The constitution of our republic allows for disqualification. It is rare, but that option must be available for egregious behavior. In a less partisan time, Trump would have been convicted and permanently disqualified. His behavior following the election through January 6th warranted both.
"They...demanded a permanent solution to what they considered a threat to American democracy." What they considered!? Is fomenting an attack on the legislature and denying the legitimate results of an election not enough for disqualification? What is, then? As cheerio notes, it's straight-up treason.
These are good questions. Although I have no personal animus towards Trump, I can think of three reasons why barring him from future office -- had that been the verdict of impeachment -- would be consistent with our democracy, while other cases you mention may not be:
1. The decision would have been retrospective. He'd be convicted based on things he had already done, rather than things he's expected to do
2. The decision would have been made by a separate branch of government. If we assume -- which admittedly we don't have to -- that the Legislature and the Executive are not vying for power, there's less cause for fear that a person would be banned by his political opponents so that they could keep the power to themselves
3. He's an individual, which leaves many people with his political views (such as they are) eligible.
Besides my comment below, I would add that another unintended consequence of the criminalization of politics is the plummeting quality of public servants. Newt Gingrich failed to consider this in his impeachment of Bill Clinton. In Gingrich's Jacksonian smash-mouth fervor, he didn't even consider that adequate remedies existed for Clinton's perjury AFTER he left office. The long term was result was the abandonment of the US political process by anyone that normal people would consider remotely normal, humane or decent. Pelosi, Trump, Biden -- the list goes on. These people are hardly fit for a zoo, much less electoral politics and leading a great nation. Add in the rise of agitprop fundraising grifters, internet bubble *journalism*, and a collapse in civic instruction and virtues, and the public square has become a tragic spectacle.
I appreciate this article; as someone who was very much in favor of banning Trump from office, it gave me pause to go back and reconsider my thoughts, and that is certainly worth doing. I'll address that at the end.
While I appreciate the article, I'm uncertain overall as to the conclusion of this piece. It seems a bit unfocused. In the top sections, it posits some relative certainty that the power to disqualify is dangerous and should be banned or very limited, and also mixes pragmatic concerns (issues of damage to democracies' functions) with moral / ethical considerations (is it "fair" to disqualify someone) without explicitly addressing issues distinctly; I think both are valid considerations, but they are separate. In the final argument, it doesn't commit to much: "it should be delicately handled if we care about democracy." That's vague to the point of incoherence.
The middle sections are a summary of various disqualifications internationally. Each one is presented as a separate case, and very little analysis has been done to categorize them, compare / contrast them, or show how they lead to a specific set of conclusions and / or dangers, and what aspects of those are universal as opposed to what are very particular to that time and place.
If the point of this piece is that we should use the tools of democracy -- many of which can damage democracies badly -- carefully, the only response is a chorus of "well duh." I'd love to see a lot more analysis on the specific set of issues that arise, how we can learn from the rest of the world's examples, and what specifically it looks like to use disqualification powers "delicately."
Regarding my thoughts on Trump: I still think he should have been convicted and disqualified from federal office. He is, I hope, an outlier -- equal parts pugnacious, mendacious, and administratively incompetent, yet having a keen sense of the appeal of the appearance of a certain type of strength and a cracking ability to project it. However, that's not why he should be disqualified; he should be disqualified because from run up to the election, and then from election night to nearly inauguration, he repeatedly claimed to have won the election by a landslide and been the victim of massive fraud without providing any evidence of his claims. He did this for months. If one is charitable, one might say "lied" is not the right word, because Trump actually believed his own words, but at this point, I'm done with psychoanalyzing Trump. He was making very large claims of massive fraud with woefully insufficient evidence to support them. That is grossly irresponsible and it is corrosive to democracy. A person willing to do that has no business in public office.
A very good case could be made to ban the Democratic Party as Germany did with National Socialism. From the days of Calhoun's slavery apologetics and Jackson banning abolitionist material in the federal mail to Ft. Sumter to Jim Crow and Woodrow Wilson's segregation to Japanese internment and Little Rock, right up to Obama's FISA abuse and Pelosi's misuse of impeachment (we do not have a no confidence vote parliamentary system, Nancy, you actually need a crime) and the party line vote to make the District of Columbia a state (in direct violation of the Constitution), the Democrats have a 200 year history of Revanchism and revolution against our Constitutional order. They have never accepted the protections and promises of the Constitution. They have never accepted their loss in the Civil War. They fought for 100 years to turn back the Civil War amendments and reinstate institutional racism in America and now via CRT and reductionist ideologies are intent on returning to segregation and scapegoating. After a brief post-war flirtation with decency and patriotism (Truman, JFK, et al), the Democrats have now turned once again toward a full force assault on the Constitution, our democracy, and the promise of individual liberty. No alliance is too shady for them to consider. No process is too sacred for them to subvert if they can get their way. Sorry, time to ban the Democrats. We've given them way too many chances.
Brazil's recent politics have another case of disqualification that didn't sink in well: president Dilma's impeachment in 2016.
Due to controversial motivations initially, followed by the election of president Bolsonaro (which could not be predicted at the time) the event has been understood as a soft / constitutional / parliamentary coup" by a large portion of the country. It seems to be a landmark event to comprehend the nation's growing political polarization and its lack of trust in institutions.
The constitution of our republic allows for disqualification. It is rare, but that option must be available for egregious behavior. In a less partisan time, Trump would have been convicted and permanently disqualified. His behavior following the election through January 6th warranted both.
"They...demanded a permanent solution to what they considered a threat to American democracy." What they considered!? Is fomenting an attack on the legislature and denying the legitimate results of an election not enough for disqualification? What is, then? As cheerio notes, it's straight-up treason.
These are good questions. Although I have no personal animus towards Trump, I can think of three reasons why barring him from future office -- had that been the verdict of impeachment -- would be consistent with our democracy, while other cases you mention may not be:
1. The decision would have been retrospective. He'd be convicted based on things he had already done, rather than things he's expected to do
2. The decision would have been made by a separate branch of government. If we assume -- which admittedly we don't have to -- that the Legislature and the Executive are not vying for power, there's less cause for fear that a person would be banned by his political opponents so that they could keep the power to themselves
3. He's an individual, which leaves many people with his political views (such as they are) eligible.
Trump is a traitor and a criminal should be disqualified from higher office like any other felon.
Besides my comment below, I would add that another unintended consequence of the criminalization of politics is the plummeting quality of public servants. Newt Gingrich failed to consider this in his impeachment of Bill Clinton. In Gingrich's Jacksonian smash-mouth fervor, he didn't even consider that adequate remedies existed for Clinton's perjury AFTER he left office. The long term was result was the abandonment of the US political process by anyone that normal people would consider remotely normal, humane or decent. Pelosi, Trump, Biden -- the list goes on. These people are hardly fit for a zoo, much less electoral politics and leading a great nation. Add in the rise of agitprop fundraising grifters, internet bubble *journalism*, and a collapse in civic instruction and virtues, and the public square has become a tragic spectacle.
I appreciate this article; as someone who was very much in favor of banning Trump from office, it gave me pause to go back and reconsider my thoughts, and that is certainly worth doing. I'll address that at the end.
While I appreciate the article, I'm uncertain overall as to the conclusion of this piece. It seems a bit unfocused. In the top sections, it posits some relative certainty that the power to disqualify is dangerous and should be banned or very limited, and also mixes pragmatic concerns (issues of damage to democracies' functions) with moral / ethical considerations (is it "fair" to disqualify someone) without explicitly addressing issues distinctly; I think both are valid considerations, but they are separate. In the final argument, it doesn't commit to much: "it should be delicately handled if we care about democracy." That's vague to the point of incoherence.
The middle sections are a summary of various disqualifications internationally. Each one is presented as a separate case, and very little analysis has been done to categorize them, compare / contrast them, or show how they lead to a specific set of conclusions and / or dangers, and what aspects of those are universal as opposed to what are very particular to that time and place.
If the point of this piece is that we should use the tools of democracy -- many of which can damage democracies badly -- carefully, the only response is a chorus of "well duh." I'd love to see a lot more analysis on the specific set of issues that arise, how we can learn from the rest of the world's examples, and what specifically it looks like to use disqualification powers "delicately."
Regarding my thoughts on Trump: I still think he should have been convicted and disqualified from federal office. He is, I hope, an outlier -- equal parts pugnacious, mendacious, and administratively incompetent, yet having a keen sense of the appeal of the appearance of a certain type of strength and a cracking ability to project it. However, that's not why he should be disqualified; he should be disqualified because from run up to the election, and then from election night to nearly inauguration, he repeatedly claimed to have won the election by a landslide and been the victim of massive fraud without providing any evidence of his claims. He did this for months. If one is charitable, one might say "lied" is not the right word, because Trump actually believed his own words, but at this point, I'm done with psychoanalyzing Trump. He was making very large claims of massive fraud with woefully insufficient evidence to support them. That is grossly irresponsible and it is corrosive to democracy. A person willing to do that has no business in public office.
A very good case could be made to ban the Democratic Party as Germany did with National Socialism. From the days of Calhoun's slavery apologetics and Jackson banning abolitionist material in the federal mail to Ft. Sumter to Jim Crow and Woodrow Wilson's segregation to Japanese internment and Little Rock, right up to Obama's FISA abuse and Pelosi's misuse of impeachment (we do not have a no confidence vote parliamentary system, Nancy, you actually need a crime) and the party line vote to make the District of Columbia a state (in direct violation of the Constitution), the Democrats have a 200 year history of Revanchism and revolution against our Constitutional order. They have never accepted the protections and promises of the Constitution. They have never accepted their loss in the Civil War. They fought for 100 years to turn back the Civil War amendments and reinstate institutional racism in America and now via CRT and reductionist ideologies are intent on returning to segregation and scapegoating. After a brief post-war flirtation with decency and patriotism (Truman, JFK, et al), the Democrats have now turned once again toward a full force assault on the Constitution, our democracy, and the promise of individual liberty. No alliance is too shady for them to consider. No process is too sacred for them to subvert if they can get their way. Sorry, time to ban the Democrats. We've given them way too many chances.
See how this works.
Brazil's recent politics have another case of disqualification that didn't sink in well: president Dilma's impeachment in 2016.
Due to controversial motivations initially, followed by the election of president Bolsonaro (which could not be predicted at the time) the event has been understood as a soft / constitutional / parliamentary coup" by a large portion of the country. It seems to be a landmark event to comprehend the nation's growing political polarization and its lack of trust in institutions.
Lula and Bolsonaro are “equally controversial figures”? Absolute lunacy.