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

Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology

A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.

(TNS)

Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology

In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.

“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A Sudden Vacuum: Unpacking Lindsey Graham’s Legacy and Implications for the GOP’s Senate Agenda

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the FY2027 budget request in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on May 12, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A Sudden Vacuum: Unpacking Lindsey Graham’s Legacy and Implications for the GOP’s Senate Agenda

On July 11, 2026, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham unexpectedly passed away at age 71. The likely cause of death was a tear in the main vessel that carries blood out of the heart, otherwise known as aortic dissection. According to a medical examiner’s preliminary report, the aortic dissection itself was due to a “brief and sudden illness” known as arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which hardened Graham’s arteries.

Graham’s death prompted widespread, bipartisan tributes from across the political spectrum. President Trump ordered all flags to be flown at half-mast in the senator’s honor, later exclaiming that “Lindsey will be greatly missed!!!” on social media. On the global stage, key international allies mourned the loss of a fierce advocate for overseas alliances, with tributes coming from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman struggling to pull blue donkey with rope

How can the Democratic Party regain public trust? Ronald Hirsch argues for a renewed mission centered on equality, opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and American democracy.

Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images

Can the Democratic Party Still Lead?

During the 20th century and for the first part of the 21st, the Democratic Party certainly led the nation in advancing the cause of equality and the ability of people to pursue their right to life, liberty, and happiness. At the same time, they led the nation by increasing its military might and advancing its power around the world to protect the human rights of others.

The American worker would likely still be toiling for low wages in industrial hell-holes were it not for the laws that Democratic-led Congresses passed to increase the rights of workers vis-a-vis employers and the rights of unions. Black individuals and other people of color would still be burdened by widespread discrimination—official and otherwise—were it not for the laws that Democratic-led Congresses passed to protect their rights as American citizens. This is not to say that we have achieved equality, but we have made much progress.

Keep ReadingShow less
As Cruelty Normalizes, America’s Authoritarian Drift Deepens

Josh Hokit on April 11, 2026 in Miami, Florida.

(Photo by Carmen Mandato/Getty Images)

As Cruelty Normalizes, America’s Authoritarian Drift Deepens

It happened in a moment so small that many viewers may have missed it. After a UFC fight, athlete Josh Hokit used his victory speech not to celebrate his win but to demean former First Lady Michelle Obama, repeating a long‑running racist and sexist trope by calling her a man. Standing beside him, the President of the United States did not correct him. He did not defend a woman who served this country with dignity. He did not reject the bigotry embedded in the remark. Instead, he offered a smirk — a half‑smile of approval that traveled farther than any microphone could carry.

That smirk mattered. It was a signal. And millions recognized it for exactly what it was.

Keep ReadingShow less