Outsourced to Brian Beutler (boldface mine):

Better still, Democrats could create a simple test for Trump’s nominees, and insist they all clear it: Who will you work for, Trump, or the citizens of the United States?

Applicants for certain senior Trump administration roles have reportedly faced a three-question loyalty test at the end of their interviews. They’ve been “asked which candidate [they] had supported in the three most recent elections, what they thought about the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and whether they believed the 2020 election was stolen. The sense they got was that there was only one right answer to each question.”

The first question may be defensible, depending on the vacancy—a president naturally will want most of his political appointees to belong to his political party.

But the other two are unacceptable, and I believe Democratic voters—base and activist—would feel more at peace if they could count on Chuck Schumer and relevant committee members to draw that red line, without first consulting focus groups or front-line members. Why isn’t it obvious that Democrats will vote in lockstep against people who spread the Big Lie. Why couldn’t Schumer simply assert:

• There will be no Democratic votes for any nominee who passed this loyalty test;
• There will be no Democratic votes for any nominee who claims the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, or who pretended to believe so in pursuit of a fancy job;
• There will be no Democratic votes for anyone who claims the violent insurrectionists of 2020 are political prisoners, or who pretended to believe so in pursuit of a fancy job;
• If Republicans abuse federal power to revise any of the sordid history of Trump’s coup attempt, we will rewrite it faithfully the moment we regain power?

Can Democrats really not unite behind a litmus test as basic as this?

Elections have consequences, but they don’t entitle winners to break the law, violate the constitution, engage in corruption, or make lies the official policy of the state.

Adamancy on this point would come as a relief to the majority of Americans who did not want Trump to become president again. And I further believe (without being able to prove it) that it would represent a small step toward rehabilitating the Democratic Party’s image, which is badly tattered outside of its base. Being on the front foot conveys a sense of dignity that the party cashed in long ago.

At some point, professional Democrats must recognize that they are now an opposition party, and they need to oppose Trump. It’s not just good policy, but also good politics. And if Democrats can’t unite behind the litmus test above, then the party is in deep trouble.