I've used this title enough recently that perhaps the harbor is empty ...

This time, it's Slate's Michelle Goldberg, suggesting that more Democrats question Mr Trump's legitimacy.  She crosses the line from dissent into moonbattery.
Trump lost the popular vote; he is president-elect only because the country values fidelity to the democratic process over popular democracy itself. (The Constitution, it turns out, may in fact be a suicide pact.) If the process itself was crooked—if Trump’s campaign colluded in any way with Russia—his legitimacy disappears. If he scorns the Constitution by, say, violating the Emoluments Clause, it disappears as well. A president who lost the popular vote, who may have cheated to win the Electoral College, and who will be contravening the Constitution the second he’s sworn in is due neither respect nor deference.
There's plenty of social-media-mockworthy material in there, and no doubt, the usual suspects will be swapping the usual banter.  It's her peroration, though, that interests me.
Nobody knows where this is all going. Democrats particularly are in a difficult position, because they want to uphold basic political norms, but doing so alone, while the other side shamelessly flouts them, puts them at a constant disadvantage. The peaceful transition of power is a cherished value of our democracy. But it’s not the only value, or the highest one. It should not require us to sleepwalk into authoritarianism. If the price for preserving our democracy is pretending that our would-be god-king-emperor has clothes, then it’s already rotted beyond repair.
Democrats becoming defenders of Social Norms and Rules of Procedure?  Democrats going cold turkey on the Cult of the Presidency, which has been their thing perhaps since Woodrow Wilson and surely since Franklin Roosevelt?  Democrats engaging in a close reading of the Federal Constitution?  Seriously?  Are you kidding me?

No comments: