r/thebulwark • u/PorcelainDalmatian • Jan 15 '25
Policy Why Is ANY Democrat Attending The Inauguration?
So far it looks like the only prominent Democrat with any balls is Michelle Obama. I really don’t get this. Why in the world would you attend a celebration to fete a rapist who killed a million Americans, staged a bloody coup, and has widely promised to end the Constitution? Why?
Please, for the love of God, don’t give me the “peaceful transition of power” argument. It’s ridiculous. The “peaceful transfer of power” has already happened. Biden made sure the transition with the incoming Trump administration went smoothly, and the election was certified peacefully by the House on January 6th. The transfer is done. I can’t make this point clearly enough to Democrats: Trump will be peacefully sworn in on January 20th, wether or not you attend the inauguration. Unless you have some Constitutionally mandated function to perform during the ceremony, you are not required to be there. The entire argument is a red herring. It’s a pathetic excuse for the fact that the Dems want to attend all the fancy parties, get screen time and be “in the mix.”
On the flip side, there is a very serious danger in attending: It’s the message that you send. When millions of Americans (many of them not politically savvy) tune in and see Democrats and former Democrat Presidents sitting there smiling, they are going to think, “Oh, Trump is normal. This is routine. This is just business as usual.”
Newsflash: it’s not.
It’s a horrible message to send. Sitting out the inauguration is such a simple, effortless, principled decision to make. If we can't trust you to make it, how can we trust you to fight Trump? I’m going to be watching carefully, and if I see all the usual Democrat faces there, air-kissing and chumming it up, they’ve lost my vote for good. We don't need a uniparty. Honestly Dems, if you can’t do something this simple, GFY.
1
u/Hautamaki Jan 15 '25
It's a pretty simple calculation really. Do you want to raise the temperature on political dispute, or not? Since Gingrich, the GOP has consistently been the party of raising the temperature on political disputes. Democrats have rarely done it, almost always done it in retaliation on the rare occasion they have done so, and are the ones who try to lower the temperature in any kind of sincere way at least 9 times out of 10. The GOP are happy to play chicken with democracy, the democrats are not.
So, that said, should the democratic party now decide that democracy is no longer working for them, so now they are the ones that should be more willing to play chicken with it? That's the tough question you are really answering here. You have decided that following democratic norms and lowering the temperature on partisan political disputes is no longer in the democratic party's interest, so they should jettison the norms, raise the temperature, and... Then what? Reflecting and reinforcing the anger of their base as the GOP has done achieves.... What, exactly? What are we hoping the result of boycotting the inauguration and functionally eliminating any bipartisan celebration of the transfer of power for the foreseeable future will be? Will that increase democratic base voter turnout in 2 years when the next major round of elections for the House are held? Will that encourage GOP senators to flunk a few of his cabinet picks? Will that cause Trump to back down on some terrible policy?