Are You Happy with the Arizona "Audit"?

David Hilfiker

The conspiracy-tinged Arizona recount of the 2020 presidential election has returned its verdict: There was no evidence of fraud.  In fact, President Biden received 360 more votes than had been officially reported.

The results, however, are hardly a cause for celebration among those who already know that the 2020 election was the most secure in American history.  While some Trump supporters undoubtedly thought they would find fraud and even overturn the election and progressives were afraid of fraud in the audit itself, even the benign result sowed further doubt upon the integrity of the American electoral system. 

Any Republican effort to overturn the election, of course, is almost certain to end in defeat.  Won’t that, one might ask, increase confidence in the electoral process?  To a small degree, maybe.  But the real damage was done long ago when the recount was ordered, indicating to the average citizen there was something wrong with the election.  The charges are no longer “fraud” because that’s been discredited multiple times; now the claim is only that there is something “irregular” going on, a charge so vague that it cannot be proven false.

Governor Greg Abbot’s order for a recount in Texas — made within days of Trump’s recent demand — gives some indication of its real intent: Trump won the state, so it’s hard to see any other purpose than to cast doubt on the election process itself.

Wide-spread doubts will have several deleterious results:

• They’ll fuel the Republican efforts to restrict voting rights and write election regulations that discourage Democratic voters from turning out. 
• The doubts will, Republican hopes, spur its base to turn out in high numbers.  (Ironically, the strategy may well backfire: Republicans who believe the false assertions, fearing their vote won’t count, won’t show up while the strategy may anger Democratic voters and energize them to vote.)
• The violence of the January 6 insurrection — inspired by the Big Lie of a stolen election — emphasizes that these growing doubts about elections can have serious real-life consequences for our democracy, including violence.  
• Perhaps the most serious outcome will be to acclimatize the Trump base to the belief that, as Jennifer Rubin writes, “election results are neither final nor inviolate, but merely a prelude to further efforts to overturn election results — by force, if need be.”

The danger should not be underestimated.  An American Enterprise Institute poll shortly after the January 6 insurrection found that three in 10 Americans, including 39% of Republicans, agreed that "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions."

The Arizona recount has inspired other state recounts in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Texas.  In many other states, bills are passing through legislatures to fund similar efforts.  And still other bills have shifted election responsibilities from governors and nonpartisan local officials to partisan officials and/or state legislatures.  There are even proposals in Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and Missouri to give the state legislatures control over the results of the election although none of these bills has passed or is even likely to.

A free and fair electoral process is essential to a functioning democracy.  Probably more important, without the confidence that elections are free and fair, the losing sides will not consider the winning side’s government legitimate.  As it is, only 30% of Republican voters have confidence in the electoral process.

Under such circumstances, American democracy is in great peril.

The General's Warning

David Hilfiker

On October 30 last year, four days before the 2020 election, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, made a personal call to his Chinese counterpart General Li Zuocheng.  According to the new book Peril by seasoned and reliable Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Milley had become so worried that President Donald Trump’s mental state and erratic behavior might precipitate armed conflict that he took this unprecedented step to reassure Li that the US would not attack China.  

Milley had seen intelligence indicating China thought the US was preparing to attack them.  He was so concerned that Trump’s unreliable conduct might evoke Chinese retaliation that he even guaranteed Li that there would be no surprise: he promised he would personally call Li if a US attack were imminent.

Three months later, just after the insurrection at the Capitol, Milley again called Li to reassure him.  Fearful that Trump would do something rash, Milley also tried to reduce tensions with China by postponing scheduled military exercises in the Pacific.  He did not relay his conversations with Li to the President.

In a call between Milley and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi about the same time, Pelosi asked Milley what precautions were in place to stop Trump from ordering a unilateral nuclear strike.  She, too, was concerned that Trump had become unstable, calling him “crazy.”  Milley assured her that precautions were in place, but he concurred with her assessment that Trump was unstable.  “Madam Speaker,” Milley said, “I agree with you on everything.”  Then, according to the book,

Milley also summoned senior officers to review the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, saying the president alone could give the order — but, crucially, that he, Milley, also had to be involved.  Looking each in the eye, Milley asked the officers to affirm that they had understood … in what he considered an “oath.”

He was not, of course, the only official to be deeply worried.  CIA Director Gina Haspel, for instance, reportedly told Milley, “We are on the way to a right-wing coup.”  

Former White House chief of staff, retired Marine General John Kelly, has told friends that

The depths of [Trump’s] dishonesty is just astounding to me. The dishonesty, the transactional nature of every relationship, though it's more pathetic than anything else. He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life.

Milley’s actions and the resultant fall-out have been all over the news the past week, so none of this may be new to you.  Even after my years of following Trump closely, however, the clarity and specificity of the quotes from Milley, Haspel and Kelley still shock me.

Although many (including me) have worried about Trump and the “nuclear button,” Milley, Haspel, et al are not armchair pundits and they were close to the action.  They, too, were afraid.  By promising to warn Li in the event of an impending attack, Milley was laying the groundwork for extraconstitutional action to protect the world from his Commander in Chief.

Milley was subjecting himself to possible charges of treason.  Since the public revelations earlier this week, Milley has essentially confirmed them by issuing no denials.  He clearly felt the danger to the country was more important than his possible prosecution.

General Milley saw

parallels between Jan. 6 and the 1905 Russian Revolution, which set off unrest throughout the Russian Empire and, though it failed, helped create the conditions for the October Revolution of 1917, in which the Bolsheviks executed a successful coup that set up the world’s first communist state. Vladimir Lenin, who led the revolution, called 1905 a “dress rehearsal.”

A similar logic could apply with Jan. 6, Milley thought as he wrestled with the meaning of that day, telling senior staff: “What you might have seen was a precursor to something far worse down the road.”

The behavior of the Republican Party reveals what might be that “worse down the road.”  The party has not only refused to disavow Trump’s behavior, but it is also doubling down.

A danger in the inordinate number of threats from Trump and his party is that we will lump them together in our memory and forget the depth and breadth of what and continues to happen.  Woodward and Costa remind us of our crucial responsibility to remember, to keep telling the individual stories, to keep the show from getting past a dress rehearsal.