By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Senator John Curtis, a Utah Republican, firmly rejected the notion of supporting a third term for President Trump, calling it ludicrous and stating he wouldn’t have supported a third term for even George Washington. This response comes amidst discussions by Trump allies, including Steve Bannon, suggesting a third term is possible despite the 22nd Amendment’s prohibition. Legal experts largely agree that no constitutional path exists for such a scenario, dismissing proposed workarounds as legally tenuous and likely to fail. Trump himself has previously stated he doesn’t support amending the 22nd Amendment.
Read the original article here
Senator John Curtis’s dismissive laughter regarding a third Trump term is a fascinating case study in political maneuvering. The sheer incredulity expressed in his reaction, however, masks a more complex and unsettling reality. The casual dismissal suggests that the idea is so outlandish, so patently absurd, that it doesn’t warrant serious consideration.
The humor, however, belies a deeper truth about the Republican party and its relationship with Trump. The very act of laughing it off is a strategic response, a way to downplay the possibility while simultaneously avoiding a direct condemnation. It allows Senator Curtis and others to appear reasonable and to distance themselves from what many see as an unconstitutional and dangerous proposition, while potentially remaining open to supporting such an endeavor behind the scenes.
The idea of a third Trump term hinges on the suspension of disbelief. This is not just about amending the Constitution; it’s about the acceptance of an extraordinary breach of democratic norms. Many legal and procedural hurdles stand in the way, including state-level ballot access laws, potential constitutional challenges and the significant political obstacles to changing the 22nd Amendment. Each of these hurdles represents a potential point of failure for such a plan, and laughing it off allows Republican senators to downplay the effort’s credibility.
Yet, the dismissal is a performance. The underlying political reality points to a disturbing trend where loyalty to Trump seemingly outweighs adherence to established democratic processes. The potential implications of this loyalty are significant. The nonchalant laughter might very well be covering up a willingness to cooperate should events unfold in a way that could facilitate such an outcome, such as a hypothetical scenario where Trump attempts to circumvent the existing rules.
The prevailing sentiment within some circles suggests a calculated strategy: laugh at the idea publicly, while privately remaining open to whatever maneuvers might help to ensure Trump’s continued power. This is a strategy calculated to avoid alienating the core Trump base while simultaneously maintaining plausible deniability. The laughter, then, becomes a public performance of conformity to established norms, a way to maintain political cover.
The ease with which such a seemingly outlandish scenario is discussed – even if dismissed with laughter – reveals the extent to which the Republican party has become increasingly aligned with Trump’s brand of politics and rhetoric. This illustrates a normalization of previously unthinkable ideas, suggesting a creeping erosion of faith in democratic processes and norms. The laughter is meant to deflect scrutiny from this erosion; to deflect and, more importantly, to deceive.
Moreover, the laughter serves as a psychological tool. By portraying the idea as ludicrous, it minimizes the possibility of significant public backlash. Should the plan move forward, the laughter functions as an established narrative, positioning those who previously expressed derision as having been caught unaware, allowing them to quickly adopt a new posture of pragmatic acceptance. The seemingly lighthearted dismissal, therefore, is a calculated strategy, carefully engineered to anticipate and manage public reactions while paving the way for future maneuvering.
Despite the laughter, the potential for a future attempt at such an audacious move cannot be entirely dismissed. The Republican party’s continued evolution and adaptation to Trump’s influence makes such a possibility, however unlikely, something that deserves continued scrutiny. The humor serves as a smokescreen, hiding the potential willingness to manipulate the system to achieve a desired political outcome. This is where the danger truly lies. The laughter, therefore, is not just a moment of levity; it’s a symptom of a deeper, and far more troubling, political reality.