Democracy has to be re-earned in each generation. If you just depend on past victories, you can absolutely lose it.
Not that many, actually (then again, there's not that many true democracies until recently) but in each case the problem was much deeper than the person of the specific demagogue and tyrant. And usually the particularly heinous demagogue and tyrant was precedent by a row of less heinous demagogues and tyrants. So what's so special in this one?
> You can't imagine a sane person could fear the same outcome in the United States?
Fear - sure. But fearing something and claiming something is going to happen is a different thing. I can fear being mugged and still not claim everybody I meet is a mugger. I can fear snakes but not see snakes behind every corner. Fear is healthy, but not when it gets out of control.
> Democracy has to be re-earned in each generation.
True, but also not very useful. What is specific in Trump that didn't ever happen that makes him more threat than King George, Jefferson Davis and many other lousy and controversial presidents US had over the years? Which specific faults will enable him to overthrow the Republic and why no one is working on fixing those flaws right now?
Democracy has existed for 100 years in most Western states!
In fact the majority of economic and social progress in Western states did not occur in democracies, but under constitutional monarchies with parliaments and an aristocracy.
I still can't think why a sane person would believe that. I mean not rhetorically claim it in a bout of electoral frenzy, but really genuinely believe it. Not that Trump has a disgusting personality or would be bad president or has this and that flaw, but that he will actually single-handedly ruin the democracy.
I mean, George III couldn't do it, Jefferson Davis couldn't do it, Nixon couldn't do it, but Trump will. Why? Which superpowers does he have that I am not seeing that allow him to singlehandedly overcome everything that is built to prevent it?
And more importantly - why literally nobody who proclaims Trump as such a threat pays any attention whatsoever to the fact that our democracy is so weak one blowhard TV show host can ruin it? That - if true - would be a hugely bigger problem than Trump yet nobody seems to be worried about that. As soon as Trump would be defeated, everybody that were screaming "the end is nigh!" would go on with their business as if nothing is wrong anymore.
> Peter Thiel, who is not just a Trump supporter, but an important part of the Trump campaign.
That doesn't seem to be true. Trump campaign has many directions but having Thiel does not seem to be an important point for any of them. And one million dollar, while a big chunk of money by itself, is minuscule compared to whole electoral spending - e.g., Clinton campaign was estimated to spend about 1.7 billions, and while Trump one seemed to be spending a little less, I assume the order of magnitude would be the same.
> after Trump pivoted his campaign as a crusade against the legitimacy of our elections and of the black vote,
I never heard Trump doing such thing. Are you sure you are not misinterpreting his words or relying on unreliable and possibly biased sources?
> But we are all very much entitled to criticize what Altman is doing,
Criticizing Altman in general is fine, of course. This particular kind of criticism, namely "you must sever ties with X because X supported cause I dislike", does not seem to be a good idea. Neither seems to be "you must sever ties with X because he supports Trump and you don't". Maybe Altman is entitled to choose his peer group by himself and other people presuming to choose his peers and partners for him are going a bit too far?