Presidential inaugurations are historic moments. I watch them all, even when it is a president I didn’t vote for, and I’ll watch this one, too. Here are a few things I’ll be thinking about.
The man who will take the oath of office as president of the United States this Monday has the support of only one-third of Americans who were eligible to vote in the last election. The other two-thirds either voted for someone else (most of them for Kamala Harris) or didn’t vote at all. According to data gathered by the University of Florida Election Lab, and neatly organized for even easier reading here on Wikipedia, the 156.3 million Americans who voted in November are less than 64% of all those Americans who were eligible to vote in that election. The majority of citizens who did cast ballots, 77.3 million, voted for Donald Trump; that number of people is only 31.59% of the Americans who were eligible to vote in that election. To Trump’s credit, there have been only three winners of presidential elections since 1980 (the period covered by this research) who got a higher percentage of votes from among all those eligible: Joe Biden in 2020 (33.78%, from 81.2 million voters), Barack Obama in 2008 (32.58%, 69.4 million votes) and Ronald Reagan in 1984 (32.47%, 54.4 million voters).
The hardest truth, I think, is this: 88.3 million Americans who were eligible to vote…didn’t. Put another way, of those who had the right and privilege to participate in their own governance, 36% did not…either could not vote for some reason, or could not be bothered to. That’s more than who voted for Trump, more than who voted for Harris. Even though that is still the second-best participation rate in the period studied, trailing only the 2020 election.
Some of the youngest folks who voted this past November would have been as young as 10 when Trump was elected the first time, so they wouldn’t have been paying attention to the 2016 campaign or maybe remember some of those highlights. I found this handy reminder list on Twitter, and share it here as a public service.
Although the announcement came from TFG (now meaning “the felon guy” rather than “the former guy”), I do not believe for one instant that the man who eight years ago lied about the crowd size at his first inauguration to protect his fragile ego is the same guy who now made the very sensible decision to bring this year’s ceremony indoors to protect people from the cold. In fact it is the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies which plans and executes these events, and I can completely see it not taking public credit for this choice so as not to be seen as bigfooting an incoming president, especially this one. I’m not buying that the guy who four years ago encouraged Americans to risk their safety to commit violence at the Capitol as part of his attempt to overturn an election is the same guy who is looking out for others when he says “I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th”. Also, I think it should be “it will be dangerous conditions” rather than it is. And also just by the way, who taught this nitwit the rules of capitalization?
It was disheartening to see the tenuous relationship with the concept of “truth” exhibited by some of the Trump Cabinet nominees during confirmation hearings. To be fair, Republicans and Democrats are just as adept as MAGA persons are when it comes to the kabuki dance of non-answer answers to pointed questions, finding it a preferred alternative to perjury. I accept the validity of politely refusing to provide a speculative answer to a hypothetical, or for judicial nominees to refuse to express an opinion about a case that might come before them some day. But to say, for example, that some of Pam Bondi’s responses strained credulity is to really streeeetch the definition of “strained.” Am I really expected to believe that Bondi did not/does not know certain facts of life, as reported by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate:
- Did she hear Donald Trump’s telephone call to Georgia’s secretary of state asking him to find more votes? No, she never listened to it.
- Did she hear Trump’s comments about prosecuting Liz Cheney? She never heard that.
- Does she know about Trump’s pledge to prosecute Jack Smith? She does not.
- His threat to go after Merrick Garland? No idea.
- What does she think of Kash Patel’s much-vaunted enemies list? Oh. Did he say that on TV?
- Patel’s threats to shutter the FBI? She doesn’t know.
- Pardons for those convicted for the Jan. 6 insurrection? She dare not judge a matter that may come before her.
- And did Trump lose the 2020 election? Biden is the president.
- No really, did Trump win the 2020 election? She saw some STUFF on the ground in Pennsylvania.You have NO idea.
- What does she know beyond a shadow of a doubt? There was a “peaceful transition” after the 2020 election.
Or her flat-out refusal to acknowledge that a part of the law is in fact a part of the law:
I really wish that in cases like this senators would at least stand up for themselves and the prerogatives of the Senate even if they won’t call bullshit on behalf of their constituents or their country. Some day, when a nominee refuses to answer a direct question in these ways, I would love the senator to respond by saying “Thank you. The lack of candor displayed by your refusal to respond to my question, and your refusal to participate in this Constitutionally-mandated procedure in good faith, means I will not vote to confirm your nomination and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you for coming.”
HEY, IT'S PAT RYAN'S BLOG! 