Donald Trump will destroy the Republican Party — here's how Democrats can help

There is a movement in Congress by Democrats to invoke the 14th Amendment and take away Donald Trump's right to run again for the presidency. Their time would be better spent encouraging Trump to run again.

Simply put, Trump is the most unpopular politician in America. In one term, he managed to lose the presidency, the House and the Senate. No one-term president in American history other than Trump has ever done this. In 2020, he not only ran 7+ million votes behind Biden, he ran 7+ million votes behind the Republican ticket. Behind Republican House and Senate candidates. In 2020, the Republican Party was not repudiated, but Trump was.

For four years, Trump struggled to poll more than 45%, and currently is polling under 40%. By contrast, Biden currently is polling 62%. Trump is toxic and Democrats should welcome another Trump run for the White House. He's the weakest candidate they could ever face.

It is true Trump is very popular within the Republican Party, which is why he can still terrorize Republican members of the House and Senate with threats of primary challenges, but why should Democrats worry about that? It mainly means that more Trump cultists will end up running against Democrats in general elections, where they will be easier to beat than moderate Republicans. Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney, among others, understand this, but few other Republicans facing re-election seem willing to act on this message.

Donald Trump will destroy the Republican Party. Let's welcome that, not fight it. It will take one or two elections for this to become obvious, but you can take this prediction to the bank.

Guy T. Saperstein is a retired attorney who founded the largest private plaintiff civil rights law firm in America and successfully prosecuted the largest sex, race and age discrimination class actions in American history.

Trump's coup is failing — but a similar effort backed by the US has already succeeded

In recent weeks, Donald Trump has been ridiculed, slathered with contempt, and repeatedly branded a "liar," as well as an existential threat to democracy in the United States, by the biggest media outlets in the country. This is in response to his attempts to reverse the results of the U.S. presidential election, and claiming—without evidence—that it was stolen. He still clings to these allegations, but he will be leaving the White House on January 20.

But just over a year ago, a similar effort was launched in Bolivia, and it actually prevailed. The country's democratically elected president, Evo Morales, was toppled three weeks after the October 20 vote, before his term was finished. He left the country after the military "asked" him to resign.

The similarities are remarkable. Leaders of the Bolivian opposition indicated before the votes were counted, as Trump did, that they would not accept the result if they lost. Like Trump, they had no evidence for their allegations of fraud when the votes were counted. And as with Trump, the falseness of their charges was obvious from day one.

Some readers may question the relevance of the comparison with a developing country whose democratic institutions have a shorter history, and are in important ways weaker than those in the U.S. government. But the Bolivian right would not have succeeded, where Trump has failed, if not for another important difference: the Bolivian right had powerful help from outside the country in pulling off their coup.

Not surprisingly some of this help came from the Trump administration, which stated the day after the coup that "Morales's departure preserves democracy and paves the way for the Bolivian people to have their voices heard."

Even more important help came from the Organization of American States (OAS), which, not coincidentally, gets 60 percent of its funding from the United States. The OAS also currently has a leader, Luis Almagro, who at the time of Bolivia's election needed the support of Trump and his allied right-wing governments in the Americas in order to be reelected as the head of the organization. The OAS issued a statement the day after the election, expressing "deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results."

This allegation turned out to be "false," as the New York Times would later report; but as the Times noted, this false allegation "changed the South American nation's history." It changed history because it served as the political foundation for the military coup on November 10, 2019.

Another similarity: remember when Trump and his Republican allies were saying that the Democrats were "stealing" the election here because the later, mostly mail-in votes were coming in overwhelmingly from Democrats? Of course this was false; the truth was simply that more Democrats than Republicans were voting by mail.

The OAS allegation in Bolivia was the same: for various reasons—including geography—votes in the pro-Morales areas came in later than those for the opposing candidates. This was obvious from the day after the election by simply looking at the areas where the earlier and later votes were coming from; the data was all on the web. That's why 133 economists and statisticians from various countries—the majority from the United States—signed a letter demanding that the OAS retract its false statements.

That's why four members of the U.S. Congress asked the OAS if they ever considered the possibility—which amazingly was not mentioned in three more OAS reports—that the later-reporting precincts were politically different from the earlier ones.

It's been a year, and the OAS still hasn't answered.

In October, the de facto government, which took power after last year's coup, held elections, after postponing them twice. Luis Arce, Evo Morales's economy minister for 13 years, won by a margin of more than 26 percentage points.

But the people killed by the post-coup government, including at least 22 people killed in two massacres committed by security forces, cannot be brought back to life. The victims were all Indigenous.

Like the effort of Trump in the United States—as seen in the recent Republican attempt to throw out hundreds of thousands of votes from Detroit, Michigan, where nearly 80 percent of residents are Black—the assault on democracy in Bolivia is also tied to systemic racism.

Evo Morales is the first Indigenous president in a country with the largest percent of Indigenous population in the Americas, who have overwhelmingly supported him and his party; the leaders of the coup are infused with white supremacists and seek to restore the dominance of the mostly white elite who ruled the country before Morales was first elected in 2005.

U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, both of Chicago, have called for Congress to investigate the role of the OAS in Bolivia following the 2019 election.

This is vitally important, because the coup, and the violence and political repression that followed, might never have happened without the OAS's pivotal role. Perhaps most importantly, the OAS had an enormous impact on the international and domestic media, with many journalists mistakenly believing that the OAS Electoral Observation Mission was impartial, and that therefore their allegations were true.

But the Bolivian coup is not the first time that the OAS has abused its authority as an electoral observer, in order to support a U.S.-backed effort to topple a democratically elected government. This happened in Haiti between 2000 and 2004. And also in Haiti, the OAS did something in 2011 that perhaps no election observers had ever done: they reversed the results of a first-round presidential election, without even a recount or a statistical analysis.

The OAS and its leadership must be held accountable, or these crimes will keep happening.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

This article was produced in partnership by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Donald Trump's trade war against China takes a coronavirus turn

The Trump administration has expanded its trade war against China to include the COVID-19 pandemic. With more than 1 million already infected in the United States and about 60,000 dead, Trump’s assertions in February and March that the coronavirus is just “like a flu” and will disappear have now been replaced by ‘China did it,’ even talking about making China pay reparations. A part of this is Trump’s dire need to scapegoat someone, or some country, for the United States’ total incompetence in handling the COVID-19 epidemic.

Keep reading... Show less

America’s lawless president confronts its untrustworthy intelligence community

“There is no ‘deep state’—not in the conspiratorial way that Donald Trump uses the term,” writes David Rohde, a Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign correspondent, in his new book, In Deep: The FBI, the CIA and the Truth about America’s “Deep State.”

Keep reading... Show less

Trump’s hollow and angsty threat to Iran showed he must be really out of his mind

tweet by the U.S. President Donald Trump on April 22 said, “I have instructed the United States Navy to shoot down and destroy any and all Iranian gunboats if they harass our ships at sea.” Trump seems to be talking the language of war while indulging in politics by other means. Like his ban on immigration, Trump is resorting to distractions to turn attention away from his incompetence in tackling the COVID-19 crisis in the United States.

Keep reading... Show less

The Trump administration has just declared war on Social Security

American workers contribute to Social Security with every paycheck. When they do, they are earning comprehensive insurance protections. Social Security insures against the loss of wages due to old age, disability, or (for the surviving family of a worker) death. While Social Security is best known as a retirement program, disability and survivor’s benefits are equally essential.

Keep reading... Show less

Trump just launched a stealth attack on seniors’ health care

Watch out, older Americans and people with disabilities! President Trump just announced a plan to give corporate health insurers more control over your health care. His new executive order calls for “market-based” pricing, which would drive up costs for everyone with Medicare, eviscerate traditional Medicare, and steer more people into for-profit “Medicare Advantage” plans.

Keep reading... Show less

Will Americans let Trump start World War III for Saudi Arabia and Israel?

On Saturday, September 14, two oil refineries and other oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia were hit and set ablaze by 18 drones and 7 cruise missiles, dramatically slashing Saudi Arabia’s oil production by half, from about 10 million to 5 million barrels per day. On September 18, the Trump administration, blaming Iran, announced it was imposing more sanctions on Iran, and voices close to Donald Trump are calling for military action. But this attack should lead to just the opposite response: urgent calls for an immediate end to the war in Yemen and an end to U.S. economic warfare against Iran.

Keep reading... Show less

One of Trump’s biggest and best campaign promises has been exposed -- as pure smoke and mirrors

Bad news about infrastructure is as ubiquitous as potholes. Failures in a 108-year-old railroad bridge and tunnel cost New York commuters thousands of hours in delays. Illinois doesn’t regularly inspect, let alone fix, decaying bridges. Flooding in Nebraska caused nearly half a billion dollars in road and bridge damage—just this year.

Keep reading... Show less

Anatomy of a disaster: Why Boeing should never make another airplane

Almost immediately after the takeoff of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on March 10, the first signs of trouble appeared. The Boeing 737’s two angle of attack indicators, one on either side of the aircraft, gave inconsistent readings. The left indicator suddenly recorded a dangerous angle of attack of 36 degrees, while the right one showed a benign 11 degrees.

Keep reading... Show less