The Dance of Appeasement

How Democrats Normalize Trump's Constitutional Violations

Gavin Newsom's rightward shift represents not just a strategic miscalculation but a profound moral abdication based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both democratic principles and political reality.

Newsom appears to have convinced himself that the path to defeating Trumpism lies in adopting its language, accepting its framing, and finding “common ground” with an administration actively dismantling constitutional governance. This calculation rests on a dangerous conflation of popularity with principle—the belief that because Trump won an election, his approach must be what “middle America” wants and therefore what Democrats should emulate.

This logic fails on multiple levels. First, it fundamentally misunderstands why many Americans voted for Trump. They didn't necessarily embrace constitutional violations, the weaponization of government against critics, or the abandonment of democratic norms—though many have come to excuse them. But that doesn't mean they can't be moved by moral clarity when it's offered without condescension. Many voted based on specific economic anxieties, cultural concerns, or—crucially—because they believed demonstrable falsehoods about both Trump and his opponents. Winning their support doesn't require adopting Trump's authoritarian tendencies but addressing their legitimate concerns while providing a clear alternative to his approach to governance.

Second, Newsom's strategy assumes that political victory is worth any moral cost. That defending constitutional principles, standing for truth, and maintaining democratic norms are luxuries that can be sacrificed for electoral advantage. This isn't just cynical—it's self-defeating. If Democrats adopt Trump's rhetoric, accept his constitutional violations as mere
“distractions,” and seek partnership with his administration, what alternative do they actually offer? They become not an opposition but an echo. Not a choice, but a counterfeit.

American voters are not looking for Democratic candidates who behave like junior varsity Trumpists. They're looking for clarity. For conviction. When Democrats blur that contrast, they don't win converts—they confirm Trump's dominance of the political terrain. Voters can smell incoherence and opportunism from miles away. When leaders abandon their principles for perceived political advantage, they don't gain credibility—they lose the very foundation of trust upon which political leadership must stand.

What Newsom fails to grasp is that the most powerful response to Trumpism isn't accommodation but clear moral contrast. Not moving toward Trump but standing firmly on democratic principles. Not adopting his language but offering an alternative vision of governance based on truth, constitutional fidelity, and democratic values. The voters who might be swayed by a genuine alternative won't be impressed by Democratic leaders who seem willing to abandon their principles for political advantage.

Perhaps most disturbing is how Newsom's approach reveals a fundamental lack of faith in Americans' capacity for democratic citizenship. It assumes citizens cannot be persuaded by truth, cannot be moved by appeals to democratic principles, cannot recognize the difference between governance and demagoguery. It treats voters not as citizens capable of democratic judgment but as consumers to be won through marketing and positioning—giving them what polling suggests they want rather than what democratic governance requires.

This approach directly contributes to the crisis of meaning I've documented throughout Notes From The Circus. When political leaders on both sides treat truth as optional, principles as negotiable, and constitutional violations as mere tactical concerns, they reinforce the nihilistic view that nothing is real, nothing matters, and power is the only currency worth pursuing. They don't just fail to counter Trumpism; they actively strengthen its foundations.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And political leaders who convince themselves that accommodating authoritarianism is the path to defeating it have already surrendered the moral ground from which effective resistance must operate. They haven't found a clever strategy; they've abandoned the very principles they claim to defend.

The center must be held—not by moving rightward in pursuit of imagined political advantage, but by standing firmly on the constitutional principles and democratic values that make legitimate political competition possible at all. Not by treating truth as optional but by insisting on its centrality to democratic governance. Not by dismissing constitutional violations as distractions but by recognizing them as fundamental threats requiring clear moral response.

The ground approaches. And those who respond by triangulating, accommodating, and seeking “partnership” with the forces undermining democratic governance may find they've not only failed to defeat Trumpism but actively enabled its transformation from political movement to governing regime.

At this point, Newsom isn't just forgetting what's real—he's surrendering the very possibility of its defense.

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” — James Balwin