Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Opinion

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks alongside Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick (C) and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer (R) during a press briefing held at the White House February 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker

I came of age, politically speaking, during the presidency of one of the two most polarizing figures in our recent history. I am aging out during the presidency of the second one.

Richard Nixon and Donald Trump rose to power in markedly different ways but suffered remarkably similar falls from public grace while they were in office. Whatever demons and character flaws may have driven them to wield power as they did obviously played a part in their rise and fall, but they are irrelevant to the central point of this essay.


As presidents, Richard Nixon and Donald Trump made singular and unheralded contributions to the practice of democracy and the way we think of ourselves as Americans, not for their accomplishments while in office but for how a great number of everyday Americans stopped them from pulling off whatever they had in mind to realize their grander ambitions.

Others and I have written about the long and bumpy process whereby societies become more democratic. That is, how more well-to-do, socially prominent, and powerful people cede bits and pieces of what it means to be more and better than the rest of us to more of us than they would have preferred or thought feasible.

The great challenge in effecting such a change is how to pull it off without people retreating, as Tocqueville put it, to the temporary and illusory comfort provided by people in their small private circles, or, even worse, from tearing apart the social and economic order from which more of us today than in the past take a measure of comfort and security.

A complete handover or switch in of who was more on top and who was more in the middle or at the bottom was never finished or even in the cultural cards with which we are playing. There was more dealing from the bottom of the deck and more cards being slipped from sleeves than was agreeable or probably necessary to keep the game going. But over a period of time measured more in centuries than decades, and with more people being able to play, we all learned how to read the table better, call each other’s bluffs, and on occasion, force the dealer to reshuffle the cards to ensure the deck wasn’t as stacked against the rest of us as we had come to believe.

It’s the calling of bluffs and forced reshuffling of the decks that concern me here, how less experienced and accomplished players stopped more deck stacking, surprising sleights of hand, having their pockets picked, and, importantly, how the card sharks had their teeth pulled.

I understand that much of our present concern about the future of our democracy is driven by how Donald Trump behaves, the unwillingness or inability of other elected officials to call him to task for what he says and does, and his continuing appeal to tens of millions of American voters because he says and does these things.

But what sank Richard Nixon’s presidency and is sinking Trump’s is how a great many more Americans who pay middling-to-little attention to politics or how the federal government is supposed to work have called Trump’s bluff.

There is nothing selfless about their intervention. But more than selfishness is in play and at risk when so many Americans stand up and put a loud, disruptive, not infrequently destructive, and increasingly less-than-deadly-face to their unwillingness to be governed as their leaders were insisting.

These are acts of social and political disconsent that rebuke and chastise our governors for their obnoxious behavior and unwanted intrusion into our lives.

Here is how political disconsent works and why it succeeds.

Acts of disconsent do not last a long time. (They don’t have to for their intended message to be delivered or accepted.)

Acts of disconsent are neither designed nor intended to overturn whatever government was responsible for having behaved in an untoward or extreme way. (All the protesting and demonstratively annoying people on the street are happy to return to their otherwise humdrum lives once the offending practices are ended and the people executing them are sent packing.)

Angry disconsenters today are likely to memorialize their displeasure in future elections. (They are less likely than in the past to burn down the house of the offending official or obnoxious neighbor or run them out of town.)

Today’s disconsent has effectively brought Donald Trump’s reign to an end, but probably not his presidency.

He’ll find another ring to add to his circus performance and somebody else to eat in public.

But President Trump is also prone to bellowing loudly and expressing righteous anger and much made-up rage when whoever is on his plate puts up a big stink and bites back.

Minnesotans bit back. Young people and not-so-young people all over the country are biting back.

That’s why President Trump declared a moratorium on bagging and deporting the Spanish-speaking brown people who "sneaked" into the United States.

By my count, this leaves only his cabinet and people in Canada, Greenland, Cuba, Venezuela, NATO, and Ukraine to chew on and spit out.

There’s a midterm election coming.

My money’s on Canada, Greenland, Cuba, Venezuela, NATO, and Ukraine.


Daniel J. Monti (danieljmonti.com) is Professor of Sociology at Saint Louis University and the author of American Democracy and Disconsent: Liberalism and Illiberalism in Ferguson, Charlottesville, Black Lives Matter, and the Capitol Insurrection.

Read More

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 6, 2026.

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

A Demagogue in the White House: Will the Guardrails Hold?

A demagogue does not seize all power at once. He takes it piece by piece.

In Trump’s second administration, those pieces accumulated in plain sight. The president generated so much disruption and noise that Americans struggled to keep pace. Each new controversy displaced the last, obscuring a more consequential story: the steady accumulation of presidential power.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner at the White House.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and U.S. President Donald Trump followed by Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan and U.S. first lady Melania Trump arrive for a state dinner in the East Room of the White House on September 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

When Leaders Disagree, Ceremony Plays an Important Role

When Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived at the White House on 24 September, the U.S. welcomed him with an elaborate display of ceremony. The Army Herald Trumpets sounded a fanfare, the Chinese and American national anthems were played, and the Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps performed. A military review was followed by a flyover involving a B-2 bomber and four F-22 fighter jets, according to the White House. It was an extraordinary production for two countries that still disagree on some of the most important issues in international politics.

Talks between President Donald Trump and Xi touched on trade, artificial intelligence and Taiwan. The visit was marked by warm words and some signs of cooperation, but it did not erase the fundamental competition between the United States and China. So why was all this ceremony staged? It is tempting to dismiss political pomp as mere window dressing: an expensive historical relic surrounding the serious business taking place behind closed doors. As a music historian, however, I think this misunderstands what ceremony does. Ceremony can become particularly valuable when words alone are not enough.

Keep ReadingShow less
A ​fire burns and destroys the city hall  in Limoges, central France.

A fire burns and destroys the city hall after a group of individuals forced entry into the building during ongoing protest action against the "high cost of living," in Limoges, central France on Oct. 17, 2026.

Pascal Lachenaud/AFP/Getty Images/Tribune

What Americans can learn from the French protests

On Monday, France’s Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez admitted that police have “lost control” as some cities continue to see massive waves of looting and mayhem. Social media brims with images of stores being ransacked, cars burning, and mask-wearing goons running wild. In Limoges, the beautiful Hôtel de Ville was burnt to the ground.

But the chaos, as is so often the case, began peacefully. And many supporters and leaders of the protests have condemned the violence. I think that violence has more to do with France’s miserable record of assimilating immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East than with budget cuts. Call me cynical, but I don’t believe the goons pillaging Louis Vuitton stores are planning to resell the handbags to buy better school supplies or to bolster their teachers’ salaries.

Keep ReadingShow less