The revelation that Vladimir Putin ordered the hacking and intervention into the US election in a deliberate (and successful) attempt to weaken Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump is only the latest to bring doubt to the legitimacy of the President-elect’s claim to the office. For months now, as we slowly back away from the wreckage, a picture has emerged of democratic failure.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million and lost the electoral college by less than 80,000 votes. She did this not only after a foreign power intervened (with the encouragement of her opponent) but also after deliberate GOP voter suppression efforts and a high-profile last minute gambit by the FBI director.
Some say that absent clear evidence that the results would have otherwise been different, the election’s legitimacy must not be questioned. This requirement of but-for causation is itself absurd. But it also misses the point: if legitimacy is to mean anything it must be earned, not taken.
The reason most often cited for not questioning Trump’s legitimacy may very well be just that we need a legitimate president. This is true; for a democracy to function, we need a legitimate president. But for democracy to function in any meaningful way, it also must be true that democracy can and does fail. Therefore, it must also be true that there must be a situation where the president lacks legitimacy for the concept to have any meaning at all. This is such a situation.
In an attept to save a flailing democracy, it might be prudent to ascribe legitimacy to a president even when there are reasons to doubt it. This is a norm of our democracy: the presumption of legitimacy.
Therefore, we might look to Trump and say: yes, the election’s legitimacy is in doubt, but you are the best we have. But for that to work, Trump must be willing to do the work to earn the legitimacy in the face of that doubt. He must stand up to the American people and ask us to support him despite the doubt. Otherwise, he cannot be a legitimate president. We cannot simply foist legitimacy upon a man who acts indifferent (or outright hostile) to it.
Don’t tell me I must agree that “Trump is my president” when he himself has proven he only wants to be president for himself and his supporters. Don’t tell me not to question his legitimacy because democracy depends on it. Legitimizing the illegitimate is the surest way to hasten the destruction of our system of government.
If Trump truly wanted to be our legitimate president, he’d log out of twitter and speak something like this to the American people:
“After my latest intelligence briefing, I acknowledge that a foreign government deliberately orchestrated a campaign of cyber espionage and misinformation intended to undermine my opponent and help elect me president. We cannot know the exact extent to which that campaign contributed to my win, but I nevertheless acknowledge the doubt it has sown in our electoral process. I therefore have no choice but to ask you, the American people, both those who voted for me and those who did not, to support me as president for the sake of holding our country together. I will not force my agenda through, but seek compromise and reconciliation. I will no longer speak ill of those who voted against me. I will welcome dissent. I will welcome debate. I will speak with you, the American people, not at you. This is my promise. Please, put your trust in me.”
Of course, these are word’s Trump could never say. He is incapable of such humility, such reflection. That is why he cannot be our legitimate president. Not simply because of the doubt that lingers about the election, but because he refuses to do even the most basic work to seek the respect and trust of the American people. Trump is not going to be a legitimate president because he has no interest in being president at all. He wants simply to rule us.
