Fortunately, this one is short. However, it is the liberal idiocy equivalent of those new highly concentrated laundry detergents that use only a quarter of the normal amount of detergent.
Permit me an impertinent question (or three).
It's your column at HuffPo, so I guess you get to ask as many questions as you want (or at least as many as she'll let you ask)? By the way -- do you get paid for writing these things, or are you one of the contributors to the "write for free so the rich bitch gets richer" model of journalism she has perfected?
Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically destroy the U.S. government by
There are folks systematically trying to DESTROY the government? Really? Why don't you grow a pair and name them, Bobby-boy? Maybe you even have some evidence to support this plan of theirs to "destroy" the government -- if it really exists.
(1) finding and bankrolling new candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it;
Which is it? Are they shrinking it? Or are they "dismembering it? Frankly, a large segment of the American people support shrinking government, because we've got too damn much of it. After all, you do know that the average American commits felonies daily because government has grown so expansive and implemented contradictory laws and regulations. You might want to read a book by Professor and Silverglate, Three Felonies a Day -- or maybe one of these other fine books.
And what do you mean by "dismembering" government? Implementing the model of federalism found in the Constitution where the states have as much (if not more) power than the federal government? That sounds like a matter of policy preference, not the horrible thing you are presenting it as.
(2) intimidating or bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees, eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten to default on the nation's debt;
Bribery? Really? Who? How much? What's your proof? Or is this you way of describing campaign contributions and engaging in political activity? After all, the "intimidation" is apparently a threat to campaign against them, based upon your earlier comment condemning the finding and supporting of new candidates to challenge entrenched incumbents.
And by the way, there is no effort to block ALL legislation -- just bad legislation that many Americans disagree with. Which means you are really condemning legitimate participation in the political process by American citizens whose views you oppose. And here I thought that dissent was patriotic.
(3) taking over state governments in order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls, and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections;
These takeovers of state government -- that would be accomplished by persuading people to vote for certain politicians who support certain popular policies, right? Do you really now object to allowing voters to select candidates who promise to implement policies you consider wrong? Perhaps we need to send the National Guard to prevent winning candidates from taking office in the event you don't approve of them. After all, you could probably justify that under the Article IV guarantee that states have a republican form of government? Doesn't that violate principles of self-government that underlie our entire constitutional order?
(4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax,
Let's see -- "running a vast PR campaign". Wouldn't that be engaging in activities guaranteed under the First Amendment like "freedom of speech", "freedom of the press" and "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances"? Sure sounds that way to me. Are you truly out to limit the First Amendment rights of Americans if you deem them to be propagating "big lies" -- what others may call "dissent"? And as far as climate change goes -- I seem to recall some guy named Galileo getting in trouble for propagating the "big lie" (contrary to the settled scientific consensus of the day) that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around. Can we use his trial as the model for the trial of climate change deniers?
and (5) buying up the media so the public cannot know the truth.
Maybe we need the government to determine who is actually allowed to exercise that freedom of the press thingy, despite the "Congress shall make no law. . .. abridging" stuff that is in the First Amendment regarding it. Maybe we can even set up a Ministry of Truth to make sure that only government-approved truths are disseminated to the people and non-approved notions are not permitted to make it into print.
Would you call this treason?
No, I would not -- because Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution (a document you have shown contempt for in the first paragraph, and which you continue to disregard with this question) provides us with the only definition of treason applicable in the United States -- "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" Unless you wish to define the exercise of constitutional rights by American citizens to be "treason" when you disagree with the policies they support -- you know, as has been seen in one-party dictatorships throughout history.
If not, what would you call it?
As you describe it? A psychotic fever dream by a proto-fascist professor.
As it actually is? Good citizenship by patriotic Americans seeking to improve their country.
And what would you do about it?
Not a damn thing -- because I believe that every American has the right to speak and publish freely, to back the candidates and policies of their choice, and to participate in our national civic life free from fear of imprisonment or worse if government officials decide their dissent is "beyond the pale". That includes even allowing totalitarian twits like yourself to publish inane columns like the one I've been responding to -- because I fully believe that rational people will see through your unAmerican ideas and reject them accordingly.