Democracy 2024: You Say You Want a Revolution
The election, the playbook, and the assignment.
Preface (Please Read)
I wrote the penultimate draft of the following essay before Saturday’s shooting of the former President and three innocent bystanders. I considered canceling it in light of the gunman’s heinous act, but I decided on a brief delay in its publication instead.
Political violence is no way to determine the outcome of an election. Just as many of us condemned the violence that took place on January 6, 2021, we must, and I do, condemn what happened at the Pennsylvania rally. Whatever side of the political divide we are on, and however strongly we feel about it, we must decide our elections at the ballot box, not at gunpoint. Despite my misgivings about the former President, I’m glad he survived the attack on his life and that he was not more seriously injured, and I wish him a speedy and full recovery. Elections, like transitions, must be peaceful. That’s a lesson that I hope comes out of these events.
There are two principal reasons I decided not to cancel the post. First, the information and arguments I lay out have not changed since I wrote it and remain timely and important. Second, its central theme is consistent with one of the takeaways from Saturday’s shooting: namely, that overheated political rhetoric creates an increased risk of political violence. Although that message is political, it also has taken on greater importance these last two days.
My focus here is on the provocative rhetoric a right-wing group is using against the political Left. I understand that some believe the Left’s rhetoric also has become unacceptably incendiary. Perhaps so, and if it is, I may write about that at another time. But this week, with the Republican National Convention about to start, I have chosen to write about the false and hateful rhetoric contained in the Foreword to Project 2025, a lengthy and detailed conservative roadmap to making sweeping changes to the functioning of American government.
Like most people, I have not had time to read Project 2025 in detail, nor have I yet tried to compare it to the recently released Republican Party Platform. What I have done is dive into its 17-page Foreword, entitled “A Promise to America.” That opening section seeks to lay out the justification for the governmental overhaul detailed in the pages that follow. It was written by Kevin D. Roberts, President of The Heritage Foundation. He is the man who recently captured attention by such ominous statements as “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the Left allows it to be,” and “The new Left we now face is not simply nationalistic in character. It is totalitarian in its mission. It is expansionist, imperialistic, and practically jihadist in its theocratic fanaticism.” Will the Republicans who are calling for everyone to tone down their rhetoric please talk to this man about his?
The main point of my post is that voters need to listen (at the conventions and beyond) to what’s being said, to subject what they hear to critical analysis, and then to bring an informed judgment to the voting booth this fall. Most important, they need to discern whether a campaign is appealing to fear and hatred or reason and compassion, and whether it is based on truth or lies.
Above all else, especially in light of the January 6th insurrection and now the July 13th attempted assassination, those who have weapons need to leave them at home and let the election be decided by the voters, not the shooters. That’s the only way to keep a democracy.
Here’s the post.
The Election
Elections are rarely enjoyed. For most of us, they are only endured.
The election Americans must endure this year is excruciating. It also is exceptional. It pits a former President against a current one, each carrying heavy baggage. One carries a legacy of past losses, immoral behavior, and a criminal conviction. The other carries a low approval rating, the ravages of age, and now faltering support within his party. Many of us have already tuned out and may not vote. Most of the rest are entrenched in their political camps. The election, arguably one of the most important in American history, may well be decided by that tiny fraction of undecided voters who live in swing states. They may be carrying the future of American democracy on their shoulders.
The campaign season begins in earnest today with the opening of the Republican National Convention. Sure, there was a pre-Convention debate between the two presumptive nominees, but anything that happens before each nomination is confirmed at its convention should be considered a warm-up. Otherwise, the conventions themselves are meaningless theater. Of course, a good argument can be made that they are always only theater, but this year may be different, at least on the Democratic side, because of the effort currently underway by some Democrats to bump their President from the ticket. It can’t be a good omen that the Democratic Convention will take place in the same city as the notorious 1968 convention at which all hell broke loose.
What is happening now has all the elements of classic tragedy: two dominant men competing for power, each burdened by serious flaws and battered by forces beyond their control. The outcome of their contest promises to determine the fate of our nation more than at any time in the past 184 years, since the election of Abraham Lincoln that resulted in the South’s secession. And yet millions of Americans, overwhelmed by the political drama of the past eight years, underestimate this election’s significance and plan to sit it out.
This year, Americans will be choosing not just between two fundamentally different candidates for President, but also between two very different directions for our country. That choice is likely to have enormous consequences not just for America, but for the world. When someone casts a ballot in November or earlier (or chooses not to), this is just some of what they will be voting on:
Whether America will lead the way in fighting climate change or continue to prioritize the use of fossil fuels that are among its root causes.
Whether millions of men, women, and children who have arrived in America, many having lived and worked here and contributed to our economy for years, will be forced to leave.
Whether migrant parents arriving at the border will once again have their children ripped from their arms without being given any way to find the children and reunite with them.
Whether the federal government will continue to limit women’s reproductive freedom beyond what the Supreme Court has already accomplished in overturning Roe v. Wade.
Whether politicians and members of the press who criticize the next Administration will be harassed and prosecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Whether all Americans, including children and teachers in public schools, will be forced to submit to a form of religion known as Christian Nationalism.
Whether America will adopt protectionist economic policies that will increase the cost of goods Americans buy.
Whether America will continue to support Ukraine and the freedom of the Ukrainian people or stand back as Russia takes it over, subjects its people to life under a totalitarian regime, and becomes poised for further aggression against Ukraine’s neighboring states.
Whether America will continue to honor its longstanding commitments to its allies around the world or will reject them in favor of alliances with Russia and other authoritarian nations.
Whether the guardrails that protect democracy within our borders will remain in place or will be torn down to further strengthen a minority party’s grip on power.
Whether the Supreme Court will continue to be dominated by a conservative super-majority or will become more balanced with Democratic appointments.
No doubt, my framing of some of these issues reflect my personal judgment, and those who bring a different perspective would frame them differently. But I have tried to present them honestly and I believe that my framing is fair.
The Playbook
But don’t take my word for it. Read the manifesto written by the former President’s allies known as “Project 2025,” or the summaries of the more than 900-page document issued by a number of media outlets, organizations, and writers. And at least read the Foreword to the document. It sets up a false and disturbing narrative of the beliefs and motivations of those who oppose the “Second American Revolution” that the document’s authors are planning to launch.
For example, the Foreword repeatedly refers to “elites,” which has become a code word for Americans (both Democrats and moderate Republicans) who don’t go along with the policies proposed by the new, far-Right wing of the Republican party. It accuses the Left of being “anti-American.” It says the “elites” want to strip everyday Americans of their constitutional authority; don’t believe in American ideals; don’t trust the American people; disdain the Constitution’s restrictions on their ambitions; want to take power away from working families; consider themselves superior to ordinary people; want power with no accountability; and have betrayed the American people. It even describes environmentalism as “not a political cause, but a pseudo-religion meant to baptize liberals’ ruthless pursuit of absolute power in the holy water of environmental virtue.”
Catchy prose, but have you really met anyone on the political Left who is engaged in the “ruthless pursuit of absolute power?” I haven’t.
One can’t read the Foreword without suspecting that the entire project is built on a bed of lies. Its narrative tells rank and file Americans that the Left is determined to seize power and strip them of their autonomy. This alarmist message, portraying the far-Right’s critics as enemies of the people, is presented most succinctly on page 16:
Ultimately, the Left does not believe that all men are created equal—they think they are special. They certainly don’t think all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life. They think only they themselves have such a right along with a moral responsibility to make decisions for everyone else. They don’t think any citizen, state, business, church, or charity should be allowed any freedom until they first bend the knee.
This is not only bizarre hyperbole. It is also scary. It’s the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that drove the former President’s followers to attack the Capitol on January 6th. And it’s completely false.
I’ve lived and worked among thousands, of civically engaged lawyers, judges, educators, and politicians in one of the most Democratic states in the country for more than 40 years. I’ve never seen a hint of evidence that any of them subscribes to the beliefs the Foreword ascribes to them. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary. The people I’ve had the privilege of knowing over all these years, most of whom are Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans, are very patriotic, are dedicated to the principle that all people are created equal, devote their careers and their volunteer activities to protecting and advancing everyone’s individual rights, defend the Rule of Law, care deeply about and support the interests of working families, demand accountability in government, and are fervently pro-Constitution. One has only to look to the policies Democrats adopt and the laws they propose to know that the Foreword’s author is seriously mischaracterizing who they are and what they stand for.
This type of gross mischaracterization is a form of scapegoating. It is part of the authoritarian playbook, designed to unite citizens behind an authoritarian leader by falsely telling them they have a common enemy. It’s the same technique Hitler used to turn German society against the Jews.
(Ironically, the Foreword to Project 2025 cites the late German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his concept of “Cheap Grace” in support of the authors’ polemic against the “elites.” Bonhoeffer was a devout man of deep conscience who was executed by the Nazis because of his participation in a failed plot to assassinate Hitler. I’ve read his famous book, The Cost of Discipleship, multiple times. It’s inconceivable to me that he would have given Project 2025 permission to invoke his name if he were still alive to ask.)
One way to combat authoritarianism is to be attuned to the code words and phrases authoritarians use. “Elites” is one example. So is “extremist.” Using language to dehumanize people, like calling migrants “animals” and political opponents “vermin,” is even more insidious and even more dangerous.
In his little book “On Tyranny,” Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder includes a chapter entitled “Listen for dangerous words.” He says: “Be alert to the use of the words extremism and terrorism. Be alive to the fatal notions of emergency and exception. Be angry about the treacherous use of patriotic vocabulary.”
He goes on to explain:
When tyrants speak of extremists, they just mean people who are not in the mainstream—as the tyrants themselves are defining the mainstream at that particular moment. Dissidents of the twentieth century, whether they were resisting fascism or communism, were called extremists. Modern authoritarian regimes, such as Russia, use laws on extremism to punish those who criticize their policies. In this way the notion of extremism comes to mean virtually everything except what is, in fact, extreme: tyranny.
Ultimately, what most troubles me about what I’ve read so far in Project 2025 is that it introduces its many detailed proposals with an appeal to hate. It is designed to create an atmosphere of fear, turn that fear into hate, and turn that hate into dictatorial power, and, if necessary to achieve that power, violence. We heard that tune reach a crescendo on January 6th and listened to its echo on July 13th. And the drumbeats have only been getting louder.
The Assignment
And so, I have an assignment for all of us.
It is to pay attention, to watch, to read, and to listen. Listen to the words used at the parties’ conventions. Pay attention to the themes expressed. Do the speakers attempt to dehumanize the marginalized? Do they falsely characterize the motivations and intentions of their opponents? Are they engaging in scare tactics? Are they appealing to the best, or the worst, of human nature? Are they trying to stir the crowd to hate the other side or to bring us together? Are they presenting an optimistic vision of our future or a dystopian vision of our present state? Do they intend to advance much needed reforms or to overthrow our government? As you listen, try to discern what is true and what is not, what is motivated by a genuine concern for Americans’ interests and what is motivated by a quest for unprecedented power, and to what extent their words match their real intentions.
And when the conventions are over, keep listening. Kick the tires. Ask the hard questions. Stay tuned and stay engaged.
But whatever you do, please don’t tune this election out. There is far too much at stake.
Oh, and while you’re at it, maybe listen to the Beatles’ song “Revolution.” John Lennon’s response to the radical Left of the 1960s is eerily relevant today.
___________________________________________
Well written and worthy of a thoughtful reading.