MAGA, Biden, and the American Core

 In the upcoming presidential race between Trump and Biden, I am for neither.  I think either one, if elected, will have serious detrimental effects on the country.   So many people say they will pick between “the lesser of two evils”, but don’t they realize that even picking the lesser evil is indeed picking an evil?

But is it possible that only one is the evil and the other is simply going to be a terrible president?  But then again, if both are simply terrible, we have the same problem:  picking the less terrible is still picking the terrible.

I do think the two candidates are terrible (or perhaps evil) in different ways, and while I do not want to vote for either, the difference that I explain below helps me choose one over the other, but only if absolutely necessary to try to stop the one that I truly cannot vote for.

America is resilient but only if…

I believe that America can recover from just about anything as long as her core remains intact.  By her core I mean the keys to our democracy:  the Constitution, the three separate and co-equal branches (judicial, legislative, executive), the rule of law, and the core/original cabinet departments (Defense, State, Treasury, Attorney General).

While one or more of these may be battered and weak from time to time, as long as they are not destroyed they can and will give this country the way and means to recover, even from a terrible or evil administration.  But, if any of these are significantly damaged to the point that the people no longer respect or support them, then this country will not have the necessary tools to recover.

I believe that only one of the two major candidates is actually acting in ways that undermine and have the potential to destroy this necessary American core.  That candidate is Trump.

The key difference between the terribles

Biden wants to transform America into a more progressive (socialist) state.  He and the Progressive Left do this by using the core institutions while at the same time transforming them to a more progressive framework.  The institutions are not destroyed although they may be significantly altered. 

Yes, one may argue that if altered enough, these institutions, and with them America, are effectively destroyed.  But I do not think that is the intent nor the likely result of the progressive Left whose policies Biden has adopted.   Neither the Left nor Biden disrespect the institutions themselves, but only the fact that they are not as progressive as they believe they should be.  They may disrespect opponents, even to the point of aggressive legal and other actions against them, but even then they are using (in some cases misusing), not trying to destroy, institutions.

In contrast, MAGA, led by Trump, openly attacks and undermines the institutions themselves.  If those institutions do not totally favor MAGA positions, then MAGA has no use for them, distrusts them, calls them corrupt, and would do away with them.  If MAGA loses on an issue, then the institutions involved in that decision are labeled bad and are given no respect.  If MAGA dislikes one individual within an institution, rather than attack the one individual, it attacks the entire institution of which that individual is a part.

MAGA, led by Trump, has disrespected and failed to accept our Constitutional electoral process since 2020 when Trump lost.  They believe the entire justice system is corrupt because Trump has been charged with offenses based on facts that can arguably support the charges.  They disrespect and condemn the jury system when a jury finds Trump liable.  They believe laws they do not like do not apply to them.

Beyond the justice system, Trump and MAGA assert that core administrative departments and their agencies are beyond repair.  Their vitriolic language disrespects all three branches of government, core departments, and the Constitution.  Their active and blatant expressions of hatred for these core American principles and institutions are on display daily and are effectively undermining those principles and institutions as the disrespect, distrust, and hatred worm their way into the minds of the American people.

While Biden and his party lean heavily socialist, they know that they need these institutions that they are trying to transform in their goal to transform America.  This is why they will not destroy them.

Trump/MAGA on the other hand are a purely populist movement based on mob rule which does not need these institutions.  And the fact that this populism is led by a leader who demands absolute adherence also indicates that there is little if any respect, let alone need, for these core institutions. 

I listen to these two men when they give their campaign speeches about America.  We all know that these are nothing more than campaign words, but Biden’s, even when he attacks his opponent and his policies, always includes some sort of references to America as a good place while Trump will tell us that America is currently a horrible place, primarily because his opponents are in power. 

I would prefer that a president or presidential candidate remind and uplift us about America rather than tell us that we should hate our country because politicians with different policy views have been elected.  It is not hatred, but a positive and tolerant view that will be necessary to correct whatever damage the next four years bring.

Trump has never been a statesman.  His rough mannerisms have always been unpleasant. But in 2016, a time when much of America was feeling hopeless, we needed someone to shake us up a bit and remind us that we, America, are capable of a can-do and hopeful existence.  He pointed out some things that needed fixing and made America believe we could fix them.   For the first two years of his presidency Trump gave renewed hope to many in this country and that was a good thing. 

But Trump also showed us his divisiveness, his ability to goad his “enemies” into attacking him and also inciting the desire in them to simply create assaults against him on their own. The country became focused on attacks, counterattacks, investigations, counter-investigations and a growing actual hatred against political opponents who came to be seen as literal “enemies.”  If Obama divided the country based on identity politics, Trump took that to a whole new level based on party politics and refusals to even talk to, let alone compromise with those “enemies”, even for the good of the country and its represented populace.

Authoritarian expert Ruth Ben-Ghiat has stated that Trump’s ability to play the victim “does not get enough attention in that it makes his followers feel protective of him.”  She explains that anything that happens (or continues to happen) to him “is just confirmation of this belief that he is a victim being persecuted.”  And now Trump incites his followers to hate those enemies who persecute him, including the core American institutions that he sees as part of this attack. 

In the end, destruction is worse than transformation – it’s, well, totally destructive.

Socialist transformation is, well, transformative, and in the end not a good idea, especially for America, but it is reversible if we have our American core to support us.   But if that core collapses due to and is undermined by distrust, anger, and hatred incited by the country’s leader, that core has effectively become completely ineffectual.

In 2028, America will not be the America of 2024.  The question is, what will the new leaders of 2028 have to work with as they lead America forward.

Trump has made it clear that if elected for a second term he will at least in part focus on revenge for what he perceives as the many attacks against him.  If we follow his thinking, his words, those attackers include not just individuals, but the core institutions of America themselves.  Without respect for the core of America he cannot possibly uphold his oath to preserve and protect her.

And, if the attack on these institutions succeeds, we will have no America to help us to recover.  But, if we elect a terrible president who is not hell-bent on revenge against the very country that he is elected to lead, the core of that country will give us the strength to recover from whatever damage he may have done.

In the final analysis, at this time in America, I am Pro-America but Anti-Trump.

Thoughts in reading today’s opinion in Trump v. Anderson

 

“What it does today, the Court should have left undone.”

              -Concurring opinion of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson

The general principle is that a court can only decide the case before it and once it has done so it should not go further and give what amount to advisory opinions on future possible controversies.  Yet that is exactly what the Supreme Court per curium opinion does in Trump v. Anderson.   While the Justices unanimously agreed that the federal government rather than a state must decide the question of disqualification for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, four Justices disagreed with the remainder of the majority opinion.

Opening of 20 page Opinion

The unanimous Court decided that Colorado, a state, did not have the authority to remove Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 presidential primary ballot in Colorado pursuant to section 3.  At that point the case was decided and the Court should have stopped.  But the majority went on and the remainder of their opinion, which I believe in the end is nothing more than dicta, is incredibly damaging to the Constitution and to the federal-state relationship.

First, let me briefly comment on the unanimous part of the decision.  The Court concludes that “States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.”  I do not happen to think that the Court’s legal reasoning is strong here. The Court seems to pull simply this piece and that piece of the Constitution almost out of context to attempt to present what appears to be a strong logical argument to support the conclusion but which is really, it seems, based on the simple fact that the Supreme Court doesn’t want the Colorado court to decide this because of the chaos it might create.  But, strong or not, this is the Court’s decision and the result is that Trump will appear on the ballot.

And we could all stop there.  Happy or not with that decision, it is the decision of the Court and we could and should move on.

But the Court does not move on.   Instead, it addresses issues and questions that are not before it and which it has no business deciding as a part of this case.  

As Justice Barrett stated in her concurring opinion: “I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that.”  She further points out that this was a state case brought by Colorado voters under Colorado law and did not require the Court to address questions of federal legislation related to Section 3.  Yet the Court’s opinion did just that.

The Court decided that a Section 3 disqualification can only occur when a particular type of legislation is enacted by Congress.  As Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson point out in their concurrence, the Court has not only shut the door to any potential other means of federal enforcement of section 3, it also insulates petitioner Trump from future controversy – controversy not currently before the court – over this question.

Perhaps ironically, this decision which diminishes state authority while broadening federal legislative authority will likely be most favorably received by Trump supporters who typically demand broad state rights and limited federal authority.  Similarly, this opinion reflects a very activist court, something that Trump supporters generally abhor.

The Court’s opinion that federal disqualification requires legislation,  as the concurring opinion of Justices  Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson makes clear,  is not supported by the text of Section 3 or the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment.  As that opinion suggests, the Court simply created a special rule for insurrection disability out of thin air.  And, it had absolutely no need to do so, no need to even address this issue, when the entire Court had already agreed and decided that Colorado could not remove Trump’s name from the ballot. That unanimous opinion effectively decided and ended this case.

Not only must a Court decide the case before it, it also can only decide the case before it.  It should not opine or speculate on future cases.  While the Court may have thought that by doing so it would lead to some sort of healing to the political discord in this country, what it did was nothing less than weaken our justice system and its rule of law.  It lessened the command of the respect that the Supreme Court should be given for its ability to deeply understand and reason about constitutional questions placed before it.  And, as the concurring Justices noted, “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.” 

By going beyond this case and addressing constitutional issues not before it, the Court created far reaching and likely unforeseen possibilities and consequences that go well beyond the simple question of whether Colorado could or could not remove Trump’s name from the ballot.  This is not a good thing for this country, and I am disappointed with the majority for its lack of wisdom here.