Categories
Analysis News

Michael Flynn Endorses Military Coup in the US

The former and brief National Security Advisor for Donald Trump in early 2017 embraced the idea of a Myanmar-style military coup in the United States. Speaking at a QAnon conference in Dallas, Texas, over the weekend, a flustered attendee asked Flynn: “I want to know why what happened in Myanmar can’t happen here?” At this point, the crowd erupts in cheer. Flynn then responds with: “no reason. I mean, it should happen here.”

At this point, the crowd again cheers at the idea of a Myanmar-style military coup in the United States to apparently overthrow the democratically elected government of Joe Biden.

The exchange can be seen in the tweet below:

Flynn is now saying out loud what many radicalized Republicans have been dreaming of in their post-election turn to authoritarianism.

Back in February, Rolling Stone Magazine published an article revealing that members of QAnon see the Myanmar coup as an emboldening development.

Rolling Stone continued:

…it was an emboldening development for many believers in the QAnon conspiracy theory, which posits the existence of a deep state child trafficking ring made up of Hollywood actors and left-wing politicians. Some prominent influencers within the QAnon community with thousands of followers have promoted the baseless idea that electronic voting companies Smartmatic and Dominion were involved in perpetuating voter fraud in Myanmar, and some have posited that a similar military coup could happen in the United States.

The totally baseless QAnon theory is contingent on Trump retaining power and arresting and eventually executing his enemies. Therefore, in the months following Biden’s election, QAnon believers have been rumbling about the results of the election being fraudulent. Many have been pushing the claim that Trump will return to office, possibly by force of a military coup. And they have been invigorated by watching this exact scenario taking place in the small southeast Asian country.

“The Burmese military has arrested the country’s leaders after credible evidence of widespread voter fraud became impossible to ignore…sounds like the controlled media and Biden admin are scared this might happen here,” one influencer with more than 45,000 subscribers on the encrypted messaging app Telegram wrote. “We will see this headline here soon,” another QAnon believer with more than 50,000 subscribers on Telegram wrote, linking to a tweet from a far-right news website about the arrest of Myanmar’s leaders.

Myanmar joined a troubling rising tide of authoritarianism in some countries around the world when its military arrested the country’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi and imposed a military dictatorship. Myanmar had previously been under a military dictatorship for more than 25 years until 2011 when the country finally elected a civilian government. Since the February coup, the country has been embroiled in a resistance movement and protests against the ongoing military dictatorship.

The last known official numbers put the civilian death toll in Myanmar over 750. As of late April, 3,331 people had been detained by the military. Both numbers are likely much higher now.

This type of violence is exactly what some on the far-right have been calling for in the US, for years.

A CNN article noted how QAnon-Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called for and endorsed violence against Democratic politicians in 2018 and 2019:

In one post, from January 2019, Greene liked a comment that said “a bullet to the head would be quicker” to remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In other posts, Greene liked comments about executing FBI agents who, in her eyes, were part of the “deep state” working against Trump.

In one Facebook post from April 2018, Greene wrote conspiratorially about the Iran Deal, one of former President Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy achievements. A commenter asked Greene, “Now do we get to hang them ?? Meaning H & O ???,” referring to Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Greene replied, “Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off.”

This isn’t the first time Michael Flynn has endorsed military action against US democracy. Shortly after Trump was defeated in the 2020 election, Flynn promoted the idea that Trump should impose martial law and that the military should oversee a new election in swing states.

The Independent reported on Flynn’s comments in December 2020:

There is no way in the world we are going to be able to move forward as a nation,” General Flynn said. “[The president] could immediately, on his order, seize every single one of these machines.

Within the swing states,” he continued, “if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities, and he could place those in states and basically rerun an election in each of those states.

I mean, it’s not unprecedented. These people are out there talking about martial law like it’s something that we’ve never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times.

Just weeks after Flynn’s comments, far-right terrorist groups such as the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and other groups, coordinated to attack the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. So far, a total of 31 members of far-right terrorist groups, including 16 members of the Oath Keepers, have been charged with conspiracy to invade the US Capitol and disrupt the proceedings to certify the results of the 2020 election.

The urgency and danger of the moment American democracy faces cannot be overstated. We are in a democratic emergency and an emergency of this type requires bold and swift action by law enforcement agencies and it requires bold and swift political action to neutralize and crush any and all threats to our democratic republic.

We must do everything we can to protect our democracy. Make no mistake, if the far-right is not neutralized now, it will regroup and attempt another January 6th. The Capitol Insurrection was a trial run for them and it would be a great error for everyone who believes in democracy and peace to dismiss the far-right’s aspirations as implausible.

Image Credit: East Asia Forum

Categories
Analysis News

For Republicans, democracy is the Enemy

It’s not unusual in the current political era to hear the words authoritarianism or fascism or anti-democratic. In previous years, it would have been nearly unheard of for mainstream news network anchors to use these words to describe American politicians and entire political parties. But now, it’s becoming increasingly normalized in an era where Republicans continue to attack democracy at the state and federal levels.

Medhi Hasan, who hosts a show on MSNBC, stated during the summer of 2020:

It’s time in America that we have a proper conversation about the f-word: Fascism… I know, I know. It’s very controversial and people get very uncomfortable when you mention it. But to borrow a line – if not now, when? And if not us, the free press, then who? For far too long, we have shied away from saying the f-word. For a lot of people, calling Donald Trump a fascist was ad hominem, a lazy political insult. It was the liberal who cried wolf. And yet, look what happened the moment he took office.

Dean Obeidallah, a SiriusXM Progress radio show host and MSNBC Opinion Column tributor, noted in an article published one week after the attack on the Capitol:

Experts have documented that the Republican Party in recent years has increasingly rejected democratic norms and embraced autocratic tactics to wield power. An October study by V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden warned that the GOP had already been moving in that direction pre-Trump, but it said that under Trump, with “the disrespect of political opponents” and “the encouragement of violence,” the GOP now more closely resembles authoritarian ruling parties like Hungary’s Fidesz and Turkey’s AKP.

Obeidallah continues:

In fact, a GOP member of Congress told Politico that days after the siege, the message he heard from his constituents was not shock about the attack but more along the lines of “Do you think that Congress got the message?” And some Republicans noted that constituents such as “preachers, school superintendents, churchgoing men and women,” as Politico reported, were actually cheering on the attack rather than condemning it.

If these polls are accurate, that means 1 in 5 Republicans approve of embracing violence to keep political power. That is the textbook definition of fascism. If this extremist wing of the GOP goes unchecked, it is likely to spread as Republicans become angrier with election losses and resort to attempting to acquire power by using force.

Jelani Cobb, writing for the New Yorker further details the anti-democratic slide of the Republican Party:

…the G.O.P.’s steady drift toward the right, from conservative to reactionary politics; its dependence on older, white voters; its reliance on right-wing media; its support for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; and its increasing disdain for democratic institutions and norms all portend increasing division and a diminishing pool of voters. Republicans, Patterson says, have been depending on a “rear-guard strategy” to “resist the ticking clock of a changing America.” Time may be running out for the Party, as its base ages and dwindles. “Its loyal voters are declining in number and yet have locked the party in place,” Patterson writes. “It cannot reinvent itself without risking their support and, in any event, it can’t reinvent itself in a convincing enough way for a quick turnaround. Republicans have traded the party’s future for yesterday’s America.”

Cobb continues with a rather stark warning from a former Republican official:

Jennifer Horn, the former chair of the New Hampshire Republican Party, told me that the G.O.P., in its current incarnation, is “the most open embrace of an anti-democracy movement that we have seen in our country in a very long time.”

We would argue that this is the most open embrace of anti-democracy that we’ve seen at any time in this country’s history.

Horn shows us that not every single Republican has turned against democracy. But Republicans who are desperately trying to salvage a party that crossed the Rubicon into authoritarianism long ago are declining in numbers and influence.

A recent poll commissioned by Reuters-Ipsos poll found that 53% of Republicans believe that Trump remains the “true president.” An additional 8% believe that the election was at least somewhat likely stolen from Trump. It’s not that these numbers for a losing party in a general election are unprecedented, although they are very high. The problem is the context surrounding these numbers where you now have a former president, who incited an insurrection against the US Capitol with members of Congress inside who were certifying the vote of a presidential election, spending months saying that the election was stolen, in addition to the longevity and endurance of Republican election lie intransigence.

Trump’s own officials at the Department of Homeland Security released a statement declaring that the 2020 Election was the most secure in American history. The only reason Republicans are against all of the evidence we have that points to the accuracy and security of last year’s election is that they are turning against democracy itself and embracing authoritarianism.

Republicans won’t necessarily disagree with this. There are some prominent Republicans in Congress who have hinted at democracy becoming a hindrance to their agenda.

Utah Senator Mike Lee stated in a tweet last October:

We’re not a democracy. Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.

The word ‘democracy’ appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. It’s a constitutional republic. To me, it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few.

The “we’re not a democracy; we’re a republic” line is often parroted by conservatives. This has always been misleading because they use this to create a false dichotomy between republics and democracies to justify their unpopular political positions. The US is a representative democracy, a democratic republic, and a constitutional republic. It’s all synonymous. It is true that we are not a direct (Athenian) democracy, but we’re not arguing for such a thing.

Conservatives have used this line historically to downplay democracy when it runs against their political ambitions. Senator Lee’s statement came at a time when democracy was already under severe attack from Trump before the 2020 election. So in this context, we can only view Senator Lee’s statement as denouncing democracy itself.

Vox published an article in March with 13 charts showing the depth of the anti-democracy movement in the Republican Party.

Vox notes:

At every level, from the elite down to rank-and-file voters, the party is permeated with anti-democratic political attitudes and agendas. And the prospects for rescuing the Republican Party, at least in the short term, look grim indeed.

The first chart is a panel commissioned in late 2020 and early 2021 by the University of Washington. The study found that anti-democratic attitudes run deep throughout the Republican Party.

By 70% to nearly 100%, the Trump voters interviewed embraced highly anti-democratic ideas such as support for Trump’s Big Lie and believing that voting should be made more difficult. Over two-thirds believed that Trump deserved 3 terms in office – not unlike notorious dictators around the world who spend decades in office and claim to have 99% support in elections.

An American Perspectives Survey completed in January 2021 showed that some 39% of Republicans interviewed supported violence if leaders didn’t “act to protect America.” Violence, of course, being the ultimate authoritarian expression. It represents an ominous turn against democracy.

The Global Party Survey in 2019 found that the Republican Party was one of the most anti-democratic political parties in the world.

While Republicans have increased their attacks on democracy on the federal level, for instance, through the abuse of the filibuster, the largest and most enduring attacks remain at the state level where bills are being created, debated, and even passed to roll back voting rights to an unprecedented level not seen since before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Republicans understand that the only way they win going forward is to seriously curtail democracy. Not only is their embrace of Trump a huge turn-off to a strong majority of the US population, but their policies are also trending more unpopular as time goes on amid technological and demographic changes and younger generations who are coming of age under conditions far different than their more conservative parents.

The conservative policies of previous decades have created an increasing imbalance and tension in US society that they’re now having to fight against. The minimum wage is criminally low while the cost of living continues to rise. The so-called American dream remains out of reach for an increasing number of people. Technology continues to have a huge impact on our society in terms of the information available which is causing many to question what they had been taught by their more conservative parents and teachers during their younger years. The youngest generations only know of life with the internet and information at our fingertips. The suppression and oppression of people of color is also becoming more untenable in our changing society. The unprecedented protests following the police murder of George Floyd and the unprecedented support of Black Lives Matter from whites in 2020 create a major problem for conservative and right-wing politics.

Instead of moderating and modifying their politics to match the changing dynamics of our society, a large portion of Republicans have chosen the authoritarian route. They’ve chosen a literal scorched earth strategy. If they can’t hold on to the dying old society, they will burn both this democracy and this country to the ground. For them, democracy is the enemy.

Image Credit: Shay Horse of Getty Images

Categories
Analysis News

Jim Crow in the 21st Century

Instead of celebrating the rights of all Georgians to vote or winning campaigns on the merits of their ideas, Republicans in the state instead rushed through an un-American law to deny people the right to vote. This law, like so many others being pursued by Republicans in statehouses across the country, is a blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience.

The above quote is a statement from President Joe Biden the day after the Georgia Legislature rushed through, and Governor Brian Kemp signed into law, Georgia’s SB 202, the most restrictive voting rights law in the country.

President Biden continued:

This is Jim Crow in the 21st Century. It must end.

The president’s statements were no hyperbole. The severity of the restrictions of Georgia’s new voting law hasn’t been seen since the Jim Crow Era where Black Americans were subject to absurd hurdles to vote in the form of literacy tests that literally no one would pass today and other restrictions such as property tests and grandfather clauses. Under the new law, some counties will only have one ballot drop box and in-person early voting hours will be mostly restricted to a 9 am – 5 pm timeframe, when most people work. 

Adding to the absurdity of this new Jim Crow Era for Georgia Republicans is the arrest of Black Georgia state lawmaker Park Cannon. Cannon has served in Georgia’s House of Representatives since 2016 and she was peacefully protesting the signing of the legislation with others. A Facebook Live video posted to Twitter shows Cannon outside of the locked room where Governor Brian Kemp was signing SB 202 into law. Cannon merely knocked on the door and was immediately arrested by Georgia State Patrol officers.

Canon was charged with felony obstruction of law enforcement and a misdemeanor for preventing or disrupting General Assembly sessions or other meetings of members. 

Many Georgia activists and Democratic lawmakers decried the arrest of Park Cannon, recalling scenes from the Jim Crow Era of the early and mid 20th century. 

The signing of SB 202, the arrest of Park Cannon, and the fact that the charges against her continue to stand to this day, is a reassertion of white supremacy at a time when Black voting power, particularly in some places in the South, is growing. The rise of Black voting and political power is challenging the generations-old white supremacist power establishment and they’re reacting to it the same way they did during the Jim Crow Era. 

SB 202 is one example of the reassertion of white supremacy. Another example can be seen in the not-so-subtle slave era imagery set as the literal backdrop to Governor Brian Kemp’s signing of the bill — the Washington, Georgia Callaway Plantation which held slaves in the 1800s.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signs S.B. 202 on Thursday, March 25. Kimberly Wallace says the painting behind him depicts the plantation on which her family members worked, going back to slavery. Image provided by CNN

The legislation that was passed into law in Georgia not only aims to suppress the Black vote, but also allows Republicans to seize control over how elections are run in the state.

The Washington Post reports:

The new law removes the secretary of state from serving as chair of the State Board of Elections, giving the legislature the authority to appoint a majority of the members, and authorizes the state board to suspend local election officials.

If these measures had been in place in 2020, critics say, the state board could have tried to interfere when the secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, certified Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the state and rejected Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that the election was stolen.

Separately, the new power to suspend county election boards could give state officials unprecedented influence over all manner of election decisions, including the acceptance and rejection of mail ballots, early-voting hours, poll-worker hiring and the number of polling locations, critics say.

All told, the measures represent an unprecedented power grab and an attempt to usurp local control, said Lauren Groh-Wargo, executive director of Atlanta-based Fair Fight Action, the voting rights group founded by Stacey Abrams, a Democrat who ran for governor in 2018. They allow legislators to target heavily Democratic counties in the metro Atlanta region, home of the state’s highest concentration of Black and Brown voters, “if they don’t like how elections are being run,” she said.

“It will make what we all lived through in 2020 child’s play,” Groh-Wargo said in a call with reporters earlier this week, before the measure passed. “Donald Trump won’t have to strong-arm our election administrators. The most radical fringes of the Republican Party sitting in the state legislature will be able to wipe out boards of elections.”

What the Washington Post is describing here is a small-scale political coup which is exactly what Trump and the insurrectionists tried for months to accomplish, culminating in the January 6th insurrection. If SB 202 is allowed to remain in place, not only will democracy in the state of Georgia be imperiled, but also the entire country. Republicans across the country will be emboldened to pass similar laws in the states they control, like Florida and Texas. Rising Democratic and Black political power will face massive roadblocks. The only way to reverse our current dangerous trajectory is to pass both H.R. 1 and H.R. 4 which would override draconian voter restrictions across the country and reverse the Republican coup against Georgia’s election system. 

The day after SB 202 was signed into law, Senator Raphael Warnock, who won a January runoff election in Georgia, noted that “our democracy is in a 911 emergency.” 

Senator Warnock continued:

“I’m not about to be stopped or stymied by debates about Senate rules,” Warnock said, referring to the Senate filibuster. “I respect rules … but no Senate rule should overrule the integrity of our democracy. And I was on the phone with my colleagues even last night.”

Our democracy is indeed in an emergency. The survival of a functioning US democracy will depend on Democrats reforming or gutting the filibuster and then passing H.R. 1 and H.R. 4. If we’re successful, this is not to say that US democracy won’t face future threats and attacks. But we must pass these crucial bills so that we can have the tools to fight another day.

Image credit: Stacey Abrams via Twitter

Categories
Analysis News

Republicans launch national attack on voting rights

What is so notable about this moment, and so disconcerting, is that they are not hiding. There is no attempt to pretend that the intention is not to restrict votes.

They are responding by actually doing what the insurrectionists sought.

– Stacey Abrams, responding to questions during an interview with The Guardian

Republicans in Texas, the country’s second-largest state, have begun to roll out election bills aiming to restrict voting rights in a push to curtail the rising political power of Democrats in the state.

“We must pass laws to prevent election officials from jeopardizing the election process,” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said Monday [March 15], urging lawmakers to get election integrity bills “to my desk so I can sign it.”

However, the Houston Chronicle reports that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton found only 16 cases of voters providing false addresses on their registration forms after 22,000 hours were spent investigating “voter fraud.”

NBC News explains the nature of the Texas bills to restrict voting:

Several bills seek to limit early voting to certain hours or to standardize hours across the state, which would expand early voting in smaller counties while limiting it in the largest counties. All would cut early voting hours in urban, Democratic areas.

Other proposed legislation targets mail voting, which lawmakers say needs additional precautions to prevent fraud.

Republicans have proposed a bill that would shrink the period when voters could return mail ballots, while another bill would ask voters to mail back photocopies of their driver’s licenses or other qualifying identification with their mail ballots.

Several bills also seek to ensure that noncitizens stay off the voter rolls and urge election officials to aggressively purge the rolls. And a slew of bills would add or increase penalties for fraud or mistakes made by voters or officials in running elections.

Hughes’ election bill, which he said he expects will be the vehicle for any voting legislation coming out of the Senate, would impose civil fines on local officials who don’t purge their voter rolls quickly enough — $100 for every voter the secretary of state’s office identifies as improperly being on the books.

State Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Republican from Harris County, has sponsored a bill that would prohibit election officials from waiving signature match requirements on mail ballots, which he said hasn’t happened in Texas.

“We saw it in Atlanta, Pennsylvania — Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee,” he said, pointing to many of the Democratic cities with large populations of Black voters that Trump’s allies baselessly accused of orchestrating a large voter fraud campaign to steal the election.

The Texas GOP understands what we understand – that conservative politics are becoming increasingly unpopular and out of touch with a changing society, and the only way they can win is to abandon democracy. 

The Texas GOP is not alone. Georgia’s Republican attack on voting rights is getting the most attention, and rightly so. The Georgia GOP is scrambling to roll back the rise of Democratic political power. For the first time since the 1992 election, a Democrat won Georgia’s electoral votes. And in what seemed like a nearly impossible feat, Georgia voters sent two Democrats to the Senate during the January 5, 2021 runoff elections. Unfortunately, the GOP is still in control of Georgia’s state government and they are doing everything they can to make it very difficult for Democratic voters, particularly Black voters, in upcoming elections. 

The New Yorker reports:

The Georgia House bill proposes to shorten the period of early voting, prevent ballots from being mailed out more than four weeks before an election, reduce the use of ballot drop boxes, further criminalize giving food or water to those waiting in line to vote, and severely restrict early voting on Sundays, when many Black churches take their congregants to polling places.

The Senate bill would cut mobile voting facilities, end no-excuse absentee voting, and require people who are qualified to vote absentee to provide a witness’s signature on the ballot envelope. Additional proposals would end, among other things, automatic voter registration at the Department of Driver Services. All these measures are meant to diminish turnout and undo the state of affairs that led to Democrats winning the Presidential race in November and both Senate runoff races in January.

Voter advocacy and civil rights groups are coming together to try and thwart these draconian bills by calling on major corporations to come out against this attack on democracy. Organizers say that this is not an issue of partisanship or taking sides for or against a particular party, but that this is an issue about whether certain Georgians are effectively blocked from participating in democracy itself.

The Telegraph reports:

Fenika Miller, the Georgia state coordinator for Black Voters Matter, said the group is running a corporate accountability campaign to garner support to squash House Bill 531, Senate Bill 241 and Senate Bill 202, which she said would restrict Georgian’s access to vote.

In the summer of 2020, many companies, such as Coca-Cola, took a pledge during the protests against the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery.

“They were going to stand on the side of racial equity and inclusion and help to move the needle to make sure that communities of color and Black communities in particular were protected, and so, all that we’re doing is asking them to make good on that pledge,” she said. “We’re asking them to be bold and to take a stand and to say that we do not believe that restricting access to the ballot will help democracy.”

There is precedent for corporations opposing blatantly oppressive legislation. Arizona is a perfect example where a 2014 anti-LGBT bill was passed by the state’s legislature but was then vetoed by right-wing Governor Jan Brewer after corporations mounted strong pressure for her to veto the legislation. 

CNN Business reported:

After business owners lashed out, Arizona’s governor vetoed a bill that would have allowed retailers to refuse service to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender customers based on the owners’ religious convictions.

The bill drew controversy since it passed the Arizona legislature last Thursday. While proponents say the legislation was introduced as a way to afford religious freedom to business owners, critics say it opened the door to discrimination.

“When the legislature passes bills like this, it creates a reputation that Arizona is judgmental and unwelcoming,” states a letter that more than 80 businesses sent to Gov. Brewer on Monday. “This will haunt our business community for decades to come.”

After business owners lashed out, Arizona’s governor vetoed a bill that would have allowed retailers to refuse service to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender customers based on the owners’ religious convictions.

The bill drew controversy since it passed the Arizona legislature last Thursday. While proponents say the legislation was introduced as a way to afford religious freedom to business owners, critics say it opened the door to discrimination.

“When the legislature passes bills like this, it creates a reputation that Arizona is judgmental and unwelcoming,” states a letter that more than 80 businesses sent to Gov. Brewer on Monday. “This will haunt our business community for decades to come.”

National corporations including American Airlines (AAL), AT&T (ATT ), Delta Airlines (DAL), Intel (INTC), Marriott (MAR), PetSmart (PETM), Starwood (HOT), and Yelp (YELP) were among those urging Brewer to veto the bill, saying the law would be bad for the state’s reputation and bad for business — repelling tourists, potential employees and current workers who live in the state.

“I can assure you that this proposed legislation is causing tremendous concerns for our employees, particularly those who live and work in Arizona,” American Airlines CEO Doug Parker wrote in a letter to Brewer.

Meanwhile, Intel, which has nearly 12,000 employees in Arizona, said the bill directly conflicted with its own non-discrimination policy, which “values and welcomes diversity in the workplace.”

It is our belief that this type of corporate pressure could be mounted in Georgia with the possibility of thwarting most of the measures proposed by Georgia’s GOP. 

Amid the mounting pressure, corporations such as Coca-Cola, Aflac, Delta, Home Depot, and UPS have issued statements in support of voting rights.

Newsweek reports:

The statements from the corporations came after civil rights and activist groups— including Black Voters Matter, the New Georgia Project Action Fund, and the Georgia NAACP—called on major Georgia-based corporations on Friday to publicly speak out against voting restrictions proposed by the state’s GOP and stop donating money to the Republican legislators sponsoring the bills.

The groups focused on six of the largest companies in Georgia, which include Aflac, Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Southern Company and UPS. All six companies belong to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce.

The Georgia Chamber previously shared in a February 5 statement the importance of voting rights, saying it’s “one of the most sacred rights of a U.S. citizen.” The Georgia Chamber, however, didn’t voice opposition against any specific legislation at the time.

The Georgia Chamber said it has “expressed concern and opposition to provisions found in both HB 531 and SB 241 that restrict or diminish voter access,” and “continues to engage in a bipartisan manner with leaders of the General Assembly on bills that would impact voting rights in our state.”

The statements by the corporations and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce are a start, but they are much weaker, especially the statements by the Chamber of Commerce, than what we saw during the Arizona anti-LGBT legislation battle in 2014.

Voting and civil rights groups in Georgia are keeping up the pressure, but time is running out. If these bills pass, they would be among the most restrictive in the country. If these corporate leaders believe in our democracy, they will do everything they can to mount the pressure needed to stop these disastrous bills. If not, then we have a much bigger problem on our hands than we thought. It would set a precedent and signal to Republicans across the country that corporate America has given them a green light to attack our democracy.

It appears as though Republicans are betting on that. Across the country, more than 253 bills have been introduced in 43 states to date in what can only be described as a coordinated campaign to end US democracy as we know it. The bills introduced in these states by Republicans take similar aim at early voting, mail-in voting, and other practices which make it easier for people to vote – a baseline for any functioning democracy. Some of the measures were put into effect in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic which made in-person voting dangerous.

Republicans have ruled by minority for decades and now that rule is under threat. This is mostly why they cling so hard to Donald Trump – a disgraced former president who attempted a violent overthrow of US democracy after months of delegitimizing and nearly imperiling an election he was widely expected to lose. 

The only tools they have left are to surrender to political civility and moderation or to adopt authoritarian and at times borderline fascist tendencies, aiming to dismantle key pillars of our democracy. They’re opting for the latter and they’re mounting a national campaign to achieve this goal. Such suppression of democracy occurring in any other country would prompt leveling of sanctions on them at this very moment. 

Drastic action must be taken to stop this coordinated campaign on our democracy. We support and urgently call on the Senate to pass the House’s H.R.1 which would amount to a historic overhaul of our voting and election system and protect our democracy against these attacks by Republicans. Even if some of these draconian election bills do pass in some states, passing H.R.1 would override them. But to get this done, we will need to reform the filibuster. So, we urgently call on Senate Democrats to reform the filibuster in a way that allows the passage of this and other extremely important legislation. With Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and the White House, we have to pass this legislation now and save our democracy.

Image Credit: AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

Categories
Analysis News

For the People Act aims to build a real American democracy

Praised by many as a sweeping and historic reform to US democracy, House Democrats passed H.R. 1, also known as the For The People Act. The bill passed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on March 3, 2021. This is the second time the bill has been voted on by the House. The bill was first introduced and then passed in the newly-Democratic House in March of 2019 but was quickly blocked from ever receiving a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate. The current bill, which aims to greatly expand voting rights, develop a strategy to lower the influence of money in politics, end gerrymandering, foster government transparency, and more, will again face hurdles in the Senate, but this time because of the filibuster. 

So, what’s in the bill? Below, we’ll take a look at a few of the bill’s most important components. 

Voter registration modernization

All states would be required to begin Automatic Voter Registration for federal elections. Eighteen states, plus DC, have already implemented AVR. Voter registration in every state would become opt-out as opposed to the opt-in system most states have. In this case, eligible citizens would need to indicate that they don’t want to be registered to vote. This is likely to be a very insignificant number of people. Some 50 million eligible voters would be added to the rolls.

Voter purging has been one of the main tactics employed by Republicans to suppress Democratic turnout. A state’s ability to purge voters from voter rolls would be greatly curtailed under  H.R. 1. H.R. 1 would not stop all cross-check purges, as there does need to be a system that identifies duplicate registrations, but it aims to stop the abuse of the system through voter suppression purges by putting in place needed protections or so-called conditions on removal of registered voters.

As it becomes harder for Republicans to win majorities, we’ve seen them engage in increasingly brazen voter intimidation tactics. One example, among dozens, is in Michigan in October 2020, where far-right actors were charged with felonies by the state’s Attorney General for voter intimidation where they used racist robocalls to target and intimidate Black voters from voting.  H.R. 1 would ban these and many other deceptive practices and all voter intimidation in federal elections.

H.R. 1 aims to end the disenfranchisement of individuals with previous felony convictions. States would be required to inform citizens of their restored voting rights in writing; however, this does not apply to those who are currently incarcerated. An amendment to H.R. 1 that would have restored the voting rights of those who are currently serving time in prison, failed in a 97-328 House vote. 

The Appeal explains:

Representatives Cori Bush of Missouri and Mondaire Jones of New York, who were both elected to the House last year, proposed an amendment to H.R. 1 that would have allowed those convicted of felonies to vote from within prison. Only Maine, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., enable anyone with a felony conviction to vote from prison, and other states are debating whether to join them. Some other nations, including Canada and Israel, have national mandates that extend voting rights to incarcerated people.

The amendment failed today in a 97-328 vote. Not a single Republican voted for the measure, and it also failed among Democrats. However, activists and lawmakers fighting to expand voting rights say they’re hopeful that the vote was the beginning, rather than the end, of a national debate on voting rights for prisoners.

“This fight is not over—it’s only the beginning,” Bush told The Appeal: Political Report. “The victory was in getting those 97. Look at who those 97 are. They’re a mixture of what our caucus is made of: not just progressives, not just people who claim to be progressive, not just people who look like me.”

Even with the failure of the amendment, this is a monumental step in the right direction and a sign that we are moving closer to voting rights for those who are currently incarcerated.

The end of gerrymandering

Under H.R. 1, partisan gerrymandering would effectively be banned, an extraordinary development for US elections and politics. Independent redistricting commissions would be created in states and they would be tasked with developing plans to redraw districts. The redistricting process would be open to participation and review of the public. Efforts would be made to ensure that the commission equally represents Democrats, Republicans, and even third parties. Most importantly, rules would be put in place to ensure that the political power of communities of color is not diluted, a current practice that ensures Republicans win far more seats than they should based on their vote share.

Limiting the power of big money in politics

The passing of Citizens United in 2010 was a crushing blow to democracy. 11 years and 6 federal election cycles later, we are seeing the consequences of this disastrous Supreme Court decision. Extremely wealthy individuals can now spend unlimited sums of money on Super PACs which can have large impacts on political races.

The intercept explains:

Under the bill, candidates for congressional office could opt into a system that would provide matching funds for small donations. To qualify, the candidate would need to raise $50,000 from at least 1,000 individuals; take no more than $1,000 from any contributor; and spend no more than $50,000 of their own money.

In return, all donations to the candidate up to $200 would be matched with public funds at a 6 to 1 ratio. Thus if you gave $10 to someone running for Congress, they would receive that plus another $60, totaling $70.

The Civil Rights Act of our time

We’ve only covered just a few of the historic components of H.R. 1. Just these components alone would make H.R. 1 one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of this country besides the 1964 Civil Rights Act. H.R. 1 would not only repair the damage done to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Republicans in the decades since its passing, but it would greatly expand access to voting and put in place protections against voter suppression in unprecedented ways. The act would help to build a political and electoral system worthy of the 21st century. 

The stakes in passing this historic legislation in the Senate are monumental. As Republican politics continue to become more unpopular with time and as demographics continue to trend against them, they have now completely jettisoned democracy for authoritarian measures even as they already have a structural advantage in the House and the Senate. Let there be no doubt that Republican attempts to further impair US democracy will continue and grow. 

The Washington Post explains the current, broad attack on US democracy in 43 states:

In 43 states across the country, Republican lawmakers have proposed at least 250 laws that would limit mail, early in-person and Election Day voting with such constraints as stricter ID requirements, limited hours or narrower eligibility to vote absentee, according to data compiled as of Feb. 19 by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. Even more proposals have been introduced since then.

The impact of H.R. 1 not passing the Senate will have immediate effects. It will likely impair Democrats’ chances of holding on to their very slim majorities in the House and Senate in 2022, making passing this type of legislation impossible for many years to come. 

What’s required is filibuster reform. Right now, current Senate rules require 60 votes to break a filibuster. It’s more likely that we will figure out interstellar space travel this year than it would be to find 10 Republicans to help break a filibuster for ground-breaking legislation. It’s also unlikely that we can even eliminate the filibuster outright since conservative Democrats such as Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have both voiced that they are against eliminating the filibuster. Still, passing H.R. 1, or any other progressive legislation, doesn’t require the elimination of the filibuster. There are ways to reform the filibuster in a way that establishes majoritarianism in the Senate. Our recent article offers a fair compromise on the filibuster. The Washington Post article referenced above also offers proposals for filibuster reform.

We must pass H.R. 1 — for the people and for the survival of our democracy.

Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Categories
Analysis News Opinion

Rethinking Impeachment for the modern political era

On Saturday, February 13, 2021, former President Donald Trump was acquitted by the United States Senate after being impeached (indicted) by the House of Representatives on January 13. 57 Senators (including 7 Republicans) voted to convict Trump of Incitement of Insurrection, a historic and extraordinary article of impeachment. The Republicans who voted to convict Trump included Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Pat Toomey. This is the highest number of Senators from an impeached president’s party to vote for conviction. Still, it is extraordinary that Trump was acquitted given the evidence against him, the fact that many Senators’ lives (including Republicans) were at great risk during the insurrection, and the fact that the stability of our democracy is at stake.

The extraordinary acquittal of Donald Trump begs the question of what exactly can a president be impeached for. If a president of the supposed largest democracy in the world can get away with inciting an insurrection against that democracy and not suffer any consequences (including being allowed to run again in 2024 if Trump chooses), a dangerous precedent has been set for the future. It’s a precedent that will imperil this democracy for years to come.

The Trump presidency exposed many systemic and structural flaws of our political system. The second Senate acquittal of Trump points to a possible flaw in the impeachment clause itself. What we mean is that the framers of the constitution did not construct it around the idea of political parties. The two main political parties dominate. They largely set the rules. What’s supposed to be a system of “checks and balances” is now merely a means of neutralizing the other party during a divided government. During impeachment, it has usually meant that there will never be enough votes to convict and remove an impeached president from office. Growing partisanship and the precedent set by Trump’s second impeachment will probably ensure that future impeached presidents who actually commit high crimes will remain in office or will be able to run again if the impeachment trial happens after the president leaves office after losing an election.

Even among the 7 Republicans who voted to convict Trump, politics very much played a part.

Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina is serving his last term in the chamber. So, he felt free to apparently vote his conscience.

Bill Cassidy of Louisiana just won reelection to the Senate in 2020 and will not face voters again until 2026.

Susan Collins just won reelection but has sometimes been known to go against Trump in rare circumstances. Both Collins and Lisa Murkowski are in states that use Ranked-Choice Voting and there has been debate about whether or not RCV has actually helped the two Senators.
The Alaska Public Media explains Murkowski’s situation in Alaska:

It’s easy to imagine Murkowski would lose to a Trump-endorsed candidate in a closed Republican primary. She already lost a primary election in 2010, before she angered tons of Trump supporters with her inconsistent loyalty to him.

But in August 2022, it won’t be just Republican voters who decide whether Murkowski should advance to the November ballot. She and whoever else wants the seat, of any party, will be on the same ballot for all primary voters. The top four will advance to the general election, and voters will rank them on the November ballot.

Murkowski said the new open primary and ranked-choice voting puts her in a better position.

“I think so,” she said. “I actually, after giving it a fair amount of study, I like that this will put forward, hopefully, a process that is less rancorous.”

Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is, like Richard Burr, not seeking re-election. 

Ben Sasse, won convincingly in 2020 and won’t have to face voters again until 2026. Sasse of Nebraska had a strong win in a very conservative state (outside of Omaha and Lincoln) despite him being known for speaking against Trump periodically. 

Romney may be in a more vulnerable position. He’s up for re-election in 2024 and is expected to run for his seat again. However, Romney was elected to the Senate in 2018, in a very conservative state, despite forcefully speaking against Trump at times, especially during the primary in 2016. 

The point here is that impeachment will only work if there’s enough political will to do so, not because it’s the right thing to do in a democracy that depends on executive accountability. 43 Republicans chose to acquit and some believe that Trump would have been convicted had there been a secret ballot. 

Newsweek notes:

Senator Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat, said that “most” Republican senators would vote to convict former President Donald Trump of inciting the attack on the U.S. Capitol if they were given the opportunity to use a secret ballot.

In a Tuesday interview with CNN, Hirono suggested Republicans were making their decisions out of “fear.”

“If the Republicans could vote by secret ballot…most of them would vote to convict,” Hirono told CNN. “So again, that shows that they are hiding behind an unconstitutional claim.”

Only two other presidents in United States history have been impeached by the House. In both cases, the Senate was unable to convict. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for violating the Tenure of Office Act. The Senate acquitted him weeks after. The Tenure of Office Act was said to be passed to prevent Johnson from removing civil officers without senatorial consent

Time goes on to explain:

Johnson’s defense argued that he hadn’t appointed Secretary of War Stanton in the first place, which meant that he wasn’t violating the Tenure of Office Act. They also claimed that Johnson intended to push the Act before the Supreme Court. Historian Hans L. Trefousse argues that the Senators who voted against removal decided that Johnson was being pushed out of office for political reasons: “[The] weakness of the case… convinced many that the charges were largely political, and that the violation of the Tenure of Office Act constituted neither a crime nor a violation of the Constitution but merely a pretext for Johnson’s opponents.”

This result set a major precedent for future presidential impeachments: that Presidents shouldn’t be impeached for political reasons, but only if they commit, as the Constitution stipulates, “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

As one of the defecting Republicans, Senator James Grimes, said, “I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President.”

Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in December 1998 and acquitted in February 1999 for perjuring himself before a grand jury regarding a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and for allegedly obstructing that investigation. The House impeachment vote and the Senate trial vote fell largely on party lines. 

The only case in which impeachment may have actually worked was in the case of Richard Nixon. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. Nixon resigned before an impeachment vote went to the full House after being compelled to comply with the special prosecutor, investigating Watergate. As the evidence against Nixon mounted, his political support among Republican Senators plummeted. Nixon was faced with the fact that he would likely not withstand a Senate trial vote and resigned from office in August 1974. 

We are far removed, in terms of both time and politics, from the days when we came close to holding a corrupt president accountable for his crimes. Even Donald Trump’s actions, which led to his first impeachment, were worst than what Nixon did during Watergate. Not only was Trump acquitted by the Senate, but his polling rose even in the midst of his impeachment trial and in the weeks after. Right after Trump’s Senate acquittal, he did exactly what many Democrats feared an acquitted Trump would do, swiftly moving to purge officials who tried to hold him accountable. Many described the act as his Friday Night Massacre, a reference to Nixon’s Watergate scandal. In the months to follow, and even as the country was gripped with a devastating pandemic and historic racial justice protests, Trump would go on to launch some of the biggest attacks on democracy in US history.

Given its apparent ineffectiveness in an era of growing partisanship and party politics, we may need to rethink the impeachment clause of the constitution altogether. We may need to devise a new way to hold presidents accountable for their crimes and abuses. This will likely require a constitutional amendment, but barring something miraculous, this is very unlikely in our current political era. So, we’re left to imagine a political system that could do a better job at holding presidents accountable, for instance, in special circumstances that could trigger a national recall vote. Parliamentary democracies solve this problem by holding snap elections. 

We must fight for nothing less than full and sweeping democratic reforms. Such a fight will be enormously difficult given our current political circumstances and barriers, but it’s required if we seek to rebuild a badly damaged democracy.

Photo Credit: House Television via ABC News

Categories
Analysis News Opinion

A democracy, if we can keep it

Democratic House managers in Donald Trump’s Impeachment Trial have spent the past three days detailing the attack on the US Capitol Building, Trump’s incitement in the weeks leading up to January 6th, and his delegitimization of and attacks on the 2020 election. 

New footage of the attack, both inside and outside of the Capitol Building, has been harrowing. We’ve learned that some members of congress who were specifically targeted were, in some cases, seconds away from dangerous encounters with the Trump-emboldened insurrectionists. 

A video clip played during the trial showed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and his armed security detail narrowly escaping insurrectionists who had broken into the building moments prior. In another clip, Capitol Hill Police Officer Eugene Goodman is seen directing Senator Mitt Romney to run for safety before Goodman confronted insurrectionists and diverted them away from the Senate chamber. 

At one point at the trial, Richard Barnett, the man who broke into and vandalized the office of House leader Nancy Pelosi, is shown to have been armed with a stun-gun. Other insurrectionists were seen angrily hunting for government officials such as Mike Pence. Some had called for the Vice President’s hanging

If Republicans are unable to join with Democrats to convict Donald Trump for inciting a violent insurrection at the US Capitol that could have resulted in the deaths and injuries of multiple members of Congress, we will have entered a very dark and dangerous period for our democracy. We will no longer be able to represent the world’s stable democracies, and it would represent the biggest internal threat to our republic since the Civil War.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, interviewed on Fox News the night of Wednesday, February 10th, appeared to be angrier at Democratic House managers for showing footage of the violent and deadly Capitol insurrection on January 6th, than those who carried out the insurrection and the person who incited the insurrection, Donald Trump. 

Graham stated:

You’ve got Democratic politicians being silent or encouraging acts of violence. I mean, you’ve got the sitting Vice President, when she was a US Senator, telling people they shouldn’t stop [protesting against the murder of George Floyd in June 2020] and trying to bail them out. So, if I were the Trump team, I would expose the hypocrisy here, and I would go after the argument that it was preplanned, and the idea that the president was in on it is absurd. This thing is collapsing before their eyes and the Not Guilty vote is growing. So, it’ll be over by Sunday.

Senator Graham is right when he says “it’ll be over by Sunday.” If Republicans, once again, acquit Donald Trump of his destructive abuses of power while he was in office, it will mark the figurative end of a functioning constitutional democracy in the United States. No democracy can withstand an all-out assault against it by a party that has turned to fascism and authoritarianism in a two-party system.

Senator Graham is not alone in his assault on US democracy. The Park County (Wyoming) Republican Party censured Congresswoman Elizabeth (Liz) Cheney for voting in favor of impeaching Donald Trump on February 5, 2021. In fact, a total of 10 county Republican Parties in Wyoming have voted to censure Representative Cheney.

The Arizona Republican Party voted to censure former Senator Jeff Flake, Governor Doug Ducey, and the widow of the late Senator John McCain.

The New York Times explains:

Though largely symbolic, the political scolding during a meeting of the state G.O.P. on Saturday underscored a widening rift in Arizona between party officials who have made clear that their loyalty lies with former President Donald J. Trump and those in the party who refused to support him or his effort to overturn the election results in Arizona, which President Joseph R. Biden Jr. won.

The party cited Ms. McCain’s and Mr. Flake’s criticisms of Mr. Trump and Mr. Ducey’s use of emergency orders related to the pandemic, which gave him broad control to enact policies without the legislature’s approval such as closing “nonessential” businesses in the spring.”

One week after the far-right insurrection at the United States Capitol, and the day the House voted to impeach then-President Trump for an unprecedented second time, media outlets began to report that House Republicans were intimidated into voting against impeachment, partly by death threats against them and their families.

During an appearance on Meet The Press on January 13th, US House Representative Jason Crow from Colorado explained the fear that some Republicans had for their safety.

The majority of them are paralyzed with fear. I had a lot of conversations with my Republican colleagues last night, and a couple of them broke down in tears — saying that they are afraid for their lives if they vote for this impeachment.

Tim Alberta, the chief political correspondent for Politico wrote:

Crow is right. Numerous House Rs have received death threats in the past week, and I know for a fact several members *want* to impeach but fear casting that vote could get them or their families murdered.

Still, while more congressional Republicans than we see publicly are against the actions of Donald Trump, the majority of the party, from voters to members of Congress, continue to support the party’s slide into authoritarianism, led by Donald Trump. Trump is the first president in US history to incite an insurrection against the US Capitol Building to overturn an election and overthrow democracy itself. 

US democracy is at a dangerous point, despite the election of Joe Biden in November of 2020. While having President Biden in power may prevent the outright destruction of democratic institutions, it may not be enough to neutralize a radicalizing and dangerous Republican Party and far-right. 

If Senate Republicans acquit Donald Trump in the days to come, they are setting a precedent that will irreparably harm this democracy for generations. This will give permission to any future far-right ideologue who may lose their political races to say that elections at the national, state, and local levels are rigged against them. 

Republicans will spend most of their time further delegitimizing our electoral system. Republicans with majorities in state legislatures will pass draconian voter suppression laws that are more severe than we’ve ever seen. Far-right terrorism against our state capitols, elected officials, and even voters, will escalate. The Republican Party and the far-right understand that they can no longer win a national majority because of their oppressive and anti-democratic positions, and because of changing demographics. They have jettisoned democracy for fascistic and authoritarian tactics. The turn to fascism and authoritarianism is all they have left because they refuse to accept a changing society.

If Senate Republicans acquit Donald Trump, we will know that it will be over as Lindsey Graham proclaimed on his Fox News interview, but what will be over is our democracy. Benjamin Franklin’s worry about keeping a democratic republic would be validated. Unfortunately, we may not be able to keep it this time.

Photo Credit: Architect of the Capitol

Categories
Analysis

Trump’s Dangerous Attacks on Democracy

Trump continues his campaign of sabotage against democratic institutions as Inauguration Day approaches.

America’s democratic project has always been tenuous. Our past is riddled with examples of why we can’t yet lay claim to being a fully democratic republic. Women didn’t win the right to vote until 1920 when the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. Black Americans didn’t win the right to vote in practice until the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Both fought long and hard civil rights struggles which continue to this day.

Our institutions continue to be less-than-strong democratic pillars. Republicans continue to enjoy a significant structural advantage in a gerrymandered U.S. House, the Electoral College, and a Senate which gives disproportionate political power to small states. However, Donald Trump’s attack on democratic institutions, from the courts to our entire election system, is unprecedented in modern American history. This attack on democracy threatens to destroy already tenuous democratic institutions and norms. Social progress and civil rights rely on strong democratic institutions and that is exactly why Trump and the right-wing are attempting to destroy them.

Stephen Bannon, one of Trump’s 2016 campaign CEOs and his Chief Strategist at the White House (January  – August 2017), called for the “deconstruction of the administrative state” shortly after Trump was inaugurated in February 2017.

Bannon described part of what he had in mind in this CNN article:

If you look at these Cabinet appointees, they were selected for a reason and that is the deconstruction, the way the progressive left runs, is if they can’t get it passed, they’re just gonna put in some sort of regulation in — in an agency. That’s all gonna be deconstructed and I think that that’s why this regulatory thing is so important.

The Trump presidency consisted of four tumultuous years of stacking federal agencies and institutions with loyalists, some of which had close to no knowledge of the agency they were appointed to head, with the intention of stripping these institutions and agencies of their effectiveness. 

But we now see that this deconstruction went far beyond a few agencies. The aim of Bannon and the Trump Administration was the deconstruction of Ameircan democracy, because this is the only way they can force through their unpopular, authoritarian agenda and remain in power.

So, we arrive at the 2020 election. After trailing in the polls during the entire campaign, Trump spent the last few months of the campaign delegitimizing our election system, claiming that any Democratic win would be the result of voter fraud.

After the November 3rd election, Trump lawyers launched a massive litigation campaign aimed at overturning the results of elections in numerous battleground states. Lawyer Marc Elias keeps track of Trump’s lawsuits on Twitter. Elias notes that as of Dec 5th, Trump had lost 46 out of 47 lawsuits.

While these lawsuits likely won’t overturn election results, the constant drumbeat of baseless election fraud allegations is affecting public opinion in a dangerous way. According to a Reuters poll conducted Nov 13 – 17:

Fifty-two percent of Republicans said that Trump “rightfully won,” while only 29% said that Biden had rightfully won.

Asked why, Republicans were much more concerned than others that state vote counters had tipped the result toward Biden: 68% of Republicans said they were concerned that the election was “rigged,” while only 16% of Democrats and one-third of independents were similarly worried.

It’s not unusual for the losing side to question the legitimacy of the other side’s victory, as the Washington Post notes. The difference this year is that a sitting president has not conceded defeat, claims that he won in a landslide, is calling for election results in multiple states to be overturned, and is continuing baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. These claims coming from a president have the potential to foster enormous distrust in our democratic institutions, or worse. 

Trump’s attacks aren’t aimed solely at the election system. He’s looking ahead to after he’s forced from office in January, where he aims to continue to delegitimize President-elect Biden’s administration. 

On December 1, it was revealed that Attorney General Bill Barr is putting those plans into place: According to the AP:

Attorney General William Barr has given extra protection to the prosecutor he appointed to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, granting him authority to complete the work without being easily fired.

Barr told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel in October under the same federal regulations that governed special counsel Robert Mueller in the original Russia probe. He said Durham’s investigation has been narrowing to focus more on the conduct of FBI agents who worked on the Russia investigation, known by the code name of Crossfire Hurricane.

How “narrow” Durham’s investigations stay once the Biden administration is sworn in remains to be seen. But should he decide to hobble the new administration with a broadening investigation, Barr has already made it more difficult to get rid of Durham. 

The AP continues:

Under the regulations, a special counsel can be fired only by the attorney general and for specific reasons such as misconduct, dereliction of duty or conflict of interest. An attorney general must document such reasons in writing.

In this situation, the Biden administration would be faced with either giving in to prolonged investigations by Durham, ignoring Durham’s legal requests and appearing as though they may have something to hide, or even attempting to fire Durham altogether, which Barr has now made more difficult. Either way, Trump’s legacy of delegitimizing and damaging our democratic institutions will last well past his last days in office.

Photo Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images