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.
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.
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.
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!
Great article. I just dont get how American political discourse can be this broken when the rhetoric of both parties has shifted towards arguing for the same things more and more. Mainstream liberals used to hate war, kids in cages and police corruption, now they love Bush and Cheney for respecting democracy and are voting for the top cop who talks about enforcing the border wall. Mainstream conservatives used to love capitalism and hate gays and abortion and now half of them are gay guys complaining about the free market because it allows progressive ideas to flourish and are having to run away from actually being anti-abortion because it kills them in the polls. Seems people’s ideas are very malleable. MAGA guys could become socialists overnight and liberals could start talking about the Patriotism of Nixon if you talked about how much his ghost would’ve hated Trump
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.
The moral collapse of the GOP into authoritarianism has been predicted many times over the years. Consider John (“there’s a cancer on the presidency”) Dean who, in his 2006 book “Conservatives Without Conscience,” writes this:
“Frankly, when I started writing this book, I had a difficult time accounting for what had become of conservatism or, for that matter, the Republican party. I went down a number of dead-end streets looking for answers before finally discovering a true explanation. My finding, simple stated, is the growing presence of conservative authoritarianism. Conservatism has noticeably evolved from it so-called modern phase (1950-1994) into what might be called a postmodern period (1994 to present,) and in doing so it has regressed to its earliest authoritarian roots.
Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives. Regrettably, empirical studied reveal that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, anti-democratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral. They are also often conservatives without conscience who are capable of plunging this nation into disasters the like of which we have never known.”
Dean’s prophetic description of conservatism and its moral decline has come true. Any honest observer can see that Trump and his useful idiots are not Republicans. They are the true RINO’s. And they are dangerous - see Jan. 6th, 2021.
There was only one other election where the stench of civil war loomed heavy over the land and that was 1860. But here it is again. And that’s why, Mr. Shermer, this election is the most important in 164 years. Lincoln’s “better angels of our nature” had better win the vote on Nov. 5th or John Dean’s “disasters the like of which we have never known” may become a reality.
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.
I’m saving today’s post to check the accuracy of your predictions.
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!
This was great . Appreciated the look at both sides and how it plays out .
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.
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!
45 doesn't control the Supreme Court? I beg to differ. I hope you are right, Michael.
Great article. I just dont get how American political discourse can be this broken when the rhetoric of both parties has shifted towards arguing for the same things more and more. Mainstream liberals used to hate war, kids in cages and police corruption, now they love Bush and Cheney for respecting democracy and are voting for the top cop who talks about enforcing the border wall. Mainstream conservatives used to love capitalism and hate gays and abortion and now half of them are gay guys complaining about the free market because it allows progressive ideas to flourish and are having to run away from actually being anti-abortion because it kills them in the polls. Seems people’s ideas are very malleable. MAGA guys could become socialists overnight and liberals could start talking about the Patriotism of Nixon if you talked about how much his ghost would’ve hated Trump
Brilliantly nuanced.
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.
It is better to have a business man as president. That might be good for the health of the people: https://www.thinsia.com/virusmyth-En.pdf
I will leave if trump is elected. Where’s my money?
The moral collapse of the GOP into authoritarianism has been predicted many times over the years. Consider John (“there’s a cancer on the presidency”) Dean who, in his 2006 book “Conservatives Without Conscience,” writes this:
“Frankly, when I started writing this book, I had a difficult time accounting for what had become of conservatism or, for that matter, the Republican party. I went down a number of dead-end streets looking for answers before finally discovering a true explanation. My finding, simple stated, is the growing presence of conservative authoritarianism. Conservatism has noticeably evolved from it so-called modern phase (1950-1994) into what might be called a postmodern period (1994 to present,) and in doing so it has regressed to its earliest authoritarian roots.
Authoritarianism is not well understood and seldom discussed in the context of government and politics, yet it now constitutes the prevailing thinking and behavior among conservatives. Regrettably, empirical studied reveal that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, anti-democratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral. They are also often conservatives without conscience who are capable of plunging this nation into disasters the like of which we have never known.”
Dean’s prophetic description of conservatism and its moral decline has come true. Any honest observer can see that Trump and his useful idiots are not Republicans. They are the true RINO’s. And they are dangerous - see Jan. 6th, 2021.
There was only one other election where the stench of civil war loomed heavy over the land and that was 1860. But here it is again. And that’s why, Mr. Shermer, this election is the most important in 164 years. Lincoln’s “better angels of our nature” had better win the vote on Nov. 5th or John Dean’s “disasters the like of which we have never known” may become a reality.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/pp_2022-08-09_partisan-hostility_00-05-png/
"... in a landslide victory of 60.7% of the popular vote, and 538 members of the Electoral College ..."
Did you mean "520 of the 538 members"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election