Is it really Democracy Trump is threatening or is it civil society?

To ensure that our democracy survives and that violence is not regarded as an alternative to victory at the ballot box, Trump’s conduct must have consequences. Refusing to prosecute Trump and his inner circle would only encourage irreverence to democracy. What a monumental failure of leadership that would be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/22/jan-6-merrick-garland-prosecution-donald-trump/

I get the appeal of trying to paint Trumpism as fascism or Autocracy, etc, but really, once you start encouraging citizens to attack other citizens, even if they are public servants, it seems like you're going way past democracy.

Even Monarchies and chieftainships had laws and mechanisms for state sponsored dispute resolution to keep people from killing each other.

I'm thinking some pre-historic hunt leader, probably told hot blooded warrior/hunters first told folks to not kill each other and submit to some sort of third party judgment, if only to make sure there were enough hunters left to feed the tribe.

Vigilantism and lawlessness isn't just undemocratic. It's uncivilized, imo.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

Unfortunately, the country is forced into a 50/50 split towards the left or the right. There is no middle ground even though the majority of voters are moderates. I don't see Trump trying to destroy democracy or civility, I see him trying to destroy the Washington "Status Quo".

BohemianBabe · M

@Roadsterrider The Democrats are the center.
And when Trump tried to overturn Democracy so he could remain president, that was him trying to destroy American Democracy.

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@BohemianBabe There are moderate democrats and moderate republicans. Then there are extremist fringes of both parties. There are plenty of democrats and republicans unhappy with the way the policy of the Biden administration is heading. The liberals in Washington had impeachment hearings trying to slam Trump twice, acquitted on both counts, then tried to impeach him a third time after he left office. They have no authority except to censure if found guilty. If Trump was guilty of anything, if there was evidence of a crime, he would be in criminal proceedings instead of senate hearing where they can't do anything except prorogate the lie and make a dog and pony show for the lefties that can't get Trump out of their heads.

There are just as many democrats as there are republicans who are religious, who are gun owners, who are pissed off because inflation is hurting them, and the list could go on ad nauseam. So when liberals label groups as a basket of deplorables or rednecks clinging to their guns and bible. They are talking to moderate democrats as well as republicans. The only place that is really a liberal stronghold are the large metro areas.

There have been questions about the 2020 election and there has never been a definitive answer as to whether anyone was trying to overthrow democracy. Questions about vote harvesting, questions about vote fraud, democrat state legislatures and AGs keep shutting down any real test of any of this.

It would go a long way in restoring credibility to Biden if all the accusations were actually seen before a judge and proven false. Democrats fight that at every turn.

MistyCee

@Roadsterrider Not all Democrats are fighting criminal charges and lots of them are pretty frustrated with Garland at the moment, though.

Also, the House may not just be limited to censure. This idea is a little wacky, but here's a plan to keep Trump from running:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/23/there-better-option-keep-trump-office-than-prosecution/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_opinions

Roadsterrider · 56-60, M

@MistyCee Is this about law or just damaging a candidate they can't run against. Personally, if as the democrats say, criminal activity, I want to see them before a judge and prosecuted.

MistyCee

@Roadsterrider I get what you're saying, but law and politics aren't totally separate. I'd love to see Trump prosecuted, but politically, I'm not sanguine about it happening at the federal level, and this at least, is something Congress might be able to accomplish without getting squashed by the Supreme Court.

Having said that, I'm not really endorsing it as much as pointing it out, and reading the Bruen decision, I'm not so sure that it's worth the effort.

In 10 minutes, I could probably outline how to use Thomas "history only" based approach to declare a disqualification procedure unconstitutional.

This case is likely the most revolutionary, imo, since maybe Marbury v Madison.