Political Deterrence and Accountability

Maintaining peace among political adversaries often hinges on the concept of deterrence. The idea is that both sides realize that harming the other today could lead to retaliation when the power balance shifts in the future. This understanding ideally prevents a republic from devolving into constant cycles of revenge. Senator Elissa Slotkin from Michigan appears ready to put this concept to the test.

During an appearance at the University of Chicago on October 13, Slotkin advocated for pursuing “signature cases” against individuals she holds responsible for President Trump’s actions. Her aim is to instill a sense of caution among new graduates considering jobs in government, suggesting they might be “buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want.” She wants to make it clear that working for a future administration could come with significant risks.

Democrats are approaching this openly. They seem poised to reintroduce aggressive legal maneuvers. It’s wise for the public to take them seriously.

Slotkin claims her intent is accountability for actual legal violations rather than just scaring individuals away from governmental roles. But why would she emphasize the latter as a goal? There’s a clear distinction between holding someone accountable for criminal actions and instilling fear about future hiring into a political landscape. Aiding a corrupt administration is complicated when solely viewed through this lens.

By targeting individuals she claims “enabled” Trump, it raises a crucial question: who gets to define that enabling? Is it merely implementing a lawful policy or drafting a legal argument? Slotkin and her congressional allies might think so.

Political appointees execute the agenda of the elected president, which doesn’t absolve them from committing illegal acts, of course. Yet, it suggests that not every staffer should be held liable for every decision made by superiors. For instance, a junior staff member at the Department of Homeland Security might carry out a lawful order without creating the policy themselves. Does that make them an enabler who deserves to face legal scrutiny?

There’s definitely a case for arguing that perhaps those individuals should have stepped back, supported the idea of “Our Democracy,” and worked elsewhere instead. Sure, “I was just following orders” doesn’t excuse a crime, but merely having worked under an administration that one detests doesn’t equate to guilt.

The troubling part about Slotkin’s statements is that while she speaks of accountability, it sounds more like a warning to those wary of entering public service. If merely engaging in a position can become a source of punishment, then prosecutors don’t need to win all their cases to deter young talent from stepping into government roles.

This scenario could lead to situations where a departing Republican president feels compelled to issue sweeping pardons for their staff before leaving office. Such a move would warp a constitutional safeguard into an expected farewell gift.

Furthermore, presidential pardons apply to federal crimes—not to state-level issues or civil lawsuits. They can’t preemptively shield against future investigations. Signing enough paperwork cannot make the specter of politically motivated litigation vanish.

As Senator Mike Lee from Utah pointed out, “I’m not aware of any Republican in office who has advocated the mirror-image approach — using the threat of prosecutions to deter people from serving in a Democratic administration.” This raises important questions about Slotkin’s intentions: Is she trying to dissuade actual misconduct, or is it more about discouraging Republican public service? Her statements certainly open up that discussion.

Conservatives shouldn’t respond with overly simplistic cheerleading for public service. Young individuals contemplating government positions deserve to be informed that any upcoming administration might scrutinize their past actions. They should also trust that inquiry will focus on concrete evidence of wrongdoing rather than just guilt by association.

Democrats had a serious approach to lawfare previously, and it seems they are ready to do so again.

Ultimately, the goal has often been a kind of one-party dominance. It’s crucial for young people to understand what they might be signing up for by working with Republican administrations, while voters need to grasp the weight of the threats being laid out by Democrats.

Indeed, it appears Democrats are not just playing around with this; they genuinely intend to ramp up their legal tactics. The public should heed their intentions.