The recent increase in Donald Trump’s draconian use of presidential power and his obvious fascination with, and envy of, the Russian and Chinese leaderships’ “President for life” status made me start thinking about what he might do if he loses the election in November. He has already told the President of China that there was a movement in the U.S. to change the Constitution to allow him to run for a third term. True or false, it doesn’t matter. He’s obviously thinking in that direction, and I’m positive some of his lawyers are already working on how it could be achieved.
The first step would be to figure out how to invalidate the election results if he loses. If his lawyers can figure out how to do that, and make it stick, the next step of running for a third term is an obvious progression.
That can’t possibly happen in America, you say. It only happens in third-world countries and dictatorships like Russia and China.
Are we really and absolutely sure about that?
Trump has shown a repetitive ability to say and do outrageous things and, for the most part, get away with them. Are we really sure he won’t just declare the election invalid and refuse to leave the White House? Who would have the ability and will to order his arrest and forcibly evict him? The Republican Senate……you have to be joking! He is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and he unlikely to order his own eviction. So who would get rid of him?
Fantasy, perhaps but a perfectly possible scenario given his record.
The title of this blog addressed that bizarre possibility. IT could be a real test of the strength of U.S. democracy. We all like to think it is unassailable, even sacrosanct, but is it really?
Even after all Trump’s excesses, and his total disregard of anything that does not flatter him or contribute to his re-election, a large portion of the country still seems to wholeheartedly and blindly support him. Why wouldn’t they support him as a “President for Life”?
The U.S. Constitution is over two-hundred and fifty years old. It is a remarkable document, all the more so because is it still relevant today. However, it undoubtedly has its flaws. Are we sure there’s not something somewhere that lawyers can twist to support such attempts from Trump. Even if there isn’t, he could easily just try it. Bluster and gall have worked well for him so far.
We should be vigilant. As I have said elsewhere “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you”.