Wanna restore the rule of law? Then you must always vote against the Republican Party.
That’s the argument of a new article in The Atlantic from Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes. The authors began their overbearing article with the congratulatory centrism cranked up to 10, both claiming that their past work in politics and journalism made them “antipartisan.”
But Rauch and Wittes believe the GOP — as the party of Donald Trump and Trumpism — is such a grave threat to American democracy that they must heroically cast aside their “antipartisan” bona fides and urge voters to never cast a ballot for a Republican.
“The Republican Party, as an institution, has become a danger to the rule of law and the integrity of our democracy,” Rauch and Wittes argue.
Rauch and Wittes write that there are two “sins” of Trump that the GOP tolerates, which makes the party a threat to our democracy.
“The first is his attempt to erode the independence of the justice system,” the writers declare. “The second unforgivable sin is Trump’s encouragement of a foreign adversary’s interference in U.S. electoral processes.”
The two Atlantic contributors rely on spurious evidence to support the claim that Trump is guilty of both sins, such as him jokingly calling on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails and his criticism of the FBI.
Apparently, such acts amount to one of the most serious threats to our democracy in our nation’s history.
Yes, a democratically-elected president criticizing un-elected officials in the courts and in the intelligence community is truly an anti-democratic act.
The Atlantic article is in keeping with a new-found belief among liberals that criticizing the FBI, the CIA or any other agency is tantamount to treason. The New York Times published a very worried piece bemoaning Trump’s “unparalleled war on law enforcement.” Liberal director Rob Reiner argued Monday on Twitter that if you “libel” former CIA director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “you libel America.”
That’s an odd stance to take considering Brennan’s CIA spied on the Senate and Clapper blatantly lied to the Senate.
Guess they were just too zealous in standing up for democracy.
There are several weird things with this development on the part of liberals. For one, liberals spent most of the Obama years cheering on the then-president’s critiques of racist police, which would probably be seen as maligning life-long public servants in the Trump era.
Another weird thing is that plenty of Democrats who are disturbed by Trump’s FBI criticism now made very similar comments when James Comey re-opened the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails right before the election. (RELATED: Flashback: Clinton Cronies Waged Their Own War On The FBI)
But the most bizarre thing about this sudden concern for the rule of law and criticism of law enforcement is the growing desire among liberals to see Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) abolished.
The men and women of ICE are entrusted with enforcing federal immigration law, but liberals would rather have no one do that. It’s un-American to deport anyone dwelling here illegally, so long as they are part one of the Left’s protected classes.
Moreover, ICE is not just unnecessary, it’s also the equivalent to Hitler’s SS, according to some on the Left. While publicly saying that the FBI may have been biased in its investigations of Trump is possibly treasonous, comparing another law enforcement agency to Nazis is civil righteousness.
Additionally, there’s the case of California applying the sanctuary city idea — a jurisdiction that refuses to comply with federal immigration law — to the whole state.
It is a bit hypocritical to demand the rule of law depend on uncritical reverence for federal officials in the good graces of liberals, but not on the enforcement of immigration law. Entire states saying federal law doesn’t apply to them is probably worse for our institutions then Trump saying a judge’s decision was dumb.
In reality, liberals aren’t really genuine in their concern for the rule of law. They are either just playing partisan politics, or they’re trying to obscure their desire to further the power of the administrative class, as Rauch and Wittes appear to be doing.
It’s worth noting that the “average joe,” non-partisan Republican hater Rauch and Wittes celebrate at the beginning of their article is a wealthy marketing executive living in a D.C. suburb. This is hardly the forgotten man simply wishing for a return to decency in politics — this is someone who is invested in the power of urban elites remaining unchallenged.
And really, that’s the primary motivation in saying Trump is “undermining” the rule of law. Elite liberals and centrists are only going to make that argument if the people being called out are members of their own class. Those awful proles working for the Border Patrol or ICE aren’t worthy of defense — all they do is arrest those wonderful illegals who mow the lawns of the elite.
Essentially, this boils down to class politics. Mass immigration benefits urban elites, so they prefer no enforcement of the law. Trump and Republicans questioning the administrative class presents a threat to their interests, so that becomes the worst thing since Pearl Harbor.
Trump is not threatening our democracy when he criticizes judges for decisions he disagrees with, or calls out the DOJ for its investigation priorities.
So far, he has done nothing to subvert the judiciary system to fit his whims — all he does is vent his frustration on Twitter. The way the courts have been able to block his executive orders, many of which fully comply with U.S. law, show how our system of checks and balances is thriving in the Trump era. The president is not going to turn the Department of Justice into his own personal Gestapo.
What is a bigger threat to our republic is the elite’s open borders agenda. Do you think America can exist as a great country when the whole world has a right to immigrate here and citizenship is rendered meaningless?
Follow Scott on Twitter and buy his new book, “NoCampusfor White Men.”
