The ruling class does not like Trump’s style, to make the understatement of the year. But here’s perhaps a more important problem. They consider themselves to be the ruling class. That means the person that they choose gets to be in the White House and the party of that person also controls both houses of Congress.
In 2015 and 2016, the ruling class, which includes the media, not only directed the public to vote for Hillary; they laughed at the mere mention of Trump. Huff Post put any mention of him on their entertainment page.
The ruling class is influential. What they say should happen sets the agenda. Whom they say should be elected gets elected. They said Trump should not be elected.
At 11:41 pm PST, on November 6, 2016, Trump won.
The ruling class reacted with denial, then a series of escalating, generally futile, feckless responses:
A. They blamed the loss on Russia colluding illegally with Trump.
B. They called the Democrat party’s navy/air force—the lawyers. The lawyers pointed to the two ways the Constitution lets unhappy citizens remove a president: The XXVth Amendment (unable to discharge duties) and Article II Section 4 of the Constitution (impeachment).
C. They tried to hound Trump into resigning.
Aside from the utter lack of evidence or even logic to support the collusion allegation, it has no legal meaning. Colluding is only against the law in an anti-trust context and not even the Democrats have accused Trump of price-fixing with Putin.
Yet they go on ranting about Russian collusion which has no path to victory—to borrow a phrase from the election coverage. The only path to victory from collusion accusations would be to drive Trump into resigning. He does not seem to be the type to even consider such a thing.
There is a vague notion that pounding on the collusion accusation can “delegitimize” Trump. Uh, there is no such thing in the Constitution and Trump keeps doing things like signing laws and orders and pardons and judge/justice nominations and changing tariffs and regulations. And when he does those things, the resulting documents have powerful consequences. So pardon me, Democrats and media, but your campaign to delegitimize the President seems to have zero effect—no effect at all with regard to the rule of law.
With regard to the XXV Amendment, the Dems and media have apparently not read it. Only the President himself or Vice-President Pence can initiate XXVth Amendment removal of the President for inability to perform his duties. The VP needs the agreement of a majority of the Cabinet, but the Cabinet majority cannot initiate the action. And Democrat politicians and the likes of Mika Brzezinski and Joy Behar saying “completely unhinged” a thousand times has zero effect on the probability that Mike Pence will try to depose Trump. Yet they go on as if it somehow will end Trump’s presidency tomorrow if they just say it enough times.
With regard to impeachment, some Dems keep calling for it, but it requires a majority of the House to initiate it and 2/3 of the Senate to convict. President Johnson (Lincoln’s successor) and Clinton were impeached by the House. Nixon resigned before the House impeached him.
There appears to be no chance of a House with a majority GOP voting to impeach Trump. But many think the Republicans may lose control of the House in 2018. If so, the question would be would 218 Dems vote for impeachment—an extremely rare event in American history. And would they vote that way when they know they would not have 2/3 of the Senate likely to vote for conviction?
The Republicans may lose the Senate in 2018. But they may also strengthen their majority. 2/3, however, has not happened since the mid-sixties when Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater and lost in a huge landslide. So even if the Dems get a majority in the House, which IS enough to impeach, but not enough to convict, there will be no CONVICTION. Without a conviction, as happened with Johnson and Clinton, Trump stays in office.
So A and B are a total waste of time with regard to the legal ways of removing a president and C only worked with Nixon, a wobbly man who was liked by very few and who had petulantly “ended” his political career in the early sixties. Trump ain’t Nixon.
So how has the left reacted to these realities? They have not unless you count racheting up the rhetoric to Chicken Little levels, as if they figured we just need to say the scary-enough words and the VP and/or the Republicans in Congress will agree with us. Thus do we now hear virtually every scary word in the English language applied to Trump: Hitler, Stalin, dictator, demented, Alzheimers, insane, unhinged. There are only a few left that have not been used like cannibal, rapist, mass murderer. And given the lack of evidence for even the ones that have already been used, even the last few unused ones will not get the job done.
Then what? In theory, the left could accept the results of the 2016 election and try to defeat Trump in 2020. That has always been the best plan and the many sober observer pundits keep saying it. But with extremely inconvenient timing, just when the Dems need a great new, center-left message, the head of the DNC is saying far left Puerto RIcan Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 26-year-old Democratic Socialist, is the future of the party.
All these shrill condemnations of Trump informally authorize assassination of him. Consequently, we may see just that.
Otherwise, the future may be the left crying wolf to such ridiculous extremes that they become a punch line. In the alternative, they could hope that Trump dies or becomes incapacitated by disease or injury. Or, perhaps the most possible, hope that the US economy or dollar collapse. Those are possible because of things like the current trade war and the current tumor-like growth of the national debt to GDP ratio.
The left is the opposite of the solution to such problems, but that was true in 1932 and they got elected anyway. They had a tariff problem then and our current debt problem is partly caused by the New Deal’s creation of Social Security.
The most probable scenario is probably continuation of the status quo until at least 2020. But the others are all too possible to assume they will not happen.