Step 2: The Word is Treason. Part 2
I ended Part 1 (which is here) by saying that, by any reasonable interpretation, and with the clear endorsement of multiple lawyers and legal scholars, President Trump would appear to be guilty of the Constitutional crime of treason. I also said that in this post, I would describe what we should do with this fact. (Meaning, how we should talk about it as our rationale for demanding his removal.)
However the more I looked into it, the more I was confronted with reasons to not talk about it. While I do not believe all of these reasons are good, at a minimum, I think they are worth mentioning. I expect they have played a significant role in other people, not talking about it.
It's not defamation if it's true, but ...
Defamation is legally defined as accusing someone of something that 1) harms their reputation and 2) is false. So if the thing is true, it shouldn't be an issue. And of course, it's not illegal to accuse someone of a crime – accusation is how charges are brought. It's a fundamental part of the justice system.
There would grounds of defamation if Trump were tried for treason and acquitted, and you accused him of treason afterwards, but he hasn't even been tried for treason – so he hasn't been proven innocent of it, either. However.
... they're not following the law anyway
When I most recently sought legal information from a lawyer (though on a somewhat different subject) his completely serious advice was: the administration is not even trying to follow the law. This means the real risk is not actual compliance, but appearance. So in a sense, all of this is practically moot. Even if you go to court and win, being sued is long, expensive, and extraordinarily painful. (Or even, going through a legal settlement – and winning! A truly, uniquely unpleasant experience.) So – it's a risk.
But then – everything a risk right now. That's simply not a reason, of itself, to not do something. The real calculus is whether or not the risk is going to be worth it. In other words,
Does it resonate?
It's important to acknowledge plainly that what we're talking about now is fundamentally a messaging question. We have our goal (removal) and our method (massive civil resistance) and our timeline (ASAP). Because this is not a legal strategy (since we don't have the votes to impeach), telling people why we're doing these things is fundamentally a messaging problem. What would inspire them to join in? That's really the part that matters.
Many people talk about messaging as if there's black magic involved, but the core is pretty straight forward. A message resonates when it's true – when it's an accurate description of the part of reality that is important to you, and your life. You don't feel manipulated, you don't feel like you're being sold something. You just hear something you believe, and you trust it, because you know it's true.
"Treason" is clearly a message that resonates strongly with some people. Such as Bruce Springsteen. And that's good.
Jem Aswad
It does have the disadvantage that, not only was it four years ago, but also the word "treason" just never got used much in the press. Instead we saw a lot of words like "insurrection" and "emoluments," and "collusion." Possibly because they were easier to prove, from a legal perspective.
Or perhaps these multi-syllabic words were used instead because "treason" is too clear, and too simple – and thus too scary, to even say. (See George Carlin on the obfuscatory devolution of "shell shock" into "post traumatic stress disorder.") Or perhaps because treason can carry the death penalty, and people didn't want to suggest that they were in favor of executing the President. So there's an argument that, well, it hasn't caught on, so – it must not have resonated.
A survey of one
But I am writing about it because no other single word strikes me so hard.
In a truly delightful book by Ralph Steadman (known best as the illustrator of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas), I learned that Sigmund Freud psychoanalyzed himself for several years before unleashing his new methods upon the public.
Steadman, Ralph
And while I do not stop with myself, I have found that I am always a valuable place to first test my own theories. I am writing about treason because as I consider the alternatives it is the only word that truly gives me shivers. It says: your job is unambiguous. It says: there is no imaginable excuse, for his behavior. It says: we simply cannot allow him to stay in power for one more day. In a single word. And no other one I have come across gives me this same feeling. Perhaps it's this very power that has kept people from saying it, yet.
Treason.
I see people call Donald Trump crazy, and stupid, and criminal, and incompetent, and unfit – but only rarely (though increasingly), and only in the least reputable fringes of the argument, do I hear someone saying that he is illegitimate. But that is how he must be seen, if we are to conclude that removing him is the correct choice.
So remember that our goal is not to pray that a Supreme Court who was chosen by the man himself will allow that man to face the consequences of the law, but to open the Overton Window in such a way that everyone can talk about his treason with the same fluency and conviction that we now discuss the "incompetence" of his cabinet – a description that is accurate, evidenced, and unhelpful.
And once we have started talking about presidential treason with confidence, then its meaning will also expand, and transform. Because treason is not just an attack on "them" – it is an attack on us. It is Betrayal. And every other betrayal will slowly take on that same reflected glow, to highlight the single most defining quality of the entire administration. We elected him – and he fucked us. And so, he cannot be allowed to stay.
If another idea works with the public – so be it. If you are ready to go, using different language – great. But if you cannot find the words to justify your actions – I know which one I use, to justify mine.
And if we make it to Thursday, I'll see you Thursday.
