By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite President Trump’s survival of multiple legal and political challenges, his actions are not solely his own, relying on numerous individuals to carry out his agenda. To counteract this, Democrats must target Trump’s “happy helpers,” making it clear that they will be held accountable for their actions, even if not immediately. Instances like the Illinois Accountability Commission demonstrate a path forward. The normalization of authoritarian behavior necessitates a forceful response from Democrats, who must publicly warn all involved in undermining democratic institutions that their conduct will be scrutinized. Democratic leaders must impose accountability and demonstrate that corruption in Washington will no longer be consequence-free.
Read the original article here
Why Democrats Must End the Era of No Consequences
The call for Democrats to end the era of no consequences resonates deeply. The sentiment is clear: accountability is paramount. The feeling that past transgressions, from the January 6th insurrection to financial malfeasance, have gone unpunished is a festering wound on the body politic. The core argument is simple: without consequence, actions are effectively permitted, and the cycle of wrongdoing continues.
First and foremost, the narrative suggests a fundamental shift in priorities. Focusing solely on the repercussions of the January 6th events, including the prosecution of those pardoned, is essential. The lack of decisive action on prior instances of wrongdoing, like the Iran-Contra affair or the torture policies of the Bush administration, has set a dangerous precedent. The core sentiment is that a centrist approach to justice simply won’t suffice. What’s needed is a demonstrably robust commitment to accountability.
The consequences of inaction extend beyond individual cases. The frustration with the Democratic Party’s perceived weakness in negotiating with Republicans is palpable. The observation is that Republicans consistently leverage bipartisan negotiations for political gain, exploiting Democratic concessions while facing minimal repercussions. This dynamic erodes Democratic power and renders future legislative efforts vulnerable. The feeling is that giving in simply hands over the only bargaining chip, making them irrelevant.
The call for radical action, even the drastic step of government shutdowns, underscores the severity of the situation. Some would say that a prolonged government shutdown, though painful, might be necessary to expose the flaws of the current system and create an impetus for change. The idea is that it could shock the public into recognizing the importance of social safety nets and the dangers of inaction. The need for Democrats to be aggressive and strategic is made quite clear.
Beyond immediate legal and political battles, the conversation shifts to long-term strategies. The suggestion is to draw up specific objectives, such as term limits for Supreme Court judges, expanding the court, and eliminating the Electoral College. There’s also the crucial need to address corruption decisively, regardless of political affiliation. These are all things that the Democrats could learn to pursue with project based goals, to hold and maintain power.
The consequences of failing to act are dire. The failures of 2008, where the lack of accountability for financial criminals went unaddressed, serve as a cautionary tale. The sentiment is that those responsible for the economic crash, including those bailed out by taxpayers, should have faced more severe consequences, potentially including nationalization of the companies until they paid back every dollar. The core is that the era of impunity must end, and that anyone pledging to throw Trump and his allies in jail would easily win the vote.
The core of the issue is that those in power benefit from this lack of accountability. There are suggestions that the Democratic Party’s tendency to embrace moderate candidates and lukewarm approaches, combined with the “vote blue no matter who” mentality, allows for the continuation of the status quo. The fact is that this lack of action is an indicator of the problem.
The discussion pivots towards a more fundamental critique of the Democratic Party’s approach. Some express a disillusionment with liberalism and its perceived focus on maintaining power rather than addressing genuine problems. This viewpoint suggests that the Democratic Party has become complacent, prioritizing internal squabbles and celebrity endorsements over meaningful action. The feeling is that the party needs a drastic reinvention.
The core is the need to show people that the fight matters, and that they will be supported when they attempt to fight for what they believe. The call for a rebalancing of power with loud, angry personalities that take action and enact what needs to be done. It is not about the trans focused type bias, or the Christian nationalist snowflake ridden Nazi Party, but about the people.
The focus shifts to the criminal activity that is already happening, and those who are likely to face legal consequences as a result of their own actions. The idea is that this is the beginning of the end for the people who abused the system and caused a great deal of damage.
Ultimately, this comes down to a fundamental belief in the rule of law. The suggestion is that there is no such thing as “no consequences.” Failing to enforce accountability simply invites future transgressions. The warning is that people will not simply go away, and the core is that those in power need to be punished. The call is for a brutal reckoning, and the suggestion is that this must start with those at the very top.
The concerns about centrism, particularly when it comes to holding Trump and his supporters accountable, are quite clear. The need for Democrats to be decisive, aggressive, and relentless in pursuing justice is the core. The sentiment is that a soft approach would not only fail to deliver justice but would also alienate the very people who have been harmed.
The underlying frustration is not just with specific actions, but with the broader system of corruption and impunity. There are direct comparisons to the financial crisis of 2008, where those responsible for the collapse were not held accountable. There is an idea that Dodd-Frank was weak because it didn’t hold those in charge accountable. The core is that this system perpetuates itself, benefiting the wealthy and powerful while leaving everyone else to suffer.