Yet Another Refugee from Livejournal

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.

Today is Tuesday, September 22, 2020.  Six weeks remain before the general election on Tuesday, November 3.

You may be familiar with the saying, "Prediction is difficult, especially when it concerns the future."  I think there's a lot of truth in that.  I also think that prediction is more difficult when you don't know what's going on in the present.

Yesterday, I posted something in the Dreamwidth "community journal", "Talk Politics" (https://talkpolitics.dreamwidth.org/).  The title of my new entry is "Natural Selection At Work?", and you can find it here: https://talkpolitics.dreamwidth.org/2190622.html.

If you aren't a regular reader of Talk Politics, I invite you to do one or both of the following: become one, and/or follow the link to read my entry.

It's actually about the social effects of the current pandemic.  The briefest of summaries:

If people don't believe in the dangerousness of the virus, and therefore defy or ignore social distancing regulations, those people are likely to die, of COVID-19, at a greater rate than other people.  If this happens widely enough, then it could have significant effects on social phenomena, such as election results.

Edited 2020-08-18: Changed font.

For someone who has already mouthed off about impeaching Donald Trump as much as I have, I am myself surprised at how little I feel like talking about it now.  Yes, I do want to be on record as favoring this newly declared "formal impeachment inquiry" (does the "formal" part mean top hat, white tie, and tails?).  But I haven't felt much enthusiasm for explaining why.

Let me do this, though: give you a peek into my crystal ball as to how I think things are likely to play out.

Impeachment itself: yes, more likely than not, the House will vote to impeach that bad boy.

Removal: will the Senate vote, with a 2/3 majority, to "convict" him, and thereby effectuate his removal from office?  This is harder to judge.  I guess, if I were forced to predict, one way or the other, I would say "no."

The conventional wisdom, however, seems to be that they certainly will not.  I think this degree of confidence (if that's the right word for it) is highly misplaced.

But let's assume that they don't, and further assume that this means that the 2020 general election will go forward with Trump as the Republican nominee.  Will he win?

I don't think so.  I make no claim to certainty about this, nor do I think I can meaningfully estimate a numerical probability.  But here's a question I do want to answer: will he be more likely to win, or less so, because of having gone through the impeachment process?

Less so, I think.  Having seen President Trump be impeached, and having seen however the Senate responds to that, will (I claim) make the electorate more likely to vote him out.

Of course, I make no claim to certainty about this, either.  It seems worth mentioning partly because once again, I think I am going against the conventional wisdom: that the consensus of the chattering class seems to be that impeachment, followed by acquittal in the Senate, would help him at the polls.

Oddly, those making this prediction have generally, in my experience, not said much about why they believe it to be so.  The only explanation that I can recall is this: the impeachment process will get Trump's supporters "more fired up" about re-electing him.

But will it?  I think that depends on which "Trump supporters" you are talking about.  For the really hard-core, "base" supporters, this prediction does, indeed, seem plausible to me.

But remember: no matter how fired up someone is, he or she only has one vote.

That being the case, it seems to be more relevant to ask, instead, about the effect on a different group: those who voted for Trump in 2016, but were not, and have not become, passionate true believers in his cause.  For that group of "supporters," my prediction is that the impeachment experience will probably reduce the number of them who will vote for him again.

It is also worth noting that impeachment's effect on the election results might not be so very big, one way or the other.

So I guess I have, sort of, said something about why I see the recent impeachment developments in a positive light: why I approve of the House Democrats' long-delayed decision to "formalize their relationship" with Mr. Trump.  At least, what I have said could be taken to imply an attempted rebuttal of the claim that "Impeachment may be justified, but it's political suicide."

What do you think?