Associate Justice Sam Alito — who famously loves 16th century
witch-burning judges and “unborn children” — went so far as to create a
hypothetical in defense of Trump that turned reality on its head. Keep
in mind, it is Trump, not Biden, who’s spent nearly four years trying to
destabilize both our political and judicial systems.
Nonetheless, Alito asked:
“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election
knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the
president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but
that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political
opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the
functioning of our country as a democracy?”
Say what? Jack Smith is a greater threat to democracy than Donald Trump?
Throughout the entire two-plus hours, Republican justices (with the
possible exceptions of Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts) implicitly
supported Trump’s attempted coup (that Justice Thomas’ wife was in the
middle of).
Trump’s attorney argued — with the apparent agreement of four
of the six Republican appointees — that if Trump were reelected he
could assassinate people, stage a military coup, and sell America’s
military secrets to Putin with no consequences whatsoever.
Which raises the vital question: why would they be so cavalier about
Trump’s threat to our democracy? Is it just that Thomas and Alito want
to retire and want their replacements selected by Trump instead of
Biden?
The simple reality is that conservatives throughout modern
history have viewed democracy with a jaundiced eye, and the Supreme
Court’s Republican appointees are no exception. To their minds democracy
is fine when it puts them and their patrons in power, but when it fails
at that it’s an impediment to wealth and power that must be
circumnavigated.
As one of history’s most famous conservatives, England’s Edmund Burke, noted
in the late 18th century, when people engaged in “servile” occupations
like hairdresser or candle-maker are allowed to participate in democracy
by voting, the state suffers “oppression” and is “at war with nature”:
“The occupation of a hairdresser or of a working tallow-chandler
cannot be a matter of honour to any person — to say nothing of a number
of other more servile employments. Such descriptions of men ought not to
suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression if
such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to
rule. In this you think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war
with nature.”
At the CPAC convention this past February, a well-known rightwing
influencer, Jack Posobiec, went off on a rant about how important it is
for conservatives to band together to end democracy in America and,
presumably, replace it with Christofascism just like in Russia and
Hungary.
“Welcome to the end of democracy!” he declared.
“We’re here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there
on January 6th, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it
with this right here,” he added as he held up a cross.
This, frankly, should not be surprising. It was 1951 when
Russell Kirk, the godfather of the modern conservative movement,
published his book The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot in which he laid out the importance of “classes and orders” in society. (I detailed Kirk extensively in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy.)
The middle class was growing like a weed back then — this was
before Reagan kneecapped the labor movement — and Kirk warned that if
too many people got into the middle class and were no longer “the
fearful poor” that there would be chaos in America.
He warned that too much middle class wealth would mean that women
would no longer fear and respect their husbands, racial minorities would
forget their “rightful place” in the social order, young people would
defy their parents, and society would generally go to hell.
Kirk’s solution, dictated back in the late 1700s by Burke
himself, was to gut the middle class and return to the “normal” social
form of a small number of really rich people at the top, a tiny middle
class of doctors, lawyers, and professionals who served the rich, and a
massive class of the working poor.
This was the Victorian world Charles Dickens wrote about in almost
all of his novels, and, when the 1960s happened and women, students, and
minorities rose up in protest, became the world that Reaganomics was
established to return us to.
“‘My little child!’ cried Bob [Cratchit in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol]. ‘My little child.’ He broke down all at once. ‘He couldn’t help it.’” … “‘It’s only once a year, sir,’ pleaded Bob.”
Re-impoverishing America’s working class families to avoid the
dire consequences Burke and Kirk identified, Reagan declared war on
unions, gave the rich massive tax cuts, gutted federal support for
education (creating today’s student debt crisis), and started the
GATT/NAFTA negotiations that led to over 50,000 factories and over 15 million good union jobs being shipped overseas.
Every Republican president since has doubled down on Reagan’s
campaign to devastate both the American middle class and the democracy
that once supported them: Bush and Trump added tens of trillions to our
debt with their tax breaks for billionaires, all three Republican
presidents since Reagan packed the courts with democracy-skeptical
ideologues, and each has worked to enrich the wealthy while cutting aid
and support to working class and poor Americans.
Gutting the middle class, eliminating the social safety net,
and “restoring order” to society is still the conservative mantra, now
heavily overlaid with racist tropes and rightwing Christian ideology.
So Posobiec’s proclamation that it’s time to replace democracy with
strongman authoritarianism, and the endorsement of that worldview by
Republicans on the Court with yesterday’s dog-and-pony show, is just
another variation on Kirk’s and Burke’s distrust of what John Adams
famously and angrily called “the rabble.”
This is not a new debate.
Thomas Hobbes’ 1651 book Leviathan, often
seen as a seminal origin document for the Enlightenment, argued that
people should ultimately be able to govern themselves (thus establishing
what Americans today call the “liberal” school of political science).
Leviathan also, however, articulated the foundation of
the modern-day “conservative” worldview when Hobbes wrote that, lacking
the iron fist of church and state, human societies and nations would
invariably revert to their “natural” state:
“In such condition, … the life of man [is], solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
One-hundred-three years after Hobbes published those words, Jean
Jacques Rousseau rebutted him and established the intellectual basis
used by the Founders of our American republic, arguing that the “natural
state” of humankind is not violent and hierarchical but, rather,
compassionate, egalitarian, and democratic.
The Founders and Framers of the Constitution agreed
with Rousseau, and explicitly wanted to limit potentially monarchical
powers of the presidency. At the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention
in September of 1787,
James Madison, noting that the Virginia constitution gave “some
executive immunities related to the criminal process” to that state’s
governor, asked the assembled delegates to “consider what privileges
ought to be allowed to the Executive.”
Not a single delegate rose to defend the position; instead,
Charles Pinckney called for an adjournment for the day. During an 1800
debate in the US Senate, Pinckney explained
to his colleagues that “it was the design of the Constitution, and . . .
not only its spirit, but letter . . . that it never was intended to
give Congress, or either branch, any but specified, and those very
limited, privileges indeed.”
As Jack Smith noted in his written pleadings
before the Supreme Court, “James Wilson told the Pennsylvania ratifying
convention, the president was ‘far from being above the laws,’ and ‘not
a single privilege [wa]s annexed to his character.’”
Tench Coxe, who I quoted extensively in The Hidden History of American Democracy,
noted in a 1787 essay that it was the intention of the Founders that a
president could be “proceeded against like any other man in the ordinary
course of law.” And, indeed, when Vice President Aaron Burr fatally
shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel, two different states brought murder indictments against
him and not a single court objected or argued that the executive branch
should have immunity from prosecution under criminal law.
But don’t tell any of that to the Republicans on the Supreme Court.
From gutting both civil and voting rights, to kneecapping union rights, to helping George W. Bush steal the 2000 election that Al Gore won in Florida by more than 40,000 votes,
the Court’s conservative majority has steadfastly held to the Burkean
belief that too much democracy is a danger that can only be balanced by
handing as much wealth and political power as possible to the morbidly
rich.
Which is why expanding the Supreme Court and establishing a code of conduct for its members via a new Judiciary Act must become one of the first jobs of a second Biden administration.
The fear of that happening, in fact, may well be one of the
reasons why Republicans on the Court went so far out of their way to
help Trump return to the White House via the delays they’ve inflicted on
Jack Smith’s efforts to hold him to justice.
Trump’s attempted coup is nowhere near done: both the Republican
Party and the Republicans on the Supreme Court are working as hard as
they can to complete it and replace American democracy with naked
oligarchy.
To paraphrase Burke, when men and women who don’t trust
democracy are given the power to regulate it to the benefit of
themselves and their billionaire patrons, the nation itself suffers
oppression and is at war with nature.
Pass it along.
Four Republican justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanagh) implicitly
supported Trump’s attempted coup that Justice Thomas’ wife (shown above sharing a belly laugh with Coke Can himself) was in the
middle of.
