Principles are easy to proclaim when there is no risk involved, and dangerous times in America have just grown more dangerous. Colorado's Supreme Court in its wisdom has decided that ex-President Donald Trump's name should be kept off the ballot because he has been indicted, if not yet convicted, of instigating the Insurrection on January 20,2020 in order to overturn what he and his supporters viewed as a "stolen election." Last time, Trump lost Colorado by 13 points, the overall popular vote to Biden by 7 million votes or, roughly, 52% to 48 of the electorate. However, today, President Biden is trailing his challenger. That is a warning sign even if, ultimately, victory will depend upon garnering a majority of the electoral vote situated in the individual states that Trump secured against Hillary Clinton in 2016.
That is where keeping the former president off the ballot becomes important. Public debate about the Colorado decision so far has revolved exclusively around moral and legal questions. Should Trump be permitted to run in the election of 2024, when he sought to overturn the legitimate election results of 2020, and perhaps again lead a nation whose system he sought to overthrow? On the other hand, he has not yet been found guilty of that crime. Both sides in the debate are busily concocting interpretations concerning what the Constitution "really" says about all of this.
Forgetting that commitment to principle is meaningful only when risk is involved, however, the smirks of liberal "professionals" saluting their astute realism lurk in the background. I am not a legal expert, and I honestly don't know whether keeping Trump off the ballot conforms with the letter of the law; I do know that this gambit contravenes its spirit. Such administrative and legalistic maneuvers are usually associated with Republicans intent on lowering Democratic turn-out and rigging state elections. Using patently anti-democratic means to achieve democratic ends is fraught with danger and, in this instance, reactionaries can even claim that a double standard is at work: Eugene V. Debs ran for president on the Socialist Party line in 1920, while in jail for sedition, and polled nearly 1 million votes. Next time, the authoritarian precedent used against Trump might prevent some Leftist rom running for high office. In any event, however, there are also "pragmatic" political questions worth considering:
There is little doubt that the Colorado-decision will add grist to the mill of those who believe that a conspiracy is at work and that the "deep state" has become ever more desperate in trying to prevent the ex-president's election in 2024. Paradoxically, in short, such tactics will probably inspire hope among reactionaries, strengthen their commitment, and invigorate their efforts on Trump's behalf. This is a serious matter when considering that Trump's supporters are fervent whereas President Joe Biden's are lackluster. It is a virtual certainty that Trump will receive the Republican presidential nomination and, though it's still early in the campaign, most major polls show him defeating Biden by between 5-10% . Banning Trump from the ballot will undoubtedly justify the claims by a significant minority that insurrectionary violence is the only recourse "real" Americans have to forward their grievances. The greater the suppression of democratic norms and procedures, indeed, the greater the prospects for violence.
Slick party professionals have always tended toward the quick-fix. In this case, however, the quick-fix might create sympathy for the aspiring dictator among moderate or conservative non-Trump "low-information" voters, and they will probably swing the election. Former Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is polling roughly 11% of Republican primary voters, mostly from the "moderate" wing of the party, and the 9% supporting Governor Ron DeSantis (R-Fla) are ideologically similar to those voting for Trump. It would take a good deal to draw a fraction of these voters away from the Republican nominee given their manifest antipathy toward President Biden and the Democratic Party. That task will prove even more difficult should self-righteous activists and party professionals cost the Democratic Party its moral high-ground and allow it to appear as unconcerned with democratic principles as the Republicans: polls suggest that most swing voters are suspicious of attempts to disqualify Trump.
Keeping Trump off the ballot in a few states is a quick-fix that will not defeat Trump, perhaps hinder the effort, and surely serve as a bad precedent. Progressives need a proactive strategy that stresses defending democratic values and individual rights, publicizing achievements, and furthering solidarity. Democratic values involve attacking restrictive tendencies, isolating white nationalists, educating the electorate about fascism, and highlighting the threat to the best American traditions. Stressing individual rights means highlighting the dangers of government interference in the private decisions of its citizens with respect to abortion, what is done in the bedroom, what is read in libraries, and the like. Not tricks, but strategy is required to better publicize the remarkable domestic achievements of the Biden administration in terms of climate change, infrastructure, and technology. However, the president should also admit his mistakes, articulate a new legislative agenda, provide a vigorous alternative to reactionary rhetoric about immigration, and show greater empathy for the economic difficulties faced by everyday citizens.
Most important, however, is solidarity. There are "toss-up" states in which a few thousand votes can make the difference between victory and defeat. It is criminal for third party candidates to take votes away from Biden, and pave the way for Trump. Often these parties are driven by the vanity of their nominees. Dogmatic sectarianism comes into play at other time. However, the worst are the uncompromising purists who appear willing to throw victory to Trump because Biden has not done "enough," been too moderate, proven disappointing on this or that issue or simply seems too old.
Progressives must assume responsibility for electoral outcomes not leave them to the courts, sectarians, or vacillating swing voters to decide. Suppressing the voice of the people has always made for bad politics in the past, and there is no reason to expect better results in the future. Of course, the Colorado decision might help defeat Trump. If we base our hopes on a legal ploy, however, we will already have lost.
*Stephen Eric Bronner is Co-Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University.