You claim to exemplify skepticism, but your analysis reveals a concerning unwillingness to apply genuine skeptical inquiry to the serious threats facing American democracy. For someone who champions critical thinking, you demonstrate a remarkable lack of engagement with the extensive scholarship on how democracies fail and the unique vulnerabilities in our current political climate.
Your argument that "we'll be fine" because of existing institutions fundamentally misunderstands how democratic erosion typically occurs. Rather than grappling with historical examples - from the Weimar Republic to modern Hungary - that show how democracies often fail not through dramatic collapse but through gradual institutional capture, you offer surface-level observations and false equivalencies. Your comparison of potential political violence to BLM protests is particularly telling, revealing either an inability or unwillingness to distinguish between civil rights demonstrations and coordinated attempts to overturn democratic elections.
Instead of engaging seriously with scholars' specific concerns about election subversion efforts, the systematic placement of election deniers in oversight positions, and explicit statements about using presidential power against political opponents, you create strawman arguments about "massive armies" and "The Handmaid's Tale." This is not skepticism - it's a form of reflexive contrarianism that mistakes cynicism for critical thinking.
A truly skeptical approach would require you to carefully examine historical patterns of democratic failure, analyze specific vulnerabilities in our current system, and soberly assess the unique challenges posed by modern communications technology and political polarization. While panic is rarely helpful, the historical record suggests that excessive complacency about democratic stability - which you seem to advocate - is far more dangerous than careful vigilance.
I have to wonder if Mr. Shermer read Levitsky and Ziblatt's "How Democracies Die" or Snyder's "The Road to Unfreedom." To reject out of hand the possibility that it could happen here seems . . . naive.
I am all for optimism, but not everything lasts. Democracies are fragile. The US hasn’t even been around that long. It’s a mature experiment, but it’s still an experiment. The fact that this experiment has been successful in many places does not mean we throw caution to the wind. Instead, we remain vigilant. We pay attention. “Everyone calm down” is almost never the best approach to risk mitigation in these situations.
Here are points to illustrate why equating past political rhetoric and behaviors across both parties to present-day dynamics under Trump is misleading:
Magnitude of Polarization: While political disagreements and claims of "national ruin" have historically been common, Trump's era brought an unprecedented level of division, manifesting in real-world violence and events like the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. This event was not just rhetoric—it was an attempt to overturn a democratic election.
Subversion of Democratic Norms: Trump has been openly dismissive of democratic principles, such as the peaceful transfer of power, casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections in a way that undermines faith in democratic institutions. This is qualitatively more severe than the hyperbolic but ultimately symbolic criticisms of past presidents like Reagan or Clinton.
Cult of Personality: Trump's following, often described as cult-like, represents a shift from traditional party loyalty to personal allegiance. Unlike past presidents, Trump commands a base that may act beyond party lines based on his directives, raising concerns of authoritarian behavior.
Disregard for Democratic Guardrails: Former officials and allies have highlighted Trump's willingness to push boundaries that protect democratic norms. His behavior goes beyond typical political maneuvering, as seen in efforts to pressure state officials and judicial systems to overturn election results.
In summary, while previous presidential eras faced significant criticism and division, the actions, rhetoric, and influence of Trump and his impact on the current Republican Party represent a fundamentally different level of threat to democratic stability.
There have always been extremists, saying extreme things on both sides of the parties, but this time it's a majority of the republican party that's saying and believing crazy things, not just an extreme faction of the party. Two thirds of republicans still believe that the 2020 election was stolen despite it being a demonstrably false.
And that's why they're putting a stop to him by canvasing with Cheney, who successfully overthrew a democracy, and building their own cults of personality to excuse funding a genocide in Gaza
I don't disagree that Trump is a massive outlier and an extremist who will be worse for America than anyone else materially, I just think the Democrats are treating his threat very unseriously in comparison to what could happen if they lose
Like they're in power right now, yet in four years couldn't figure out how to stop him? They let Republicans either not pursue a prosecution or convince them not to pursue one on the grounds of "he's cooked" back during his second impeachment, which is the biggest Charlie Brown football thing I've ever heard
Several former members of Donald Trump's cabinet have publicly expressed concerns about the dangers they believe he poses:
John Kelly, former White House Chief of Staff, described Trump as "a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators" and stated that he "has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law."
NEWSWEEK
Mark Esper, former Secretary of Defense, warned that Trump is "a threat to democracy" and emphasized the importance of considering a candidate's character when selecting a president.
THE HILL
John Bolton, former National Security Advisor, referred to Trump as "the most dangerous person to this country" and expressed concerns about his authoritarian tendencies.
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, criticized Trump's actions following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, stating that Trump "will deservedly be left a man without a country."
NEWSWEEK
These former officials highlight a pattern of behavior they believe undermines democratic institutions and poses a significant threat to the nation's governance.
Yes! When many prominent Republicans denounce the candidate of their own party, some of whom go so far as to actually endorse the opposing candidate, you know that something more is going on than the usual mud-slinging sloganeering of past elections.
Absolutely. I am 62 and I have participated in almost as many elections as Michael Shermer, and this is very different. I am guessing that Shermer is an independent.
Sometimes I think they're just as biased has either party in the sense of having to see both parties as equally bad.
I personally think Trump is (slightly) worse and would rather Kamala win. And I still agree with everything Shermer said in this post.
If you think he's saying both are equally bad, then you misunderstood him. He specifically avoided saying who you should think is worse because it's irrelevant to the point he's making.
While Shermer might not explicitly state that the two sides are "equally bad," failing to differentiate the scale and nature of their actions can unintentionally create that perception. By avoiding a clear stance on the degree of threat Trump poses, readers might infer that Shermer is advocating a false equivalency, which can dilute the urgency of recognizing the GOPs ongoing departure from democratic principles.
These instances illustrate how political polarization and strategic executive maneuvers can challenge the effectiveness of the checks and balances intended to preserve democratic governance.
Sam Harris is much more informed on this than Michael Shermer. You should listen to some of his guests on his podcast. Many men of note who work in the government, in law, and in journalism have all detailed ways in which Trump can erode and undermine our system of checks and balances because these systems are not codified in law but are "conventions" that people in the government follow. These systems can be stepped right over without breaking any laws.
I aspire to a more centrist position and appreciate when we can look to prior periods that were similar in dynamic to recognize that the likelihood of absolute catastrophe is unlikely. That being said, is there a time in our past we can reference when established rights were taken away from a targeted demographic? How about the fact that we went 112 years where the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college but in the last 24 years that’s happened twice not to mention how those 2 presidents that did not win the popular vote drastically reshaped our Supreme Court? I would honestly love to have examples if anyone has them. I’m a mom of 4 women of reproductive age and the uptick of misogyny that’s spilling over into legislation is absolutely terrifying to me.
The right with its abortion limitations or the left with its replacement of women's rights with trans rights?
I'm staggered pro-women points of view attribute all the blame to the conservatives on abortion. The Democrats had 5 periods of controlling the 3 branches of govt since RvW. They failed to establish abortion a federal right for 50 years riding a weak erodible precedent till it fell (admittedly to a stacked court). They knew the religious right were diggin' away at it for decades but they stood by reaping the female vote.
Playing sports is a choice. Playing sports against people who may or may not be better than you is a choice. No one is forcing you to play sports & no one is telling you that you can’t play sports. Playing sports is not essential to being able to fully participate in society. Let’s also not forget that having the resources to be able to play sports mostly falls to those of a higher SES.
This is very much a false analogy not to mention the orders of magnitude b/w the population I put forth versus the population you are referring to is quite vast.
Michael, your essay is thoughtful and well-supported, and I truly hope you’re right about everything. But I’m concerned you’re suffering from continuity bias – the notion that because things have been a certain way for a long time, they will always be that way in the future. And things usually do remain the same… until they don’t. Even as late as the mid-1980’s, almost nobody foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The 2024 election is not merely about this or that policy one side regards as disastrous. This election is different because the fundamental operating system of America is being contested: democracy and rule of law.
Trump has adopted the views and tactics of authoritarians and has already set about degrading the very institutions that make democracy and rule of law function. Take, for example, the bedrock principle of democracy: Voters choose their political leaders, and political leaders respect the results of the vote, taking office when they win and standing down when they lose. 10 years ago, it was inconceivable that a political candidate would not agree, in advance, to respect the results of the vote. Now, in 2024, the nation *fully expects* Trump to disavow the vote if he loses and to use every legal and extralegal means at his disposal to ascend to the presidency. A bedrock principle of democracy that was inviolable 10 years ago is now gone (at least for one party).
Degradation of democracy and the rule of law is not a “what if.” Through Trump, it is already underway (see above), and much more will follow if he wins in November. I am alarmed not just by Trump, but by our non-Trumpist countrymen who seem to casually dismiss Trump’s attacks on our vital institutions and do not see even the slightest potential for calamitous change to America.
1. Hyperbole and fear expressed in prior presidential campaigns typically takes the form: "The terrible things this candidate would do as president..." Contrariwise, in the case of Trump, he himself is describing the terrible and stupid things he wants to do.
2. As others pointed out, unprecedented is the number of respected senior leaders, who worked closely with Trump in the first administration, who state he should be nowhere near the center of power; they are warning us. Without parallel. I cannot get over how Trump supporters imagine they know more about what he would do than the generals and attorneys and other accomplished people who worked closely with him.
3. Many of the countervailing forces that made up the guardrails in the first Trump administration are now understood by him and those around him, and will be gone. Have to include the Supreme Court, but I am referring chiefly to people at the highest levels of government and in the White House.
I hope we do not get the chance to learn whether Michael's reassurances are valid.
This is nonsense. The guard rails are Americans ourselves. Even Republicans are not going to stand by and let radical things happen to this country that harm us.
You are delightfully optimistic. I know a few Americans that have laid down roots in Canada simply because of the political situation. Though many of those did it during the Bush years.
BTW, I think you meant griped not gripped. Although, perhaps you were desperately clutching your podcast microphone worrying how this is the most important election of our lifetimes!
Michael, this essay seems so detached from solid examples and data that you usually provide. Consider these events that have NEVER occurred in our history:
1. The President assembled and encouraged a mob to attack Congress.
2. The President organized fake electors to overturn the results of a fair election.
3. The President was impeached for pressuring a head of state to find dirt on a political rival
4. The President was impeached for a broad plan to overturn the 2020 election.
5. The President pressured GA election officials to modify his certified vote total.
6. Citizen Trump took classified documents home and resisted their return once discovered.
7. Citizen Trump became a felon for falsifying records about a porn star payoff.
8. The Supreme Court ruled that the President has absolute immunity for "official" acts.
Shall I go on? Each of these actions have never happened in US history. Would a rational person consider this person a national security threat or just a misbehaving, power hungry politician?
Hate to tell you this but Laci Green took the red pill (or whichever one its meant to be) and became Alt-Right since then...
Overall comparisons to past election cycles are no longer relevant since America is no longer a single "nation" divided by money interests and the lib/conservative value spectrum. It is a political jigsaw of multiple electorates now in strong competition with each other primarily over economic resources. All this set against economic malaise - this is the big whopper mistake of the article. The US economy is not OK, it may look fine on aggregate but the growing rich/poor divide is a huge source of resentment boiling away. On both sides - the right blames globalisation and elites; the left blames it on still-insufficient dismantling of privilege.
Fundamental grievances that drive the right are centred on economic disenfranchisement combined with demographic threat from mass immigration and "rub it in your face" practices like DEI (that's the way the deplorables see it). The fundamental failure of the "rational" centre/left is refusing to act on these fears. The fact Trump is such a poor candidate and has a real chance is telling for BOTH sides.
I think you are wrong about the Supreme Court. Thanks in part to Mitch McConnell, he has a solid majority there of justices who show no sign of reining him in.
Huge false equivalence. He has said, and will, fire many people who have worked at their government jobs for a long time and know what they are doing. He will hire people who will do whatever he says. NO more guardrails like before. People who stopped him from doing some crazy shit. I agree with the comments that your “critical thinking “ is lacking. Frankly, you have been getting worse and worse imo.
You claim to exemplify skepticism, but your analysis reveals a concerning unwillingness to apply genuine skeptical inquiry to the serious threats facing American democracy. For someone who champions critical thinking, you demonstrate a remarkable lack of engagement with the extensive scholarship on how democracies fail and the unique vulnerabilities in our current political climate.
Your argument that "we'll be fine" because of existing institutions fundamentally misunderstands how democratic erosion typically occurs. Rather than grappling with historical examples - from the Weimar Republic to modern Hungary - that show how democracies often fail not through dramatic collapse but through gradual institutional capture, you offer surface-level observations and false equivalencies. Your comparison of potential political violence to BLM protests is particularly telling, revealing either an inability or unwillingness to distinguish between civil rights demonstrations and coordinated attempts to overturn democratic elections.
Instead of engaging seriously with scholars' specific concerns about election subversion efforts, the systematic placement of election deniers in oversight positions, and explicit statements about using presidential power against political opponents, you create strawman arguments about "massive armies" and "The Handmaid's Tale." This is not skepticism - it's a form of reflexive contrarianism that mistakes cynicism for critical thinking.
A truly skeptical approach would require you to carefully examine historical patterns of democratic failure, analyze specific vulnerabilities in our current system, and soberly assess the unique challenges posed by modern communications technology and political polarization. While panic is rarely helpful, the historical record suggests that excessive complacency about democratic stability - which you seem to advocate - is far more dangerous than careful vigilance.
I have to wonder if Mr. Shermer read Levitsky and Ziblatt's "How Democracies Die" or Snyder's "The Road to Unfreedom." To reject out of hand the possibility that it could happen here seems . . . naive.
I am all for optimism, but not everything lasts. Democracies are fragile. The US hasn’t even been around that long. It’s a mature experiment, but it’s still an experiment. The fact that this experiment has been successful in many places does not mean we throw caution to the wind. Instead, we remain vigilant. We pay attention. “Everyone calm down” is almost never the best approach to risk mitigation in these situations.
I agree, 100%.
Much to Shermer's point, there was a lot more chaos and things at risk during the Nixon era.
You make some good points.
Here are points to illustrate why equating past political rhetoric and behaviors across both parties to present-day dynamics under Trump is misleading:
Magnitude of Polarization: While political disagreements and claims of "national ruin" have historically been common, Trump's era brought an unprecedented level of division, manifesting in real-world violence and events like the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack. This event was not just rhetoric—it was an attempt to overturn a democratic election.
Subversion of Democratic Norms: Trump has been openly dismissive of democratic principles, such as the peaceful transfer of power, casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections in a way that undermines faith in democratic institutions. This is qualitatively more severe than the hyperbolic but ultimately symbolic criticisms of past presidents like Reagan or Clinton.
Cult of Personality: Trump's following, often described as cult-like, represents a shift from traditional party loyalty to personal allegiance. Unlike past presidents, Trump commands a base that may act beyond party lines based on his directives, raising concerns of authoritarian behavior.
Disregard for Democratic Guardrails: Former officials and allies have highlighted Trump's willingness to push boundaries that protect democratic norms. His behavior goes beyond typical political maneuvering, as seen in efforts to pressure state officials and judicial systems to overturn election results.
In summary, while previous presidential eras faced significant criticism and division, the actions, rhetoric, and influence of Trump and his impact on the current Republican Party represent a fundamentally different level of threat to democratic stability.
There have always been extremists, saying extreme things on both sides of the parties, but this time it's a majority of the republican party that's saying and believing crazy things, not just an extreme faction of the party. Two thirds of republicans still believe that the 2020 election was stolen despite it being a demonstrably false.
Please. Democrats here in California are claiming we are going to be thrown into camps and Putin will be given access to our nukes if Trump wins.
And that's why they're putting a stop to him by canvasing with Cheney, who successfully overthrew a democracy, and building their own cults of personality to excuse funding a genocide in Gaza
I don't disagree that Trump is a massive outlier and an extremist who will be worse for America than anyone else materially, I just think the Democrats are treating his threat very unseriously in comparison to what could happen if they lose
Like they're in power right now, yet in four years couldn't figure out how to stop him? They let Republicans either not pursue a prosecution or convince them not to pursue one on the grounds of "he's cooked" back during his second impeachment, which is the biggest Charlie Brown football thing I've ever heard
Several former members of Donald Trump's cabinet have publicly expressed concerns about the dangers they believe he poses:
John Kelly, former White House Chief of Staff, described Trump as "a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators" and stated that he "has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law."
NEWSWEEK
Mark Esper, former Secretary of Defense, warned that Trump is "a threat to democracy" and emphasized the importance of considering a candidate's character when selecting a president.
THE HILL
John Bolton, former National Security Advisor, referred to Trump as "the most dangerous person to this country" and expressed concerns about his authoritarian tendencies.
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, criticized Trump's actions following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, stating that Trump "will deservedly be left a man without a country."
NEWSWEEK
These former officials highlight a pattern of behavior they believe undermines democratic institutions and poses a significant threat to the nation's governance.
Yes! When many prominent Republicans denounce the candidate of their own party, some of whom go so far as to actually endorse the opposing candidate, you know that something more is going on than the usual mud-slinging sloganeering of past elections.
Absolutely. I am 62 and I have participated in almost as many elections as Michael Shermer, and this is very different. I am guessing that Shermer is an independent.
Sometimes I think they're just as biased has either party in the sense of having to see both parties as equally bad.
Oh yes! I have a few self-proclaimed libertarian friends, and whenever politics comes up in the discussion, the whataboutism is rampant!
He never said they're both equally bad.
I personally think Trump is (slightly) worse and would rather Kamala win. And I still agree with everything Shermer said in this post.
If you think he's saying both are equally bad, then you misunderstood him. He specifically avoided saying who you should think is worse because it's irrelevant to the point he's making.
While Shermer might not explicitly state that the two sides are "equally bad," failing to differentiate the scale and nature of their actions can unintentionally create that perception. By avoiding a clear stance on the degree of threat Trump poses, readers might infer that Shermer is advocating a false equivalency, which can dilute the urgency of recognizing the GOPs ongoing departure from democratic principles.
That's right. They sense a strong threat to the establishment, of which they are part.
And again, to Shermer's point, it doesn't matter what Nixon wanted are Trump wants, who is going to execute these plans while Americans just stand by?
During Trump's presidency and shortly after, several checks and balances in the U.S. political system faced significant challenges:
Congressional Oversight: Congressional leaders struggled to maintain effective oversight, frequently failing to learn from prior attempts to check presidential power. This weakened the legislative branch's role in providing meaningful oversight and accountability [https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/how-trumps-two-failed-impeachments-upended-checks-and-balances].
Impeachment Process: The two impeachment efforts against Trump underscored difficulties in using this mechanism to hold a president accountable. Despite being impeached twice, the Senate did not convict him, showcasing the limits of impeachment as a check when partisan divisions are strong [https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/how-trumps-two-failed-impeachments-upended-checks-and-balances].
Budgetary Control: Trump circumvented Congress’s budgetary powers by reallocating appropriated funds for purposes that lawmakers had not approved, effectively undermining Congress’s constitutional power of the purse [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/checks-and-balances-trump-has-swept-away/606013/].
Judicial Oversight: While some Supreme Court rulings reinforced checks on presidential power, others demonstrated limitations in curbing certain executive actions [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/checks-and-balances-trump-era-supreme-court].
These instances illustrate how political polarization and strategic executive maneuvers can challenge the effectiveness of the checks and balances intended to preserve democratic governance.
🌐 Sources
https://www.cfr.org/article/unconstrained-presidency-checks-and-balances-eroded-long-trump
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=smulrforum
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/how-trumps-two-failed-impeachments-upended-checks-and-balances
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/checks-and-balances-trump-has-swept-away/606013/
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/checks-and-balances-trump-era-supreme-court
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-ways-trump-administrations-policy-failures-compounded-coronavirus-induced-economic-crisis/
Sam Harris is much more informed on this than Michael Shermer. You should listen to some of his guests on his podcast. Many men of note who work in the government, in law, and in journalism have all detailed ways in which Trump can erode and undermine our system of checks and balances because these systems are not codified in law but are "conventions" that people in the government follow. These systems can be stepped right over without breaking any laws.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/politics/checks-and-balances-what-matters/index.html
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/checks-and-balances-trump-era-supreme-court
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-destroy-the-u-s-system-of-checks-and-balances-and-create-an-imperial-presidency/
45 doesn't control the Supreme Court? I beg to differ. I hope you are right, Michael.
I’m saving today’s post to check the accuracy of your predictions.
I aspire to a more centrist position and appreciate when we can look to prior periods that were similar in dynamic to recognize that the likelihood of absolute catastrophe is unlikely. That being said, is there a time in our past we can reference when established rights were taken away from a targeted demographic? How about the fact that we went 112 years where the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college but in the last 24 years that’s happened twice not to mention how those 2 presidents that did not win the popular vote drastically reshaped our Supreme Court? I would honestly love to have examples if anyone has them. I’m a mom of 4 women of reproductive age and the uptick of misogyny that’s spilling over into legislation is absolutely terrifying to me.
Which misogyny you are more afraid of?
The right with its abortion limitations or the left with its replacement of women's rights with trans rights?
I'm staggered pro-women points of view attribute all the blame to the conservatives on abortion. The Democrats had 5 periods of controlling the 3 branches of govt since RvW. They failed to establish abortion a federal right for 50 years riding a weak erodible precedent till it fell (admittedly to a stacked court). They knew the religious right were diggin' away at it for decades but they stood by reaping the female vote.
The type of misogyny that aims to regulate the bodies and societal positions of everyone except those of cis males.
You're not regulating societal positions when you let men compete in women's sports?
Conflating these issues is absurd.
Playing sports is a choice. Playing sports against people who may or may not be better than you is a choice. No one is forcing you to play sports & no one is telling you that you can’t play sports. Playing sports is not essential to being able to fully participate in society. Let’s also not forget that having the resources to be able to play sports mostly falls to those of a higher SES.
This is very much a false analogy not to mention the orders of magnitude b/w the population I put forth versus the population you are referring to is quite vast.
Michael, your essay is thoughtful and well-supported, and I truly hope you’re right about everything. But I’m concerned you’re suffering from continuity bias – the notion that because things have been a certain way for a long time, they will always be that way in the future. And things usually do remain the same… until they don’t. Even as late as the mid-1980’s, almost nobody foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The 2024 election is not merely about this or that policy one side regards as disastrous. This election is different because the fundamental operating system of America is being contested: democracy and rule of law.
Trump has adopted the views and tactics of authoritarians and has already set about degrading the very institutions that make democracy and rule of law function. Take, for example, the bedrock principle of democracy: Voters choose their political leaders, and political leaders respect the results of the vote, taking office when they win and standing down when they lose. 10 years ago, it was inconceivable that a political candidate would not agree, in advance, to respect the results of the vote. Now, in 2024, the nation *fully expects* Trump to disavow the vote if he loses and to use every legal and extralegal means at his disposal to ascend to the presidency. A bedrock principle of democracy that was inviolable 10 years ago is now gone (at least for one party).
Degradation of democracy and the rule of law is not a “what if.” Through Trump, it is already underway (see above), and much more will follow if he wins in November. I am alarmed not just by Trump, but by our non-Trumpist countrymen who seem to casually dismiss Trump’s attacks on our vital institutions and do not see even the slightest potential for calamitous change to America.
Missing a few key points...
1. Hyperbole and fear expressed in prior presidential campaigns typically takes the form: "The terrible things this candidate would do as president..." Contrariwise, in the case of Trump, he himself is describing the terrible and stupid things he wants to do.
2. As others pointed out, unprecedented is the number of respected senior leaders, who worked closely with Trump in the first administration, who state he should be nowhere near the center of power; they are warning us. Without parallel. I cannot get over how Trump supporters imagine they know more about what he would do than the generals and attorneys and other accomplished people who worked closely with him.
3. Many of the countervailing forces that made up the guardrails in the first Trump administration are now understood by him and those around him, and will be gone. Have to include the Supreme Court, but I am referring chiefly to people at the highest levels of government and in the White House.
I hope we do not get the chance to learn whether Michael's reassurances are valid.
This is nonsense. The guard rails are Americans ourselves. Even Republicans are not going to stand by and let radical things happen to this country that harm us.
This was great . Appreciated the look at both sides and how it plays out .
You are delightfully optimistic. I know a few Americans that have laid down roots in Canada simply because of the political situation. Though many of those did it during the Bush years.
Great context, Michael. I appreciate how you are being skeptical of both side's hyperbolic rhetoric. Well balanced.
Clear thinking, as usual.
BTW, I think you meant griped not gripped. Although, perhaps you were desperately clutching your podcast microphone worrying how this is the most important election of our lifetimes!
Michael, this essay seems so detached from solid examples and data that you usually provide. Consider these events that have NEVER occurred in our history:
1. The President assembled and encouraged a mob to attack Congress.
2. The President organized fake electors to overturn the results of a fair election.
3. The President was impeached for pressuring a head of state to find dirt on a political rival
4. The President was impeached for a broad plan to overturn the 2020 election.
5. The President pressured GA election officials to modify his certified vote total.
6. Citizen Trump took classified documents home and resisted their return once discovered.
7. Citizen Trump became a felon for falsifying records about a porn star payoff.
8. The Supreme Court ruled that the President has absolute immunity for "official" acts.
Shall I go on? Each of these actions have never happened in US history. Would a rational person consider this person a national security threat or just a misbehaving, power hungry politician?
Hate to tell you this but Laci Green took the red pill (or whichever one its meant to be) and became Alt-Right since then...
Overall comparisons to past election cycles are no longer relevant since America is no longer a single "nation" divided by money interests and the lib/conservative value spectrum. It is a political jigsaw of multiple electorates now in strong competition with each other primarily over economic resources. All this set against economic malaise - this is the big whopper mistake of the article. The US economy is not OK, it may look fine on aggregate but the growing rich/poor divide is a huge source of resentment boiling away. On both sides - the right blames globalisation and elites; the left blames it on still-insufficient dismantling of privilege.
Fundamental grievances that drive the right are centred on economic disenfranchisement combined with demographic threat from mass immigration and "rub it in your face" practices like DEI (that's the way the deplorables see it). The fundamental failure of the "rational" centre/left is refusing to act on these fears. The fact Trump is such a poor candidate and has a real chance is telling for BOTH sides.
And as the article points out if you read it, not that much different than previous elections that divided America.
I think you are wrong about the Supreme Court. Thanks in part to Mitch McConnell, he has a solid majority there of justices who show no sign of reining him in.
Huge false equivalence. He has said, and will, fire many people who have worked at their government jobs for a long time and know what they are doing. He will hire people who will do whatever he says. NO more guardrails like before. People who stopped him from doing some crazy shit. I agree with the comments that your “critical thinking “ is lacking. Frankly, you have been getting worse and worse imo.
Time to pack the bags!