Close Please enter your Username and Password


bondjam33 70M
877 posts
2/8/2020 1:25 am
Impeachment was a health-check for American democracy. It is not well


Opinion piece by Andrew Gawthorpe
Lecturer in American History at the University of Leiden.
Previously teaching fellow at the UK Defence Academy and research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School

The Republican-controlled Senate collectively shrugged in the face of Trump’s crimes. So much for checks and balances

The acquittal of Donald Trump reminds us once again of the fragility of American democracy. The failure of impeachment along blatantly partisan lines means that the crucial barriers protecting us from authoritarianism cannot be relied on. The fate of the country’s institutions are left to the mercies of a man singularly unfit to safeguard them.

The slow creep of authoritarian rule need not be dramatic. It can even, as impeachment seemed at times, be rather boring. Democracy can die by inches, with precedents being established and barriers swept away so gradually that we don’t see what is happening until it is too late. Historians may look back on the past few years as just such a time, with today’s acquittal bringing to maturity a process from which American democracy may take a long time to recover.

It might not even be Donald Trump consummates the transition. The changes he has wrought over Republican politics will encourage his successors to follow in his footsteps. Horrifyingly, these successors may even be intelligent and competent, unlike their forefather. The right has entered a permanent war footing in which everything – especially truth and principle – is subordinated to the quest for total victory. Perhaps this army will stand down once Trump leaves the scene, or there will be no new general to take up its banner. It seems unlikely.

But the immediate danger is posed by Trump himself and his enablers. The US Senate majority’s collective shrug in the face of Trump’s crimes rips away the final theoretical restraint on his actions. Alan Dershowitz, one of Trump’s lawyers, went so far as to claim that the president can legally do anything in pursuit of his own re-election if he believes that doing so is in the public interest, almost as if Trump really could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue provided that person was on their way to vote for a Democrat.

Dershowitz later attempted to clarify his remark by saying that it wouldn’t apply if the president’s act was specifically prohibited by law. This was a strange clarification given that Trump did in fact violate the law when he withheld aid to Ukraine, and Trump anyway has previously claimed that the constitution gives the president the power to do “whatever I want”. Before his acquittal, these bizarre theories of executive power have been just that – theories. Now they carry the force of precedent.

The abjectness of the Republican party compounds the danger. If they stuck by the president through the Ukraine affair they will stick by him through anything. They have acted like the totalitarian functionaries Hannah Arendt said view the difference between truth and falsehood as something which “depends entirely on the power of the man can fabricate it”. And while they may have the power to fabricate “truth” for those living in the rightwing media bubble, to everyone else – including the 71% of the public wanted the Senate to witnesses – their disconnect from reality has been cringeworthy.

A theory of executive supremacy, a supine legislature and a credulous, adoring segment of the population – which does not need to be a majority – are the ingredients that authoritarianism is made of. Because he certainly isn’t restrained by principle, the fate of American democracy now rests on the question of whether Trump knows the right way to mix the ingredients together.

By far the greatest risk will come in November. We know by now that the standard rightwing playbook calls for painting the Democratic nominee as a dangerous radical hellbent on destroying America, and claiming that millions of “illegals” voted for them, rendering the election result void. Imagine this rhetoric unfolding as Trump endures a narrow electoral loss and refuses to concede. Can we have any faith that a Senate and a US supreme court in the hands of his servants will show him the door?

Arendt also understood that those use their power to construct a world of falsehoods for their supporters eventually have to destroy the power of those would challenge it with the truth. This is why lies are so dangerous in a democracy, and it is why Trump and his allies systematically attack all independent sources of factual authority in society: the media, the civil service, the law. Elections, which force would-be tyrants to face up to the authority of the greater part of the public which does not live in their dreamworld, are perhaps the greatest threat of all. That is why Trump cannot help but try to subvert them, and it is why he will inevitably do so again.

None of this means that impeachment was a mistake. Like acquittal, a failure to impeach at all would have sent the signal: that there are no limits on Trump’s actions. Impeachment at least kept the torch of the truth and the law alive. But now we must be very careful. They are about to – they must – come to try to extinguish that torch. Only an electoral repudiation so vast that it cannot be questioned can prevent them, and it must be won at a time when their power has never been less restrained by law or principle. The fate of democracy in America depends on it.

bondjam33 70M
840 posts
2/8/2020 1:27 am

Stick to the point in any comments.

Irrelevant rants will be ridiculed or (if offensive ) deleted.


LeafReport 73M

2/8/2020 4:42 am

We are in serious, serious trouble. The Attorney General's memo that only he can authorize investigations of political candidates is frightening. I just want to warn people .... this march into a new form of fascism is dangerous beyond calculation. This election is a test unlike anything America has ever faced. I'm worried.


TxJW_E 81M

2/8/2020 7:35 am

Every 4 years we have the opportunity to set things straight.
If that fails 4 more years & perhaps evil will die on the vine.

Hopefully I'm within the topic limit.
I dislike threats.
Especially when it limits what people wish to say.
Party On!


jiminycricket1 73M
13732 posts
2/8/2020 8:09 am

Yes this impeachment wasn't about the results..It was about the process.
It was a test..
A test of the strength of our democracy
A test of the strength of our morality
A test of the strength of our empathy.

A test of our weakness of the self serving
A test of the weakness on Our self reliance
A Test of the weakness, of our patriotism
A test of the TRUST, we have in ourselves.
A test to see if we have the strength to handle the truth. Or to hide under the cover from the boogieman.

In as much as we failed.
A Mitt Romney gives us hope,
Doug Jones gives us Faith

This impeachment was not about the destination.. It was about our JOURNEY.


TxJW_E 81M

2/8/2020 8:56 am

I don't think the Constitution was written with capitalist corporations in mind but
they were highly represented in the senate sham impeachment trial.

Mr Block points out democracy is not mentioned in the constitution.
Does the constitution mention corporation? capitalism?

If this does not fall within blog rules please delete.
I hate walking on egg shells.
Wondering if I am agreeing well enough or not.


sparkleflit 76F
10271 posts
2/8/2020 11:24 am

From up here in Canada, juggling the never-ending assault that is USA politics, it really looks more like they are competing for an Oscar, rather than running a country......


bondjam33 70M
840 posts
2/8/2020 11:39 am

    Quoting  :

This trite and completely nonsensical piece of whimsy is trotted out whenever anyone wishes to avoid reality and to take refuge in their own little world full of unicorns administered by the tooth fairy.

The United States is a Federal Constitutional Representative Democracy. The word Democracy may not occur in the constitution but John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Chief Justice Marshall all used the word (Ref Eugene Volokh , Washington Post) as they understood that a state in which people elected representatives to enact their wishes is precisely that A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
In fact some elements of US government demonstrate all the marks of DIRECT DEMOCRACY - local referenda, ballot initiatives are DIRECT DEMOCRACY in action.
The rest of the government is administered by REPRESENTATVES elected through DEMOCRATIC ballots.

There are many forms of democracy of which representative democracy is the most common. For this reason the US has always been classified as a FULL DEMOCRACY in the highly respected Economist Intelligence Unit. Unfortunately this rating has been downgraded to a 'FLAWED DEMOCRACY' since 2015. The main reason for the downgrading was
QUOTE " The policies representatives pursue are not in fact dictated by public opinion. This is the mark of a flawed democracy/republic: election without true representation." An assessment with which I am sure many would concur, especially in the light of the quite blatant disregard
shown to the clearly expressed opinions of the people in the most recent sham.


LeafReport 73M

2/8/2020 12:53 pm

    Quoting jiminycricket1:
    Yes this impeachment wasn't about the results..It was about the process.
    It was a test..
    A test of the strength of our democracy
    A test of the strength of our morality
    A test of the strength of our empathy.

    A test of our weakness of the self serving
    A test of the weakness on Our self reliance
    A Test of the weakness, of our patriotism
    A test of the TRUST, we have in ourselves.
    A test to see if we have the strength to handle the truth. Or to hide under the cover from the boogieman.

    In as much as we failed.
    A Mitt Romney gives us hope,
    Doug Jones gives us Faith

    This impeachment was not about the destination.. It was about our JOURNEY.
Yes it was. It was never about a result. The test for me was the ability for McConnell to hold the caucus together. His hold on the party is so frustrating. Mitch McConnell, and I hate to say this, is an enemy of the United States. There is no other credible way to characterize it. I'm not saying he is opposition, or that he's a terrorist of some kind, or that he's an idiot, shameless partisan or even a racist. He's a different kind of enemy with a perverse view of power. He has harm the nation in profound ways. The mystery is how he hangs onto the leadership. It has to frustrate the caucus because his obstruction makes it harder for the caucus to hold onto their own seats. Yet they allow him to remain the leader. They have sadly miscalculated the damage this does to their own political future. He will not leave public service with honor...he will leave the senate as a hated man. It was so unnecessary.


LeafReport 73M

2/8/2020 1:46 pm

    Quoting  :

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....it's the CORRUPTION stupid.


sparkleflit 76F
10271 posts
2/8/2020 3:47 pm

    Quoting  :

But what do you think?......Do you ever have thoughts of your own? Have you ever had a conversation ?......


bondjam33 70M
840 posts
2/8/2020 5:29 pm

    Quoting  :

You can waffle as much as you like - you ELECT representative in a DEMOCRATIC ballot. There is no difference whether you append the word republic at the end or not.
You live in a democratic state - if you are too thick to work this out then there is no hope for you.

How does being a 'Republic' affect the way in which you are represented? Do you elect your representatives in a 'republican' process which is somehow different to a democratic process? If it is so different explain the differences as everyone else who is an expert in the field does not see one?
Are you saying you wish to live in an UNDEMOCRATIC state? Honestly?
What the hell are you trying to say?


TxJW_E 81M

2/8/2020 6:43 pm

Skariff I know about how they wrote the document------all men with certain rights while they owned title to them in order to create more wealth for themselves ----and their taxation without representation protest to the king so they would not have to pay tax. Their mansions etc.
I feel that way here today like they did then.

But the modern plan must be to concentrate on the next election.
All distractions natural or manufactured must be put away in order to keep the eye on the prize. We the people must reclaim our government and form it exactly the way we want it.

We are in deep trouble & it did not happen suddenly.
Greed, deceit, bribery etc. has slowly become openly acceptable.

Elections are meant to be the enforcement tool for the will of the people we must act.


sparkleflit 76F
10271 posts
2/8/2020 7:01 pm

    Quoting  :

Wow, you just can't resist parading your ignorance can you? Your google machine can't do your thinking for you......you are a sad specimen....


sparkleflit 76F
10271 posts
2/8/2020 7:03 pm

    Quoting  :

Wow, you just can't resist parading your ignorance can you? You seem to believe your google machine is a substitute for thinking.....so sad....


bondjam33 70M
840 posts
2/9/2020 12:45 am

    Quoting  :

You just described a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY exactly - and that is what you have. You are trying to say that the US is not a DIRECT DEMOCRACY - no one ever said it was.

Your bicameral system is little different from those of many other parliamentary democracies except that your second chamber is able to completely frustrate the efforts of the first - with the present disastrous results. That is why Moscow Mitch is able to 'sit on' over 400 bills passed the house and 'shit on' the will of the people.

Your republic is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY - look it up; I am sure it will be enlightening for you.


jiminycricket1 73M
13732 posts
2/9/2020 9:12 am

    Quoting  :

First what Sparkle wrote .. is a better understanding of our founding father and why they wrote the constitution the way they did.. more than YOU could EVER understand.

The constitution, besides being written to form a MORE PERFECT UNION...Was confronted with the Obvious idea.... That what was a more perfect Union for some.. Would not be a more perfect union for others..

The idealistic nature of Democracy was developed the same as the idealistic nature of communism.. But communism could not protect itself from human nature.

Our founding father were incredibly intuitive.. To Protect the idealistic view of Democracy.. Our "Republic" has but one purpose .. to protect our Democracy
The idea of three branches of Government was designed to Protect our Democracy. The idea of the Judicial Branch and The Supreme Court was to Protect our democracy.

Now, you can have a different idea about the Executive Branch, or Legislative Branch,, As both a non defining descriptions of Democracy..both of those branches lend themselves to different versions, power struggles, and constituencies, They both would and could Challenge Democracy.
But the idea that either the Republicans, Democrats, The President, Congress, the elite..Or even "THE MAJORITY"... Can invade and control the only sacred chamber of Democracy.. Which is not a Democracy, Not a Republic, not a Monarchy, Not a Dictator... they are but the keeper of the scrolls.. The final protectors of our founding father DEMOCRACY. As much as they were to protect the founding father words...They were just as responsible to protect the founding fathers meanings, Against the WORDS of others.
Every time .. I hear the President, the political parties, or citizens.. talk about a partisan court.. I shutter at our forefathers turning over in their graves. I see their light being snuffed out..


jiminycricket1 73M
13732 posts
2/9/2020 9:35 am

God before destroying Republicans, Democrats and America.....Came to the forefathers.. to tell them of the deceit, partisanship, control, and absolute power They were putting in hands of Americans would only destroy Gods World.

Our forefather asked for chance to save themselves.
God ask them if they could find nine intelligent , honest, men of integrity..and would give the power of Democracy to them.. he would spare them....

Our forefather gave that power to the Supreme Court.. to not answer for America, or to America.. but answer to God............. and God has spared US for over two hundred years.

The day of reckoning is upon Us..


( I know some of you idiots will take this verbatim... But it's a metaphor..And God is everything that's left over, after you believe what he is NOT)


sparkleflit 76F
10271 posts
2/9/2020 1:26 pm

I don't know what's going on with Bigblock's thinker, but from what I gather, he seems to believe that the USA is the only country on Earth whose citizens choose their leaders. He seems completely unaware that much of US law and government is borrowed from England and other European countries.He didn't know that Britain is a Democracy and informed me yesterday that there are no elections in Canada........


bondjam33 70M
840 posts
2/9/2020 2:58 pm

    Quoting  :

I really cannot believe you are as thick as you sound.

In a representative democracy the elected representatives carry out the duties which are delegated to them through the articles of government in the manner laid down - incorporating political (constitutional) and judicial (laws written from time to time). This is not necessarily the dictatorship of the plurality. In most parliamentary democracies the ruling party is selected by a voting system which may not guarantee the rule of the majority because it is not a plebiscite - it is a democratic vote to elect representatives.
It would appear that the various nuances of different kinds of democratic selection are either completely lost on you because you do not understand or you are simply ignorant of their existence.
In Germany they select their parties by a modified 'list system, the UK uses 'first past the post', the Australian system elects its senate by Single Transferable vote but the lower house by first past the post, Switzerland uses direct democracy referenda and plebiscites alongside representative democracy by electing a federal parliament -- SWITZERLAND IS A FEDERAL REPUBLIC - its constitution states this with absolute clarity.

As to your last question Hillary Clinton is the fourth Democratic nominee to win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College. This is nothing to do with whether the US is a democracy or not - it is actually a perversion of the original mandate which was to select " A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated tasks." (Alexander Hamilton). This 'small number of persons' were supposed to weigh up the candidates and select a President on his merits. rather like the parliament selects a Prime Minister in many countries. One does wonder how the electoral college might have acted given the choice it ha in 2016.
The polarisation of US politics into two parties meant that states adopted the 'general ticket' approach of allocating all representatives to the EC to one candidate no matter how narrow the victory in that state. Much to the horror of the original framers of the constitution. In their opinion reducing the role of the EC rep to that of mindless flunky was a gross betrayal of the constitution.


sparkleflit 76F
10271 posts
2/9/2020 7:54 pm

    Quoting  :

Sure, in the same way that Americans don't vote for a president, you vote for a member of the Electoral College.....Do you have a point with this line of argument?


jiminycricket1 73M
13732 posts
2/11/2020 5:34 am

    Quoting  :

Of Course, the battle between the idealistic and realistic has raged on. It was so in 1776 as it is today. The compromises that were made in 1776..were forced upon a new nation..there was no other choice.
In many ways the writing of Constitution was purposely vague at the time. As compromise between the idealistic and the reality of the times. So that both sides could agree, both could take something from the writing of it.
The idea at the time between the idealistic and realist. Was the difference between creating a better future and dealing with the problems of the day. Words used like equality, freedom and Liberty were dealt with both subjectively and objectively. Objectively they applied to the elite common man, the landowner, the and the taxpayer.. Subjectively they applied to everybody.. AS much as those who saw it subjectively as a future.. they could not avoid the practicality of the present.

Those that would oppose the electoral college as a matter of democracy, could not avoid the practicality of the time. those that supported an electoral college made the argument..the same as you folks do today....But when broken down the argument from both side was the same.
It was about who controlled the election..the ideas today are quite different than the ideas then about who controlled the election. The people , their representatives, or the elite. The elite being the landowners, the wealthy, and those most participating and impacted by government. The futurists and idealists has no choice but to lose the argument.There was no way to implement the idealistic democracy.
The spread out population, the communication abilities, the inability to resolve disputed elections.
I am sure at the time there were those who preferred a convening of governors , one from each State, to choose the president, but for the idealist that was unacceptable. and the compromise of an electoral college was made..
The idea of idealistic democracy required full participation, not even so much for democracy sake, but the idealist believed that participation was essential to have a sense of patriotism and country
So they got the full participation, to sustain the idea of a federal government instead of participation and loyalty to the STATES.
The idealists were not stupid they got whatever their could under the circumstances. They were burdened by their own hypocrisy.. the hypocrisy of having to settle, and apply a realists view of freedom and justice for all. not the idealistic view. you could not have the idealistic view and accept The elite voting rights..Slavery, indentured, women, restricted citizenship,and the prejudices of the time. Yet they had no other choice.

This was not only the essence of the electoral college.. it was the essence of each amendment.

You can still make the same arguments..believe that founding father took a strict view of the Constitution, and make up your reasons. But the hypocrisy once accepted by the idealists, is now the hypocrisy of the realist. AT THE TIME, The realist compromised less than idealists..But the idealist.. has been winning ever since..
Except now, except with this President...So the realists (republicans) have a completely made up ideology. to return to the same arguments of 1776.. Using THEIR Forefathers same arguments, but the realism has changed..But they haven't... they do not have the means.. so any made up means is used to justifies their ends.


bondjam33 70M
840 posts
2/13/2020 1:50 pm

    Quoting  :

You must stop shooting yourself in the foot - I am sure it really hurts.

Have you read Thomas Paine or do you just deal in out of context sound bites?

Quoting Paine (from His seminal work The Rights of Man) you will see that he unreservedly embraces the form of government which I described to you - but you seem incapable of understanding REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY - JUST LIKE YOU NOW HAVE IN THE US.

"Referring them to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.
Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages ... [superior to hereditary monarchy].
... It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood and the most eligible in practice; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.
... That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system. It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interest of the parts, and of the whole.

Paine was the most influential philosopher of his age - and profoundly influenced your framers to institute REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY as the form of government in the fledgling US. - Cherry picking snippets from texts which, in their entirety, prove the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are trying to prove is a sure sign that you do not understand the argument.

I think I get what your real objection is - you are so shallow that you think repeating the mantra ' the US is a republic not a democracy' somehow means hat you have to vote republican not democrat - what a maroon - as a very famous cartoon rabbit was so fond of saying.