U.S. partisan split: 'One side is going to win'

 Gordon L. Weil

A person, who later claimed to be a documentary reporter, interviewed members of the U.S. Supreme Court at a social event.  She hid her microphone, and they probably thought they were engaging in a purely personal conversation.

The reporter’s ambush was against the ethics that most journalists are expected to observe.  A responsible and free press is essential to our democratic form of government. But it hardly works if the media that is supposed to uncover cheating is itself a cheater.

The words of Justice Samuel Alito made their way into the media.  However questionable the method of collecting them, they proved informative, if not totally surprising.

Alito is an unrelenting partisan who reveals his orientation in his words as a justice.  So, if he took a conservative position reflecting his views and values in this chat, his comments were nothing new.  They apparently were meant to be revealed as evidence of his bias, though little more evidence was needed.

But Alito went beyond his political leanings to do a bit of political analysis. In stating his view, he was clear and forthright, characteristics often absent from political speech.  Not only might such clarity be helpful, but it may well have been an analysis understood by partisans on both sides.

Talking of the deep divide in the country, he said: “One side or the other is going to win. There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.  They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

The essence of compromise is each side gives ground.  They split the difference, though not always equally.  Look at the deals to avoid mentioning slavery in the Declaration of Independence or to create a House of Representatives, elected by the people, and a Senate representing the states.  These deals resulted from big compromises.

Traditionally, when the two houses of Congress have disagreed, they created a conference committee to come up with a compromise, which is a deal that leaves both sides equally unhappy.  These committees have disappeared.

Beginning with the GOP Contract with America in 1994, compromise began to fade to the point that it hardly survives even on routine matters.  Republicans would not compromise, leading the Democrats to play hard ball.  Donald Trump exploited the grievances of frustrated Republicans to gain the presidency.  In turn, they gained greater power thanks to him.

In the Republican controlled House, the GOP intentionally adopts bills on which compromise is impossible.  They use such bills to create election issues. In the Senate, the majority Democrats picked up the practice.

Alito’s friends emphasize that he had offered that people could find ways to work and live together “peacefully.”  But he did not explain how.

Occasionally, Republican members of Congress, especially those in vulnerable districts, claim they are willing to compromise.  But it turns out that compromise means that agreement depends on Democrats accepting their positions.  Even if that were to happen, horse-trading in which they accept some Democratic positions doesn’t happen.

Take former GOP Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He wanted Democrats to join with loyal Republicans to oppose his ouster.  They had jointly supported his successful effort to keep the government open, overcoming right-wing GOP opposition.  Yet, just before the ouster vote, he bashed the Democrats, assuring they would not join his supporters and retain him.

What if compromise, the historic hallmark of American politics, is virtually dead, as Alito suggested?

The situation might drive American voters to give the Democrats strong congressional majorities and the presidency.  As a party much less unified than the GOP, they are familiar with compromise and would know how to restore it.  They might produce results.

But that depends on the people. Are we so nearly evenly split that a governing majority is not possible without Trump’s authoritarianism?  If so, matters will have to get much worse before a popular majority for compromise emerges.

If not, today’s abortion battles may show the way.  The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Alito, said abortion would be left to the states, and they jumped to the challenge.  Leave more policy to state decisions and limit the Supreme Court’s powers by passing legislation to limit its jurisdiction.  Both sides might agree on that.

The result could be more conservative states than liberal states, but with an overwhelming majority of the American people in those liberal states.  Maybe some people would move.  The National Popular Vote for president would become increasingly likely.  In this continental country, a less centralized federation might become appealing.

Alito clearly sees national division.  Perhaps he believes that the Court could guard the conservative gates.  It shouldn’t, and it can’t.

British election a preview of U.S. contest

 

Gordon L. Weil

Before you pick a movie, you can often watch a trailer offering a brief preview, designed to induce you to see the whole feature.  Wouldn’t it be great if we now had a trailer for the 2024 election story?

It looks like a cliffhanger.  More than a struggle between two candidates or parties, it may be a drama about the changing country itself.

Breaking news:  a preview is now available.  This trailer is the British campaign, which leads to the U.K. election to be held on July 4, believe it or not.  Like all trailers, it leaves a lot out.  You can wait for the American version, but there’s much relevant across the pond.

The British electorate is mainly divided between the Labour Party, which has become moderately liberal, and the aptly named Conservative Party, also called the Tories.

Each voter is not of equal weight, just as in the U.S. presidential vote.  The population from one U.K. constituency to another may vary, just as the American electoral vote gives more influence to rural state voters. In neither country is there a national popularity contest despite national polling.

In the U.S., the Republican Party has been taken over by extreme right MAGA forces.  They label traditional GOP partisans as RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – and they are either driven out or marginalized. Where the RINOs end up on Election Day and what they do might have a major effect on presidential and congressional elections.

In Britain, the hard-right takes the form of the Reform Party, created to promote Brexit, when the U.K. left the European Union.  Nigel Farage, its leader, is closely aligned with Donald Trump.  Reform will take votes away from the Tories.  In fact, combined with them, conservatives could come close in the polls to Labour, the expected winner by a landslide.

Farage comes across as a brash and outspoken leader, like Trump.  Rishi Sunak, the Tory Prime Minister, seems to be a wealthy technocrat out of touch with the people, and Keir Starmer, his presumed Labour successor, suffers from a charisma deficit.  Farage mirrors Trump, while Starmer, though much younger, recalls Biden’s diminished dynamism.

Both MAGA and the Reform Party favor more authoritarian rule but less government regulation and taxes.  Political opinion may be flowing in their direction.  Last week, in elections for the European Parliament, right-wing parties across the Continent made big gains, pushing governments in France and Belgium to call for immediate, new national elections.

The agendas of the right-wing, from the U.K. to the EU to the U.S., reject the legacy of the Second World War.  After that global conflict, international cooperation emerged as the alternative to more wars.  Traditional nationalism was to fade in favor of alliances and peacekeepers.  The U.N., NATO and the EU itself were the tools.

But nationalism is back. The expected value of international organizations has not been realized and they have mostly weakened.  Sunak and Farage even talk of taking the U.K. out of the European Convention on Human Rights, an effective judicial organization that Britain helped create. 

Even the U.S., China and Russia increasingly look inward. The right-wing agenda has become popular around the world. 

Conservatives divide in Europe, with the extreme and nationalist elements rising, as is also true in the U.S.  Many Republicans seem ready to let Ukraine fall to Russia.  Reform might win more votes, if not more seats, than the Tories.  The British election could be a preview of the U.S. vote.

While Donald Trump is really his own political party, he has successfully adopted the hard right’s demands as his platform and path back to the White House.  Having found their spokesman and been legitimized by him, extreme conservatives want to pursue the same kind of policies as the Reform Party.

There must be one reservation about all this, as the U.K. trailer shows – the unexpected event that can change everything.

Sunak abandoned the D-Day anniversary events in France to do a political interview, causing major outrage even from his own party.  He assured his defeat and may have given Reform an election boost that could kill the Tories, just as MAGA is killing the GOP.

Either Biden or Trump could make a major campaign error or age could catch up with them. That could change everything.

This year, the U.K. trailer may be a preview of coming attractions.  How can the U.S. save its system and avoid the chaotic change that may be this year’s scenario?

The national popular vote for president, approved by Maine, would make every citizen’s vote equal.  Either Maine’s ranked-choice voting or California’s primary for candidates of all parties, with the “top two” meeting in the general election, deal with fracturing parties.

But the U.K. preview reveals that politics this year could be a horror show.

Trump trial: Dont gloat or groan, it hurts America

 

Gordon L. Weil

You can’t gloat or groan about the Trump guilty verdict.

It was a bad day for America.

His critics seem to glory in highlighting his felony conviction as the first for a U.S. president.  His allies strive to dismiss the entire trial as being nothing more than pure politics.  The pundits run wild with speculation about the election effect of the Trump conviction.

The pundits ought to take a deep breath and a step back.  They focus too much on speculating about immediate effects and provide little perspective.

Both sides may be right about Trump and the pundits may provide some wisdom, but what of the effect of the trial on the country and how it will affect our sense of American exceptionalism or the world’s sense of us?

Maine’s congressional delegation shows the split between partisanship and patriotism.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins doesn’t like Trump but remains a partisan politician.  She loyally reverted to GOP form to condemn the politics leading to the trial.  Maybe she was announcing her next re-election bid and wanted to discourage a future primary challenge from a hard-right opponent.

Middle-of-the-road Democratic Rep. Jared Golden, who served in the military, focuses on praising the functioning of the American judicial process.  That’s safe ground and ought to be the bipartisan truth.  Also, it’s patriotic.

The problem is not the substance of the case.  Trump was guilty.  How do I know?  Because the jury, 12 randomly selected citizens, said he is.  We have never devised a better way of determining the facts in a criminal case.  Given all the evidence and a reasonable judgment of it, he is guilty.

Of course, you can disagree.  That’s a right everyone has.  In the end, it’s likely that anyone who either gloats or groans is influenced by their own political views.  It is difficult to say that a partisan conclusion is better than the work of a jury, whatever their personal prejudices, trying patriotically to follow the careful and complete instructions given them by the judge.

The problem is that the case was even brought.  While the guilty verdict may seem to justify the decision of the Manhattan District Attorney to start the process, it obscures the question of whether it was in the best interest of the United States to try a former president for this kind of felony, even given its political overtones. 

Trump is correct. Guilty or not, this case was politically motivated. That’s because everything in public life is politically motivated.  For example, Trump brags that he intentionally appointed justices to the Supreme Court to reverse Roe v. Wade.  Those appointments surely were politically motivated.

The former president claims that President Biden is behind the cases that have been brought against him. Obviously, Biden does not control county DAs. To the extent that Trump’s claim is true in the federal cases, it turns out he has a friend in the White House.

Merrick Garland, Biden’s Attorney General, seems to think he is still a federal judge.  Going slowly to avoid any impression that his president had primed him to get Trump, he handed Trump, the candidate, what amounts to a free pass in an election year.  It is difficult to believe that Trump would have done the same if the situation were reversed.

Garland’s delay in starting the federal trials gave Trump a good chance of avoiding any major negative decision during the campaign.  And that break has nothing to do with pardoning himself.   Garland’s hand-picked prosecutor managed to ensure that he would get Trump’s lackey on the Florida bench in the documents case that should have been a quick win.

Trump’s “America First” policy launched the U.S. on the path to international irrelevance.  If he’s elected, leaders in friendly countries might worry the American world role will further weaken.  Then there’s the worldwide embarrassment of House Speaker Mike Johnson and actor Robert de Niro standing in the street outside the courthouse, campaigning for or against Trump.

Threats aimed at jurors, requiring their anonymity and police protection, are worse than embarrassing.

Collins and other Trump cheerleaders undermine respect for the judicial system when they join his ceaseless complaining.  Trump and the GOP say the real decision on his guilt will be made by his political appeal to voters in November.  The problem is that if he loses, he’ll claim electoral fraud and not admit guilt.

Certainly, voters can decide whether voting for a convicted felon matters and for many, it won’t.  But votes cannot overturn or affirm a court decision.  Meanwhile, stand by for endless appeals, mainly designed to confuse or delay a final result.

What matters more than the 2024 election is preserving the American system of government from partisan sabotage.  Attacking orderly justice to score short-term political points doesn’t help.

Covid’s ‘new normal’ is here to stay

 

Gordon L. Weil

Covid has affected everyone, whether or not you were vaccinated.

Not that Robert Kennedy, Jr. is right about shots.  Despite his claims, vaccinations can protect your health.  But they can’t shield you from the changes Covid has brought to the American economy.

The post-Covid world is often labeled negatively as the “new normal.”  Despite broad economic recovery, many people are unhappy and hope for conditions that are long gone. 

“Make America Rich Again” could be their slogan.  Polls suggest that people ignore the economic recovery and blame Joe Biden for not giving them the kind of personal prosperity that had supposedly boosted their purchasing power and assured their retirement.  

There probably never was an “old normal.”  Whatever the state of the economy in 2000, it was hit by the double whammy of the Great Recession of 2008 and the Covid pandemic in 2020.  Covid got us, and no president could provide a quick fix.

The Great Recession brought a massive slowdown and kept inflation low between 2009 and 2020.  People may have grown accustomed to low inflation, but it zoomed when Covid caused shortages and the government pumped recovery dollars into the economy.  To reverse inflation, the Federal Reserve has boosted interest rates.

The Fed’s anti-inflation efforts are working, but the higher interest rates have made some major costs, like buying a new home, much higher than they were.  The collapse of aggressive lending brought on the Great Recession and then the resulting slowdown kept housing costs well below traditional levels.  It will not again be as easy to buy a house.      

Covid changed almost everything.  Employment, retirement, remote work, and what we purchase and when we buy it were all affected.  Prices will not recede to the unusually low levels of a few years ago.  There’s no political magic that can change that.  The “new normal” is here to stay.

The good news is that unemployment caused by Covid has come down.  The bad news is that we are left with a shortage of workers.  Businesses cannot fill slots and low joblessness affects the economy in areas ranging from home building to restaurants. Wages are higher, but are not attracting the new workers that are needed. 

Why isn’t the labor supply better?  One major reason is that some people who might normally have been at work have decided to stay out of the labor force.  There’s been an increase in people who remain at home as caregivers and in people taking early retirement.

Some older workers lost their jobs during the pandemic and choose not to return to work or have not found jobs at their former pay level or requiring their skills.   More people accept reduced Social Security payments at age 62 rather than struggle to find suitable full-time work.  

Covid made remote work more common.  The pandemic’s spread required more people to evacuate the workspace. Though many have been required to return, the percentage of workers in remote locations has remained relatively high.  Downtown buildings have empty offices, permanently abandoned as the popularity of remote work has gained.

The limited labor force has meant that home builders are scarce.  Housing demand has grown faster than the available labor.  Less new housing has reduced sales and driven up home prices.  The construction labor shortage may partly be the result of the uncertain availability of workers thanks to a nonexistent immigration policy.

People have become more uncertain about their ability to finance their retirement. Added to worries about the future of Social Security, essential to many retirees, are concerns about their vulnerability when technology transforms the demand for skilled workers.  Their doubts can affect their spending and their purchasing decisions then flow back to promote more change.

People now hold on to their cars for 12 years.  Previously, frequent trading up to a new model was an American tradition. A pool of traded-in cars was created, and now they are in high demand.  Auto dealers continue to see service and parts grow, far surpassing their profits from sales of new and used cars. 

People worry about high inflation.  Some believe personal savings have increased, cutting into consumer buying.  Most think we’re in a recession. These beliefs are wrong.

The Fed is bringing inflation down.  Personal savings are not unusually high and, while personal consumption faltered, it is once again soaring.  The American economy grows steadily, ahead of most other countries.

Biden gets little credit for the good economic news and blame for the bad, whether real or imaginary.  Donald Trump left office before having to face most of the pandemic’s economic effects.

Biden does not deserve the blame nor does Trump deserve credit for the economy.  More powerful than any presidential policy, Covid’s unavoidable impact has left us all worried about our economic future. 

 

Political redlines vanish amid partisan fury

Opens way for more authoritarian rule 

Gordon L. Weil

“How dare you attack the physical appearance of another person,” fumed Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized the appearance of another female House committee member. Greene’s statement might have had racial overtones.

Greene had lashed out against a colleague’s eyelashes and Ocasio-Cortes’ retort, dissing Greene’s figure, both crossed a “redline” of acceptable behavior. However strong their partisanship, members of Congress traditionally have stayed away from personally attacking their opponents based on their appearance, race, age or religion.

A “redline” is supposed to serve as a warning: if you cross the line, you risk suffering adverse consequences. Hence, the relatively minor House committee exchange.

The idea is that you “draw a line in the sand” that is the acceptable limit. It’s a poor analogy, because, given the softness of sand, that line is increasingly and easily blown away.

In the late 1940s, Arthur Vandenberg was a Republican senator during Democratic President Harry Truman’s administration. While he might oppose Truman’s foreign policy, he asserted that Congress should unite behind the policy once adopted and make it bipartisan. “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” he said. That was a redline.

Recently, New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik addressed the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to criticize President Biden’s Israel-Gaza positions. She is a member of House leadership and an ardent supporter of Donald Trump. Vandenberg’s redline crossed.

Her party’s once and hopeful president shows no restraint in attacking the policies of other American political leaders while abroad. He sees the world as his campaign stage and does not worry that a lack of foreign policy continuity, even allowing for its evolution, is essential for maintaining confidence in the U.S. For him, politics does not stop at the water’s edge.

When political leaders adopt no-redlines policies, the effect can get out of hand. People can take politicians’ wild admonitions as permission or even encouragement for taking physical action. A federal court may someday get to decide if the January 6 Capitol insurrection responded to Trump’s call to “fight like hell.”

Members of Congress, judges, prosecutors and witnesses are now physically threatened. If the operation of the federal system is pushed aside by threats or injury caused by a relative few incensed about a decision, it is also endangered. That system is not perfect, but it has rules, the redlines all have agreed to observe to protect officials.

The bias of Florida federal District Court Judge Aileen Cannon toward Trump is so evident that it is embarrassing to her and the judiciary. The people rely on courts to provide at least the appearance of not taking sides between the parties. But her efforts to excessively complicate and delay the Trump documents retention case destroy any such impartiality.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s home flew an American flag upside down at the time of the Capitol insurrection. That intended political support for Trump is likely illegal under the Flag Code and raises doubts about his fairness in political cases. He blamed it on his wife, a claim that insults peoples’ intelligence and cannot pass the straight-face test.

His apologists resort to whataboutism, claiming that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg opposed candidate Trump before the 2016 election. Assuming that’s true, two wrongs still don’t make a right to wipe out an established redline against the appearance of bias.

Before that same election, a tape revealed Trump’s having groped women, feeling his celebrity gave him license. Surprisingly even to him, society’s redline against such behavior was swept away by millions of voters.

The U.S. House Speaker heads a cornerstone institution of the federal government. Part of the Speaker’s job is to maintain the dignity and stature of the House, independent of the Senate and president. But Speaker Mike Johnson dashed to New York to stand in the street supporting Trump in a N.Y. state trial. Redline gone.

Given the power, role and influence of the president, candidates and incumbents have for decades made their full medical and tax records public. Trump never did either and the media took note and simply moved on. Trump and Biden, for his medical data, have given themselves a free ride. Redline deathbed?

Customs have grown up to make the bare bones of constitutional government work. Over time, these customs take the form of the redlines around the behavior of the people who operate that government. When redlines can be crossed without any penalty, the essential understandings that allow a political system to operate across a vast territory and population can be lost.

Of course, customs and redlines must evolve as the world changes. What was once not allowed can become acceptable. But this evolution must continue to protect or enhance the people’s rights. If it is abrupt, arbitrary or self-serving, crossing redlines leads to more authoritarian government.

Gaza War -- Is it a new Vietnam crisis?

Understanding Israel-Palestine

Gordon L. Weil

“I hope this is not 1968 again.”  Observing campus unrest, an academic friend expressed his concern, but his comment went beyond the demonstrations.

The Vietnam War was the focus of the turmoil of the 1960s and its effect transformed American political life.  The country itself changed and some shared political values were shredded.  The question is whether the depth of today’s differences will have a similar effect.

Then, there was a conflict over what American objectives ought to be.  The U.S. fought a war it claimed not to want.  Now, there is also a conflict over what American objectives ought to be. And the U.S. struggles to avoid a Middle East war it does not want.

One obstacle to an Israel-Palestine policy enjoying wide support and promoting unity rather than division is a lack of understanding of the situation.  On campuses and in public discourse, the issues may be oversimplified and turned into political slogans.

I have tried to create for myself perspectives on the events arising after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel.  You may disagree with what follows, but maybe they are food for thought.

First, the Palestinians.  Though the word “terrorist” is overused, it certainly applies to Hamas. It has no policy other than the outright destruction of Israel.  It holds hostages. Think of how we felt when Iran held Americans.  It’s virtually impossible to see how any long-term agreement can be made with it.

Not all Palestinians are affiliated with Hamas or ready to wage permanent war with Israel.  Many are citizens of Israel.  The Palestinians have lived on the land for centuries and have ceded much of it to the Jewish state.  As stalemate has persisted and armed attacks have failed, many have come to accept the existence of Israel and the need for it to exist side by side with an Arab state.

But the Palestinians have been hindered by their inability to create a realistic, democratic and stable alternative to their domination by Israel and Hamas.  That failure has opened the way for terrorism.  Meanwhile, backing for Palestinians by the neighboring Arab states has faded.

Next, Israel.  It’s been a special place as the world’s guilt at having allowed the Holocaust led to strong support for the Jewish state.  Jews see it as their “safe room” in a world that has been historically hostile. In other countries, many want their governments to continue to view Israel from that perspective.

Zionism, the movement for a Jewish state, is an integral part of their faith for many Jews.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exploits this belief by insisting that support for Israel means unstinting support for Israeli government policies.  Abroad, this can turn opposition to Israeli policy into antisemitism, for which he must bear some responsibility.

Israel has occupied a privileged place in American policy.  Its democratic system is believed to embody values shared by the U.S. Yet its justifiable retaliation against Hamas has run to unbridled excess and, coupled with attacks on West Bank Palestinians, has stripped it of its democratic luster and threatens to turn it into an international pariah.

Finally, the U.S.  Historically, it has been Israel’s strongest backer.  A combination of reparations to the Jewish people and respect for Israel’s democracy in a hostile political environment underlie that bipartisan policy.  Its support has eroded as Netanyahu came to openly reject a two-state solution and courted Republicans.

As U.S. relations with Arab states have improved, coincident with declining dependence on their oil, and American political opinion has evolved beyond the post-World War II values, the U.S. view of Israel has matured.  While Israel has retained access to American intelligence and arms, its broad, unquestioning support is deteriorating.

Israel has become a political issue.  The Democrats are increasingly divided between traditional supporters and opponents of Israel’s devastation of the Gaza population and discriminatory treatment of Palestinians.  Republicans, always seeking to nurture wedge issues, line up with Israel.

The clash has spread to college campuses.  Opponents of Israeli policy sometimes flirt with antisemitism, and their ire may lead them to justify terrorist attacks. Some donors threaten funding cuts for colleges that permit demonstrations by Palestinian sympathizers. Congressional Republicans believe they can score points by attacking top universities.

Colleges should not take sides.  They are meant to help their students understand how to evaluate issues, not limit such inquiry.  Of course, they should prevent or punish any expression of opinion or actions that result in physical or hate attacks or harm to others.

A two-state deal is the only practical way to resolve the Israel-Palestine situation. American policy needs more than futile advocacy; it needs action. To get started, the U.S. can define the outcome that would best meet American interests and then pursue it with more than hopeful talk. 

  

Is U.S. a democracy or a republic?

Gordon L. Weil

A few weeks ago, I received a reader’s comment, trying to educate me on the difference between a democracy and a republic.  He noted that the word “republic” appears in the Constitution, while “democracy” does not.  The writer then canceled his subscription, probably making it impossible for him to read this reply.

There is no single historically agreed definition of “democracy” or “republic.”   Some people see a political conflict between them that could affect the way we are governed.  The pat answer has often been: “It’s both.”  While that’s superficially true, it does not go deep enough to resolve the argument.

In any of its definitions, “democracy” means a system in which the people either make political decisions or select other people to make them on their behalf.  It contrasts with a system in which an unelected person makes the decisions.  

In the most basic form, called direct democracy, people themselves are the legislature and make decisions.  In this pure form, it may only now exist in some Town Meeting governments in New England municipalities.

The second form in which people choose others to act on their behalf to exercise either legislative or executive functions is called representative democracy.

Either of these forms leaves open two key questions.  Who constitutes “the people”?   When the Constitution was drafted, “We, the People” did not include women, Blacks and, in some states, people without property.  That has changed.

The other issue is whether those chosen by the people are their delegates, expected to exercise the popular will, or their designees, who exercise their own judgment on behalf of the people who selected them. 

The U.S. is simply too large to be a pure democracy.  The people elect the decision makers, and do not decide federal issues directly.  The American system is a representative or indirect democracy; the Framers referred to it as “a republican form of government.”

A republic is a form of democracy; not an alternative system to democracy.  The republic does not alter democracy “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

“We, the People” recognizes that the sovereign is the American people as a whole – not each individually or a single ruler like the King of England.  Federal and state sovereignty results from an agreement among the people to allow their governments to use their collective sovereign power. 

If the right to vote is limited, that undermines democracy by preventing participation.  When a political leader acts outside of the limits of the laws meant to protect individual rights, that can reduce or eliminate democracy.

Concerns that such events may be occurring in the U.S. is likely what motivates Biden’s repeated claim that Trump endangers democracy.  Trump says he would be a dictator for a day and would have almost unlimited powers if he were president. 

The Supreme Court has decided that each person is entitled to a vote and presumably that all votes are equal.  But equality is true only up to a point, and the reason has little to with a democracy or republic.

The U.S. is a federation of states.  A democratic republic need not be a federation (for example, as in France or Japan), but, having been created by the states, the U.S. is both.

In the American federal system, each state must be a republic and has certain voting rights: two votes in the Senate.  As a result, a single voter in a low population state like Wyoming has greater weight than a voter in a large population state like California when it comes to choosing a senator. 

The Electoral Vote that chooses the president gives each state a number of voters representing the two senators plus a single vote for each congressional district. This gives greater weight to the voter in a low population state than one in a large state.  (Within each state, individual voters have equal influence.) Each state decides how it will select its presidential electors.

The state weighted vote system means that the Senate can enact bills with the votes of senators who represent less than half of the population, and the president can similarly be elected by states whose population is less than half the national total. Trump and four other presidents have been elected by a popular minority.

Whether elected officials should use their own judgment or follow public preferences remains unresolved.  But, even if they believe they can exercise their independent judgment for public benefit, they are limited in the scope of their discretion.  The Constitution includes safeguards intended to protect individual rights from the government.  

When Trump wants to be an authoritarian for a day or ignore legislative limits on his authority, the Republic would give him no such powers and his actions would violate the Constitution.  When people storm the Capitol in the belief that they have personal rights, they, too, violate the Constitution, because they would deprive others of those same rights.