Main Edition
US
FR
December 19, 2024 - 6:00pm
One of the founding “Never Trumpers”, Bret Stephens, has used his latest column in the New York Times to distance himself from that effort. He wrote this week that it’s “time to drop the heavy moralising and incessant doomsaying that typified so much of the Never Trump movement”. Stephens’s column has already ignited a fierce debate online, and it raises a charged question: can some Never Trumpers make peace with populism, if not Donald Trump himself?
For years, the question of whether Trump should be the Republican nominee for president consumed the Right — but that topic has now been superseded. After Trump’s hostile takeover of the GOP in 2016, a MAGA establishment has solidified. In the 2024 Republican primary, he garnered the vast majority of Congressional endorsements and won the primaries in a romp. His decisive victory in last month’s election was a major political vindication, but it also changed the terms of the debate going forward. Squabbles over whether pundits should back Trump or not seem increasingly retrospective. Instead, what matters is the direction of policy during his second administration, and what comes afterwards.
That could provide an opportunity for some of Trump’s old critics on the Right, if they show some flexibility. Despite its succinctness in branding, “Never Trump” is not a unified movement, and Never Trumpers have different paths ahead. Some might go the way of the Lincoln Project and essentially become an adjunct of the Democratic Party. Stephens’s column indicates another path: re-engaging with populism in order to diagnose the issues that have given it such resilience and addressing those challenges.
On the level of raw politics, Trump’s conservative critics have strategic incentives to make some populist rapprochement. Turning support for the President-elect or populism into an absolute litmus test — either oppose Trump in all things, or be cast out into the darkness — is no glue for a centre-right political coalition. As it stands, almost every elected Republican has either supported Trump or at least expressed a willingness to help him govern. Insisting that the only decent Republican is one who has joined the “resistance” might win invitations to the MSNBC green room but will have little pull with GOP voters.
As Stephens notes, Never Trump and Trump’s opponents more broadly have hurt themselves by being too closely identified with the technocratic establishment. Combined with the cascade of “expert” failures, the elite-led culture war has alienated much of the American public. Foes of populism invoke the importance of “democratic guardrails”, but Joe Biden’s presidency has been a Gotterdammerung of the norms — from his calls to eliminate the filibuster, to the novel prosecutions of his political opponents, to the recent Hunter Biden pardon.
Foreign policy might also give some Never Trumpers a reason to distance themselves from the Democratic Party. While many of those within the movement emphasise foreign policy as a reason for their opposition to Trump, the security situation under Biden has significantly deteriorated. Instead of seeing him as a chaos agent, much of the American public views the President-elect as representative of stability abroad. New polling from the Manhattan Institute has found that voters gave Trump a 9-point edge over Kamala Harris on foreign policy; after immigration, foreign affairs was judged to be his strongest issue. This is not because the US public has turned isolationist. In the same poll, a plurality of Americans — and a supermajority of Republicans — supported a “peace through strength” foreign policy. But it does indicate that voters have soured on the Biden administration’s combination of sclerosis and NGO-washed “idealism”.
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.
SubscribeWell, the never-Trumpers had better admit defeat. They lost. Trump is a much a threat to democracy as he ever was, but that is what the American people wants, so that is what they are going to get. Still there is no point in moaning about it – the task now is to admit defeat and work out the best way of managing in what is now enemy territory.
As for ‘revitalising American democracy’, that will have to wait till the people gets tired of Trump and want something else. Better not hold your breath.
Vote me down.
Voting this up.
Though Trump is no threat to democracy (this is democracy !). And the four years will go by in a flash. People get far too worked up about things which usually never happen.
The amusing thing is that the never-Trumpers will admit defeat far sooner than the Democrats who still appear to be in denial.
Does it ever give you pause for thought that every populist in the world – and there are many of them – have all been smeared as threats to democracy? Populists in France, Germany, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, Argentina, El Salvador have all been called threats to democracy – every single one of them. Are they all threats to democracy – even the ones that have been elected and not installed authoritarian regimes?
Centrist Technocratic nowadays Authoritarian Liberal Neo Liberal just want to blame everyone else for their failure(s). They can’t understand why everyone doesn’t want to be like them and agree with them on everything.
It’s remarkably consistent that basically everywhere in the western world populist groups have emerged with anti-establishment viewpoints at about the same time and been treated as dangerous radicals by the so-called ‘centrist’ parties of those nations. It’s even been observed that the populist parties don’t much agree with one another on much of anything. The only issue they have in common is opposing immigration. Beyond that, they have different platforms and different areas of concern, different policies towards the Ukraine conflict and the Gaza conflict, etc. yet they all get painted with the same brush. It sure looks like centrist parties and organizations are acting in concert with one another, hitting MAGA and the AfD with the same cliched accusations of radicalism, racism, etc. To me, it’s obvious this is a group of internationalist leaders, centrists, oligarchs, etc. pursuing a unified global agenda with or without the people’s consent and facing opposition which is as diverse and varied as the countries themselves. One would think given recent events they’d start making more efforts to hide their agenda, but they seem almost as incompetent as they are delusional.
I’ve voted you down. I’ll rescind it if you can provide a plausible explanation for why “Trump is a [sic] much a threat to democracy as he ever was”.
If it includes the so-called “insurrection” following the 2020 vote, i’ll not rescind since Trump isn’t allowed to run for the office of President again.
What on earth do you – and those who influence you in the msm – think Trump is going to do which “threatens democracy”?
Well, since you ask:
Systematically and openly harass and weaken anyone who disagrees with the Trump, establishing the principle that anyone who disagrees with the President is an FBI target.
Change the electoral system, voter registration, election and counting procedures, gerrymandering etc. in a way that reduces the Democrat vote by maybe 5%, or more if he can find a way.
Further colonise the courts so that judges are pro-republican.
Destroy the power of the government to act against private companies, and make sure the companies who benefit are run by his friends.
Prepare the ground – politically and legally, so that if the Republicans ever lose they can claim fraud and step right in and overturn the result.
The big one is that Trump will remove all the limits on the President’s right to to anything he damn well likes. Now imagine that his side risks losing, and all that untrammelled power might go to AOC. Would the Republicans really accept that risk when it means that other can do to them what Trump has done to others?
“His” side? Your whole argument rests on that? It’s a fallacy. As we all know, the side that Trump’s on is his own – and America’s. The GOP are merely a vehicle.
Trump (or any other President) will never have the power to “do anything he [or she] damn well likes”, and you know that. Again, it’s just all media tropes. Try again. My vote stays down.
The whole “Threat to Democracy” line is propaganda. Just stop. Democrats changed all the voting rules in 2020, suppressed speech, hid their candidate from scrutiny and still barely won. They had a machine operation already in place to collect ballots from heavily populated areas. At the very least, it was a rigged playing field or maybe you would call that “Equity.”
Then in 2024, they refused to allow a real primary election and installed a candidate that received zero votes. Unfortunately we didn’t get to see the “Superdelegates” weigh in.
So let me ask you this- What is your definition of “Democracy.”
Not to mention the Democratic efforts to bar Donald Trump from the ballot for an “insurrection” that never happened, and all the other lawfare cases brought against him. That the Democrats can do all that anti-democratic abuse of power and then accuse the Republicans of being anti-democratic is hypocrisy at its sheerest. The Republicans are anti-Democratic, but not anti-democratic.
Come on. Trump tried top steal the election. Do you really think that he should be allowed to get away with that unscathed?
Democracy? A system where power is decided by vote, with agreed rules that candidates follow, and where both sides follow the rules and accept the result even if they lose. I would add the rule of law, where law enforcement is objective and not at the whim of the government. Trump is down at least three, here: He refused to accept the election result on a spurious pretext, he tried to overturn it, and he is openly boasting that he will persecute those who were against him, not because they broke the law (like he did) but for revenge.
As for your rigged playing field: both sides do it, and the Republicans are if anything doing more, with gerrymandering and removing valid voters from the rolls. Machine operations for getting out the (legitimate) votes are within the rules, So is the process that replaced Biden with Kamala. And Biden did not have any obligation to appear in public, and more than Trump had an obligation to publish his tax returns or do more debates. If you do not like what the candidate does, just vote against him (or her).
Still there is no point in moaning about it – the task now is to admit defeat and work out the best way of managing in what is now enemy territory.
.
So, this is your way to democracy! To declare your country as enemy territory and fight against your fellow citizens.
.
Down, f.cking Pol Pot! Down to the cesspool!
My question to you is “can you articulate exactly how Trump represents a ‘threat to democracy'”? Genuine question, asked in good faith.
I will say people who don’t live in the States, even well educated ones, tend not to fully understand how American “democracy” works. Having family in Denmark (Med dit navn jeg antager at du er dansk og derfor ikke Amerikansk), I’ve often heard similar charges. “you guys have elected a Dictator” – this coming from a country where the Prime Minister and her party can pretty much decree any law they want, so long as they can find the votes. The executive AND the legislative are combined in to single entity.
I can certainly see how someone outside of US can perceive the US presidency as an emperor-like role. That’s a feature, not a bug. The founders designed our system to have a single, unified voice representing our interests abroad. And that role comes with a lot of muscle and influence on the international stage.
However, as any wannabe imperial president will tell you, domestic politics are very much a different animal. There’s no waving of the hands and removing “democracy” – you’ve got to work through the Congress and also ensure that your decisions stays in good graces with the Courts. And even the most popular presidents find their dreams dashed by the machinations of Congress.
But more importantly, what outsiders (and many insiders) don’t understand is the role of the sovereign State. I would say most Americans who don’t live in DC are largely unaffected by the Federal government (and the Presidency) in their daily lives (except on April 15th). Our lives are largely governed by the state government, not the federal. For most Europeans (and everyone), the idea that a region can do its own thing is anathema to the centralized design. Syddanmark is an administrative (i’m old enough to remember the Amts) body with little to no executive power. That’s very different from the governor of Nevada (or any other state) who has true executive and policy making powers, subject to their legislature.
TLDR;
What most people mean when they say “Democracy is under threat” is “this new guy is going to do things that I don’t like”. Funny how Biden’s unilateral decisions on student debt, redefine genders in our educational system and the numerous other unpopular things he did were celebrated.
In short, no need to light a candle for American Democracy – despite it’s many imperfections, it continues to thrive.
Thanks to all for some very constructive disagreements (hence so many answers).
In the absence of proven cases of election fraud, I take great issue with characterizing any democratically elected leader as a ‘threat to democracy. Democracy is not a specific end result, a specific policy, or a specific person, it is an idea, that the people are sovereign over themselves and their nation, and that the people are the only legitimate source of sovereign power. In an autocracy, the highest authority is the autocrat, who is the ultimate authority in all things. He is the king, the king’s word is law, and the king can do now wrong. In a democracy, there is no king, the people collectively are king. Under truly democratic principles, there is no person that is unacceptable as a leader unless the people deem them so, there is nothing which is unacceptable unless by the people’s will. Within such a system, the democratic process must be followed, and held sacred, because it represents the sovereign will of the people. If individuals are allowed to subvert the process, we are, by definition, no longer a democracy. The USA was, contrary to popular belief, not founded as a democracy (though some advocated for this). It was a representative republic. It technically still is, but most Americans believe in democratic principles and the ultimate sovereignty of the people over themselves and their country.
For example, if one accepts that the American election was legitimate and the election was not somehow ‘stolen’, then Trump cannot be a threat to democracy because he was chosen in a democratic election through a constitutional process that proceeded legally and has been repeated numerous times throughout history. In a democracy, the people cannot be wrong because they are sovereign. Trump did not, for the record, take power in a coup d’etat or with military backing. In his absolute worst moment, Trump made one very poor attempt on Jan 6th to use legal technicalities to subvert the democratic process and have Congress refuse to certify the results of the election. He should be, and has been, criticized for his actions. However, balance and fairness demand that other attempts to subvert the process are treated similarly. The democrats did something similar in 2016 when they asked electors to ‘vote their conscience’ rather than follow the legal requirements of the constitution, tradition, their personal integrity, and their relevant state laws. In both cases, individuals and supporters of one side or the other tried to take advantage of procedural issues most Americans weren’t even aware existed and pressure individuals to lay aside the established process and do something unprecedented. One appeared much worse than it actually was thanks to a riot that got out of hand due to insufficient security, a mistake unlikely to be repeated. I will however, note that Trump at least based his claim on the popular sovereignty of the people, maintaining that widespread fraud had caused his loss, thus subverting the usual process and abrogating the popular will. He had no proof and few believe the election was ‘stolen’, but Trump could at least claim that he was appealing to democratic principles. In 2016, the appeals to electors were based simply on keeping Donald Trump out of office. The fact Hillary did in fact win the popular vote provided some cover for them to appeal to democratic principles, but the fact remains that this is the process that has been used for a very long time and there have been other occasions where the loser of the popular vote won by the established procedure. In the end, both these efforts were unprecedented in living memory, neither were particularly well thought out, and thankfully neither was successful. In those cases, in those moments, the democratic process could be said to be threatened but in each case the democratic process prevailed. May it always continue to do so regardless of irresponsible politicians.
The people were aware or could have easily researched all these facts in the run up to the 2024 election. They could have decided that Trump’s actions disqualify him from office. Instead, by a slim but clear majority of the people in the popular vote and a strong majority in the constitutional process of the electoral college, the people chose Trump. They have, in effect, pardoned his behavior in a manner not dissimilar to how Mr. Biden is handing out pardons left and right to his political allies for various reasons. If the people’s chosen leader has the power to excuse crimes, surely the people themselves have that power as well. I honestly wish everyone could have more respect for the process, and I further wish that greater care was taken to protect the integrity of the process, but who am I.
With respect Rasmus, it is disingenuous to support democratic rule only when it produces results you consider acceptable or desirable. To declare a man who won an election less than two months ago a ‘threat to democracy’ is, to me, an insult to the entire concept of popular sovereignty. It suggests that you do not, in fact, believe in or advocate for true democracy, but for your own viewpoints. For the most part, there’s nothing wrong with that. Sitting governments can and should be criticized for their mistakes and their policies should be questioned. However, I would say declaring the other side a ‘threat to democracy’ in order to promote your viewpoint is pushing the very same boundaries Trump does. It shows disrespect for the process, certainly not as much as Trump did in 2020, but disrespect nonetheless. If in our quest to defeat monsters, we become monsters, we have already lost. I can sympathize with your frustration. We live in trying times. There are, in a sense, always threats to democracy as there are always forces which will seek to abrogate the popular will and gain power over people but we as Americans are in the unfortunate position of having threats to democracy on all sides, both within in the form of undemocratic forces seeking to subvert rule by popular sovereignty for rule by oligarchs, autocrats, economics, international organizations, or experts and without in the form of totalitarian, autocratic, and fundamentalist regimes in China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The enemy is not only at the gates, the enemy has spies and subversives in the city trying to replace democratic rule with some other form. There are many threats to democracy in our era, and in my judgement Trump is by no means the most dangerous or the most capable. By all means, continue to criticize Trump. I have no doubt he will do and say many things worthy of criticism, but let’s at least try to respect the process and leave behind the histrionics and hyperbole. As you can see, it hasn’t worked anyway, so why keep beating a dead horse? I’m also not sure declaring the whole country to be enemy territory and regarding those who disagree as enemies to be fought rather than equal citizens to persuade to your side with logic, evidence, and debate is wise or constructive. I rather think this attitude perpetuates conflict and makes compromise more difficult regardless of who it comes from.
At any rate, I always vote you up Rasmus because I don’t like discussions to get too one-sided and unlike some other commenters, you can actually make coherent logical arguments, write in complete sentences, and express your view without petty name calling.
I think you are mixing two things up here. There is no doubt that Trump is the legitimate and legitimately elected president of the US. He is what people want. Whether he is a threat to democracy is a different question entirely. Erdogan, Orban, Modi, Mugabe and even Putin were all elected, and at least their first victories were reasonably free and fair. Just because he came in by a free and fair election does not mean that he (or rather his party – he cannot run again personally) will keep the election free and fair if it means that they might actually lose.
The people of the United States of America have chosen Trump, but that does not mean that he is not a threat to democracy. It just means that even if he is, a majority of the American people do not care.