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
Just a technical point: Should “Don’t go there, I’m warning you. There could be really bad violence” be in quotes?
I changed it just in case it causes confusion. Thanks.
His supporters love it and will be happy to riot and then stay home on election day. We have to figure out what it will take to get him on board should we be so lucky as to nominate someone else. He can live with Hillary, after all he can take credit for her win, but he may find the Republican problematical. This is all very scary.
No one gets the nomination unless they have 1237. Reince Priebus made that point yesterday. So if Kasich shows up with 200 delegates and he wins 1237 on the second ballot, too bad for Trump and Cruz. These are the rules and everyone knew them from the start.
Apparently “everyone” does not know them.
This is perhaps wrong; I suspect anyone sufficiently motivated to riot will be motivated enough to vote. So far the hypothesis that Trump voters wouldn’t turn out on voting day has not stood up to testing.
OMG! Riots in the USA! Something that has never happened before! Even talking about it undermines the fragile flower of American democracy! (Previously only threatened from the Left: Wilson, FDR, JFK stealing the election, Occupy, #BLM etc).
I’m thinking I would upgrade to a Thatcher subscription if there was a ‘Hide all Trump Posts’ button. (Yes, that would include mine.)
Apparently. This is a good time to remind them and to also remind them that incitement to violence is a punishable crime if it does lead to violence, if I interpret this correctly.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/43-threats-of-violence.html
Just more proof that Trump is a Democrat at heart. During the last Presidential election most took it as a given that if Obama did not win that the cities would burn. I know many that stayed safe at home till they knew for sure there would not be any rioting. I know others that voted for Obama for the same reason.
I guess I swallowed the Kool-aid. I honestly thought our institutions were more solid than most other countries’, and that no one who endorsed or incited violence, or seemed manifestly uncommitted to democratic norms, would ever have a chance of capturing a major party nomination.
The norms of public debate and restraint from violence are pretty fragile. They’re hard to restore once breached. “OMG, Riots in the USA, big deal” makes it sound as if the US is now one of those places where “People have always been killing each other there, so what?” It isn’t one of them, as far as I last saw. It’s a developed, prosperous, peaceful, First-World country.
But if this is really considered to be our normal political culture these days, I can’t see why Americans would be so concerned about being flooded with immigrants from the Third World. Perhaps they’d bring a bit of democracy and civility with them. We actually did manage to sell many other countries on this “peaceful transfer of power” idea.
There’s no law against saying the sort of thing Trump said, nor should there be. The norms that prevent candidates from saying these things are social norms. They’re not codified into law, nor can they be. That makes them more fragile, and harder to restore if they disappear.
Peaceful transition of power is not the most important thing about democracy. Preservation of Liberty is.
What’s “dark” is that we seem to have lost the nerve to reclaim our Liberties.
So is he “dark” too, Claire? What about the rest of the Founders who were willing to use violence to preserve Liberty?
You live in France, where political violence is a regular part of political life? How would you characterize life there?
The actual “mob” on the scene here in America was on display in Chicago. They aren’t voting for Trump.
Nice little country you’ve got there America. It’d be a shame if something were to happen to it…
I am not as sure as you. There would certainly be a case if violence ensues.
Many, probably enough to elect Hillary, won’t vote for non Trump and will riot against non Trump if he plays that card. If Trump supports a convention outcome, they may. We can’t assume it away. They have been motivated to show up for Trump. These aren’t conservative voters with strong views on why our government is dysfunctional, the economy stagnant or why the bottom half of the population is losing ground. Conservative will hold their noses and vote against Hillary with a few credible gestures from Trump, like a public promise to nominate someone like Cruz to the Court. I’ve seen no evidence that most Trump supporters will do the same, perhaps for Cruz, but only with a Trump endorsement.
No, there would not be. Donald Trump is a US citizen (I assume; haven’t seen the birth certificate) and entitled to the same First Amendment protections as any other US citizen. Brandenburg v. Ohio established that the standard was imminent lawless action. There would be no case whatsoever.
You, sir, are no Thomas Jefferson.
So you figured the guy would show up with a bottle of French wine and short pants?
Trump has more in common with Andrew Jackson than Jefferson, for sure, but they both embody the same spirit.
“10 Violent Confrontations Involving Andrew Jackson”
Having a little historical perspective on politics and violence helps put Trump in place.
Comparing him to some fascist dictator is simple hysteria. When he actually has armed thugs, as the Left in American does already, do post here first.
Liberty cannot be preserved without peaceful democracy. There has been, to my knowledge, only one violent rebellion in all of human history that hasn’t resulted in a less free society no matter which side won. The American Revolution is the exception and should not be held up as the model. Even Jefferson was forced to acknowledge this as he watched the the French Republic degenerate into barbarism.
The institutions are solid. They have survived all sorts of thuggish behaviour by sitting Presidents and many other major political players. The current President has not himself indulged in direct calls for violence — although he has called for folks to get in people’s faces, bring guns to knife fights etc. — but, then, he has so many allies who are willing to do so. And who was it who started his political career by palling around with (domestic) terrorists?
The 80s seems to have been remarkably riot-free, but look what was happening during those peaceful years of Kennedy and Nixon.
England had many rebellions against the King, the Swiss had a rebellion which resulted in a more free society, even France’s rebellion ultimately resulted in a far more free society than they enjoyed under the Bourbons.
Your first sentence, “Liberty cannot be preserved without peaceful democracy.” is, I’m afraid, in error. Peaceful democracy inevitably leads to tyranny and dictatorship. Only those willing to fight against that tendency get to keep it.
Those unwilling to fight it revert to serfdom.
It bugs me less that a presidential candidate says such things than it does that this candidate is clearly ahead right now. He’s threatened quite a bit now, and should have been destroyed as a potential president long ago just by the things he says.
That he isn’t, that he’s still getting majority votes says a lot about us, I’m afraid.
That’s why there are lawyers. Because people disagree on these things. If the “there will be riots” language is repeated at the convention and violence breaks out in short order, some will argue that it passes the “imminent” test.
So, demanding a recount isn’t peaceful? Making truthful claims that your opponent engaged in fraud isn’t peaceful? The election of 2000 wasn’t decided peacefully?
If Nixon had evidence of fraud or error, he should have contested. Not contesting in such a situation is an admission that it doesn’t matter who wins.
Of course, if such evidence didn’t exist then Nixon was right to do as he did.
With all due respect, I don’t see how your JFK/Nixon analogy follows. First, JFK/Nixon was an actual election, while you’re analogizing it to a primary. Primaries have rules, including some Wizard of Odd guy picking anyone he wants. Second, Nixon was the person with the least votes. Trump would be the person with the most votes. If anything it’s Cruz who is obligated to follow the Nixon precedent.
I know you’re trying Claire, but this isn’t it.
Incitement by prediction?
Another thought on convention riots. Maybe Trump doesn’t know that riots, demonstrations, protests are always organized. They are almost never spontaneous. So maybe Trump isn’t threatening, just spontaneously demonstrating his ignorance. The Democrats use demonstrations, riots, mobs all the time, indeed mob rule is the essence of their PR, so I’m not too sympathetic to the folks who say they’ll vote for Hillary rather than Trump because of these statements.
Hi Tuck. Help me out here … I’m confused. In your Thomas Jefferson analogy … Is Trump supposed to be the tyrant or one of the patriots? And what does it mean that it isn’t clear which one he is?
When voiced by someone who 1) has a clear vested interest in the outcome, and 2) has an enormous amount of influence on the would-be rioters, the sentence “there will be riots” cannot and should not be viewed as an objective disinterested prediction but as an incitement to violence and a threat to civil peace. Contrast this with a candidate who would instead urge his followers to remain calm if they are disappointed. Remember also that these threats are being made in the context of the RNC promising to abide by the rules.
Sorry, but predicting what you believe your followers will do is not the same as inciting them to do it. If it were, much of the “leadership” of the black community would be in jail.