That was an awesome piece. And like Wittes said, Lawfare really has been on top of this issue for longer than most. This part in particular drove it home for me:
it is possible to be at the same time a threat to democracy and a victim of a horrible crime. The fact that Trump has been shot emphatically does not mean that his behavior does *not *threaten American democracy—just as the fact that Huey Long, the populist governor of Louisiana in the 1930s, was assassinated did not acquit him of being a corrupt authoritarian. That Trump is also a corrupt authoritarian surely cannot justify his attempted assassination or any political violence, but just as surely, the fact that a person attempted his assassination does not nullify the threat he poses. The two facts must be allowed to coexist.
As much as I agree political violence doesn’t have a place in modern society, authoritarian governments literally make it the only option.
We aren’t there yet but there’s little doubt in my mind that if Trump wins, he will make what is essentially a rigged game right now into nothing but a formality.
That was an awesome piece. And like Wittes said, Lawfare really has been on top of this issue for longer than most. This part in particular drove it home for me:
As much as I agree political violence doesn’t have a place in modern society, authoritarian governments literally make it the only option.
We aren’t there yet but there’s little doubt in my mind that if Trump wins, he will make what is essentially a rigged game right now into nothing but a formality.