Well, this is a fine mess. Not as bad as when Donald Trump was
actually President of the United States, but plenty bad. I refer
to the fact that Trump continues to insist that he actually won
the 2020 presidential election.
And so do a large proportion of the members of his party. And
quite a lot of the Republican members of the House of
Representatives, too. (Thankfully, this seems, at least at
the moment, to be somewhat less true with regard to Republican
members of the Senate.)
I don't know about you, but this situation gives me the
heebie-jeebies. And I know I'm not the only one who feels that
way. My primary news source is The New York Times, and many of
the people who write opinion pieces for them have, since Trump
left office, seemed concerned that our democracy is under threat.
Reporters, on the other hand, are not supposed to say things like
that. But they can interview people and report that many of those
folk feel that way, too. And they have done so.
Okay, many people, both pundits and regular folks, feel that way
(that our democracy is under threat).
But is it that way? For example, is
there a substantial likelihood that, after the 2024 presidential
election, some state legislatures will certify slates of electors
backing a presidential candidate different from the one for which
their own citizens voted?
And if so, is there a significant likelihood that we will, as a
result, end up with a different president—different from the
one who would have been inaugurated, if customary constitutional
procedures had been followed?
In a word, no. Some state legislatures might try it, but I
just don't think that it's significantly likely that it would change
the outcome of the election. One way or another, I believe,
the attempt would be stopped.
That's a pretty bold claim. What evidence do I offer for it?
Not much. Just an overall sense that there are too many
Americans who wouldn't stand for it. I am referring both to
ordinary citizens, and to people in positions of
power—including, but not limited to, judges.
Obviously, there wouldn't be unanimous
agreement that this is just not right; I expect, though, that there
would be close enough to a consensus to that effect. Close
enough so that, as I said earlier: one way or another, the attempt
would be stopped.
As I said at the beginning, a lot of people are worried that
something like this might happen. Do I think that most of
those people, if they read what I have just written, would suddenly
stop worrying?
No, I really don't think so. Heck, it isn't even enough to
make me stop worrying.
At this point, some readers might be exasperated with me, and I
couldn't really blame them. They would want to say something
like this: "Make up your mind, man! Is this dreadful
possibility actually likely enough to be worth worrying about, or
isn't it?"
In fact, some might want me to do more than just "make up my
mind." All I've really done, above, in attempting to estimate
the likelihood of such a political disaster, is to state my
hunches—whether I "feel" that it is "significantly
likely." Before I expect people to take the time to read what
I have to say on the subject, I should do more research, and be
prepared to offer real evidence, one way or the other.
This would be an entirely valid criticisim … if what I
were purporting to do here were: to provide a rational estimate of
how likely it is that our democracy will break down. Or, to
be more precise, how likely that is, in the absence of more
strenuous efforts to prevent it. And unquestionably, such a
rational estimate would be a good thing to have.
But that's not what I am doing here, nor even attempting.
(And I apologize for the fact that I haven't found a way to make
that clear sooner.) So what am I trying to do, then?
I'm glad you asked. I am trying to give you something that
will be helpful if you find yourself in a certain state of mind,
vis-a-vis the possibiliity of a breakdown of American
democracy. (Actually, it might be helpful in relation to
other future possibilities too, if they share certain
characteristics: it's a possibility about which we judge that it
would be truly awful if it happened, but we lack real confidence in
our ability to predict how likely it is.) Here's a succinct
description of the state of mind I am talking about: you are not
only uncertain, but also ambivalent.
To expand on that: you are torn, and/or vacillating.
Depending on your mood, or other global aspects of your frame of
mind, your thoughts on the subject change: maybe from day to day,
maybe even from minute to minute. And they don't just change
in matters of nuance; whatever you find yourself thinking (and
feeling) now, it flatly contradicts what you thought and felt a
short time ago.
In short, you are trying hard to make up your mind, but you just
can't. You can't get to an answer that you feel comfortable
with, sufficiently so to be able to let go of the question, and go
forward based on that answer as your final one.
Here's an example of how one might describe this dilemma, so as to
make it more specific.
On the one hand, you say: if I think about this in a rational way,
it seems like a bad thing that could possibly happen … but
not likely enough that I should continue paying attention to
it. There are lots of bad things that could possibly happen,
and in my best judgment, this one is not the most important: not the
one which most calls for my efforts to prevent or alleviate it.
On the other hand, having said that, you find that you can't put
thoughts of this particular threat behind you. You've told
yourself that it's not rational to keep worrying about it, but you
do so anyway. And this worry is interfering with your ability
to work on the problems, actual or potential, which you have judged
to be more important.
If you're the sort of person that highly values rationality, you
might judge yourself harshly for this, saying that the continued
worry is a matter of emotion, not reason, and therefore, you should
be better able to control your thoughts. But in practice, so
what? If you can't control them, you can't control
them. And if they are really interfering with your work on
other matters—those which your "rational" mind considers
more important—then that's a problem in its own right, one
which you are going to have to confront whether you want to or not.
So what do you do?
The only answer I have to offer right now is: stay tuned. I
have done what I can to state the (potential) problem clearly; now I
must let the matter season, as we Quakers say, before I can
formulate a solution … or even, less grandiosely, before I
can work out something to say that is likely to be helpful to some
readers.
Sorry about that. I do think I can do it, and I will make a
real effort to get it done in a week or so.
Besides, is the delay entirely a bad
thing? Perhaps not, if you're a thoughtful sort of
person. You might gain some real benefit from mulling the
matter over yourself, in the meanwhile. Who knows?
Maybe you'll come up with a better answer than I do.
Or one more helpful to you, at any rate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
