Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Most Important Thing About Democracy
So, anyone here ever taken PoliSci 101? Or wait — here we have the State Department explaining Democracy 101 to benighted, backward regimes to whom democracy must be explained:
That’s the big selling point when you’re trying to sell democracy to people who aren’t sure why this “democracy” thing Americans bang on about is better than a president-for-life, a junta, a monarch, a sultan, a council of faqihs, or a Central Committee of the People’s Permanent Revolution. Peaceful transfer of power. This is what we’ve been earnestly been telling ourselves and the world about why it’s great to be a democracy and why we think they should be a democracy, too. We have a system that allows us peacefully to transfer power. Yes, yes, we know you love your king. True, he’s a descendant of the Prophet, and certainly, the people do love him, that we can see … but are you quite sure all will be well when he dies?
Google “democracy” and “peaceful transfer of power,” and this is what you’ll find:
Yesterday, Donald Trump offered this thought to Chris Cuomo about what would happen if he reached the convention with a lead short of an outright majority:
I think we’ll win before getting to the convention, but I can tell you, if we didn’t and if we’re 20 votes short or if we’re 100 short and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we’re way ahead of everybody, I don’t think you can say that we don’t get it automatically. I think it would be — I think you’d have riots. I think you’d have riots. I’m representing a tremendous, many, many millions of people.”
If you disenfranchise those people and you say, well I’m sorry but you’re 100 votes short, even though the next one is 500 votes short, I think you would have problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen, I really do. I believe that. I wouldn’t lead it but I think bad things would happen.
Note: Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans don’t have the kind of superdelegates who can change their votes. So if Trump has a majority of the delegates, there’s no possibility of a contested convention. A contested convention could only occur if he fails to secure a majority. In that case, by definition, the majority would represent non-Trump candidates. Should they decide at the convention to pool their votes against Trump, it would not be undemocratic; nor would it be rigged. While Trump’s supporters would surely have cause to feel disappointed, they would have no cause to feel themselves robbed.
It’s one thing for a media figure or a disinterested observer to say, “Man, that could get ugly, I hope we don’t end up there.” But this is the candidate himself, the man who proposes to be the leader of the world’s most powerful former-democracy, saying, don’t go there, I’m warning you. There could be really bad violence.
This is really dark. We can argue about what the correct word is for a political figure who’s eager to wield the power of the state against his personal enemies, contemptuous of the idea of a free press, obsessed with bizarre conspiracy theories, prone to propagating lies faster than anyone can even keep track of them, and who casually — for the first time in any living American’s memory — proposes violence as a way of transferring power.
“We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”
“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”
The editor of National Review “should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.”
“Sixty-eight percent would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. It think it means anything.”
“I would certainly be open to closing areas [of the Internet].”
“I think our country does plenty of killing also.’’
“Obama doesn’t get along with Putin. Putin can’t stand our president and it’s causing us difficulty.’’
On people selling anti-Trump t-shirts: “Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt … ”
So, how do you feel about being threatened with violence by Donald Trump? Good? Bad? Indifferent?
Published in General
Safe for everything except self-governance. You can’t grant the protestors their veto.
Not that I’m suggesting this (Claire) but if well-armed Americans showed up at the convention and enforced the peace I suspect we’d see a lot less of this sort of thing going forward.
Implying the possibility of violence during negotiations between state actors is called “diplomacy.”
Implying the possibility of violence during negotiations between non-state actors is called “extortion.”
The Donald isn’t fit for a seat on the County Water Reclamation Board.
Basil Fawlty
See #8 and #37.
Ah! I see, now, I think. I had interpreted what Marion Evans said slightly differently than you appear to – I had interpreted those comments as pointing out the limits, the lines that separate “normal” speech from incitement – whereas it appears that you interpret those two comments as accusations of already having crossed the line (?).
There seem to be a number of people here on Ricochet who would do well to read the history behind why we have a Second Amendment. You might start with Federalist #28 and #46.
Here’s a more general list of quotations, hosted at George Mason University. Mason was co-author of the Second Amendment:
And a more recent reminder of how Americans keep their elected officials in check when required:
The governor had promised he would not impose an income tax. He was lying.
Regular reminders are not a bad thing.
That’s fair. I also should have mentioned #14, where Marion indicates that Trump’s remarks could be illegal if violence results.
What threat? I heard a prediction; are these now threats?
Trump has spoken in bombast and polemics all his career; it’s what marketers do, and Trump has been running a marketing campaign more than a political one. Why would we take his words literally?
Eric Hines
Because he’s no longer selling ties and steaks. He’s running for president of the United States.
Implying the possibility of violence during negotiations between a state actor and non-state actor is called either “the police power” or “revolution,” depending on who makes the threat.
Neither the Republican Party nor Donald Trump is a state actor.
The people who run the Republican Party are the representatives of Republicans.
As has been said many times in this thread, it is when the one making the “prediction” is in a position to influence the behavior of large groups of people.
Presidential candidates cannot make predictions? They cannot speak metaphorically? They cannot use allegory or simile? They must always be taken absolutely literally?
What then, is the literal meaning of Trump’s words? According to whose interpretation?
Eric Hines
Repetition makes truth?
“Influence” is the key word. These are grown, adult, rational human beings. No one is sticking a gun in their ears, forcing them to surrender to that influence. In the end, the only violence that’s been routinely occurring has been that of provocateurs attacking free speech at his rallies.
Eric Hines
Are you equally bothered by the prospect of the RNC trying for a rule change that would unbind the convention delegates on the first ballot, with the aim being to make Trump’s hypothetical ≥1237 going into the convention irrelevant?
That’s being wargamed for the convention. All according to the rules, of course.
Do you genuinely believe he wasn’t making a threat? Really, deep down in your heart, you don’t think he intended it to sound that way? Because it sure sounded that way to a lot of Americans — many of them here, as you can see — and it did to this American, too. (To the point that some on this thread kind of liked the idea of bringing a can of whup-ass to that convention on the grounds that from time to time you’ve got to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots.)
So either he’s got an unfortunate communication problem — a handicap in his line of work — or we understood it right.
Indeed. The guy’s on the verge of winning while playing within the establishment’s rules. The establishment can’t stand that, so they’re seeing if they can alter the rules, or nakedly block him.
How very Progressive of the Republican establishment. Is it any wonder that folks are POed?
What too many miss is that, at worst, a Trump nomination is an interruption to the progress of Conservatives’ regaining our nation, not an end to it. Life just isn’t monotonically progressing. Neither is politics.
Eric Hines
I have no reason to believe it one way or the other. That it sounds like a threat in Ricochet is hardly dispositive.
it sure sounded that way to a lot of Americans
It sure didn’t sound that way to a lot of other Americans. Why pick one group over another? Based on what, other than what is deep down in one’s heart–what logic makes one group of Americans more believable than another?
Eric Hines
Well, as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m no admirer of the RNC. Conservatives are now watching the GOP trying to neuter Trump in the same way the GOP has been neutering conservatives for years. Shouldn’t be too surprised, I guess.
Bomb, bomb, bomb … bomb, bomb Iran …
Indeed. Not even making a prediction, just a joke that some thought funny, others thought not so much. Now, on what basis should we have chosen one of those groups of Americans over the other?
Eric Hines
Few people are going to draw those distinctions. The party can set rules however they like to put up their nominations. There is nothing constitutional about open primaries, closed primaries, caucuses, or holding a bingo contest to decide your parties nominee. That doesn’t change peoples feelings about what they think is fair. More people voted for Trump than anyone else–anything besides a Trump nomination will be perceived as fraud by his supporters, rules be damned.
When’s the last time the Republican Party arrested someone on their own authority?
You’ve heard of citizen’s arrest, right?
The folks in government have been diligently trying to put the genie of the Revolution back in the bottle ever since it happened.
But I find those principles far more compelling than the explanations about why they shouldn’t apply any longer.
They’re not trying to get a monopoly on violence for our benefit…
When’s the last time a member of the Republican Party arrested someone on their own authority?
Eric Hines
You misunderstood. I dislike Democracy. I like Republics.
OK. Me too. :)
The problem in Republics is when the aristocracy decides they don’t have to listen to the people, or the rules don’t apply to them. There has to be a balance…
More people voted against Trump than for him.
No argument here. But the mob is not the answer either.
Yes, but this isn’t over yet, and his totals are going up. Would that people were switching to Cruz, but they’re not. They’re switching to Trump, it seems.
If this continues, and there’s no reason to think it won’t, he’ll have a tough position to overcome.
I have to wonder just where some of you folks have been. The left has used violence- implied, threatened, and actual- to achieve its goals for generations. The political response from the right has varied from puerile to invisible.
But now, because the demon Trump expressed an opinion, all of a sudden political violence is terrible just terrible. I’m thrilled you’ve finally noticed.
Special note for all you folks who are utterly mystified why people support Trump- because rank-and-file conservatives have been on the receiving end of this sort of violence for our entire lives.
For example, I note riots and the threat of riots from the BLM crowd, which are funded today by the left, openly, with the plain intent to use violence to achieve their political goals. This tactic goes back to the 1960s at least, and living near Detroit I have met many people who suffered grievous consequences from the 1967 riots. Hillary Clinton has promised to end the era of mass incarceration, which I presume means that she will work to release a large number of violent felons simply because they are black.
But Trump, demon Trump is the problem. You folks who are intending to vote for Hillary because you can’t stand Trump- you will be voting to turn large swaths of country into inner city Detroit.
You will be voting to reward BLM violence, actual violence.
Doesn’t that bother you? Even a little?
It appears not.
That doesn’t necessarily follow from the fact that Trump so far has a hard time picking up a clear majority of Republican voters in the primaries.
Sure, some people may have voted against Trump, but others voted for a preferred candidate… and would be willing to vote for Trump (or against Clinton) should Trump be the candidate. For example: Floridian John Doe, who thinks that immigration control and border security is a pivotal issue, might on balance have preferred Cruz to Trump. His Cruz vote in the primary was a vote against Rubio (though not against Trump, whose stance on immigration Doe finds acceptable.) He will vote against Clinton in the general… even if he can’t stand Trump otherwise.
Californian Jane Doe might also think that that immigration policy is a pivotal issue, but she thinks that the GOPe’s/Obama’s/Rubio’s stance on immigration is the correct one, doesn’t really care whether it’s instituted by Presidential fiat or by legislation, would have voted for Rubio (and against Trump,) but with Rubio gone from the Republican race, now finds herself out of electable Republicans, and so is supporting Clinton by planning to vote against Trump in the primary by voting for some unelectable minor candidate; she will vote against Trump in the general election no matter what.