Since the F.B.I. served a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago, there’s been a bunch of arguments flying around that the Justice Department should not press an aggressive case against the former president. These arguments are based on prudential reasons: Trump has always claimed attacked by the “Deep State,” so it will make his supporters feel like the government is persecuting them, it will inflame them leading to violence (it already has), and it will create a terrible precedent where a Republican administration feels licensed to use the national security state against their political opponents. Then there are more political arguments, like this will consolidate the Republicans behind him again and may resurrect his political career from apparent decline. There’s also another hesitation I’ve actually felt, too: what if the F.B.I., not always the most trustworthy or competent institution, doesn’t really have much and it ends up looking kinda thin? But my answer to all these concerns is increasingly, “Enough of this bullshit, already.”
These sorts of prevarications and what ifs have governed the way the political class and bureaucrats in this country have dealt with Trump from the beginning of his political emergence. James Comey bungled everything with all his efforts to appear unbiased and unpolitical, and ended up actually breaking protocol to keep up his charade of personal purity. Barack Obama was very careful and circumspect about how to talk about and deal with Trump in public, and he got criticized and blamed for the “Russiagate Hoax” anyway. Media commentators constantly create all these scenarios where any sort of aggressive stance towards Trump actually helps him. He’s got everyone twisted up in knots.
The thing about Trump is that he will say anything and do anything, and he will also try to get his followers to do anything. He essentially tried to overthrow the government of the United States. He’s a criminal on many levels. But we’ve convinced ourselves that if even if he’s not legitimate, we have to pretend he’s legitimate to placate his supporters. This is because Republicans, on top of all their other structural advantages, have performed an ideological trick on the entire country where they always an have extra little bit of Americanness: even when in the minority, they have a special something that makes it wrong to cross them. They are the “real Americans,” after all. It’s really an amazing feat, the political version of a small animal that has evolved to puff itself to appear intimidating. Republicans love to say, “What about the millions of people who voted for Trump? Are you just gonna ignore them?” Well, what about the millions of people who voted against him—twice. The will of the public here is pretty clear: “No to this guy.” But the press and even the opposing party constantly plays along with Republican bullshit. It’s part of the unspoken code of American politics that most conventional pundits reinforce. (Not for nothing, no one ever is like, “Well, what about Democrats? What will they think of all this?” The attitude there is always, “Shut up, libs. Crybabies. Snowflakes.”)
It’s time to stop fucking around. All of the savvy political wisdom of the preceding years got us here: with a half-lunatic trying to shake down the country to call off his followers. Trump doesn’t care about precedents: as soon as he’s able, he will use whatever tool he’s able to use against his opponents. This is why his supporters like him. They openly say so. The first time around, he didn’t really know how to wield the power of the state or the most violent core of his supporters, but most likely he will will learn. The Federal oath of office begins, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” If that means anybody in the history of the country, that must mean Trump. He cannot be allowed to hide behind his supporters or try to use them to manipulate the U.S. government. Is it possible that this will lead to bad outcomes? Sure, anything is possible. But treating Trump like he’s got special powers has lead us here.
“But, John, are you saying we should use the Justice Department politically? With the express purpose of getting rid of someone you don’t like.” Kind of! As Trump’s intellectual defenders love to remind us, there’s ultimately no neutral administration of justice, everything is political, and when you get the state apparatus in your hands you use it beat up on your enemies and help out your friends. So, in part, these are their rules. (If you start talking about how you are gonna apply the thought of Carl Schmitt when you administer the state, I may start to get the sense you are my enemy.)
Also, let’s not play innocent. Historically speaking, the F.B.I. has always been used “politically:” it was used against Reds, Nazis, Reds again, the KKK, civil rights leaders, black power leaders, Nazis again etc. A lot of this was abusive and terrible and you know where my political sympathies lie, but this was because the political establishment implicitly or explicitly viewed these groups as threats to the United States itself. In many cases, they were not. (Yeah, yeah, I know what you are gonna say, “but J. Edgar Hoover, blah, blah, blah”—The fact is that Hoover lasted so long because powerful people thought he was useful and mostly right.) But here is a case where the real deal has come along: a bonafide domestic threat to the constitution. People these days are willing to call everything from annoying college students to crummy D.E.I. consultants “totalitarian threats to democracy” or whatever, but when a big, fat threat to democracy is standing right there, suddenly everyone is like, “Well…it’s a little complicated, isn’t it?” No, it really isn’t. And, in this case, we don’t have to break the law or do anything underhanded: just actually try to uphold the law for a change and stop playing little political games around it.
A political class that can’t defend the constitutional order and the rule of law is worse than useless: it’s actually conspiring with its enemies. Trump attacked the very heart of our system of government. If the system can’t respond to that forcefully it doesn’t deserve to exist anymore. Let’s stop pretending Trump is anything but a mobster and a would-be tyrant. In this case, prudence demands action.
Isn't it odd that so many of us can be absolutely (and accurately) aware that "law" is a kind of specific structure for mediating (and concentrating) power, and that it has no special correspondence to justice or democracy and yet we get so profoundly nervous at the thought of using legal structures with something like a consciously political intent? I mean, I fully understand why we hesitate. It's not that we are doing something with law that is unusual--it is used politically all the time, especially by conservatives. It's more like a genre constraint. If you say you're writing a science fiction novel and instead what you seem to have written is a work of autofiction set in 1998 and there's no clever metafictional bridge to explain why your declared intention has been paid off, you tend to get a lot of aggravated readers who think you violated the genre you were aiming at. To do "law" right, you have to appear disinterestedly apolitical. That is, for liberals and even leftists--that is what they expect of the genre. For conservatives, quite the opposite at this point: it's all about the instrumental end and not about the process; they are hoping for 'law' to go by the wayside in favor of executive decree. But they will do that regardless of what is done now in reference to Trump.
Trump would be a good target for a bill of attainder, if that were allowed.