Why Attacks on the Elite Are the Most Dangerous

 

And there you have it.  In my view, Trump's attacks on our elite and institutions (much the same thing, really) are more dangerous than his attacks on ordinary people.

I realize this will not be a popular opinion on our side.  Our elites, after all, have the resources to protect themselves in a way that ordinary people do not.  While ordinary people are clearly to blame for Trump being in power, many of us are wholly innocent in that, while all our elites may be considered complicit with Trump in the sense of not succeeded in stopping him.  And the maneuvers in the corridors of power seem remote from most people's ordinary lives.

And I acknowledge this.  But in the end, it is our institutions and elites that either will stop Trump and his abuses, or they will not.  

It is my firm and settled view that if Trump is able to stay popular for long enough, he will be able to subdue our elites and subvert our institutions, and then if he takes unpopular actions there will no longer be a way to stop him.  That is what has happened in Russia and Venezuela.  It has probably happened in Hungary and Turkey.  In all these cases, an aspiring dictator focused his attacks on the elite and refrained from taking unpopular actions until it was too late to stop him.

A fascinating contrast is the Philippines (see Freedom House rankings).  In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte launched a horrifying campaign of extra-legal violence against purported drug traffickers.  Freedom House found widespread arbitrary detention, disappearances, kidnapping and abuse of suspects, as well as harassment, torture and disappearance of indigenous peoples, especially in land disputes.   Obviously, all of this merits our condemnation and is a serious human rights abuse.  (It is also much worse than even a worst case scenario under Donald Trump).  But here is the thing. Duterte did not direct his attacks on the elite.  Opposition parties continued to operate openly and seriously contest elections.  Duterte stepped down as required by term limits.  His handpicked successor won. There has been a significant improvement in human rights under his handpicked successor.  We are left with the impression that all is not lost, as it is in Russia and Venezuela, and probably in Hungary and Turkey.

Let's bring this closer to home and be more specific.  Trump has issued a number executive orders taking extreme action against immigration.  Many of these decrees have been challenged as illegal or unconstitutional.  A federal judge appears poised to strike down the decree ending birthright citizenship as unconstitutional.  We can hope that other executive orders will meet the same fate.

Meanwhile, Trump has pardoned the January 6 insurgents.  Private militias such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters are on the rise.  Many of us fear that these groups will serve as Trump's private paramilitary.  Will they focus on terrorizing immigrants or challengers to Trump in our ruling elite?  And which is worse?

Well, clearly our elites can hire private bodyguards and take other steps to protect themselves much better than ordinary immigrants, so in that sense targeting immigrants is worse than targeting elites.

On the other hand, consider.  There are about 11 million people in the US without legal authorization.  Trump plans to add to their number by revoking humanitarian parole for some 500,000 asylum seekers admitted by Biden.  I have not found any estimate as to the number of paramilitary members in the US, but it seems safe to say, nowhere near that number.  Furthermore, these immigrants are mingled with the citizenry and not easy to distinguish.  And I do generally trust local authorities to prosecute militias who commit crimes against immigrants.

By contrast, there are 870 federal judges in the US.  The locations of federal courthouses are well known, and judges' personal residences should not be too hard to find.  Furthermore, not all federal judges are hearing immigration cases at any given time.  Suppose the Proud Boys, etc. start targeting federal judge, harassing, threatening, and even killing judges unless they uphold Trump's actions.  Such acts are federal crimes, of course, but Trump can direct the federal authorities not to prosecute.  He can issue pardons for the offenders.  

And the IRS, at Trump's direction, can deny tax-exempt status to immigrant's rights organizations, effectively closing them down.  Paramilitaries can target lawyers advocating for immigrants.  Trump can withdraw funding from any local jurisdiction that does not cooperate in his anti-immigrant agenda -- or even any jurisdiction that dares to prosecute his private bands of thugs.  

I venture to say this would leave immigrants worse off than if the militias had targeted them directly -- it would shut down their defenders.

Or, on a less dramatic note, keeping the very worst people out of office depends on elite resistance by the Senate to reject Trump's nominees.

And this is frustrating to those of us who oppose Trump, not just because we can dismiss the elite to some degree as deserving what they get, but because there is so little we can do about Trump's attacks on the elite.  We can call and write to our representatives, and we can donate to organizations like the ACLU that are carrying on the fight.

But most of what we can do is directly on behalf of ordinary people harmed by Trump.  We can take what little action there is to protect immigrants and others who are targets of his ire.  We can improve our communities.  And some of us can even run for office.  And we can remember that this, too, contributes to higher level resistance.  We may belong to organizations that the ACLU is defending in court.

And we can all remember that the key to saving democracy is for all of us to do what little we can do.