Dem
47
GOP
53
Thomas Edsall wrote an interesting column yesterday. It emphasizes Donald Trump's approach to squashing the media, the law firms, the universities, and every other possible source of opposition. It even works for tariffs. It is always the same playbook.
He picks one media outlet, one law firm, one tech company, one university, or one country to start with, and makes difficult, but not totally impossible, demands, with a severe penalty if they don't comply. It is a divide and conquer strategy. Most of the targets fold immediately. Then he uses this as a model for attacking others in the same sector. A few sue and he then tries his best to delay the cases basically forever. Interestingly enough, most of the deals are not written down, so the details may be understood differently by Trump and the target. What they need to do is not let themselves be divided, band together in a united front, pool resources, and sue, but they don't seem to understand this.
Later, Trump comes back with additional—and, in some cases, more onerous—demands. For example, he could make the law firms draft coal leases that avoid environmental regulations, write watertight university regulations that ban Palestinian speakers on campus, or negotiate international trade deals he wants. Since nothing is on paper, Trump could claim these things were included in v1.0 of the deal. Now the target is in a real bind. What the targets don't seem to realize is that Trump is insatiable and the real goal is to either completely subjugate them or destroy them. In many cases, he wouldn't mind the latter, to teach all the others a lesson.
Their assumption is that giving in once would save them. Historical parallels show that this doesn't work. Prof. Iveta Silova of Arizona State University wrote an essay entitled: "Universities in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union thought giving in to government demands would save their independence." The essay shows that no matter how much German universities in the 1930s agreed with Hitler, gave him honorary doctorates, and restructured entire departments to please him, he just came back for more. Within a few years, none of them served knowledge; they served him.
Edsall asked a group of scholars how well Trump's targets were standing up to him. There was unanimous agreement that both chambers of Congress surrendered all their power without a whimper. Some media have almost completely capitulated in an attempt to save their business interests. Most big law firms, which are ideally suited to fight Trump in court, just gave up on first contact because none of the partners were willing to give up even a small part of their income to defend the rule of law. Even the billionaire class surrendered without a peep, despite being able to withstand almost any attack on their wealth.
A democracy requires that citizens understand the truth and their rights. That is why Trump is especially attacking institutions that deal in truth and rights—media, universities, and law firms. If they can be silenced, citizens can be kept ignorant and easily deceived.
Jack Balkin, a professor of constitutional law at Yale, has argued that the damage is even worse than it appears because even if Trump is stopped by the courts this time, everyone knows they can be bullied by the next administration, possibly in a different direction. And if not the next one, the one after it. He thinks putting back the old order where the media, universities, and law firms do their work without regard to what the current president wants will take decades to achieve, if ever. (V)