Trump Thread

[spmetla]

Well, we're months into this Presidency and it's certainly the civic disaster we all knew it would be. The only accomplishment was getting NATO to get 5% future defense spending and possibly the Iranian nuclear strikes (though hard to tell when the intel assessments are being changed to fit the party line).

I just hope that the 'norms' can somehow hold out enough to get a decisive win against the MAGA party next year but that's a long time and the republic is straining daily under the assaults of Trump and Co.

[Montmorency]

An interesting story in light of Trump's unilateral executive claims to be able to issue new taxes on private businesses to the exclusion of Congress, or even to arbitrarily demand partial state ownership of large corporations such as Intel, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc... (we can also recall the rumors from 2018 that Trump was considering the nationalization of the American coal and steel industries). The story is that Kennedy is refloating the vaporware idea of the federal government removing choice from SNAP recipients and instead mailing them a government meal plan. This was discussed back in 2018 as well as a welfare-cutting measure, although with Kennedy's participation it is peculiarly rebranded as "MAHA boxes", a "wholesome" alternative to the typical diets of the poor.

Yes, this is a real Backroom throwback, if any of you still around remember.

While pointing out that the whole notion of the state replacing grocery and convenience stores on a national scale, out of a paternalistic disdain for the poor, was insultingly stupid on its face, I did reflect positively on the idea of the government making 'quality' meal plans available as an option to the general public.

My point is just that a distinct and well-funded program of curated packages isn't an inherently bad idea as long as it isn't presented as a replacement for anything. If really ambitious, assemble and distribute to all comers (i.e. without special enrolment) on a local basis.

It took me hours of further consideration to realize that the application of such a policy would be hideously inefficient, and ultimately politically destructive, relative to whatever benefits it could provide, and that the people currently able to pursue "healthy" diets would derive no benefit from a government meal plan, while those who might theoretically benefit from subsidized healthy food would not take it up, unless the government really broke the bank pushing (nudging) it on them. So I couldn't help but laugh when I saw the discourse being revived by Brainworm Kennedy after 7.5 years. Nothing is ever truly dead under postmodern conservatism; it contains all multitudes.


To quote an Internet commenter, "I always knew that conservatives lied about their values a lot, but they lied about even the most fundamental parts, and that I did not understand until Trump."

Well, we're months into this Presidency and it's certainly the civic disaster we all knew it would be. The only accomplishment was getting NATO to get 5% future defense spending and possibly the Iranian nuclear strikes (though hard to tell when the intel assessments are being changed to fit the party line).

I just hope that the 'norms' can somehow hold out enough to get a decisive win against the MAGA party next year but that's a long time and the republic is straining daily under the assaults of Trump and Co.

Trump pushing NATO into rearmament is far more to do with the Ukraine War and Trump's sheer existence as an avatar of an unreliable America than with any diplomatic effort; if it turns out he is a secret mastermind who pursued an anime heel turn for the purpose of uniting everyone against him - that old trope - then maybe we could give him some credit. It's also not 5% however, as 1.5% of the mutual understanding is allotted to general fiscal commitments that could be covered by most categories of existing government spending. As before, I don't believe even for a second that the US will ever even spend 2% of its GDP on military presence in Europe, in peacetime.

To the extent there was something accomplished in weakening Iran, and that the game was worth the candle in the long run, it was 99% Israeli direct action (though not 99% Israeli arms).

In terms of raw accomplishment, if Trump does succeed in breaking the military and the independent prerogatives of the individual states, and in fully severing the authority to issue new laws and appropriations from Congress, just by demanding that it be so through appeal to unlimited "Article 2" authority, or to his own body in the monarchical tradition, he will by definition be the most successful president in the history of the United States of America (which will, conveniently, also have concluded as a project at that time). We will see just how viscerally rotten the country really is, in comparing wherever Trump ends up with how easily or arduously foreign dictators were able to establish tyranny over their lesser countries. It would certainly be ironic if tyranny turned out to be easiest of all in the US.

But no one in the future would be able to say that the country wasn't actively debased and prepared for servitude over many years before Trump by malign elements.

The Bulwark has a post on this theme:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It’s been just two weeks since the president of the United States ordered a military occupation of the nation’s capital. I understand that it feels longer. But I want to highlight for you two things: (1) The pace at which we are moving, and (2) how Trump employs a mix of the ridiculous and the dangerous.

o August 11: Trump announces he is deploying National Guard troops to take over Washington, D.C.

o August 13: Trump declares that he has personally chosen the recipients of the Kennedy Center Honors for 2025.

o August 15: Trump greets Vladimir Putin in Alaska with a red carpet rolled out by kneeling American soldiers and literal applause.

o August 22: Trump announces that the U.S. government has taken a 10 percent ownership stake in Intel.

o August 24: Trump demands that the Baseball Hall of Fame admit Roger Clemens.

o August 25: Trump announces that he has removed Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

o August 26: Trump instructs Cracker Barrel to abandon its new company logo.

This is why you’re exhausted.

A few observations:

(1) Ridiculous but serious. Trump is in many ways a buffoon. So are many dictators.

o Vladimir Putin “discovering” ancient Greek urns while diving.

o Gaddafi maintaining an “Amazonian guard.”

o Jean-Bédel Bokassa declaring himself “emperor” of central Africa.

People who dismiss the danger of Trump and Trumpism because of his buffoonishness are either fools or accomplices.

(2) Omnipresence. Nothing happens in public life without Trump putting his stamp on it. Cooperstown? Cracker Barrel? The Kennedy Center Honors? Trump has a will to dominate them.

He is the living embodiment of the leviathan, the totalized state.

(3) All he does is win. That’s not literally true—Trump does take the occasional loss. But his overall batting average is remarkably high. He is more politically dominant today than he was at this point in 2017, even though he is a physically and mentally faltering (supposedly) lame duck.

How is this possible? Several reasons.

o He has learned to operate outside the world of legislation and purely through executive power.

o His second administration is staffed with button-men who are willing to do whatever he demands, regardless of legality.

o The private sector has accepted subservience.

o The Republican Congress has also completely submitted.

o To a large degree, so has the general public: Trump is significantly more popular today than he was on August 27, 2017.

On that last point, if you want to be truly depressed, look at these two graphs:

[graphs showing Trump’s approval rating trend is better now than it was at this point in 2017]

Those two charts tell the story of a populace coming to terms with authoritarianism.

In the early days of 2017, America experienced the shock of buyer’s remorse. People could not believe what their country had done. But as Trump’s term unfolded he became more popular, despite everything.

There were bumps—a million Americans died because of his handling of the pandemic; he attempted a coup. But each time his approval rebounded.

The clear lesson is that a consistent share of about 44 percent of Americans want this.

And [44 percent + dictatorial control of the government] should be enough to retain power for quite some time.

I realize the last two weeks have seemed interminable. But you haven’t seen anything yet. We’ve got three and a half years left under the best-case scenario.

In the worst case our present condition will persist indefinitely.

I keep saying this, but: Trump is not behaving like a man who intends to ever vacate the White House.

2. 44 Percent

One final thought:

Our impulse is to blame the victim. We come up with rationales for why we are in this spot.

It’s because of woke. Or because Democrats have done a bad job. Or because of inflation. Or because of media bubbles. Or Fox News. Or Facebook. Or because of Joe Biden. Or Hillary Clinton. Or trans people. Or because voters are low-information mouthbreathers.

The reason we reach for these causal theories is because we are desperate to find some button to push, some lever to pull, that will change our situation.

And because no one wants to grapple with the most obvious explanation: That we are here not by accident, or misunderstanding, but because 44 percent of America wants to be here.

Forty-four percent of America consistently returns to Trump and Trumpism. Isn’t it possible—isn’t it likely?—that they have done so again and again over the better part of a decade because they want to be right were we are? With an authoritarian strongman?

I realize this isn’t new ground for us and I’m not even sure what I want you to discuss today in the comments. Except maybe for this:

If it is the case that something like 44 percent—or even 40 percent; or 36 percent—of the country approves of where we are now, then is there any realistic prospect of returning to liberalism?

And if so, how would that work?

[spmetla]

An interesting story in light of Trump's unilateral executive claims to be able to issue new taxes on private businesses to the exclusion of Congress, or even to arbitrarily demand partial state ownership of large corporations such as Intel, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc... (we can also recall the rumors from 2018 that Trump was considering the nationalization of the American coal and steel industries). The story is that Kennedy is refloating the vaporware idea of the federal government removing choice from SNAP recipients and instead mailing them a government meal plan. This was discussed back in 2018 as well as a welfare-cutting measure, although with Kennedy's participation it is peculiarly rebranded as "MAHA boxes", a "wholesome" alternative to the typical diets of the poor.

This weird shift to quasi-State capitalism is going to ruin the US economy. I'm glad today's ruling on tariffs went the way it did, I just hope the Supreme Court doesn't cave to Trump again.
The RFK stuff is just bonkers. I'm totally on board with not over prescribing medications, with allowing Big Pharma to rob us citizens, and pushing for healthier food and healthier food standards However his MAHA approach is just his revenge against the established experts that did get on board with his loony train stuff.

Yes, this is a real Backroom throwback, if any of you still around remember.

While pointing out that the whole notion of the state replacing grocery and convenience stores on a national scale, out of a paternalistic disdain for the poor, was insultingly stupid on its face, I did reflect positively on the idea of the government making 'quality' meal plans available as an option to the general public.

Good throw back though and discussion, miss when we had that many contributors. Yeah, state provide meals instead of a purchase card makes no sense outside of things like schools, military, and jails.

Trump pushing NATO into rearmament is far more to do with the Ukraine War and Trump's sheer existence as an avatar of an unreliable America than with any diplomatic effort; if it turns out he is a secret mastermind who pursued an anime heel turn for the purpose of uniting everyone against him - that old trope - then maybe we could give him some credit. It's also not 5% however, as 1.5% of the mutual understanding is allotted to general fiscal commitments that could be covered by most categories of existing government spending. As before, I don't believe even for a second that the US will ever even spend 2% of its GDP on military presence in Europe, in peacetime.

I don't really credit trump for the 5% as if he was a great negotiator. One: I know that he just made up an insane number that was to be unattainable so he could rag on the Europeans for not pulling their weight. Two: I'm tracking that it allows for a lot of normal 'infrastructure' and so spending to count but it does set some requirements on actual military spending and not just peripheries. So like Germany's Rheinmetall building more ammo factories in Germany, Romania, and Spain counts towards it if using govt funds, just as Italy's Sicily-Calabria bridge counts too.
The rest of NATO really only agreed to a watered down 5% to seemingly plactate Trump and as you point out, in response to the ongoing war.

To the extent there was something accomplished in weakening Iran, and that the game was worth the candle in the long run, it was 99% Israeli direct action (though not 99% Israeli arms).

It was absolutely an Israeli success that Trump tagged along at the end to be a 'winner.' Only time will tell if the effort was worth it. I personally think that having done those strikes that he should have conducted follow-up strikes on the same facilities once the battle damage assessment was down and only then force the Iranians to the table. Though of course that might risk a wider regional war which would not be worth it so only time will tell what the best policy was.

But no one in the future would be able to say that the country wasn't actively debased and prepared for servitude over many years before Trump by malign elements.

Yup, agree whole heartedly. Especially the complete absence of Congress over the last few decades to reign in the executive branch. I think they find it easier to let one man take the credit and blame for most things which allows them to just rabble rouse and reap the financial rewards with minimum political risk.
Too many of our politicians refuse to lead and as such give more power to the executive as they can't lead or negotiate out of the current grid lock against any actual policies that make meaningful change. If the midterms down reverse the current climate then we really are on the road to autocracy without any brakes left.

[Montmorency]

It was absolutely an Israeli success that Trump tagged along at the end to be a 'winner.' Only time will tell if the effort was worth it. I personally think that having done those strikes that he should have conducted follow-up strikes on the same facilities once the battle damage assessment was down and only then force the Iranians to the table. Though of course that might risk a wider regional war which would not be worth it so only time will tell what the best policy was.

The Israelis pulled off some absolutely insane signals intelligence wins,repeatedly tracking and targeting the leaders of Hezbollah and Iran at will (see the latest reports on the latter, or the Yemeni PM attack). I'm not sure the CIA could do the same even if it tried. On the other hand, I also wonder if Israel/Mossad haven't been playing every card they have, to long-term cost, as a save-facing face-saving attempt to regain the untouchable aura they had before the Al-Aqsa Flood.

So like Germany's Rheinmetall building more ammo factories in Germany, Romania, and Spain counts towards it if using govt funds, just as Italy's Sicily-Calabria bridge counts too.

Regarding European arms industry, while there's a lot of EU funding behind such projects, that over the past 2 years the Ukrainians have - on Ukrainian territory - managed to establish domestic production of artillery and long-range drones at massive scale is transformative. The production of the 2S22 Bohdana (local 155mm platform), which was at a single unit in January 2023 and over 12/month for most of 2023 I meant to say 2024, is now at over 24/month, sufficient to unilaterally cover all attrition of foreign systems, and quite possibly a greater SPH production rate than the entire rest of the world combined (other than Russia and China). Including France, which not too long ago played the role of crucial supplier of new-built SPH (i.e. CAESAR). Meanwhile, Ukraine's long-range drone production was already in the hundreds monthly well over a year ago, and matches Russia technologically. With this year's serialization of the standard FP-1 drone, production of all LRA drones has reached the many thousands monthly (although of course Russia remains a step ahead in sheer scaling and in the newer jet-powered Gerans). Where it gets really unbelievable - as in, I won't believe it until I see it - is in the claims surrounding the mature FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile system. That's a traditional solid-fuel cruise missile, and Ukrainians are claiming a target for producing 300/month by the end of the year, which along with other systems would have Ukraine almost matching Russian cruise missile production. I don't think we've seen any evidence of that. If it proves actually true though, that Ukraine alone could produce more cruise missiles than the whole current US capacity while being under strategic bombing, that would be some cartoony .

And none of that takes into account the co-production projects, mostly around munitions and located in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, nurtured from early in the war onward.

The Ukraine War PLUS direct cooperation with the expansive Ukrainian arms industry has done more to revitalize the European industry and defense spending than any mere "pressure" from the US could. Why does that bear emphasis? Trump has always attacked our allies for the sake of doing so, because he resents them and the constraints and obligations they place on the US, as he has for his entire life. He does not believe friendship, cooperation, mutual benefit, or shared interests are anything more than a scam in "real life",so why wouldn't they be a scam in the diplomatic arena? Especially as knowledge, expertise, and careful thinking and discussion are for fags. On the other hand, I thus find myself agreeing with him that it would be entirely appropriate to reinstate the Defense Department's old name...

Yup, agree whole heartedly. Especially the complete absence of Congress over the last few decades to reign in the executive branch. I think they find it easier to let one man take the credit and blame for most things which allows them to just rabble rouse and reap the financial rewards with minimum political risk.
Too many of our politicians refuse to lead and as such give more power to the executive as they can't lead or negotiate out of the current grid lock against any actual policies that make meaningful change. If the midterms down reverse the current climate then we really are on the road to autocracy without any brakes left.

They say: ‘We don’t need him. Freedom, freedom, he’s a dictator, he’s a dictator. A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we like a dictator.’ I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator. I’m a man with great common sense and a smart person.

The presidentialization - i.e. el-presidente-alization, with Juan Linz in mind - of the United States is mostly a knock-on of all the other relevant processes, including the ones like foreign policy that feed back negative experiences to our narional character and provide the most practical impetus for the perpetuation of consolidated power. In simple words, so much had to 'go wrong' with the country for so many years. You know what I would have to say in this regard about the American media and the various parts of the public as contributing factors, so instead I will remind all of us again that the present problem we're commenting on isn't Trump in himself, since every nation has its degenerate would-be despots, but the long-term right-wing consensus about the implementation of hard-right control of all American politics and institutions. The upper echelons of the federal GOP could have prevented pretty much any of this at any time, especially the SCOTUS, who cave to nothing, but deliberately construct a spidweb of unexplained or unspecified quasi-precedent along which Trump and his capos can operate to reshape the law and government as they please (but would never be usable as such by a Dem president). The lower courts that consistently rule against Trump in part or in whole with 50 page decisions, and are almost always (petulantly) countermanded by the "Sinister Six" with 0-5 page decisions, usually not ruling on legality or constitutionality per se but in respect of Trump's "emergency" declarations, usally leaving little concrete precedent, guidance, or rubrics for lower courts to apply - those lower courts have been thrown into a state of chaos where in a real sense only a select few people in the country know what the law even is right now. To the extent we can speak of the existence of such a thing as Law. That chaos is good for Trump and the Republicans, but it is very good indeed for John Roberts, as he has nearly empowered himself to the status of a co-president, and his clique to the status of a privy council, so long as he doesn't truly offend his peers. He will be around after Trump, with at least as much power as he has now. At worst, what, he can't stop Trump from ousting Jerome Powell and fleetingly irritating the financiers?

For over 50 years the conservative movement coalesced, not unified but focused, around pushing just a few agenda items and narratives to the top of the party and the base, and they persisted through many years and billions of dollars until both were shaped well in their image. That's when Trump, correctly sniffing the ripeness of the moment with a feral perspicacity, offered himself up as the paragon who could manifest these now-irrepressible sentiments and goals. Meanwhile, the liberals had become small-c conservative stewards of a legacy New Deal system, and dutifully ignored constant Republican escalations (the 2000 election being the most profoundly serious milestone) out of a deeply-held commitment to comity; they lost the ability to offer big ideas over those 50 years, besides the promise of iterative, technocratic improvement across any number of fields to a "perfect" and stable system. Which would have been fine, enough, had they taken power seriously. Their lack of a reaction to constant, well-funded Republican rhetorical attacks, while that same system deteriorated over time and lost the confidence of much of the public in it being able to deliver a good life (also sharply accelerated by Republican actions), meant that the Democratic party was effectively left defenseless to the right's parallel project of discrediting that party among a critical mass of Americans. The end result is that 40% of Americans are probably ready to suffer anything at all if they think a liberal will suffer more, while much of the Democratic Party is at a loss as to what to even promise people in exchange for power, or how to convince them they deserve it (e.g. obviously it doesn't even make sense to offer something like Medicare coverage for nursing homes if Medicare no longer exists, or if many people refuse to believe that Democrats are pro-Medicare). And it still, collectively, doesn't really want to wield power. Notwithstanding that blue-state governors at least have the spine and sense of self-interest to not immediately surrender all their own prerogatives to a hostile federal government.

Even more fundamental than all that, animating the possibilities of all the history I laid out above and in other posts, is that the past is not even past: ideologies and psychologies that were temporarily suppressed, that had been with us since the beginning, never came close to disappearing. They have usually predominated in this country in fact, especially in the formats of Confederatism and Christian supremacism. It's not that there is no progress, but modernity was always also a chrome plating upon a writhing mass of 18th century hatefulness, superstitious ignorance, and the desperate need to be sold something. The Long March of the right was thus also just about tipping the balance back in the favor of these preexisting elements. But the retrograde character of so much of the public, we should have realized much earlier, was a too-tangible obstacle to really flourishing as an advanced civilization. It remains so, and it's always getting worse. This cultural, ideological, psychological substrate's metastatic condition supervenes on all our analysis and decision-making despite being a difficult thing to explain without extensive shared historical context...

But I do think the country remains on a downward trend in these respects for 10-20 years. Just as monarchism and theocracy, let alone autocracy, never even came close to disappearing during and through the golden age of post-war liberalism, liberalism in and outside the US will never be extinguished (in the current human format). What I'm looking for is for the Boomers currently in power to finally die off. That is, I can hardly envision what the politics of today's children will be - people who have no concept of the 20th century and its currents and perspectives and built-up legacies, and will therefore not be shackled thereto. Who will know nothing but 21st-century problems and discourses, and will exist fully within a pervasive digital environment. Will they redeem liberalism after the ruin of a MAGA age? I find it more likely that something completely new will emerge, good or bad, which I lack the knowledge or foresight to formulate.

[Montmorency]

To be clear, the purpose of invoking countless national emergency declarations, violating limitations on the federal military to impose military presence in targeted cities, and assassinating alleged criminals in international waters with naval assets - all illegal and despotic in themselves - is to build to the point where the president can openly wield the armed might of the US against its citizens at any time and under any pretext. Trump did, after all, warn us throughout his first term, and many times before, that he would like to have the military crack down domestically on everything from drug crime to political manifestations.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He would certainly toss "Posse Comitatus" in a hot minute if he thought he could get the votes. Trump is enthusiastically using every borderline interpretation, imposing his own definitions of what is right on anything not explicitly defined in the Constitution or law, using every picayune phrasing of any law while obviating the spirit of that law, and gaming every aspect of the system to supplant or sidestep the power of every other aspect of governance save the presidency. Even Lincoln did not executive power so cavalierly.

I am thankful only that the system is very probably robust enough -- and the 22nd Ammendment to the CofUSA clearly phrased enough -- that only an out and out coup will continue him in power past January 2029. While I think he IS doing what he can to allow for that potentiality, I still think it will fall short. Moreover, none of the would-be successors (Vance, DeSantis, Rubio, et al.) will be allowed to acquire the necessary adulation to continue this same sad vein of American politics -- I can thank Trump for his own Stalinesque narcissism for that. Since nothing matters to him but himself, I think the "apres moi, le deluge" tone will undercut much of the MAGA excresence. Sadly, it will persist on some levels for the rest of my life and not solely as a cautionary example. I actually think 2028 will be primed for an anti-MAGA reversal without the 'hero' himself in the lead role. Sadly, I cannot see a Dem leader, with the possible exception of Shapiro, who can both bring the Dems together and appeal to US moderates in broad numbers. This gives the MAGA crowd some hope of eking out a win for Vance or DeSantis or whoever, though I suspect without the clout that Trump wields.

Egads I hope so, anyway. The attempt at a coup would be bloody.

[Montmorency]

He would certainly toss "Posse Comitatus" in a hot minute if he thought he could get the votes. Trump is enthusiastically using every borderline interpretation, imposing his own definitions of what is right on anything not explicitly defined in the Constitution or law, using every picayune phrasing of any law while obviating the spirit of that law, and gaming every aspect of the system to supplant or sidestep the power of every other aspect of governance save the presidency. Even Lincoln did not executive power so cavalierly.

I am thankful only that the system is very probably robust enough -- and the 22nd Ammendment to the CofUSA clearly phrased enough -- that only an out and out coup will continue him in power past January 2029. While I think he IS doing what he can to allow for that potentiality, I still think it will fall short. Moreover, none of the would-be successors (Vance, DeSantis, Rubio, et al.) will be allowed to acquire the necessary adulation to continue this same sad vein of American politics -- I can thank Trump for his own Stalinesque narcissism for that. Since nothing matters to him but himself, I think the "apres moi, le deluge" tone will undercut much of the MAGA excresence. Sadly, it will persist on some levels for the rest of my life and not solely as a cautionary example. I actually think 2028 will be primed for an anti-MAGA reversal without the 'hero' himself in the lead role. Sadly, I cannot see a Dem leader, with the possible exception of Shapiro, who can both bring the Dems together and appeal to US moderates in broad numbers. This gives the MAGA crowd some hope of eking out a win for Vance or DeSantis or whoever, though I suspect without the clout that Trump wields.

Egads I hope so, anyway. The attempt at a coup would be bloody.

Many of Trump's actions rely on some form of (invalid) invocation of emergency or martial authority, sure, but the exercise of unitary executive theory goes beyond that, to the extent of allowing plenary rule by decree, which Trump has increasingly asserted. The issue is, the SCOTUS agrees with this. Black-letter law limiting Trump's authority has not been much relevant to them, as Congress is not permitted to limit the (Republican) POTUS. So the majority who all cut their teeth on Bush v. Gore (yes, all but Gorsuch!), that 2000 edict that 'Bush is president because fuck you, that's why', may well decide in 2028 that Donald Trump should be President for Life, 'because fuck you, that's why.' That is, on the conditions that Trump's approval remains in the mid-to-low 40s, and the opposition remains cowed and disorganized, we cannot rule out the possibility of a judicial 1/6 at all. Nor can we yet rule out a Trumpian best-case, in which he perfectly assumes the status of anti-Peisistratos and we see his sons carry on the tyrannical dynasty for some time after his death in office, whether or not to meet with a gloomier end than their figurative ancestors. So if reaching the staga coup in progress, I would expect a fait accompli with a decent amount of protest and bureaucratic resistance, but rather little violence, other than by security forces.

The Roberts Court is overtly devoted, as a matter of judicial and political philosophy, to supporting the policy agenda of Donald Trump. These are DISCRETIONARY rulings - the Court is ruling, repeatedly and usually without explanation, that EQUITY requires that Trump’s agenda advance.

It's not like if this plays out spmetla's going to ride into D.C. with a division behind him and declare that the "illegitimate" candidate Trump will be detained until the leading legitimate candidate, the Democrat, can be rightfully inaugurated. Or a coalition of blue-state governors will order a general strike and stoppage of interstate commerce until Trump surrenders.

By corollary, of course, whether or not it's Trump in charge of the GOP no longer matters too much... In the end, all warnings of the flaws and obsolescence of the US constitution have repeatedly proved clearsighted, and American presidentialism no less susceptible to corruption and capture by revisionist factions than the notorious Latin American presidentialism.

Leaving aside the mild-mannered and disparate nature of the Democratic coalition, the unavoidable reason they will not be able to rise to the occasion short of a future revolution is that the medium-term political demographics of the country preclude their achieving unified government in at least 90% of scenarios from 2028 on - for the foreseeable future. Even reaching 50 seats in the Senate has become a supreme challenge. And even should they come to control Congress and the presidency at some point, then, they would only do so with bare majorities, sufficient only to pass moderate budget or infrastructure bills (subject to confiscation or retraction by the next Republican in office) and a few "bipartisan" bills, which will do little to reverse American decline. Moreover, the fact of being locked out of the judicial regime as a matter of course (i.e. it wouldn't matter if 100% of federal judges were Dem appointees) leaves a Dem president an instant lame duck in the capacity of executive policy; nothing of Trump-era expansion will be allowed to rub off. And without a doubt, any Democrat elected president to fly solo would be so morbidly ineffectual as to kill one with grief.

What all that amounts to is persistent federal-Democratic paralysis and unpopularity as they are seen to be unable to right the sinking ship of state, by a median electorate persistently incapable of modeling causality at the level of a pigeon. This would hold whether the Dem electoral agenda were partial restoration of social-budget cuts, or thoroughgoing systemic change. The eventual turning point in that dialectic, likely amid the disasters of the mid-century, is unimaginable yet. The only alternative I can conceive would be a renaissance of blue state governance that serves as a basis for a popular vanguard against national conservatism - but it's not as though the Republicans would simply look away from a politically dangerous flouting of art. I, sec. 10, cl. 3.

One thing I am quite confident in assuring you of, however, is that Josh Shapiro will not figure prominently in any of these stories.


Since you mentioned Abraham Lincoln, here's a good op-ed: "They Don’t Want to Live in Lincoln’s America")

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although it has long since entered the pantheon of American rhetoric as one of our nation’s great orations, there was a time, however brief, when the Gettysburg Address had its critics.

The president’s funeral sermon, wrote an unnamed editorialist for The Chicago Times, “was a perversion of history so flagrant that the most extended charity cannot regard it as otherwise than willful.” The Gettysburg Address is famously succinct, less a speech — that honor went to the accomplished orator Edward Everett, whose two-hour disquisition was the main event — than a short set of remarks meant simply to commemorate the occasion.

What, then, was offensive to this irate commentator? The problem, he explained, was the premise.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers, brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” said President Lincoln. This, wrote the editorialist, was nonsense. Does the Constitution, he asked, quoting those parts that allude to slavery, “dedicate the nation ‘to the proposition that all men are created equal?’ ” No, he said, and moreover, “Mr. Lincoln occupies his present position by virtue of this constitution, and is sworn to the maintenance and enforcement of these provisions.”

Far from dying to consecrate a new birth of freedom, he wrote, “It was to uphold this constitution, and the Union created by it, that our soldiers gave their lives at Gettysburg.” Lincoln was wrong — very wrong. “How dared he, then, standing on their graves, misstate the cause for which they died, and libel the statesmen who founded the government? They were men possessing too much self-respect to declare that negroes were their equals, or were entitled to equal privileges.”

Abraham Lincoln imagined a nation dedicated to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the aims of the founders as he understood them. His critics, from Stephen Douglas to Roger Taney to the leaders of the Confederate rebellion, said no — ours was not a society of equals but one of rigid, permanent hierarchies. Ultimately, this contest of national identity was settled by force of arms. Lincoln’s vision, backed by what was, at the time, one of the largest and most diverse armies ever assembled on the North American continent, won the day. And his allies, charged after his martyrdom with the great work of reconstruction, wrote this vision into the Constitution with three amendments that aimed to realize the fullness of the Declaration.

To a great extent, then, we live in Lincoln’s America as much as anyone else’s. Which makes it supremely ironic that the project of Lincoln’s partisan political descendants — the project of the modern Republican Party — is the destruction of his republic of equals in favor of a so-called homeland for a select few.