Trump is Not a Threat to Democracy

The main thrust of the Biden re-election campaign has been that there is a “Threat to Democracy” emanating from Donald Trump. There are five main threads to that charge.

The first charge is that he agrees with U.S. Supreme Court ruling that states have the right to set their own laws on abortion. The second is that his party favors voter ID and up-to-date voter registration rolls. The third is Trump’s insistence that federal agencies should not use their authority or influence to pressure media outlets, whether in print, over the airwaves, or on the internet, to restrict stories unfavorable to Democratic candidates or causes. The fourth is that he states that the 2020 election was not fair. The fifth is that he incited the January 6 incident at the Capitol.

Abiding with the U.S. Supreme Court should not be considered a political stance, even if one disagrees with it. It is the foundation of a government ruled by laws, not men. A secondary but related issue is that pundits have attempted to paint Trump as being wholly against all abortion. He has stated in a Truth Social post that ““Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights…My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land — in this case, the law of the state.” The former president has also declined to endorse a national abortion ban. Therefore, the charge that his position on abortion is a “Threat to Democracy” is without merit.

Ensuring that only voters registered in the correct district is a vital part of providing fair elections. The non-partisan National Conference of State Legislature (NCSL) points out the importance of this practice: “Voter registration lists-lists of eligible voters-form the foundation for nearly everything in election administration, and they are always changing as new registrants are added and existing registrants move or otherwise become ineligible…Accurate registration…Protects against fraud by ensuring only eligible electors can cast a ballot, Informs Election Day planning by helping accurately budget for ballots, voting machines, polling places and poll workers, Minimizes wait times at the polls, Simplifies postelection procedures by reducing the number of provisional ballots cast…Keeping voter registration rolls accurate and current is an important part of holding efficient and secure elections. The benefits of having accurate registration lists include: Protecting against fraud by ensuring only eligible electors can cast a ballot, Informing Election Day planning by helping accurately budget for ballots, voting machines, polling places and poll workers, Minimizing wait times at the polls, Simplifying postelection procedures by reducing the number of provisional ballots cast.’

The charge that requiring voter ID suppresses or discourages voting has been repeatedly disproven. This was outlined in 2021 when then-ranking member Rep. Bryan Steil of the House Committee on House Administration Election Subcommittee addressed the issue: “It is absolutely critical we work to find ways to ensure our elections are free, fair, and secure. Photo ID is one simple, commonsense way that we can assure that every legal vote is counted and only legal votes are counted. Thirty-six states currently require some form of ID to vote. In 2020, we saw more people cast their vote than in any other presidential election in history. In fact, voter turnout increased in every state, including some of the sharpest increases occurring in states that require an ID to vote. And further dispelling this myth that voter ID laws deter voting, voter turnout increased among all race groups in 2020…it’s clear voter ID does not deter people from legally voting. The data just doesn’t support it. Common sense doesn’t support it.”

The article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.