October 6, 2021

"Anybody Fighting Joe Biden Is Helping Trump’s Next Coup/All Republican politics is now functionally authoritarian."

There's an incendiary headline! But it shows too much, I think. It's demanding that everyone quiet themselves and act as though the current regime is good. Isn't that what they do in North Korea? And yet if you criticize Biden, you're the fascist. Functionally. 

Where is that headline? New York Magazine. On a column by Jonathan Chait

Is "coup" the word we're using now for anytime the wrong candidate wins an election?

I'll read the article. Highlights:
Robert Kagan, a prominent neoconservative and formerly influential Republican adviser, seized the attention of the intelligentsia by warning in a Washington Post essay that the constitutional crisis had already arrived. Trump is likely to win the party’s presidential nomination; ergo, the Republican Party is presumptively a vehicle for Trump’s authoritarian ambitions. 
Therefore — and here was the sharp end of the argument — anything advancing the Republican Party is a vehicle for Trump’s attack on the Constitution. Kagan’s provocation irritated his former allies because it closed off any pretense that Republicans engage in normal politics without endangering the republic...

What's "normal"? This is an argument of labels. Trump is "authoritarian." Democrats engage in "normal politics." 

Zero Republicans have even entertained joining with Democrats to support a bill to protect voting or elections from the subversion campaign Trump’s allies are energetically carrying out in various red states. Their apparent calculation is that even if they still harbor private concerns over the party’s direction, “normal” Republican partisanship remains completely kosher....

"Normal" gets quote marks there because Republicans act as if they can be considered normal but they cannot. Chait dictates.

The reason you can’t cordon off Trump from the rest of the party is that we now live in something functionally resembling a parliamentary system.

Chait likes that word "functionally." When things aren't what you want to say they are, just add "functionally."

Biden leads the governing party. Trump is the leader of the opposition. To oppose the one is to support the other....

No, that's not how America works. You were just scaring us about "Trump’s attack on the Constitution," but now you're assuming the Constitution out of existence, kicking it to the curb, and we're not supposed to notice, and if we do, we'd better be quiet... or we're functionally authoritarian.

It is true that some of the weapons at [Trump's] disposal last January will be in Biden’s hands in January 2025. But many of the state officials who resisted him last time have been replaced with more pliant figures; Trumpist Republicans seem likely to gain control of the election apparatus in Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia. In any case, Trump might well win the election fairly — and then what?

Well, then it's not "Trump's next coup." It's Trump's second election, like the one in 2016, and it will be your obligation — if you actually do care about the Constitution — to accept the results of the election and aim at winning the next election. That's democracy, and if you don't like that, who's "functionally authoritarian"?

... Does the probability of a catastrophic outcome like the end of American democracy actually need to exceed 50 percent before we take firm action to stop it? While conservatives like [Ross] Douthat are correct that Trump is not a Hitler, that is setting the bar for action rather low. Trump doesn’t need to be a potential Hitler, or even a Mussolini, to justify suspending our normal rules of political conduct.

Again, who's the functional authoritarian? You're openly justifying suspending our normal rules of political conduct!

ADDED: Think a bit more about this idea that "some of the weapons at [Trump's] disposal last January will be in Biden’s hands in January 2025." I'm seeing this at The Atlantic: "Kamala Harris Might Have to Stop the Steal/Constitutional scholars are already worrying about another January 6 crisis, and they warn that the next election might be harder to save" by Russell Berman: "How would [Kamala Harris] handle a certification from a Republican governor or secretary of state that appeared to subvert the popular vote in that state? What if, in other words, it were up to her to stop the steal?"

112 comments:

wendybar said...

Same thing with Fascist Merrick putting the word out about parents being Domestic Terrorists for caring that their kids are getting indoctrinated. The Progressives ARE the FASCISTS they have been waiting for...and blaming on Trump and his supporters. They all need to take a good long look at themselves in the mirror.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Ann said:

"... if you actually do care about the Constitution — to accept the results of the election.."

hahahaha. haha. ha. That's a good one. The collective left cannot handle losing power.

rehajm said...

Trumpist Republicans seem likely to gain control of the election apparatus in Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia.

i.e.
we won't be able to steal the next one the same way we stole the last one...

These leftie essays full of gibberish and doublespeak have become more and more brazen because to the authors they seem to help win elections.

Stop that incentive.

Kai Akker said...

---Again, who's the functional authoritarian? You're openly justifying suspending our normal rules of political conduct!

Why do you sound surprised?

Consider your source. Don't you ever? This is starting to feel like trolling, to me.

John henry said...

Donald trump was president for 4 years.

Perhaps someone, like Chait, could point to some examples of his authoritarianism?

Like declaring people who speak out against school boards "terrorists" and siccing the fbi on them?

Or forcing people to get jabbed or lose their jobs?

Or illegally opening our borders to illegal aliens?

Etc

Oh, wait, that was Biden, not pdjt.

So anyone here gave examples of pdjt's authoritarianism?

John Henry

rhhardin said...

Democrats are functionally crazy, which would be okay except they appeal to women who vote. They grab them by the pussy.

hawkeyedjb said...

Donald Trump is probably the least authoritarian president of my lifetime. And Joe Biden is certainly the most authoritarian - exemplified by his attorney general's threats against parents who show up at school board meetings and his plan to watch over all the comings and goings in your bank account.

We are fortunate that Joe is stupid and addled, but the people running the show are not.

Dave Begley said...

Fuck Kagan and Chait. What the fuck are they talking about?

Biden has let 2m people into this country. It's a fucking invasion. He's the fucking authoritarian. He's failing to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States."

Biden stole the last election with mail-in ballots and other means. Read the AZ audit.

Dave Begley said...

Please advise how it is "normal" to let 2m people into this country. And tons of illegal drugs.

And is it "normal" to transform our entire energy supply into unreliable and expensive solar and wind based upon a few votes in Congress?

Fuck the Dems. Fuck all of them.

Critter said...

This should be a case study for students to show what propaganda looks like. The article is evidence free, with the exception of the usual breathless quotes about Trump's authoritarianism. Yet nowhere to be found is an evidence that Trump acted as president in an authoritarian way, and certainly not as authoritarian as Biden (how many times have the courts told Biden to change his actions to get in line with the law, and yet he has not?). Regarding the elections, the author ignores the possibility that the 2020 election was not free and fair, and that the election reforms are intended to make it easy to vote and harder to cheat, goals that the vast majority of Americans support.

The article is clearly a call to arms of all anti-Trumpers because the author can see Trump coming and the real possibility of him winning in a free and fair election, especially given that about 25% of Biden voters say they would not vote for him again.

Democrats find themselves arguing for unregulated elections in order to win. Isn't that what authoritarians do?

Final point: This is a great example of what the so-called elite rubes believe is sophisticated insight. They don't even see how they are being brainwashed. Just another example of how our elites are the least worthy elites in history.

Mike Sylwester said...

I suppose that, when Chait wrote that article, he was very drunk.

bentoak said...

Trump himself must secretly benefit from the eviction moratorium because he continues to live rent free in people’s heads even though he lost the election and has been banished from social media.

Elliott A said...

I think everyone should read 1984 again.

D.D. Driver said...

The most damning thing I can say about the Biden administration is that it is so incompetent that Trump is now a viable alternative again. I was hoping for a boring, competent centrist. You could make the argument that Biden is boring, but not competent or centrist. I hope Trump doesn't run, but of course, he will because that's who he is. I will not be voting for any candidate that believes the president should ban landlords from evicting deadbeat tenants. So, I'm hoping there will be a viable choice other than Trump or Biden.

(Fingers-crossed that Kyrsten Sinema primaries Biden although that's a longshot.)

Owen said...

Prof A: you sound pretty peeved about this collapse of the political culture, its vigorous but civil discourse, into raw invective hurled by opposing tribes. Maybe I am overinterpreting what I read here —I’d very much like to think so— but it sure sounds as if you are worried. Certainly I am. Of course, in my case, it’s more of a cold terror.

Elliott A said...

I think everyone should read 1984 again.

D.D. Driver said...

"So anyone here gave examples of pdjt's authoritarianism?"

That's easy: enacting an eviction moratorium using the CDC. Using his pen and his phone to eviscerate the property rights of landlords. What would you call that?

gahrie said...

I think everyone should read 1984 again.

Animal Farm first.

Achilles said...

This is becoming so obvious even Ann is catching on.

The Biden regime is illegitimate.

Everyone knows it.

And everyone knows they are actively harming US citizens.

The Democrat party will only be able to win elections with mail in "ballots" from here on out.

Darkisland said...

RH Hardin,

re your grab them by the pussy remark. Donald trump said that if you are a celebrity they let you [note that he said you not me] grab them by the pussy.

If you are a Democrat celebrity, like Chris Cuomo, not only do they let you, their husbands let you as well.

I was thinking of this the other day reading about the newslady who Cuomo grabbed by the ass in front of and in full view of her husband. Neither of them complained at the time. Only now, 20 years later, with Cuomo on the downhill slide is she even mentioning it.

Would you let a celebrity (semi-celebrity in Cuomo's case) grab your wife's ass without saying something? Many men would not just say something, they might get violent.

John Henry

narciso said...

drinking heavily, there's a reason I call him chaitred, kagan fils is just dissapointing,

rhhardin said...

Trump is authoritarian in the sense that his ideas have authority. It's a reputational thing. That's the opposite of the democrats, who have a different sort of power: imperium instead of auctoritas.

Mr Wibble said...

it will be your obligation — if you actually do care about the Constitution — to accept the results of the election

Narrator: They did not, in fact, care about the Constitution.

Lurker21 said...

The article doesn't make sense. According to Chait, Republicans are authoritarians because they support Trump, and Trump is an authoritarian because ... I guess because of January 6th, but people like Chait were calling Trump and authoritarian long before that ... without evidence.

Any populist leader who doesn't defer to the bureaucratic establishment and the media is "authoritarian" if you disagree with him. The idea is that Trump was a norm breaker, but look around. How many norms is the Biden administration breaking? How many norms were broken to get Biden and Harris elected?

We would have been better off reelecting Trump last year. 2024 Trump will be more of a wild card than Trump than 2020 Trump was. He'll have real reasons to be angry, and he'll be as old as Biden is now.

Bilwick said...

"Liberal" State fellators protesting authoritarianism. Priceless.

Drago said...

Mike Sylwester: "I suppose that, when Chait wrote that article, he was very drunk."

Gin and tonics are a favorite of far left folks who think as Chait does.......

Lawrence Person said...

"Normal" politics now evidently means allowing the intergenerational looting of taxpayer money to directly fund the hard left.

gilbar said...


"Anybody Fighting Joe Biden Is Helping Trump’s Next Coup/All Republican politics is now functionally authoritarian."

authoritarian, you keep using that word... I no think that word means what you think it means

Serious Question....Is watching chess in the park, Helping Trump's Next Coup?

Joe Smith said...

The Democrat Party has slowly and then suddenly turned into a cult.

Ampersand said...

Anyone who knowingly supports Biden and his agenda is, not just functionally, but explicitly, supporting the left wing takeovers of schools, universities, the professions, Fortune 500 companies, labor, the churches, the media, the top levels of the military and intelligence communities, the publishing industry, the big tech and social media companies, the federal bureaucracy, the State Dept, the FBI, the Federal Reserve, most of the courts and... what am I leaving out?

Trump, despite his obvious flaws, has the percentage of support he has because it feels as though he's the last best chance. Can Chait and his ilk not understand that? Or is it because they understand it that they resort to waving the bloody shirt of authoritarianism? how is Trump supposed to wield his fearsome authority in the face of the Institutionalized Establishment? it's so preposterous that only the most willing and credulous consumer of propaganda can accept it.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Democrats cheating to win with a Potemkin candidate = totally normal, man.

Maynard said...

Oh the insanity!

The insanity...

gilbar said...

2024 Trump will be more of a wild card than Trump than 2020 Trump was.

Disturbing question...
When '24 Trump is denied the Presidency (even though he had more electoral AND popular votes)
And... His Supporters protest at the Capitol...
Will they leave their guns at home, like last time? OR; will they be carrying this time?

When people KEEP saying: that you're WORSE THAN HITLER, and Authoritarian...
after a while you have to wonder what's stopping you

Freder Frederson said...

Well, then it's not "Trump's next coup." It's Trump's second election, like the one in 2016, and it will be your obligation — if you actually do care about the Constitution — to accept the results of the election and aim at winning the next election. That's democracy, and if you don't like that, who's "functionally authoritarian"?

So are you saying that Trump doesn't care about the Constitution (since he did not accept the results of the 2020 election)? And does it also mean that Trump and many of the commenters here are "functionally authoritarian", since they also do not accept the results of the election?

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The left have no shame showing us their inner Stalin.

Lurker21 said...

The Kagans are part of the permanent government. Robert Kagan goes back to the Reagan years and he, his wife Victoria Nuland or his sister-in-law Kimberly Kagan have between them been involved in every administration of the last twenty years, except Trump's. So of course Kagan, who wrote an op-ed on Trump "This is How Fascism Comes to America" in 2016 hates Trump.

The "aura of crude strength and machismo, [the] boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims ... [and the] tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach" that Kagan attacked in Trump, never bothered him when Dick Cheney was running the country though. Nor, apparently, do the "incoherent and contradictory utterances" that worried Kagan about Trump cost him much sleep when it comes to Joe Biden

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The point of all this is to deny Trump the presidency even if he does win the 2024 election. After all, he is a serious risk to the establishments rice bowls. Though they can't say the last part out loud.

Wilbur said...

When I saw the headline, I thought "This has to be from The Onion".

It only got crazier from then on.

Sebastian said...

Really, what are Trump's "authoritarian ambitions"? If he has any, are they more authoritarian than those of the deep state swamp denizens who colluded to pin Russia collusion on him?

Michael K said...


Blogger rhhardin said...

Democrats are functionally crazy, which would be okay except they appeal to women who vote. They grab them by the pussy.


"What's up with middle aged white women?" God help us with these crazy white women.

Joe Smith said...

Just wait until the media starts referring to Biden as 'Dear Leader.'

I'm not joking...

Joe Smith said...

'"What's up with middle aged white women?" God help us with these crazy white women.'

White women (for the most part) be crazy : )

'Where the white women at?'

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Anybody Fighting Joe Biden Is Helping Trump’s Next Coup

Trump's next coup would be his first coup

Narayanan said...

don't you have to be functional journalist to do journalism?

Narayanan said...

how is Trump supposed to wield his fearsome authority in the face of the Institutionalized Establishment? it's so preposterous that only the most willing and credulous consumer of propaganda can accept it.
------------
aren't you missing something? they are patting themselves on back.
I believe their narrative/claim is : but for us Trump would be succeeding - !!!yea!!! for the Institutionalized Establishment!!!

Narayanan said...

how is Trump supposed to wield his fearsome authority in the face of the Institutionalized Establishment? it's so preposterous that only the most willing and credulous consumer of propaganda can accept it.
------------
aren't you missing something? they are patting themselves on back.
I believe their narrative/claim is : but for us Trump would be succeeding - !!!yea!!! for the Institutionalized Establishment!!!

Butkus51 said...

I wasted a lot of time reading about how Nazis took over Germany. Hint: Free things.

I'm Not Sure said...

"and... what am I leaving out?"

For things that should be, it would be a shorter list, that's for sure.

jaydub said...

It seems a little premature to ramp up the anti-Trump rhetoric to ten when Slow Joe is in such cognitive free fall that all that may be left in November "24 is a lump of dead brain cells. Shouldn't they spend their ink building up his hand picked successor, Kamala, or at least be looking for a Democrat alternative that doesn't induce projectile vomiting among the electorate? Besides, if they should be successful at this point in neutralizing Trump, doesn't that further open the door for DeSantis, who is going to be a formidable candidate whether Trump runs or not. I don't understand the spittle flecked hyperbole at this point in the cycle unless it's just to shift focus away from Biden or it's just carryover Trump derangement syndrome. At any rate, Chait sounds as if Chuck has taken up residence in his head. That's not much of a winning strategy for the Dems.

Big Mike said...

The reason you can’t cordon off Trump from the rest of the party is that we now live in something functionally resembling a parliamentary system.

And indeed, I see that the two senators, Manchin and Sinema, who are bucking their party in order to be responsive to their constituents are being excoriated in the press and, with the explicit support of the President, personally harassed for not falling into line.

Meanwhile, any resident of Montana who thought Jon Tester would be willing to argue within for sanity within his Party Caucus for sand policies with respect to farming and ranching instead of just another “Yes” vote for Chuck Schumer must be sorely disappointed,

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

"So are you saying that Trump doesn't care about the Constitution (since he did not accept the results of the 2020 election)?"

I think there was an initial period when, following the existing law, he challenged the procedures, as Biden might have done if it had gone the other way) and as Al Gore did in 2000 and Kerry considered doing but chose not to. But when those procedures were done, he should have accepted the results, even if he believed they were wrong, and Trump did show that he doesn't care about the Constitution. And I said all along about him that he wasn't oriented to law. He sees it, I think, like a businessman, as a device or an obstacle. He says what he wants to do and then it's up to the lawyers to figure out how to align that with the law, and he's very tenacious about looking for ways to do it.

I accepted that he won when he did win, in 2016. I didn't vote for him. And part of the deal is that when you lose, you accept the consequences of losing and give the winner the dignity of winning. You can go on to fight as a political adversary and run in the next election and work on improving the election processes, but don't create a cloud of doubt around the winner. There has to be an end to the election so the country can move forward.

Ice Nine said...

Nice little piece of fisking there, Ann.

Paddy O said...

The trouble with being in the Age of Hyperbole is that the hyperbole has to get ever more hyperbolic in order to keep ahead of the old hyperbole that people are ignoring. Like ads or shock radio.

At a certainly point it ventures into the absurd obvious ravings, but propaganda has historically shown it can go very far indeed if it is successful in othering the opposition.

JK Brown said...

It's a bit concerning how often I see parallels in the Democrats today with descriptions of pre-1930s European politics, especially the Social Democrats behavior.

"The Social Democrats were democratic only so long as they were not the ruling party; that is, so long as they still felt themselves not strong enough to suppress their opponents by force. The moment they thought themselves the strongest, they declared themselves— as their writers had always asserted was advisable at this point— for dictatorship. Only when the armed bands of the Rightist parties had inflicted bloody defeats on them did they again become democratic “until further notice.” Their party writers express this by saying: “In the councils of the social democratic parties, the wing which declared for democracy triumphed over the one which championed dictatorship.” "

"Of course, the only party that may properly be described as democratic is one that under all circumstances— even when it is the strongest and in control— champions democratic institutions."

Mises, Ludwig von (1927). Liberalism

Should we fear the American Democrat party will adopt whole hog the policies of the parties of the Third International, aka, The Communist International of 1919, founded by Lenin.

"Only when the Marxist Social Democrats had gained the upper hand and taken power in the belief that the age of liberalism and capitalism had passed forever did the last concessions disappear that it had still been thought necessary to make to the liberal ideology. The parties of the Third International consider any means as permissible if it seems to give promise of helping them in their struggle to achieve their ends. Whoever does not unconditionally acknowledge all their teachings as the only correct ones and stand by them through thick and thin has, in their opinion, incurred the penalty of death; and they do not hesitate to exterminate him and his whole family, infants included, whenever and wherever it is physically possible."

Tank said...

The left always accuses the right of what the left is already doing. Always.

I'm Not Sure said...

"He says what he wants to do and then it's up to the lawyers to figure out how to align that with the law, and he's very tenacious about looking for ways to do it."

As opposed to the Democrats, who just do what they want and then maybe figure out how to align the law with that?

Besides, what's wrong with figuring out how to align what you want to do with the law? Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

Yancey Ward said...

Chait has good ground to stand on when accusing Trump of authoritarianism- Trump's DoJ had him arrested and held indefinitely for protesting his presidency.

Chris said...

"I accepted that he won when he did win, in 2016. I didn't vote for him. And part of the deal is that when you lose, you accept the consequences of losing and give the winner the dignity of winning. You can go on to fight as a political adversary and run in the next election and work on improving the election processes, but don't create a cloud of doubt around the winner. There has to be an end to the election so the country can move forward."

It's like you completely forgot 2016. Hillary and the Democrats, and the media NEVER accepted the election results. For four years that's all they went on about, was how Trump was illegitimate, the Russians got him elected etc, etc, etc...

Temujin said...

There isn't an ounce of self-awareness among the 'intelligentsia' on the Left.

wendybar said...

"And part of the deal is that when you lose, you accept the consequences of losing and give the winner the dignity of winning. You can go on to fight as a political adversary and run in the next election and work on improving the election processes, but don't create a cloud of doubt around the winner."

Now do Hillary from 2016.

mikee said...

The Harris presidency is coming, because Joe's mind is going. Prepare to be amaaaaaaazed.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

I called my Congressman (Adam Smith, WA-9) to demand that he denounce Biden's lawlessness. Also to inform him that a failure to denounce Biden's lawlessness means Adam approves. He won't. He's been a Congresscritter for decades.

The Lie-Stream Media keeps promoting the meme that Trump is following Hitler's playbook. Only problem, Trump is a Federalist and believes in small government. Biden believes that there's nothing that government can't do and the more government the better. Better for the government, not the people. Biden want's everyone to come to the government for a "Mother, may I" permission. He's the authoritarian, I mean fascist. After all, fascism is nothing but mandatory unity. That's what Lawless Joe is pushing with his mandatory jabs.

rhhardin said...

Trump accepted the result of the election quickly enough. He exhausted all the places where an investigation might happen under the constitution, and everybody declined to investigate.

So it turns out there actually aren't any places but Trump gave all the constitutionally suggested possibilities a try.

So now we know. Don't run elections in a way that can't be trusted, or fix the constitution.

TickTock said...

Well, there's a scary thought Ann. Trump wins the election but Kamala finds some cover under which the Senate does not accept the result/certification/electoral college. That would, I think, cause red states to secede.

Darkisland said...

Blogger D.D. Driver said...
"So anyone here gave examples of pdjt's authoritarianism?"

That's easy: enacting an eviction moratorium using the CDC. Using his pen and his phone to eviscerate the property rights of landlords. What would you call that?

And that's all you've got?

Pretty week tea it seems to me.

John Henry

Owen said...

Prof. A @ 12:41: “… There has to be an end to the election so the country can move forward.”

Did you so counsel the #Resistance in 2017-2020? Or criticize it for failing to accept Trump’s election?

Big Mike said...

He says what he wants to do and then it's up to the lawyers to figure out how to align that with the law, and he's very tenacious about looking for ways to do it.

You write that like it’s a bad thing.

Joe Smith said...

'There has to be an end to the election so the country can move forward.'

I get this part, but the Ds could have been a bit stealthier and less obvious about the whole thing.

If you're going to steal an election, at least do it artfully so there is plausible deniability.

What pissed people off were the blatant, in-your-face nature of the last-second rules changes that had no basis in law.

gahrie said...

You can go on to fight as a political adversary and run in the next election and work on improving the election processes, but don't create a cloud of doubt around the winner. There has to be an end to the election so the country can move forward.

I missed all the posts from Althouse saying this after Hillary and the Democrats refused to accept Trump's election in 2016. Could someone provide the links for me?

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Ann Althouse said...
"So are you saying that Trump doesn't care about the Constitution (since he did not accept the results of the 2020 election)?"

I think there was an initial period when, following the existing law, he challenged the procedures, as Biden might have done if it had gone the other way) and as Al Gore did in 2000 and Kerry considered doing but chose not to. But when those procedures were done, he should have accepted the results, even if he believed they were wrong


1: You mean like the Democrats did in 2017, when they pushed the hoax that the Trump campaign colluded with Putin?
2: You mean like the Democrats did, when they pushed their "Resistance" to the Trump Administration?

FBI investigations where the people starting them knew that there was no crime to be investigated?
The FBI lying to the court to try to get Michael Flynn?

There can be no possible legitimate claim that the Democrats are owed deference in their "victories", after the way they refused to accept Donald Trump's 2016 actual victory

3: All that would be true even if teh Democrats won honestly in 2020. But they didn't. The Democrats stole the 2020 election. And we all know it

GA: Fulton County still hasn't provided the legally required tracking data for more votes than Biden's margin of "victory". Why? because the votes were manufactured to steal teh election

AZ: This goes into the Maricopa audit results better than anything else I've seen: https://monsterhunternation.com/2021/09/27/people-really-dont-understand-how-audits-work-and-the-media-likes-it-that-way/
But the simple question is this: if the Democrats had not done anything illegitimate in teh 2020 election, why did they fight an audit?
When you beat teh other guy fair and square, and he whines about how you "cheated", you bring everything to bear to prove you didn't cheat, so you can rub his nose in it.
It's only when you did cheat that you object
Just like the only people who block poll watchers from monitoring the poll workers are people who want to steal the election.

See: Milwaukee, Detroit, Philly, Atlanta
Which, right there, is more than enough to flip the election.

And sorry, but when the election is stolen, there's not the slightest shred of moral burden on the person robbed, to let the robbery go forth

Freder Frederson said...

I accepted that he won when he did win, in 2016.

Who are you saying didn't accept the results of the 2016 election. We might have not liked the fact that he won, or that he lost the popular vote, but we accepted that he indeed win under the rules we are burdened with. In fact, Trump didn't even accept his own election since he kept insisting he also won the popular vote.

gahrie said...

For years I've been struggling with which Animal Farm represents Althouse the best. I've been going back and forth between Clover and Mollie. After further thought, I think it's actually the cat.

Kevin said...

There has to be an end to the election so the country can move forward.

The country still has not fully accepted that Bush beat Gore.

And the results of 2020 would have been easier to accept if we hadn't run the FBI up Trump's ass for four years looking for any speck of Russian DNA to prove he wasn't validly elected.

Somehow asking to look at the ballots in 2021 has become TREASON!

Mikey NTH said...

They had to shred the Constitution to save it. It really was the only sane choice else our democracy would be lost forever.

Kevin said...

Who are you saying didn't accept the results of the 2016 election.

Everyone who used the phrase "Russian Collusion" without a hint of sarcasm.

Witness said...

Everyone needs to put down the Monkey's Paw, please.

RMc said...

Is "coup" the word we're using now for anytime the wrong candidate wins an election?

Don't be silly. Only when Republicans win. (Also, you're a fascist.)

Joe Smith said...

'Who are you saying didn't accept the results of the 2016 election.'

Really? Your candidate still hasn't accepted it.

And half of the lefties I've spoken to still think the Russians hacked voting machines to elect Trump.

Try to keep up...

BUMBLE BEE said...

Eliot A said we should reread 1984. I tried as did some friends. It was too weird for us. I would say that record firearm sales points to a whole new level of readership of that gem.

Amadeus 48 said...

Every time I get ready to quit Trump, these idiots keep dragging me back.

I'll tell you what isn't normal: a political party with a three vote majority in the House and an even split in the Senate devoting itself to beggering (and buggering) future generations with a ridiculous spendapalooza that will cramp the creation of wealth for the foreseeable future.

Chris Lopes said...

"So are you saying that Trump doesn't care about the Constitution (since he did not accept the results of the 2020 election)?"

Let's see, Al Gore questioned the results of the election enough to wait a month or so before conceding. Hillery was still claiming "Russian Interference" as of last year, as well as encouraging a 2 year federal investigation of the issue based on her own opposition research. We also had people seriously claiming it was OK for Electors to ignore the will of the voters of their states. Then we have the spectacle of 2 B.S. impeachments. But yeah, Trump's the one who has problems with elections.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Interesting discussion here and I’m not expecting to see Althouse concede any comparison to Hillary, although to me the two elections are a lot alike except for the official government interference. Hillary kept claiming that she did everything right, garnered more votes and still had victory “stolen” and if her sins were as amplified and repeated like Trump’s are she would be shunned for her anti democratic actions.

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder: "
Who are you saying didn't accept the results of the 2016 election. We might have not liked the fact that he won, or that he lost the popular vote, but we accepted that he indeed win under the rules we are burdened with."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

The gaslighting lies and rewriting of recent history by the left/LLR-left are positively soviet.

"We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying."

Chris Lopes said...

"Who are you saying didn't accept the results of the 2016 election."

It depends on what you mean by "accept". Did official Washington say that he was president? Yes they did. Did they accept him in the sense that they treated him as any other president? No they didn't. The organs of the state were doing their best to derail him even before he was elected. He was being investigated and monitored based on opposition research of his opponent. After his election, Electors were being pressured to change their votes based on his perceived "unacceptably". When that failed, a 2 year special investigation was launched to feed the impeachment monster. When that failed, a phone call was used to impeach him. At every turn, the "resistance" made it clear to one and all that Trump was not to be treated as a legitimate president.

I'm Not Sure said...

"But the simple question is this: if the Democrats had not done anything illegitimate in teh 2020 election, why did they fight an audit?"

It doesn't get any simpler than that. I keep waiting for a Democrat to explain why he's opposed to proving undeniably through a thorough audit that FJB won the election.

Amadeus 48 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rehajm said...

...And part of the deal is that when you lose, you accept the consequences of losing and give the winner the dignity of winning. You can go on to fight as a political adversary and run in the next election and work on improving the election processes, but don't create a cloud of doubt around the winner. There has to be an end to the election so the country can move forward...

Ann lost credibility on this issue when she hectored her commentariat because the NYT wasn't reporting on voter fraud- what bilge. Accepting rigged elections is not 'part of the deal'. Fighting them is fair and right and no you don't have an obligation to accept the consequences of a rigged election.

Fuck that...

Clyde said...

Chait is a joke. Trump is not an authoritarian. If he was, a lot of Democrat politicians would be languishing in a gulag somewhere in northern Alaska. Democrats and their media handmaidens are very good at projection about others being authoritarian.

RoseAnne said...

OK, Trump picks Desantis for a VP. They win the election.

Trump steps down after 2 years and Desantis becomes president with the ability to run again twice (Total 10 years as President)

Never was much of a conspiracy theorist before but the days they are a-changing.

gilbar said...

here some serious questions, for the #resistance folk here
Who won the 2000 election? the votes correctly counted?
Who won the 2004 election? the votes correctly counted?
What were you #resistance folk resisting in 2016?

and finally... If ( Capital I F, IF) back last November; the counts showed Trump reelected..
What would you had done/said/thought?

I don't expect actual Answers to these questions; because i don't think y'all can think

rcocean said...

I've never understood the insane hatred that TRump inspired among AVERAGE Democrats. Trump not only tried to do stuff they were for, he wasn't really much of a social conservative or a small Government guy. And nobod did more for black people.

Yet, all you have to do to rally them to Biden, is wave Trump in front of them. They really are just conformist boobs who believe anything their leaders say.

Maynard said...

Uncle Joe is in his dotage and incapable of being POTUS. However, let us not forget that he was always a two-bit hack politician who did what he was told because he has always been incapable of honesty and average reasoning.

His only true belief is that he is entitled to get rich as a politician. Democrat and Republican power brokers all knew this. They all love Joe. He was one of the most popular Senators on both sides of the aisle. Of course, both sides desperately needed to get rid of Trump because he was not in on the grift.

The obnoxious personality and mean tweets were just the cherries on top of the sundae that they were creating since the Russian Collusion hoax. They will never allow him to be re-elected in 2024. That is the true coup.

Big Mike said...

I think there was an initial period when, following the existing law, he challenged the procedures, as Biden might have done if it had gone the other way) and as Al Gore did in 2000 and Kerry considered doing but chose not to.

@Althouse, you and I have different recollections of the events immediately after last November's election. I recollect that Trump initiated the legal procedures, only to have his attorneys doxxed and their lives threatened. Did you object to this extra-legal harassment directed at Trump's attorneys at the time, Althouse? I have no recollection that you did, but I could be wrong on that point.

... but don't create a cloud of doubt around the winner. There has to be an end to the election so the country can move forward.

Except it wasn't Trump that created a cloud of doubt around the election, was it? It was the Democrats themselves. As others have pointed out upthread, it is not only that the Democrats act guilty, but that they are very much in our faces about what they did and how they did it. You were a mother and yet you claim not to be able to recognize when someone is acting guilty? I find that hard to believe.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

And part of the deal is that when you lose, you accept the consequences of losing and give the winner the dignity of winning

"Russian collusion"

The Democrats did not do that in 2016. So there's no way in hell they deserved that in 2020, or, for that matter, ever again.

When a Trump / DeSantis level Republican wins, and the Democrats accept that, don't have judges blocking his termination of Democrat Executive orders, or his actions taken under the powers granted the president WRT immigration, etc, when they don't filibuster / delay his appointments, when, in short, they treat him like the winner he is, who's entitled to exercise all teh powers of his office, then, and only then, will the Democrats deserve the same.

When's the last time the Democrats did that? 1989? Or, wait, then it was a big deal that "Bush had secretly flown off to negotiate w/ the Iranian government to keep the hostages from teh US Embassy until Reagan was inaugurated."

So, by the time the next Presidential election rolls around, it will have been 40 years since teh Democrats accepted a Republican victory.

And you can be damn sure they won't accept the trump / DeSantis win in 2024.

So no, there is nothing that requires Republicans to "respect" Joe Biden's "victory"

dreams said...

The Dems are the authoritarians with all their masks mandates and lockdowns.

Big Mike said...

I've never understood the insane hatred that TRump inspired among AVERAGE Democrats.

@rcocean, it’s not that hard. The AVERAGE Democrat is a follower, plain and simple. They’d hate the sunrise if they were told to. Even Althouse has admitted — in the context of the Ronald Reagan campaign of 1980 — that she lets her “milieu” tell her who to vote for and whom to hate. And by comparison with your AVERAGE Democrat, she’s pretty independent-minded.

Big Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hombre said...

Althouse: “... And part of the deal is that when you lose, you accept the consequences of losing and give the winner the dignity of winning.”

What means “the dignity of winning”? Where did we see that during post election 2016-2020? Was it Hillary the gracious loser? Was it her team, including the FBI, smearing Trump for years with the Russia hoax? Was it the pink pussy-hatted women, or whatever, bleating on Inauguration Day? Was it the House holes impeaching Trump for QuidProJoe’s Ukrainian indiscretions of for telling a crowd to “protest peacefully on Jan. 6th? And on and on. In short, when did the odious Democrats and their FBI and media pimps ever allow Trump a smell of the “dignity of winning”?

I know. We, the normal, decent people are supposed to be “bigger than that. Trump’s biggest sin was that he wasn’t. It turned out he was right. You can’t oppose unprincipled people with righteousness. It doesn’t work and the Democrats count on that. And now we have QuidProJoe, a demented autocrat, and Kamala, an incompetent cackled, together with an out of control Democrat Congress.

Do we really need lectures on how good losers should behave?

Tina Trent said...

Code Pink invaded Congressional chambers and invaded and disrupted committee meetings at least a dozen times. Without being removed.

Why isn’t some quisling Republican pointing this out?

hombre said...

And gilbar, no one will answer your questions, but it isn’t about thinking. Your questions are unintelligible non sequiturs.

Don’t make the mistake of assuming you are above the intellectual median here.

Chuck said...

hawkeyedjb said...
Donald Trump is probably the least authoritarian president of my lifetime. And Joe Biden is certainly the most authoritarian - exemplified by his attorney general's threats against parents who show up at school board meetings and his plan to watch over all the comings and goings in your bank account.


Haha. "...parents who show up at school board meetings..."

Let me clarify that for you. Parents who show up at school board meetings and who spout insane nonsense which is dangerous to public health, and then threaten those school board members with violence, and likewise threaten public health experts who provide testimony and evidence to those school boards, and chase those experts through public parking lots as they suggest that they know their names and where they live, and who appear in front of the residences of school board members with bullhorns yelling at the board members to come out of their houses to face the wrath of the protesters...

...Well, after a couple of months of those episodes being repeated in dozens of local school districts all across the country, with ever-escalating threats being made by persons up to and including a Republican Party candidate for elective office... Yeah, it is time for the Department of Justice to step in and say that the DoJ and the FBI would monitor the situation.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

D.D. Driver said...
"So anyone here gave examples of pdjt's authoritarianism?"

That's easy: enacting an eviction moratorium using the CDC. Using his pen and his phone to eviscerate the property rights of landlords. What would you call that?


The Federal Government trying to keep a wave of homelessness hitting teh country after the State governments shut down the economy to the point that a whole bunch of people were out of work?

Leaving aside:
1: the idea that the CDC followed Trump's order's is rather laughable
2: IIRC Trump arranged for teh landlords to get paid by the Feds for this extortion

Which means your big case of "Trump's authoritarianism" is less than Biden*'s authoritarianism.

If you want to say "Trump's a minor league authoritarian, but the Democrats are 10x worse", you might have at least some reason on your side

Chuck said...

wendybar said...
"And part of the deal is that when you lose, you accept the consequences of losing and give the winner the dignity of winning. You can go on to fight as a political adversary and run in the next election and work on improving the election processes, but don't create a cloud of doubt around the winner."

Now do Hillary from 2016.


Okay I'll do that. But I remind you; we've been through this.

Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump to concede on election night, 2016. The next morning, she delivered a concession speech to the nation. She then attended the January, 2017 inauguration of President Donald Trump.

The silly attempt by a handful of House Democrats to challenge electoral votes in early January '17 was not supported by Mrs. Clinton, or by any Senator, or by Vice President Joe Biden, who told the few protesting Democrats, "It is over."

Critter said...

Althouse: How exactly did Trump show he didn’t care about the Constitution? I hear the left saying that without proof. Disagreeing that there was a free and fair election does not mean one does not care about the Constitution. If Trump is right about fraudulent voting, wouldn’t those who created the fraudulent votes be the ones who don’t care about the Constitution? At this point we don’t know which side is right but we’ll know more when the situations in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and other states progress.

In a recent poll, a high percentage (42% of independents) do not believe Biden won in a free and fair election. Do they not care about the Constitution?

glacial erratic said...

Wow! Chait assumes lots of facts not in evidence.

hombre said...

Chuck Channeling Schumer wrote: “...Well, after a couple of months of those episodes being repeated in dozens of local school districts all across the country .... Yeah, it is time for the Department of Justice to step in and say that the DoJ and the FBI would monitor the situation.”

“Local” is the key word here. However, in the delusional world occupied by Chuck and other leftists, every transgression* is a federal offense enforceable by the politically corrupt Deep Staters of the DOJ/FBI.

At least we don’t have to put up with his moby LLR bullshit any more.

*Transgression means failure to toe the Democrat Party line. E.g., aggressive parents at school board meetings are transgressors. Antifa/BLM rioters are not.

Ann Althouse said...

“ Did you so counsel the #Resistance in 2017-2020? Or criticize it for failing to accept Trump’s election?”

It’s all in the archive. I’ve been consistent over 17 years.

Vance said...

I note Lifelong Republican Chuck has nothing to say to Chait's argument that every Republican is now authoritarian and we need to destroy our elections to prevent any Republican from being elected anywhere.

"Trump's so authoritarian we must suspend the Constitution forever!"

--Jonathan Chait. And Chuck.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

It’s all in the archive. I’ve been consistent over 17 years.

You were "cruelly neutral" in 2020, refusing to support Trump against the people who spent the previous 4 years refusing to accept the results of the 2016 election.

So, apparently "refusing to accept the election result" isn't that disqualifying to you when it's done against Trump.

The Biden* Admin is, and everyone knew it would be, filled with people who pushed the "Trump Russian collusion" hoax over the last 5 years. Joe Biden actively colluded to get the FBI targeting the incoming Trump Admin on charges that he knew were lies.

If that didn't disqualify Biden for the Presidency, and thus force you to support Trump, then Trump refusing to accept the results of an obviously corrupted and stolen election can't possibly disqualify Trump.

You don't block poll watchers from monitoring the poll workers when the poll workers are following election law.

You don't scream and fight against election audits when the election was conducted honestly. Because if you have an honest victory, you want to rub that fact in your opponents' faces.

If the Democrats did honestly win the 2020 election, then they're utter morons, and / or they want the opposition to think the election was stolen.

If the former, they're not qualified to govern. if the latter, they have no grounds for complaint that the opposition refuses to honor their victory

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Chuck said...
Haha. "...parents who show up at school board meetings..."

Let me clarify that for you. Parents who show up at school board meetings and who spout insane nonsense which is dangerous to public health


So every single left wing "back to nature" type is a domestic terrorist? Good to know

and then threaten those school board members with violence

Oh, you mean like the BLM / Antifa riots? The George Floyd "mostly peaceful protests"?

Or is it your position that actual violence against ordinary citizens is perfectly ok, but "threatening violence" and our government masters is not?


Leaving aside the reality that your claims about them "threatening violence" are utter BS. Because even if the claims were true (which they're not) you have spent that last year+ celebrating political violence by the left.

likewise threaten public health experts who provide testimony and evidence to those school boards, and chase those experts through public parking lots as they suggest that they know their names and where they live, and who appear in front of the residences of school board members with bullhorns yelling at the board members to come out of their houses to face the wrath of the protesters...

Does the name Kyrsten Sinema mean anything to you? How about Rand Paul?

You are such a hypocritical lying sack fo garbage

Big Mike said...

You can’t oppose unprincipled people with righteousness.

Amen.