[This piece will be appearing shortly as an op/ed in newspapers in the congressional district (VA-06) where I ran for Congress as the Democratic nominee in 2012.)
***********************************
In November, the American people are going to vote for President. Among the people I respect, the election is understood as a choice between preserving American democracy and departing onto the path of fascistic authoritarianism.
While Fascism has been gaining ground globally since the beginning of this millennium, nowhere are the stakes for humankind greater than here in the United States.
The difference between democracy and fascism is as serious as any in the human world. Power in a democratic society moves from the bottom-up. Who wields power is governed by “the will of the people. In a dictatorship, power operates ”top-down,” with unaccountable rulers exploiting the people.
A couple of exit polls illuminate aspects of this American crisis.
Puzzling Data from Virginia Exit Polls
One exit poll from Super Tuesday’s primary in Virginia indicated that those voting in the Republican primary were evenly split between those who believe that President Biden was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election and those who believe he wasn’t.
Though I’ve long wondered how those who believe the Big Steal lie could maintain that belief in the face of mountains of contrary evidence, my newer puzzlement is about those who recognize that Biden won fair and square.
If we combine that polling result with the fact that Trump got two-thirds of the primary vote, we can infer that at least one-sixth of those Republican primary voters support a guy they know lied about the “Big Steal,” and who put that Lie at the center of his politics.
I wonder: Do those voters not see what Trump’s Lie reveals him to be? I.e. that he was willing to attack the American constitutional order in a hugely damaging way?
I’ve always believed that patriotism was strong among Republicans, but I am puzzled over how any patriot could favor a candidate who’d tried – for his own selfish purposes -- to overthrow the government of the United States.
The Electorate’s Need to Know
In exit polls in several early primary states, a substantial portion of Republican voters – a minority, but large enough to make a difference – declared that they would not vote for Donald Trump if he had been convicted of such crimes.
It could hardly be more obvious that American voters deserve to know – before they vote -- whether or not Donald Trump is guilty of the serious crimes with which he has been charged.
That question was on track to being answered before people voted: there would be a trial, and a jury of regular American citizens would render their verdict, based on the facts.
Trump was – as always -- doing all he could to delay that trial. He was making an absurd appeal claiming that he was “immune” to criminal prosecution no matter what crimes he might have committed as President. But that meritless argument could have been disposed of several months ago.
But then the Supreme Court came to his rescue, slow-walking the pre-trial process to such an extent that it now seems very improbable that this most important of Trump’s trials will happen before the election, thus depriving those Republican voters of the verdict they’ve said they need.
As I said, in a previous column, this development constitutes dramatic evidence of “America’s Serious Supreme Court Problem.”
But it doesn’t have to remain America’s 2024 Election Problem.
What’s needed is a campaignto do for the electoratewhat a trial would have done.
The extraordinary amount of reliable evidence already publicly available makes this possible. The mountains of evidence include video testimony (given under oath) from people within Trump’s circle, and elaborate “speaking indictments” laying out the evidence supporting the charges.
(And we have the evidence of Trump’s own continuous effort to avoid having the facts laid out in a trial. If Trump were innocent, wouldn’t he be eager to prove it in Court? But instead, knowing he has no legal defense, he works incessantly to delay his trials until after the election. And, if he wins, he seems certain to use his presidential powers to prevent his ever being tried at all.
(Isn’t Trump’s continual effort to delay clearly tantamount to a confession?)
An intelligent, creative, honest campaign can enable every informed citizen to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump is guilty. A public verdict, in lieu of a formal jury verdict.
But what about “the presumption of innocence”?
We as citizens have no obligation whatever to grant Trump any “presumption of innocence.” That’s what jurors must give, requiring the prosecution to prove everything — according to rules and beyond a reasonable doubt. Our obligation as citizens, by contrast, is to make the best judgment we can on the basis of the available facts.
It is because the jurors can deprive a defendant of his or her liberties that they must grant a “presumption of innocence,” and that they must be unanimous in their judgment.
But America’s citizens, exercising informed judgment regarding the crimes with which Trump is charged, would deprive Donald Trump not of his liberty, but of the presidency whose powers he employed to such criminal purposes when he was President before.