Will the United States Survive the 2016 election (continued, with special attention to Republican "leaders"taken issue

Sandy Levinson

It is clearer and clearer that the sociopath running for President on the Republican ticket is devoted not only to attacking the substantive legitimacy of Secretary Clinton (something I am obviously doing with regard to the sociopath), but also the legitimacy of any election that makes her President.  (I suppose I am doing the same thing insofar as the only conceivable way that the sociopath could be elected is because of the operation of the electoral college in a multi-candidate race).  I repeat what I said earlier:  No sane person beeves that the sociopath will get more than roughly 40-45% of the total vote, and some polls suggest significantly less than that.  The NYTimes is currently estimating the chances of a Clinton victory at 89%, so I think that a rational polity must be preparing for the high likelihood of a Clinton presidency.

This is where the sheer moral and political bankruptcy of purported Republican "leaders" is evident.  It seems incumbent on such "leaders," if they are anything more than the most snivelling political opportunists, to begin preparing their constituencies for the prospect of a Clinton victory by doing something other than simply saying it is important to elect Republicans to Congress in order to stop the dreaded Hillary from achieving any of her program.  That is "fair comment," whatever one might think of the prospects for continued gridlock if the Republicans do in fact maintain control of the House.  As I've written repeatedly, perhaps ad nauseum, my beef is with our defective Constitution that in effect encourage gridlock and the alienation that accompanies it rather than with Republican members of  Congress who oppose Democratic presidents.  Mitch McConnell behaved entirely rationally in refusing to treat Judge Garland's nomination seriously, even if one believes that was unfortunate for the republic more generally.

The far more serious issue is whether people like Ryan, McConnell, Thune and others who still play to vote for the sociopath--or, more accurately, tell the public that they will be doing so, leaving us to guess about the actual vote in the secrecy of the voting booth--will state now that however much they lament the possibility of her presidency, she is fact thoroughly competent and does not, as the fascist former mayor of New York seems to suggest, represent a threat to the republic.  If they are silent in the face of such incendiary comments by the sociopath and his enablers, then they are contributing directly to the view expressed by a woman in once of the Pence rallies a couple of days ago, i.e., she is ready for a "revolution" if Hillary wins.  All Pence could say is that the "revolution" will happen with a Trump victory on November 8.  Perhaps he believes that, but surely that view is not shared by most of the craven Republican "leaders" who are unwilling to say in public what they surely believe, that their candidate is indeed entirely unfit to hold any public office whatsoever, let alone the presidency.

Honorable Republicans like Jennifer Rubin, Michael Gerson, and Ross Douthat know that a political and moral accounting must take place in the Republican Party.  (Let me note for the record that I have come deeply to admire Rubin and Gerson because of their unrelenting willingness to go after those who support or enable the sociopath.)  This is also presumably true of honorable senators like Lindsay Graham, Ben Sasse, and Susan Collins (who did not need to hear "the tape" in order to know that her candidate was beneath contempt and did not deserve her support).  And I continue to think that John Katich deserves our admiration in this regard.  But, alas, they still represent a distinct minority of ostensible Republican "leaders."  It is not only that purported "leaders" continue to enable the sociopath; it is that the only thing they are doing is professing outrage at his sexual predation, but doing nothing at all to suggest that Secretary Clinton is in fact not the devil.  There are Republicans in the Senate who remember her as an effective senator, more than willing to work across the aisle.  But they are terrified to say so because of the atmosphere created by the sociopath and his truly deplorable enablers.  Should my fears of our collective future turn out to be at all realistic, the purported "leaders" who are absolutely afraid even to concede the basic competence of Secretary and former Senator Clinton will deserve at least as much blame as the sociopath.

Incidentally, the seeming acquiescence of Republican "leaders" in the demonization of Hillary Clinton has serious consequences of the future of the Supreme Court.  Assume she wins and the Republicans keep the Senate.  Will they confirm any  of her nominees to the Court, given that the principal reason that Ted Cruz, for example, gives for his support for the sociopath is the necessity to prevent the Court from going Democratic.  So assume that the Democrats get control of the Senate.  First, they will have to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court appointments.  But then, and perhaps more seriously, the country would have to accept the legitimacy of any appointments made under such circumstances.  Would the GOP be willing to do that, i.e., to admit that "elections have consequences" and that Hillary and the Democrats won fairly and squarely and get to do what winners do?  Or would they, on the other hand, simply continue the language of demonization and delegitimization that threatens the stability of the entire political order?

A final point:  Some discussants have taken issue with my reference to the Republican candidate as a "sociopath," on the basis of the altogether correct observation that I am not professionally qualified as a psychologist.  I would take that criticism more seriously if the basis of the sociopath's campaign (as was true, incidentally, by and large for those who supported Brexit), was not a systematic repudiation of experts and expertise.  These are, after all, people who proudly disdain what has come to be a scientific consensus about global warming and the threat it presents to all of us if we don't try to confront it seriously.  (Note, incidentally, that the worst ravages of the recent hurricane were i two states, Florida and North Carolina, whose Republican governors and legislatures systematically refuse to fund any research that might even suggest that climate change is a reality and that state need to adjust accordingly.  If one believed in providential history, a la Cotton Mather, one might say that my home state of North Carolina is getting what it has richly earned for putting the state in the hands of expertise-hating neanderthals.  Fortunately, I don't believe in providential history, so I don't think that the actual victims of the flooding deserve their fate, but the political "leaders" of North Carolina certainly deserve to be thrown out of office as soon as possible.)  Getting back to the main point, I note that those who support the sociopath simply are indifferent to the fact that no reputable economist supports him, and one could present much more evidence of the extent to which the sociopath prides himself on his disdain for anything that might be described as "evidence" or "expertise."  Perhaps this still doesn't license me to call him a "sociopath" inasmuch as I do claim to take evidence--and expertise--seriously.  Would it suffice to describe him simply as a man who gives no evidence whatsoever of thinking of anything other than satisfying his own insatiable desires, whether for money, fame, or the submission of vulnerable females?  I.e., is he really anything other than the Holmesian "bad man" run riot?

The only two questions I'm interested in reading comments on are the following:

Are Republicans and/or supporters of Donald Trump willing to concede that Clinton is competent to be president and that the system that will very likely elect her is legitimate?  If the former is true, then why aren't more Republican "leaders" saying that, even as they go on to say that they oppose her policies and think they would be bad for the country, which is certainly "fair comment"?  But that's different from pronouncing her a threat to our very survival.

If it is fair to expect me to adhere to professional boundaries in making comments about Mr. Trump's psychological state, then should one expect equal respect for professional expertise on the part of him and his supporters.
Posted 11:21 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]