Taking Existential Threats Seriously
Few, if any, of those using existential threat narratives as campaign rhetoric seem interested in actually defenestrating the accumulated powers of the presidency.
Well, it only took until February to publish the first issue of Self-Evident in the new year. We’re only one month into 2024, and it’s already been pretty crazy, with lots of work and effort going on behind the scenes both in support of the Freemen News-Letter and our broader efforts at The Freemen Foundation.
And politically, quite a lot has happened. The Republican field has narrowed down to a single non-Trump candidate in Nikki Haley, and the electability of Donald Trump as evidenced in the polls continues to vacillate between “You’re saying there’s a chance” and “Naw, dawg.”
But rather than discuss the contours of the race, I wanted to speak on a topic, yet again, that tends to really bother me: the fact that we see “existential threat” rhetoric so consistently in our political discourse, and yet, little is ever done to address the accumulated powers of the presidency that make such rhetoric even somewhat believable.
Taking Existential Threats Seriously
My great frustration from those on both sides of the aisle who claim some political figure running for President presents an "existential threat" to the Republic is that, almost without exception, their professed views of this threat revolve exclusively around a person running for president and not at all around the office itself.
Little to no effort whatsoever has been brought to bear, despite the belief any given person could wield the office of the presidency toward dictatorship, to reckon with the power accumulated to that office which makes the claim of dictatorial designs somewhat believable.
Those who use rhetoric that declares existential consequences from electoral outcomes don't take their rhetoric seriously because, if they did, they would be committing every ounce of devotion toward defenestrating the accumulated powers of the presidency so that the exercise of that office could never pose the serious threat they claim presently exists, no matter who might come to wield it.
The fact that those who claim existential questions in presidential elections feel the threat goes away simply by electing whoever happens to be at hand electorally to challenge the threat betrays the unseriousness of their rhetoric.
An existential threat to the Republic predicated upon the way any given political figure might exercise the office of the Presidency is not a question that can be solved at the ballot box. Such a question suggests the balance and checks on executive power have been frustrated and must be renewed. It is a constitutional rather than an electoral question, and nowhere do I see any of those using existential rhetoric engaged in constitutional quandary. Instead, they are exclusively engaged in electoral contest and partisan efforts.
Today, right this moment, President Biden could sit down with Congress and say, "The Presidency is too powerful, let's work together to ensure that, even if Trump were to win, he could never become a dictator," and Congress could respond with a flurry of both new bills and the repealing of old bills that more than enough Republicans would sign on to pass that would re-balance the power between Congress and the Presidency and remove completely the procedural threat that so many claim a second Trump term present.
But this would never happen. Why? Because 1) the Democrats and their enablers have demonstrated time and time again that they do not take their anti-Trump rhetoric seriously AND 2) at the end of the day, they want the accumulated powers of the presidency for themselves despite their claims of what Trump could do with that power.
The imperial presidency is so important to the progressive vision that they would rather roll the dice with an opponent they claim would destroy democracy than reckon with what the presidency has become.
And this is where I've grown so frustrated with the “burn it down” Never GOP types. They allowed themselves to become so exclusively concerned with the singular threat of Trump the person and the singular dysfunction of his followers that they turned to enabling a progressive vision that itself was the chief architect of the circumstances that invited such a man as Trump to rise to power, a vision whose century-long effort to refound a liberal republic into a progressive democracy forged both the power in government necessary to empower, and the expectation of the electorate for demanding, an activist executive rather than one of stewardship.
A broader view of history demonstrates that the accumulation of overwhelming powers into a single office is an open invitation for the rise of men such as Trump. Trump was inevitable, given the circumstances contrived and assembled by the progressive left. How, then, was the solution ever going to be enabling those who, when given power, were going to continue down the road we've been on?
ICYMI
Of Insurrections and Republics, by myself: “Based upon the reasonable conclusions of this essay and upon the totality of the circumstances relevant to the political violence on January 6th, I contend that an insurrection did, in fact, occur and that Donald Trump offered aid and comfort to that insurrection. Therefore, a fair reading of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment clearly bars Donald Trump from future political office.”
Siding With the Weak Isn’t Always Right, by Ben Connelly: “When it comes to morality, the most important lens isn’t strength and weakness. It’s right and wrong.”
My Time With National Review, by Scott Howard: “I have had the pleasure of learning under the tutelage of many experienced, conservative thinkers, but nothing quite compares to the concentration of talent Buckley’s brainchild holds.”
Pro-Life: Being Pro-Baby and Pro-Mother, by Kimberly Ross: “To support both women and babies, there needs to be an active element of compassion within the pro-life community. We don't win anything if we make a woman feel bad about feeling bad that she's pregnant. It's only through highlighting her worth alongside the gift of her child that we make progress.”
52 Reasons the DeSantis Campaign Flopped, by Benjamin Rothove: “In the past four years, Ron DeSantis had an extraordinary political rise and fall. He went from being an obscure governor to being the leading voice in the conservative movement to then being seen widely as a top contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. That was, of course, until he declared he was running.”
Subscribe, Share, Connect, Support
Full disclosure: The use of the gif below is part of a government PSYOP that’s driving MAGA to distraction. Please subscribe to join the effort!
And please, consider supporting our efforts here at the Freemen News-Letter and our broader vision at The Freemen Foundation by offering a one-time, monthly, or yearly donation, and be sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Stay Free My Friends,
-Justin Stapley
Justin Stapley received his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from Utah Valley University, with emphases in political philosophy, public law, American history, and constitutional studies. He is the Founding and Executive Director of the Freemen Foundation as well as Editor in Chief of the Freemen News-Letter. @JustinWStapley