U.S. Politics: Speak, Shriek, or Squeak! Whatever Technique You Seek in Critique of the Isogeneic Freak.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I think there are blindspots for such a scenario to be plausible, sure.  With a different leader.  Trump is not that leader, he's simply too antagonistic towards the necessary allies.

This is honestly what worries me the most. While I have some worry that Trump's cult-like followers will make things a living hell for a while if Trump loses, my main concern now is who out there is learning Trump's lessons.

If someone were to combine Trump's bizarre ability to inspire devotion (this is honestly something I'll never understand) with a disciplined approach and the ability to actually make concessions to the right people, then it seems like the U.S. could become something like Orban's Hungary more easily than I would have imagined 4 years ago. I never would have expected that so many seemingly foundational aspects of U.S. government were and are essentially nothing more than a gentleman's agreement.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

This is honestly what worries me the most. While I have some worry that Trump's cult-like followers will make things a living hell for a while if Trump loses, my main concern now is who out there is learning Trump's lessons.

If someone were to combine Trump's bizarre ability to inspire devotion (this is honestly something I'll never understand) with a disciplined approach and the ability to actually make concessions to the right people, then it seems like the U.S. could become something like Orban's Hungary more easily than I would have imagined 4 years ago. I never would have expected that so many seemingly foundational aspects of U.S. government were and are essentially nothing more than a gentleman's agreement.

We need more strucural restrictions on the power of the President.  We cannot assume a rational reasonable actor in the Presidency any longer.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

 

[Fez]

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

If someone were to combine Trump's bizarre ability to inspire devotion (this is honestly something I'll never understand) with a disciplined approach and the ability to actually make concessions to the right people, then it seems like the U.S. could become something like Orban's Hungary more easily than I would have imagined 4 years ago. I never would have expected that so many seemingly foundational aspects of U.S. government were and are essentially nothing more than a gentleman's agreement.

I wonder if that's really possible though. A lot of the things that makes potential allies hate Trump are the same features that inspire that devotion from his supporters in the first place. A lot of people are worried about Tom Cotton as a potential competent Trump. And I agree that he's got scary ideas and is more competent. But could Cotton really harness the brash asshole populist persona that Trump has with his supporters?

 

Regardless though, if Biden wins and Democrats take the Senate, I really hope Biden agrees to some legislation that curtails the powers of the presidency. Even if it makes his own time in office more difficult, it seems necessary to safeguard the future.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I found it interesting that despite everyone wanting to show off their book shelves, President Obama only had a few things on his.  

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

This is honestly what worries me the most. While I have some worry that Trump's cult-like followers will make things a living hell for a while if Trump loses, my main concern now is who out there is learning Trump's lessons.

That definitely worries me, but I would say that Trump worries me a lot more right now.  If he wins reelection, his corruption and rot will continue to spread and American democracy will be a shadow of itself by 2024.  IF Biden wins in 2020, then this is absolutely something that needs doing, even if it means giving Republicans greater power to hold him back in the short term.  But we're a long way from Biden taking office. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

if Biden wins and Democrats take the Senate, I really hope Biden agrees to some legislation that curtails the powers of the presidency. Even if it makes his own time in office more difficult, it seems necessary to safeguard the future.

 

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

IF Biden wins in 2020, then this is absolutely something that needs doing, even if it means giving Republicans greater power to hold him back in the short term.

I distinctly recall many people saying this just about exactly 12 years ago if Obama was to be elected.  He didn't, and I wasn't surprised.  The perpetual increase in the power of the presidency has gone on a pretty linear line for, oh, about a century now.  I doubt that will change due to Joe Biden.

[sologdin]

Biden agrees to some legislation that curtails the powers of the presidency

only if he extirpates trumpism first.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

I distinctly recall many people saying this just about exactly 12 years ago if Obama was to be elected.  He didn't, and I wasn't surprised.  The perpetual increase in the power of the presidency has gone on a pretty linear line for, oh, about a century now.  I doubt that will change due to Joe Biden.

I wasn't surprised by Obama not doing it, and I didn't even think it was necessary then. For as bad as Bush was, he didn't really abuse his power. His administration lied, was corrupt, and made terrible policy mistakes; but he stayed within the mainstream understanding of what the President can do.

But now we have the object lesson of Trump. It's no longer theoretical that the vast powers of office can be terribly abused.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

I wonder if that's really possible though. A lot of the things that makes potential allies hate Trump are the same features that inspire that devotion from his supporters in the first place. A lot of people are worried about Tom Cotton as a potential competent Trump. And I agree that he's got scary ideas and is more competent. But could Cotton really harness the brash asshole populist persona that Trump has with his supporters?

 

Regardless though, if Biden wins and Democrats take the Senate, I really hope Biden agrees to some legislation that curtails the powers of the presidency. Even if it makes his own time in office more difficult, it seems necessary to safeguard the future.

That's one thing that gave me pause, because it does seem that a lot of Trump's appeal seems to be his willingness to stick it to anyone who dares gainsay him, and I specifically had Cotton in mind when I made that statement. And it's a fair point; it's not exactly a precise science nailing down specifically what it is that causes so many people to credulously accept anything he says.

But, I could imagine someone like Cotton, or maybe a little more charismatic than Cotton, who could collaborate with conservative media and Republicans in Congress that would allow that hypothetical president to continue sticking it to everyone while not turning off their political allies. This is essentially what is going on now, except Trump is too mercurial to stick to the playbook.

And the argument could be made that Trump's inability to stick to the script has been the only thing that's stood in the way of that scenario already having been implemented. Trump is simply incapable at shutting up, even when doing so would help him.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

For as bad as Bush was, he didn't really abuse his power. His administration lied, was corrupt, and made terrible policy mistakes; but he stayed within the mainstream understanding of what the President can do.

I suppose Dubya's abuses were more common, but I think the Patriot Act, an unjust war, trying to legally justify torture, and using signing statements - not even EOs - to override veto-proof legislation were pretty huge expansions of presidential power.  And much more competently instituted that much of anything Trump has done to boot.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

That definitely worries me, but I would say that Trump worries me a lot more right now.  If he wins reelection, his corruption and rot will continue to spread and American democracy will be a shadow of itself by 2024.  IF Biden wins in 2020, then this is absolutely something that needs doing, even if it means giving Republicans greater power to hold him back in the short term.  But we're a long way from Biden taking office. 

I agree that Trump winning would most likely mean the end of the current U.S. system one way or another; I'm just concerned about 4 or 8 years from now, even if Biden wins.

Getting Trump out of office is the start, but even then, the amount of work that is needed just to prevent Trump 2.0, SuperTrump, from happening is monumental. Combine that with recovering both from the pandemic, the recession, and the current civil unrest is most likely impossible. I'm worried that Republicans finally got their wish of breaking the government and that we just haven't realized it yet.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, Fez said:

I wonder if that's really possible though. A lot of the things that makes potential allies hate Trump are the same features that inspire that devotion from his supporters in the first place. A lot of people are worried about Tom Cotton as a potential competent Trump. And I agree that he's got scary ideas and is more competent. But could Cotton really harness the brash asshole populist persona that Trump has with his supporters?

 

Regardless though, if Biden wins and Democrats take the Senate, I really hope Biden agrees to some legislation that curtails the powers of the presidency. Even if it makes his own time in office more difficult, it seems necessary to safeguard the future.

I hope so to but worry that no one in the Presidency will ever agree to surrender power obtained by a prior administration.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Getting Trump out of office is the start, but even then, the amount of work that is needed just to prevent Trump 2.0, SuperTrump, from happening is monumental. Combine that with recovering both from the pandemic, the recession, and the current civil unrest is most likely impossible. I'm worried that Republicans finally got their wish of breaking the government and that we just haven't realized it yet.

Yes. 

I mean, if you're a dedicated optimist, you could say that perhaps after Trump is defeated some semblance of normality will return to the Republican Party (perhaps led by Fox News pivoting to a more WSJ center-right perspective).  But I see no signs of that, and IMO that gives Trump too much credit for creating the Republican Monster. 

MAYBE (maybe) if Biden wins and then Dems win again in 2024 then Republicans could do some soul searching that perhaps controlling the White House just once (with a popular vote loss no less) in 5 presidential elections is an indication that they need to make some changes.  But I think it's probably more likely that even if Biden wins he'll have a huge backlash in 2022, and Republicans will control the Senate (possibly House too) and thus will not have to endure the political wilderness long enough to do real soul searching. 

 

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I suppose Dubya's abuses were more common, but I think the Patriot Act, an unjust war, trying to legally justify torture, and using signing statements - not even EOs - to override veto-proof legislation were pretty huge expansions of presidential power.  And much more competently instituted that much of anything Trump has done to boot.

The Patriot Act was bad, but was passed overwhelmingly by Congress with support from both parties, as was the war authorization. We can say its terrible policy, and it was, but neither was any sort of abuse of power. Yes, they expanded presidential power, but it all went through the proper channels.

The torture justifications were terrible, but it's hard to see how they expanded presidential power at all. The President has always had enormous leeway in matters relating to the military, intelligence, and foreign policy; this was just a morally reprehensible implementation of it.

 The signing statements were bad. They existed before Bush, but he certainly expanded their use. One could argue that is an example of an abuse of power. However, this is also an area where Obama did curtail the power of the presidency. Obama used them far less frequently, and generally not in such dramatic fashions as Bush sometimes did.

[Ormond]

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

That's one thing that gave me pause, because it does seem that a lot of Trump's appeal seems to be his willingness to stick it to anyone who dares gainsay him, and I specifically had Cotton in mind when I made that statement. And it's a fair point; it's not exactly a precise science nailing down specifically what it is that causes so many people to credulously accept anything he says.

 

A lot of the willingness of Trump supporters to "accept anything he says" is just the self-justification effect of maintaining one's belief that you voted for the right person. That's combined with the polarization going on long before Trump which has led many people on the right to see Democrats as being "evil". 

Trump supporters don't just refuse to believe negative stuff about Trump. They also believe positive things about him that are not true. After the March 3 tornado outbreak in Tennessee there was a story posted on Facebook that when Trump made his quick visit to see storm damage he brought along his personal accountant and had him write personal checks to some of those who lost homes in the tornado. That was a completely false story, but it was believed by Trump supporters. They want to see him as some sort of Daddy Warbucks type figure who is going ot take care of them as much as he is going to "stick it" to those they don't identify with.

[Rippounet]

22 minutes ago, Fez said:

For as bad as Bush was, he didn't really abuse his power. His administration lied, was corrupt, and made terrible policy mistakes; but he stayed within the mainstream understanding of what the President can do.

Ouch, no, that is not true.

The difference is that the Bush administration had much more support to expand the power of the executive than either Obama or Trump got.
The "war on terror" (in all its forms) had a lot of bipartisan and media support.

However, from a pure "constitutional" angle the Bush administration expanded the executive in unprecedented (and shocking) ways... It even faced a few harsh words from the SCOTUS a couple of times (I've quoted O'Connor here before I believe).
When Obama came to power, given his background (as a constitutional lawyer), many hoped he would "rein in" the executive.
But he didn't. On some levels he made it worse.

I think it's very important not to rewrite history. W was seen as a kind of "imperial" president before Obama took power. All the people who knew well what his administration had done were scared. There are entire books on what his AG (Ashcroft) did for instance, and though my memory betrays me a bit I still shudder to remember some of the things I studied at the time.

FFS please stop this tendency of whitewashing W. because of Trump. W. was terrible in almost every conceivable way, he was just better at surrounding himself with competent people than Trump.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Trump supporters don't just refuse to believe negative stuff about Trump. They also believe positive things about him that are not true. After the March 3 tornado outbreak in Tennessee there was a story posted on Facebook that when Trump made his quick visit to see storm damage he brought along his personal accountant and had him write personal checks to some of those who lost homes in the tornado. That was a completely false story, but it was believed by Trump supporters. They want to see him as some sort of Daddy Warbucks type figure who is going ot take care of them as much as he is going to "stick it" to those they don't identify with.

And that's an example of how a "more effective" Trump could operate.  His selfishness is incredibly shortsighted.  It's not like he has any shortage of slush fund money to use, handing out a few million dollars to show his "generosity" would generate a lot more positive press coverage than a few more Trump ads in October. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

I suppose Dubya's abuses were more common, but I think the Patriot Act, an unjust war, trying to legally justify torture, and using signing statements - not even EOs - to override veto-proof legislation were pretty huge expansions of presidential power.  And much more competently instituted that much of anything Trump has done to boot.

Signing Statements had been used prior to GWB.  He dramatically expanded the practice.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

We can say its terrible policy, and it was, but neither was any sort of abuse of power.

The Patriot Act afforded much greater abuses of power that have since become normalized.  That's far more concerning than Trump signing a pointless EO.  As for the "authorization of force," acting like that validates the legitimacy of war would....well, evoke a very strong reaction from me 17 to 18 years ago, and I suspect you too.

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

The torture justifications were terrible, but it's hard to see how they expanded presidential power at all.

The Yoo memo et al., as well as the US Attorneys scandal, presaged Trump's abuse of the DOJ and law enforcement in general.

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

 The signing statements were bad. They existed before Bush, but he certainly expanded their use. One could argue that is an example of an abuse of power.

As an institutionalist, it is probably the most flagrant and concerning abuse of unilateral power in the past, oh, since Nixon I guess.  I'm frankly just happy Trump either hasn't figured out how to use them yet, or cared about any successfully passed legislation to try it so far.