I think we are either near or past a point of no return for American democracy. During the 2016 election, one of the questions that Donald Trump had... trouble answering is how he would respond to a loss. He wouldn't say outright that he would accept a loss as legitimate. I, and other political scientists, seriously worried about that because the polling looked bad for him. Instead, we wound up with other worries.
However, two and a half years later, the Republican Party has become the Trump Party, complete with a full embrace of Trump's attitude towards the legitimacy of loss (it was moving in that direction anyway), and that has all of the implications of Anderson et al. This was on display through Barr's comments.
Most obviously, during Barr's Senate testimony, he was asked about campaigns being approached by foreign intelligence operatives with dirt on their opponents. What, in Barr's legal estimation as AG, should they do? There is, in fact, one and only one legal answer, but Barr struggled to give it. There are two reasons Barr struggled to give it-- one personal, and one general. The personal reason is that to condemn the act of "colluding"-- yes, "colluding" with a foreign power in this way is to condemn Don Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner. And by implication, of course, the President himself. Yes, there was "collusion." Mueller's investigation a) was about "conspiracy" not "collusion," b) found that the evidence existed, but c) that the evidence was insufficient to convict because of the high evidentiary standard under "conspiracy" law, and hence d) that indictments under "conspiracy" charges would not be appropriate. Mueller did not say that anyone was "innocent" of "collusion." Enough of that bullshit.
Anyway, first and foremost, William Barr sees his job as pandering to Donald Trump. That is not actually the AG's job, but this is why we can't have nice things. So, Barr didn't want to point out that it is illegal to take assistance in this manner from foreign governments. Even though a) it is, and b) he's the Attorney General of the United States, not Donald Trump's personal attorney, whom he actually, literally decided to channel, and I hate misuse of the word, "literally."
The more general point, though, and this is where things get ugly for democracy, is that Barr, the GOP and even Donald Trump know full well that Russia attempted to sway the 2016 election with the goal of defeating Hillary Clinton and electing Donald Trump. Every single one of them prefers it that way, and wants it to happen again.
As a point of social science, I remain unconvinced that Russian activities actually did sway the 2016 election. I don't know how to measure the effects of their activities in a way that makes sense to me and the plausibility of what I have seen is sketchy at best. However, that's not the point. The point is that while some Republican legislators will make half-hearted noises about being bothered by Russian election interference, every single one of them would rather have Vladimir Putin fix the election for them than lose fair in square.
Every single one of them.
Otherwise, they'd be far more concerned about Trump's subservience to Putin, on visible display regularly.
So we return to Barr's squeamishness about condemning those who accept the help of foreign governments during campaigns. This tells you something about the GOP right now. It tells you something about their attitude towards losing. They don't view losing as something to which they can consent because they do not view any loss as legitimate. This is where all of the bullshit rhetoric about voter fraud comes in. Has all of that been debunked, time and again? Yes, thank you very much, Justin Levitt. Doesn't matter. It gives them a story. If they lose... "voter fraud." Illegitimate. The GOP spent Obama's Presidency spreading insane lies about how he was secretly born in Kenya, and hence not legally allowed to serve as President. And that one started before Trump picked up the tiki torch.
Willingness to accept a foreign government's assistance during a campaign is willingness to commit a crime. Period. The AG's unwillingness to call that as such comes from the Republican Party's refusal to accept a loss, and hence willingness to use any and every tactic to avoid a loss. If any loss is illegitimate, then any tactic that prevents a loss is legitimate.
This is the mentality of Donald Trump. He will tell any lie, cheat in any way, break any law, as long as he thinks it will give him an edge to "win." There are no checks on him at all.
None. Check and balances, while they make a nice fairy tale for high school civics classes, don't exist anymore. The reason they don't exist is that they cannot exist unless both parties agree to their existence, and one party-- the Republican Party-- has strategically decided that its own victory is more important than anything because its own loss is unthinkable.
William Barr could barely bring himself to admit that conspiring with a foreign government to accept illegal campaign assistance is, in fact, illegal. Why? Because the Republican Party may be past the point of acknowledging the concept of losing as legitimate.
And if that's true, well, Anderson et al. have some disturbing analysis.
I think American democracy really may be past the point of no return here. Once one party decides that its own loss is unthinkable, and that any action to avoid its loss is acceptable, including the crime of conspiring with a foreign government, that's it. That's all she wrote. And since clichés suck, the writer sucks.
That doesn't mean we're about to see blood in the streets. It means it's all downhill from here. Ain't no comin' back from this. Not in the foreseeable future, anyway.
I'd be very happy to be proven wrong. I've been wrong before. See: 2016. This, though? How do you get these people to accept the legitimacy of a loss? It isn't just whether or not they can be beaten in an election. It is whether or not they can be made to accept the legitimacy of a loss. I actually think that latter part is harder. And Trump is going out of his way to make it as hard as possible.
That's the point of authoritarian rhetoric, and his party has been heading down that road since before he took it over.
Think of it this way. Which would Trump prefer: to lose and have that followed by a normal, peaceful transition of power, or to lose and have that followed by blood in the streets? He'd take that latter eventuality as a personal vindication and sign of support for him among cult-like followers, wouldn't he? So, which would he prefer?
Then again, the economy is doing great. He'll probably just win and continue to erode all democratic norms, leaving nothing left by 2024.