However, the predominant argument against removing Trump from the ballot is its supposed impact on democratic ideals. The just way, opponents argue, would be to leave the decision of whether Trump ought to be the presidential candidate up to the voters. If not, Trump will become a political martyr for millions of Americans and stir the possibility of civil unrest and political violence.
But if one believes Trump has betrayed the country – and he did – then politics should not stop the law from holding him accountable. This is particularly because politics is why we’re in this position in the first place.
If the Senate had done its job during Trump’s second impeachment, he would have been barred from public office. Then majority leader Mitch McConnell agreed that Trump was responsible for inciting the Capitol violence, but he and 42 other Republican senators acquitted Trump nonetheless for partisan reasons.
02:50
Donald Trump should face criminal charges, says January 6 riot panel
Donald Trump should face criminal charges, says January 6 riot panel
Now, in 2024, the correct question to ask – should the Supreme Court uphold the rulings – is what poses the greater threat to the country: a second Trump term or the erosion of his supporters’ trust in democracy? The answer in this case is clearly the former.
Let’s face it: many Trump supporters have already lost their faith in US democracy. Many of them believe the “ Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen from him. They see Trump as the last line of defence protecting hard-working American patriots.
They will provide Trump carte blanche, no matter what he’s accused or found guilty of. Those who believe these supporters could be brought back into the system or even reality are mistaken. Their loyalty is not based on a political track record or the Constitution but rather a cult-like following. Taking Trump off the ballot would merely confirm their preconceived notions.
The alternative to alienating his supporters, however, would be a nightmare. The world did not end with the first Trump presidency and most institutions held, but there are distinctive differences why Trump 2.0 will not be Trump 1.0.
For instance, Trump spent his first term surrounded by conventional conservatives who took their oath in the Constitution seriously. However, in his next administration, the adults in the room will be replaced by sycophants willing to execute any order put in front of them. Trump is reportedly already vetting potential candidates, with the main criterion being unconditional loyalty – to Trump rather than the Constitution.
When Trump won in 2016, his primary objective was to enrich himself via the office of the presidency. Next time, his focus will be on retaliation. He will politicise and weaponise the justice system and use it to go after his enemies. This includes his overarching plan to stay out of jail.
Trump still owns the Republican Party, but Elise Stefanik waits in the wings
Trump also no longer hides his proclivity for authoritarianism. He’s always had a weak spot for strongmen, and now he’s increasingly open about his plans of hollowing out the justice system and the intelligence agencies, threatening judges or generals while continuing to put a target on the media’s back. Most authoritarians in history used the same playbook to secure their power.
Ask yourself this: can you see Trump giving illegal orders to the military to suppress any dissent that arises when he overthrows the current order? He’s already said he would use the military within the US, and after his election loss he considered invoking martial law.
The best case for a Trump 2.0 presidency is one in which the political apparatus is paralysed by his quest for revenge, the inaptitude of the people around him and the legal battles he’ll be engaged in. The worst case, however, is a dictatorship in which Trump renders the Constitution obsolete for future generations.
03:28
Mugshot taken of Donald Trump in US presidential 1st after he surrenders in Georgia election case
Mugshot taken of Donald Trump in US presidential 1st after he surrenders in Georgia election case
Any damage that would be done to democracy by not allowing Trump to stand for election is clearly the lesser evil if the alternative is a country in which a president can attempt a coup, get away with it and then abuse the office to dodge justice and seek revenge. This must be prevented, for the good of the United States and the good of the world.
This would be the first time the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential candidate from an election. However, it is equally unprecedented for a sitting US president to attempt to remain in office after an election that he clearly lost.
Trump tried to cheat the system before. Now the system needs to prevent a more devastating second attempt.
Thomas O. Falk is a UK-based independent journalist and political analyst
Denial of responsibility! Chronicles Live is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – chronicleslive.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.
