No more happy talk about the "uniquely American transition of power." Trump presidency and this post-election period confirm that the US is *less* committed to democratic norms - and has *weaker* institutional safeguards for democracy - than peer wealthy democracies.
I asked a German diplomat friend to detail the safeguards against, say, a German chancellor trying to extend her tenure despite losing an election. He replied that such a thing was utterly impossible, he couldn't begin to enumerate the reasons why. And he was right of course.
Nobody wondered, "Will Gordon Brown or Theresa May leave office if defeated?" Ditto the Netherlands, New Zealand, and newer democracies like Portugal or South Korea. Democratic culture is deep, and election law is administered impartially. For all the boasting, not true in USA
Normally, inauguration day is a day of self-congratulation. This next one should be a day of self-reflection - and commitment to self-improvement. The US not only lags other democracies - it has regressed even by its own standards. Time for a new era of reform.
And reform begins with acceptance of some grim and unwanted realities.
The problems are not "on both sides."
The illiberal authoritarianism of some dean of students somewhere is not equivalent to illiberal authoritarianism by the Attorney General of the United States.
Renewal of democratic institutions in the United States should be *non*-partisan - outside the everyday work of government - but cannot be *bi*-partisan when one party is so committed to (or frightened of) the individual leading the attack on democratic institutions.
even the non-Trump Republican party has committed itself to a program of minority rule
It's hard thus to imagine that Congress can effectively conduct an investigation into Trump-era abuses by itself - since so many Republicans in Congress accepted, protected, and even connived in those abuses - and since so many Republicans in the states are now adding to the list
An independent commission with subpoena power is what is needed instead - tasked to recommend reform measures - and supported by a citizen movement outside the party system to pressure for state and federal reforms for voting rights, fair elections, and an honest Executive branch
A reader registers the below objection to the foregoing. (Answer coming)
Now counter-question
How does "liberty" - or more exactly the democratic idea of regulating state power by impartial law - get into the hearts of men and women in the first place?
It's not innate! By nature, we prefer that our tribe dominate. The democratic idea is learned.
Learned how?
Learned by practice, and practice based upon laws and institutions.
(Remember Tocqueville's astute remarks on the importance of jury duty to self-government?)
So we have to build our institutions fair and strong to foster individual commitment to democracy
The Republican thralldom to Trump followed 20 years of undoing voting rights and civil rights. Republicans became acculturated gradually first to minority rule, then to authoritarian rule. Trump's false allegations of fraud rest on carefully nurtured prejudices.
I'm going on too long. But if anybody is still bearing with me, one last point ...
If I've had any one message in everything I've written about Trump and Trumpism since 2015 ... it's that the direct involvement of the people in elections is democracy's LAST line of defense, not its first.
Joe Biden summoned 80 million Americans to defend democracy. Great, but
that massive collective undertaking only followed the internal failure of the checks and balances erected to protect democracy in the long intervals between elections. And as we saw in 2020, malign actors can corrode voting rights during those long intervals between elections
80 million people voted to eject Trump and replace him. One official at the General Services Administration has successfully defied that vote for some 2 weeks. In a more democratic culture, she'd say No. The story of the Trump years is how many like her have said Yes.
Ok the (belated) end. For now.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
First-term Trump was also an economic idiot. He imposed escalating tariffs in first half of 2018, not only on China but on EU and Canada too. Trump bad policy triggered a big stock slump in second half 2018. 1/x
Trump worried that the bad stock market of 2018 might dim his re-election chances. He spent much of 2019 desperately pleading with the Chinese for an exit from the trade war he started the year before. 2/x
Trump's eagerness for a China deal to save his re-election was a reason that he dismissed the gathering warnings of a new pandemic in China. He failed to protect the country because he was trying to protect himself. Here's Trump in January 2020: 3/x
There are 2 economic ideas behind the Trump tariffs. One is obviously very stupid. The other is also very stupid, but less obviously so.
(thread)
The obviously stupid idea is that America should return to the industrial self-sufficiency of 1913 without regard to cost or value. Americans should manufacture their own athletic shoes and door hinges and plastic tubs, and if that requires a 125% protective tariff ... so be it!
The less obviously stupid idea posits that the true justification for tariffs is not the trade balance, but the capital account. Foreigners are placing too much capital in the US. That flow raises the value of the dollar. US imports become too cheap; US exports too costly.
The Trump administration appears to be actively contemplating an act of Putin-like aggression and annexation against a NATO ally
US treaties are part of the supreme law of the land.
I question whether a presidential directive to the US military to invade and annex the territory of a NATO ally would be a "lawful order."
PS I was thinking of VP Vance's threats against the Danish territory of Greenland, which sounded like a warning of imminent US invasion. But I should have been more specific, since the Trump administration has been threatening US aggression against Canada too.
America's allies are deciding that the F-35 fighter cannot be trusted under a Putin-governed US administration. "[B]y severing maintenance support, shipments of spare parts, and cutting foreign F-35s off from U.S. computer networks, the aircraft would quickly be hobbled. …"
“Without these software updates, F-35s could fly, but would be much more likely to be shot down by enemy air defenses. Also without U.S. maintainers and spare parts, it would be difficult to keep the aircraft flying for long ...." breakingdefense.com/2025/03/no-the…
I've personally heard similar concerns from allied governments about the reliability of US-made naval vessels as well. French / Swedish / South Korean equipment may not be as advanced as American, but potentially more trustworthy than weapons from a Russian-aligned USA.
Such a curious coincidence, that's exactly what Herbert Hoover said on October 25, 1929, the day after the Dow Jones dropped 9% in a single day. millercenter.org/the-presidency… Trump's stock market is down 10% from in less than 30 days. x.com/charliespierin…
Soon after Herbert Hoover deployed his "fundamentals of the economy are sound" line in October 1929, he signed a big tariff increases, started a global trade war, and converted a stock market shock into a worldwide depression.
Here's the full Herbert Hoover quote from October 25, 1929. As you read it, you'll see that Hoover - a highly intelligent and perceptive man - was uneasily aware that the fundamentals were actually coming apart. Hoover signed tariff increases anyway.
A lively industry is growing of talkers/influencers trying to sell the idea that there is some rational patriotic motive to Trump's pro-Putin foreign policy and his costly trade wars. Don't believe them. My latest. theatlantic.com/international/…
Trump-splainers pretend that cozying to Russia as part of a rational strategy to counter China. But no rational US strategy to counter China includes launching a trade war against Australia. Yet that's what Trump just did. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
The Trump foreign policy is a compound of pervasive corruption, personal malice, and ideological Putinism. There's no grand strategy to it. theatlantic.com/international/…