Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg gave Dems the pleasure of calling Trump a felon and not much else. Credit: Getty
In Henry VI, Part 2, a character named Dick the Butcher utters one of the more famous lines William Shakespeare wrote: “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.” To return to national power and get things done for the nation, Democrats need to adopt something of the spirit of Dick the Butcher: no, not literal murder of the lawyers who dominate the party — but a departure from the lawfare that has blinded Democrats to what politics is all about.
Perhaps the pace at which President Trump has opened his second term will put them on notice. Trump opened the week with an Office of Budget and Management guidance that would freeze some $3 trillion in federal grants across executive-branch agencies. He also offered federal employees a buyout, in keeping with his plan to downsize the bureaucracy. He used the threat of tariffs to pressure Colombia over deportation flights. He mused about relocating the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by the war in Gaza.
You may not agree with these moves — I certainly don’t — but on some level, you do have to admire the relentless focus of this new administration. The same can’t be said for its opponents. Tangled in legal arguments, mentalities, and procedures, Democrats have forgotten how to fight. Worse yet, they have forgotten what and whom they are fighting for.
It was that lawyerly frame of mind that compelled Democrats to expend an enormous amount of time and energy over the past decade trying to get Donald Trump through various avenues of lawfare: from the #Russiagate craziness to the first impeachment over his “beautiful” phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, from Jack Smith’s classified-documents probe to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s hush-money case. And what do they have to show for it all? The satisfaction of calling Trump a “convicted felon” on cable news, and not much else.
Not all of these cases lacked merit. Just because one party wages lawfare doesn’t mean the other is innocent as a lamb. From the commander-in-chief down to the local councillor, when people in power break the law, the law can and should be used to hold them accountable. But establishment Democrats became so obsessed with this single element of our system that they all but ignored that democratic politics is about contestation: about trying to win over voters at the ballot box with an attractive vision. Sometimes by cajoling, sometimes by compromising. And sometimes by mixing it up — hard.
“Lawyers don’t lead — they tell you why you can’t do things, what to be scared of”, one disgusted House Democrat told me recently (he asked to remain anonymous out of concern for offending party leaders, many of whom are lawyers, too).
Consider the contrast. During the first Trump term, I spoke regularly with Steve Bannon, his chief campaign strategist and, for a little while, a senior West Wing adviser. But Bannon was best understood as Trump’s wartime consigliere. Everything was war with him, every day a battle. Bannon was always rallying MAGA out of the trenches, into the minefields of Washington.
“We look at this as political warfare”, he told me of his War Room podcast that he started out of his Capitol Hill townhouse, now a top clearinghouse for MAGA opinion. “This for me is a life or death struggle”, he said. The impeachment inquiry then taking place was “highly sophisticated political warfare”. Looking over my notes from that day, I see references to “war horses”, “Bloody Kansas”, and the like. This is how Bannon talks. This is how Mike Davis, another top Trump affiliate, talks. This is not how a single Democrat talks.
It is worth noting that every Democratic president since Jimmy Carter has been a lawyer. There have been plenty of Republican lawyers, to be sure, but Gerald Ford was the last of them to have been president. The legal mindset is now endemic in the Democratic Party: not just the rule of law, but its language, the endless legalese that allows for no certitude, the constant evasion that prevents the rendering of a plain-spoken verdict or decision, the exhausting evaluation of risk, the excuses not to do something because the attorney general in Texas might file a suit.
“Of the hundreds of Democratic [elected officials] in Congress and in high state offices across America there may not be five of them who relish, enjoy, and are comfortable with fighting Republicans”, a Capitol Hill staffer, who works for a liberal Northeastern congresswoman, told me. “The modern Democratic official’s favoured posture is a legal citation, a grammatical correction, and a foetal position. I’m disgusted with it”.
Trump can be positively deranged, but at least he is confident in his derangements: no, I said the hurricane went that way. Former President Joe Biden and his top advisers, by contrast, seemed to always be parsing their way to victory. This was especially true when it came to the wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, which may explain why the majority of Americans ended up disenchanted with Biden’s foreign policy, which was supposed to be one of his areas of expertise.
There was always some cleverness at work, some assertion qualified just so, fuzzed up by those who did not want to be pinned down. It was never clear what victory would look like in Ukraine, or in Israel’s war against Hamas. We gave the two allies billions of dollars worth of weapons, then called for the end of war. How many Ukrainian counteroffensives went by without the battlefield advances Washington promised and expected?
“With clear introspection and accountability, Democrats will rebound”, Donna Brazile, the veteran Democratic strategist, told me. She may well be correct, but that rebound sure is taking its time.
Shortly after Trump won last November, he joked to House Republicans that he may stay in the White House for a third term. In response, Rep. Dan Goldman, Democrat of New York, rushed out a news release calling on the House to pass a resolution he planned to introduce that “would reaffirm that the 22nd Amendment is explicit in prohibiting presidents who have served two full terms from running for the presidency again and condemn President-elect Donald Trump’s frequent statements suggesting he could serve past the end of his most recent term”.
If the Democrats are going to take this path every single time, it is going to be a very long four years. After Trump pardoned all of the Jan. 6 rioters — some of whom were sent to prison for committing outrageously violent acts — progressive Philadelphia district attorney Larry Krasner said he was looking for ways to bring charges of his own. I understand the impulse, but that’s not the battle Krasner’s constituents elected him to wage, not with crime and drug overdoses continuing to plague the city.
In other words, Democrats need to not only learn how to fight, but also which fights to pick. To be sure, Trump doesn’t get a pass when it comes to following the law, but the Democrats’ sustained lawfare makes it seem like they have an anti-Trump agenda that is removed from the concerns of ordinary people.
There have been a few signs of the recalibration Brazile says is necessary, though not nearly enough to make anyone to the left of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the arch-centrist Republican, especially optimistic. Democrats keep fretting about needing to win Waukesha County without having any seeming idea what Waukesha County actually wants from its elected leaders.
I can tell you what Waukesha County doesn’t want: vague talking points; incessant triangulation; strategic ambiguity; rhetorical sleight of hand; endless legal hedging, and attempts to win politics by lawfare. But a Democrat who knows how to throw a punch on behalf of working people just might punch his or her ticket to Washington. So let’s see those uppercuts, liberals.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGreat article. I’m an attorney and I recognize the author’s description of the typical legal mindset.
The Western world, not just the USA, is, in my opinion, living under the tyranny of the law which occurs when the spirit of the law, animated by the will of the people, is subjugated to the letter of the law. How often have we heard the phrase “rules-based world order” as an excuse for imposing on people of many nationalities policies they don’t like and didn’t vote for?
Tyranny of the law is an end-stage symptom of a ruling order losing its power, and we’ll doubtless see staunch resistance by mainstream institutions, both national and international, as people once again try to take control of their own societies and assert the autonomy of their country.
It gets further undermined when the plebs/unfavored group realize the powerful/favored group casually get away with things they would get locked up for. Look how Insider trading in Congress is “normal” or how memes in the U.K. are often punished more severely than sexual assault depending on the identity of the perpetrator. When the populace is on the road to questioning why they should even respect the law things are heading to an unpleasant place.
You are only partly right.
In the UK back in the day the rule of law was the letter of the law and the Courts were careful not to step beyond it. You find in Judgments to the effect I am bound to apply the law, in this case it has produced an unfortunate result, but it is fore Parliament and not this Court to change it.
The real problem is activist lawyers and judges who have no respect for the law and see it merely as a tool to impose there own political views even where this is clearly contrary to the views of or even the laws enacted by Parliament. The blame for this lies with the EU where there is a tradition is legal/judicial activism lauding it over elected governments and Tony BLiar who deliberately enabled the political capture of the judiciary via the weasel words of transparency, accountability and equality.
An honourable mention must, however, also go to Lord Denning who was amongst the first to think he was entitled to pervert the law to achieve what, in his opinion, was a just result
On a subsidiary point, in my experience US lawyers are not proper lawyers as we would know them in the UK. It seems to be more like a branch of showbusiness.
You are absolutely right in making this point about the situation in the UK.
Actually the Amerikan Dream is that everybody is an armed Cop .
In the West, we are told that we have “democracy and the rule of law”.
But what they foist on us is rule by lawyers. Particularly by exhibitionist, activist lawyers.
Well, it’s over. We’ve had enough.
Rule by lawyers instead of law, and by scientists instead of actual science. Taken to its logical extreme, you’re forbidden from doing anything, for your own safety, until ‘we’ find out more about the threat. Lockdowns, in fact.
The ‘rule of law’ is a tautology. Laws ARE rule.
The phrase the ‘rule of law’ might mean that the law should visible, founded on past practise, comprehensible, slow to change.
Law as practised by ‘activist’ lawyers is none of these things. It is sly, made up according to evanescent ideas, overthrows history, opaque, fashionable.
And do note. The ‘rule of law’ does not demand that all are equal under it. Stable legal systems have for centuries existed in caste societies.
America is a litigious country with hoards of hungry lawyers and a public often eager for litigation, and a political system thoroughly legalistic, and a legal system highly politicised, so no wonder.
To give a sports analogy, lawyering is constantly bickering at the referee, when all the spectators want it to see are great players with the ball at their feet.
And secondly, the law is a craft industry. It means lawyers have almost no insight into how to produce things, in volume, at scale. They add rules and gild the lily like someone used to handcrafts and profiting by adding ‘service’ time to processes. They lack an understanding of scale or efficiency that infuse the practical worlds of industry or agriculture or the military where each $1 is $10,000 scaled across the business, and each additional 5 minutes is 35 lost working days. Lawyers design for inefficiency, because that’s how they earn their money.
Military as an example of efficiency?
Surely not USA and UK ones.
There is another thing. It is not helpful as long as journalists believe they can tell what they want. Do you have proof that Trump did pardon ALL jan. 6 rioters? He did give a full pardon to 500 people (based on his inauguration speech), which is less than the number of convicted. So far, I understand some people got their convictions changed to community service, and some didn’t get any pardon.
Here’s a free one to help solve the problem: democrats believe their own lies. They lie because they believe words and power define reality, so they are entirely comfortable saying that their idealized & abstract wishes are true, but they don’t act with any recognition that their beliefs & wishes have any degree of separation from reality. Like a person who declares themselves superior, enters a public square, and then gets confused and frustrated that no one recognizes their superiority.
Everything problem you define in the article is completely intractable and overshadowed by that fundamental flaw of the progressive leftist worldview.
Democrats have forgotten how to fight on the issues.
FIFY
Donkeys are proponents of political theater, a morality play, not political actions with consequences and responsibilities. And now the masks have slipped.
““Of the hundreds of Democratic [elected officials] in Congress and in high state offices across America there may not be five of them who relish, enjoy, and are comfortable with fighting Republicans”, a Capitol Hill staffer, who works for a liberal Northeastern congresswoman, told me.”
Laughing Out Loud.
We need to look much further into the past to truly understand lawfare and the role of the legal system in the West. The British and American empires both used law as a tool of subjugation. When the British Empire expanded into Africa and the Americas, what did they do? They imposed their laws, created and enforced English common law, and changed the language. Law and language go hand in hand because the law is built on language. Together, they were used to subjugate non-white people.
For a long time, white people were largely indifferent to injustices like the War on Drugs, systemic discrimination, Japanese internment camps, residential schools, and the Chinese head tax. As long as it didn’t affect them, they didn’t care. But over time, the people who had been oppressed—whether in Africa, the Americas, or elsewhere—learned both the language and the legal system of the empire. They became activists and used those very laws to fight against their own subjugation. Wouldn’t you?
Now, we are witnessing a historical shift. Because of Trump—precisely because of him—the same legal system that once controlled and suppressed others is now being turned against white people themselves. That’s why the system is breaking down. Law only functions with the consent of the people, and white people consented to it because it benefited them—it made us wealthy, powerful, and dominant. But now, as it turns against us, it reveals an uncomfortable truth: the system was never built on justice or principle, but on selective enforcement. And when the same legal mechanisms are applied to those who once upheld them, they expose our hypocrisy.
It’s frightening to realize that everything we believed in—the legal system, governance, societal structures—are just ideas. Law itself is an idea, and ideas change. There’s nothing wrong with ideas, but ideas without a proper underlying principle are fraud.
The law is never static—it evolves. The reason the legal system now feels like a problem isn’t because it has fundamentally changed, but because it is being used against those who once wielded it. This is one of the most significant historical shifts of modern times. The very tool that was once used to subjugate others is now being turned back against its creators. And the reality is, white people are no longer the majority.
This is a fascinating topic, but discussions about it too often lack historical grounding. The real question we should be asking is: Why did we turn law into a weapon against others, and why are we so shocked when that same weapon is now being used against us? More importantly, how do we make amends instead of doubling down on our own destruction?
I recently read a comment from an American claiming that the only thing connecting Americans is the Constitution—a document written by people who couldn’t even conceive of a future where a black person was not owned by whites.
If that’s the only thing holding Americans together, then it’s only holding one group together, not everyone.
A law needs a principle—a general understanding that can be interpreted—but the laws we have now are not based on principles. They are built on concepts and ideas designed to maintain power.
Interesting points. But I am completely confused about the reference to Japanese internment camps??? Maybe I need to read more about it but the only Japanese internment camps I am aware of were WWII POW camps…..and there was no indifference to them. There was righteous indignation and anger. Perhaps I misunderstood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
We have to know our history in order to make a sense of today!
You’re describing Postcolonial Theory which is ultimately just a theory of global retribution based on Marxist Conflict Theory. British and American law specifically attempt to legislate against partial justice. Whatever flaws and injustice existed in the Anglosphere pales in comparison to every other system of influence.
When you use terms like “systemic discrimination” you are giving into a different system of justice. One that is abstract, unspecific and unquantifiable. Now it is possible to identify group outcome disparities and evaluate whether a legal system intentionally discriminates against a group. But System Theories aren’t looking for overt discrimination. They’re looking for “invisible” discrimination solely by pointing to outcomes.
The best any system can do is try to be impartial and end overt discrimination. It can’t remediate every disparity by tinkering with hierarchies through “Restorative Justice.” What were seeing is an inherently arbitrary way to govern. It’s radically different from any governing ideals of fairness…which have largely been actualized in the Anglosphere. That’s why people are lining up to immigrate.
Obviously anything can be argued, but according to the article in question, the term “lawfare” is being used now because the law is being applied against white people—specifically against Trump and his supporters. It was not considered “lawfare” when it was used to combat Others in order to maintain power over them or to destabilize huge communities.
Black men were sent to state prisons on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men. In seven states, Blacks constituted between 80% and 90% of all people sent to prison on drug charges. Why?
In contrast, the opioid crisis, particularly involving fentanyl, has seen different racial dynamics. A 2018 report by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that among fentanyl trafficking offenders, 39.1% were Black, 38.1% were Hispanic, and 22.3% were White.
This distribution indicates a more balanced representation among racial groups compared to earlier drug epidemics.
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm
We’re conflating issues here. The Lawfare against Trump had nothing to do with race and everything to do with Politics. Likewise, DEI like it’s parent CRT is not really a racial doctrine but a political one. The point of DEI is weeding out people with traditional values. A black lesbian that opposes left-wing values is treated every bit as badly as a straight white male. The point of targeting Trump was depriving his traditional conservative base of political representation.
The lawfare utilized by the Democrats sought to flood the zone to keep Trump off the campaign trail and tied up in court. The actual cases used novel legal theories to prosecute offenses that are literally never enforced. The Bragg case used vague federal allegations to reopen the New York statute of limitations. Leticia James case had no victim. It was simply an attempt to bankrupt Trump. The laws she used to go after Trump are beyond obscure. When you campaign on prosecuting a political opponent and then you do it, the proof is in the pudding.
The disparities that you’re referencing are almost certainly based in part on the impact of historical group discrimination in the past. That part of CRT is true. But Correlation is not Causation.
Check out Thomas Sowell book on Social Justice Fallacies. It’s an empirical look at why certain disparities exist today. Disparities exist for a multitude of reasons and can’t be reduced down to targeted discrimination.
They could have change the law rather than abuse the law in regards to Trump so he is disqualified .They didn’t go that route because it would have open the flood of unprincipled foundations. No country like US would have a single man come out of nowhere to take over like that…if he was black or brown. The laws would have changed faster than my typing.
So it is open debate!
I’m confused. Who are “they” and what law could they have changed?
Is your last part saying a black/brown man with no political experience couldn’t win a Presidential election?
I cannot see my comment yet but to support my original comment: I admire thinkers like John Rawls, to quote: “The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.” He is talking about our laws!
This means laws should be created without knowing how they will personally affect the lawmakers. If you had no idea whether you’d be rich or poor, powerful or powerless, you’d design laws that are truly fair for everyone—not just for those in power.
This is our Achilles’ heel!
> After Trump pardoned all of the Jan. 6 rioters — some of whom were sent to prison for committing outrageously violent acts
Outrageously violent acts like…. Going through a door that was opened for them? The only person shot was one of the protesters, and they weren’t armed because they are basically all law abiding citizens.
The reason for the reaction is stated plainly in this article, many of those in the halls of power are cowards, who have lived cushy lives away from any possible danger and real hardship, and so the first time there was any precieved actual danger in their lives they completely overreacted. Meanwhile they ignored that they not only allowed but actively encouraged much worse to happen all over America the year prior in the name of “racial justice”. There are no leaders among Americas government just over promoted bearuacrats and political sleazeballs.
> but the Democrats’ sustained lawfare makes it seem like they have an anti-Trump agenda that is removed from the concerns of ordinary people.
They are, full stop.
Alternatively, Democrats understand that their big Project is unpopular and harmful to the majority of people, and therefore cannot be successfully defended in open debate. Hence, rather than modify their goals they resort to lawfare as a form of ad hominem attack on those who resist their effort to remake society into something most do not want.
I think my formulation is much closer to reality and actually explains things.
You are 100% correct.
We have the same problem in uk and EU.
I can think of at least one Western government (and its leader) that behaves like this, and consequently has a public crying out like Waukesha County.
When you have one tool in your toolbox it gets applied every time. Using your hammer for brain surgery comes to mind.
Lawfare was a powerful weapon, and probably would have destroyed any lesser person than Mr Trump.
I’m not sure I agree that ‘mixing it up’ is what the Democrats need to focus on, given the destructive effects of toxic levels of division and partisanship on both culture and policy over the past few years. Nevertheless, the point about lawfare being a failed strategy is a persuasive one. I think the attraction of lawfare is that it appeals to the elites and intelligentsia as a solution, both because it is clever and because it can claim to be based on moral righteousness. Yet I think the last presidential election has shown that it does not appeal to the majority of working people who actually decide elections. They frequently see it as sneaky, hairsplitting, vindictive and dishonest (which it often is). I think the main exception to this rule is when going after politicians who corruptly benefit from their position – and even that is likely to stir people to anger if the majority are doing it tough.
I think what the Democrats need to focus on is actually finding out what is concerning to ordinary people, and then putting forward a positive, accessible platform that will meet those concerns. But more than just a platform, a story that people can believe in. Because stories touch people in a way that facts and data does not, and people need something to believe in to get through the hardships and disappointments of life without losing hope. As a wise man once said: ‘without a vision, the people perish’.
But why are they even in politics if they don’t know “what is concerning to ordinary people”? The awful answer is: they don’t know what concerns ordinary people because that is not why they are in politics.
Oh dear. I guess we need a class in Politics 101.
Politics is about fighting the enemy. You can fight the enemy with soldiers in the front line or you can fight the enemy with lawyers in the front line. Democrats have been tremendously successful with lawyers. That’s why they do it.
Clausewitz said that “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” But I think you got it wrong, Clausi baby. I’d say “politics is war by other means.”
Or try this: “Lawfare” is a continuation of politics by other means.
The reason our Democratic friends use lawfare is that it works for them when they want to attack and destroy their enemies. Only it didn’t work with Trump. Better luck next time.
They use lawfare when their senators need to take a rest from asking trick questions of presidential nominees. Or when their mostly peaceful protesters are on spring break.
End of class.
“You may not agree with these moves — I certainly don’t …”
Nice bit of virtue-signalling there, Mr Nazaryan!
The barrister-led Labourites are exactly the same. Starmer’s first resort is to legalese, e.g the Chagos debacle, putting “international law” above Britain’s core interests every time.
The Dems’ failure is not a lack of gumption to strike a blow for the common man. What self-soothing drivel! The Dems’ problem is not that they are unwilling to listen. They listen plenty to all the wrong people because their core problem is that they are ideologically sold-out to the delusional far-left and the menagerie of malcontent groups who disdain the country and its actual citizens.
One of my chief criticisms of the US, as a US citizen who has enjoyed living in Europe for the last 10 years, is that it is OVERLAWYERED. Even the sports websites and pages in the country spend more time on contracts, money, lawsuits, and negotiation posturing than they do on in-game events and outcomes. I am leery of people who make a living with guile, rather than handiwork.
http://hbm.cooperarena.com/?p=121
Never mind the “uppercuts”, the Libs also need something worth getting up for in the morning. What impels a Godless person to get up each morning, and makes him DO things, if he truly feels and believes that there is no Eternity, and his deeds have no lasting impact upon anything? Like a man drawing with his finger upon the still waters of a quiet pond, so is he ….
I would recommend just enjoying the moment. My godless mornings are consistently splendid (my “good works” don’t kick in until after lunch).
That lasts until true hardship befalls the godless man. I suppose the pig being fattened for the slaughter thinks he lives a life of peace and luxury, until the Last Day ….
Oh to be that pig. Where do I sign up ?
I have a feeling you’ve already signed up, boy.
A life of sin and debauchery, followed by a half arsed death bed repentance is my plan for sneaking through the pearly gates. Although if heaven is going to be full of sanctimonious bores such as our friend here I’ll see you downstairs for a pint instead
Another smile added to my morning