Impeachment Trial: American Democracy vs. GQP Authoritarianism

S.V. Date, senior White House correspondent at HuffPost, writes Trump Trial Also A Referendum On GQP Authoritarianism In America (my edits):

As the Senate readies for yet another Donald Trump impeachment trial and prepares to judge the former president’s conduct, senators also may be voting on a much bigger question: American democracy versus GQP authoritarianism.

Advertisement

Because, while Trump is charged specifically with inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, his and his allies’ and supporters’ own words show that the assault was the culmination of a months-long attempt to overturn the election he lost and included a discussion of invoking martial law.

Despite this, Republican senators appear prepared to let Trump go unpunished, thereby allowing him to run for federal office, including the presidency, again — a choice that authoritarianism researchers worry will send exactly the wrong message.

“People have an amazing capacity to incorporate the ‘unimaginable’ and just move on,” said Karen Stenner, author of “The Authoritarian Dynamic,” a 2005 work that warned that Western liberal democracies were at risk from would-be autocrats in an era of rapid demographic changes. “I find it so frightening,”

“At a certain point, we have to quit asking why cowards are acting cowardly,” said Stuart Stevens, a longtime Republican consultant who worked on several presidential campaigns, including that of George W. Bush in 2004, which was the last time a GQP presidential candidate won the popular vote. “These are historically weak people who don’t really care about the country.”

Trump was already impeached a year ago for trying to extort the newly elected president of Ukraine into publicly smearing the Democratic challenger Trump feared most — Joe Biden — using $391 million in congressionally approved military aid as leverage. Republican senators then, with the exception of Utah’s Mitt Romney, said Trump behaved inappropriately but chose to leave him in office.

This time, Trump’s actions went even closer to the heart of American democracy when he tried to remain in power despite having been beaten resoundingly, losing five states and one Nebraska congressional district he had won in 2016. Those actions ultimately resulted in the violent mob attack that killed one police officer and left four Trump supporters dead, with two other officers taking their own lives in the coming days.

Most Republican senators, though, have already made clear in an earlier vote that they do not want to deal with the issue at all and would just as soon the whole thing go away. In a move to dismiss the impeachment as “unconstitutional” because Trump is no longer in office, 45 of the Republicans — including leader Mitch McConnell — voted in favor of dismissal while only five voted with all 50 Democrats to proceed with the trial.

It is extremely concerning that the GQP is essentially giving a vote of legitimation to Trump’s attempts to steal the election and the Jan. 6 coup attempt,said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian and fascism expert at New York University.

Seventeen GQP senators would have to side with the 50 Democrats to reach the threshold required to convict Trump — a figure that Republicans say almost certainly will not be reached. Across the Capitol, 197 out of 211 Republican House members already voted against impeaching Trump just a week after the insurrection.

Indeed, the very night of the attack — with bloodstains still visible and shards of glass everywhere — a full 139 House Republicans and eight senators still voted to challenge Biden as the election’s rightful winner, a continuation of the “big lie” Trump had been pushing since election night that even his attorney general had debunked as false.

In essence, Ben-Ghiat said, Republicans have become the party of authoritarianism. “We must accept that the GQP is a far-right party that has abandoned the democratic process,” she said.

I have previously posted about the political science research which supports that The Republican Party is an authoritarian outlier:

Experts on comparative politics say the GQP is an extremist outlier, no longer belonging in the same conversation with “normal” right-wing parties like Canada’s Conservative Party (CPC) or Germany’s Christian Democratic Party (CDU). Instead, it more closely resembles more extreme right parties — like Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz in Hungary or Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP in Turkey — that have actively worked to dismantle democracy in their own countries.

* * *

A 2019 survey of nearly 2,000 experts on political parties from around the world asked respondents to rate political parties on two axes: the extent to which they are committed to basic democratic principles and their commitment to protecting rights for ethnic minorities. The higher the number, the more anti-democratic and intolerant the party is.

[T]he GQP is an extreme outlier compared to mainstream conservative parties in other wealthy democracies, like Canada’s CPC or Germany’s CDU.

Its closest peers are, almost uniformly, radical right and anti-democratic parties. This includes Turkey’s AKP (a regime that is one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists), and Poland’s PiS (which has threatened dissenting judges with criminal punishment). Experts rate the GQP as substantially more hostile to minority rights than Hungary’s Fidesz, an authoritarian party that has made demonization of Muslim immigrants into a pillar of its official ideology.

In short, there is a consensus among comparative politics scholars that the Republican Party is one of the most anti-democratic political parties in the developed world. It is one of a handful of once-centrist parties that has, in recent years, taken a turn toward the extreme.

Mr. Date continues:

The Founders feared authoritarianism; Trump embraced it.

Authoritarianism in America did not start with Donald Trump. Fear of authoritarians, in fact, was central in the thinking of the framers of the Constitution, who purposefully designed an inefficient, slow-changing central government to limit the damage if one someday came to power.

Among Americans themselves, the desire for strong nationalist leadership to keep out immigrants and focus on native-born citizens has ebbed and flowed over the decades. In the mid-1800s, it gave rise to the Know-Nothing party – so called because its early adherents’ response to questions was to deny any knowledge about the group.

In the 1930s, nationalists [like Charles Lindbergh] who appeared at times to sympathize with German Nazis adopted the slogan “America First” ― which Trump later took for himself — to advocate against U.S. intervention in World War II.

On February 20, 1939, a Nazi rally took place at Madison Square Garden, organized by the German American Bund. More than 20,000 people attended. (Notice how they appropriated the symbols of George Washington and the original 13 star American flag).

In the 1950s, a fear of Soviet communism was used by Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy and others to enforce conformity and intimidate political opponents, while a decade later, Richard Nixon centered his successful run for the presidency around a “law and order” theme on behalf of a “silent majority,” promising a crackdown on anti-war and pro-civil rights dissent. [The Southern Strategy, a Republican electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to white Southerners’ racial grievances in order to gain their support].

Trump adopted both of those phrases during his time in office and claimed to be speaking for most Americans, even as polls showed that he never once in four years reached even 50% approval.

Yet even Nixon, who resigned rather than face impeachment and removal for his involvement in and cover-up of an attempt to wiretap the Democratic National Committee headquarters in advance of his 1972 reelection, was never as brazen as Trump in his overt attempts to use the powers of the presidency for his personal advantage.

What Trump did, said Stenner, a political psychologist who has taught at Duke and Princeton, was bring openly anti-democratic tactics into the mainstream of a major party, which is now reluctant to disavow either the tactics or the man.

“A large proportion of the U.S. population is predisposed to authoritarianism, and a large proportion of your elites is willing to manipulate and play to that for their own purposes,” she said, adding that her research has found that about one-third of Americans fall into that category. “The problem long precedes Trump and will outlast him, particularly since it’s clear that the GQP has no viable electoral strategy other than continuing to service this widespread yearning for oneness and sameness.”

Trump ran the most openly authoritarian campaign in modern times during his successful 2016 bid, rife with dark themes demonizing immigrants, frequently alluding to violence and constantly describing himself as “strong” and his opponents as weak.

Upon winning, he brought those sensibilities to the White House, starting with an inaugural address dark in tone and paternalistic in its promises that described a dystopia that only he could fix.

“The crime, and the gangs, and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now,” he said. “There should be no fear. We are protected, and we will always be protected. We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement. And most importantly, we will be protected by God.”

He began implementing his vision almost immediately, starting with an executive order imposing a “Muslim ban” in the first days of his administration. Two years later, he declared a national emergency to raid the military’s construction budget and build a southern border wall after the Republican-led Congress refused to appropriate money for it.

That Trump believed that the government was also available for his personal political gain became apparent in late 2019, when a whistleblower revealed that he had tried to coerce Ukraine into helping his reelection effort and had used the national security infrastructure to do so. Nine months later, as he geared up his reelection campaign, Trump ordered National Guard and federal police agencies to violently clear a public square, using beatings and tear gas, so that he could stage a photo-op in front of a church.

The QAnon Coup

It was in the election’s aftermath, though, that Trump’s attempts to hang onto power ran roughshod past the bounds of both the law and the Constitution.

While his campaign legal team pushed for recounts and challenged voting procedures in states he had narrowly lost to Biden, Trump began listening more and more to other lawyers and advisers who pushed even more drastic action — including several aligning themselves with the “QAnon” cult.

Its believers — who hold that the United States government is filled with Satan-worshippers who drink an elixir made from the blood of murdered children and that Trump is God’s messiah sent to bring these evil-doers to justice — have, since the start of QAnon’s spread in late 2017, believed that Trump would one day declare martial law and execute his enemies.

When asked about the cult, Trump refused on multiple occasions to denounce it and instead praised it for supporting him. “I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate,” he said last year.

Among the cult’s adherents are Michael Flynn, Trump’s initial national security adviser, and Lin Wood, a Georgia lawyer who had been working with attorney Sidney Powell to overturn election results in states that Trump lost. Flynn publicly advocated for martial law and the seizing of voting machines. Wood had predicted the arrest and execution of Vice President Mike Pence. Powell herself frequently alluded to the “the storm,” which QAnon followers believe is the day Trump will wreak his vengeance. She repeated several of the cult’s conspiracy theories at her and lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s infamous Nov. 19 news conference.

Both Flynn and Powell were in the Oval Office with Trump on multiple occasions, advocating that he use his powers to invalidate the results of the Electoral College vote that in December had formally given Biden a 306-232 victory, and either ordering new elections in states Biden won or simply declaring himself the winner.

The eventual expression of that plan was the Jan. 6 insurrection, which was designed to intimidate Pence and Congress into setting aside the results from enough states Biden had won to throw the election to the House, where Trump would win because of the one-state-one-vote rules. Giuliani himself admitted as much in a voicemail he inadvertently left on the wrong cell phone.

Trump Thugs Breach The Capitol
Thousands of domestic terrorists took over the US capitol on January 6.

For authoritarianism experts, it is that readiness to cast aside fundamental standards of democracy and the rule of law to retain power, the willingness to use the threat of violence as a coercion tactic, that makes a Senate conviction so important.

“It is of deep concern, because part of how this dynamic works is by an interaction between the worldview of the base and the willingness of leaders to stoke and fuel some of the more troubling inclinations of that base,” said Jonathan Weiler, a University of North Carolina political scientist and co-author of “Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics,” a 2009 book that, like Stenner’s, predicted the rise of someone like Trump.

“At a time when we need responsible leadership more than ever, the political incentives within the [Republican] party increasingly militate against that,” Weiler said.

Added Stenner: “This is not over, by any means.”

Americans have a stark choice to make: to defend and preserve the American experiment in democracy which has survived almost 245 years – will we make it to our 250th anniversary in 2026? – or allow white nationalists, Christian nationalists, the QAnon cult and anti-government domestic terrorists in the GQP to end our American experiment in democracy, and to impose GQP authoritarianism in the name of Trumpism, the new American fascism?

These Vichy Republicans are traitors to their country and to the Constitution. True American patriots will forever resist this fascist putsch.





Advertisement

Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “Impeachment Trial: American Democracy vs. GQP Authoritarianism”

  1. It is being reported that “The impeachment managers believe, to have any chance of making an effective case, they must make clear it is Mr. Trump who is on trial, not his party.”

    This is assbackwards in my opinion, in light of the fact that the jury is “rigged.” 45 Republicans already voted not to even hear the impeachment case, which means a tyranny of the minority will prevent a two-thirds majority vote from ever convicting Trump. Given this bad faith, it would better serve the American people to put Trump’s enablers in the Senate on trial and present evidence of their complicity and aiding and abetting Trump’s failed coup attempt. I’t’s about improving electoral chances of taking Senate seats in 2022 at this point.

  2. Trump’s impeachment lawyers are already looking at a bar complaint for lack of candor to the tribunal. “Law Professor Cited 15 Times by Trump’s Legal Team Says Impeachment Memo Was Filled with ‘Flat-Out Misrepresentations’ of His Work”, https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/law-professor-cited-15-times-by-trumps-legal-team-says-impeachment-memo-was-filled-with-flat-out-misrepresentations-of-his-work/

    Donald Trump’s defense team was accused of flagrantly misrepresenting the work of a constitutional scholar when asserting that the former president’s impeachment is unconstitutional.

    [T]he brief relied heavily on a highly-regarded 2001 academic article on late impeachments by Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt. Unfortunately for Trump’s attorneys, Kalt—who is widely viewed as the leading expert in constitutional law dealing with the presidency, presidential pardons, impeachment, succession, and the 25th Amendment—immediately responded to the memo by saying it repeatedly distorted and misrepresented his work.

    “They suggest that I was endorsing an argument when what I actually did was note that argument–and reject it,” Kalt wrote, specifically citing footnote 57 of Trump’s impeachment memo.

    That footnote reads: “As Brian Kalt explains, ideas like requiring a two-thirds majority to convict in the Senate are not self-evident, which is why the Framers took the time to spell them out. Late impeachment, so the argument goes, which is also not self-evident, would have also required specification if the Framers wished to include it as a possibility.”

    But in his article, Kalt clearly reaches the opposite conclusion.

    “A critic of late impeachment could argue that things like two-thirds majority requirements are not self-evident and, therefore, require specification, and that late impeachment is similarly counterintuitive and also requires specification,” Kalt wrote. He then noted that several state constitutions made specific references to late impeachment, but only “in the context of limiting it” and while simultaneously using “language that suggested that late impeachment was otherwise implicitly permissible.”

    “Therefore, allowing late impeachment is the self-evident proposition, not the counterintuitive one, and failure to explicitly bar it while specifying other limitations on the impeachment power is a telling omission,” he concluded.

    Kalt went on to say that there are “multiple examples of such flat-out misrepresentations” in the Trump memo, highlighting “the worst” such instance as the contention that his work espoused the theory that “when a president is no longer in office, the objective of an impeachment ceases,” a notion expressly rejected as “deeply flawed” in the article.

    “If removal were the only possible judgment in impeachment cases, [this] interpretation would be more likely. But removal is not the only possible judgment mentioned in the text; disqualification is possible too,” the article stated. “Removal is a mandatory sentence for sitting officers upon conviction, but it is not the sole end of impeachment.”

    In an email to Law&Crime, Kalt said the misrepresentation of his work tainted the credibility of Trump’s attorneys before the trial has even begun.

    “In a typical legal case, one of the worst things a lawyer who values his or her credibility can do is to cite authorities that actually say the opposite of what the lawyer claims,” he said. “An impeachment trial is unlike a typical legal case in a lot of ways, but I hope that this is not one of them. I hope that the senators realize what it means when lawyers misuse sources in this way.”

  3. Idiots like Sen.Rand Paul and charlatans like Sen. Ted Cruz argue that a president cannot be tried and convicted at an impeachment trial after leaving office.

    Richard White, emeritus professor of American history at Stanford University, explains the precedent that proves them wrong. “The Trump Trial Wouldn’t Have Been Possible Without This Impeachment”, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/opinion/trump-impeachment-william-belknap.html (The House managers in 1876 thought they had established a precedent. They did not count on modern Republicans.)

    “The House decided that the impeachment power targeted only acts committed while in office. Impeachment was remedial rather than punitive. Punishment of the officeholder was only incidental to the ultimate judgment, the goal of which was to remedy the evil. But remedying the evil meant that officeholders could be pursued and convicted even after they returned to private life for the high crimes and misdemeanors committed during their terms in office in order to prevent them from ever holding office again. There was no time limit on impeachment.”

    Charles J. Cooper, a stalwart of the conservative legal establishment, says that Republicans ae wrong to assert that it is unconstitutional for a former president to be tried for impeachable offenses. In an opinion piece posted on The Wall Street Journal’s website, Charles J. Cooper, who is closely allied with top Republicans in Congress, dismisses as illogical the claim that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial for a former president. “The Constitution Doesn’t Bar Trump’s Impeachment Trial”, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-constitution-doesnt-bar-trumps-impeachment-trial-11612724124?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

    Michael W. McConnell, professor of law and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, and Ken Gormley, president of Duquesne University and a constitutional scholar, write at the Washington Post, “Yes, the Senate has the power to try Trump. He was impeached in office.”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/04/yes-senate-has-power-try-trump-he-was-impeached-office/

    As the Senate prepares for the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, many Republican senators argue that the case should be dismissed because the Constitution does not permit the impeachment and trial of a president after leaving office. As constitutional scholars with different partisan affiliations, we both believe that is incorrect. Moreover, we reject the argument that this would open the door to impeaching past presidents or other former officials.

    [T]he concern that trying Trump would empower Congress to go back and harass former presidents and others long out of office is unfounded. However, there are at least three historical examples in which, once the impeachment process had begun in the House, a trial proceeded in the Senate even after the official had resigned or otherwise left office.

    [S]ome have argued that the constitutional clause providing that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States” implies that any consequence of conviction must consist of both removal and disqualification from future office — which could happen only in the case of sitting officers.

    That is not what the clause says. It says the judgment may not “extend further” than these two sanctions. It does not say that both sanctions must be imposed in every case. Indeed, most convictions over the years involved only one: removal from office.

    These questions have particular practical import when a president or high-level official commits an impeachable offense late in his or her term. Because of the exigencies of the calendar, such an officer might escape the sanctions that the framers created simply by running out the clock and slipping out of office before the Senate can try the impeachment. That would remove a significant disincentive to misbehavior in office. We should not impute that miscalculation to the framers.

    The constitutionality of a Senate trial on Trump’s impeachment is not seriously in doubt.

    • So when the Sunday morning bobblehead shows book an idiot like Sen. Rand Paul or a charlatan like Sen. Ted Cruz to discuss impeachment and to promote this false and legally flawed defense that Republican senators have glommed onto, they are allowing Republicans to continue to engage in the Big Lie and spread disinformation to the American public. The media must stop enabling this disinformation.

Comments are closed.