I'll be blunt. Democrats help "normalize" Trump if we wait for an election to hold him accountable
To be clear, it is not yet certain that Democrats won't move to impeach Trump in the House rather than leave it for voters to decide whether he's committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" sufficient to remove him from office. But some prominent Democratic voices have argued that "impeachment " would be a divisive course of action that could complicate Democratic Party chances prior to the 2020 elections. And the clock keeps ticking.
Not formally moving toward impeachment of Trump shuts down the prescribed constitutional remedy for extraordinary Presidential misconduct, and punts Trump's behavior to the realm of politics as usual; opposing views on issues litigated via an election: Those who support Trump vote for him, those who don't vote against him. Which is what American voters do under normal circumstances every four years. We choose between (almost invariably) two individuals who are presumed to be at least arguably qualified to become or remain President.
But someone found to have committed significant unlawful acts is not qualified to be President. Someone who advances unconstitutional means of pursuing an agenda is not qualified to be President. There are distinct legal and constitutional checks on either of those behaviors It is normal for voters to litigate via elections which set of policy objectives they prefer, and/or who they more trust with the Presidency. But for our democracy and system of law to prevail in the future as it has so far since our nation's founding, elections should not be expected to decide whether lawful or illegal actions are preferred, or whether constitutional or unconstitutional means should be pursued by a President.
If a President of the United States commits crimes they must be investigated and documented and judged to the extent that our legal system allows. It should not be seen as subject to a public referendum. It is law. The average voter can't be expected to have either the time nor access to specialized expertise to serve as a jury in the context of a partisan election campaign where no rules of evidence prevail. Not after those who had all the needed tools chose not to use them. If a President of the United States fails to uphold our Constitution, our Constitution provides a specific remedy for that behavior; the impeachment process. It was not left to the electorate to decide when the Constitution has been violated, and if so whether or not that's OK so long as they support the President who did so. Congress has a prescribed role that it is expected to play when high crimes and misdemeanors have credibly been accused of a President. Not to play that role infers that the grounds do not exist to trigger that obligation.
We are dealing with Donald Trump now yes, but we are also establishing new constitutional norms and precedents if we just leave it to voters to either condone or condemn the undermining of our system of law and our American Constitution. Demagogues flourish in that type of environment, when the most flagrant abuses of power are passed off for voters alone to face or ignore in the heat of a partisan electoral campaign. That leaves treason subject to a popular vote and normalizes whatever behavior is necessary to secure victory at the ballot box.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Also, you have a 'seem' where you meant 'seen' in there ... Just mentioning it cause the rest is perfect, figure you're so close 
Err, wait you already fixed it lol ...
We now believe that there could be no future president who could be worse than Donald Trump - but isn't that what we believed about George W. Bush just a few years back?
Where does the GOP get the idea they can do whatever they want? Gee, I don't know. Maybe when the dems backed down after the 2000 stolen election. Or when Ohio flipped in 2004. Or when we dropped the ball & lost over 900 state seats & governorships. Or when McConnell refused to have a hearing for Garland & the dems went all crickets. Or when Obama knew about Russian meddling in our election but kept quiet because McConnell might politicize it. Gee, I don't know where they got the frickin' idea that they could steal the country & the dems would do little or nothing. I know many people think the Speaker is playing seven dimensional chess but I don't. I haven't seen any real fight in the dems since Johnson. I hope I'm wrong & they start an impeachment inquiry on this president but I wouldn't put money on it.
Regarding action...
Anyone here can list all the ways that the public has taken action, outside the beltway, so that its will and voice are known. Major nationwide polls on issues, approval ratings, demonstrations, protest marches, social media, phone calls, emails, etc.
The way I see it, your use of "We" should be clearer. You can make a case for the Democratic Party "we" in implying slowness of action or "fight."
But the collective "we" of the country, and those of the 'we' who vote, are not establishing anything like "new constitutional norms and precedents, whether they're crimes, flagrant abuses of power or treason" by waiting to vote. Or casting it all out with one election, for that matter.
As I see it, the public is paying attention. The voting part did their bit to make the House a Democratic majority already. They can see that if only one party is trying to rid the country of corruption and treason, but is foiled by one branch and the impotence of another branch (until a "case" comes before it), that the problem can't reflect on the public until the next election.
When the elected who swear their oaths to the constitution are unwilling or unable to do so because of structural impediments to enforcing their actions, then the final, real constitutional norm is vote by the electorate.
The collective "we," including unelected Democrats and all those who did or didn't see this coming (which does include most of Congress, I'd bet), have no other remedies for treason but elections.
I can't buy that elections "normalize" anything about politicians, though, when elections are the major democratic means for removing politicians from office. The public alone has sent over 24 qualified officials to beat this president and reinstate all that's been neutralized or eliminated.
I understand where you're coming from. Much of what you say about the structural problems of applying the Law is true.
But the word "normalizing" can apply to all kinds of contexts that people have no control over. "Normalizing" is not a character flaw, but an adaptive mentality that helps one cope in situations they can't control, whether basic survival, political or historical social situations. It shouldn't have the pathological ring it seems to have here.
What you say about the public "normalizing" is, I think, a label. It's too easily used with such a big country and population, a kind of generalized claim that sounds like a DSM V diagnosis, or about some collective content of their character. It's a label you apply much too soon, over a situation the public never invented, wanted, saw coming, and which they'll probably vote to end, anyway. If they vote for this situation again, then your claim will have validity.
I don't accept that the 80% of America who didn't vote for this president have seen our government's situation the way you do. But in case they do, there's still a voting pattern to establish, which is that, unless the proven stealing of a presidential election happens more than once, nothing about this situation stands as normalized. But we'll see.
It's complicated. And to me, words can clear up or obscure it.
Thanks for all your thoughts on this situation.
