US Politics

Should there be a political price to pay for a president who refuses to engage in a peaceful transfer of power and incites a violent coup to stay in office?Common sense says yes.As does a majority vote of the Colorado supreme court. But since their stunning ruling this week that Donald Trump may not appear on their state’s primary ballot, many a lawyer and pundit is arguing otherwise.They say, for example, that it’s not the role of a court but of the voters to decide a matter of such import. They don’t seem to recall that the voters did decide in 2020 when they elected Joe Biden, but that Trump refused to accept that decision and did everything in his power to reverse it.Others allow that the constitution does provide that insurrection is disqualifying but they ponder whether Trump – without a legal conviction – really fits that definition. And in some cases, these critics twist themselves into verbal knots to express their doubt.“I generally say that Trump attempted to secure an unelected second term in office,” wrote Jonathan Chait in New York magazine. “Insurrection,” he notes, may be useful shorthand for Trump’s role but it’s too imprecise to accomplish what the Colorado jurists say it does.President Biden sounded sensible when asked by a reporter if Trump is an insurrectionist. “It’s self-evident … he certainly supported an insurrection. There’s no question about it. None. Zero.”But even Biden, hardly a disinterested party, admits another obvious factor: the US supreme court will make the ultimate decision.The smart money seems to be on the court’s ruling in Trump’s favor.Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for the Nation, predicted that the highest court will overturn Colorado 8-1, that the opinion will be written by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan, and only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will dissent.“John Roberts is probably standing outside Elena Kagan’s office like [actor John Cusack] with a jukebox right now,” Mystal quipped, alluding to the iconic pleading-for-attention scene in the 1989 movie Say Anything. “He needs her for cover for what he’s about to do … He’s playing a full 80s mixtape.”Other anti-Trumpers remain more hopeful, for some plausible reasons. One is that that conservative justice Neil Gorsuch, before he rose to his current lofty position, once wrote that states may and should protect the integrity of the political process by keeping candidates off the ballot if they are “constitutionally prohibited from assuming office”.I’m no constitutional lawyer but Trump’s post-election actions like inciting an insurrection and pushing a fake-electors scheme seem strong enough to fit that bill. But, of course, there are ways to justify the opposite.“A serious and careful opinion that reaches a reasonable conclusion,” was how the UCLA law professor Rick Hasen characterized the Colorado ruling. But he noted that, whether on the merits or on doctrinal grounds, the supreme court certainly can find grounds to disagree.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHasen calls it imperative that the court move quickly: “Voters need to know if the candidate they are supporting for president is eligible.” A later determination of eligibility, especially if it were to involve congressional Democrats, “would be tremendously destabilizing”.For me, it comes down to this. Trump is an anti-democracy candidate, and his actions, over the past eight years, have proven that, time after time.Too many Americans are so inured to his firehose of outrages that they don’t see as clearly as the Colorado jurists do that this man now should not be eligible for the leadership of the free world. Mainstream media’s horserace fixation, and rightwing media’s relentless propaganda, has made that blindness worse. (On Thursday morning, Fox News offered this mind-blowing chyron: “GOP leaders suggest removing Biden from red-state ballots over border crisis.”)Even if the Colorado justices don’t prevail, I am grateful to them for stating some obvious truths: that Trump has gone far beyond the limits of what’s acceptable in a candidate for highest office. That the checks and balances of the branches of government exist for a reason. That Trump doesn’t have to be convicted of insurrection, though he may eventually be, to be disqualified via the 14th amendment of the US constitution.After all he’s done – especially in the shocking wake of the 2020 election – Trump is clearly unfit for office.Whatever the outcome, having that recognized by a well-respected state court is a victory for common sense and integrity.
Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist More

Links between the new Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, and key Christian nationalist leaders have sparked fears the devout Louisiana congressman might seek to erode elements of the first amendment, which protects key US civil liberties including freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.Long before th eevangelical conservative Johnson became speaker, he had forged close ties with Christian nationalists like David Barton, whose writings claiming the country’s founders intended to create a Christian nation have been widely debunked by religion scholars.Although Barton, a self-styled historian, has been heavily criticized for distorting the first amendment by promoting the flawed idea there should be no separation between church and state, Johnson has hailed him as an important mentor and Barton has returned the praise.Johnson lauded Barton effusively in 2021 at an event sponsored by the Texas-based Christian nationalist group WallBuilders which Barton founded 35 years ago to promote a conservative family values agenda, citing his “profound influence on me, and my work, and my life in everything I do”.Little wonder that a day after Johnson became speaker in October Barton, who has worked closely with the rightwing GOP senator Ted Cruz and conservative legislators, boasted in a podcast that he had already talked with Johnson, about helping find staff for his office.“We have some tools at our disposal now [that] we haven’t had in a long time,” allowed Barton who has dubbed Johnson a “God guy”.A Johnson spokesman said neither “the speaker, nor his office, have had any subsequent conversations with Mr Barton about staff”.Still, the ties and mutual admiration between Johnson and Barton suggest they are now poised to bolster one another politically and in Christian nationalist circles, spurring some scholars to stress they hold dangerous views about America’s founding principles and the first amendment.“Johnson has bought into the malignant cancer about America being a Christian nation which Barton has propagated, ” said Randall Balmer, a Dartmouth historian of religion.“For Barton and Johnson to subvert the first amendment is both dishonest and myopic. Dishonest because the founders were abundantly clear that they intended church and state to be separate entities. Myopic because the lack of a religious establishment – the separation of church and state – has been the best friend that religion ever had.”Other scholars voice alarms at the deep ties between Johnson and Barton, one of whose books was withdrawn by its publisher due to errors.“It is dangerous to the country that the speaker of the House is relying for his understanding of American history on a writer who has zero credibility in the history profession,” said David A Hollinger, an historian of religion at Berkeley and a former president of the Organization of American Historians.Despite such stinging criticism, since Barton founded WallBuilders in 1988 he has helped build a strong Christian nationalist and political network with rightwing state legislators which seems poised to expand its influence with the rise of Johnson to speaker.The wide-ranging missions of WallBuilders are palpable on its website.“American liberty is being eroded, and our Biblical foundation is under attack. Here at WallBuilders, we provide education, training, and resources to equip people to know and defend the truth to protect our freedom.”The group’s mission includes “providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values”.WallBuilders expanded its ties with conservative state legislators by launching the “ProFamily Legislative Network” in 1998 to help push bills on abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and other hot button issues for the religious right, and host a yearly conference with legislators.When Cruz sought the GOP nomination for president in 2016, Barton did a stint leading a Cruz Super Pac. Barton has also served as vice-chairman of the Texas Republican party, and been a consultant to the Republican National Committee.To spur its growth, WallBuilders has lured some big checks from mega-donors including $3.2m from the Thirteen Foundation helmed by fracking billionaire and pastor Farris Wilks who has railed against homosexuality and equated the climate crisis with God’s will. Wilks, his brother Dan and their wives also donated $15m to a Cruz Super Pac during his run for president.WallBuilders, which now boasts Barton’s son Tim as president, has been on a fundraising roll with its annual revenues reaching $5.9m in 2021 versus $1.9m in 2017.Despite his powerful rightwing network, Barton’s career has been dogged by big headaches due to multiple inaccuracies in his book The Jefferson Lies.The nation’s largest religious book publisher, Thomas Nelson, in 2012 pulled back Barton’s book due to mounting criticism of its errors.Nonetheless, WallBuilders sells sizable quantities of Barton’s books and writings espousing his views. Barton’s messages have also been boosted in recent years via the rightwing Patriot Academy led by the evangelist and ex-Texas legislator Rick Green.Barton has also been a star attraction on the American Restoration tour, a far-right project that espouses the Christian nationalist view there should be no separation between church and state, according to a book on American evangelicals by the journalist Tim Alberta entitled The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHowever, Barton’s influence and brand of Christian nationalism has drawn fire from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has tracked his attacks on some minorities. The center has noted that “Barton has also demonized LGBTQ persons and communities, arguing that HIV and Aids are god-given consequences for living out one’s LGBTQ life”.Balmer, an Episcopal priest, added: “Johnson’s and Barton’s brand of Christian nationalism tends to go hand in hand with calls for draconian Old Testament punishment for what he regards as deviant behavior.”Barton did not respond to calls seeking an interview.Barton is hardly alone among Christian nationalist leaders in banking on Johnson’s new clout in Washington and the ties he forged with the religious right before he was elected to Congress in 2016 and since then.Before Congress, Johnson worked for about two decades as a lawyer for the Christian-right Alliance Defending Freedom, and Johnson also built close ties to the far-right Family Research Council and its leader, Tony Perkins.Johnson has developed good ties too with other influential Christian bigshots including the Christian-right Pastor Jim Garlow, who hosts regular World Prayer Network live streams where Johnson has been a guest.On an 9 August broadcast, Garlow said Johnson has “worked with us very closely”.Johnson, in turn, praised Garlow. “I’m so grateful for the ministry and your faithfulness. It’s a great encouragement to me and others who are serving in these sometimes rocky corners of the Lord’s vineyard.”Significantly, Johnson’s far-right Christian credentials are also proving helpful to Donald Trump. Soon after becoming speaker, Johnson endorsed Trump’s bid to be the Republican nominee for the presidency.Johnson’s fast Trump endorsement fits with his role in 2020 when he helped enable Trump’s false claims that fraud cost him the election. Johnson took the lead in writing a brief for a lawsuit that sought to overturn Joe Biden’s win, and he rounded up fellow members to sign it too.“I see Speaker Johnson and many others in the vanguard of the GOP aiding and abetting Trump, including his more increasingly authoritarian rhetoric and plans,” said Adam Russell Taylor, president of the Christian social justice group Sojourners.Taylor stressed: “Many white Christian nationalists see the need to elect someone like Trump as president because he is willing to bend the rules or even break the rules in order to keep themselves in power and further their ideologies.”Scholars say Johnson’s rise to House speaker is result of a decades-long drive for political clout by the religious right in which WallBuilders and other key Christian nationalist groups played important parts.“Johnson’s ascent is a capstone victory for a culture-warring religious conservatism that has leveraged legal strategies meant to bolster white Christian hegemony,” said the Notre Dame university historian Darren Dochuk.“With monies generated by Christian allies, fiercely ‘libertarian’ ones in business sectors ranging from oil and gas to the service industry, and an increasingly theocratic ambition to take over the Capitol for God, they built their alternative infrastructure.”In Dochuk’s eyes, “Johnson is the product and culmination of a decades-long quest by rightwing religionists to assert themselves politically through backchannels not always visible to the uninitiated. Ronald Reagan’s evangelical allies could not have imagined such a swift, no-holds-barred rise to power.” More

The Politics Weekly America team are taking a break. So for the next two weeks, we’re looking back at a couple of our favourite episodes of the year.
From August: Jonathan Freedland and Amanda Marcotte try to figure it out why rightwing politicians and pundits took such a disliking to Barbie, Greta Gerwig’s summer blockbuster. They look at what the outrage can tell us about how the Republicans will campaign in 2024

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

Actor John Schneider called for the executions of Joe Biden as well as the president’s son, Hunter, in a now-deleted social media post that drew ridicule and questions about whether he should be criminally charged.Schneider, perhaps best known for his role as Bo Duke on the TV series Dukes of Hazzard as well his recent runner-up finish on the Masked Singer, fired off the post on X at 2am local time Thursday.“Mr President, I believe you are guilty of treason and should be publicly hung,” Schneider wrote to Biden. “Your son too.”The comment was a reply to a post from Biden which said Donald Trump – who is facing more than 90 criminal charges as he seeks a second presidency in 2024 – “poses many threats to our country”.“But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy,” Biden’s X post continued, in part. “If we lose that, we lose everything.”Schneider’s response to Biden’s post drew thousands of replies before it was deleted.As Newsweek first noted, among those to reply was investigative journalist Victoria Brownworth, who wrote: “Just here for the ratio and to let you know that it’s ‘hanged,’ not ‘hung’.” Brownworth added: “There’s zero evidence of ‘treason.’ Step out of the Fox News bubble.”Another user added: “Wow! You’re calling for the execution of a sitting president. May the secret service show up at your door with a reply.”Other commenters maintained Schneider’s remark fell short of constituting a death threat. Under federal law, threatening “to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States” could carry a fine and up to five years in prison.Schneider’s comment came as conservatives and media outlets who are friendly to them – including Fox News – support Republican efforts to hold a formal vote to launch an impeachment inquiry into Biden.Republicans have spent months investigating business dealings by Biden and his son, Hunter, in hopes of finding improprieties that could form a basis for an impeachment. But some Republicans have been vocal about their worries that investigators have not found misconduct by the president, whose son is facing federal tax charges.Schneider was on the Dukes of Hazzard from 1979 to 1985. In 2015, the television channel TV Land announced it would pull reruns of the action-comedy series because the car which the main characters drove around displayed the Confederate battle flag, a symbol adopted by white supremacist hate groups.The fictional car itself was also named after Robert E Lee, the Confederate general who inherited the ownership of enslaved people upon the death of his mother.Schneider – whose character’s full first name, Beauregard, is identical to the surname of a famous general in the Confederate army – protested TV Land’s decision by remarking “the whole politically correct generation has gotten way out of hand”, as Today.com reported.A second-place finish in Wednesday’s season finale of the Masked Singer had earned Schneider – also a country musician – some favorable celebrity media coverage. So had a new interview with Fox News in which he described how difficult he expected this Christmas to be after his wife, producer and actor Alicia Allain Schneider, died from breast cancer in February.“It’s going to be rough,” Schneider had said in that interview. “Grief will never go away.” More

The growing number of book bans in the US are using a so-called parental rights movement as cover for a wide-ranging attack on civil rights in America, a Democratic congressman has warned.Earlier this month, a new study by PEN America revealed that there had been at least 5,894 book bans in US public schools from July 2021 to June 2023, with more than 40% of them in Florida, birthplace of a rightwing parents group called Moms for Liberty.The books targeted are frequently those which tackle issues like racism, gender or LGBTQ+ rights.“Book bans are a baseless attack on our civil rights and civil liberties under the guise of parental rights,” warned the Florida congressman Maxwell Frost, who introduced the Fight Banned Books Act earlier this month.“If the arts and literature our students read are getting attacked, what will happen next?” Frost told the Guardian in an interview.On 5 December, alongside Congresswoman Frederica Wilson and Congressman Jamie Raskin, he unveiled the planned legislation and vowed to take a stand against censorship by providing grants to school districts to fight them.“We found that one of the real problems in Florida after the book gets officially taken off the shelves is that school boards do not have the resources necessary to battle the book bans and get the books back on the shelves,” Frost said.The proposed legislation, if passed, would counter this issue on a national level; with a $15m budget, the Department of Education would provide $100,00 to school districts fighting bans in their communities.According to recent PEN America data, the past two school years have highlighted a mounting censorship crisis with a sustained focus on books written for young adults. Frequently, titles focusing on “difficult topics” like violence or racism or including historically marginalized identities are being targeted.“Books are one of the last places of refuge that we have as students, as students of color, as queer students, and now that’s being taken away from us too,” Frost said.“Last year, 70% of Gen Z voted for Democrats in the midterms, so I guess these young people don’t like their rights being taken away.”Frost added: “There’s still an opportunity to mold and change the way a generation thinks.”Far-right pressure has been one of the leading causes of book banning in the US over the last two years. These bans are pushed locally, by parents or parent-led groups, or by politicians through broader state-level laws.The Fight Book Bans Act, which already has the support of 50 members of Congress, would try to stop these pressures. The grants would cover expenses like legal representation or the travel to hearings and would also provide school districts with expert research and advice when trying to fight off book bans in their local libraries.Frost describes himself as a “product of public education” and says that without access to essential books growing up, he probably wouldn’t be a member of Congress right now. As a Gen Z politician appealing to young voters across the country, he also uses his position to bring awareness to crucial issues in unique and engaging ways.“We rarely do just a press conference,” he said. “We’ve got to add a little spice.”After a recent press event, Frost held a banned book reading in his office. Community leaders and students gathered to share excerpts of literature banned in their state. He said he wasn’t expecting it to be as emotional as it was, but that people started crying.“You hear these beautiful words of literature, of poetry, of art, and you’re sitting there surrounded by a lot of people you might not know, and the whole time you’re listening, in the back of your head, you’re thinking, wow, this is banned, this is banned in a school.”Frost chose to read excerpts from Amanda Gorman’s poem The Hill We Climb, which is restricted in schools across his home state.“After I finished, I told everyone there, just a second ago, when one of our speakers was reading, I closed my eyes and decided to recommit myself to this fight.” More

Jack Smith has urged speed for the supreme court to take up the issue of whether Donald Trump is, as the former president claims, immune from criminal prosecution on federal charges over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.On Thursday the US special counsel submitted a new file to the supreme court in Washington DC, reiterating his argument for urgency in their consideration of such a key element of the federal election interference case, in response to Trump’s latest move the day before.On Wednesday, Trump’s team asked the highest court in the US to stay out of the argument about whether he has immunity from federal criminal prosecution, after Smith asked the court last week to take up review of the matter.On Thursday, Smith submitted to the supreme court that in the public interest it should make an “immediate, definitive decision” on the “important constitutional question” of Trump’s immunity or lack of it in the federal election interference case.“The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves – for the first time in our nation’s history – criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office,” the latest submission said.Smith’s filing added: “Enforcing federal criminal laws that prohibit such conduct is vital to protecting our constitutional processes and democracy itself.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSmith is the veteran prosecutor appointed as special counsel by the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in November 2022, to lead two federal investigations of Trump, the election interference case and the alleged mishandling of classified documents that were discovered at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after he left office. More

The decision by the Colorado supreme court to ban Donald Trump from the Republican primary has received pushback from some predictable and some not-so-predictable quarters.The former president’s supporters of course consider him the great Maga martyr, temporarily hindered by nefarious elites from his rightful return and revenge; in this morality play, the US supreme court, besieged with accusations of being undemocratic, can now play the savior by putting him back on the ballot and making the people Trump’s ultimate judge.Some liberals also fuss about the political fallout of the decision, worried that barring Trump from running will provoke chaos and violence. And the left, suspecting a “liberal plot against democracy”, is not happy either: they reproach the liberals who welcome Trump’s disqualification for wanting to short-circuit the political process – thereby revealing deep distrust of democracy or at least defeatism about confronting Trump in an open contest. All these concerns are mistaken.The Colorado supreme court comprehensively refuted Trump’s claims, especially the ones bordering on the absurd. The justices patiently argued that parties cannot make autonomous, let alone idiosyncratic, decisions about who to put on the ballot – by that logic, they could nominate a 10-year-old for the presidency. They also painstakingly took apart the idea that the now famous section three of the 14th amendment covers every imaginable official expectation of the president. In terms clearly tailored to appeal to justices on the US supreme court, they explain that plain language and the intent of the drafters of the amendment suggest that insurrectionists – including ones at the very top – were not supposed to hold office again, unless Congress voted an amnesty with a two-thirds majority.The court’s majority also made the case that the House of Representatives’ January 6 report is not some partisan attack on poor Trump and hence could be admitted as evidence; they then drew on that evidence to show that Trump had clearly engaged in insurrection; they did not have to prove that Trump himself had led it (of course, he didn’t valiantly enter the Capitol to “save democracy” – his words – but tweeted the revolution from the safety of the White House).We know that few Maga supporters will be swayed by the evidence – in fact, the entry ticket to Trump’s personality cult is precisely to deny that very evidence. But it is more disturbing that liberals still think that prudence dictates that Trump should run and just be defeated at the polls.For one thing, the same liberals usually profess their commitment to the constitution – and the Colorado court has given an entirely plausible reading of that very document. Should it simply be set aside because supporters of a self-declared wannabe dictator threaten violence?Some liberals also appear to assume that, were Trump to lose in November 2024, their political nightmare would stop. But someone who has not accepted defeat before, doubled down on the “big lie”, and ramped up authoritarian rhetoric is not likely to just concede. Would the logic then still be that, even if the law says differently, Maga supporters must somehow be appeased?The more leftwing critique is the most interesting. Liberals are charged with having a Mueller moment again. By trusting courts to save democracy, they reveal how little faith they have in the people; they appear to hope that, magically, wise old men (it’s usually men) like Robert Mueller, acting for more or less technocratic “institutions”, will solve a challenge through law when it should be solved politically.The only question is: by that logic, are any measures meant to protect democracy but not somehow involving the people as a whole as such illegitimate? Had Trump been impeached after January 6, would anyone have made the argument that this was the wrong process and that he just should keep running in elections no matter what?Countries other than the US are more comfortable with the notion that politicians or parties expected to destroy democracy should be taken out of the democratic game. The threshold for such a decision has to be very high – clearly, there’s a problem if attempts to save democracy are themselves undemocratic. Here the Colorado decision is more vulnerable: as one of the dissenting judges pointed out, Trump might not have been given due process; even prosecutor Jack Smith, a master legal chess player, is not going after Trump for insurrection.Three factors can mitigate anxieties about undemocratic measures to save democracy, though: one is that, before a drastic decision like disqualification is taken, an individual has to exhibit a very consistent pattern of wanting to undermine democracy. Check, for Trump.Second, there has to be some room for political judgment and prudence: disqualification is not automatic and not for life; in theory, Congress could pass an amnesty for Trump in the name of democratic competition.Third, banning a whole party can rightly make citizens with particular political preferences feel that their voices are silenced; in this case, though, no one is removing the Republican party. And, of course, two Trump epigones remain on the ballot.
Jan-Werner Müller is a professor of politics at Princeton University. He is also a Guardian US columnist More

Justices on the Colorado supreme court are receiving a barrage of death threats after it ruled to exclude Donald Trump from the state’s presidential ballot next year because of his attempts to cause insurrection.A report compiled by Advance Democracy, a non-partisan non-profit organization, said there was “significant violent rhetoric” against the justices and Democrats on social media, according to NBC News.Some of the worst of it was posted on fringe websites, including one post that said “behead judges” and “slam dunk a judge’s baby into the trash can”.Another post on The Donald, a pro-Trump forum where a Trump supporter once publicly bragged about his involvement with the January 6 insurrection and was arrested as a result, said “this ends when we kill these fuckers”.“The normalization of this type of violent rhetoric – and lack of remedial action by social media entities – is cause for significant concern,” Daniel J Jones, president of Advance Democracy, told NBC News.“Political leaders on both sides of the political aisle need to speak out against these calls for violence, and social media platforms need to reassess their role in hosting and promoting this rhetoric.”Advance Democracy noted that some violent posts are in direct response to Trump’s own furious posts about the ruling on Truth Social. Trump has called it “election interference” and implied it proves the 2020 election was stolen, the lie that eventually led to the January 6 insurrection.It isn’t the first time Trump’s posts and comments have incited threats against a court. A New York court reported last month that the office of the judge overseeing Trump’s fraud trial had been bombarded with death threats and antisemitic abuse, including some levied against the judge’s law clerk. The office received multiple threatening voicemails, including one that told the judge “you should be assassinated … you should be executed”. Another said: “We are coming to remove you permanently.”Trump’s lawyers in his fraud trial argued that the former president, who faces 91 criminal charges and is an adjudicated rapist, has no control over those who levy violent threats.Meanwhile, the court’s ruling has shaken Washington, with Republicans railing against the decision, Democrats defending the court’s ruling and legal scholars presenting a variety of views.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn an unusual move, Dean Phillips, a Democratic representative from Minnesota who is running a long-shot campaign against Joe Biden, criticized the ruling on social media, making him one of the few Democrats disagreeing with the Colorado court.“Do I believe Trump is guilty of inspiring an insurrection and doing nothing to stop it? I was there. Absolutely. Do I believe it’s wrong to ban him from the ballot in Colorado without a conviction? Absolutely,” Phillips wrote on X. “Do I believe the SCOTUS must opine immediately? Absolutely.”Other Democrats have praised the ruling. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a close ally of Biden, called it “striking” and said it is “undeniable in my view that [Trump] participated in an insurrection and as such should be disqualified from holding federal office.” More