candidate; their primary role would be to screen OUT candidates who were seen to be manifestly unsuitable after serious consideration and so should not be given the opportunity to bid for support from a wider, less engaged electorate.

I do fear that in America, this proposal might be the equivalent of “locking the barn after the horses have fled.” Those leading the current version of the GOP would be unlikely to find it attractive, and in any case it seems doubtful to me that a panel of Trumpified Republicans could be expected to support responsible potential candidates even after extended consideration. But it might still be a worthwhile path for Democrats who may be concerned about similar future pitfalls, and perhaps for political parties in some other countries that are not dominated by Trump-like candidates but do perceive them as a threat……

I also continue to think about a very different approach to address our current crisis that may be more realistic even if more radical: a voluntary partition (or “national divorce”) of the United States that could either yield two formally independent nation-states, or alternatively two loosely confederated domains with independence from each other on most policies. This approach would create a relatively safe space for liberal democracy in parts of the currently United States where that has majority support, while also allowing those who appear to prefer autocratic and reactionary governance (apparently a large number of Americans, if we judge by Trump’s continued political viability in 2024) to live in a country that better represents their “values.”

I have little to add to my earlier comments on possible pros and cons of a scenario like this, but I have thought a little further about how it might come about. It seems unlikely that a national government dominated by Republicans would pursue a policy that would entail “giving up” half of the presently constituted United States, and realistically, it seems doubtful to me that Democrats will pursue such a path if they find themselves in full control of the government either. However, such an outcome MIGHT emerge if we find ourselves with a persistently divided government, which is unlikely to lead to viable governance of any kind given the intensely different views of the two parties; it is possible that some leaders and partisans of both parties would come to prefer an outcome that gives them reasonably secure control of half of the country to one that entail unending struggle and extreme government dysfunction.

Another possibility may be the emergence of a third party or political movement outside of the mainstream of either party, which might campaign primarily for the goal of voluntary partition without associating itself strongly with the policy preferences of either party. Like most well-informed observers of American politics, I have generally been unimpressed by the reported popularity of the abstract notion of a third party with no clearly defined message except “we are not Democrats or Republicans.” However, I think that a third party with a clearly defined and in some sense limited agenda that would be essentially orthogonal to that of either major party (and could plausibly draw support from those on either side) might have significant success if the struggle between “Blue America” and “Red America” becomes too costly for all Americans and/or if partisans on both sides side become skeptical that their side can win an enduring victory in a country so deeply divided as ours has become.

Such a division of the country would surely be deeply unsatisfying to all of us who have strong views about the rightness of our cause and fear for those who might be “trapped” under an illiberal regime by a partition (and making provisions to facilitate relocation for those who would desire it would be an important part of any such program.) However it may be more attainable than an enduring victory for “our side” in the United States as currently constituted. At the least, I think that this is a direction that we may want to go if the next couple years suggest that such a victory is unlikely.