A Plea to Republicans
“It’s human nature to tie yourself to a leader as much for the services you’ve done him as the good he’s done you.” —Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 10
A Plea to My Beautiful Republican Friends:
We need your help. We all do.
Our nation is in a dangerous place. The constitutional safeguards we rely on to check the ambitions of our President are fraying—some are already gone. Let me be direct: governance under President Trump is authoritarian in character. He has worked relentlessly to remove impediments to his control. He has wielded not only the full powers of the office, but also the powers of rhetoric, party loyalty, and media influence. Doing this much is not the decisive issue. The problem is that he has also employed legal intimidation, and has targeted judges, governors, universities, news organizations, and prosecutors. If unchecked, our electoral systems and civil liberties will be next—and “next” is now.
That may sound like the hysterical rant of an alarmist. And if that’s your first reaction, here’s what I hope: I hope you’re right, and I’m wrong. I hope the years of study I’ve poured into this topic are misguided. I would much rather be embarrassed for sounding extreme on social media than be proven right by a national catastrophe.
But if you do think I’m unhinged, I suspect it’s for one of three reasons.
First, perhaps you see nothing new here. Didn’t Presidents Obama and Biden also push executive power to the limit? Didn’t Obama issue unconstitutional executive orders on immigration? Didn’t Biden try to forgive $400 billion in student loans without congressional authorization? Where was the outrage then? Why now?
Second, maybe Trump’s actions don’t bother you because they substantively align with your policy preferences. He campaigned on tariffs, law and order, and border enforcement. He won the election—this time, even the popular vote. Isn’t he simply keeping his promises, something Democrats rarely do? Are we really supposed to get worked up because the IRS is a little less comfortable? Isn’t this just a policy dispute dressed up as a constitutional crisis?
Third, perhaps his actions don’t feel threatening because they haven’t touched your life. You’re here legally. You’re not a snobby professor with the privilege of tenure, or a whiny journalist, or a civil rights lawyer. You’ve worked hard and earned your place. You trust that Trump won’t come for you.
Neither of the first two points is entirely baseless.
Recent presidents from both parties have pushed—and sometimes exceeded—constitutional boundaries. That abuse should be called out wherever it occurs. If Democrats only care about overreach when the other team does it, their complaints ring hollow.
And yes, elections do have consequences. Policy victories like shrinking federal agencies or cutting taxes don’t necessarily signal a constitutional crisis. I may disagree with those policies, but they’re part of the democratic process—not a threat to it.
But as for the last point—your sense of security—I genuinely hope you’re right. I pray your trust is well-placed. But here’s where I believe you can make the greatest difference—and why we need your help so desperately.
Despite past abuses from both parties, we are now witnessing something unprecedented: a deliberate, systematic assault—not just on laws, but on the very norms and guardrails that hold the presidency accountable.
We are witnessing an ideology of retribution, of pure vindictiveness, that treats opposition as illegitimate and punishes it ruthlessly. Consider President Trump’s attack on our most iconic institution of higher education, Harvard University, founded in 1636. Frankly, I love hating on Harvard—as most spirited people do. But if I’m going to be honest, I must confess that Harvard is plausibly the single most successful institution of any kind within our nation’s borders. It preceded our nation, and it has been an intellectual haven to the world’s greatest minds. Its contributions to humanity are legion. And it’s taken less than four months for President Trump to effectively threaten its viability as a world-class institution and—like a classic abuser—to demand an apology from it.
Our slide into authoritarianism will not arrive with spectacle or fireworks. It will arrive with congressional votes, court decisions, and executive orders—all under the appearance of legality. And many Americans will mistake this coordinated erosion of checks and balances for legitimate governance, rather than the full-on abdication of constitutional duty these actions signify.
Right now, many in Congress—and not a few judges—fear President Trump more than they fear losing their institution’s authority. Our system only works when each branch jealously guards its own power. Madison wrote that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” But that only happens when officeholders believe they have more to gain from defending their institutions than from pleasing the president. Trump has mastered the politics of intimidation. His threats work as well—if not better—against his own party as they do against the opposition.
This is where you come in, my cherished Republican friends.
Republican lawmakers are terrified. Yes, some support Trump unreservedly. But many others support him only cautiously, or provisionally—or not at all. Some disagree with him deeply on constitutional grounds but stay silent because his disapproval could cost them their careers.
They will not act until you give them cover—until millions of Republican constituents tell them that you value free speech, judicial independence, and due process more than President Trump’s regimen of constitutional overreach.
Nothing about your demands requires you to abandon conservatism or the Republican Party. To the contrary, there is nothing “conservative” about abandoning due process. True conservatism fears government overreach. It respects limits. It honors the rule of law. It acknowledges that we live in a nation of competing needs and values. What could be more quintessentially conservative than sober and thoughtful grown-up adults acknowledging that no one in this world gets—or should get—everything they want?
You don’t need to change your ideology. You just need to return to it.
Liberals and Democrats can do very little at this moment. They do not control the presidency, the House, or the Senate. Most states are Republican-governed. The courts are majority Republican-appointed.
If the slide into tyranny is to be stopped, it will be because you stopped it.
And here’s the human truth that Machiavelli grasped, and why I began this plea with his quote: it’s hard to back away from someone we’ve publicly supported. Our endorsements bind us—emotionally, psychologically, relationally—to the people we make them for. I know the feeling. When I discover a student cheats after I’ve written them a letter of recommendation, I struggle to admit it. It feels like a betrayal of me, not just of them, and I am sorely tempted to turn my head, to look away. My success is wrapped up in their own, and it’s hard to acknowledge what has happened.
But I also know this: when you voted for President Trump, you simply wanted more efficient government. You wanted stronger borders. You wanted the nation to stand up for itself. You didn’t vote for Trump because you wanted him to punish universities, silence journalists, or rule by fiat. I believe that because I believe in your character.
I don’t believe you voted for Elon Musk to replace Congress. I don’t believe you hoped Trump would side with Putin over Ukraine. And I don’t believe you wanted a presidency that mocks the very constitutional norms you cherish.
Here’s where it gets personal for me.
If Trump’s power grab continues unchecked, it won’t be stopped just at the ballot box or in the courts. It will eventually spill into the streets, and though it cuts against my every instinct to stay behind a safe screen, I’ll be there on the streets as well. I love my country. Our country was born of protest, and from time to time, it must be defended through protest.
This I fear I must promise you: these protests will be messy. And as with virtually all protests, a few people will go too far. It’s inevitable. And in that moment, President Trump will have his excuse. A single regrettable act—or a handful of regrettable actions carried out by a tiny minority—will become the justification for a full-fledged crackdown. He has already justified dozens of his actions by legally claiming we have an emergency. If President Trump can locate an emergency with regard to sweet and lovely Canada’s posture toward the United States, imagine his wrath when his direct opposition moves in earnest to the street.
The most lawless president in our history will claim ultimate power in the name of “law and order.”
It doesn’t have to go that way. But I truly believe it’s in your hands to prevent it.
I know how much you revere the Constitution. I’m asking you now to honor not just its name—but its practice.
The deaf ears will hear just fine if and when the economy crashes. And not one second before.
From the 4th Circuit’s heroic opinion allowing Abrigo Garcia’s case to move forward:
[narrator]
Excellent post. Wish it was broadcast in a place that the intended audience would see it.
Excellent piece.
Thank you.
@Kathy:
Futile plea, appealing to the “better angels” of people who have no better angels. The small minority of congresscritters who are not totally fine with what the Trumpist are doing are perfectly OK with tolerating it.
I can think of no exceptions whatsoever in the HOR, perhaps, maybe, Murkowski in the Senate.
Not to be unduly unoptimistic, but … After having seen his malevolent and chaotic act for nearly ten years – the constant lies and disinformation – they voted for him anyway precisely because of his character, they loved his pugnacious never-back-down tenacity. Also, he entertained them, he grifted them, he (with the exception of Mike Pence) successfully threatened those who dared to contradict and oppose him. There’s a constant that runs through these times of Trump – it’s that Trump improves nothing. Trump builds nothing, he breaks things.
Frankly, if Republicans like Murkowski, Ernst, and Collins can’t find their way to disengage with these nihilists … Well, I’m not going to wait for that bus.
The only reason I have something resembling hope is that things change quickly these days;
perhaps one of those changes will be something that ends this Reign of Error. Hopefully, sooner rather than later. Yes I know, this is one of these be careful of what you wish for, times.
“Not to be unduly unoptimistic, but … After having seen his malevolent and chaotic act for nearly ten years – the constant lies and disinformation – they voted for him anyway precisely because of his character, they loved his pugnacious never-back-down tenacity.”
Quoting for emphasis. In many cases, Republicans voted for him precisely so he could do these things. And those who didn’t vote for him due to this reason had more than ample notice that it was coming and it was not a deal-breaker for them.
Roughly 5 percent of the country is sociopathic. The rest of them have “better angels”. The question is how to activate them in this way. I have ideas, but no solid answers.
Great piece Michael.
But I believe your assumptions are incorrect. People claim to believe in all sorts of things. It’s easy and fun to claim beliefs. But most beliefs are just a means to an end. Believe in the Constitution when it gives you the outcome you prefer, and don’t believe in it when it doesn’t. Ditto the rule of law. Ditto free and fair elections. Ditto the free market. Religious freedom. Free speech. Historical facts. Even the scientific method.
I want X to happen, therefore I will claim to believe whatever results in X.
Hypocrisy is the default setting for the vast majority of Americans, and I don’t just mean MAGAts, though god knows they’ve blown away all previous records for hypocrisy. Do liberals/progressives believe in the free exchange of ideas? I’m not talking about censorship which would be a government issue, but in general, in day to day life, do we believe in a free exchange of ideas? Nope.
To genuinely believe in something you have to first understand what it is you believe. Does any significant portion of people who profess their love for the Constitution have any idea what’s in the damn thing? Nope.
@Kathy: has it right: where money or advantage leads, ‘deeply-held beliefs’ will follow. And every professed belief can be twisted into support of pre-existing bigotry. People who claim to be followers of Christ enjoy hurting the people they don’t like. Capitalists discover government help fits perfectly with their free market mantras. Life after death? Sure, right up until you bankrupt your family to cling to another day of life. Science? Absolutely, unless science won’t tell you that vaccines cause autism.
People believe what they believe until it is inconvenient, then they believe whatever is convenient.
A man sees what he wants to see, and disregards the rest.
Too many of our congresscritters have ambition only for the office and the trappings that go with it, rather than to actually do something.
I blame the filibuster for basically making it near impossible to do something. (And Republicans for many, many other things, but I can’t skip an opportunity to complain about the filibuster)
@Michael Reynolds: hears what he wants to hear
@Franklin: Despite my cynicism, my only ray of hope is that this sentiment if not this very essay makes its way to some number of Congress members and is one of the pebbles that hits their windows.
Likewise, I hope Judge Wilkinson’s opinion starts to crack through someone’s wall, more likely in Congress than in the administration.
Maybe I should clarify. I don’t think there will be any significant opposition in Congress if/when the felon crashes the economy, not even if he defaults on debt. They’ll rationalize everything will be ok, once the temporary and necessary pain passes.
What should happen is the regular voters not part of the MAGAt base will vote for Democrats.
And this is iffy (sorry). If conditions improve by early 2026, I wouldn’t count on a blue wave. If they improve by 2027, the rapist may get his third term* (If he’s still alive and even minimally capable of moving and speaking).
*IMO, he’ll just announce he’s running, and no one in the GQP will challenge him. If they do, they’ll lose. So he’ll win the nomination through the primaries and be nominated at the convention. Then see which state dares refuse to put his name on the ballot, and the Crow & Leo Court will rule 6-3 in his favor.
I’ll even guess the rationale: “oh, we can’t dictate whom a party nominates for a given electoral office. And the voters can reject what they think is an unconstitutional nomination by voting against it.”
@Fortune:
Personally, I’m much more interested in what you hear (or is it read) than what you think someone else has heard/read.
@Matt Bernius: I was correcting the Simon and Garfunkel line, nothing more. I’ll try to comment about the article tonight.
@Fortune:
Thanks… I totally misinterpreted that as a comment on Michael.
That’s extra-ironic considering that I’ve used that lyric in recent things I’ve written here. And I guess it once again shows the brilliance of that lyric!
For the record, I also think Michael is adapting the lyric to a text based medium. Though I guess he could have chosen “reads what he wants to read…”
Looking forward to reading your thoughts on this post.
@Fortune: Doesn’t matter. The song he is misquoting was written over 50 years ago and has been played countless times in more forums and on more media platforms than can be counted. We don’t apply the lessons we like to say the song teaches any better now than when it was new. Perhaps even worse.
The hard truth is that seculars are no better at living, learning, and teaching their moral codes than the religious are. 🙁
ETA: ” I’ll try to comment about the article tonight.”
No, you won’t. You never have followed up on anything else you’ve said in any meaningful way. Why start with a hard one?
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
“Meaningful way” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Fortune definitely doesn’t respond to everything, but we have had productive back and forths in the past. So let’s cut him a little slack.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
“Meaningful way” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Fortune definitely doesn’t respond to everything, but we have had productive back and forths in the past. So let’s cut him a little slack.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
“Meaningful way” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Fortune definitely doesn’t respond to everything, but we have had productive back and forths in the past. So let’s cut him a little slack.
@Matt Bernius:
Indeed. It’s funny how writers feel free to rewrite in order to suit context. ‘Reads’ might have worked but it felt stuffy and limited somehow.
@Fortune:
You have gone right to the heart of the debate.
In case it’s not clear, that is sarcasm. But hey, read it, see it or sound it out and hear it, whatever works for you.
We need hear words like the ones you shared today. We will get tired and afraid, but we must also take turns providing hope, insight, and calls to action. Thank you.
@Matt Bernius: I’m glad you’ve had “productive back and forths” with him. You can cut him slack.
I’ve tried a few times to write a reply to the article, but every time I find a new problem I have with it. Getting this out of the way: I’m probably the only current Republican who regularly comments on Outside the Beltway, but I’ve never voted for Trump, so this article isn’t exactly written for me. I know a lot of Republicans have had disagreements with some of Trump’s second term actions though.
The article is a plea for help, but it never says help to do what, and it barely says help with what. It counts on the reader having similar concerns about Trump. So I think it’s worth digging into the different kinds of concerns people have. Some are about policy, others are method. Some are ideological or partisan, sometimes within the right side. A lot are nonsense – either bad faith or hysterics. The article discusses Harvard without identifying where Trump mis-stepped or over-stepped. Near the end, it mentions Musk, Ukraine, and mocking constitutional norms. I don’t think those are the author’s real concerns, but I could be wrong.
You’re never going to see Democrats and Republicans work together unless both sides have a common concern. It could have happened when Cabinet members were pushing back against DOGE, but it didn’t. We saw some of it when everyone was voicing concerns about tariffs. But Republicans aren’t going to join you on DEI or open borders. Also, remember Republicans aren’t in a much better than Democrats to push back. The leftist and the conservative agendas both lost the last election.
Trump has suffered losses but most of them were unrelated to political opposition. Matt Gaetz’s nomination, the return of probationary government workers, the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, the stock market embarrassment. He has pending court losses.
So what are we supposed to do? I’m not going to be in the street with a sign reading “Bring Back Abrego Garcia Then Deport Him Legally”, standing next to someone carving “Free Gaza” into a Tesla. Republicans should press him when he skirts the law, or breaks it with some weak justification, but we don’t need your support to do it. I don’t think judges are afraid of Trump, and Republican office-holders have pushed back or tried to steer him. I understand the left wants every Cruz to become a Murkowski, every Murkowski to become a Sinema, and every Sinema to become a Warren, but it’s not going to happen.
In sum, I don’t know why Republicans would work with Democrats against Trump. They’re toxic to our brand and aren’t making good arguments, and they don’t bring any chance of future compromise or even essential votes or committee chairs. We have little power of our own, but we’re exercising it where we can.
@Fortune: I officially take back my “no, you won’t.” This may well be the first non-cryptic statement of your thoughts you’ve made. It’s certainly the first I’ve read.
“Republicans should press him when he skirts the law, or breaks it with some weak justification, but we don’t need your support to do it.” Looking forward to Republicans stepping up. Not holding my breath waiting, tho.
“The leftist and the conservative agendas both lost the last election.” I actually agree with you on this point, but suspect that given that I broke with conservatives starting during Reagan and completely by Bill Clinton, our understanding of “what the conservative agenda is” may differ some.
I would have said “America lost,” but I think there are two groups (maybe more) who consider themselves “the only real Americans,” so “America lost” may be an understatement. “America” may well be gone, for better or worse depending on what one thinks it was.
@An American Mary:
That’s very kind. Thank you.