What is the Deal with Democrats’ Response to the Election Anyway?
By 
Like Paul, I am utterly perplexed at Democrats’ response to Trump’s election. After hearing nothing but how Trump was the biggest monster and threat to democracy of all time, leading Democrats seem to just be shrugging their shoulders and wishing him the best? Huh. My friend Phil Eil is a Rhode Island based journalist who has a good book out on a doctor who prescribed opioids like candy and killed a lot of people. He also is perplexed and does a serious calling out of the state’s Democrats and by proxy national Democrats for this disconnect between pre-election rhetoric and whatever has happened the last two weeks.
On Wednesday afternoon, Nov. 6, Gov. Dan McKee, who had published a Boston Globe op-ed in January calling this the highest stakes election in American history, released a statement emphasizing the importance of local politics. “We must now calmly move forward with civility and respect to ensure Rhode Island remains a place of opportunity and inclusivity for all,” McKee said. There was no mention of Trump and no references to the “tyranny,” “dictatorship” or “authoritarian regime that legitimizes violence” that McKee had warned of earlier in the year. Beyond stating that his administration won’t help carry out Trump’s proposed mass deportations, he hasn’t shared specific plans to address the president-elect’s policies.
Sen. Jack Reed shared a post-election statement that was slightly more blunt, but still left much to be desired. Reed — who the week before the election had warned that Trump will “act like a fascist” if elected — issued a statement on Nov. 6 reminding the incoming administration that the “presidency is not a monarchy.” Added Reed: “The government exists to serve, protect, and represent the people — not retribution and revenge.” He included no details of how he plans to back up those words.
Our congressmen’s words have been even more listless.
U.S. Rep. Seth Magaziner ran for reelection with a campaign plank of “Protecting Our Democracy” that specifically condemned Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021. He has said, “Trump’s Project 2025 would gut the EPA and take us back to the old days of acid rain, water that you can’t drink, and air that is toxic to breathe,” and Trump’s “radical plan to take away Americans’ constitutionally protected rights and freedoms is wrong for America.” Yet his 92-word post-election statement on the morning of Nov. 6 included only a vague vow to stand up to the executive branch when necessary to defend people’s rights and freedoms. “I will work with any administration of either party when it is in the best interest of Rhode Islanders,” Magaziner said. Since then, he has called Trump’s nomination of former Reps. Tulsi Gabbard and Matt Gaetz to high-powered administration positions “dangerous.”
U.S. Rep. Gabe Amo had said that world leaders and other people abroad are “worried about Trump.” He tweeted that Trump “cares more about campaign donations from oil tycoons than the fate of future generations and the health of our planet” and said that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rubber-stamp of broad presidential immunity “bulldozes the essential idea that presidents are bound by the same laws as every other American.” Yet his late morning statement on Nov. 6 felt like a postcard from an earlier, less rancorous era. “I hoped to turn the page on the divisiveness we heard and saw,” Amo said. “Our nation’s leaders will need to move forward with the intensity of our convictions to strengthen our democracy, protect our freedoms, and have an inclusive future.” His post-election posts to X — chats with ambassadors, visits with veterans, and stops at small businesses — look a lot like business as usual.
After reading these materials, I was left with questions. First, what do these officials plan to do specifically to address the dangers that they were so eager to warn voters about? If you’re going to tell voters about the fascism and tyranny your opponent represents, they’re going to rightfully expect a plan when he wins. Anything less is a failure of leadership.
I also have broader questions about trust.
Why is a situation that was so dire a few weeks ago now just disappointing, as McKee, Amo, and Magaziner all called it? Which version of you — pre-election or post-election — are we supposed to believe? If you suddenly see Trump’s election as far less concerning than you did in October, as these ho-hum statements suggest, voters deserve an explanation for why that is. (This disconnect goes all the way to the party’s top leaders. Since the election, both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have told people that it will be OK after months of warning just the opposite.)
Good questions!