Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

3 Whisky Happy Hour
The Ricochet Podcast
GLoP Culture
Beyond the Polls with Henry Olsen
Parsing Immigration Policy
Federalist Radio Hour
What the Hell Is Going On
Freedom to Learn
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
Chicks on The Right
3 Martini Lunch
The Learning Curve
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Heritage Explains
Not Dead Yet
Giving Ventures
Who Funds that?
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
The Glenn Show
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Hillsdale Dialogues
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
The Libertarian
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
The American Idea
Madison’s Notes
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
Mom Wars
The Back of the Book
Gray Matters
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert Doar
Homeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
Democrats and never-Trump Republicans assert that Trump must not be reelected because he threatens the Constitution. Peggy Noonan goes so far as to say, in her most recent WSJ column, that Kamala Harris should move to a more centrist position on a range of issues in order to improve her chances of winning, thereby negating Trump’s perceived threat to constitutional government.
The problem with this formulation is that the Democrats don’t much like constitutional government, and indeed don’t much like the Constitution itself. (And by "Democrats," I mean not only the Democrat officeholders and politicians but also the larger party, including the academics, bureaucrats, and media people who are the party’s ideologues and the beneficiaries of its policies and who think themselves entitled to be the kingmakers or prince-electors of America.)
For example, here is Hillary Clinton calling for Americans to be civilly or even criminally charged for ‘misinformation.’ Here is Kamala herself, asserting that Trump has lost his free speech privileges and that his Twitter account (this is from 2019) should be taken down…and expressing dismay that social media sites can speak directly to millions of people without any level of oversight. Tim Walz says, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech...” the definitions of which, of course, he surely expects to be edited by people ideologically aligned with himself. Democrat Representative Jamie Raskin has been a leading figure in Congress opposing efforts to investigate and curtail massive censorship programs coordinated by the Biden administration.
Many academics and journalists—representing professions that are highly Democrat-aligned—have attacked the very foundations of free speech and constitutional government. For example: New York Times book critic Jennifer Szalai scoffs at what she calls “Constitution worship.” In another New York Times piece, titled “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” two law professors (one from Harvard and one from Yale) call for America to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, is the author of No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States, published last month. There are more examples at the link.
Democrats have also called for expanding the membership of the Supreme Court, for purposes of what used to be called court-packing, and have been extremely tolerant of the "heckler’s veto." Indeed, often now, the thug’s veto to shut down speech which is considered Badthink.
This is not a matter of a few rhetorical excesses: there is clearly a very broad-based and multi-layered movement against free speech—and toward further centralization of power–among prominent and influential Democrats.
Particularly appalling: This presentation excerpt and slide, the presentation being given at Harvard and apparently authored by a professor at George Washington University. The phrase "Breaking Free from the First Amendment" reminded me of the young man who said, circa 1933: "We Germans are so happy. We are free of freedom."
As long as we have free speech, other problems can be corrected. When free speech is lost, the feedback loops of society are broken...and disasters can and will occur.
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (35)
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
No one in the Never Trump crowd has ever made a compelling, or even credible, case to justify supporting Kamala Harris for president when it is obvious for all to see that she will do everything in her power to dispense with political norms and subvert the Constitution. Pick any major issue and ask a Never Trump cultist how they can possibly be ok supporting it. After all, they are not just supporting Harris, they are by extension supporting her policies and governing philosophy.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Yes. There is a reason it is first.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I really like this post as an explanation for what we are seeing.
I am keenly aware of the positions espoused by both side in the political campaign wordplay, but I cannot, for the life of me, identify the acts allegedly committed by Donald Trump that lead to an assertion that he is dictatorial and a threat to democracy.
Can anyone here lay out what Trump behavior leads to this conclusion?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
AFAIK, their justifications are limited to a few comments, either taken out of context or manufactured outright. But it could be anything.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
This is what it appears to be as far as I can tell and to avoid debate and a need to explain their positions, we get censorship followed by an obvious need to destroy the Constitution because there is no way for these crazies to repeal the First Amendment. Packing the Supreme Court would enable an interpretation that serves their purposes.
You're seeing five of 35 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.