I appreciate the point the author is making here, but I think it errs by skipping past the arguments made by people like Ian Millhiser when he talks about packing the Supreme Court - we are now at a place and time when a true democratic majority can and will be prevented from governing by a minority of people hellbent on preventing true democracy.
We’re now in a situation where it’s a given that the Democratic candidate for President will need to win by more than 2 million votes in order to secure an Electoral College majority, and where it is widely assumed that, if Mitch McConnell remains Senate Majority leader (which he could easily do even if/when the Democrats vastly outpoll the Republicans in total Senate votes) he will not only block any and all legislation from passing, but won’t even confirm cabinet picks or judges.
The author writes: “I find myself looking beyond a candidate’s policy preferences and paying attention to whether their plans for implementing their agenda will help or hurt our democracy. I believe it’s not enough to win. We have to think about the process and structures we’re leaving in place for the next person, whose policy views we may not agree with. I want to know what candidates will do to prevent the emergence of another president like Trump. How will they make sure our checks and balances work so that someone can’t blatantly disregard norms?” It is entirely possible that the next President will be able to do NOTHING to change processes and structures unless they violate some of the old norms.
I agree that this scare me to death. Rare indeed are the moments in history when people find out they can break the rules to accomplish their goals and then subsequently reinstate the rules.
But it’s an asymmetric time. One side is consciously and deliberately ignoring democratic structures, processes, and norms to maintain and expand their power. There is a chance they will succeed. Stopping them is more important than anything else.
