Donald Trump said in a recent interview that he will only accept 2024 election results “if everything’s honest.” In at least two separate interviews before the 2020 election, Trump refused to “commit to a peaceful transfer of power” if he lost. In other words, he is saying that, if he wins, then that proves the election was honest. If he loses, that proves the election was dishonest. This is a grift strategy. It is “heads I win, tails you lose.”
Investigations, vote recounts and lawsuits all showed that Trump and co-conspirators used every conceivable obstruction from their bag of tricks to illegally undermine and overthrow the 2020 election. These tricks included everything from initiating lawsuits to inventing fake electors and fake electoral certificates. The grift didn’t work.
Recently, Jair Bolsonaro, the former authoritarian president of Brazil, also plotted to fraudulently overthrow the Brazilian election to obtain a second term. Bolsonaro spread false rumors about election integrity. After Bolsonaro lost the election, pro-Bolsonaro protests took place all over Brazil and were much worse than our “Jan. 6” protests (see Wikipedia). However, in the end, the Brazilian courts saved Brazilian democracy (that grift didn’t work, either).
Part of Trump’s popularity is based on sensationalist imagery. This is done by placing images of his face on images of cartoon heroes like Superman and high-violence movie figures like Rambo, and inappropriately associating images of him with images of Jesus. People get an emotional and warm, fuzzy feeling from this. It does not require reading, thinking or knowledge of history. Heroic and famous figures are presented, and perceived by audiences, more as perfect beings and not as liars or crooks.
Trump could get absolute dictatorial power by (1.) continuing to declare that he already has “absolute immunity”; (2.) allowing, in his base, the possibility of more violence; (3.) appointing “loyalists” in a second term to eliminate any pushback; and (4.) granting himself a “general permanent absolute prepardon” to neutralize or prevent any action against his future and past crimes. Properly written, this pardon could override anything from the Supreme Court. I think it is like parents giving their teen the car keys without asking where they are going and if what they are doing is legal or ethical.
Arthur E. Sowers
Harbeson
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
