By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the 2024 election, President-elect Trump’s actions, including controversial appointments and rejection of fundraising transparency, underscore his disregard for established norms. The subsequent dismissal of the election interference case against him further cemented this trend, prompting concern from legal analysts and commentators. This outcome is viewed as a significant blow to accountability and the rule of law, potentially emboldening lawlessness. The episode also explores the growing influence of Christian nationalism on American society and politics.
Read the original article here
Trump’s election win didn’t just signal a change in leadership; it felt like a shattering of established norms, a declaration that the rules, as previously understood, no longer applied. The lack of consequences for his actions, both before and after the election, cemented this unsettling feeling.
What could be done if he refused to sign transition papers? The potential repercussions seemed minimal, highlighting a worrying power imbalance. The established system, it seemed, was powerless to enforce its own rules against a powerful individual willing to flout them.
This perception wasn’t solely about the election itself, but the subsequent behavior. The brazen disregard for established procedures, the repeated, verifiable lies, and the lack of any significant consequences for these actions, created a sense of profound unease. This wasn’t just political maneuvering; it was a deliberate erosion of trust in the established order.
The ease with which misinformation spread and was readily accepted by a significant portion of the population only amplified the feeling that truth was no longer a prerequisite for success. A chilling precedent was set: if lying worked, why bother with truth? This logic extended beyond politics, into business and personal interactions, fueling cynicism and a sense of pervasive unfairness.
The political landscape further exacerbated this sense of powerlessness. The perception was that one side openly and shamelessly violated norms, and was rewarded for it, leaving the other side seemingly at a disadvantage, unable to compete fairly. Attempts to engage on a level playing field seemed futile against an opponent unconstrained by conventional rules of engagement.
This wasn’t a sudden upheaval, but a culmination of events stretching back years. The perception of irregularities in previous elections, alongside the apparent impunity enjoyed by powerful figures, fostered the belief that the system was fundamentally rigged. Past instances of questionable actions, left unchecked, had paved the way for the current situation, fueling a sense of inevitability.
The response from the opposing party felt inadequate, further reinforcing the sense that the playing field was uneven. The concern was that the focus remained on established rules and decorum, while the opposing side aggressively exploited the absence of meaningful consequences for rule-breaking.
The lack of a significant response to blatant violations, such as foreign interference in the electoral process, only added to the feeling of helplessness. The perceived failure of institutions to hold powerful individuals accountable left many feeling that the rules were only for the powerless, while those in positions of power operated with complete impunity.
This wasn’t merely a partisan issue, it was a systemic one. The belief that rules and norms were selectively enforced, with one side consistently benefiting from their absence, deeply impacted public trust and eroded faith in the institutions designed to maintain order and accountability. The absence of meaningful consequences left a void, allowing those willing to exploit it to seize an advantage.
The implications were vast and far-reaching, extending beyond immediate political outcomes. The erosion of trust in institutions, the normalization of misinformation, and the perception of a lack of accountability had created a volatile atmosphere, raising profound concerns about the future. The question wasn’t just about who won the election, but about the very foundations of democratic governance and the rule of law. The fear wasn’t merely that the rules were broken; it was that the expectation of adhering to them had completely vanished.