Failure Is Not an Excuse: Why Their Incompetence Does Not Mean They Didn’t Try

I’ve written previously, way back in November about the fact that what we were watching was a coup in slow motion. I’d mentioned that what was happening, had it been exhibited in any other country, would be denounced. What was happening was fundamentally un-American in nature. I’d written that what Donald Trump had attempted in those early days, those middle weeks of November 2020 after the election on 7 November, was America’s first coup attempt. At the time when I wrote it, I had genuinely hoped that time and the course of events would prove me wrong. Sadly, that has not been the case.

I had argued that I was well aware even then that what I wrote sounded frighteningly alarmist. I was aware that Trump’s firing of Chris Krebs, that Mike Pompeo’s uncertain statements at Foggy Bottom, his dismissal of the Secretary of Defense on 9 November, and that Republican inaction and equivocation in those days was only inspiring and encouraging the President’s actions, just as the President encouraged Republican inaction and even complicity in what he was attempting. And when it was met by failure in the courts, there were hopes that these legal refusals would have somehow let the air out of the balloon and allowed for the sort of brief theatrics that were necessary before it somehow got out of Trump’s system. That was not the case, even after sixty courts had proven the invalidity of the position that the campaign was staking out.

This all has turned American democracy into an ouroboros, the snake that devours itself. Whether the President is successful or not (he will not be, ultimately), he will have struck a dangerous and deep blow to the democratic process. Emboldened by precedent, there is a genuine probability that in future elections, a losing political party will challenge the electoral results with the very legitimate excuse, at least from the standpoint of public perception, if not legal reality, that it had been done before. Failure will not an indictment of the act, but of the moment. They will perceive the failure of the lawsuits and challenges, of these self-destructive political machinations as indicative of a political climate that successfully resisted these challenges not because of the meritlessness of the cause, but of an institutional entrenchment, a deep-seated inertial opposition to these kinds of shifts in the political climate.

To them, in four, or eight, or sixteen, years from now, they believe Trump’s failure will not be in tactics, but in execution, in the fact that the results were, indeed too great to overcome. He had the right instincts, but the environment, the electoral results with which he has been working with, were too far against his favor.

This emboldening has created the so-called “Sedition Caucus” in Congress, consisting of a full eighth of the United States Senate, and a fifth of the states represented therein, including both senators from two states. While they are well are that their plan is a foolish tilting at windmills, this sets up a dangerous precedent that the senate can, and should, audit or otherwise interfere in the electoral process that goes beyond the constitutionally mandated ratification of the vote tallies. To them, they see their duty as to lend legitimacy to this tactic so that it can be used again. They want to lay the groundwork of precedent. They want to normalize the contesting of an electoral result, no matter how near or how wide, so that when there is a genuine sliver of possibility, they can legitimately latch onto that opportunity and hijack the electoral process. Fundamentally, this would void both the Electoral College, and the popular vote.

The fact, too, that Trump has attempted to mobilize every angle he could imagine also makes this an increasingly dangerous situation. While it is generally accepted that, Trump’s behavior, and in particular his full-court attempts to overturn the election, have done significant damage because of the universality of his attempt. By attempting to inveigle election officials in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, in Arizona, and Georgia, and perhaps other states as well, Trump’s behavior has fundamentally sullied the legitimacy of these electoral institutions. But not only has he tried to instigate faithless electors, or intervene on local election boards, or try to conspire with secretaries of state of the several affected states, or a number of congressional representatives in both House and Senate, but he has also attempted to fundamentally decapitate the legitimacy of the verification process by attempting to coerce Vice President Mike Pence into the conspiracy through private and public announcements. Any and all of these various attempts, in isolation, would be bad enough. But that he has done them all, and in succession, and in concert with each other, leads to a singular and terrifying conclusion. Incompetence and chance could explain any of these individually. But taken together, it is obvious that all of this is intentional, it is deliberate, it is a premeditated, and it is dangerous.

And all of this, we know, will not come to pass in 2021. This does not mean however that none of this will have not happened. Nor will this be something that will somehow be swiftly and conveniently forgotten about as soon as Joseph Biden takes the oath of office at noon on 20 January 2021 and becomes our 46th President of the United States, by those that want to keep this stratagem in their back pockets.

Of course this does lead one to ask a very simple and pointed question. It’s one with a dangerous answer, really:

What does this all mean then, for next time?

Because there will be a next time. This next time will not be for a president as dangerously and transparently incompetent as Donald Trump has been. Unlike what has happened in the Winter of 2020/21 in the aftermath of the election, there will be a future incumbent, perhaps in the presidency, that will resort to the precedent of Trump’s behavior in order to justify his own actions to somehow manipulate, contest, or otherwise falsify election results. And he may well succeed.

And for that reason we must treat what is happening in such a way that the attempt to commit a coup is equivalent to the commission of it. We must act against Donald Trump in such a way that we acknowledge that we see what he has been trying to do, and that we recognize in all seriousness that was was done has grave and lasting consequences.

America cannot pretend that this was an aberration. The foundation of our political and social inviolability has been shattered. This happened in some regards in 2016, with the way that our government did not adequately handle matters of foreign interference. It was exacerbated in 2020 by the connivance of the President and his political allies to try and undermine the results and falsify them in such a way that the election would come out in their favor.

What has made this situation even more dangerous is that the Republican Party has decided to pick and choose the validity of electoral results based upon who the results favor. It is one thing to question the results of an election very generally, to say that there are voting irregularities and that the situation deserves particular care and attention, or that the results are illegitimate for any of a wide variety of valid or at least plausible reasons. However, the fact that they are not challenging the electoral validity of all results that were tallied from these ballots, but only the presidential race, shows to me, and many others, the blatant partisan underpinnings of this strategy, and more importantly imbues the Republican Party with an air of complicity, to say that supposedly contested ballots can only be contested in a single race, and that in a case where these ballots had multiple races tallied upon them, that there was somehow no interference at any other level than the presidential race rather strains credulity if you ask me.

Either results are entirely valid, or entirely invalid, when it comes to a ballot, and if the Republicans were well-meaning in their arguments they would be requesting recounts and re-runs of the election even in cases where the jurisdiction was somehow being contested at the top of the ticket.

This kind of hairsplitting, this blind assumption that votes in their favor in these contested electoral spaces are always legitimate, even when the election itself is cast under a pall of illegitimacy, is exactly what has happened historically in elections in dictatorships. They claim that there were voting irregularities, however they not just assume that all irregularities are against them, but that all votes even in irregular regions for them are 100% valid and correct.

As such, the very basis of their argument is authoritarian and fundamentally anti-democratic in every way by its very nature. To suggest that while not all votes are wrong, a certain percentage of these votes, the exact number of which would make a race competitive, most certainly are in the wrong if they bolster the numbers of the political opposition is anti-democratic in nature. To suggest that in such supposedly widespread cases of vote-fraud or tampering that only one set of votes on a ballot would be somehow suspect is, in and of itself suspect. And lastly, looking to historical and political precedents the world over, we know that these exact sort of actions are usually the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes the world over.

By merely allowing the President and the Republican Party to engage in this theatrical attempt to invalidate and question (in this manner) the election and its results, we are allowing them to weaken the foundations of our very governmental systems. We are indulging dangerously through complicity and through silent witness in the undermining and degradation of our constitutional systems.

All right, so, we know now what the problem is, and have a rather clear sense of its gravity. The question then always becomes: what do we do about it? Thankfully, there are three primary avenues of remedy out there. However, I have very sincere concerns about the collective will and urgency by those in a position to do something, to do it in this case.

In an ideal world, each and all of these three remedies noted below would be taken together, in concert, and in an appropriate fashion. However we live in an imperfect world, and it is unlikely everything outlined will come to pass. But that does not mean that we should not try, and thus let this all stand.

A second impeachment is, frankly, the most obvious remedy. However, this is is also the most unlikely of these three possible courses. The previous impeachment of the president has shown America that the Republicans are unlikely to buck the trend even in the face of unequivocal evidence, and in this case it is even more unlikely when so many are conspiring with the President. Despite that, the biggest hurdle to . As it stands, as of the time of writing this article, there are just about two weeks from the inauguration. No impeachment in US history has started and concluded on such a tight timeline, especially in a circumstance with a hostile senate to the process. A second impeachment would absolutely be warranted. The Founding Fathers were intentionally vague about exactly what a “high crime and misdemeanor” entails. However they were all in agreement that while certain things could be argued, acts of treason or gross actions that are against the nation’s interest would absolutely fall within the bounds of an impeachable offense. What has happened is at its most fundamental, absolutely within these definitions, and we must recognize it as such, and act upon it as such.

Criminal charges are also a possibility, at the state and local level, according to some. These charges however have several distinct hurdles. At the federal level, it is unlikely that charges will be filed. More likely, state or even county-level charges could theoretically be leveled for conspiracy to commit election fraud and associated crimes. Criminal charges would serve meaningfully . The legitimate prospect of criminal consequences for this kind of malappropriation of the democratic process is likely to be the only thing to prevent people in future from engaging in this behavior, to ensure that those who abuse the democratic process are called to account.

Setting an aversive example through public statements of disapproval is going to be fundamental to disarming the current situation. However, these statements from politicians on all sides of worry over the precedent that this sets, that these actions are inappropriate or un-American in nature, will mean nothing in the coming years. It is a necessary act, but ultimately an almost pointless one. Vocal handwringing has its place, but will do little to dissuade future attempts.

A lack of success does not mean someone did not try. It is still a crime to attempt to murder someone. It should be a crime to try to murder democracy. An acknowledgement of what has happened should not be contingent upon success or failure of this endeavor.