Andrew Sabl had an opinion piece in the Washington Post titled “Hate Trump if you want. But democracy requires respecting the winner’s legitimacy.” Sabl is a professor of political ethics, and his stance is echoed by President Obama. That brings a lot of credibility to the table. So, watch me foolheartedly disagree with both.
Professor Sabl argues against the “Not My President” cry: the attachment to “a set of rules for choosing leaders … has to be stronger than our attachment to our favored choices….” This is the key to a “government [that] is constitutional rather than based on “personal” authority…. Constitutionalism allows them [protestors] to hate and oppose Trump as much as they want, as long as they recognize that he is president.”
Before this election, I would have agreed unconditionally. After this election, I’m having trouble getting there. Accepting the outcome of an election may be a principle of democracy, but is it unqualified? Is there no set of circumstances that might negate it? If there were, how would one justify it, and what would that mean for democracy? I am a physicist and an atheist. I live with big questions. I never saw these coming.
Do These Questions Matter?
After all, Republicans refused to accept the legitimacy of Bill Clinton’s presidency and spent 8 dirty, mud-stained years trying to destroy him – not to fight for their principles or policies, but to destroy him personally. Republicans refused to accept the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency and spent 8 dirty, racism-stained years trying to destroy him personally. They spent 30 disgraceful and despicable years trying to destroy Hillary Clinton before she could even run for president. Their motivation throughout: a belief that Republicans are entitled to run the country.
We must not imitate anti-democratic actions. We must, reluctantly, accept the legitimacy of a Trump presidency if we cannot defend refusing it. We must be able not just to explain our actions but to separate ourselves from Republicans and to show how empty and grasping were their actions. Democrats have yet to do the latter.
The media already is conflating “Not My President” with the rigged-election, loony conspiracy theories that seized the right immediately before the election. This never will be corrected except by us and in a determined effort at that. Trump was welcomed by right-wing hate radio, hate television, hate web sites, and hate social-media. Those agents teamed with a lazy, shallow, incompetent, and mercenary main-stream media to make this election a one-sided debate.
There is no final arbiter of truth left except the people themselves. We will need to be loud and aggressive, but our volume must amplify rational arguments, not idiotic conspiracy theories or raw emotion. There is no other way to put moral daylight between ourselves and Republicans.
It matters that we ask the questions.
Is it Ever Appropriate Not to Recognize the Legitimacy of the Winner?
Professor Sabl: “But democracy requires respecting the winner’s legitimacy.” I agree, but even freedom of speech is not absolute.
Consider a hypothetical candidate, an avowed white nationalist who campaigned on a return to segregation of non-whites and of Jews. Assume he wins. Assume, also, that his party has a majority in the Senate, in the House, and, soon, on a partisan Supreme Court. Must we legitimize his presidency?
Ask the same question about a candidate who campaigned on implementing Biblical law and on the imprisonment of heretics. Ask it about a candidate whose campaign vowed to imprison opposition leaders, to gut libel laws, and to extract revenge on critics. Ask it about a candidate who casually advocated the use of violence to achieve political ends, including the assassination of his opponent. Ask it about a candidate who made a routine practice of sexual assault.
Each of these candidates singles out races, religions, sexual orientations, or other classes of people for repression. Must we legitimize them? Must even those in the threatened minority legitimize them? A better question is, “What happens when the principle that an election winner must be recognized conflicts with the principle that majority rule is subject to minority rights?”
Denials of either the legitimacy of a winner or the rights of minorities weakens the structure of democracy. But each of our hypothetical candidate above would threaten the safety, security, and the very lives of people. Human reality meets political theory. The harm to those people would exceed the harm from withholding recognition to those who voted for the hypothetical candidates, and it would be harder to reverse. Our hypothetical candidates are a larger threat to democracy than would be our refusal to accept their victory.
This is conditioned on each of them being a singular event, an exception. Once the door has been opened, we can only hope it can be closed again. But Republicans already have blocked that door open. They also have done their best to limit the voting rights of minorities. Republicans have damaged both principles and, thereby, our democracy. But they have not ended it, at least not yet. I believe the potential damage due to any of the hypothetical candidates above could do that. I believe there are exceptions to the principle, that there are singular situations in which acts contrary to even a bedrock principle of democracy are necessary.
There is danger in that conclusion, and there is liability. The burden is on us to show that the situation is singular and extreme.
Does the Election of Donald Trump Rise (or Descend) to This Level?
Does a Trump presidency represent a greater threat to our democracy than would our refusal to recognize its legitimacy?
- There is evidence that he is a sexual predator and promotes the abuse of women.
- This single, real candidate has flirted with the dysfunction of every one of our hypothetical candidates, sometimes going beyond flirting. He has called for the repression of Muslims, African Americans, Hispanics, Latinos, and the press. He has hinted at the assassination of his opponent. The cumulative effect is so anti-democratic that it cannot be dismissed. He has spoken on the record against almost every norm of our society, and threateningly so to many classes of citizens.
- He became a factor in politics by embracing a racist, hate-filled conspiracy theory about America’s first African American President. Hate remains his weapon of choice.
- His campaign was aided by and seemingly colluded with intervention by a foreign power.
- His campaign was aided by and seemingly colluded with intervention by reactionary elements in the FBI, possibly including the Director.
- He lost the popular vote by a significant margin. (Our “set of rules for choosing leaders” has twice in 16 years anointed the candidate who got the fewer votes, though one had the help of a Republican-majority Supreme Court, as will Trump, soon.)
- Many of those involved in his campaign, some in his transition team, and a number of those being considered for cabinet positions subscribe to one or more of the above anti-democratic beliefs. Some of the worst already have positions in the administration. Trump’s campaign of ugly division will continue from the Oval Office.
- Already, Confederate battle flags and Nazi symbols are flown in “victory” celebrations. Already, people in the singled-out races, religions, and sexual orientations are suffering assaults on the street: an American Kristallnacht in the making. Everything about Trump’s candidacy runs contrary to enlightened values, to fundamental American morays, and to the Constitution of the United States.
Any one of the above would have doomed any other presidential candidate. Trump himself is the best argument that this is an exceptional and singular event. This marks Trump as a danger greater than would be our refusal to legitimize his presidency. I am not comfortable with that conclusion. I do not like it. But I believe the evidence points to it.
There is hazard aplenty, here. Blocking traffic is a simple act of civil disobedience. Splashing “Not My President” on a sign has deeper implications. Even making the argument presents the risk of specious arguments and rationalization. I still question whether I am not just rationalizing what I want to do. In some sense, this is more dangerous than the Republican brute-force tactic of acting without justifying. That more easily can be seen through (though you still must point it out to the electorate, a step Democrats do not seem to grasp).
I do not lightly disagree with Andrew Sabl. I suspect I will be revisiting this for some time. I hope also that there will be an extended discussion on this site. For now, though, I believe that it is not only appropriate but necessary for us to fight Trump’s presidency in every way possible, including the refusal to recognize its legitimacy.
Now It Gets Hard
The next question is, “So?” Does such a refusal mean anything practical? How do we make it mean something practical?
My last post before this one was about what I would like to see the DNC do in preparation for 2018. (Surprisingly, the DNC has yet to act on that or any of my previous recommendations.) But as to what I or any of us should do or can do, I am at a loss. The landscape has changed, and the cardinal directions are askew. My sense of impotence grows exponentially as my sense of Trump’s illegitimacy.
One thing seems clear. When I say, “Trump is not my president,” it verges on silly. If enough of us say it, it might evolve into something. The first step is to come together.
The Bernie or Busters need to find a private outlet for their inexpedient superiority complex. It’s okay to have the complex, but you need to stop reminding us that you have it. Neo-liberals must recognize that they went too far in changing the nature of the party for immediate gain, thereby sacrificing our long-term viability. FDR created a robust coalition to which LBJ added empowered minorities. It is on us that Nixon, Reagan, and now Trump were able to use one against the other. It is on us to fix that. Neither the left nor the center alone can rebuild the whole of it.
In the meantime, I will continue to ponder the structure of democracy and those questions that I never thought I would be struggling with. Sort of makes me appreciate the undemanding nature of physics.