General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'll be blunt. Democrats help "normalize" Trump if we wait for an election to hold him accountable [View all]ancianita
(36,055 posts)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.