The Kindergarten Logic: How Elite Republicans Sold Democracy Down the River

On the moral insanity of enabling authoritarians while counting on others to contain them

James Comey’s indictment by Trump’s weaponized Department of Justice should serve as the final, undeniable proof that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board and their fellow “responsible conservatives” gave Americans catastrophically dangerous advice in 2024. They promised that institutional guardrails would constrain Trump’s authoritarian impulses, that courts and Congress would prevent constitutional destruction, that voters could safely enable someone they acknowledged wanted to be king.

Now we’re watching the systematic prosecution of political enemies while the very Republicans who promised institutional constraint sit in comfortable silence. It’s time to acknowledge what should have been obvious from the beginning: their position was never respectable—it was morally insane.

It’s never safe to vote for the guy who wants to be king. This isn’t complex political analysis requiring sophisticated institutional theory—it’s the most basic principle of democratic governance. Yet somehow, this became a controversial position among supposedly serious conservative intellectuals who spent 2024 convincing voters that empowering authoritarians was safe because other people would prevent the authoritarianism.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, the “responsible conservative” think tank fellows, the “adults in the room” voices—they all made the same fundamentally psychotic argument: “Yes, Trump wants to destroy constitutional governance, but vote for him anyway because Congress and courts will stop him from doing what you’re empowering him to do.”

This is like putting a known child rapist in charge of a kindergarten and saying, “Don’t worry, it’s better than that leftist teacher. The other staff will watch and make sure they don’t rape the kids.”