The key question about Trump and January 6 - one most pundits celebrating the Court’s decision are arrogantly dismissing - concerns the demands and limits of democratic self-defense in the face of extremism.

Re-posting this, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling:

🧵1/

https://thomaszimmer.substack.com/p/militant-democracy-vs-donald-trump

The idea that this SC ruling proves beyond doubt that those who derided the attempt to disqualify Trump were right - not just right in predicting the decision, but right on substance and in declaring there’s nothing to be done but “let the ballot box decide” - is ridiculous. 2/

Is the enforcement of the rules and restrictions laid out in the constitution optional? It’s hard not to notice how a lot of people seem to regard some parts of the constitution as a lot more binding than others, and are rather quick to discard the Reconstruction amendments. 3/

It is true that putting Trump behind bars or barring him from holding office ever again would not make the radicalizing anti-democratic forces that have fueled his rise go away.

But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be done until the next election rolls around. 4/

Since January 6, and especially since the January 6 Committee referred Trump to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, the discussion has disproportionally focused on the risk of doing something - and tended to neglect the considerable dangers of doing nothing. 5/

“Fascism must be defeated at the ballot box” - I see little value in presenting such platitudes as some kind of deep political or historical wisdom. If the threat is real and imminent, must we not mobilize *all* the resources our democratic system of government has at its disposal? 6/

The courts vs democracy? Frankly, I find all this “let the people decide” talk remarkably backwards. The people decided, Trump lost, and attempted an auto-coup. January 6 was the anti-democratic part. In Colorado, the system didn’t conduct a pre-emptive strike – it responded. 7/

It’s exceedingly unlikely now that January 6 will have any legal, constitutional consequences for Trump before the election - proving that a politician is beyond reproach if he has enough of a radical following as well as the support of a radicalized party and legal movement. 8/

Trump could not be clearer about his authoritarian desires. If he can just return to power four years after January 6, without ever facing any real consequences and while explicitly declaring his intent to establish a vindictive autocracy, democracy will not persist. 9/

These are the stakes that must inform the current discussion. How can democracy defend itself against extremists without becoming that which it seeks to defeat in the process? Democracy has to exercise restraint in self-defense – but it must be equipped and willing to fight. 10/