This books essay was published by the FT on March 1st. The staring match between judges and the White House, and the ongoing purge of non-believers by Trump's Taliban, persuade me to republish it here
Reading John Authers’ comment this morning, one wonders whether the market might, perversely, come to the rescue. Could Trump be facing a Truss moment?
Very interesting piece, Bill. It highlights how important it is to take a hard look at the strength and weakness of our democratic institutions, which are undoubtedly being stressed. In this spirit, while Trump has clear authoritarian tendencies, I feel the threat to democracy is very symmetrical, as I argued shortly after the elections ( https://justthink.substack.com/p/the-ugly-american ) After all, the previous administration enjoyed the near-universal support of legacy and social media, and was no stranger to lawfare. This, in my view, makes your points even more valid and important – and makes me even more keen on reading Sumption’s book. Thanks for another thoughtful and thought-provoking post.
Many thanks Marco, as always for your support and your always interesting thoughts. I do agree that the threat to democracy is not limited to Trump, though I wouldn't go so far as to consider it symmetrical, exactly: no one else has denied election results, nor incited violence as a means to attempt to overturn an election! And I cannot agree that Biden had near-universal support from legacy and social media -- especially the latter, but also "legacy" has to include Fox, Washington Times, WSJ and so much more. I do think histories of the Biden administration will have to answer why under Biden the DoJ was so incompetent at prosecuting Trump for evident criminality, and yet permitted all sorts of foolish lawfare by state AJs alongside. On the Supreme Court, mentioned in your Ugly American piece, the difficulty of the July 2024 immunity decision is that it appeared to count an attempt to overturn Constitutional processes as "official acts": I don't think any other constitution or constitutional law grants a head of state immunity for unconstitutional acts. This may not have been their intention -- they did say that lower courts need to define what is and is not an "official act" -- but it is for the time being the effect of the decision. It has long been recognised by the US and elsewhere that the president should not be targetable by civil or criminal proceedings while in office. But to create so wide definition of "official' as to make the constitution itself appear void is exceptional -- which is what Sumption also argues. my best wishes, as always
Reading John Authers’ comment this morning, one wonders whether the market might, perversely, come to the rescue. Could Trump be facing a Truss moment?
Very interesting piece, Bill. It highlights how important it is to take a hard look at the strength and weakness of our democratic institutions, which are undoubtedly being stressed. In this spirit, while Trump has clear authoritarian tendencies, I feel the threat to democracy is very symmetrical, as I argued shortly after the elections ( https://justthink.substack.com/p/the-ugly-american ) After all, the previous administration enjoyed the near-universal support of legacy and social media, and was no stranger to lawfare. This, in my view, makes your points even more valid and important – and makes me even more keen on reading Sumption’s book. Thanks for another thoughtful and thought-provoking post.
Many thanks Marco, as always for your support and your always interesting thoughts. I do agree that the threat to democracy is not limited to Trump, though I wouldn't go so far as to consider it symmetrical, exactly: no one else has denied election results, nor incited violence as a means to attempt to overturn an election! And I cannot agree that Biden had near-universal support from legacy and social media -- especially the latter, but also "legacy" has to include Fox, Washington Times, WSJ and so much more. I do think histories of the Biden administration will have to answer why under Biden the DoJ was so incompetent at prosecuting Trump for evident criminality, and yet permitted all sorts of foolish lawfare by state AJs alongside. On the Supreme Court, mentioned in your Ugly American piece, the difficulty of the July 2024 immunity decision is that it appeared to count an attempt to overturn Constitutional processes as "official acts": I don't think any other constitution or constitutional law grants a head of state immunity for unconstitutional acts. This may not have been their intention -- they did say that lower courts need to define what is and is not an "official act" -- but it is for the time being the effect of the decision. It has long been recognised by the US and elsewhere that the president should not be targetable by civil or criminal proceedings while in office. But to create so wide definition of "official' as to make the constitution itself appear void is exceptional -- which is what Sumption also argues. my best wishes, as always