The Precipice

In movies, tyrants take power explosively. There is a big war, a coup d’etat, or an assassination. Everyone is outraged. Everyone hates the dictator. Tanks roll through the streets as all cry out in terror: NOOOOOOOOOO!

That’s not how it works in real life, where the death of democracy is actually quite boring. Future tyrants get elected in free and fair elections and then work to undermine the freedom and fairness of future elections. And they work to undermine any limits on their own power. It is a long, boring process. There is no flashbulb moment when everyone suddenly realizes democracy is dying. But the result is the same: The leader gains the ability to hold power indefinitely, and the limits on that power are gradually chipped away until none remain.

For the past 75 years, every thoughtful mind has had to grapple with this question: What would you have done if you had been in Germany in the 1930s? The cop-out answer is, “well, I wouldn’t have been a Nazi.” The challenging question is whether you would have done anything. For some, the answer is, “I would have taken to the streets, and I would have protested either until the protests prevailed or I was jailed or killed.” And for even fewer, that’s actually true. Though, if you have never been to a protest, it’s probably not true for you. For most, the real answer is, “not much—I would have quietly opposed the Nazis, but I would have mostly just gone about my life and I wouldn’t really have done anything.”

I have never been to a protest. I’m not knocking it; it’s just not my thing. So, the 1930s Germany question has always bothered me. But a year ago, I found my answer: I would have written. I would have fought by speaking out as clearly and thoughtfully as I could, and I would have then distributed that writing to as many as would read it.

I dislike writing. That’s why I stopped blogging five years ago. I don’t enjoy it. But I can’t live with my answer to the 1930s Germany question being the “not much” answer. So, a year ago, I decided to start writing again.

I can claim a lot of education and at least some expertise in constitutional law, political science, and history. And the situation in the United States today terrifies me. It is not Germany in the 1930s, but it is American’s authoritarian moment. This is what the precipice of authoritarianism looks like. It is not exciting like in the movies. It looks like this.

So, over the past year, I have done my best to explain what history makes clear: We are in an extraordinarily dangerous moment. In every functioning democracy, there are guardrails that prevent one person from acquiring too much power. I have explained how Donald Trump has worked to break down these guardrails:

By undermining the rule of law.

By centralizing power at the federal level at the expense of states.

By threatening the norm of peaceful transitions of power.

And by using police/military forces outside the standard chain of command.

In the movies, tyrants are clearly evil—universally despised. In real life, not so much.

Take Benito Mussolini for example. Mussolini enjoyed a lot of popular support and rose to power using mostly legal means. His supporters caused quite a bit of violence and chaos, and his promise to restore law and order resonated with many people. He sewed division, calling the racial majority group superior and blaming problems on minorities. He won 64% of the vote in the 1924 national Italian election. The next year he dissolved parliament and abandoned any pretense of democracy. Opposition parties objected, but it was too late.

Trump is popular among many Americans. And many of those who dislike him as a person support his tax cuts and judicial appointments. That is to be expected during an authoritarian takeover. No wildly unpopular tyrant has ever been able to seize sufficient power to become a dictator. If you think Trump isn’t that bad, keep in mind that that type of thinking is consistent with most people’s views of every tyrant in history before the tyrant has seized absolute power.

The hallmark of a tyrant is not universal hatred but extreme divisiveness. Would-be dictators inspire great excitement among their supporters and strong hatred from their opponents. As I have explained, Trump has done exactly that, fueling racial divisions in an effort to divide the public.

Another common tactic of tyrants is to gradually erode the rights of the people: The fewer rights the people have, the more power the dictator can wield. And as I have written, Trump has worked to undermine core American freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

Perhaps you think I’m overreacting. That is what people usually think when others warn of catastrophe. When catastrophe is averted (as this one may be) those who warned of it are said to have overreacted. But sometimes catastrophe does strike, and then it is too late. After every catastrophic event, people look back and see plenty of others warning of the coming catastrophe, most of whom were ignored.

And I’m not the only one who is terrified. A massive number of historians and experts in authoritarianism and constitutional law have warned that we are on the verge of disaster.

Nevertheless, polls suggest that we should expect yet another close election. Most people will vote not based on the threat of the death of democracy in America, but based on typical partisan issues: tax policy, gun rights, abortion, healthcare, Supreme Court appointments, etc. That’s preposterous. Whether people realize it in time or not, this election is about whether the American people are willing to accept an authoritarian form of government. Trump has already taken many steps toward tyranny. Now is our opportunity to reject that form of government. It should be a slam dunk. But it won’t be. Look back at history. In virtually every authoritarian takeover of a democracy, there is at least one election where the people had an opportunity to reject the burgeoning tyrant and failed to do so. And in every instance, the populace mostly failed to understand that the central issue in the election was an acceptance or rejection of authoritarian rule. That is what happened in Italy in 1924 and in countless other countries since. America is on the verge of making precisely the same mistake.

Look, I know what you’re thinking: “But I REALLY care about [issue X].” For me, that issue is the Supreme Court. I follow the Supreme Court as closely as anyone, but, frankly, I’m not that concerned about the open seat right now. Do you think President Trump would comply with a Supreme Court order if he could get away with ignoring it? Of course not. He has shown time and again that he will do whatever his power allows him to do, democratic norms be damned. Is the Supreme Court important? In normal times, absolutely. But these are not normal times. One seat on the Supreme Court pales in comparison to the threat of authoritarianism. As does literally every other issue. Care about tax policy? Maybe you like Trump’s tax policy now, but what happens when we no longer have free and fair elections and you have no say over tax policy at all? We need to hold onto democracy first. Then we can go back to arguing about the details.

When I began this series of blog posts a year ago, I said I would vote for whichever candidate had the best chance of defeating Trump. My reasoning was simple: Every candidate other than Trump respected democratic principles, and that distinction makes the decision easy. It is now clear that Joe Biden has the best chance of defeating Trump. I don’t really care about Biden’s positions on healthcare, taxes, or the Supreme Court, and neither should you. If Biden ever runs against an opponent who also respects democratic principles, let’s debate those issues. For now, they are irrelevant.

I don’t find Biden exciting or inspiring. Here is how I think of Biden: If you were to take all the characteristics of Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, throw them in a bag, and randomly pull enough out to form just one person, the result would be Biden. There were a lot of flaws with the 90s and 2000s, but they were a lot better than the last four years. At least we weren’t worried about an authoritarian takeover of our governmental system back then.

A vote for Biden is a vote to step back from the precipice of tyranny. A vote for Trump is an acceptance of authoritarian government. Not voting or voting for a third party is a shrug, the equivalent of the cop-out answer to the 1930s Germany question. I hate to sound hyperbolic. Those who have followed my writing for the past decade know I’m not prone to hyperbole. The problem is that so much is at stake in this election that to accurately describe it is necessarily to sound hyperbolic. It’s that important.

Trump The Divider

On the cusp of World War II, FDR brought Americans together to support the difficult war effort that was to come. During the Civil War, Lincoln’s dogged resolve to hold the union together was perhaps the single greatest factor in determining the outcome.

And, more recently, after the September 11 terrorist attacks, George W. Bush worked to unite the country as it grappled with how to respond. Bush could have politicized the attack, but he erred on the side of uniting the public (by, among other things, refusing to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism”).

Why? Because that is what American presidents do. There is a long history of American presidents seeking to unite the country in times of crisis. It goes all the way back to George Washington, who constantly warned against divisiveness and political factions.

And this, my friends, is a time of crisis. We are in the midst of the worst global pandemic in a century, a major recession, large-scale protests, and vigilantes taking matters into their own hands. If this is not a crisis, I don’t know what is.

But President Trump certainly has not sought to unite the American people. He has repeatedly gone out of his way to amplify divisions between Americans. Not only has he compared Democrats to Nazis, but he has gone so far as to encourage violence against peaceful protesters. He calls his political opponents names. He mocks anyone who disagrees with him.

These are not the actions of a person trying to unite a country.

Because Trump has thumbed his nose at the long history of American presidents seeking to unite rather than divide the public during times of crisis, he is, yet again, an un-American president.

Trump’s Secret Police

As a country, we continue to walk the road to authoritarianism, so let’s keep walking that road on this blog as well. This month, we visit something that every would-be dictator needs: a personal army.

There seems to be a misconception that dictators rise in places without laws: They do whatever they want—arrest protesters, jail political opponents, harass ethnic minorities—because there are no laws that prevent them from doing so. But that’s not true. All the countries you might think of when you think of authoritarian governments have constitutions and legal systems that ban leaders from doing these things. The difference between those countries and genuine democracies is that in those countries, the leaders are able to get around the rules, and they frequently do that by using secret police (or private armies, or paramilitary forces, or whatever else you want to call them).

When Putin sent troops into Crimea, he used unidentifiable paramilitary forces. Turkey’s president Erdogan has used unidentifiable forces to beat up protesters. So did Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. And so have many others. They do this so they can have plausible deniability. If anyone tries to challenge the legal authority of the leader to suppress protests or harass political opponents, the leader denies giving any orders. The leader says these people were acting on their own or beyond their authority. It is difficult to prove otherwise because if the people arrested cannot identify who arrested them, there is nobody to take to court. It is a common tactic among authoritarian leaders.

And Trump is using it. When the protests over the murder of George Floyd began, Trump almost immediately start talking about sending in the military. But he couldn’t do that because it is illegal. Nevertheless, in Portland, he figured out a way to, at least arguably, get around the law. He sent in a quasi-military force, with unidentified troops, making arrests without warrants and without probable cause, by throwing people into unmarked vehicles and taking them to unknown locations. Local authorities did not ask for and do not want these federal forces there. And, yes, this is all very much illegal. But it will take courts some time to sort it out.

In fact, now that these forces have left Portland, it will take even longer. If they had remained, Trump risked a decisive court decision against the use of these forces. But since the forces have now left Portland, Trump is free to deploy them elsewhere whenever he wants. Surely, the cities where he deploys them next will object and try to take him to court, but courts take time. And in the meantime, Trump gets to go on pretending he is Putin. Trump’s use of secret police is another reason why he is an un-American president.

A Threat to the Founders’ Greatest Achievement

Name a country before 1776 that had peaceful transitions of power between successive leaders not based on heredity. It’s pretty hard, right? Yet, the not only did the Founders create one, but it has lasted for more than 200 years. This string of peaceful transitions of power is the single greatest achievement of the Founders.

The peaceful transitions of power norm has faced very serious threats. Shortly after the Civil War, when there was still immense animosity between the two sides, Democrat Samuel Tilden expected to win the 1876 Presidential Election. Tilden appeared to win the popular vote, but neither he nor Republican Rutherford B. Hayes had enough votes to win the Electoral College, due to contested results in four states. A commission set up by Congress to determine the winner was leaning toward Hayes. What did Tilden do? The union was still fragile. He could have blown it up again by alleging fraud, by accusing his opponents of cheating by casting ineligible votes or by improper vote counting. But he conceded. He knew what damage continuing to contest the election would do, and he conceded.

Al Gore beat George W. Bush in the popular vote in 2000, and he was making up votes in the Florida recount when the Supreme Court interrupted the recount with one of the most questionable decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Gore’s supporters encouraged him to keep up the fight, and he certainly could have done so. But he stepped aside for the good of the country.

And then, there is Richard Nixon. The peaceful transitions of power norm even survived Richard Nixon. The election of 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was a close one. Kennedy came out ahead, but rumors quickly spread that Kennedy supporters had manipulated the results in Illinois and Texas. Nixon’s supporters urged him to contest the results, but he conceded, saying, “our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis.” That was Richard F’ing Nixon! The same man who later claimed that as president, he was above the law!

So, what would it look like for the peaceful transitions of power norm to come to an end? Well, nobody is just going to randomly refuse to concede or refuse to leave the White House. No, it would look something like this:

A president narrowly wins a first term, causing immediate concern about winning reelection. He spends the next four years undermining the public’s trust in the institutions that support peaceful transitions of power—the court system, the media, and the rule of law. As the election nears, the more he slips in the polls, the more openly he suggests that fraud is likely. He also casually jokes about the possibility of staying in office for three or four terms or staying in office even if he loses because he still won the votes of the “real Americans.” He jokes about breaking the rules to lay the foundation for breaking the rules later. The closer the election gets and the more clearly the polls show him down, the more he tries to undermine public trust in the election results and tries to normalize the possibility that he could stay in office even after losing the election. When the election happens, he loses, and he alleges large-scale fraud. There are investigations and court cases. He claims anyone in the media reporting that he lost is part of a conspiracy to deprive the rightful winner of the presidency. He claims the other side is trying to remove him from office by coup. People aren’t sure who to believe. Since courts are slow, public opinion cements before the courts rule, and his supports believe he is the legitimate winner. Eventually, courts rule against him, but he claims the judges are part of the conspiracy. He remains in the White House past January 20, and orders the Secret Service and the Marine Corps to defend him against his opponent, who he claims is leading an insurrection. The Joint Chiefs of Staff meet and probably decide that they must follow the dictates of the courts over the orders of the person occupying the White House. The outgoing president is removed from the White House by force at the hands of the military and Secret Service. A large fraction of the country never accepts the new president and always believe that the rightful president was removed by coup. And even though the military installed the rightful president, the damage is done. The peaceful transitions of power norm has been shattered. There is now precedent for any loser to contest election results, leading to more violent transitions and power grabs in the future, precisely how democracies become dictatorships.

That is a long road, but Trump is starting to walk it. This article, and many others like it, outline the steps Trump has taken down this road. He is joking about overstaying his constitutionally allowed term and he is already claiming that election fraud is likely. Watch what he says and does over the next few months. I would bet anything that he will continue to do and say things that undermine the public’s trust in this fall’s election. He might argue at some point that it should be delayed due to the pandemic, and that he should be able to stay in office until a safe election can be held. He may claim that his remaining in office is more important than constitutional norms and that the system is so broken and corrupt that even if he loses the election, he should be able to stay in office. When he does these things ask yourself, what is his goal? His goal is to pave the road for staying in office even if he loses. He is working to undermine the Framers’ greatest achievement. And that is another reason why he is an un-American President.

An All Too American President

This is number seven in a series of blog posts about how Donald Trump is fundamentally un-American. So far, I have used the word “American” to describe the strong, positive principles the United States was founded on and has observed ever since—Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, The Rule of Law, Freedom of Religion, and Federalism.

But the word “American” has a negative side as well. It is hard to look at the history of the United States and not see racism everywhere—slavery, Manifest Destiny, Chinese exclusion, Jim Crow, The Wall. To be sure, many Americans in 2020 are not racist, but the history of our country nevertheless makes it clear that racism, at least thus far, is one of the quintessential characteristics of America.

This past week, George Floyd, a black man, was killed while in police custody when an officer kneeled on his neck for about nine minutes while Floyd repeatedly cried “I can’t breathe.” Alone, this incident would be tragic and infuriating. But this is not an isolated incident. Police officers have repeatedly killed unarmed black men in recent years. And they were killing them before that as well; the difference is that with cell phone cameras everywhere, the officers are now getting caught more often. And yet, police officers rarely get convicted for these murders because of a system designed to protect the officers: a code of silence that makes fellow officers unlikely to tell the truth about a bad shooting, the fact that local prosecutors who work regularly with police departments and are friendly with them are the ones who make decisions about whether to prosecute the officers, and an overarching white juror mentality that police officers are inherently trustworthy and good people (even if, you know, a video clearly shows them murdering an unarmed black man).

So, after yet another entirely preventable tragedy in which a black man lost his life to police brutality, people got mad. Many protested peacefully. But years of peaceful protests following the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police officers have solved little. Thus, some protested violently. I don’t endorse violent protests, but I can certainly understand them in a case like this. There is a system in place that gives far more protection to police officers who have all the power and have repeatedly used it to kill unarmed black men than to the citizens the officers are supposed to protect. That’s bullshit. If that fact doesn’t fill you with rage, it should. And it’s great if you can channel that rage peacefully, but if you can’t, and you channel that rage into breaking stuff, I think that’s understandable. Trevor Noah said this part better than I can:

Donald Trump called the protesters “thugs” and threatened their lives, saying “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

I wish I could call Trump’s comments un-American. But they’re not. In 2020, it is still very American to look at a group of people who are so frustrated by continuing injustice that they risk life and liberty to draw attention to the problem and to dismiss them as thugs, instead of saying “maybe if they’re this angry, the situation they are angry about needs to change.”

Nevertheless, throughout American history, there has been a persistent strain of advocacy for justice. This Abraham Lincoln quote works shockingly well in 2020:

“As a nation, we began by declaring ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it ‘all men are created equal except negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read ‘all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty—Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

Lincoln believed that the words “all men are created equal” from the Declaration of Independence created a social contract that—although it had not been fulfilled when written—was something America was bound to strive for. In Lincoln’s words:

“[The founders] simply meant to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances would permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for a free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere.  The assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ was of no practical use to our effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the Declaration of Independence as a promissory note in his “I Have a Dream” speech. The promise was that all people had rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He said that as of 1963, America had defaulted on the note, but that African Americans refused to believe that America’s vaults of opportunity were bankrupt.

Barack Obama spoke of the Declaration of Independence as a document that was “eventually signed but ultimately unfinished,” as it was “stained by America’s original sin of slavery.” In 2008, Obama spoke of the pursuit of justice as “the long march of those who came before us.”

So, although racism is wrapped up in what it means to be American, the narrative can change over time. Eventually, perhaps enough Americans can join Lincoln, King, and Obama on the road to justice. If an overwhelming majority of Americans do that, perhaps the word “American” can be associated with “a fierce belief in justice” instead of “racism.” The foundation of that societal principle is embedded in our history. But to embrace it as a society, we must make many changes, the first of which is police reform. There are ways to prevent murders like Floyd’s. All killings at the hands of police officers should be investigated by independent prosecutors with backgrounds as civil rights advocates, not by local prosecutors friendly to police departments. Penalties for police officers who fail to report the full truth after incidents of police misconduct should be so massive that they can overcome the code of silence. Those are just two badly needed changes. There are more. And they urgently need to be made.

But Donald Trump will not lead the way to this redefinition of the word “American.” He will dismiss Floyd’s death as an isolated incident. He will draw everyone’s attention to the damage caused by the riots instead of the causes that sparked them. He will try to move the country past Floyd’s death, changing as little as possible. And that is why, this month, Trump is an all too American president.

A President Against Federalism

Yet another core American principle is federalism—the separation of power between states and the federal government. Or, in the words of some tea party enthusiasts, “STATES’ RIGHTS!”

As we all learned in school, the founders intended a sharing of power between the states and the federal government. The states have general power: They can do what they want so long as they don’t trample the people’s constitutional rights. The federal government has superior power to the states, but only in limited areas: If a federal law and a state law conflict, the federal law wins, but only if it is in an area that the federal government is allowed to act.

But President Trump doesn’t care about any of that. He recently (incorrectly) claimed that he has “total authority” to order states to start or stop using shelter-in-place rules. He said, “the president of the United States calls the shots. [The states] can’t do anything without the approval of the president.” That is not some sort of mistake. That is the president claiming WAY more power than he has. Words matter. Trump might as well say, “the Constitution no longer applies here. I have decided to suspend it.” That’s what he’s saying. He doesn’t consider himself bound by the Constitution. He doesn’t consider himself bound by the basic framework the founders set up.

And this is new and terrifying because we have never really seen a president who has no real outlook at all when it comes to federalism. People in the US have disagreed about federalism since our founding. Some people believe the federal government now has far more power than was ever intended by the founders. Others believe that strong limits on federal power are outdated because the founders intended the federal system to adapt to changing circumstances (like globalization) and allow the federal government to take on more power (within limits) as needed. Trump, on the other hand, just doesn’t care.

He doesn’t care. He is uninterested in the whole debate. He just says whatever suits him in the moment. Trump frequently talks about the importance of states’ rights. But he doesn’t actually believe in a more constrained federal government. If he did, he would never claim absolute power to order shelter-in-place rules. That is an absolutely absurd level of power for a states’ rights advocate to claim. He is also not really a believer in the expansion of federal power within constitutional limits. If he were, he wouldn’t spend so much time talking about states’ rights.

Instead, Trump is none of the above. He just doesn’t care. The whole debate, the underlying principles—they are all academic and meaningless to him. He doesn’t care what the founders intended. He doesn’t care what the constitutional limits are, or what they should be. The common thread is that he doesn’t care. He just does and says what he wants.

And look, I know that many Americans don’t care that much about the academic argument that goes all the way back to Hamilton versus Jefferson about the appropriate balance between states’ rights and the power of the federal government either. And that’s fine. So long as the general constitutional structure remains in place, it doesn’t really impact people’s daily lives. But Trump’s outlook is that it doesn’t matter whether that constitutional structure remains in place at all. He would just as soon undermine it to get his way. And that is dangerous. The structure is there to protect the liberty of the people. Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed about what the balance between federal power and state power should look like, but they (and everyone else) agreed that there should be a balance.

Trump does not. And that is still another reason why Trump is an un-American president.

A President Against Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Religion is such an obviously fundamental American principle that I won’t spend much time discussing its history. It’s the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Millions of people have come to America primarily for the right to practice the religion of their choice.

But Trump doesn’t believe in Freedom of Religion. He constantly uses the laws (when he can) and his amplified voice as President to attack members of one particular religion: Islam. Instead of writing a full blog post this month, I encourage you to take a look at this timeline of Trump’s record on Islam (and the embedded links to each story).

One cannot be a pro-Freedom of Religion president and an Anti-Islam president at the same time.

Trump is the latter.

A President Against the Rule of Law

The single most crucial principle that guided the Founders was the rule of law: the principle that laws must apply to everyone, including those who enforce and pass them. It’s a simple idea, but it has profound effects. It—by its very definition—rules out tyranny. A tyrant is not very tyrannical if the same laws apply to him that apply to everyone else. The rule of law promotes fairness and justice: People cannot be arbitrarily jailed or fined; they must be found in court to have committed a crime—a crime that is defined with specificity and that is defined the same way for all people. And the rule of law promotes economic growth. If you buy a house, start a business, or buy stock, you can be confident that you will not be arbitrarily deprived of your investment. Why? Because you can always go to court to enforce your rights. But that’s only true because we live in a country that respects the rule of law. If we did not, fewer people would buy houses, start businesses, or buy stock. The rule of law is a significant reason why the United States developed the largest, most robust economy in the history of the world.

Once the founders wrote the principle of the rule of law into the structure of the Constitution, the importance of the principle endured throughout American history:

“The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Commitment to the rule of law provides a basic assurance that people can know what to expect whether what they do is popular or unpopular at the time.” – Sandra Day O’Connor

“President Ronald Reagan used to speak of the Soviet constitution, and he noted that it purported to grant wonderful rights of all sorts to people. But those rights were empty promises, because that system did not have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and enforce those rights.” – John Roberts

Donald Trump constantly works to undermine the rule of law. Trump’s main impeachment defense was that he has the power to decide that his own reelection is in the national interest and as a result, he can use the tools of foreign policy (like withholding aid to other countries) in exchange for help getting reelected—even if he broke the law in the process.  Yes, his lawyers actually made that argument. His lawyers have also argued that he cannot be charged with a crime while in office for accepting a bribe. Can’t be charged, can’t be impeached. He arguing that he was above the law. The central tenant of the rule of law is that nobody is above the law.

He also doesn’t want the law to apply equally to everyone. He has pressured the justice department to go easy on his friends and campaign contributors. And he has pressured the justice department to go after his political enemies. He has put so much pressure on judges to decide cases his way that Chief Justice Roberts had to step in to defend the rule of law.

Respect for the rule of law has been so central an American value throughout our history that it hasn’t been controversial for more than 200 years. It didn’t have to be. Nearly all Americans believed in the rule of law. Not anymore. Trump wants a system that revolves around him. His friends get preferential treatment. His enemies get punished.

And that is yet another reason why Trump is the un-American president.

A President Against Freedom of the Press

This is part three of my series on why Donald Trump’s presidency is profoundly un-American. Part 1 showed how Trump’s worldview conflicts with American principles. Part 2 displayed Trump’s disdain for freedom of speech. Now, let’s talk about freedom of the press.

The Framers believed freedom of the press was among the most essential freedoms. The First Continental Congress wrote that freedom of the press was a necessary ingredient for democracy, as well as “the advancement of truth, science, orality, and arts.” They found it essential for democracy because it has the ability to “shame or intimidate” oppressive governmental officials into “more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.” As William Blackstone, a legal scholar who had a huge influence on the Framers, put it, “The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state.”

This is true, and authoritarian leaders throughout history have known it. One of Putin’s first priorities as president was to secure control of the national television stations. In Iran, 860 journalists have been imprisoned or executed since 1979. In Cuba, the constitution prohibits privately-owned media. The Saudis murdered a journalist for criticizing the government. Pick an authoritarian state and you will find criticism and abuse of the media by the government.

In this and in many other ways, Trump fits in with the authoritarian leaders of the world, not the American founders or the champions of democracy. Trump portrays the media as a problem for America. He call the media “the enemy of the people.” Trump’s constant media bashing has caused the US to plummet in the World Press Freedom Index. In 2019, for the first time ever, the US ranked in a group of “problematic” countries in that index.

Trump’s style of criticizing the media mirrors the way authoritarian leaders around the world have always attacked the free press. Here is an analysis of Trump’s authoritarian-like attempts to discredit the Mueller report. Here is a comparison of some Trump tweets to the tactics of authoritarian leaders in Hungary, the Philippines and Italy. And here is a comparison between Trump’s campaign rhetoric and the early strategies of other authoritarian leaders.

Freedom of the press should not be controversial in the United States. It was critical to the Founders, it is enshrined in the First Amendment, and it has long been an essential difference between democratic and authoritarian countries. Perhaps the fact that it has been so uncontroversial in the US for so long is the reason Trump can get away with attacking it without too many alarm bells going off.

And, look, I’m not wild about the media sometimes either. Most of the big media companies are annoying and have agendas. I get that. But Trump’s solution to a sometimes-annoying media would be to limit freedom of the press, and that’s not okay. That is not American. That’s what authoritarian states do. And that is another reason why Trump is an un-American president.

A President Against Freedom of Speech

This is part two of my series on why Donald Trump’s presidency is profoundly un-American. In part 1, I identified a wide range of ways in which Trump’s worldview conflicts with American principles. Let’s look at specifics, starting with the First Amendment.

Trump wants to limit freedom of speech. He has repeatedly argued that we should “open up our libel laws.” In other words, he wants to make it easier for politicians to sue their critics. In Trump’s ideal world, he could sue anyone who writes anything about him that he deems false.

Right now, Trump can’t really do that because of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Freedom of Speech Clause to mean that the general public has a lot of leeway when criticizing public figures. That is true because  the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment guarantees strong protections for freedom of speech. After reviewing the history of freedom of speech in the United States, back to the time of the framers, the Supreme Court found a “background of profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

Trump’s view of Freedom of Speech is profoundly un-American. Strong protection of freedom of speech is one of the most quintessentially American values. It’s so uncontroversial that it doesn’t even come up in political debates. And yet, Trump wants to limit it. He wants to stifle debate.

Consider what it would be like to live in a world where Trump gets his way and libel laws are expanded: Trump doesn’t like this series of blog posts I’m writing, so he sues me. Then he sues 1,000 other bloggers like me, along with the New York Times and Stephen Colbert. We would be unable to easily get courts to dismiss those lawsuits. The Times and Colbert would fight and possibly win because they have the money to fight, but the bloggers and smaller media organizations probably would not. Because Trump has more money, he could stifle a lot of criticism just by filing the lawsuits. It would be too expensive to fight them.

What countries have strong libel laws? Russia is one example. Putin strengthened libel laws there in 2012 and has repeatedly used them to attack journalists and stifle criticism. Turkey is another example, where Prime Minister Erdogan “sued perhaps hundreds of private individuals for insulting him.” Similarly, leaders use libel laws to repress freedom of speech in Malaysia, Cameroon, Croatia, Belarus, Cambodia, and Ukraine. Bastions of freedom, these are not. Yet, these are the examples Trump wants the United States to follow.

And that is Exhibit A of what makes Trump an un-American president.