Johaan Neem is a historian at Western Washington University. He recently published a thoughtful essay about the crisis of our time, the fateful election before us. Will voters return to power a man who has made known his contempt for our Constitution and for the norms of democracy? Neem likens our present dilemma to the “exclusion crisis” in England in the late 1670s and early 1680s. King Charles II sought to turn England into an absolutist state; he canceled laws passed by Parliament and oust local officials who displeased him. Neem suggests that that the U.S. is experiencing a comparable crisis when the question before us is how to resist a tyrannical government that came to power legitimately.

Neem writes:

Today, America is roiled with its own Exclusion Crisis. We too face the very real possibility that in this fall’s election a legal succession could bring to power an executive who has demonstrated his willingness to undermine our Constitution. To draw the parallel is not to propose armed resistance but to force us to reckon with the dreadful gravity of this moment: We may be about to hold an election which will render our Constitution invalid. 

We should not confuse reasonable differences between the two parties and their policies with threats to the Constitution itself. In a democratic republic, open disagreement is a sign of civic health. Regardless of one’s partisan loyalties and policy preferences, however, the evidence is clear that Donald Trump poses a threat to the republic. Like Locke before us, we must consider how to respond should an empowered political leader unknit our order.

There have been many articles and books examining Trump’s authoritarian tendencies and his admiration for authoritarian leaders around the world. The largest threats he poses to the Constitution are not his policies but his efforts to undermine the rule of law by embracing violence as a political tool. Numerous high-ranking officials from the Trump Administration have made clear that, but for their resistance, as president, Trump would have undermined the Constitution during his first term. He has joked that he’ll be a dictator on the first day of his second term, but there’s nothing funny about it. If re-elected, he has promised to unleash all the force of the United States Justice Department against his political opponents, from Gen. Mark A. Milley to President Biden and Vice President Harris, and to bypass the judicial system by using military tribunals. We should take his word for it. 

Trump’s violence — his penchant for it, for inciting it, and valorizing it — should terrify us most of all. He encouraged and then celebrated the efforts of his supporters on January 6 to undermine an election and threaten the safety of America’s elected officials. At the heart of the American system is the freedom of elected legislatures. That freedom itself emerged out of conflicts between Parliament and King — and between colonial assemblies and royal governors — during the 17th and 18th centuries. The consent of the governed depends ultimately on free elections and the capability of the people’s elected representatives to deliberate the public good. Trump is committed to undermining legislative freedom. Both Republican Senator Mitt Romney and former Representative Liz Cheney have revealed that members of Congress were afraid to vote to impeach President Trump — even when they believed that he had committed impeachable offenses — because they worried that his supporters would threaten their families’ safety. When legislators are not free to deliberate and vote, the Constitution is already dead. 

Fear kills freedom. Fear is the point. 

This is an excerpt. Please open the link to finish reading the essay.

It’s strange indeed that a lifelong playboy who spent his time developing fast-buck schemes, operating casinos, and attending professional wrestling matches has the ability to intimidate and control an entire political party with threats of violence.