Below is my column in The Hill on the growing calls for an organized resistance to the Trump Administration by Democratic governors and prosecutors. They may find, however, that the resistance movement this time around will be facing significant legal and political headwinds.
Here is the column:
The single most common principle of recovery programs is that the first step is to admit that you have a problem.
That first step continues to elude the politicians and pundits who unsuccessfully pushed lawfare and panic politics for years. That includes prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James and politicians like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who affirmed this week that they will be redoubling, not reconsidering, their past positions.
For its part, The Washington Post quickly posted an editorial titled “The second resistance to Trump must start now.” They may, however, find the resistance more challenging both politically and legally this time around.
It is important to note at the outset that there is no reason Democratic activists should abandon their values just because they lost this election. Our system is strengthened by passionate and active advocacy.
Rather, it is the collective fury and delirium of the post-election protests that was so disconcerting. Pundits lashed out at the majority of voters, insisting that the election established that half of the nation is composed of racists, misogynists or domination addicts who long to submit to tyranny.
Others blamed free speech and the fact that social media allows “disinformation” to be read by ignorant voters. In other words, the problem could not possibly be themselves. It was, rather, the public, which refused to listen.
That does not bode well for the Democratic Party. As someone raised in a liberal politically active family in Chicago, I had hoped for greater introspection after this election blowout.
Ordinarily, recovery can begin with “a terrible experience” when someone hits rock bottom.
After a crushing electoral defeat and the loss of the White House and likely both houses of Congress, one would think that Democrats would be ready for that first step to recovery. However, those hoping for a new leaf on the left do not understand the true addictive hold of rage.
In my recent book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I explore rage and our long history of rage politics. There is a certain release that comes with rage in allowing people to do and say things that you would never do or say. People rarely admit it, but they like it. It is the ultimate high produced by the lowest form of political discourse.
Over the course of the last eight years, the U.S. has become a nation of rage addicts.
For months, Democratic leaders denounced Donald Trump and his supporters as fascists and neo-Nazis. President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and others suggested that democracy itself was about to die unless Democrats were kept in power.
Just before the election, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called those voting for Trump “anti-American.” By Hochul’s measure, over half of the American electorate is now “anti-American.”
James is the face of lawfare. She may have done more to reelect Trump than anyone other than the president himself. She ran on nailing Trump on something, anything. In New York, she was joined by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in this ill-conceived effort. They fulfilled the narrative of a weaponized legal system. Every new legal action seemed to produce another surge in polling for Trump.
Yet there James was, soon after the election, with another press conference promising again to unleash the powers of her office to stop Trump’s policies.
Then there was Pritzker, doing the community theater version of “The Avengers” and declaring, “You come for my people, you come through me.”
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) added that he too will “fight to the death” against Trump’s agenda.
Rather than lower the rhetoric, these rage-addicts ran out for another hit.
Our prior periods of rage politics were largely ended by the public in major election shifts like the one this month. Things, however, are different this time around both politically and legally. The problem for the resistance is the very democracy that they claimed to be saving.
Democrats lost after opposing policies supported by an astonishing share of the public at a time of deep political division. That effort included opposing voter ID laws favored by 84 percent of the public, among other things.
They are now committed to opposing policies central to this election blowout, including deportations of illegal immigrants, which is favored in some polls by two-thirds of Americans.
Likewise, Democrats have already doubled down on attacks on free speech, including blaming their loss on the absence of sufficient censorship. On MSNBC, host Mika Brzezinski blamed the loss in part on “massive disinformation.” Yet, according to some polls, free speech ranked as high as second among issues on Election Day.
According to CNN, Trump’s performance was the best among young people (18-29 years old) in 20 years, the best among Black voters in 48 years, and the best among Hispanic voters in more than 50 years.
Harris actually lost a bit of support with women, and Trump won handily among some groups of women.
None of that seems to matter this time. We have an alliance of political media and academic interests wholly untethered to the views of most of the public. Yet, with both houses of Congress under Republican control, the investigations and impeachment efforts that hounded Trump throughout his first term will be less of a threat in his second term.
For that reason, the center of gravity of the “second resistance” will shift to Democratic prosecutors like James, Bragg and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who was just reelected.
Various Democratic governors are also pledging to thwart Trump’s policies despite the results of the election.
The “second resistance” will try to use state power to oppose the very issues and policies that led to this historic political shift. That means that there will be a legal shift in the focus of litigation to inherent federal powers versus state powers. That battle will favor the Trump administration.
In fairness to these Democratic politicians, they are certainly free to go to the courts, as Republicans did under Biden to argue for limitations on federal powers. But the promise of California Gov. Gavin Newsom to “Trump-proof” the state is easier to make rhetorically than it will be to keep legally.
Indeed, Trump will be able to cite a curious ally in this fight: Barack Obama. It was Obama who successfully swatted down state efforts to pursue their own policies and programs on immigration enforcement. Obama insisted that state laws were preempted in the area and the Supreme Court largely agreed in its 2012 decision in Arizona v. U.S.
Congress may even seek to tie the receipt of federal funds to states cooperating with federal mandates. For this reason, Democrats, who campaigned on the promise to end the filibuster for the good of democracy, suddenly became firm believers in that Senate rule right around 2:30 a.m. last Wednesday.
As the majority of the country walks away from the party shaking their heads, many activists are left only with their rage. Instead of reappraising the years of far-left orthodoxy and intolerance, some are calling to tear down the system or take drastic individual actions, including for women to break up with their boyfriends and husbands or to cut off their hair.
They will actually keep their rage and dump their relationships. Now that really is an addiction.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
First and foremost, Mr Turley, I enjoy and look forward to reading your articles. Thank you for your persistent effort to expose the fraud and hypocrisy, while providing a simpler and legal perspective on many current events. Why then, do you consistently refer to our well established “Constitutional Republic” as a “Democracy” since it is not? The difference, as you know, is extraordinary. Conditioning from the plethora of public figures who refer to our government wrongly, is another form of propaganda and brainwashing. In this age of rage that you so beautifully capture, it’s indeed a challenge to maintain integrity in our word use. Please begin today sir, and use the correct description of our country as a Constitutional Republic. Thanks for your consideration.
I have been stating exactly this for the last 4 years. When I state it to liberal associates, they cock their heads like a curious dog does. The propaganda machine of the DemonRat party and their lap-dog media continues to push this falsehood.
Regarding your desire for more precise language. You say “…it’s indeed a challenge to maintain integrity in our word use.” I agree. I have two questions for you: 1) How do you feel about the term “Democratic Republic” which is used by many nations to define their government. And 2) If you truly care about language — including the language used to name our laws — how can you square the name “Citizens United” which is used as the shorthand for the law that does one thing — pumps dark corporate money into campaigns. Turley is a know-it-all gasbag who I am confident enjoys his contrarian position at GWU in D.C. I am personal friends with more than 20 contractors near Atlantic City who were stiffed by Donald Trump over the years. Trump is fundamentally corrupt at a genetic and neurological level. Those who defend him at this stage are defiantly ignorant of the world. Watch a long video of a Black Lives Matter protest (you pick one) and then watch the January 6th lunatic attack on our Capitol building. You tell me which party is trapped in a storm of rage. The floor is yours Helen. Be precise with your words.
“It is important to note at the outset that there is no reason Democratic activists should abandon their values just because they lost this election.”
False. They need to abandon their totalitarian dreams and accept Liberty. Period.
The problem I have with lawyers is they don’t experience the fallout of their decisions. The blah, blah, blah lawfare industry bankrupts innocent people and rips decent people to shreads.
Merchan should be on trial with Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, the fat chick paying off the boyfriend – the list goes on. They are all famous and rich now.
To lawyers this is all a game where win or lose, some higher goal has been served. It is time to quit pretending lawfare is harmless. Defendants, wrongly charged, being used to make American citizens pawns in the grand game of politics. We deserve legal revenge – yes, dirty, bloody, revenge with the ferocity of a fight for freedom from legal tyranny. They should rot in jail while justice creeps along.
@chuckie Chan
There is a limited qualified immunity that protects judges and DAs so that they can do their jobs.
However… when the lawyer or the judge crosses the line… you can go after them.
There’s malicious prosecution which could be used against Bragg and James. However while James’ case is headed to appeal where it will get smashed…
Bragg may dodge a bullet if Merchan dismisses the case.
Merchan and Engoron clearly violated their judicial canons… to the point of where they should be tossed from the bench. Yet that’s not likely to happen in that their fellow judges who will handle it will turn a blind eye or slap them on the wrist.
All four of them should be charged under election interference, however… that’s going to be a tough one to prove but IMHO there’s enough evidence in the public eye that they should face a trial.
James and her ‘get Trump’ rhetoric. It got her elected, yet… and here’s the kicker… it shows motive and mens rhea / premeditated thought.
Of all of them… she’s got the least amount of air cover other than she’s a black woman.
Merchan is weighing his options… he’ll probably pop Trump free.
-G
Once Trump is sworn in, radical elements will look for a case on which they can justify nationwide violence. Think George Floyd who died of a fentanyl overdose.
Jonathan: What you omit in your column is some of the guardrails that still exist to protect us from a “dictator”. The first guardrail is the 10th Amendment that states: “The powers not delegated in the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. This means governors and state AGs will use state powers to protect the legal rights of their citizens against threats by the new DJT administration. How will this play out?
Example? In Arizona AG Kris Mayes says she has “no intention” of dropping the criminal case against the fake DJT electors who sought to overturn the state’s 2020 election results. Mayes said: “A grand jury in the state of Arizona decided that these individuals who engaged in a attempt to overturn our democracy in 2020 should be accountable, so we won’t be cowed, we won’t be intimidated”. So DJT can’t do anything about that prosecution in Arizona.
Then, NY AG Letitia James has a similar message for DJT. She says her office will “fight back” and protect NY residents and the “rule of law”. What does this mean for James’s $450 million judgment for DJT’s persistent business fraud? If the judgment is likely to be upheld on appeal [although like reduced] James can still enforce the judgment–and if DJT refuses to pay up– go after his assets. And DJT can do nothing about that.
On the abortion front DJT has pledged to sign a nationwide abortion ban. What happens if his compliant Congress passes such a ban? In Maryland, Gov. Wes Moore says: “The people of out state voted to codify the right to choose into the Maryland constitution. That right will be honored and respected in the State of Maryland”. And what does DJT think he can do about that?
What does this all mean? It means states will continue to protect the Constitutional rights of its citizens against DJT’s attempts at overreach, abuse and lawlessness. Unless DJT just ignores the 10th Amendment–which may try. But I don’t think even the 6-3 right-wing majority on the SC would endorse that. Stay tuned because what we are going to see in the next 4 years are a lot of legal battles to protect what is left of our Democracy!
“On the abortion front DJT has pledged to sign a nationwide abortion ban.”
Actually, he pledged to *veto* an abortion ban.
Maybe “disinformation” should be criminalized.
You sir, are misinformed and spreading the same.
What comes around, goes around. Now that this door has been opened, expect lawfare to become normal in future political battles. The results will not be pretty.
Out of collegial courtesy: D-
Perhaps consider another major, like Screaming.
We have our own despot in California, working against the interests of the people for political goals like global change and eliminating fossil fuel transportation by eliminating supply.
Citizens are paying the price as tax money is shoveled into the government furnace. Vote them out, you say? 30% of California is on one welfare program or another. Plus it is a ballot harvesters paradise.
Chuckie Chan
You have comments that make so much sense compared to many others here. I have been reading this site for years.
I will watch for your comments which are always knowledgeable.
Four more years, four more years. Trump meets Biden on Wednesday. I hopes Trumps plane circles around DC before it lands so everyone can see it. Daddy’s coming home.
Turley writes:
“For months, Democratic leaders denounced Donald Trump and his supporters as fascists and neo-Nazis.”
Meanwhile in battleground Michigan, people wave Nazi flags outside a play of The Diary of Anne Frank yelling “Hail Hitler and Hail Trump.”
https://www.wlns.com/news/im-at-a-loss-honestly-people-holding-nazi-flags-harass-citizens-in-mid-michigan/
Neo-Nazis support Trump. That doesn’t mean that all Trump supporters want to create “a unified Reich” (as Trump himself put it). But, it does mean they have to be tolerant of a leader who openly models himself after European strongmen, both past and present.
Yeah, all five of em. Oh my, it’s an invasion. Undoubtedly they will attack the 20-30 million illegal aliens, terrorists, and cartels, who this administration flew into the country.
Jonathon Turley is the absolute BEST possible person for Trump to appoint as Attorney General!
I have written an essay that lays out the reasons and justifications..
https://x.com/Elvin_Unleashed/status/1855691345781793225
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
And a sucky way to generate click traffic for a personal blog.
I’d prefer Mark Levin.
* Professor Turley isn’t a prosecutor.
* For we see darkly through a glass knowing only partly but then face – to – face
1 Corinthians 13:12
Watching multi-millionaire celebs vow to leave America because of bad old Mr Trump while millions of poor people from third world hellholes try desperately to get in is very entertaining