May 22, 2024
Off the Rails? 2024 in Historical Perspective
Sean Wilentz
Professor of History, Princeton University
Off the Rails? 2024 in Historical Perspective
Sean Wilentz
Professor of History, Princeton University
John Cotton, introducer, and Sean Wilentz
Minutes of the 31st Meeting of the 82nd Year
President John Cotton convened the thirty-first meeting of the Old Guard’s 83rd year. Frances Slade led the invocation. Peter Epstein read the minutes of the previous meeting.
One hundred thirty-five persons, including twelve guests, attended the session. Bill Katen-Narvell invited a guest, Rod Rickman, and Ric Fernandez invited a guest, Andrew Ross, both of whom will be nominees for membership. Other guests (of members) were Elizabeth Silverman (Steve Silverman); Dina Shaw (Bill Katen-Narvell); Joan Kuskin (Harold Kuskin); Caroline Weintz (Walter Weintz), Terri Haberman (Irv Urken), Phyllis Caras (Adele Agin), John Fleming (Joan Fleming); and Sophia Levin, Caryl Levin, and Michael Levin (Marsha Levin-Rojer).
Noting that this is the final meeting of the 2024 spring term and his final session as president, John Cotton singled out for special recognition and thanks every member of the Executive Committee who served with him over the past two years. All in attendance applauded them enthusiastically. John then requested that all members attending this session gather outside at the end of the meeting for a group photo.
He then introduced the speaker, Sean Wilentz, Professor of History at Princeton University, author of several award-winning volumes on American history, including The Rise of American Democracy, for which he is presently preparing a companion volume. In 2016, he spoke to the Old Guard about the “hollowing out” of the Republican Party that made it ripe for a hostile takeover by Donald Trump, which John Cotton said now appears to be complete, and that he has asked Professor Wilentz to follow up that assessment eight years ago with his prognosis for the forthcoming November 2024 election.
Professor Wilentz opened by commenting that he is frequently asked to present talks like this before an election and that he has often been wrong—except in 2020 when his predictions turned out to be right and those of most of his colleagues were not. He said a forecast for 2024 is especially hard, because this is not a normal election, though the mainstream news media try to cover it as such. This time around there is no respect for rules. It has become a referendum about the future of the rule of law and of the Constitution. The Republican Party no longer actually exists. The MAGA Party which has replaced it is centered on the troubled personality of one man whose character is open to full view. As a previous incumbent, Trump had a chaotic record that serves as something of a prelude to what we can expect if he is re-elected, but it is a record mis-remembered or distorted by many. Nonetheless, where he might take us is no mystery. Trump is not good at hiding things. It is all out there. Just read his detailed interview in the most recent issue of Time magazine.
Lest we think aspiration for “a unified Reich” expressed recently on Trump’s on-line outlet, Truth Social, is a slip of the tongue, read the detailed objectives and programs laid out for him by the Heritage Foundation. For starters, it would gut the Federal civil service to make way for political loyalists. The Federalist Society has prepared similar lists for the offices of legal counsel and courts. Even the Federal Reserve is a target. Trump openly states that one of his goals is revenge—revenge against those in politics, the courts, the legal system, the media, and academia who have criticized or opposed him. He plans to round up eleven million people “not legally here” and either forcibly deport them or house them in a network of detention camps. In foreign policy, we would be electing a supporter and admirer of Vladimir Putin. Trump would dissolve the western alliance and force Europe to go it alone. Ukraine would be lost.
There are some who think checks and balances in the Congress and the courts can keep some of this under control. But that very much depends on which party controls the Senate and the House and we do not know how that will turn out.
As for the courts, compare the performance of the Supreme Court in 1974 with what we are witnessing today. When Nixon claimed executive privilege and refused to turn over the tapes—evidence of a crime he committed while in office—the Supreme Court was not in session. It promptly re-convened and decided within two weeks—on a bi-partisan basis—that the President was not immune from criminal prosecution. Nixon resigned and, by accepting a pardon from Gerald Ford, thereby admitted that the President is not above the law.
In light of these precedents and history, Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is bizarre and has been laughed out of the lower courts. Yet the present Supreme Court is taking extended time to parse what actions of a president are “official,” and thus may be immune from prosecution as crimes, and which ones are not— in other words, how much criminality to allow a president while in office. This, and continuing questionable calendar changes by the judge presiding over the case in which Trump is charged with illegally removing and hiding classified government documents, suggest possibly purposeful intent to delay trials until after the election so that Trump, if elected, could vacate the cases.
There may even be a desire within the present Supreme Court to entirely remove the judicial system from decisions about presidential criminality wherever possible. When the Colorado Supreme Court banned Trump from the ballot in that state on the grounds that he incited the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated it on the grounds that allowing individual states to make that decision would sow chaos in national elections, though it’s hard to imagine a process made messier than the one we have just been through. But in this decision, the court hollowed out the 14th Amendment by arguing that only Congress, not the courts, should be able to ban a candidate from a national ballot. So a decision about whether an insurrection or criminal act has been committed by a president could thereby rest with whichever party is in control in Congress. The rule of law could be replaced by a purely political decision. So much for checks and balances.
Not since the Dred Scott decision has the court been such an issue and it really should be. It is likely that, because of age or health, at least three judges on the current court will leave during the next four years, so if Trump is elected, it is quite possible that the country could function under his appointees for two generations.
Why are we here? Biden should be in good shape.
Though he is only four years older than Trump, we hear a lot about his “age.” But “old” is good. There is no substitute for experience and wisdom and Biden has been there. He is a listener. He doesn’t fly of the handle. He’s spry. He is not drooling in his breakfast. Just watch when his wife walks into the room. Romance is in the air. When occasion demands, he can deliver a great speech. In the State of the Union, he handled his Republican hecklers beautifully and, finger-pointing, even singled out the Supreme Court members seated in front of him, telling them they were wrong in vacating Roe v. Wade.
Despite a very slender majority in Congress, he has accomplished far more good than many of his predecessors. The country is in remarkable shape. The economy is booming; the stock market, setting records. We are at full employment. Inflation—much of it due to the consequences of the Covid pandemic and the purposeful decision to pump more fiscal stimulus into the economy to forestall a recession—is coming down. How many of those complaining about inflation would have preferred a recession?
There is a problem explaining this to the American people. The way people get their information today is far different from the way most of us in this room got it earlier in our lives. News and information today flow through channels that play to the interests and inclinations of specific audiences. Those echo chambers are flooded with disinformation. It’s urgently important in this election that voters understand that the Constitution under which we have had a pretty good run for almost two and half centuries is under ominous threat, but in such a fractured communications environment it is really tough to help voters separate truth from fiction. We are in a horse race for both the presidency and Congress.
Decades ago, on a beach walk with Harold Macmillan, John F. Kennedy asked him what were the biggest challenges he faced as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. “Events! Events, my dear boy,” Macmillan responded. It may well be that an interest rate cut or two over the coming months, or some other event, may play a decisive role in influencing the outcome of this election.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph R. Widner
One hundred thirty-five persons, including twelve guests, attended the session. Bill Katen-Narvell invited a guest, Rod Rickman, and Ric Fernandez invited a guest, Andrew Ross, both of whom will be nominees for membership. Other guests (of members) were Elizabeth Silverman (Steve Silverman); Dina Shaw (Bill Katen-Narvell); Joan Kuskin (Harold Kuskin); Caroline Weintz (Walter Weintz), Terri Haberman (Irv Urken), Phyllis Caras (Adele Agin), John Fleming (Joan Fleming); and Sophia Levin, Caryl Levin, and Michael Levin (Marsha Levin-Rojer).
Noting that this is the final meeting of the 2024 spring term and his final session as president, John Cotton singled out for special recognition and thanks every member of the Executive Committee who served with him over the past two years. All in attendance applauded them enthusiastically. John then requested that all members attending this session gather outside at the end of the meeting for a group photo.
He then introduced the speaker, Sean Wilentz, Professor of History at Princeton University, author of several award-winning volumes on American history, including The Rise of American Democracy, for which he is presently preparing a companion volume. In 2016, he spoke to the Old Guard about the “hollowing out” of the Republican Party that made it ripe for a hostile takeover by Donald Trump, which John Cotton said now appears to be complete, and that he has asked Professor Wilentz to follow up that assessment eight years ago with his prognosis for the forthcoming November 2024 election.
Professor Wilentz opened by commenting that he is frequently asked to present talks like this before an election and that he has often been wrong—except in 2020 when his predictions turned out to be right and those of most of his colleagues were not. He said a forecast for 2024 is especially hard, because this is not a normal election, though the mainstream news media try to cover it as such. This time around there is no respect for rules. It has become a referendum about the future of the rule of law and of the Constitution. The Republican Party no longer actually exists. The MAGA Party which has replaced it is centered on the troubled personality of one man whose character is open to full view. As a previous incumbent, Trump had a chaotic record that serves as something of a prelude to what we can expect if he is re-elected, but it is a record mis-remembered or distorted by many. Nonetheless, where he might take us is no mystery. Trump is not good at hiding things. It is all out there. Just read his detailed interview in the most recent issue of Time magazine.
Lest we think aspiration for “a unified Reich” expressed recently on Trump’s on-line outlet, Truth Social, is a slip of the tongue, read the detailed objectives and programs laid out for him by the Heritage Foundation. For starters, it would gut the Federal civil service to make way for political loyalists. The Federalist Society has prepared similar lists for the offices of legal counsel and courts. Even the Federal Reserve is a target. Trump openly states that one of his goals is revenge—revenge against those in politics, the courts, the legal system, the media, and academia who have criticized or opposed him. He plans to round up eleven million people “not legally here” and either forcibly deport them or house them in a network of detention camps. In foreign policy, we would be electing a supporter and admirer of Vladimir Putin. Trump would dissolve the western alliance and force Europe to go it alone. Ukraine would be lost.
There are some who think checks and balances in the Congress and the courts can keep some of this under control. But that very much depends on which party controls the Senate and the House and we do not know how that will turn out.
As for the courts, compare the performance of the Supreme Court in 1974 with what we are witnessing today. When Nixon claimed executive privilege and refused to turn over the tapes—evidence of a crime he committed while in office—the Supreme Court was not in session. It promptly re-convened and decided within two weeks—on a bi-partisan basis—that the President was not immune from criminal prosecution. Nixon resigned and, by accepting a pardon from Gerald Ford, thereby admitted that the President is not above the law.
In light of these precedents and history, Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is bizarre and has been laughed out of the lower courts. Yet the present Supreme Court is taking extended time to parse what actions of a president are “official,” and thus may be immune from prosecution as crimes, and which ones are not— in other words, how much criminality to allow a president while in office. This, and continuing questionable calendar changes by the judge presiding over the case in which Trump is charged with illegally removing and hiding classified government documents, suggest possibly purposeful intent to delay trials until after the election so that Trump, if elected, could vacate the cases.
There may even be a desire within the present Supreme Court to entirely remove the judicial system from decisions about presidential criminality wherever possible. When the Colorado Supreme Court banned Trump from the ballot in that state on the grounds that he incited the January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated it on the grounds that allowing individual states to make that decision would sow chaos in national elections, though it’s hard to imagine a process made messier than the one we have just been through. But in this decision, the court hollowed out the 14th Amendment by arguing that only Congress, not the courts, should be able to ban a candidate from a national ballot. So a decision about whether an insurrection or criminal act has been committed by a president could thereby rest with whichever party is in control in Congress. The rule of law could be replaced by a purely political decision. So much for checks and balances.
Not since the Dred Scott decision has the court been such an issue and it really should be. It is likely that, because of age or health, at least three judges on the current court will leave during the next four years, so if Trump is elected, it is quite possible that the country could function under his appointees for two generations.
Why are we here? Biden should be in good shape.
Though he is only four years older than Trump, we hear a lot about his “age.” But “old” is good. There is no substitute for experience and wisdom and Biden has been there. He is a listener. He doesn’t fly of the handle. He’s spry. He is not drooling in his breakfast. Just watch when his wife walks into the room. Romance is in the air. When occasion demands, he can deliver a great speech. In the State of the Union, he handled his Republican hecklers beautifully and, finger-pointing, even singled out the Supreme Court members seated in front of him, telling them they were wrong in vacating Roe v. Wade.
Despite a very slender majority in Congress, he has accomplished far more good than many of his predecessors. The country is in remarkable shape. The economy is booming; the stock market, setting records. We are at full employment. Inflation—much of it due to the consequences of the Covid pandemic and the purposeful decision to pump more fiscal stimulus into the economy to forestall a recession—is coming down. How many of those complaining about inflation would have preferred a recession?
There is a problem explaining this to the American people. The way people get their information today is far different from the way most of us in this room got it earlier in our lives. News and information today flow through channels that play to the interests and inclinations of specific audiences. Those echo chambers are flooded with disinformation. It’s urgently important in this election that voters understand that the Constitution under which we have had a pretty good run for almost two and half centuries is under ominous threat, but in such a fractured communications environment it is really tough to help voters separate truth from fiction. We are in a horse race for both the presidency and Congress.
Decades ago, on a beach walk with Harold Macmillan, John F. Kennedy asked him what were the biggest challenges he faced as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. “Events! Events, my dear boy,” Macmillan responded. It may well be that an interest rate cut or two over the coming months, or some other event, may play a decisive role in influencing the outcome of this election.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph R. Widner