Freedom is good, isn't it? We generally take it for granted since clear the opposite (no freedom) is bad - hence incarceration is considered punishment. But is it a linear relation? Probably not; and we are about to get a lesson on the limits of that notion. This post is about freedom in general and about Donald Trump's view of freedom in particular.
In Trump's worldview freedom means doing whatever he wants, period. The idea that his actions might adversely affect others never seems to cross his mind. Interestingly in that regard he's like a toddler who hasn't yet learned that he can't have all he wants whenever he wants, crying "I want, I want...". In adulthood, this kind of behaviour is commonly termed sociopathic.
To Trump the idea that there are limits by which he might be constrained is anathema. Unlike most people, he has learned that the things that constrain that vast majority of us, things like shame, disapproval, broken friendships, and most importantly societal norms and the law can, with enough money, persistence and chutzpah, be circumvented or simply ignored. America may be about to learn what that means for our constitutional order.
In his first term, three things constrained him: a few of his political advisors with experience and expertise, the civil service more generally, and the courts. In his second term he has surrounded himself with advisors whose qualifications are loyalty rather than expertise. He is in the process of gutting the civil service along similar lines, installing yes-men in place of experts. And since he has kowtowed the Republican members of Congress, only the courts stand between Trump and absolute power.
Consider his response to efforts to hold him accountable for mishandling of classified documents, or inciting the January 6th riots. In the case of the January 6th riots, at every turn he played the system, knowing that he might well run out the clock. And that's exactly what happened. In the classified documents case, he simply ignored court orders to return them until the FBI entered his property at Mar-a-Lago to forcibly retrieve them. The latter case clearly shows the extent to which Trump is prepared to test the limits of the legal system.
Since reentering office less than a month ago, Trump has issued over 50 executive orders, most of which are being challenged in court. Trump's history of treating the law as a hindrance, an irritating obstacle to be overcome, suggests that there will likely come a point at which he decides to ignore the courts and force the administration to do his bidding.
When he does (and it may very well not be clear when that line is crossed) how will the law be enforced? Dahlia Lithwick pointed out on NPR yesterday that enforcing compliance with federal court orders such as injunctions normally requires the Federal Marshal Service to carry out order - but the Federal Marshal Service is under the DoJ and the DoJ is now headed up by Pam Bondi who has been somewhat sympathetic to Trump in the past (and was probably appointed because she would be likely to do Trump's bidding). It may not come to this, but if it does we will find we have turned the country over to an elected autocrat.
