Why We Are Here (Part III)
And where we may be going
In recent months, I’ve been working on the draft of a book I’m writing with my longtime friend and colleague John White, who for years taught political science at Catholic University of America. John and I had the idea to address the 2024 election through the lens of the past three election cycles as the third in a trilogy of elections where democracy was on the ballot.
Our working premise was that each election cycle would set up the next, and pro-democracy forces would need to win them all in order to beat back the ongoing coup that Donald Trump set in motion in 2020 and has never relinquished.
We viewed 2020 as a critical moment in which the country used democratic means to extract an autocrat from power. The 2022 midterms were about beating back MAGA gubernatorial and attorney general candidates in swing states who could have used their positions to support a second “stop the steal” movement had Trump lost in 2024. And of course there was the election last November, when we would decide one final time whether to invite the authoritarian back to the White House.
While we were writing the first draft of the book, our operating assumption was that Trump would not win again. Longtime Wolves and Sheep readers are familiar with the reasoning behind this assumption, which turned out to be wrong. As we worked through what it would mean for Trump to lose, we kept coming back to what we viewed as the inevitability that an animated minority of the country would not accept that outcome, precipitating a constitutional crisis that quite possibly would have threatened the civil order.
But what would this look like in real terms?
The image of a civil war kept surfacing as we bandied about ideas for our conclusion, but it never felt entirely right. Our national divisions are deep, but they do not fall into the neat regional differences that defined the war over slavery and secession. If Texas were to bolt from the union, would Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin go with it? How would you divide up Pennsylvania?
When Trump won, this line of reasoning became moot. We had a peaceful transfer of power because the losing side believes in upholding the norms of democracy. But it was the peaceful transfer of power to a would-be authoritarian, who moved swiftly to destroy as much of the government as he could before the courts could catch up and potentially slow him down.
So instead of facing a civil divide, we are in the more dangerous situation of having an autocrat control the executive branch of government.
What does that mean? What outcomes are likely to follow from this unprecedented arrangement?
One possibility is dark and depressing. It is the possibility that Trump will succeed—or succeed enough—in his efforts to impose his will on the constitutional order.
But the other possibility is hopeful. It views our present situation as an opportunity, despite the suffering currently being inflicted on so many. It leaves open the possibility that we will survive MAGA with a reshuffled deck that will make possible a more just nation that can be governed by its emerging majority.
Below the fold, for paid subscribers, we’ll look at why this possibility makes sense from an historical perspective, and what it might look like if it comes to pass.
