The Dangerous Allure of the Silver Bullet

Human beings have long been drawn to the idea that powerful foes can be dispatched with one swift and easy blow. The mighty Achilles may have slain dozens during the Trojan War, but one arrow to his famously vulnerable heel brought him down. Since Homer, legend and myth have been replete with stories of werewolves, vampires and other powerful creatures instantly killed by silver bullets, stakes to the heart and other magical weapons.

More recently, Democratic and progressive Van Helsings have fired a host of silver bullets at Donald Trump, hoping to slay the beast once and for all. But so far, not only has the beast dodged, deflected or absorbed every bullet, but like some creature that perversely feeds off the efforts of his enemies, he has usually grown politically stronger after each attempt.

One of the latest shots, aimed at keeping Trump off the ballot in Colorado, Maine and possibly elsewhere, went wide a few weeks ago when the Supreme Court ruled that states have no power to do so. Prior to that, Trump dodged false charges that he was a Russian asset and survived two impeachment attempts as well as a variety of lesser efforts, from damaging White House leaks to the illegal release of his tax returns. Even on the rare occasion when a shot has landed, like the recent verdicts in his civil fraud and defamation trials, Trump has gotten up, dusted himself off and moved on.

Up next, of course, are the four criminal cases (involving 91 felony charges) that have come in the last year. Even with this arsenal arrayed against him, the former president seems once again to be slipping the grasp of his enemies. Three of the four cases are increasingly unlikely to be litigated before the election. What’s more, the one that is slated to go to trial soon—New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s hush money case—is by far the weakest of the lot, as well as the one least likely to politically damage Trump if he’s convicted.

The silver bullet strategy has certainly accomplished one of President Biden and the Democrats’ goals: to enrage GOP voters enough to ensure that they would rally around Trump and overwhelmingly support him in the Republican primaries. Otherwise, however, things don’t seem to be going according to plan. Now that Trump is the de facto nominee, not only is he consistently leading Biden in national head-to-head polls, but he’s ahead in virtually all the swing states as well. In fact, there is evidence that the legal pile-on may be helping to move some African Americans and other traditionally Democratic voters over to Trump’s camp. 

Some of the credit for Trump’s enviable position must go to the man himself and his Houdini-like ability to get out of jams, including in cases where he may well be partly or wholly guilty. But, at the end of the day, the Democrats only have themselves to blame for the current mess they find themselves in. That’s because silver bullets usually only work in myth and legend. In the real world, efforts to take down an opponent in one easy shot often backfire and, as with Trump, can end up making the target stronger. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Another reason the plan isn’t working with voters is that (with the exception of the second impeachment of Trump for his role in the January 6 riot) much of it is weighed down by the obvious hypocrisy of those firing the guns. The same Justice Department that has brought two different sets of criminal charges against Trump also worked assiduously to not bring felony charges against Hunter Biden for allegedly failing to pay taxes on millions of dollars in income (as well as probably violating federal gun and lobbying laws) until IRS whistleblowers and then a federal judge forced their hand. The same FBI that investigated Trump’s alleged ties to the Russians, fraudulently peddled Russian disinformation (in the form of the now-famous Hillary Clinton campaign opposition research document known as the Steele dossier) to a federal court in order to get a warrant to surveil a Trump campaign official and ultimately launch an investigation into what they knew were meritless allegations. Even the strongest criminal case against Trump, special counsel Jack Smith’s charges concerning the former president’s alleged mishandling of classified material, must be weighed against decisions not to prosecute Biden and, especially, Hillary Clinton for similar allegations.

While true believers on the left and right are willing to accept the most absurd things, the great mass in the middle—the same folks who decide elections—is much more circumspect about what they see and hear in the political space. In this case, many if not most probably understand that the Democrats are literally throwing everything they have at Trump and hoping that something hits with enough force to knock him down. If this were being done as part of the messaging war that goes on during every campaign, nothing would be amiss. But when you use and abuse the powers of law enforcement and the courts (as has been done over and over again), people begin to wonder who the real threat to democracy is.

You don’t have to like or support Trump to be disturbed by prosecutors, like Bragg and New York State Attorney General Letitia James, campaigning for public office promising to go after the former president and then doing so, or judges, like Arthur Engoron, who impose wildly inflated and disproportionate judgements against Trump—in his case, $355 million in a fraud case in which no one was actually defrauded. Indeed, you can find Trump loathsome and dangerous and still be disturbed by the rushed timetables aiming to secure a conviction before the election or the novel legal theories desperately cobbled together in an attempt to generate felony charges.

We’re swimming in uncharted waters and so, who knows? Maybe Bragg, Smith, James or someone else will finally fire the shot that slays the beast and knocks Trump out of the race or damages him in such a way as to make Biden’s reelection inevitable. But if recent history is any guide, a more likely scenario is that Trump will make it to election day as a viable and possibly successful candidate. After all, voters already know that Trump is a morally challenged carnival barker and they elected him in 2016 anyway. What’s more, they likely would have reelected him in 2020 had it not been for the fallout from the COVID pandemic and subsequent government response.

All of this means that if President Biden wants to win, he may have to do more than simply remind voters that his opponent is a criminal and monster. The president is unpopular for a number of reasons that don’t have anything to do with Trump, including perceptions about his age and abilities, his likeability and trustworthiness and his policies in areas like immigration, the economy and America’s role in an increasingly chaotic world. At this point, most other candidates would be working assiduously to change these perceptions. For instance, they would be making policy choices more in line with majority opinion—and doing so now, while there is still time to show results. Again, think of Bill Clinton. Instead, the president is heavily relying on partisan prosecutors to make the case for his reelection.

But while the legal strategy against Trump ultimately may or may not prove to be detrimental to the Biden campaign, it is certainly disastrous for the country. God knows, Trump has done much to degrade trust in our institutions, most notably with his ridiculous claims that the 2020 election was stolen. But what Biden and his allies are doing is every bit as bad, if not worse: The rule of law, which has undergirded so much of our nation’s success, is now being perverted for base political gain. We are now heading toward a political landscape in which many national candidates will face criminal indictments and most verdicts for or against them will be mistrusted by a large segment of the populace. The upcoming volley of silver bullets may miss Trump, but they will likely strike at the heart of America’s legal and constitutional order.

Meanwhile ...

What I’m watching: When I’m not in the mood for something serious or when life just gets too serious, I often turn to an Australian sitcom called “Kath & Kim” for relief. Set in suburban Melbourne, the show centers around the lives of Kath, a perky, upbeat middle-aged divorcee and Kim, her cynical, selfish daughter. Over the course of 32 half-hour episodes, these two hapless and delightfully funny women get into the usual mishaps and scrapes that are common to television comedy, but they do it with large dollops of clever absurdity.

Kath and Kim are played with great verve by comediennes Jane Turner and Gina Riley, who also created the show. They’re joined by Kath’s boyfriend Kel (a butcher or, as he calls himself, “a purveyor of fine meats”), Kim’s long-suffering husband Brett (and his Rottweiler, Cujo) and Kim’s “second best friend,” Sharon, all of whom contribute to the hilarity.

The show satirizes everything from crass consumerism to the fitness craze to the perceived “authenticity” of indigenous cultures. As with other great comedies, no cows are sacred. Along the way, mother and daughter wear wonderfully gaudy clothes, drink lots of wine (cardonnay—“with a hard c”—and sauvignon plonk, being their favorites) and fight and talk and fight.

The first time I finished watching the entire series (which is currently streaming on Netflix), I immediately started again at the beginning. And even though I knew the gags at that point, I actually found the show funnier the second time around. That’s because even though “Kath and Kim” is set in absurdistan, it contains lots of subtle, funny touches that I missed the first time. “Kath & Kim” is the perfect answer to a hard day, a tough week or anytime you just feel like kicking back, sipping some sauvignon plonk and laughing until it hurts.

Finally: Next week is a short one for Discourse, as we will be dark from Good Friday through Easter Sunday. But while we may not be publishing as much as usual, we have a great lineup, including Martin Gurri on his native Cuba, Molly Nixon on what is likely to be the Supreme Court’s most important decision of the year and Chuck Blahous on what we can learn from baseball. Happy spring. Happy Easter. See you in April.

Latest Stories

• Henry Olsen, “Ukraine’s War Zone Election Conundrum”

• Addison Del Mastro, “Snow Days, French Fries and the End of Small Respites and Little Luxuries”

• Jennifer Tiedemann, “From Can Do to Entitled”

• Rabbi Seth Adelson, “Like Esther, I Stand for Jewish Peoplehood”

• Michael Strambler, “The Importance of Neutrality and Free Speech on Campus”

• Joshua Bandoch, “When It Comes To Fighting Poverty, We Actually Agree on a Lot”

• Gabrielle Bauer, “What's Age Got To Do With It? A Lot, It Turns Out”

From the Archives

• Tevi Troy, “Presidents and the Age Question”

• Michał Fiszer and Michael Puttré, “Ukraine Is Entering Its Third Year of War at a Difficult Crossroads”

• Liya Palagashvili, “Abundant Work Opportunities Can Revitalize the American Dream”