The Mueller report described 10 or 11 possible instances of obstruction of justice. At the hearing last week, Mueller said that Trump could face charges after he leaves office. Whether it’s likely that anyone will bother to go through with that effort, and whether Trump fears it, I can’t say.
I agree that insulting people who happen to support democratic institutions is not itself an attack on democracy. Indeed that would be fallacious. Rather, many have pointed out that Trump dismantles democratic institutions directly (e.g. by not holding press conferences, gutting the State Department of its diplomats and career civil servants, backing out of major treaties like Paris and JCPOA, not even shaking a finger at Saudi Arabia for the murder of a Washington Post journalist, tweeting out military information, declaring an “emergency” to bypass Congress after they denied him funding for his border wall, etc.) Also, when he enables “lock her up” and “send her back” messages, regardless of whether the targets are seen as defenders of democracy, it chips away at democracy by normalizing the idea of imprisoning or exiling rivals.
Democracy has both legal and cultural (“hard” and “soft”) elements, and on this topic (if you’re really curious to know where I’m coming from) I’d recommend the book The Despot’s Apprentice, many of whose examples I described on my blog.
Trump’s “jokes” are not funny to me. They are abusive, ignorant, and repetitive. I don’t think he intends to be funny. He aims to desensitize the crowd to the offensive and false things he is saying, because, by repetition, it comes to sound acceptable and true. Nor do I think he should speak with hyperbole. He has the nuclear codes and talks to dictators. And how is the average American supposed to know when he intends to communicate a fact and when he is BSing? The President should speak accurately and with great care.
In your last post, it seems to me that you’ve drawn some equivalences between the behavior of other politicians and of Trump. (Namely, that politicians generally quarrel as if they’re on a reality show; that they insult foreign leaders; that they become rich.) Yes, it’s a matter of degree, but the degree here is so significant that it’s not really the same thing; there’s no equivalence, in my view. Trump is different. (Anyway, even if other politicians were as bad as Trump, that wouldn’t justify Trump’s behavior. The president should be held to a high standard.)
Examples: Trump holding official government business at hotels and golf courses that he owns and profits from (and if his brand is nonetheless losing money, I guess that just means he’s doing his corruption poorly?); asking a billionaire to seek Saudi and UAE input on proposed U.S. energy policy; putting former CEOs of oil and weapons companies at the head of the State Dept and Defense Dept and the Environmental Protection Agency; sending White House staff on TV to say “buy Ivanka’s stuff” (probably illegal)…none of that is ethically equivalent to Bernie Sanders making a couple million dollars off a book deal. Of course nobody’s perfect, but the question is how are they not perfect.
Anyhow my worldview is likely different from yours, which will not change here, but I do appreciate the conversation.
