Donald Trump said things at an event to mark the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence that deserve attention.
Amongst his many partisan claims at an event that should have been anything but that, he argued that the US Congress should abolish the filibuster so that they could pass what he calls the SAVE America Act, which has the deliberate intention of making it harder to vote in the USA. If they did so, he claimed, Republicans would “not lose an election for a hundred years.”
At the same time, he portrayed the Democratic Party as little more than a vehicle for communists, criminals, illegal immigrants and people who do not want to work.
Most reporting has treated these remarks as another example of Trump's exaggerated rhetoric, misplaced timing, and inappropriate claims in the run-up to the US midterm elections later this year, but I think that misses the point.
Sometimes politicians tell us exactly what they intend. I think Trump did.
The remarkable thing was not the language about communists. American, and most especially Republican, politics has a long history of that sort of accusation, most notably during the 1950s McCarthyite era. I think most people in the US - the MAGA apart - realise this and can appreciate just how absurd these claims are.
What was most egregious was Trump's claim that changing the rules of the electoral system could ensure that one party remained in office for a century at a time when the US is supposedly celebrating 250 years as a multi-party democracy, during which period it has stood up for its version of democracy as the core feature of the American way of life.
To contextualise that, most people would agree that the purpose of democracy is not to guarantee that the right of any one group of people to win elections. It is to ensure that governments always know they can lose them.
That uncertainty is not a flaw in democracy. It is a defining characteristic that governments know that they survive only with the continuing consent of the people who put them in power. If they fail that continuing support, democracy ensures that the public has the right to dismiss them. Every democratic election is, then, a reminder that power is held on trust, and never owned.
In that case, the moment a government begins designing a system of power intended to prevent itself from losing office, as Trump says he is doing, something fundamental changes. Government no longer exists to serve the people. Instead, the people begin to exist to sustain the government, at least in that government's view. And this, of course, is what fascism is all about, and that is why Trump's remarks matter.
Whether or not his proposed legislation could actually achieve what Trump claims is almost beside the point in that case. He has explained what success looks like from his perspective. His definition of success is not in persuading voters to support Republicans for the next hundred years. Hw thinks success comes from changing the system so that Republicans do not, and maybe cannot, lose for the next hundred years. Those are very different ambitions.
That recontextualises the language about what he calls the "communist threat". This too is not accidental, and it is not just McCarthyism reborn. It belongs in another tradition. Those seeking to weaken democratic institutions have rarely begun by admitting they wish to reduce democracy. Instead, they first redefine their opponents in the classic fascist style. Political rivals cease to be people with different opinions. They become enemies of the nation itself. They are portrayed as so dangerous that normal democratic rules supposedly no longer apply.
Once that argument is accepted, extraordinary measures begin to look reasonable. That is precisely why this language matters.
I spend much of my time writing about tax, government spending, public investment and the role of the state. All of those debates, however, depend upon one prior condition. Governments must remain accountable to the people they govern. Without that accountability, every power the state possesses, including its power to create money, tax, regulate and spend, becomes capable of serving those who hold office instead of those who elected them.
Democracy is therefore not simply another political institution. It is the mechanism that keeps every other institution answerable to society.
That is why apparently constitutional and political questions matter so much. It is easy to dismiss them as the tittle tattle of the day, but with people like Trump and the UK's fascists talking, that is a mistake. They determine how power is exercised and who can challenge it. They are the supposed guardrails that prevent governments from confusing their own interests with those of the people.
There is nothing sacred about the Senate filibuster. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is a good constitutional device. But abolishing it because a president believes doing so will allow his party never to lose power again is not constitutional reform in any meaningful sense of the word.
Reform improves institutions so that they better serve the people.
Entrenchment changes institutions so that they better serve those already in power.
The difference is profound. Everything I argue for here depends upon the existence of governments that remain accountable, and if the US succumbs to Trump, the consequences will flow, including to the UK.
I want governments capable of investing in people, tackling climate change, rebuilding public services, reducing inequality and helping everyone realise their potential. None of that matters if governments cease to believe they can legitimately be removed from office.
A government that accepts it may lose an election remains the servant of the people.
A government that seeks to make defeat impossible has begun to make itself the master of the people.
It is fascist, in other words.
Donald Trump has now said, in remarkably clear terms, what he thinks political success looks like. We should take him seriously, not because we know he will achieve what he wants, but because he has told us plainly what he wants to achieve, and that in itself is objectionable and a call to action.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The first place such changes to happen, before “governments” try them, is inside political parties and other membership organisations that influence democracy, such as trade unions.
The clearest example in the UK so far is the Labour Party, but similar things are happening in YourParty, the Green Party, and the Unite union, among others. Reform UK was designed that way from the beginning.
Changes and bureaucracy designed to guarantee or prevent certain electoral outcomes.
Trump shows us where this leads.
Yes indeed Robert – but absolutely no public debate about such things. BBC this morning didnt report the details of Trumps overt threat to democracy as outlined by Richard<p>
All political parties seem to be financially dependent on dark money ‘donations’, which means corruption. They are no longer membership associations run by their member. But so long as donations are ‘declared’ – its fine – corruption in plain sight.<p>
We need a Constitutional reset – outlawing all dark money from politics, 2nd jobs, insider contracts, revolving doors, bribery for honours , and bringing in a fair voting system.<p>
But we are not going to get it.
etc.
Is your statement that “All political parties seem to be financially dependent on dark money ‘donations’, which means corruption. ” a bit too broad? All? Do you include the Green Party? I’d be interested to know who is donating “dark money” to them. Surely much more of a sliding scale.
Useful article from a progressive American commentater:
https://mitchthelawyer.substack.com/p/we-are-not-communists-and-he-knows
I think I detect a glimmer of a sea change about Farage. There appears to be more attacks on his financial dealings even in the right wing MSM than there was a while ago. Have they maybe suddenly realised that he is a threat to their interests?
I fear not, sadly. There are plenty of other fascist neoliberal enablers out there so he’s not the be all and end all, and journalists who smell blood in the water can’t help themselves. Recall the manner in which they turned on Theresa May over the bedroom tax back in 17 even when it did Corbyn a huge favour. I can recall watching Laura K turn on her, an et tu, Brute? Moment.
Haven’t you repeatedly argued for changing the voting system in the UK to PR so that the left would always win, because of the so-called “progressive” majority? Thus keeping what you call the “fascist” right out of power forever.
Sounds like you are a bit of a hypocrite as long as long as it suits your purpose.
And Trump is only guilty of hyperbole in this case. The SAVE act, supported by the majority of US citizens and voters on BOTH sides would stop illegal voting practices.It wouldn’t keep Republicans in power forever, but it would against a deeply unpopular hard left Democrat party.
The only people against it are Democrat politicians. Now why might they be against it? I wonder…..
No. I have argued for proportional representation because I believe it is a more democratic electoral system. It is not designed to guarantee victory for any political viewpoint. If public opinion changes, so should the composition of Parliament.
The purpose of PR is to ensure that votes are reflected more fairly in representation. That is very different from seeking to entrench one party or ideology in power.
As for the SAVE Act, I have no objection to measures that genuinely protect electoral integrity. What concerns me is when politicians claim that elections are being undermined without providing convincing evidence of widespread fraud, and then propose changes that make it harder for eligible citizens to vote.
Those are separate issues.
Finally, Trump’s comment was not simply that the SAVE Act would improve election security. He suggested that, if enacted, Republicans would not lose elections for a hundred years. That is a remarkable claim. In any healthy democracy, no politician should be suggesting that a single piece of legislation will effectively secure permanent electoral dominance for their own party. That is why I think his remark deserves scrutiny.
Sam, can you give an example of Richard saying PR was “so that the left would always win?”
No, you can’t.
Classic and also very amateurish straw man trolling.
Even putting aside that RM never said or wrote that, just think about it for a moment – how could with the PR the ‘left’ always win the elections? PR does what it says on the tin – proportional representation. Broadly (there are different types of PR etc) you need (more than) 50 per cent of votes to govern. How can that help the ‘left’ or the ‘right’ to win elections? Would you call it fair unfair or to have the support of at least 50 per cent of voters to govern?
@Sam – “a deeply unpopular hard left Democrat party.”
This description shows you to be deeply biased. The Democrat Party as a whole is well to the right of centre. And its not deeply unpopular, a current generic poll (https://www.racetothewh.com/polls/genericballot) puts it at 48% vs 39% for Republicans.
Even if you’re thinking about the progressive wing of the Democrats – Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Cortez, etc – they’re progressive, open-minded centre-left, nowhere near “hard left”, what ever that means. In general, “hard left” is a lazy description, widely used to avoid engaging with left or progressive ideas.
Thank you
You could have proven yourself wrong immediately by looking at countries that have PR.
We in Germany for example have a rising extreme-right and were for most of the time (about 51 years in total) since the end of the Second World War governed by right-wing parties as well.
I’m convinced that the existence of the left-wing parties have kept them from doing already earlier what’s happening now because TIARA.
But also maybe even more what Richard wrote, that they know of the possibility of losing their power when they act against those that voted for them.
And for the “not losing an election in hundred years” there’s an infamous fascist person in history having said that in other words before:
Hermann Göring, on the 20.02.1933 at a secret meeting with industrials.
“This election in march might be the last for certainly 10 years but most probably for 100 years”.
We all know how well that ended.
Politics has been debased for a long time by Neo-liberalism (yawn). Therefore too many no longer believe in politics anymore.
So anything that sounds new – that ends the fake politics that we’ve had (essentially apolitical politics, ‘consensus politics’, politics as performance – primaries, campaigning, voting) will sound reasonable to a people who feel let down and lied to.
This is the logic of plutocracy basically. It’s very clever.
My view is that Trump will keep going until his own lack of modesty stops him.
I think his White House is falling apart.
In his mind, success means his side winning. That’s it. Whether that’s good or bad for everyday Americans, the wider world, or even recent or current allies (who can become ‘enemies’ at the drop of a hat) is unimportant to him.
In his mind, by his own statements, any success is his success, and any failure someone else’s fault. Even positive polls underestimate his support as far as he’s concerned, and worse polls are fake to him. His interpretation of what is true is not objective but subjective, demanding adherence to his malignant narcissism.
His legacy will be to be known as having been the ‘mad king’ of America.
Should we take any notice of a man who is clearly off his trolley? Clearly, we must, because our fate is entwined with what happens inAmerica.
We are staring anarchy in the face, which if not stopped will surely leave democracy as a mere memory of how the West once was. As was discussed in an earlier blog, it is the wealthy who largely favour anarchy because they can sail off into the sunset and leave the rest of us to deal with it. They will not or cannot be held to account by anyone if there is mere anarchy.
As Yeats wrote: ‘the centre cannot hold’
Trump obviously doesn’t care. He is either completely crazy or irredeemably rotten. Let’s hope democracy limits or removes his power before we lose control.
Yeats was right
[…] When a president says the quiet part out loud […]
Thank you for spotlighting this – blatant aspiration for autocracy.
No taxation without representation!
As the saying goes, when someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.
I’m going to repeat a previous comment, for the benefit of those who have commented above that they think accusing all parties of taking dark money is over the top. I am writing about the United States.
1. The US Supreme Court has a conservative majority which holds a religious and philosophical view favoring conservative, wealthy, corporate donors to politics and favoring expanding the power of the President, until the President is no longer a Republican. The Court on July 1, 2026 voted to remove limits on political parties’ campaign spending.
2. In 1971, Lewis Powell was invited to write a confidential memorandum for the US Chamber of Commerce titled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System.” In it, Powell called on American business to aggressively counter the rising social, environmental, and consumer movements of the era to protect the free enterprise system.
The Powell Memorandum ultimately came to be a blueprint for the rise of the network of influential right-wing lobbying. The rise of neoliberalism began here. (Two months after authoring the memo, Powell was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.) In the 1970’s, lobbyists flooded Washington, D.C. Robert Reich discusses it here: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1592832331820185.
3. Realizing that they had to raise money to match the conservative flood, the Democratic Party also began lobbying and courting business donors.
4. Now, neither party can survive with corporate funding. Neither one. Electing Democratic Socialists will not change that. They will have to fundraise also.
Robert Reich talks about this in many places. Here’s the most recent one.
https://wkamaubell.substack.com/p/whos-with-me-episode-7-robert-reich?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1936046&post_id=205303304&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=8mdvr&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Thank you