Part of the reaction to Trump’s statements in this regard like other ones is spin. It’s played up to horrify people about Trump and get them to go out and vote for Clinton. That’s fair enough politics: there’s no obligation to interpret your opponents’ comments or situation in a favorable light, you’re free to construe them in the most negative plausible light.
If Trump were president and said he wasn’t sure he’d relinquish office after the election if he lost, that would be a bigger deal. But he’s not, besides not exactly saying that counting his own clean up remarks (not including surrogates) where he said it just meant he reserved the right to the legal means available to challenge (the part after ‘I’ll accept it if I win’ which was pretty clearly his idea of a joke IMO if you look at the whole video).
What legal difference would it make if he says the outcome isn’t valid? Zero, as others said. Then again it’s to potentially spun (or otherwise carried away IMO) notions of the likelihood of violence or serious disruption of any kind from supporters even if he did that. One less scary quote that rang true to me was a Trump supporter at a rally saying the average American is too lazy to get involved in a revolution.
Then there’s the theory that ‘rigged’ election is not only a tactic to drive his voters’ enthusiasm (though might backfire I’d say), but also lowering the bar for a pat on the head for Trump from media and ‘establishment’, welcoming him back into the fold somewhat at least, when he just concedes as usual. Or he could throw a tantrum. It’s silly to try to predict his actions. But I find it hard to believe many people truly think this is as big a deal as some are making it out to be. If he loses, the rhetoric will be viewed as part of the reason deterring future candidates from following his example. And if he wins, he’ll definitely accept the result.
There is no legal consequence to Trump’s failing to concede.
There very well may be a practical consequence, if he refuses to concede and that drives some of his adherents to engage in violence in reaction. Or if it drives some percentage of the public to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the duly elected government.
The behavior of individuals is important to maintaining social order. Authority is only authority if a certain critical proportion of the public chooses to recognize it as authority.
Yes, I remember the 1990s well. And there’s been a great deal of damage inflicted in the time since, not the least of which is the gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And the Citizens United decision. But these are merely the weakening of the institutions to which I was referring in an earlier post.
A constitution is often referred to as a “living, breathing document” – yes, it is, provided that the people who refer to it and live by it give it life. If they don’t, and if they decide that democracy is not so important, then constitutions are simply text and nothing more.
I’m not predicting a constitutional crisis. I’m saying it’s happening right now. Trump and his voters are a constitutional crisis. They will remain one until they are discredited. We have 4 years to resolve this problem, or 2020 will be the beginning of an American nightmare.
asahi, I’d be more inclined to take you seriously if people hadn’t been predicting the imminent end of the world, or at least America, in similarly apocalyptic terms since well before either of us was born, and on much stronger evidence.
There’s two ways to look at it, and I don’t know which is accurate:
Trumpism will be **discredited **after this election. No future presidential candidate will dare embrace Trumpism, for fear of being tarred as ‘Trumpish’ and losing like Trump.
Trumpism will have gained credibility after this election. All it takes in 2020 or beyond is a *winsome, intelligent, cunning *Trumper candidate, like you said, to succeed where Trump failed.
I’m worried about what his “deranged” followers might do if certain things are “suggested” to them!
Many of these people are those “Idaho Standoff” / “Oklahoma City” types. They do nasty things on their own. They don’t need someone suggesting nasty things to them.
But we have some pretty smart people running our country. I’ve heard the right messages going out on the media from both Democrat and Republican leaders diffusing this potential situation.
And I imagine this would fall into the realm of Department of Defense “psychological warfare defense” if another country is backing some of these statements/actions. Again some VERY smart folks there too!
And even a very small % of American Muslims committing Islamist terrorism would wreak havoc, as just one other example of that line of argument. But happily it usually turns out that seemingly very low estimates of the %'s of certain groups who might plausibly be deemed inclined to support political violence turn out to still be much too high (though the % of US Muslims committing Islamist terrorism has demonstrably not been zero, and the % of frustrated Trump supporters resorting to violence might not be either).
There’s more to it than just Trump’s pissed off voters. As I’ve been saying, he could have actual political operatives at the state and local level who are willing to play ball with Trump. What’s keeping them from trying to rig the elections? That’s what is happening in Georgia and North Carolina right now.
People who think this is just another election need to get their heads out of their asses – we’re on the precipice of some very serious political mischief that could seriously undermine the electoral process as we now know it in unprecedented ways. I’m optimistic that Trump will lose by a lot but if he somehow rebounds and Hillary has another late August style collapse, and if the race comes down to tight races in two or three states, we really could be looking at a repeat of a Rutherford B Hayes election. I would agree that the chances of that are fortunately remote, but it’s already too close for comfort.
There are both Democrats and Republicans involved with ALL STAGES of voting - working in government offices where ballots are counted, poll workers, observers, etc.
If anything naughty is attempted, I assure you one or the other will notice and will scream bloody murder!
Note: This is the fallacy with most conspiracy theories. They don’t follow through with their thinking as to what a practicable scenario would be. For example some people postulate the FBI is “spying” on everyone. But if they checked, they would see that the FBI has a total of 40,000 employees! That includes janitors, secretaries, gardeners, maintenance people, etc. So many fewer actual agents. And 250,000,000 Americans. Just think these things through!
A government only governs by virtue of the fact that the governed believe in its legitimacy.
Various forms of government have different ways of creating legitimacy. A monarchy does so primarily through prestige and tradition (as well as force); a dictatorship, primarily by imposing order through force.
One of the purposes of a democratic system is to confer legitimacy on the government primarily through the act of voting and the voluntary belief in all participants that this act confers legitimacy. It is, in short, a government through a common belief in a shared ideology.
A failure to concede undermines that legitimacy - indeed, is a deliberate attempt to undermine that legitimacy.
A monarchy that loses prestige must resort to force, or fail. A dictatorship that loses a monopoly on force must fall.
A democracy in which a significant proportion of the population loses faith in the shared ideology that voting confers legitimacy on the ruler is in big trouble - it must resort to other methods of legitimacy available to governments (such as prestige or force).
That’s what makes the current situation created by Trump and other Republican extremists such a concern. They are deliberately undermining the underpinnings of American democracy, by casting its shared political ideology into doubt.
