Will the U.S. Survive the 2016 election (continued)?

So, last night's "debate" featured one candidate saying that her opponent was not fit to be President, which is surely true, and the other indicating that he would, if elected, use all the power at his disposal to jail Secretary Clinton, who is actually a "devil."  So I continue to wonder what the concessions will look like on November 8.  Can Secretary Clinton really call on all of us to be good sports and rally round a sociopath who is indeed not remotely fit to be President?  That conclusion is now attested to by an ever increasing group of Republicans, some of whom took longer to reach this conclusion than others, but who have nonetheless reached it.  She said at the conclusion of the last debate that she would accept the voters' verdict, but one must truly ask why, if in fact it is the case, as it surely is, that he is a sociopath who should not be let within 100 yards of actually legal authority.  And, of course, no one--and I mean literally no one--believes that the sociopath could possibly gain even close to majority of the popular vote.  Any win continues to be dependent on our insane system established by the Framers in 1787 partly because of mistrust in ordinary Americans and at least as much to reward slaveowning states and otherwise removing any incentive for those elites controlling state government actually to let their citizens vote.

One might rely on supporters of Secretary Clinton to be at least supine, if not "good sports" in accepting a victory by the sociopath.  But that is surely not the case with that portion of the sociopath's constituency that is in fact thoroughly deplorable.  In a new book that I edited, just published by the University Press of Kansas, Nullification and Secession in Contemporary Constitutional Thought, Jared Goldstein of the Roger Williams School of Law has an absolutely superb essay analyzing the constitutional theories of various militia and similar movements, including that of the Bundys (the son of whom is currently on trial for occupying federal lands in Oregon).  Anyone reading his essay must realize, first and foremost, that members of these groups are absolutely serious in believing that they are devoted to the one true Constitution that has, in their view, been systematically violated by those actually running the contemporary United States.  And, unlike those on the left, they have guns that they see as essential tor existing an oppressive government.  The sociopath who claims to represent the Republican Party (and who, of course, received a record number of popular votes on his way to the nomination) is playing to far more than simply the "alt right" view of the United States.  He is giving aid and comfort to what might well be called "insurrectionism."  That is surely one of the meanings of his support for the Second Amendment, which the far right recognizes has precious little to do with individual "self-defense" and everything to do with mounting an uprising, similar to that of the America secession of 1776 (and, of course, the unsuccessful secession of 1861).  Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that the sociopath emerges as a "good sport" and congratulates former Senator and Secretary Clinton on winning a well-run race, will the "deplorable" who continue to support Trump regardless of any evidence that might suggest his unfitness for office simply decide to wait for 2020?  Or will at least some of them be tempted to engage in guerrilla warfare against a government they view as illegitimate (and, of course, encouraged to do so by the tax-avoiding sociopath who proclaims that any money he might otherwise have ponied up would simply be wasted)?  Several years ago, a number of people, including some within the government, were so bold as to suggest that the principal terrorist threats to the US came from white Americans affiliated with the far right.  (Just think of Timothy McVeigh.)  That, of course, was not "politically correct," so those suggestions were modulated and all of our attention was focused by those who claim to be critics of "political correctness" on the threat coming from Muslims.  We may have the opportunity to test the empirical truth of these varying claims following the Trump defeat.

Two final points, for what they're worth.  First, we should resist responding to the sociopath's threat last night to make sure that Secretary Clinton would be jailed by proclaiming that this was absolutely unAmerican, that we decide our differences by ballots and not by jailing our opponents.  With respect, try telling that first to Eugene V. Debs and then to the various Communists who were jailed in the heyday of the Red Scare following World War II.  Debs remains the most significant American socialist leader in our history, and the response of the egregious Woodrow Wilson, backed by a unanimous decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes (which never once mentioned Debs's name or gave any clue as to who he actually was), was to jail him for ten years.  The underrated Warren Harding pardoned him and invited him to the White House!  None of the various jailed Communists had the luster of Debs, but jailing them was surely not our finest hour.  What is different about last night is that a truly major party candidate was threatened with imprisonment by her sociopathic opponent.  We certainly shouldn't take that threat lightly in terms of revealing ever more about the sociopath's (and his supporters' ) conception of politics, but let us refrain from adopting a view of American exceptionalism that denies the reality of Debs and the Communists.

Secondly, the sociopath revealed his complete and utter ignorance of the way our constitutional system works (for better or worse) not only in his suggestion that as President he could assure the appointment of a special prosecutor who would be devoted to putting Secretary Clinton in jail, but also, and just as revealingly, by his repeated insistence that Sen. Clinton surely could have gotten rid of the carried interest provision of the tax code if she really wanted to.  She reminded him not only that her name was on 400 pieces of legislation, but also, more importantly that individual senators, whatever their ability, don't have magic wands that can assure that their desires are translated into public policy.  She noted, for example, that the Senate was Republican for 4-1/2 years of the time she was in the Senate; moreover, and just as importantly, the President, with his veto power, was also a Republican.  Only a completely ignorant person could believe that the failure of Sen. Clinton (or any other senator) to achieve all of her policy goals is evidence of her own failures of nerve.  But, of course, what is being projected is not only the Republican candidate's complete and utter ignorance of the basics of the American political system but also his inner authoritarian narcissism.  No doubt he does believe that if only he were president, then everyone would bend to his will--and we know from the tapes what that means for many women.

It does appear that we are likely to escape the catastrophe of a sociopathic president.  But, as I've suggested on previous occasions, that should not in the slightest truly reassure us that we have a healthy political (or constitutional) system and that the aftermath of the election won't simply be continued gridlock (unless, of course, the Republican Party is truly destroyed, as they deserve to be, by a wave election that gives Democrats both the House and the Senate as well), but also violence by would-be constitutional "patriots" who reject in toto the legitimacy of the American national government.  Indeed, the breaking of gridlock via a two-year period of disciplined Democratic hegemony in Congress, assuming that in fact is possible given fractures within the Democratic Party itself, might well be to encourage insurrections by those who take seriously the claims by Rudy Giuliani, some ostensible Evangelical leaders, and others that this is literally the last opportunity to stop America's fatal decline.

As always, I am allowing comments.  But, as is frequently the case, I'm not in the least interested in whether you share my views of the Republican candidate or his opponent (or, indeed, the likelihood of the electoral outcome next month).  The one and only thing I'm interested in reading comments about is whether you find it truly over-the-top to suggest the empirical consequences of a Clinton victory, especially if brings Congress in its wake, for at least some significant (and armed) portion of the sociopath's "base."