The Romans loved their gladiator games.
I actually have no idea if that's true. Most of what I know about gladiators comes from how they're portrayed in Ridley Scott movies. For all I know, Romans did not actually enjoy seeing innocent people torn apart in the arena by wild animals or what have you.
But, to quote Philip J. Fry, "it's a widely-believed fact!", so we'll run with it.
It seems clear that a huge part of the second Trump administration will be vindictive political prosecution of his "enemies". This was a recurrent campaign theme of his, from proposing "military tribunals" for the likes of Liz Cheney to alleging "COVID crimes" by Anthony Fauci. Willingness -- implicit or explicit -- to engage in such thuggery has been a theme of his early announced appointees, from Kash Patel to Brendan Carr to Pete Hegseth. Concern over such tactics was expressly raised by Joe Biden in his pardon announcement for his son, Hunter. How deep down the list will he go? Unclear, though normalcy will not save you. The hammerfist coming to smash American rule of law is something unprecedented in my lifetime.
These prosecutions will be lawless along every possible dimension. The people driving them won't care about the law. The venues will be selected based on political convenience (I bet one will be amazed at how many of the "crimes" in question will center on the Western District of Texas). The "crimes" themselves either will be frivolous or nakedly selective. It will be undisguised authoritarian thuggery: the apparatus of law enforcement entirely perverted to immunize the president's allies while harassing his enemies (the almost-assured pardon of the January 6 insurrectionists is also part of this story).
I won't here venture a prediction as to how the judiciary will respond to these endeavors. It's possible they'll hold the line, as they largely did in 2020. But it's also the case that in 2024 the conservative legal movement has embraced and assimilated into full-blown MAGAism to a far greater degree than in 2020; even if they don't actively embrace the conspiracism (which they might), one can very easily imagine them hiding behind rules of deference to enable Trump to run wild.
The open question I want to consider, though, is how the public will respond to all of this. Of course, Trump's base will love it -- they've been baying for blood since 2016. And equally obviously, people like me will hate it. But I have a bad feeling -- maybe doom-mongering, maybe not -- that these spectacles of prosecution will go over better than one would think with low-information independents.
The reason isn't because they necessarily have strong opinions that Joe Biden or Anthony Fauci or various military general actually are criminals. Rather, it is a more inchoate desire to see "the powerful" get their comeuppance. It almost doesn't matter whether they're guilty or not; the mere practice of seeing people one is accustomed to thinking of as "above you" laid low, ripped apart by the animals in the arena, is desired in of itself.
Consider what is for me one of the most infuriating aspects of Trump's victory: that he will not be held accountable for his many, many blatant crimes. No sentencing for the New York felony convictions, no consequences for the attempted 2020 insurrection, no pursuit of the document theft case, no nothing. It is maddening, to see such naked abuses of power result in nothing simply because Trump is powerful enough to evade responsibility for anything. If you take that indignant sensation and shear it from any substantive political knowledge, you're just left with the boiling resentment that a vague "they" keep "getting away with it". And the mere performance of going after a "they" can appeal to those resentments -- a fascist essence where the struggle is valuable in of itself, to show oneself to be the tribune of the people.
This suggests that Democrats could have leveraged this same atavistic desire to get at a powerful "them" by, for example, a fast Garland or prosecuting big bankers for the financial crisis or going after Elon Musk. And much like with echo chambers, I'm of two minds on this: torn between thinking that (for better or for worse) this is the strategy that works, versus thinking that it is a bad thing to encourage this sort of political climate (to be clear: I have no quarrel with "going after" big bankers or whoever when they commit crimes, but performatively going after an "enemy" class -- no matter who it is -- untethered by normal rule of law constraints strikes me as bad both morally and also conducive to a political environment that ultimately helps the right).
So once again, I'm at a bit of a loss here. But if we're relying on a natural popular revulsion to politicized sham prosecutions by the Trump administration, I'm not sure we're going to get it. We are going to be entering a very, very dark time.
1 comment:
I think this is an unfortunate side effect of populism. This was the topic of Ezra Klein's podcast last week with a (quite unimpressive) leftist pundit. He extolled the virtues of populism, but really couldn't define it coherently, and Klein had to push him to get to the fact that populism is oppositional. And that creates real problems for the rule of law, which, by nature, has to be impartial.
The parallel to the financial crisis in this post was telling. It's not just MAGA that are driven by a desire to punish their enemies. While anger at Wall Street (broadly speaking) had a real justification in 2008 (where MAGA's all purpose grievance politics, of course, doesn't), it was an underappreciated and impressive part of the Obama administration's response to 2008 that it didn't engage in random prosecutions of various bankers in the aftermath. While there were those who were punished criminally, the key was that all of those cases had very clear and identifiable crimes that were committed. Vague stupidity or irresponsibility or terrible risk management or myopia aren't crimes. And it's easy to go down a dark path when you start looking for ways to prosecute and jail people because something bad happened, rather than jailing them because they committed criminal acts.
In the financial crisis case, even more so because I think the anger there extended beyond your typical leftists who hate "Wall Street" on principle, given the massive crisis that occurred. I guess the operative question now is where that squishy middle goes. In 2009, there might have been a popular groundswell of political prosecutions had Obama's administration not held the line. Yet to be determined whether you can generate a popular groundswell against political prosecutions where the administration is driving rather than holding the line against those prosecutions.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/would-bernie-have-won/id1548604447?i=1000678267396
Post a Comment