Quote:
|
I see people saying that this election is about the future of democracy in this country, and I get tired of that hyperbole. A hundred years ago, the country was commonly described as a democracy, but most people were disenfranchised. I think Trump and conservatism are hostile to democracy because they understand that they are a minority in the country, but I also think that if they get another four years, they can do real harm to democracy but are not an existential threat.
|
I agree. But I think a silver lining is that people are now looking around and saying what you just wrote. Trump caused people to examine the problems with our democratic republic, and in doing so, astute people have realized we live in a quasi-oligarchy, and what existed before Trump was elected was not much different economically than what has existed since. Pre-Trump and post-Trump worlds aren't much different for the poor and middle class except as to those adversely or positively impacted by his trade polices. The "rigged" economy Trump promised to fix remains largely "rigged." Only some of the beneficiaries have changed. It was a neoliberal world before and it remains one today, regardless of our PT Barnum POTUS's populist posturing. (How about that for alliteration?)
Quote:
|
Where Trump and conservatism is a serious threat is to the rule of law. Our legal system only works because people see it as legitimate.
|
Again, did anyone really see it as legitimate? BLM didn't arise out of police brutality and draconian sentencing of minorities enacted under Trump. The rule of law was the rule of property protection for the moneyed classes long before there was a Trump Presidency.
People should not see the rule of law as legitimate because it is not truly legitimate. At the higher rungs, it's political. The target who can make an AUSA's or DA's political career gets prosecuted; the shlub engaged in insider trading gets a civil penalty. The connected banker with huge political clout gets a pass under the "Holder Doctrine;" the trader or hedge fund guy whose prosecution involves some novel theory an ambitious AUSA wishes to test has his life ruined. It's selective (this is excused as creating "deterrence value"), and what's selective is not legitimate. At the lower rungs, it's all the justice you can buy. The rich kid gets probation; the poor kid does time.
It's an archaic adversarial system, and the federal courts are rigged with decades of precedents that make it near impossible to win. It's indistinguishable from China's system - you're guilty when charged. It's just a question of whether you plead out for a few years, or foolishly avail yourself of your rights and do a decade when you lose.
Quote:
|
Trump is delegitimizing it, and his Administration frequently refuses to be constrained by the law. Four more years of this will do real harm.
|
I see this is as a feature, not a bug. Our adversarial system is capricious, political, and biased, and its penalties are medieval. It needs to crash and be not only be rebooted but rebuilt.
