One of the things that people ought to understand (but generally don't) is that any form of democracy — any form of government, in fact, but democracy is particularly sensitive to the principle — runs on institutions, not laws. Democratic institutions are generally accepted norms of behavior that people adhere to not because they are afraid of punishment, but because they respect other citizens, and respect the form of government as valid and legitimate in and of itself. In that sense, it hardly matters whether Trump's actions are illegal. The question of their legality should never arise, because the actions deeply violate political norms in the USA.

The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, is a good example of this principle. In the congressional election of 1838 local Democratic leaders (under a Democratic administration) used employees of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to bolster their campaigns, particularly in swing states. At the time this action was not illegal; it was not even an issue that people had bother to consider. However, it dawned on many in Congress that this behavior violated the institutional norms of free and fair elections. Using the WPA in this fashion granted those Democratic leaders free labor (paid for by US citizens of all parties), and gave those leaders a veneer of legitimacy — as though the Federal government itself was supporting their campaigns — which was a distinct and unfair advantage over anyone not associated with the current political administration. Further, it had a faint odor of coercion: a question of whether federal employees were obliged to help the Democratic party, since a Democratic administration ostensibly wrote their paychecks. This also did not rise to the level of illegality — at least, no outright charges were filed, despite avid investigation — but clearly violated the institutional norm of freedom to support one's preferred party. Senator Carl Hatch, A Democrat from New Mexico, subsequently sponsored the eponymous act that broadly prevented the use of public employees, agencies, and resources in political campaigns.

The point is that the creation of the law was subsequent to the violation of political norms and institutions. While there is a pertinent question of whether Trumps' actions specifically violated the law itself, we should pay more attention to the fact that it unambiguously violated the norms and institutions of free and fair elections. Trump used high-ranking employees of the administration, family members being paid by the Federal government, and public resources such as the White House itself, to further the political ends of his own party.

The philosophical problem we have with Trump is that Trump does not appear to respect anything. He is dismissive of our form of government, constantly denigrating the election process, the judicial process, the media, and any institutional check or balance that might limit his own use of power. He does not respect other citizens. He praises them if they give him loyalty, he degrades or condemns those who don't as thugs, traitors, or etc. Trump is transactional and teleological: he decides what he wants, and he does whatever he thinks is the easiest and surest way of getting it, and he has no concern for the damage he does to others in the wake of his actions. Our institutional norms mean nothing to him at all, except to the extent that he knows violating those norms will create conflict and division that he can use to his political advantage.

One of the things that people ought to understand (but generally don't) is that any form of democracy — any form of government, in fact, but democracy is particularly sensitive to the principle — runs on institutions, not laws. Democratic institutions are generally accepted norms of behavior that people adhere to not because they are afraid of punishment, but because they respect other citizens, and respect the form of government as valid and legitimate in and of itself. In that sense, it hardly matters whether Trump's actions are illegal. The question of their legality should never arise, because the actions deeply violate political norms in the USA.

The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, is a good example of this principle. In the congressional election of 1938 local Democratic leaders (under a Democratic administration) used employees of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to bolster their campaigns, particularly in swing states. At the time this action was not illegal; it was not even an issue that people had bother to consider. However, it dawned on many in Congress that this behavior violated the institutional norms of free and fair elections. Using the WPA in this fashion granted those Democratic leaders free labor (paid for by US citizens of all parties), and gave those leaders a veneer of legitimacy — as though the Federal government itself was supporting their campaigns — which was a distinct and unfair advantage over anyone not associated with the current political administration. Further, it had a faint odor of coercion: a question of whether federal employees were obliged to help the Democratic party, since a Democratic administration ostensibly wrote their paychecks. This also did not rise to the level of illegality — at least, no outright charges were filed, despite avid investigation — but clearly violated the institutional norm of freedom to support one's preferred party. Senator Carl Hatch, a Democrat from New Mexico, subsequently sponsored the eponymous act that broadly prevented the use of public employees, agencies, and resources in political campaigns.

Kudos to the Democrats of the era for self-policing...

The point is that the creation of the law was subsequent to the violation of political norms and institutions. While there is a pertinent question of whether Trump's actions specifically violated the law itself, we should pay more attention to the fact that it unambiguously violated the norms and institutions of free and fair elections. Trump used high-ranking employees of the administration, family members being paid by the Federal government, and public resources such as the White House itself, all to further the political ends of his own party.

The philosophical problem we have with Trump is that Trump does not appear to respect anything. He is dismissive of our form of government, constantly denigrating the election process, the judicial process, the media, and any institutional check or balance that might limit his own use of power. He does not respect other citizens: he praises them if they give him loyalty, he degrades or condemns them if they don't, calling them thugs, traitors, or etc. Trump is transactional and teleological: he decides what he wants, and he does whatever he thinks is the easiest and surest way of getting it, and he has no concern for the damage he does to others in the wake of his actions. Our institutional norms mean nothing to him at all, except to the extent that he knows violating those norms will create conflict and division that he can use to his political advantage.

One of the things that people ought to understand (but generally don't) is that any form of democracy — any form of government, in fact, but democracy is particularly sensitive to the principle — runs on institutions, not laws. Democratic institutions are generally accepted norms of behavior that people adhere to not because they are afraid of punishment, but because they respect other citizens, and respect the form of government as valid and legitimate in and of itself. In that sense, it hardly matters whether Trump's actions are illegal. The question of their legality should never arise, because the actions deeply violate political norms in the USA.

And for those 'law and order' minded people, no: a system in which everything was controlled and mediated by laws would not and could not be a democracy. That would be a totalitarian regime by definition.

The problem we have with Trump is that Trump does not respect anything. He does not respect our form of government, at least not in any way that he might allow institutions to exercise control over his own behavior. He does not respect other citizens. All he wants from other people is blind loyalty, and he doesn't even respect that (judging by the number of his own supporters he has been willing to throw under the bus when they have outlived their usefulness). Trump is transactional and teleological: he decides what he wants, and he does whatever he thinks is the easiest and surest way of getting it. Our institutional norms mean nothing to him at all, except that he knows that violating those norms will piss his political opponents off, so violating them (in his mind) is a win for him either way.

One of the things that people ought to understand (but generally don't) is that any form of democracy — any form of government, in fact, but democracy is particularly sensitive to the principle — runs on institutions, not laws. Democratic institutions are generally accepted norms of behavior that people adhere to not because they are afraid of punishment, but because they respect other citizens, and respect the form of government as valid and legitimate in and of itself. In that sense, it hardly matters whether Trump's actions are illegal. The question of their legality should never arise, because the actions deeply violate political norms in the USA.

The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, is a good example of this principle. In the congressional election of 1838 local Democratic leaders (under a Democratic administration) used employees of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to bolster their campaigns, particularly in swing states. At the time this action was not illegal; it was not even an issue that people had bother to consider. However, it dawned on many in Congress that this behavior violated the institutional norms of free and fair elections. Using the WPA in this fashion granted those Democratic leaders free labor (paid for by US citizens of all parties), and gave those leaders a veneer of legitimacy — as though the Federal government itself was supporting their campaigns — which was a distinct and unfair advantage over anyone not associated with the current political administration. Further, it had a faint odor of coercion: a question of whether federal employees were obliged to help the Democratic party, since a Democratic administration ostensibly wrote their paychecks. This also did not rise to the level of illegality — at least, no outright charges were filed, despite avid investigation — but clearly violated the institutional norm of freedom to support one's preferred party. Senator Carl Hatch, A Democrat from New Mexico, subsequently sponsored the eponymous act that broadly prevented the use of public employees, agencies, and resources in political campaigns.

The point is that the creation of the law was subsequent to the violation of political norms and institutions. While there is a pertinent question of whether Trumps' actions specifically violated the law itself, we should pay more attention to the fact that it unambiguously violated the norms and institutions of free and fair elections. Trump used high-ranking employees of the administration, family members being paid by the Federal government, and public resources such as the White House itself, to further the political ends of his own party.

The philosophical problem we have with Trump is that Trump does not appear to respect anything. He is dismissive of our form of government, constantly denigrating the election process, the judicial process, the media, and any institutional check or balance that might limit his own use of power. He does not respect other citizens. He praises them if they give him loyalty, he degrades or condemns those who don't as thugs, traitors, or etc. Trump is transactional and teleological: he decides what he wants, and he does whatever he thinks is the easiest and surest way of getting it, and he has no concern for the damage he does to others in the wake of his actions. Our institutional norms mean nothing to him at all, except to the extent that he knows violating those norms will create conflict and division that he can use to his political advantage.