By Kevin D. Williamson
Friday, September 05, 2025
Here is a brief and far from exhaustive list of excuses
for, minimizations of, and attempts to change the subject from the abuses and
misbehavior of the Trump administration that should be retired.
1. “What
Donald Trump is doing is not unprecedented.” That is true. It also is
irrelevant in most cases. There are precedents for bribery and murder in
politics, but that doesn’t mean we accept bribery and murder. And if an atomic
bomb were about to go off in your backyard, there would be two precedents for
that, too. As our happy gang discussed on a recent
episode of The Dispatch Podcast, presidents before Donald Trump
have tried to radically and unconstitutionally expand executive power, most
significantly in the cases of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. President
Wilson and his administration dispatched gangs of armed hooligans to attack and
harass critics of the administration, imprisoned political opponents, and
despised the Constitution as a savage relic. President Roosevelt put Americans
into concentration camps and violated constitutional norms to become, in
effect, president for life, spooking Americans to a sufficient degree that they
ratified a constitutional amendment after his death … during his fourth term
… to prevent that from happening again. Maybe President Jackbooted Thugs and
President-for-Life Put ’Em in Camps should not be, in that regard, raised up as
our standards. Most Americans rightly understood the actions of those
presidents as violations of our constitutional order and as aberrations—not as
precedents to excuse future misbehavior by power-hungry presidents.
2. “Donald
Trump is arguably within his technical legal rights to do that outrageous thing
he did.” That one also is true, except when it isn’t—as in the
president’s refusal to enforce the law in the matter of TikTok and his other
clear and obvious violations of the law. You can kill a man in self-defense if
you have reasonable cause to believe that you are in imminent danger of death
or grievous physical harm and that lethal force is the only way to prevent it.
And you can show up at a guy’s front door at 2 a.m., knock on that door, shoot
him in the face when he answers it, then insist that you had reasonable cause
to believe that you are in imminent danger of death or grievous physical harm
and that lethal force is the only way to prevent it. But you’ll go to jail.
Just because there is a justifiable scenario that can be imagined does
not mean we are living in that scenario. Trump’s various “emergencies”—the D.C.
crime emergency, the supposed trade emergency—and other pretexts are no more
defensible than those of that cretin
in Las Vegas who claimed self-defense after he livestreamed himself hunting
down a social-media rival—and his wife—and murdering them. Sure, as the
apologists say: “You can make an argument.” You may do that. But your argument
may also be dumb and unserious and deserve scorn.
3. “The
president hasn’t openly refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling.” No,
I suppose not, but then, O.J. Simpson never vowed to defy a court order,
either. So what? Taking a case to the Supreme Court is a long, expensive,
cumbrous undertaking, and the administration knows that many—indeed, most—of
its daily abuses will never be challenged in court at all, while only a tiny
handful of them will make it to the Supreme Court, where he might even win a
few, as in Chief Justice John Roberts’ inexplicable invention of a presidential
immunity found nowhere in the Constitution. During the first Trump
administration, the president and his henchmen did more or less what they are
doing now, i.e., just throwing everything they want at the wall and seeing what
sticks. The last time around, the administration lost
nearly 80 percent of the court challenges against it, either losing
the case outright or withdrawing the action before it was ruled on. In the
matter of Harvard—or the Fed, or John Bolton, or tariffs—the administration
knows that it can inflict a great deal of harm on people—American citizens, in
many cases—or institutions even if it fails to prevail in court. This is a very
old technique described by the proverb: “The process is the punishment.”
4. “Well,
it’s not actually criminal.” Some of it probably is criminal, but a
lot of Trump’s abuses are not that. So what? There are lots of things a
president can do that are wrong, destructive, evil, unpatriotic, etc., that are
not violations of the criminal law.
This isn’t one random thing after another—it is a
consistent pattern of predictable behavior from a man who already has tried
once to stage a coup d’état.
Trump is the toddler in the backseat of the Family
Truckster who, when told not to touch his brother, holds an index
finger an angstrom away from his sibling’s forehead while bleating, “I’m not
touching you!” All of us—and Trump’s apologists most of all—know exactly what
Trump is doing: He is seeing what he can get away with. He believes that his
supporters and sycophants will accept virtually any degree of misbehavior from
him—that they will celebrate it—and that our institutions are not equipped to
deal with a president who cynically abuses power in this way.
And he is right on both counts.
No comments:
Post a Comment