Rick Perlstein of the American Prospect published this article where he raised the question of "what will you do if Trump gets elected."
I decided to respond to him as follows:
Dear Mr. Perlstein,
I am observing the US election from Austria as an interested party without ideological leaning. I cannot say what „I am prepared to do in case Trump wins“, as you ask, because I don’t live in the US and cannot vote there but I can share with you my reaction from the distance.
First, if Kamala Harris did not win, I would be happy because I consider her a greater threat to democracy than Donald Trump. I would expect her to prioritize the following: (a) packing the Supreme Court; (b) eliminating the filibuster; (c) censoring social networks; (d) legalizing illegal immigrants; (e) criminalizing certain billionaires (but not Soros or Gates); (e) defunding the police; (f) reaffirming her opposition to fracking; and several more. After all, she has always said that this is what she stood for until she became a candidate.
Harris would violate the traditional Democratic positions of figures like JFK and Bill Clinton, and actually also those of Hillary Clinton, Obama and Pelosi before they became obsessed with the Trump Derangement Syndrome. I loved those traditional Democratic positions and the people fighting for them. Frankly, I don’t think that JFK or Bill Clinton would have given Harris the time of the day.
To me, one of the great self-tests is to „put on the other shoe.“ Imagine you would have had a Trump presidency where Trump was already suffering from cognitative weaknesses when he took office. Where Trump would have evaded the primaries and the campaign by recording videos from his basement. Where Trump would have been withdrawn more and more from public scrutiny. Where the word was that „we have to hide all of that until he gets re-elected.“ And when you realized that Trump wouldn’t be capable of getting re-elected, you looked for a graceful exit. And that graceful exit was to move a TV debate forward so that, still in good time for the election, Trump could destroy himself as a candidate. And then you replaced Trump with a candidate who had never once gained only one delegate in a primary. Who was one of the most unpopular Vice Presidents in US history.
And you applaud all of that for the only reason that Trump must not be elected President? In other words, the end justifies the means?
That’s not what I learned about US democracy when I studied comparative government at Harvard in the late 1960’s. Harvard was as liberal then as it is now and yet, I don’t think any liberal professor of then would have justified what the Democrats and their supportive media have done ever since Trump arrived on the political stage.
When I watch videos about the MSG event, I get the impression that Rudy Guiliani will be the Attorney General under a Trump Administration and Hulk Hogan its Secretary of State. Absolutely mind-boggling! And yet, I learned at Harvard that you don’t discredit political opponents by calling them fascists, Nazis, garbage, deplorables or whatever. You discredit them by having better arguments and better proponents. Trump is the product of the American establishment's not having better arguments or, more importantly, better proponents. I suggest you start living with that fact. And I hope for you that Harris doesn’t win because if she does, she will inaugurate a long-term phase of reaction from the Right, a phase which could span an entire generation and even more.
Sincerely,
