WHEN YOU OPPOSE A TYRANT BUT THINK HIS MAIN OPPONENTS ARE ICKY

I regularly criticize The New York Times, but there are writers at the paper who understand the dangerous nature of Donald Trump's presidency. On Friday, the Times opinion section published a roundtable discussion in which M. Gessen, Lydia Polgreen, Zeynep Tufekci, and (yes) David French described Trump as an authoritarian comparable to the worst tyrants around the globe. Gessen set the tone:

[Trump] has successfully destroyed more in two and a half months than even I, ever the catastrophizer, thought possible. He has enabled a secret police force, inflicting terror on millions of people in this country. He is rapidly normalizing disregard for the judiciary. He has brought a leading university and several giant law firms to their knees, and some large media companies have arguably assumed a supplicant position as well. That is a spectacular amount of institutional and societal damage....

Today the Times editorial board chastises law firms and universities that have bent the knee to Trump:

... the most likely path to American autocracy depends on not only a power-hungry president but also the voluntary capitulation of a cowed civil society.

... This is a moment for courage.

The playbook begins with a recognition that capitulation is doomed. Some law firms and corporations, as well as Columbia University, have made a different bet, obviously. But the example of law firms demonstrates the problems with capitulation.

... Mr. Trump can threaten the firms again whenever he chooses and demand further concessions. These firms are in virtual receivership to Mr. Trump. So is Columbia, which yielded to Mr. Trump after he threatened its federal funding. The university did not even win the restoration of that funding when it agreed to his demands; it won merely permission to begin negotiating with the administration.

Standing up to the abuse of power is inherently difficult.... But crises usually do not end on their own. Resolving them requires courage and action.

But elsewhere in the paper, the people who have opposed Trump since before his second inauguration are othered. Yesterday, the Times published a story headlined "7 Americans Weigh In on Trump’s Sweeping Tariffs." Of the seven, five voted for Trump in 2024 and one -- a Trump admirer named Dave Abdallah from Dearborn, Michigan -- voted for Jill Stein. Only one voted for Kamala Harris. The Times has interviewed these voters before, in one instance under the headline "What Some Reluctant Trump Voters Thought of His Speech." But here and in other Times stories they're presented as just "Americans" or "voters," as if they're a representative cross-section of the country -- as if, in other words, Harris voters aren't really American.

But Democrats exist. Democrats are Americans. We've been reminding the media of that this week, even if the conventional wisdom is still that we're weird outliers and also insufferable elitists. Here's Nate Cohn in a Times newsletter today trying to reconcile reality with his priors:

This week, the next two years of American politics began to come into focus, and it does not look like a MAGA or Republican “golden age.” The special House elections in Florida and the Supreme Court election in Wisconsin confirmed that Democratic voters were not, in fact, stunned into submission by last November’s election....

In one key respect, the elections on Tuesday were not significant: They do not suggest that Democrats solved any of the problems that cost them the last election. Instead, they mostly reflect the party’s advantage among the most highly informed, educated and civically engaged voters. This advantage has allowed Democrats to excel in low-turnout elections throughout the Trump era, even as he made enormous gains among the disaffected and disengaged young, working-class and nonwhite voters who show up only in presidential elections.

Still, Democrats won’t have to face many of those disaffected and disengaged voters until 2028. The results last Tuesday thus offer a plausible preview of the next few years of elections: major Democratic victories, including in next year’s midterm election.

Translation: The Democrats did okay on Tuesday, though they're still a bunch of cringe elitists. That cringe elitism is why they did well, and will probably keep doing well enough to have a decent midterm cycle.

In fact, the Wisconsin contest was a high-turnout election by special-election standards -- 2.3 million people voted, compared to the roughly 2.7 miilion who voted in gubernatorial contests in November 2018 and November 2022, and the 1.8 million who voted in the last state Supreme Court contest in 2023. This is lower than the 3.4 million who turned out in Wisconsin to vote for president last year, but it's high turnout for a special election in April.

And as for that new Republican coalition that includes "disaffected and disengaged young, working-class and nonwhite voters," don't assume that it's durable:

And this polling was done before Trump announced his tariffs.

Also, despite the emerging conventional wisdom that Democrats are all rich coastal elitists, I'll note that the one Harris voter in that "7 Americans Weigh In" story is a black South Carolina retiree on a fixed income who needs to replace a beat-up car soon.

Which brings us to yesterday's demonstrations.

On Friday I said I was I worried that turnout would be diminished in the big cities as a result of smaller demonstrations elsewhere. That wasn't a problem. Turnout in Washington, Boston, Chicago, and especially New York was huge -- and there were impressive crowds in smaller cities and towns all over America. From the Times:

Mass Protests Across the Country Show Resistance to Trump

Demonstrators packed the streets in cities and towns to rail against government cutbacks, financial turmoil and what they viewed as attacks on democracy.

They came out in defense of national parks and small businesses, public education and health care for veterans, abortion rights and fair elections. They marched against tariffs and oligarchs, dark money and fascism, the deportation of legal immigrants and the Department of Government Efficiency.

Demonstrators had no shortage of causes as they gathered in towns and cities across the country on Saturday to protest President Trump’s agenda. Rallies were planned in all 50 states, and images posted on social media showed dense crowds in places as diverse as St. Augustine, Fla.; Salt Lake City and rainy Frankfort, Ky....

On Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, the protest stretched for nearly 20 blocks. In Chicago, thousands flooded Daley Plaza and adjacent streets, while, in the nation’s capital, tens of thousands surrounded the Washington Monument. In Atlanta, the police estimated the crowd marching to the gold-domed statehouse at over 20,000.

Interviewees include "Marilyn Finner, 65, who works in customer service" in Chicago; "Don Westhoff, a 59-year-old accountant"; and "Fiona Smythe, 56," who mentions concern about cuts to the Forest Service at a rally in Ketchum, Idaho.

So now can the press please stop saying that (a) the resistance is dead and (b) all Democrats are un-American weirdo elitists from the Acela Corridor? Probably not, but let's hope. We've provided enough evidence for a significant change in the conventional wisdom.

THE ATOMIZATION OF THE RESISTANCE

I won't be posting tomorrow because I've made plans to go to D.C. for a rally at the Washington Monument. When I made these plans -- which, for various reasons, I can't change -- I hoped that this would be the biggest anti-Trump demonstration in Washington so far. Sadly, the demonstration is unlikely to be "the big one," simply because there'll be hundreds of other demonstrations taking place simultaneously all over the country, including many right here in the New York metro area. Around here, there's going to be a rally in midtown Manhattan, another rally uptown at Columbia University, and yet another rally on Staten Island. A bit upstate and on Long Island, there'll be rallies in Mamaroneck, Hastings-on-Hudson, Mineola, Nanuet, Mount Kisco, and Stony Point. In New Jersey, there'll be rallies in Weehauken, Jersey City, Teaneck, Upper Montclair, Bloomfield, Glen Ridge, Maplewood, West Caldwell, Metuchen, Morristown, Red Bank, and Piscataway. There'll be a rally in Greenwich, Connecticut, and also in Stamford. And that's an incomplete list.

Is this a good idea?

On January 21, 2017, the day after Donald Trump's first inauguration, the Women's March in D.C. drew close to half a million people. There was also a very large rally in Manhattan. I know there were smaller rallies all over the country, but the protests weren't localized to this extent. I'm sure there weren't three rallies in New York City alone.

This bothers me because the media has spent much of its time since Election Day proclaiming that "the resistance" seems like a spent force, and one of its key metrics is the fact that there hasn't been a large national protest like the Women's March.

Discontent at congressional town halls and protests at Tesla dealerships -- which, obviously, are localized and relatively small -- has led journalists to conclude that there's some life in the resistance, as have the results of recent off-cycle elections, the crowds at rallies led by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Coertez, and even the response to Cory Booker's round-the-clock speech on the Senate floor. But the media still argues that the country is rallying around Trump now -- or at least was rallying around him until the "Liberation Day" tariffs -- in a way that it didn't during his first term. The Women's March impressed the media. Also, it helped plant the seeds for electoral victories in 2018 and 2020.

We need another big, undeniable, centralized protest. But we're in an atomized world now. When a major media outlet bends the knee to Trump, the response online is "Cancel your subscription to The Washington Post/Los Angeles Times/New York Times and subscribe to my one-person Substack instead." Many of these are great, but you need to subscribe to dozens of them to replace what you got from a legacy media outlet. It's as if we've all made a virtue of the isolation we experienced in 2020.

We need to break out of that. We need to band together -- and to be seen banding together -- to fight Trump.

ONE REASON WE'RE IN THIS MESS: THE RICH DON'T NEED A SURVIVAL INSTINCT

President Trump's tariffs are a disaster -- ask Paul Krugman, ask The Economist, ask U.S. stock markets, which are experiencing a huge selloff -- but they're a disaster that the world of business appearently didn't foresee:

Mike the Mad Biologist is right:

We know what JPMorgan's analysts believed: Trump is a fine fellow, and he's one of us -- he'd never do anything that would seriously hurt our interests. We were fine in his first term, so why worry now?

The signs were there, but they didn't think they needed to take them seriously.

They thought the "guardrails" would hold the way they (more or less) did in his first term -- even though the "guardrails" were mostly Cabinet members and others in his administration who challenged or thwarted his worst instincts, and he was making it clear that he planned to stock his second administration with people who would never challenge him. Also, he was afilliating himself with Project 2025, which had a stated goal of firing apolitical career government bureaucrats and replacing them with loyalists.

All the signs were there. Millions of ordinary people didn't put them all together and see the risks inherent in a second Trump presidency -- although, as Mike says above, some of us did -- but we're talking about analysts whose job it is to understand all information relevant to their task of protecting and increasing their clients' money. Why didn't they realize this was a possibility?

In part I think it's because, in the post-Reagan era, we've made it too goddamn easy for the rich to stay rich. They don't need to be on alert for signs of peril because they do okay even under the worst circumstances, and they often do extremely well even if they're only half-trying. Look at the 2008 crash and the Great Recession that followed -- the government made certain that most of them barely got their hair mussed, and many big firms came out richer.

Ordinary people who saw the warning signs knew that Trump could do great damage in their own lives, or in the lives of people they cared about. Rich people who missed the warning signs assumed they'd be fine no matter what, because they always are. That helps explain how we got into this mess.

NOW WHO'S LIVING IN AN IDEOLOGICAL BUBBLE?

Susan Crawford, the Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate who was endorsed by Democrats, beat the Republican Party's preferred candidate, Brad Schimel, by 10 points yesterday. The biggest loser in this race is, of course, Elon Musk.

Musk and groups he backed, including his America PAC, funneled $20 million into the election through splashy and controversial tactics, including doling out $1 million checks to Republican voters and paying people $100 each to sign a petition to quell “activist” judges.

In case you didn't notice, two of those million-dollar winners had links to the Republican Party, though I'm sure most voters didn't notice.

... Nicholas Jacobs ... identifies himself as the chair of the Wisconsin College Republicans....

[Ekaterina] Diestler is a graphic designer, according to LinkedIn, for a packaging company in the Green Bay area called Belmark Inc — which has strong ties to major Republican donors. Coupled with Jacobs’ affiliation, it raises questions about how the “spokespeople” for [Musk's] America PAC were selected.

Musk made it personal, showing up in the state to dispense checks and speak on Schimel's behalf. Republicans thought that was an awesome idea:

“I’m honestly shocked. I thought we had it in the bag,” said Pam Van Handel, chair of the Republican Party of Wisconsin’s Outagamie County. “I thought [Musk] was going to be an asset for this race. People love Trump, but maybe they don’t love everybody he supports. Maybe I have blinders on.”

Rohn Bishop, the mayor of Waupun, Wisconsin, and former chair of the Republican Party of Fond du Lac County, admitted that the race “throws up a bunch of warning signs for the midterm election.”

“I thought maybe Elon coming could turn these people to go out and vote,” Bishop said. Instead, he added, “I think [Musk] helped get out voters in that he may have turned out more voters against [Schimel].”

Democrats are regularly accused of being in an ideological bubble that prevents us from understanding people with different points of view, but who's in a bubble now? Anyone who can read a poll can see that Musk is unpopular. His unpopularity is made clear in survey after survey. Just yesterday, a national poll released by Marquette Law School delivered these results:

Approval of how Elon Musk is handling his work in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) stands at 41%, with disapproval at 58%. Musk’s personal favorability is 38%, with 60% unfavorable.

Imagine wanting a guy who's at 38%/60% approval to be your top campaign surrogate, just because your party likes him. That's bubble thinking.

But I suspect that Musk won't stop. I'm sure he'll continue donating heavily to Republican candidates. My guess is that he'll also keep giving away million-dollar checks and paying people to sign petitions wherever he thinks he can get away with it, though I imagine he'll ask right-wing celebrities (Kid Rock? Riley Gaines?) to hand out the checks on his behalf.

Democrats should seize the moment and introduce bills in Congress and in all fifty state legislatures banning Musk-style electoral bribes. In blue states, they should pass these laws quickly and with great fanfare. If Elise Stefanik were still planning to leave her upstate New York House seat, do you think Musk would have hesitated to conduct a similar giveaway in her district? That's why these bills are worth passing in blue America. Everywhere else, they'd be messaging bills. Democrats can draw attention to GOP opposition, saying, Why do Republicans support bribery in our elections?

They should do this now in case Musk lowers his profile by leaving the government. Politico now reports that the president is telling "his inner circle, including members of his Cabinet, that Elon Musk will be stepping back in the coming weeks from his current role." (We'll see if that's true.)

Democrats lost both House races in Florida yesterday, but the results were encouraging:

In the state’s conservative Sixth District, State Senator Randy Fine, a Republican, had won by 14 percentage points as of early Wednesday. In November, when turnout was much higher, then-Representative Michael Waltz — now the embattled national security adviser — won the same seat by more than 30 points.

And in the First District, a Democratic House candidate appeared to have won a county that Mr. Trump had carried last fall by 19 percentage points, though she lost the seat overall.

Michel Nevin writes:

We shouldn't assume that we'll have real elections in 2026, but if we do, the supposedly comatose Democratic Party could do well.

And that makes sense. Why are Democratic voters disgusted with the Democratic Party? Because we feel that Democrats won't fight. But in election campaigns, Democrats challenge Republican ideas and promise to fight for Democratic ideas. We want Democrats to be like that all the time. But if they're like that in campaigns, and we believe they're serious about fighting after they're elected, we'll vote for them.

After that, though, they need to deliver. They could do more now: Immediately following Cory Booker's 25-hour speech on the floor of the Senate, Democrats granted unanimous consent for the confirmation of Trump appointee Matthew Whitaker as ambassador to NATO. Even if, in this case, Whitaker's approval was inevitable, they shouldn't have stopped fighting. Why be considerate of Republicans who are enabling totalitarianism?

"WE ARE GOD IN HERE"

Most critiques of the Trump administration share a common narrative: Donald Trump and Elon Musk are dismantling critical parts of the government so they can give tax breaks to themselves and their rich friends. But what's actually happening seems much stranger.

Hamilton Nolan points out that, in fact, the policies of Donald Trump are quite like to make rich people poorer.

Generally speaking, throughout the history of modern America, the government has worked on behalf of business.... The Democratic Party tends to lean a little more towards shared prosperity and regulation, and the Republican Party tends to lean more towards raw unfettered capitalism, but both have operated in service of the basic mandate of “protect and increase America’s wealth.” ...

Trump is doing something different: He is making decisions that will clearly harm the American economy, in both the short and long term. He is breaking things that are useful to business interests.

For instance, he's destroying the rule of law. Why?

The rule of law is a necessary ingredient for long term growth of businesses. Love “free” markets? Then you love the rule of law: it offers predictability of rules, and predictable enforcement of those rules. It is the thing that allows businesses to make long term investments and sign contracts and trust that those things will be governed by a transparent set of rules that all sides of the transaction understand.... The Trump administration is not just weakening the rule of law—it is replacing it with gangsterism, which is to say, the opposite of the rule of law.... The world’s biggest and most complex corporations have been reduced to paying bribes in order to directly beg the president for their priorities, at the club the president owns. Trump is trying to make the Fed a part of his own political operation, endangering financial markets for short term political gain. And he is seriously flirting with defying federal courts and plunging the nation into a constitutional crisis that it may not recover from any time soon....

... Trump ... is busy replacing the world’s most sophisticated corporate legal regime with a system in which you must grovel at his toes in a ridiculous red hat in order to get anything done.

And as for tariffs:

Trump’s affinity for tariffs is not the act of a man doing a favor for business interests. It is the act of a guy who has a weird idea in his head and has clung to that idea for decades because he believes he is the smartest man in the world.

Nolan can't fathom why Trump is doing this, though I think he comes close when he writes, "This is interesting in the same way that the methods and predilections of a prolific serial killer are interesting."

Trump isn't the only one giving off serial killer vibes. So are Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy Jr.:

Thousands of federal employees at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were notified early Tuesday morning that they were subject to a reduction in force, or RIF ... shuttering programs that directly serve and inform the American public.

The effect was felt across the CDC, as workers in the Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice (DEHSP), the Division of Population Health, the Division of HIV Prevention, the Division of Reproductive Health, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control all received RIF notices today.

Dozens of other programs throughout the CDC’s national centers for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention; Environmental Health; Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; and the Global Health center were also impacted.

Jamelle Bouie has said that he thinks Kennedy is practicing eugenics.

I think there's truth in that, and Musk has his own ideas about who's fit and unfit:

Interesting observation https://t.co/xHD5VeS1IC

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 1, 2024

But there's a sadism about the way all of this is being done that isn't an inevitable part of eugenicism. And why does Musk -- a businessman whose best-known company sells consumer products -- happily work with a president who's giving consumers more and more reasons every day not to make major purchases? Why doesn't he seem to care whether his potential customers die in preventable ways?

These folks seem to be behaving like people who imprison and enslave the innocent in locked basements. They're going to elaborate lengths to make us suffer, for the pure power trip of it. While we often say that "the cruelty is point," cruelty appears to be so motivating to these men that it overrides other motives, like keeping the system healthy enough to sustain itself. The sadism -- the joy of forcing us to accept all of this pain and suffering -- seems to be what really matters.

A phrase that keeps coming to mind is one I used to see back in the 1980s in Amnesty International fund-raising letters: We are God in here. The phrase appeared in a statement Amnesty provided for a 1984 congressional hearing on torture:

With the government's support the torturer controls everything, even life itself. An Argentine woman, Graciela Guena, remembers the guards telling her, "We are God in here," as they repeatedly applied electric shock to her body. She lay handcuffed to the springs of a metal bed, her cries echoed by the screams of other victims and the laughter of their torturers. "They called us 'the walking dead,'" she said, "reminding us constantly that the only thing to be decided was the time of death."

"We are God in here" certainly comes to mind when I read this story:

The Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing Monday that it had grabbed a Maryland father with protected legal status and mistakenly deported him to El Salvador, but said that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction to order his return from the megaprison where he’s now locked up.

The case appears to be the first time the Trump administration has admitted to errors when it sent three planeloads of Salvadoran and Venezuelan deportees to El Salvador’s grim “Terrorism Confinement Center” on March 15.

... in Monday’s court filing, attorneys for the government admitted that the Salvadoran man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, had been deported accidentally. “Although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error,” the government told the court. Trump lawyers said the court has no ability to bring Abrego Garcia back now that he is in Salvadoran custody.

They're not admitting error because they regret what they've done. They're admitting an error they refuse to undo because they want us to see that we can't hold them accountable. (Obviously, one phone call to El Salvador's Trump-fanboy president, Nayib Bukele, could get this prisoner returned.) They are God in here -- "here" being the entire United States, and wherever else their power extends.

Obviously, in many regimes, sadism of this kind is meant to keep society going on the regime's terms. That's true here, but the sadism also appears to be an end in itself. They want us to suffer. Our suffering makes them happy. Destruction for the hell of it makes them happy. It's why they're doing all this.

I don't know what specifically happened in the childhoods of Trump and Musk (or people like Russell Vought) to make them this way. I sometimes think that Kennedy, in his childhood, experienced the assassinations of his uncle and his father and now wants to get back at the world by dealing death. Whatever motivates these people, I think we need to look beyond history and political science to understand it.

THERE ARE LEGAL SCHOLARS WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE TRUMP COULD SERVE A THIRD TERM

I don't really know why this happened over the weekend:

President Trump did not rule out seeking a third term in office on Sunday, telling NBC News that he was “not joking” about the possibility and suggesting there were “methods” to circumvent the two-term limit laid out in the Constitution.

It's easy to imagine that Trump said this knowing that it would push Signalgate out of the headlines (although coverage of that scandal is fading, and Trump's impending tariffs will be the top Washington story very soon). But I should note that it was Trump's interviewer, Kristen Welker, who brought the subject up, although perhaps she did so because people in Trumpworld, particularly Steve Bannon, urged her to ask about the idea so it would garner headlines.

KRISTEN WELKER: So, when you're jo – I know you're joking about this, but I've been talking to a lot of your allies. They say they're very serious. You know, I talked to Steve Bannon on the record, quite frankly. So, I can just tell you. I mean, he says he's, you know, really seriously looking at potential plans that would allow you to serve a third term.

Trump, of course, couldn't back down -- backing down, in his eyes, would make him look weak, the worst possible sin in his world. But Welker seems more excited to talk about the idea than Trump.

KRISTEN WELKER: So, but I don't hear you ruling – like, in a very serious way, do you rule that out? Are you like, I can't serve a third term, it's unconstitutional? What's your thinking around it?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: A lot of people want me to do it. But we have – my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I’m focused on the current.

And, a bit later:

KRISTEN WELKER: Okay. So, but, but, sir, I'm hearing – you don't sound like you're joking. I've heard you joke about this a number of times.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: No, no I'm not joking. I’m not joking –

KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah. Yeah.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: But, I'm not – it is far too early to think about it.

If I'm guessing right, Bannon planted the thought in Welker's head, and she ran with it. She thought it would be great television. The news-making headlines would be good for NBC and good for her. Bannon saw it as an epic troll and a great distraction.

And I'm guessing that Bannon, or someone else in Trumpworld, fed Welker this scenario:

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Well, there are plans. There are – not plans. There are, there are methods which you could do it, as you know.

KRISTEN WELKER: Basic– Well, let me throw out one where President Vance would run for office and then would, basically, if, if you – if he won, at the top of the ticket, would then pass the baton to you.

PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Well, that's one. But there are others too. There are others.

You might assume that this is plainly unconstitutional. Most constitutional scholars would agree. But there are dissenters.

In 1999, Bruce G. Peabody and Scott E. Gant published a paper in the Minnesota Law Review titled "The Twice and Future President: Constitutional Interstices and the Twenty-Second Amendment." Their conclusion:

Our analysis leads us to the belief that the Twenty-Second Amendment and the Constitution as a whole leave open possibilities for a twice-elected President to resume that Office.... For instance, we have suggested that a President nearing the end of his or her second term and determined to stay in office might run as Vice President with the idea that the President-elect would step aside, allowing the already twice-elected President (and Vice President-elect) to serve a third term without running afoul of the Twenty-Second Amendment's bar on reelection.

The key phrase here is "bar on reelection." The 22nd Amendment doesn't say a president can't serve three terms. It says:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

(Emphasis added.)

The 12th Amendment describes the process by which the electors of the Electoral College are supposed to vote for president and vice president. It was written at a time when electors weren't expected to merely ratify the results of the popular vote in their respective states. It says in part:

... no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Peabody and Gant's argument is that the 22nd Amendment prevents a twice-elected president from being elected to a third term, but doesn't prevent a twice-elected president from being president again. In order to determine who's eligible to be president, we have to look at Article II of the Constitution:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In "Two-Time Presidents and the Vice-Presidency," a 2015 paper published in the Boston College Law Review, Dan T. Coenen writes:

... the Article II clause imposes no term limit of any sort on presidential service. Instead, it requires only that a President be (1) a natural-born citizen, (2) at least thirty-five years of age, and (3) a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years. Because twice-before-elected Presidents (such as George W. Bush or Bill Clinton) continue to meet each of these three (and only three) textually specified eligibility requirements, such persons are—according to proponents of the they-can-run position—not “ineligible” to be President for purposes of the Twelfth Amendment. Therefore, they remain “eligible” to seek and to hold the vice-presidency.

His belief?

Some analysts have argued that the Constitution forecloses the possibility that a twice-before-elected President can hold (or at least secure election to) the vice-presidential office. However, the text and history of the relevant constitutional provisions point to the opposite conclusion: A twice-before-elected President may become Vice-President, either through appointment or through election, and thereafter succeed from that office to the presidency for the full remainder of the pending term.

As I've said before, in reference to Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, it doesn't matter whether the vast majority of legal scholars hold one view of what the Constitution says on a particular subject -- if the right-wing mafia wants a different outcome, and if there's any scholarship whatsoever supporting that outcome, our Federalist Society courts will feel free to go with what the activist right wants. Or the courts will just make stuff up on the spot.

I'm not sure we'll even have elections in 2028 -- it seems quite possible that by then we'll be under martial law and elections will be suspended. But if we still have them -- real ones, or (more likely) Orbanesque ones that Democrats aren't permitted to win -- and if Trump is alive and determined to stay in office, I find it hard to imagine that he'll go to the Supreme Court and, in effect, ask permission to run again. That's not his style. Either he'll just run, daring fellow Republicans to challenge him and daring opponents to try to keep him off the ballot, or he'll tell his cultists to vote in the primaries for slates of "uncommitted" conventional delegates who are actually pledged to him. Then in the general election he'll tell them to back a placeholder candidate who pledges to put him back in office. (I don't think he'll trust J.D. Vance for this. I think the ticket will include loyal family members like Lara Trump and Donald Trump Jr.)

All of this assumes that he's alive and more or less functional, and that he hasn't alienated vast swaths of the country by destroying the economy, enshittifying or eliminating social services, and starting batshit-crazy imperialist wars.

I think Trump might want to be president for life because that would be a guarantee that he'll never go to prison, and because the power trip of being a dictator is life-giving to him. But maybe America will be angry enough by then to make this impossible.

HEY, GAVIN: IF THE DEMOCRATIC BRAND IS SO TOXIC, WHY ARE REPUBLICANS RUNNING SCARED IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS?

This weekend, Gavin Newsom was on Bill Maher's show doing the Democrat-bashing act that the media loves:

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said on Friday that the Democratic brand was “toxic” and that his party had to admit its own mistakes, delivering tough love as Democrats struggle in their fight against the Trump administration....

“The Democratic brand is toxic right now,” he said, pointing to a recent NBC News poll that showed Democrats with a 27 percent favorability rating, the lowest in at least a generation.

The epsode aired on Friday. Three days earlier, this happened:

Democrat James Andrew Malone narrowly won a special election for a Pennsylvania state Senate seat in Republican-leaning suburbs and farming communities, scoring an upset in a district that a Democrat hasn’t represented in the chamber for 136 years.

A day earlier, this happened:

President Trump on Thursday said he had asked Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, to stay in Congress rather than serve as ambassador to the United Nations, amid concern about the minuscule voting margin that Republicans hold in the House....

It ... highlighted concerns among Mr. Trump and leading members of his party about their ability to win what should be safe Republican seats in districts like Ms. Stefanik’s solidly red region of upstate New York.

And now there's this:

Republicans nationwide are turning their eyes and focus to Florida’s 6th Congressional District’s special election, occurring Tuesday, where Republican Randy Fine seeks to prevent an upset victory by Democrat Joshua Weil.

Axios reported a poll from Donald Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio, showing Fine losing to Weil by three percentage points, despite the district being ruby red. Such a result would be a shock.

The 6th District was held by now-Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who won the seat in 2024 by 33 points.

Republicans will probably win this race -- they lead in the early vote now. They might be trying to lower expectations so they can say they overperformed if their candidate wins. But as noted above, the GOP won this seat by 33 points in November, and Donald Trump won the district by 30 points. Any victory margin that's significantly short of that is a sign of Republican weakness.

I regularly criticize Democrats. I would have given the party an unfavorable rating if I'd been asked by NBC's pollsters. But I vote Democratic. I give money to Democratic candidates. I've volunteered for Democratic campaigns. My criticisms are different from Newsom's (and those of Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, and John Fetterman) -- I think too many Democrats, especially in leadership, are afraid to assert that the party supports a large number of very popular policies, and are afraid to attack the Republican Party for opposing those policies (and, now, for seeking to destroy a great deal of what's good in America). I think there are many, many voters who are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party -- or at least its leadership -- but who also know we'd be better off with Democrats in charge.

When reporters quote Newsom, why don't they express any skepticism about the Democrats' toxicity? They see the Malone victory. They see how special elections are scaring the GOP. They see the angry crowds at congressional town halls. They see the massive crowds at rallies headlined by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (a Democrat) and Bernie Sanders (an independent who caucuses with Democrats and who's run for president as a Democrat twice). They see Donald Trump's weak poll numbers, especially on issues.

On Maher's show, Newsom said that Democrats are censorious:

“Democrats, we tend to be a little more judgmental than we should be,” the Democratic governor told host Bill Maher. “This notion of cancel culture... You’ve been living it, you’ve been on the receiving end of it for years and years and years. That’s real.”

“Democrats need to own up to that,” he said. “They’ve got to mature.”

Newsom accuses Democrats of practicing cancel culture, citing Maher, who's had his current successful HBO show for 22 uninterrupted years (and whose previous show was taken off the air after he angered Republicans). Meanwhile, under a Republican president, masked men can arrest and deport you for writing an op-ed, or attempt to deport you because you're a scientist who neglected to declare frog embryos while going through customs, as a cover-up for the real reason, which is that you criticized Russia's war in Ukraine. Can the press put all this Democrat-bashing talk about "cancel culture" in perspective, please?

Newsom also said that Democrats are condescending:

“We talk down to people,” he said. “We talk past people.”

Which of the follow do you think is more likely to talk down to people: Gavin Newsom ...

... or James Malone, who won that Pennsylvania race?

Stop treating these Democrat-bashing Democrats as if they're uttering objective truths. They aren't.