Scholar Hungarian scholar Balint Magyar offers a theory that explains why the US held out against the same tactics that caused other countries to collapse into autocracy.
His theory also explains why comparisons across nations don’t always work.
While writing about post-communist mafia states, he talked about the “big bang” theory:
He says that the “conditions preceding the democratic big bang have a decisive role in the formation of the system.”
2/
Here’s how I understand the theory (to use Russia as an example. I'll get to Germany in a moment).
At the time of the Russian Big Bang (early 1990s, when a Democracy struggled to be born) the Communist Party had a monopoly on power and resources.
3/
.@mashagessen explains this well. In fact, I learned about Balint Magyar from her.
Russia never had working democratic institutions.
Germany had a very different history from the US. Until 1918 (do I have the year right?) Germany had a kind of monarchy.
4/
The Weimar Republic was created out of whole cloth amid much chaos (including economic chaos.)
At the time of the American Big Bang, we lived in a hierarchy with white men at the top. We had operating democratic institutions . . .
5/
By operating democratic institutions, I mean courts based on rule of law, a jury system, local governments.
But the institutions protected the freedom of white men only.
So that’s our default.
6/
That, I think, is why people like McConnell and Pence could not take the additional step and destroy democratic institutions altogether.
They want to keep them.
But only for white men because they are afraid of a fully functioning multi-racial democracy.
7/
. . .which brings me back to the argument I made here.
Trump could have created much more chaos had (for example) Pence gaveled in Trump as president, but we were not moments away from Trump overturning the election.
The US government is a complex sprawling system that spreads power widely. This makes it hard to get anything done. It also makes it hard for a dictator to take over.
A key error here is that it assumes that the Electoral Count Act is illegal and assumes that states can set aside the laws they have on the books for allocating their electors.
In fact, rules governing the election have to be in place before the election.
The idea was to create chaos and give Trump's claim that he won the election more legitimacy.
He still wouldn't have stayed in the White House because this wouldn't have worked -- but it may have persuaded more people that Biden didn't win, which undermines the government.
By the way, some of left-leaning Twitter has a weird* idea of criminal law and the justice system. They want justice to be swift and brutal.
The problem: That can backfire. Right?
*authoritarian
2/
For someone to be prosecuted, there has to be a specific statute on the books, and the prosecutor has to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high standard.
One question is whether Trump has violated Georgia Code § 21-2-604.
The latest attacks are in the Calfornia recall with a chorus of voices, including TFG, insisting that if Newsom wins, it will be because the election was rigged (CA went for Biden 63.5% to Trump 34.3)
The problem: A swatch of angry and militant Californians think it’s true.
3/
. . . for government actions that are (1) needed to protect public health and are (2) reasonable and limited in scope.
He said a school district’s decision to require student masking to prevent the spread of the virus falls within that exemption.
2/
I can't imagine such a debate. If Trump wants the nomination (and is in a position to be the nominee -- I am skeptical) I suspect everyone will step back.