In 1919, following the blood baths of World War I, William Butler Yeats wrote a prescient poem, anticipating the growth of fascism and the failure of Western democracies to stand tall in opposition. It’s called “The Second Coming”. Here are the lines that, for over 60 years, have warned me that our failure of courage could happen again.
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
Now, in 2024, I fear that the culture, structure, and leadership of American democracy is unprepared and unwilling to fight as hard as it must, and, therefore, our center may not hold. I fear that we may prefer the forms of democracy over the reality of an imperfect but persevering democratic republic.
There seems to be a great deal of judicial discretion, for example, in cases related to Donald Trump and others who participated in the efforts to overthrow the 2020 presidential election. Repeatedly, judges warn Trump that he is violating the law, inciting to violence, threatening jurors and staff. He continues to do so. Judges bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of “liberal” bias. And there are little to no consequences. It seems that he and his followers have intimidated the judiciary. Thus permitting Trump to delay one trial after another—leading to the likelihood that none of the criminal trials will take place before the 2024 election.
Common sense tells us that several cases—The Georgia case where Trump asked the state Attorney General to falsify voting; the documents case where Trump clearly obstructed justice; and the hush money case in New York—are clear cut but the judicial system is so arcane and biased towards the rich and powerful—those who can throw millions of dollars into legal protection, that Trump may get off completely.
Here are just a few of the many ways that our cowardice stands in our way.
Free speech. Free speech is one of our great ideals, a bulwark against censorship, monarchy and government overreach. Most of us hold tight to the benefits it bestows. But we have also and always acknowledged that free speech has its limits, that, famously, you can’t yell fire in a crowded room. Following the Nazi period, German society, knowing the consequences of their failure to curtail Hitler, acknowledged the limits of speech and defined certain speech—pro Nazi, for instance—as off limits, illegal, and punishable. Speech, in all is forms, is not innocent.
We, in the United States, don’t seem to have defined what those limits are. Not in an applicable way. We have been so afraid to lose our freedoms that we’ve shied from defining their limits. We are so convinced that they must be essentially immune to attack, that we’ve rarely chosen the freedom that safety provides.
Thus Trump and his minions can build a movement based on a lie about the election, and try to seize power by essentially crying “Fire” without evidence and without being punished. They debase and threaten the judicial system—the guardian of our constitutional government—by allowing Trump and his acolytes to threaten and attack judges, staff, families, and juries.
The MAGA Republicans, under the leadership of a would be dictator, are tearing down democratic society and we, in effect, protect their right to do so. In this way, we are cowards.
Culture: Taking refuge in the letter of the law and the safe way out. Merrick Garland may be the poster boy for a culture that is more concerned with the niceties of democracy and Constitutional law than actually preserving it. He was so insistent on keeping the Attorney General’s role separate from the presidency—generally an admirable activity—that, as many legal experts now concede, the prosecution of Trump, the insurrectionist, may be so delayed that it will not take place before the 2024 election. Then, if Trump wins, he can cancel the suits against him and realize his authoritarian dreams through the activities of a newly-appointed fascist attorney general and police force. He is explicit about this.
But Garland is not alone. The generals, who have dealt with Trump and think him both mad and dangerous, won’t speak out. I’m thinking of Kelly and Miley. Commendably, they want to maintain the line between civil and military authority, but what if their purity contributes to the end of our democratic republic. So, too, the numerous members of Trump’s Cabinet. They confess that he is crazy and dangerous but they never push to be heard enough to make a difference.
And countless judges seem to hold back the clarity and severity of judicial decisions. It appears that some fear Trump’s retribution, leading to chaos and violence in our society. As though it was within the judicial sphere to manage these threats. It seems to me that both the judiciary and our prosecutorial officers have lacked the courage of their convictions—and of their office.
Leadership. Where, today can we find the courage of our founders, who, knowing that they could die as revolutionaries, nonetheless conducted a war of freedom. Where is the courage demonstrated by Woodrow Wilson and FDR, who, against the advice of cabinet members and against the will of millions of voters, introduced martial law so we could fight the two world wars of the 20th century?
I don’t see a single person in Congress or running for Congress specifying how we can and should quash the growing insurrection and the growing threat of fascism. Garland only stands out as the most timid. But, of course, there’s also the Supreme Court taking up the immunity case, knowing it will delay judicial decisions beyond the elections. I see President Biden highlighting the fight for democracy but I don’t yet see him calling out Trump for what he is—or moving beyond his critique to do something about authoritarian developments—like setting a boundary: beyond this, you cannot go.
I understand the political risks this would present to Biden, but I don’t believe it’s as risky as allowing Trump to bully his way back into the White House.
What is our plan
What can we do? Who are our leaders? How can we triumph over the fascists to sustain our (imperfect) democracy? We badly need them. And, most of all, we need to find our will to fight.
Unless we can mobilize ourselves, I fear that Yeats has the answer for us:
“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
I see that rough beast clearly: It is the protofascists seeking power, Donald Trump, the White Christian Nationalists, and the enthralled MAGA masses. They do not fundamentally care about the niceties of democratic process. They, rough beast that they are, seek only victory, domination, and revenge—at all costs. Can we stop them? Will we?
It is becoming increasingly clear that fighting them in the meek way that we have may not lead to victory.
Post script: I’m 81. I have little to no political standing. But I would gladly march with others, beginning with 10 or 20 of you, to begin our protest. It would be something. Maybe we’ll head to Washington as we did in the 1960’s. Write to me if you’d like to try.
Barry Dym 