No. of Recommendations: 5
You are fully willing to accept the end of constitutional protections and democracy as long as it’s achieved within the law. Fascism is nothing if not meticulously legalistic in its approach to consolidating authoritarian rule. Legalism provides a cover of legitimacy while fascists legally dismantle democracy. This makes you an apologist for fascist methods of achieving hegemonic power. In your view, the law is all that matters, and the consequences of that law are irrelevant.
I asked you before and I’ll ask you again, what advice would have given MLK or Nelson Mandela in 1959?
That is completely false. I don't support changing the law to be fascistic. I don't think fascistic laws are acceptable merely because they are legal. And MLK and Nelson Mandela were completely in the right to oppose the unjust laws they opposed.
But that's not what's really happening here. Trump hasn't passed any new immigration laws. There hasn't been a new horrible immigration law. The legal framework that the Administration is operating under has been in place for many decades, and was adopted legitimately by non-fascistic Congresses.
It has always been the case that if you are present in the country unlawfully, you are subject to detention and (after due process) deportation. We can - and should - vigorously press back against actions that violate those laws or that violate due process. But the underlying laws are not fascist, and if the Administration were to limit its activities to following the laws it would not be accurate to describe their actions as fascist.
How do you stop the legal dismantling of constitutional protections and democratic governance? I’m not sure how your meticulously legalistic approach to this political moment answers the question, especially when combined with your Clintonian dismissal of progressives within the Democratic Party.
By resisting the legal dismantling of constitutional protections and democratic governance. And not by resisting the valid exercise of governmental activity that complies with constitutional protections and effectuates democratic governance simply because you don't like the outcomes.
We live in a country where it is legal for conservatives to win elections. Where it is legal for people who are very much not progressives to make their case to the electorate, to win the right to exercise power, and to make decisions on how that power is to be exercised within the limits of their constitutional authority. That will lead to outcomes that progressives despise when conservatives win - but that's the essence of democratic governance. The people who are elected get to set policy, and as long as that policy isn't outside the Constitutional limits of government they have the right to do it.
"Democratic governance" requires letting the people elect folks you think are terrible. It requires letting the people put officials in office that will pursue policies you think are terrible. That's the tradeoff to have a system that lets you win elections and have the chance to pursue policies that they think are terrible. Part of being the party that wants to stand up for the Constitution is recognizing that the Constitution allocates an enormous amount of power to the Legislature and Executive to make decisions.
The laws that create our immigration system have existed in pretty much its current form since 1952, and have been almost entirely untouched by Trump (who has no ability to advance a legislative agenda due to his many faults). Those laws were not drafted by fascists. The laws themselves are not fascist. The enforcement of those laws strictly is not fascist, so long as that enforcement is done within the strictures of due process. Which makes it a very different situation than that faced by MLK and Mandela....
