Being a pundit manqué, in addition to this newsletter I’m doing an occasional chronicle of the 2024 election for the Tocqueville 21 website. Here is the most recent column (also accessible here): Presidential elections are occasions of great drama and uncertainty. In some races, candidates can emerge from relative obscurity to blaze a path to the White House, like Jimmy Carter in 1976 or Barack Obama in 2008. In others, front-runners can see their chances evaporate in the glare of scandals or gaffes, as with Gary Hart in 1988 (sex scandal) or Howard Dean in 2004 (strange behavior). A single memorable line (Ronald Reagan’s “I am paying for this microphone” in the New Hampshire primary debate of 1980; Walter Mondale’s “Where’s the beef?” against Hart in 1984), or disastrous televised image (Michael Dukakis haplessly trying to steer a tank in 1988) can make more of a difference than a hundred carefully crafted position papers.
"f the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado decision (improbable, but not entirely impossible), and battleground states exclude Trump from consideration, then a large proportion of the electorate will see the election as fundamentally illegitimate, something that is in no way healthy for American democracy. If a slew of criminal convictions were, somehow, to force Trump from the race, the result would be effectively the same."
Wouldn't it be far more dangerous for American democracy to set the precedent that a president or even a presidential candidate is immune from consequences for breaking the law? "Don't try to overturn a legitimate election" seems like a more important message to send than "You're still allowed to elect this insurrectionist candidate." Similarly, "You can't steal classified documents" seems like a more important point than "You can commit crimes if you're running for president again and might win."
It is definitely bad that a large portion of the population thinks Trump being excluded from the election would make it fundamentally illegitimate, but that's a Them problem. Many people thought Barack Obama's election was fundamentally illegitimate because he's black (and allegedly a secret Muslim), but I wouldn't think that we would keep black or actual Muslim candidates away to satisfy that instinct, either. I guess to rephrase all this, the only turn of events we should "lament" is not about Trump facing consequences for a small handful of his many, many crimes, it's that a large portion of the population is so ill-informed and misled that they believe this completely appropriate punishment is somehow not deserved.
I for one do not lament this judicial turn and I applaud the decisions in Colorado and Maine to remove Trump from the ballot based on the undisputed fact that he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021.
I consider it improper to retreat from the idea that the judicial branch is one of three co-equal parts of democratic governance. The decision-making tasks in a democracy are divided up and assigned to different branches according to type: the president gets to be commander in chief, etc; the legislature the “power of the purse” etc; and the judicial branch decides legal matters and interprets state constitutions and the US Constitution.
That “a large proportion of the electorate will see the election as fundamentally illegitimate” — whatever “large” here means — is possible but I think unlikely, and it certainly will be no more harmful to American democracy than the frequent Electoral College distortion of American democracy or the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to force the halt of the Florida recount in the presidential election of 2000 (where Gore was the clear popular vote winner nationwide). Was there a “large proportion” of people complaining about that decision?
Face it, January 6 was an outlier event. On average, Americans are far more interested in the Superbowl and Taylor Swift than they are in defending democracy or saving the planet.
Besides, many judges in the US are elected officials, or once were; so if “the people” deciding is what confers full legitimacy, American democracy has that base covered too.
"f the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado decision (improbable, but not entirely impossible), and battleground states exclude Trump from consideration, then a large proportion of the electorate will see the election as fundamentally illegitimate, something that is in no way healthy for American democracy. If a slew of criminal convictions were, somehow, to force Trump from the race, the result would be effectively the same."
Wouldn't it be far more dangerous for American democracy to set the precedent that a president or even a presidential candidate is immune from consequences for breaking the law? "Don't try to overturn a legitimate election" seems like a more important message to send than "You're still allowed to elect this insurrectionist candidate." Similarly, "You can't steal classified documents" seems like a more important point than "You can commit crimes if you're running for president again and might win."
It is definitely bad that a large portion of the population thinks Trump being excluded from the election would make it fundamentally illegitimate, but that's a Them problem. Many people thought Barack Obama's election was fundamentally illegitimate because he's black (and allegedly a secret Muslim), but I wouldn't think that we would keep black or actual Muslim candidates away to satisfy that instinct, either. I guess to rephrase all this, the only turn of events we should "lament" is not about Trump facing consequences for a small handful of his many, many crimes, it's that a large portion of the population is so ill-informed and misled that they believe this completely appropriate punishment is somehow not deserved.
Christopher Jon Delogu, Univ Jean Moulin-Lyon 3
I for one do not lament this judicial turn and I applaud the decisions in Colorado and Maine to remove Trump from the ballot based on the undisputed fact that he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021.
I consider it improper to retreat from the idea that the judicial branch is one of three co-equal parts of democratic governance. The decision-making tasks in a democracy are divided up and assigned to different branches according to type: the president gets to be commander in chief, etc; the legislature the “power of the purse” etc; and the judicial branch decides legal matters and interprets state constitutions and the US Constitution.
That “a large proportion of the electorate will see the election as fundamentally illegitimate” — whatever “large” here means — is possible but I think unlikely, and it certainly will be no more harmful to American democracy than the frequent Electoral College distortion of American democracy or the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to force the halt of the Florida recount in the presidential election of 2000 (where Gore was the clear popular vote winner nationwide). Was there a “large proportion” of people complaining about that decision?
Face it, January 6 was an outlier event. On average, Americans are far more interested in the Superbowl and Taylor Swift than they are in defending democracy or saving the planet.
Besides, many judges in the US are elected officials, or once were; so if “the people” deciding is what confers full legitimacy, American democracy has that base covered too.