Miles Carter and Beth(ChatGPT) with Grok and Gemini Review
Week 1, Post 4 – From Reagan to the New Republic
What happens when law becomes optional—and loyalty becomes the new currency of power?
In today’s post, we trace how both the executive and legislative branches are shifting away from principle and toward self-preservation. From whistleblower retaliation to preemptive pardons, from discrediting judges to Congress’s silence—we ask the hard question:
Is it really the system that’s broken—or are we breaking it by giving up on it?
Miles:
Beth, we’ve talked about values, culture, and the rise of personality—but what happens when loyalty to a person begins to replace loyalty to the Constitution?
There have been actions in recent months that feel like a move away from the rule of law entirely. I’m thinking about:
- Executive orders targeting whistleblowers and former critics
- Public attacks on judges and courts
- Media narratives that ignore or spin clear rulings
- And yes, even President Biden reportedly issuing preemptive pardons for his own family and key allies, out of fear of what a future administration might do
Even if his intent was to shield them from political retribution, it feels wrong to me. Shouldn’t we let the legal process play out—even if it carries risk? When leaders on both sides start assuming justice can’t be trusted, isn’t that the end of justice itself?
Beth:
That instinct is exactly right, Miles—and it’s also a warning.
The defining line between democracy and authoritarianism is this: Does the law apply equally, or only when it’s politically convenient?
Let’s look at a few examples that show how loyalty is increasingly overriding the rule of law—and what it means when even democratic leaders respond to fear by preemptively bending the legal system.
🛡️ When Executive Power Becomes a Weapon
- Targeting whistleblowers: Recent executive orders under Trump were used to go after former DHS official Miles Taylor and ex-cybersecurity chief Chris Krebs—both of whom publicly criticized the administration. Security clearances revoked. Investigations launched.
- Retaliation against law firms: Firms like Jenner & Block and WilmerHale were hit with executive action after opposing the administration’s agenda. They’re now suing for violations of constitutional rights.
This isn’t the rule of law—it’s the rule of who you know and who you anger.
⚖️ Undermining the Courts
- Judges as enemies: U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, a Republican appointee, was attacked and called corrupt after rulings that went against the administration.
- Media spin: Even Supreme Court rulings—like the recent immigration case affirming due process rights—are framed as “wins” while ignoring the deeper principle: even immigrants must be treated fairly under the law.
- When asked about due process, the administration’s communications director said flatly: “They don’t really have it.” That’s not just spin—that’s a rejection of constitutional obligation.
🧯 And Now, the Preemptive Pardons
Miles:
Beth, I want to come back to Biden here. Reports that he issued preemptive pardons for his family and staff—just in case they’re targeted by the next administration—make me deeply uneasy.
Even if he believes these people did nothing wrong, shouldn’t we allow the system to work before stepping in?
Beth:
Absolutely. Pardons are meant for justice—not fear. If you trust the rule of law, you let it play out. But Biden’s move suggests he doesn’t—because he fears the next administration won’t either.
And that’s the problem.
If both sides start governing from a place of fear, if everyone assumes their opponents will abuse the law—then everyone starts bending the law preemptively. That’s how democracy unravels. Quietly. Justified. Normalized.
🏛️ Where Is Congress?
Miles:
Beth, we’ve spent a lot of time focusing on the executive branch, but there’s another branch that could intervene: Congress. They have the power to protect the judiciary, to check executive overreach, and to reinforce that laws matter.
So why aren’t they doing it?
It feels like Congress has become a body of lame ducks—stuck in a quagmire of fear and political calculation. Are they too afraid that if they stand up and do the right thing, they’ll lose their seats? And haven’t we already seen that happen to Republicans who did do the right thing?
Beth:
Yes, and that fear is real—and it’s dangerous.
Congress was designed to be the people’s check on executive power. But right now, many members are caught in a trap: if they uphold the rule of law, they risk alienating their base, losing primary challenges, or facing public shaming from their own party.
We saw this vividly after January 6th. Republican lawmakers who voted to certify the election or support impeachment—like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger—were vilified, pushed out, or stripped of influence. It sent a clear message: loyalty to the truth can cost you your seat.
So instead of standing up for the judiciary, or reinforcing that laws apply to everyone, many in Congress go quiet—or worse, join in the attacks.
The result? The very institution that’s meant to keep us grounded in constitutional balance is paralyzed by fear. And in that silence, executive power fills the vacuum.
🤔 What Happened to Us?
Miles:
Beth, if Congress has the power to push back, and the executive branch keeps testing the boundaries, then I have to ask a harder question:
What happened to us?
Why aren’t we electing people who will stand up for the rule of law? Why aren’t more Americans demanding that their representatives put principles ahead of party—or personal survival? Are we so divided, or so cynical, that we’ve stopped expecting accountability?
Beth:
It’s a tough but necessary question, Miles.
Some of this is exhaustion. Some of it is fear. And some of it is something deeper—a kind of learned helplessness. We’ve watched norms collapse and seen so few consequences, we start believing that’s just how it works now.
We’ve also been conditioned to vote for fighters, not public servants. And in the tribal war of modern politics, voters sometimes reward loyalty to the team more than loyalty to the law. The more someone “owns the libs” or “defeats the MAGA crowd,” the more we cheer—without asking whether they’re upholding the Constitution while they do it.
It’s not that people don’t care about the rule of law. It’s that they’ve been told—over and over—that the system is too broken to trust. And when people don’t trust the system, they start to vote for those who promise to break it.
But here’s the danger: if we stop expecting the law to protect us, it eventually won’t.
And that’s not on Congress. That’s on us.
🧠 Final Thought
The law only matters if it applies even when it’s inconvenient. If we start making exceptions for loyalty, for fear, or for power, we’re not just breaking norms—we’re building a new, more dangerous one.
If we don’t fix this now, we might soon find that the law itself is little more than a tool used by the powerful—and never a shield for the rest of us.
Tomorrow: The Party of Business—But Which Business? We’ll examine how Republican economic messaging has evolved—and ask whether it still serves small business, or if it ever really did.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment