Many Months of Trump
Luke Pickrell's remarks during a recent Republican Labor Education Forum
Luke and blog contributor Gil Schaeffer presented alongside Phil Vellender at a recent Republican Labor Education Forum on “Trump and the US Constitution at 250 Years.” His opening remarks are below. A recording of the entire presentation, including comments by Gil and Phil, will be posted soon. Luke last spoke with the RLEF in November after Trump’s victory.
I’ll begin by reflecting on some of the things I said during my November presentation to the Republican Labor Forum. That presentation can be found through the RLF and on the Democratic Constitution Blog under the title, “The Democratic Republic Strategy Isn't Going Anywhere.”
What’s Trump doing, and how does it relate to the Constitution?
As I explained in November, the U.S. is a constitutional republic with varying degrees of freedom versus authoritarianism. For example, more freedom existed under Jim Crow than under slavery. The Civil and Voting Rights laws of the 1960s expanded freedom compared to Jim Crow. The U.S. isn’t a democracy. I said that I expected a restriction of domestic freedoms under a second Trump administration (using the terrain — it should be noted — built by his Democratic and Republican predecessors), and this prediction has proven accurate.
In response to these attacks on universal rights, several of which are enshrined in the Constitution, the mainstream response (echoed at times by socialists) is to lean on the Constitution. Some examples. A recent New York Times editorial board article — “Who Will Defend the Defenders of the Constitution?” — asked the Supreme Court justices to become “bolder about protecting the legal system they oversee.” University of California, Berkeley, law dean Erwin Chemerinsky declared that “the only checks on the unconstitutional acts of the Trump administration will come from the courts.” MSNBC host Chris Hayes insisted that Trump’s vision of executive power “is the absolute nightmare of our founders.” Jamelle Bouie, in a Times op-ed, described Trump’s abuses as a degradation of the “constitutional order.” And during their Fighting Oligarchy tour, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez advised Trump to “read the Constitution.”
But thinking that the Constitution is our ally is a mistake. In a recent Jacobin article, I outlined several ways the Constitution has contributed to and continues to inspire Trumpism, while frustrating the left and other progressive forces. (Aziz Rana made the same point during a recent interview on a popular leftwing podcast called The Dig). The only way to firmly secure our rights is by establishing a political system governed by majority rule — a process that can only begin through a constituent assembly. We need a new political foundation: a democratic constitution built around a unicameral legislature elected through universal and equal suffrage and a judiciary accountable to the people. Without these fundamental political transformations, our rights will remain insecure. This is the argument we need to be making.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
During my November presentation, I mentioned the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). DSA is the largest socialist organization in the US and, despite many challenges, is the only activist space discussing the Constitution. I highlighted several resolutions passed between 2021 and 2024 that, to varying degrees, focused on the need for a democratic constitution. More chapters have proposed these types of resolutions since Trump took office. So far, three out of four have failed. Some of the resistance stems from a lukewarm endorsement of the Constitution, the belief that passing resolutions isn’t worthwhile (which is a significant double standard and perhaps just another form of mild support for the Constitution), and a concern that criticizing the Constitution will alienate the DSA from anti-Trump groups that support it. It’s hard to know the extent of this attitude. I’d guess that most DSA members recognize that the Constitution is undemocratic and oppose it on that basis, but conclude that other struggles are more important, especially at the local and/or trade union level.
A regression of constitutional critique?
The last time I presented, I wondered if the constitutional critique that seemed to reach its high point in 2023 within the academic-media sphere would falter after Trump’s election. I don’t think it has. Trump has put the words “Constitution” and “democracy” in everyone’s mouths. The phrases “constitutional crisis” and “threat to democracy” are everywhere. As I mentioned, many pundits have rushed forward to defend the Constitution, which is entirely expected. Some constitutional critics, including Erwin Chemerinsky, Steven Levitsky, and Daniel Ziblatt, have changed their tune or are seriously downplaying their constitutional critique for various reasons — not all of them, perhaps, within their control. When it comes to critiquing the Constitution and proposing a democratic replacement, consistency is a dime a dozen. (Chemerinsky, Levitsky, Ziblatt, etc., continue to describe what’s wrong in America, but their recent discussions lack any mention of the Constitution — a missed opportunity given what they know.)
But others have remained steadfast in their condemnation (such as Aziz Rana, Samuel Moyn, Daniel Lazare, and sections of the DSA), and new voices have entered the discussion. Even those who label the U.S. as a democracy argue that the Constitution needs reform — for instance, Austin Sarat, whose latest article is “It's Time to Acknowledge America’s Constitutional System is Broken and Begin Building a New One.” Recently, a Jacobin article called for a new Bill of Rights following the detention and questioning of well-known online commentator Hasan Piker. Even some conservatives recognize that something is amiss. Jack Goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, recently penned an op-ed in the New York Times advocating for a constitutional amendment to halt the “downward spiral of constraints on executive power.”
The trouble is that there’s no constitutional way to make the Constitution democratic. Article V doesn’t work, and even if it did, it would convene a constitutional convention based on state representation and not one person, one equal vote — the hallmark of any democracy. And so we’re back at square one. The problems escalate, the constitutional vise tightens, and the release lever remains glued shut. This is why we should be demanding a constituent assembly.