Here’s the problem.

When times are tough, when it seems like life is unfair, former President Trump and men like him are a temptation. Really, they are. Like a character from an old Clint Eastwood western, Trump walks with a swagger, talks tough and never apologizes. And why would he? When a man is tough, when he’s the fastest gun in the neighborhood and he makes a show of standing up for the little guy (be it true or false), what could there be to apologize for?

But there’s a catch. We are a nation of laws, a people whose lives and liberties are inspired by the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Under these laws, Clint Eastwood and his saddle-buddies (characters, by the way, I have long enjoyed) would probably all end up in jail, and for a good long time, on any number of the following charges: assault and battery, intimidation, murder, destruction of property and more. In a word or two, all that stuff, as tempting as it may be in a pinch, is against the law. So, when former President Trump declares, as he did recently to an audience in Erie, Pennsylvania (an audience understandably upset by an epidemic of shoplifting), that police needed just “one really violent day” to restore order, it is a temptation. Just like that, “one rough hour, and I mean real rough … and it will end immediately.” Really, that’s what Trump said.

The problem is that such behavior by police is clearly against the law. It presupposes that the state can judge and impose punishment in the absence of “due process,” one of the keystones of our democracy. Yet, as frustration with certain societal problems persists, so does the temptation to create a political environment in which such problems are handled summarily (which means without trial or on the street without due process). This should scare us.

What should also be scary is Project 2025, the platform cooked up by the (ultra) conservative Heritage Foundation. The 900-page document looks to replace our sprawling body of civil servants who, independent of politics, write the policies that shape the administration of our laws. Their replacements would be comprised of presidential loyalists whose primary concerns would involve carrying out the president’s wishes. Further, in a process arguably already underway, the plan proposes the replacement of judges at all levels with judges of a more conservative bent who would have no difficulty reporting to the president. This runs counter to the separation of powers.

Fear and frustration, we must realize, are dangerous companions, a team we should regard with considerable skepticism. For example, in return for what Trump is offering (and who really knows what that is, exactly), how much are we willing to give up? Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion? Individual privacy? There is simply no telling.

This ain’t no joke, folks, no joke at all. There really is a problem, and the time to solve it is now. Before you go to vote, think. Think hard.