Might Gives Right

 

The current - some would say ancient, but at least centennial - struggle for voting rights, now almost impossibly thrown into the debate over the just-as-old question of the filibuster - or so often, where parliamentary government is concerned, the threat accompanied by full regalia blazoned by an uneasily governing majority party - has been . And while the prospects of a red revival may seem distant (they sure look, in numbers and, frankly, "opposition", better than for the long 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, for the very upcoming November 2022) . And as implied by the relinquishing, as it should be said, filibuster holding back the baton of simple majoritarianism, it would - for whatever ends - spell the victory of democracy over liberal democracy. Now not only in Budapest, and other post-Communist capitals ostensibly hurling themselves and their children from Tarpeian rocks into the jaws of fascism (and not only from the lips of Democrats) but in the dreaded capital of the free world. 

And with a majority that slim, having to muster every fibre of two ostensibly centrist Democrats to govern, it can be assumed by any man not giving complete command to his senses, that the foul Reds will govern yet again... as the revolutionaries of the failed putsch of 1832 may never have said, "one day". Alas, so many put it in the phrases such as this, that should the Republicans recapture either the Congress or the White House, either civil war or authoritarian rule will emerge, conceivably both in rapid succession or multitudes. Unfortunate because when such predictions are made, even with due substance, or partial and reeking substance, the saged-by-example breakdown of the serious, main, democratic parties are sure to continue. (The Reichstag fire analogy is apt, I would say, or more so than the events at the Bürgerbräukeller which did signal an attempted coup... by the Bavarian government!) And as that process continues, the tactic of blaming every move by the other side as one perpetuating aggression is one only demanding a mirror to the face, or in the head, and just as graceful. 

Fire and ashes could not quell the machinations of the Reichstag; only as the body, intact but for the extremists most obviously bearing the responsibility now quelled, reassembled could the institution be rendered a mere humiliating boondoggle for fellow travellers of the new order.  

With the Democrats then firmly - by the skin of the proverbial horse's teeth - in an elephant-reeking saddle, presumably for another salient two years (remember 2009 through 2011?) and we presume the logical desire would be to attempt to perpetuate this state. And while the early Obama years offered something like, yes, a promise - comparable even to the days of mighty Camelot - the promise of Biden is naught but the shadowy attempt, or attempt at an attempt, to be an undoer, a "healer" - two laudable pledges, which hardly are coherent in execution. Undoing of Trump's major or generally favoured reforms will undoubtedly herald unrest, not because the politics of undoing is inappropriate - I think the emergence of faux consensi is just as bad, and spells the dire end of democratic politics through the apocalyptic credence of now-or-never, which - mind you - never stops once the vote is tallied and the will of the people is, finally and forever, deciphered... the decisions to, in wisdom, and lash at his reputation less than he deserves, 

Few people with a brain more complex or refined in pedigree than that of Dinesh d'Souza - a curious line in the sand, as so many things concerning our public intellectuals and standard-bearers, who combine refined grit and skills of organising with supposedly sub-childishly stupid utterances and ignorances (and not merely regarding the existence of sexes and their conceivable implications) it must seem apparent the poll was, on the whole, fair and safely nestling on its pedestal, untouched - or at least untaken - by crawling fingers. Likewise, it would be very arrogant to supersede the very visible attempts by domestic actors to doctor a certain result, for a certain candidate, given either the goodness of their yet-unreplaced hearts (neoconservative or not) . I myself could not share 

Some countries, it should be noted, do put this distinction and fortification into law, not least the liberal constitution of free Germany, whose distinction between "right radical" (a rather good misnomer for Trump) and "extreme right" note the distinction between campaign, however spittle-enduring, and ban, open persecution by the most secretive and democratic of police forces in Germany, the only one tasked with the mighty task of delivering political repression. The United States, for all the unsavoury and enduring (like the Verfassungsschutz, and the great Atlantic Treaty, beyond the collapse of the Red Menace) activities of the FBI and CIA and other, more recent and blood-and-chaos-steeped and unsavourily ever-rearranging acronyms, has no such policy which could not be changed by the consensus of its governors (not the fifty, again mainly in the red) and its origins in the Enlightenment recognise no such mechanism, even as a special department in the basement of the most fringe agency. The distinction, which should well be mentioned in every mentioning of the Sixth - and the autogolpe president's own words, of "peacefully" as well as "patriotically" - is only between words and violence, which cannot - by any mind of integrity - be interchanged or substituted. But should such a distinction, between mere "radicals" and "extremists" be observed in electoral politics and, if not in constitutional law, where is it put into action? By which corporation and which elected (or unelected) decision-maker? I can only answer these hard questions by a ringing silence. Surely a coup of the kind which may have emerged in the summer of 1934 against an actual Führer which had, in much shorter time, dispensed of his loyal parliament, the federalism he never cherished, the promises to the churches whose endorsements he never feigned, would have been lovely, and at any rate ended in less bloodshed than the actual timeline of our following decade. But who, even of the blood of Atreus, is fit to make that evaluation and its appropriate ? Even in peaceful, ostensibly democracy-enhancing procedures? Surely  

Added to these efforts to "fortify" or "secure" elections that ought have been secure already last time - but not, never with regard to a particular candidate or programme - . There must be no super-agendas in the world of electoral politics. Bar, that is, the constitution, which is notably open to changes, or more so than - say - Qu'ranic incantations. 

But, I should ask in fairness, is this possible? Is the process of electoral politics a task which can be distilled, half-blindly, into a cycle of four (and, to many, two) years? Certainly, the democracies or half-democracies (with a stronger leaning towards oligarchy than is generally accepted; yet another threshold here which may not as much shock but frighten you) which count their politics in decades and generations are rightly thought of as successful indeed, and pursuing the right incentives. But is this not an indictment of those who think differently, or pursue those same goals by different means and different minds, and ought it in any way affect the designs and chances and - yes - rights of those who engage in politics outside these lofty goals? How ought we - not citizens, but foreigners ascribing to these liberal rights - react if, say, the scions of Chinese rule, or resurrected British dominionhood, in Singapore start organising and handing out leaflets to this end, and should we condemn the leadership of Singapore when their Verfassungsschutz authority respond to this challenge - with batons, not (as so successfully before) by ballots?  

Beautiful. A model, and not only to the drug-eschewing Bloombergs and Gingriches of the world? How will it seem in yet another half century? 

Given all this, it is fair to return to the question of democracy versus liberal democracy with a mind to the intentions of those who wish to use force - the legitimate force earned, or more to the point borrowed, through the anonymous voting slip - to secure the future of electoral politics or rather - let us be this fair - the outcome of such fortified processes. No vote will be taken to fortify the integrity in elections which have not been backed by both (preferably more) major parties, and with a mind to the complaints against an unusually tragic and chaotic procedure, but only for the blurring vision of an eternity, or say a generation, of single-party dominance - directly or, more humbly, through the (re)acceptance of the sacred and undeniable values of free trade, the Atlantic Treaty and free movement. We 

The Sixth....?

 

The Anglophone, or even more so American, tradition of denominating disasters by numbers and dash (and thus, in its most commonplace sense, commemorating one of the most egregious and foreboding disasters of the past century unwittingly, to an often equally oblivious Swedish audience, as 9/11; to me, it sounds unconscionably abrogated to a minuscule convenience store or gas station) has now, since a year at least, been joined by the both hotly debated and contested-as-a-debating topic now known as 1/6, marking the charge - insurrection, rebellion, possibly treason, if you will, but in my mind not reaching the goals or often very serious efforts of an attempted (is there another kind, in civilised conversation?) coup - of the Capitol in Washington, D.C, and thus denigrating the throngs expressing long-held anger against that institution, and city, by the similar political clot verbally slung against the inhabitants of the building, or previously confined to the strictly verbal. 

I should not be remiss here and outright reject the widespread, and often bland, employment of the word "coup". Whereas "coup", by the previously mentioned Hitchens, has been used against Watergate (the mother of the many -gate suffixes) and there with some rhetorical relevance - if not in an academic sense - I am not quite so contended here. The use of Beer Hall Putsch, frivolously Godwinian but not without merit, most relativisers being unaware of this turn of events (or even that fifteen years later) has also been raised, whereas its corollary - certainly over the democratic Bavarian government's attempt on German democracy as well as the Nazi plagiarisers - would be the attack on the German Reichstag an equally chilling February 1933, plus aftermath. The repression now underway, finally, makes the comparison also somewhat debunked, in reality if not in spirit. 

You can put whomever you like as Hitler in this less tantalising analogy, but the mere fact that he held the presidency - for a fortnight - does not reinforce the apparent effects, let alone the presumed downfall of American constitutionalism during this apocalyptic Trump presidency... still, I admit, a queer and frightful phrase to pen. All institutions were - adequately, for all the failings of voters, courts, electors and senate - guarding against this possibility, openly flaunting their readiness to not execute their duties, lest it be to such an end as extend this which now could not, legally, be extended, the lack of a proper mass movement in line with the SA, let alone SS, and the continued reliance not only on constitutional structures and federalism (dented, long since, but not exactly Trump's prime goal) and diversity (yes, that term) of the broader conservative movement (if it is to be called thus) are arguments that this is, if not something sui generis, something very different from the transformed Thule society now poised to subdue and destroy the Western world. Focus on his son-in-law and his tribe, or now substituting Muslims for Jews and... Brazilians, Mexicans, Haitians, for the Slavs (remember them, or the chilling intricacies rung out by the mere words Generalplan Ost?) for no particular reason. 

This last bark of the old president is now poised to be his undoing from repeating the feat of Cleveland and becoming - now that he, seemingly, recognises he is not, and cannot not steal nor lawyer himself to victory, whether this would appropriately have been waged on the irregularities which, as before, is part of any election, and certainly one so grand and stuffed with pre-election day ballots - the first president to return with vengeance, but has hardly chipped his already-condemned status. Cleveland was booted, surely not without some irregularity (if not, proved before court, not mentioning the widespread practices of the South firmly holding his back) and resurged in success. The cries that now, now, his visage must not be seen again at the walk to the Oval Office, lest the world be plummeting, cannot be taken seriously than those before it. This must not be, shriek the trumpets from much of the political establishment, and major corporations which have not - in his hour of need - come to this fascist's aid. However, just as the first the , the second should not be discounted from being another dent in the shining castle of electoral democracy, which cannot long bear the brunt of political crimes (even those which, in truth, be considered criminal) when aimed firmly at one side, and wielded as a hose to blot out and silence their vandals, but not so much others. And this time, now, irrevocably, undeniably, his is the glory and gasp of having officiated, if not outright orchestrated, a vicious attack on the other branch of government. Only the assault on the Supreme Court and the Nine not occurring - nor likely to occur soon, lest Democrats (big D, folks!) are to respond in kind, would have made the autocratic tendencies clearer. 

Are these tendencies without real merit, without real ambition? Well, apart from "self-confidence", enough to adequate to that of a Targaryen, no flatter adequately satisfies The Donald's persona better than "ambition", although I find the description a bit short. What ambition? Which desires has he not already fulfilled? And if someone, including myself, and many vociferous unshakeable Trump critics, have decried his run as a joke turning into a reality and then into nightmare, rhyming poorly with the star-gazing, fate-driven, youthfully certain Caesar or Temüjin or other figure content only with the greatest of ambition. Indeed, even for one poised to laugh and mutter gall-laden content at that announcement, his own review of the presidency were stark and Martin-esque indeed. 

But it is for the grander question of what will come out of this, and the future of the institutions now assaulted by a president, by one man, now presumably clear of him (?), or so many of them may think, that I wish to speak. For the enemies of an autocrat seldom uphold credible democratic credentials, and this tyrant - in the classical sense - has, as his forbearers, arisen not through a firm and healthy liberal democracy, but against one in decay.* 

There is, most certainly, a consensus a healthy - meaning somewhat breathing - two-party system. And surely, if not in print or outspoken, a desire for the Trump phenomenon - if not the broader "Kekist movement" - to just go away, preferably in a gurgle- and defecation-inducing stroke so very long heralded, or even by an assassin's bullet, or blade, or novichok-laced coke (no chance there, more than one with rum). But will this ? The clear message from the second impeachment - presided over by the Batman-seasoned Senator Leahy himself - was clear as no water has been; the loud never-Trumpers remain, and clear as the majority being against Trump well before the charges pertained to were charged, committed or imagined, but no large chunk of Republicans and no auspicious names, save that of already declared opponent and candidate Romney (now of Utah) said clearly no, if with the somewhat better excuse of the object of their ire being, for the moment, no longer an occupant of the office from which he should be expelled. Whereas no (firm) evidence suggest one cannot do such a thing, the only proposed purpose - the language or symbolism of doing so anyway, because - of disbarring (the "dis" not amounting to a Bush-ism; remember him and why he should be impeached?) this most undesired - by much of Washington, not of the country - from even announcing yet another run, and the just as unspoken but more chilling belief that this would not be employed against another, far from announced candidate in the future, was bad enough, and in a sense took this plummet of decorum to levels not seen with the 2019 impeachment (and, let's be fair, more predictable) 2020 acquittal. The fact that Trump has plummeted, whether that happened in 2020 or before or even in 2016, is quite beside that point. For these institutions will endure longer than Trump, lest you truly believe in the Trumpocalypse, in which case I propose sudden, and very real, emigration. More dismaying than the failed impeachment - but for this obvious statement on its absurdity, I would surely would have favoured it - is the effects that outside of him will change the landscape of American democracy so far as to make them unrecognisable. 

Most of all, the age-old (millennia, if you discount the unspoken condition "American constitutionalism") question of the filibuster is now, displeasingly given the apparent divisions in electorate as well as parties, taken to the next level; now, a slim majority of not even fifty-one must govern, lest the forces . The apocalyptic . As already, more predictably, shouted from across the aisle, with less grace than gratitude, the promise of a filibuster gone in favour of simple majoritarianism (yay, said no thinking person desiring this state of affairs to be replaced by stable consensus and democratic institutionalism) which only bodes for further downfall, once the regained speaker's chair by a god-fearing vice president (possibly not Mr. Pence of the 1/6 events), and possibly the generally recognised speaker's chair too, and even the West Wing... could it be possible? Well, could it be possible for the auspiciously separatist, racist, and often Ku Klux Klan-touting Democrats from retaking the White House ? Only those living so long as to see the auspiciously doomed, pre-fascist (or proto-fascist? Which prefix would do?) year of 1884 (I shall not subvert American democracy by breathing 1876, even to the figure seven) will surely see. 

What then will come out of this? The prime desire, just as during impeachment, of overturning the cart arraigned against the politics of decency, that is, of certain unalterable truths or policies not shared at all by all the voters, if even half of them, will most surely fail, for like with assassination, the only thing coming out of a political trial - I have, if not out of sympathy with Trump, hard to see it as anything else, and shadow in this case of that counts for posture - 

It would do well thus to recall Mr. Fawlty's words on the fish, and of the American democracy of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and others being well and by margin unfit for consumption, and the causes for this not solely resting with the over-aged, overtly aggressively heterosexual, and other things, braggart the Republican party and - at the core of this - their electorate has made its beacon and guiding pilot. The designs now imposed, upon an hour , or even glanced at and championed, would surely hasten or consummate (let us say) the decline of the institutions whose destruction Trump's presence were considered synonymous with. American democracy still lives, admittedly, due to these institutions still relished in name if not always, or often, in spirit enduring throughout a time where there was real, intense pressure (as there had been before) just as they did thirteen months ago - no resuscitation. On that note, let us hold it, and consider whether razing the decidedly guiding democracy of the West (India being by far greater, but even now less consequential) for the purpose of the death, political or otherwise, of a seventy-five year old man once, and future, labeled president. For those who seek to perpetuate not the union pledged by Madison et al, heralded by Lincoln and King, as of yet in progress, but sacrifice it for a design better fitting their earthly ends, with the excuse of this man being chained to the pyre, must surely be recognised as arsonists of democracy indeed. 

* = Tyrannos, tyrant, being the appropriate term, I think... if yet indicting, beyond Trump, the Athens which spawned him  ;-)