Sure. Trump ‘probably’ won’t be too much of a threat. But that’s a big risk IMO. If there’s only a 5% chance he succeeds that’s still the worst internal threat American democracy has has in decades
Neither Party cares one whit about "democracy", they both push their own ideological agendas regardless of popular support.
And totalitarian Democrats are a much bigger threat to everyday life, IMO.
Example (just one of many I could cite): Biden's D.Ed and EEOC both recently issued rulings, with the force of law, that require boys and men to be admitted to any girls' and women's locker/changing/showering rooms at every school and every workplace in the country. This would never come close to passing a popular referendum, but the Democrats don't care. And this policy is backed by EVERY Democrat in Congress, all of whom have already voted for it to become federal law. The Republicans blocked the passage of that law (yay filibuster!), so the Democrats imposed it anyway via the autocratic bureaucracy.
Project 2025 and Schedule F firings can't happen soon enough, IMO.
For context, I am a registered Democrat and have been for 50 years.
If you mean people at large, yes. If you mean those holding elected office, no.
Those holding office are far more interested in pushing extreme policies, either because they are ideologues themselves, or because they fear their base more than they fear losing a general election.
Dissenters in both parties are primaried and removed. Republican examples are well known. On the Democratic side, the most recent victim is Shawn Nicole Thierry, Texas House, who voted to protect children against the barbaric quackery of pediatric sex-trait modification drugs and surgeries (see the Cass review out of the UK). The Democratic Party turned on her immediately, poured money into primary opponents, and she lost a runoff on May 28.
You are viewing "democracy" too narrowly, it's not just voting.
"Democracy" (as I'm sure you know) literally means "rule by the common people". In a true representative democracy, our representatives would care about majority opinion, especially when it's decisively on one side. But our representatives do not care, on issue after issue: gun control, abortion, sex-based rights, immigration. Each side pushes its own ideological extreme, as shown by the strict party-line votes on these issues and many others.
That ain't "democracy". It's two theocracies at war.
If you're a registered Democrat for 50 years and the mere existence of trans people as normal members of society has turned you into a deranged right wing bigot, that's basically who you were all along and we're better off without you.
I believe, and have always believed, that women (and men) have the right to single-sex spaces, places, events, and competitions. And I "follow the science" that sex in mammals is fixed at conception and cannot be changed later by any means whatsoever. So it's a simple story. Men who claim to be women are not women, and should not have the right to women's single-sex spaces etc. Sex cannot be changed, and I am under no obligation to validate the delusions of those who claim to believe otherwise.
But the very worst aspect of all this is the ongoing crime against humanity of attenpted pediatric sex-trait modification by drugs and surgery, and the removal in blue states of parental rights to prevent this being done to their kids. Multiple European countries with not-for-profit health-care systems have conducted systematic reviews of the available evidence, and all have concluded that attempts at pediatric sex-trait modification by drugs and surgery has no evidence base to recommend it, and that it should be halted. See the Cass review out of the UK for the latest and most comprehensive report. We are now learning that Johns Hopkins did multiple studies that came to the same conclusion, but that their results were suppressed by WPATH (which paid for them, but didn't like the results) and by Biden's assistant HHS secretary Levine. A state-of-Oregon study, which also came to the same conclusion, was also suppressed, as we learned just yesterday: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/07/progressives-drive-for-equity-is-leading-them-astray-on-medical-gender-transition-for-minors/
So yeah, I'm against mutilating and sterilizing kids. I'm against housing intact male rapists in women's prisons. I'm against allowing any boy who says "hey, right now I'm trans" to watch girls shower after gym class at school.
You are for all those things. Great, have a nice day.
At some level, it is nice to hear Mark's point of view - even if I find it absurd. BUT to be hammered by it 40 times in one thread is a bit painful. Especially if he is so terribly worried about the trans folks. I don't see Mark raving about all the unpunished pedophiles in the Catholic church, Southern Baptists, and Boy Scouts - who are a far far bigger threat to girls and boys than all the trans folks in the US many times over...
Fine to disagree - but try to worry about things that really have a large effect than cultural war junk.
It's hardly strange that Mark is not directing his concerns toward your preferred group of victims, since yours have the support of both parties.
This isn't a victimhood contest, but since you're interested in relative concern, it's notable that the victims that Mark is more concerned about is a larger group that is growing faster. More salient is that one party is wedded to growing the pool of victims of a runaway industry. While you paint Mark as a deranged bigot, he's with the majority, the normies that support both parties that have woken up and are starting to demand that some brakes get applied.
I'm replying to others. And don't give me your "whataboutism". Hundreds of kids (mostly gay and/or autistic) are mutilated in the US every year by quacks that have 100% support from MY PARTY, the Democrats. Thousands more are sterilized and desexed (chemical castration drugs, aka "puberty blockers", destroy adult sexual function), every year, year after year.
If you think that's not a "large effect", I don't know what to tell you.
The Democrats aren't the ones refusing to accept the legitimacy of any election they don't win and responding with violence when they lose, my man.
I do dearly hope that if Trump gets his wish and schedule F firings happen his cronies screw up the government services your old ass probably has no idea it depends on, because you deserve it.
Holy hell Noah, you're awfully cavalier towards those who will suffer at the entrenchment of right wing policies. Your heavy use of "probably" and "doubt" demonstrate a wild-ass lack of concern about the fallout currently underway. Maybe you'll escape the horrors but check in with the women in your world, just to name one group that are headed back to 1950. Or 1650 if the religious nuts have their way.
You aced your previous column about our tenuous grip on survival. This column is a flaming fail.
Look, I really don't like conservative policies toward abortion, etc. But if that is what people vote for, that is what they will get. I hope Americans care enough about that to vote out the people who made it happen.
You seem to have linked to a bunch of weird TERFs. I'm not sure these organizations would even define themselves in a partisan way. The WoLF opposes the ERA just to carve out the ability to discriminate against trans people. These people don't strike me as obvious Democrats.
Very simply put, the main correction to the constitution needed was the ERA. All people not all men. That’s it and we would have a whole new ballgame.
There is no reason in the world to empower the government whenever federal state or local to make decisions for any other persons body. If we cannot assure that amount of protection from government then I honestly don’t want whatever else that government has to offer.
No, I meant Democrats. Read Kara Dansky's books, the goodreads link above. She is a self-described left-wing radical feminist and lifelong Democrat. She also has a great substack, highly recommended:
I agree that "except abortion" is a BFD, and I understand people who come down on the side that the loss of abortion rights is more important that the loss of the rights to privacy and to free association. That, for example, incarcerated women forced to share their prison quarters with convicted male rapists is just not that much of a BFD, according to some. (This is policy in every blue state, passed into law with unanimous support of Democrats, see the Women's Liberation Front link I gave earlier.)
I don't understand your second sentence at all. Of course these feminists are not driving policy (in either party), but all women would be much better off if they were.
The Russia/China issue can be framed as autocracy versus democracy. That places Trump squarely on the side of Russia/China.
Why doesn't Russia just get along with Europe? I think it's Putin. I see no reason to believe there is any more to it. Maybe, you may know of thousands of Russians migrating to China. My take is they go west when they can.
While Russia is an autocracy, and Putin obviously calls the shots, he didn’t appear in a vacuum. Following the fall of the USSR, despite the propaganda and half truths of Putin apologists today, the West very much trying to bring Russia into the fold. Russia was let into the G8, despite being far from a developed major economy. It was declared the successor state to the USSR, and given the USSR’s seat on the UN Secret council. While this seems logical, there were (I believe) 17 newly independent countries that were technically co-equal parts of the Soviet Union. Why not just declare the USSR dead and cut the number of permanent members by 1? The West worked very closely with the now Russian security and scientific apparatus to secure the USSR’s nuclear arsenal, which was spread through the Soviet Empire and its satellite states. There was foreign investment, cultural initiatives, and close economic ties developed very fast. The West honestly believed Russia was on track to become a “normal country.”
While western liberals democracy and capitalism is objectively better on pretty much every metric, it depends on liberal ideas about the value of individuals, the role of the state, limits of state power, and the sources of political legitimacy. If you don’t really care that your society becomes wealthy and prosperous, or you care far more about maintaining power or something, liberal democracy isn’t that appealing. Based on their actions, many authoritarian clearly don’t care about that.
In both Germany and Japan, there was a concerted effort by the US and the Western allies to remake these societies. In the case of the French, following the revolution, there was over a century of conflict between monarchist, clerical, communist, socialist, and liberal forces, with periods including:
- 2 imperial periods, lead by Bonapartes.
-restoration of the Bourbons
-a constitutional monarchy
-multiple Republics
Political Catholicism and authoritarianism/monarchism remained a force in French political life until the 2nd World War utterly discredited them.
The Soviet Union was an illiberal society. Ideologically, it was economically communist, with a strong component of Russian chauvinism, especially with WWII. The values and ways of doing things don’t disappear overnight when the country collapsed.
On the issue NATO, which often comes up in such discussions: Yes, we expanded NATO, but in the 90s and early aughts, the US and Western Europe really weren’t all that concerned with Russian aggression, and there were talks (before Trump) about its continued usefulness. Macron once called it a “braindead” organization.
More importantly, NATO is a defensive alliance - if Poland decided to suddenly attack a peaceful Russia, the rest of the alliance is not required to join in! The rest of NATO didn’t begrudgingly join the US invasion of Iraq.
Every leader in a democracy can be replaced in elections. The U.S. also has term limits. Putin and Xi are leaders for life. Revolution is the only option for leadership change in Russia or China.
The Left is subverting democracy by crushing free speech wherever it can. You can't decide to throw the rascals out if you're not allowed to know what the rascals are doing. (Do I even have to mention the massive cover-up of Biden's mental state?) Still, the US is so far an outlier because of that pesky First Amendment, but to quote the SCOTUS Justice who doesn't know what a woman is, "My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways." We just need a Democrat POTUS to appoint a couple more Justices like she/her, and the First Amendment will no longer be "hamstringing the government" at all.
For all the reasons listed here, this is why it is essential for an American political movement to rise that is centered on building. There is latent demand for that type of movement.
Building.... what? Factories? Because we need those. Housing? That won't help anyone because housing prices are being artificially inflated, as the government is now investigating.
Our greatest strength is our unity, which Republicans have picked apart. To them there is one enemy: Democrats, and they would rather this country be defeated than for the Dems to win an election and get things done.
Our greatest strength is our unity, which Democrats have picked apart. To them there is one enemy: Republicans, and they would rather this country be defeated than for the GOP to win an election and get things done.
You folks won’t quit until you repeal the rest of the post-New Deal world and force women to live in some version of The Handmaid’s Tale. By keeping people from voting, you seek to perpetuate minority control far into the future.
And try to be a little more creative in your response.
Typical Republican: Say nothing new, flip words around. Make other people live with your decisions rather than allow them to make their own.
You do know that the economy does better when there’s a Democrat in the White House? And when the Democrats have also have the majority in Congress the economy is even better. The Republicans have shown themselves completely unable to govern and do things that improve people’s lives. Facts matter.
It's Democrats who are forcing women in prison to share cells with intact convicted male rapists. That's the reality of the Handmaid's Tale in today's world.
Read this if you have the stomach for it, from the Women's Liberation Front:
"rapes are indeed occurring within women’s custody facilities, committed by men who leveraged SB 132 to transfer in, despite having committed prior sexual assaults"
My day is dedicated to protecting women's rights, and to informing as many people as I can about the egregious violations of their rights that are going on in our country every day.
It's just fascinating to me that the person who gets all your sympathy is the convicted rapist who rapes again in prison. You have no sympathy at all for his victims. Solely because he claims to be "trans".
You're aware that there's no gatekeeping on that claim, right? That any convict who says he's trans gets put in the women's prison, solely on his say-so? Because that is the law in every blue state.
Fuck that law. It's created a horror show. Time to remove from power the Democrats who say it's FINE, actually.
Your source for the proposition "The recent SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity was probably not a radical departure from what existed before, and I’d be surprised if SCOTUS actually allows the President to become an elected dictator" is entirely unconvincing. His feed, while loudly proclaiming that he is "not a member of any tribe" is full of snark against Democrats. Why should we prefer his ungrounded assertions over Sotomayor's dissent.
Since there was nothing that existed before (no legal interpretation on this point at all), pretty much anything the Court did could be considered a radical departure. However, declaring that the president has legal immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial ones, and leaving it to lower courts to flesh that out doesn't seem particularly radical.
It's basically the same standard that's applied to other officeholders. Congresscritters have legal immunity for official acts: one who voted for the Use of Force Authorization in 2001 can't be prosecuted for the resulting deaths or property damage in the Middle East; a vote outlawing prostitution doesn't make a Congresscritter personally liable to Mustang Ranch for damages. Judges have the same immunity A judge who sentences someone to prison who later turns out to be innocent can't be tried for false imprisonment or kidnapping. However... none of those rules stop judges and Congresscritters from being prosecuted for truly personal behavior. I can't really see how this ruling regarding the President is any different.
More importantly, no immunity would have hamstrung every president and incentivized every future holder of the office to go after his predecessor; while blanket immunity would have made legal accountability impossible. Either of those would have been far worse.
I don't think sharing a court document with your brother to get him out of a jam in his job qualifies as an official act of a judge. Bribery certainly doesn't qualify as an official act of a Congresscritter.
I think you're misunderstanding the limits of "official acts". The SCOTUS decision is actually pretty narrow. Core Constitutional acts have blanket immunity. Other official acts have presumptive immunity that can be challenged. Personal acts (which both of your examples clearly are) have no immunity. All those terms will have to be fleshed out in more detail by lower courts, but the idea that this is somehow a broad and radical ruling that will empower the President to run rogue is pretty hard to square with the actual text of the ruling.
However, SCOTUS ruled that if the President pardons someone, that is an official act for which he is immune from prosecution, and the pardonee can subsequently give POTUS a million dollar gratuity or a $1,000,000 campaign contribution and POTUS is immune from prosecution. Also, if POTUS authorizes Seal Team 6 to assassinate a "security threat" who happens to be his political rival, he is immune from prosecution for that as well. He is also immune if he pardons the assassin. If Trump is re-elected, I very much expect he will go rogue, and his cult members will be delighted if he does.
"Also, if POTUS authorizes Seal Team 6 to assassinate a "security threat" who happens to be his political rival, he is immune from prosecution for that as well."
I actually made exactly this point on Alan Derschowitz's substack today. And I think you're correct. The combination of the President having the authority to designate someone a terrorist and to wage war against terrorists creates this problem. I think it was Obama who explicitly assassinated a US citizen in Yemen, and caused the deaths of 3 others unintentionally.
This goes with the territory of being President though, and it's why voters should be careful who they elevate and Congress should be prepared to impeach if need be. But if SCOTUS had returned a even more narrow "limited immunity" ruling for official acts, it is entirely plausible that Obama could be prosecuted for Anwar al-Aulaqi's (the SU citizen he targeted) death or George W Bush could be charged with murder for his actions in Iraq.
The "taking a bribe for a pardon" question isn't one I'm confident to opine on. In general, personal financial remuneration for an official act is is illegal. However... proving it is often hard, and the line between campaign contribution and bribe is pretty nebulous.
I can give you an example... 30 years ago I was managing an CA Assembly candidate's re-election campaign. I was with him at a public event talking to an attendee (who was a registered lobbyist) about a piece of pending legislation. The conversation went on for several minutes and finally, when the two of them were done, the attendee asked my Member (I'll call him John) to turn around. John was kind of surprised, but the guy insisted, "just turn around for me." So John did. As he turned back toward the attendee, the guy said, "Mr. Assemblyman, it's great to see you again. I'd like to talk to you about making a donation to your campaign." I couldn't believe it; it was so transparent. John was appalled. He asked me about it later and we agreed it left a really bad taste in both our mouths, so we returned the guy's check. However... even that probably wasn't technically illegal.
So a large campaign contribution given AFTER the donor was pardoned? Probably technically legal in any case but I'm not sure.
You have to be dreaming if you think Congress will be able to impeach a President any time in the next 50 years (if ever). And that doesn't assume that an official act is to remove some of Congress from office for unspecified (or made up) crimes - we have seen this around the world in almost all authoritarian regimes.
The Court could have refused to hear this at all until the case was tried - or acted 6 months earlier - or kept the ruling very narrow - they didn't do any of those. This was a very broad ruling - including even what Coney-Barratt couldn't stomach about "evidence" being used in clearly private acts....
And yes, by all means, we should prosecute any President who takes an illegal act - the Imperial Presidency is bad enough even before this ruling
Regarding Obama’s ordering a hit on a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism abroad, I think there’s an argument as to whether it was legal or not. Where there’s no argument, however, is that Trump’s crimes are all self serving in some way and should be prosecutable.
Noah, you’ve referenced a need for “austerity” in both this essay and in past ones as critical to coming to terms with our debt and our habitual deficits. But if you’ve written a post on just exactly what such austerity would look like in our society, I seem to have missed it. Who will make the sacrifices? How will they be shared? What impact will your version of austerity (or for that matter, our growing debt) have on our ability to confront our enemies and fight a war? What level of currency inflation will our society tolerate? And there are many, many more questions that can be asked about how we rebalance government revenues and expenditures? So whaddya say? Get on with it, please! I’m anxiously awaiting your thoughts.
Noah missed where Donald wants to repeal all income taxes and replace them with tariffs or the part where he wants to assume more control over the Fed Or the part where he wants to lower taxes for corporations even more or where he wants to retain all of his - very costly - tax cuts that are set to expire next year when making his *Trump won’t be so bad* calculations. I am not sure how any of these things will not hurt this country. And I don’t understand how this can’t be taken seriously when it comes from Donald’s own mouth hole. The Dems at least have a plan that won’t send the economy into a tailspin.
Trump is, if not in fact, then in deed, a Russian Intelligence thrall. Which makes it highly unlikely he'd defend Taiwan from China. This, assuming a bipartisan coalition of Natsec hawks in Congress don't override him to DOW China/Russia.
But even an unresisted "peaceful" takeover of Taiwan--as the result of an extended blockade intended to force their capitulation--would only temporarily appease Xi, and would gather the storm clouds of a new world war just as surely as did the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in '38. Ditching Taiwan, and/or letting the Philippines be humiliated would also possibly fatally strain our current alliances, and certainly destroy our chances of allying India and Vietnam who are absolute must-haves for a peaceful non-war China containment policy.
Whether Trump is actually FSB or just a useful idiot, I do not see a Trump2 Admin capable of wooing India & Vietnam into alliance; the arguably irreplaceable part of a China containment. Trump2 is also likely to see. if not the exit of the US from NATO, then it's deterioration.
But ditching Taiwan in '27 could buy us a few months--or even years--to more strenuously beef up in preparation. Thus, the real strategic question regarding Taiwan: Should we go to war in '27 or thereabouts to defend Taiwan; or surrender Taiwan and get a slightly longer reprieve?
Meanwhile Trump2 will bully the Fed into cutting rates--which will cause the economy to boom. Which will also strongly boost the GOP in general and Trump's popularity in particular--and increase his leverage over the Supremes to "reinterpret" POTUS term-limits. And all without significantly boosting inflation, as Macroeconomists who predict otherwise are more akin to blind tea-leaf readers than practitioners of an actual science. Microeconomics = science. Macroeconomics = opinion.
If he's indeed Putin's thrall--as most non-ideologues on the Hill seem to believe--then he'll be *instructed* to abandon Taiwan. Putin will then inform Xi, who will then refrain from a pre-emptive strike on our Pacific Theatre assets, as a major victory without bloodshed has so many pluses.
Personally, I think it strategically best to not back down over Taiwan in '27. As long as Taiwan can hold out, the PLA will be constrained in other theatres and sub-theatres (like S. Korea).
Firstly, Putin didn't "invade" Ukraine in 2014, he "liberated" only Crimea; while Russian "freedom fighters" (Spetznatz with unit insignia removed) began a war of "liberating" the western Donbas region. Despite losing less than 10% of their territory, the ongoing low-grade war galvanized Ukrainian identity and nationalism, and accelerated a process of military and economic integration with the West.
Putin, through FSB/GRU influence campaigns had already supported Trump in his victorious bid against Clinton in '16; and had done the same for Trump in '20. No doubt Trump's loss to Biden, and the hardening Western opposition to Russia's ongoing efforts in the Donbas spurred Putin to destroy Ukraine once and for all. Trump, through direct influence with Speaker Johnson, prevented a floor vote on $60bn in crucial military aid to Ukraine for six months 2023-24, possibly fatally weakening their war effort. He's repeatedly promised to "end the Ukraine war on Day One", presumably by forcing Ukraine to accept substantial loss of territory.
If you want a more thorough explanation of why Trump is almost certainly an FSB/GRU asset--as opposed to just a pro-Russian "useful idiot"--you have but to ask.
Yeah, he was tough on China, up until Russia became a fully integrated vassal of Xi's. Then he did a 180' on Tik Tok.
There have been quite a few cogent analyses since '16 on the case for DJT as a Russian spy. Read up a bit on the topic and decide for yourself, as the weight of evidence is pretty damning.
Thomas and Alito are the only Supreme Court justices who might allow Trump to become a dictator. Amy Coney Barrett is very conservative but a decent person. Roberts is not extreme, and Brett Kavanaugh usually agrees with Roberts.
If there were five justices like Thomas and Alito, I wouldn't rule out any scenario, no matter how unlikely. Thomas's wife was involved in the 2000 election challenge.
If Trump wins, Ukraine gets thrown under the bus, which will endanger NATO and embolden China. Given your concern over Cold War 2 / Hot World War 3, I don't see how you can be so sanguine about Trump prevailing.
Partisan piece. The Democrats have only themselves to blame. Riots, tax give aways -Salt, loan forgiveness , debt, subsidies to cronies, excessive Covid handouts, open borders, Afghan chaos, wars, bureaucratic partisanship , inflation, a poor managerial class, culture wars, a broken health care system , etc. etc etc. The Democrats created Trump. They got what they deserve.
Unfortunately that Twitter thread, regarding the immunity decision, is both incomplete and incorrect in ways that undermine the authors smug dismissal of concerns. Here's a more thorough explanation of the law.
With all due respect from someone who almost always agrees with you about substantive policy, I think you are far too casual about the hugely destructive effect of the disruption of established political norms and the casual indifference of the Trumpist Supreme Court to overturning precedents which have provided the framework of rights and modern government for decades. The people who want to obviate every reform since the Pendleton Act and reverse every minority-protective and federal-power-enhancing Supreme Court decision since West Coast Hotel are doing violence to the concept of the United States as an evolved democratic republic. There really were social ills that were being addressed by those earlier measures, and led to their adoption. Many of us have grown up with the belief that progress builds on prior reform, albeit with the occasional Schlesingerian cycle of go-slow conservatism to let the country catch its breath briefly. It is very very dispiriting that we now seem to be a polity half of which is going to have to re-learn the lessons of Charles Guiteau, adulterated medicines, robber-baron power, discrimination, contraception and the Comstock Act, the Great Depression, back-alley abortions, impure air and water, and the like, before there is a consensus to turn again to reform. Two steps forward, one step back - that's life. One step forward, four steps back, exploiting ethno-nationalist grievances in order to get governance which indulges a bunch of radical-right hobbyhorses that we though died out with the Depression and World War II - that's actually terrifying. I think you are really really underestimating the corrosive impact of another Trump term (even acknowledging that his worst mischief, the Trumpist Supreme Court, is in place and likely to be a temple of reaction and integralist meanness for thirty or forty years). You make the generally fair point that the polity pretty much gets what it wants. If true now, that is hugely dispiriting. It would be great to get your further thoughts on what, in an era of generally unparalleled affluence, has brought half the American polity to this sad state.
If by that half, you mean down-and-out poor people, then by and large, they don't really appear to be the part of the polity that drives Trumpism. It's the car dealers, heartland franchise operators, successful local mini-chain owners and multi-van building contractors who comprise the backbone of MAGA, with people in income deciles three, four and five living inside the Fox media bubble who seem to be filling up the ranks. Not sure I'd say that someone on an income within 20% of the national median in a low-cost red-state area has entirely missed out on the era of affluence, even if they haven't been at the heart of it. The foregoing is a gross generalization but also has a non-trivial degree of descriptive accuracy, if not explanatory power.
This seems like your most naieve take yet, and considering the built in caveats, it feels like maybe you think so too. I hope you're right, but I doubt the anger of the American people of addressing some of these issues will subside without a reasonable way out, and fascists just can't help themselves. The history of fascist movements is they generally only one thing. But at least we can avoid the worst dangers of climate change here in the U.S. for the next couple of decades
Yeah but the history of America is littered with people saying that the next President is going to be a dictator and a tyrant and destroy democracy. Never happened yet.
Lincoln literally fought a war against half the country, and FDR barely averted first the collapse of the USA and then the actual collapse of the global order. Under such circumstances enforcing marshall law on several states, appointing 8/9 supreme court justices and violating norms by running for a third term have a lot more context. Given the comparably benign 2010s/2020s a president / candidate desiring similarly autocratic powers is deeply troubling.
Sure. Trump ‘probably’ won’t be too much of a threat. But that’s a big risk IMO. If there’s only a 5% chance he succeeds that’s still the worst internal threat American democracy has has in decades
Yes.
Neither Party cares one whit about "democracy", they both push their own ideological agendas regardless of popular support.
And totalitarian Democrats are a much bigger threat to everyday life, IMO.
Example (just one of many I could cite): Biden's D.Ed and EEOC both recently issued rulings, with the force of law, that require boys and men to be admitted to any girls' and women's locker/changing/showering rooms at every school and every workplace in the country. This would never come close to passing a popular referendum, but the Democrats don't care. And this policy is backed by EVERY Democrat in Congress, all of whom have already voted for it to become federal law. The Republicans blocked the passage of that law (yay filibuster!), so the Democrats imposed it anyway via the autocratic bureaucracy.
Project 2025 and Schedule F firings can't happen soon enough, IMO.
For context, I am a registered Democrat and have been for 50 years.
I think most people in both parties care about democracy.
If you mean people at large, yes. If you mean those holding elected office, no.
Those holding office are far more interested in pushing extreme policies, either because they are ideologues themselves, or because they fear their base more than they fear losing a general election.
Dissenters in both parties are primaried and removed. Republican examples are well known. On the Democratic side, the most recent victim is Shawn Nicole Thierry, Texas House, who voted to protect children against the barbaric quackery of pediatric sex-trait modification drugs and surgeries (see the Cass review out of the UK). The Democratic Party turned on her immediately, poured money into primary opponents, and she lost a runoff on May 28.
I think most people holding elected office care about democracy. The Electoral Count Act reform is one indication of that.
You are viewing "democracy" too narrowly, it's not just voting.
"Democracy" (as I'm sure you know) literally means "rule by the common people". In a true representative democracy, our representatives would care about majority opinion, especially when it's decisively on one side. But our representatives do not care, on issue after issue: gun control, abortion, sex-based rights, immigration. Each side pushes its own ideological extreme, as shown by the strict party-line votes on these issues and many others.
That ain't "democracy". It's two theocracies at war.
If you're a registered Democrat for 50 years and the mere existence of trans people as normal members of society has turned you into a deranged right wing bigot, that's basically who you were all along and we're better off without you.
I believe, and have always believed, that women (and men) have the right to single-sex spaces, places, events, and competitions. And I "follow the science" that sex in mammals is fixed at conception and cannot be changed later by any means whatsoever. So it's a simple story. Men who claim to be women are not women, and should not have the right to women's single-sex spaces etc. Sex cannot be changed, and I am under no obligation to validate the delusions of those who claim to believe otherwise.
But the very worst aspect of all this is the ongoing crime against humanity of attenpted pediatric sex-trait modification by drugs and surgery, and the removal in blue states of parental rights to prevent this being done to their kids. Multiple European countries with not-for-profit health-care systems have conducted systematic reviews of the available evidence, and all have concluded that attempts at pediatric sex-trait modification by drugs and surgery has no evidence base to recommend it, and that it should be halted. See the Cass review out of the UK for the latest and most comprehensive report. We are now learning that Johns Hopkins did multiple studies that came to the same conclusion, but that their results were suppressed by WPATH (which paid for them, but didn't like the results) and by Biden's assistant HHS secretary Levine. A state-of-Oregon study, which also came to the same conclusion, was also suppressed, as we learned just yesterday: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/07/progressives-drive-for-equity-is-leading-them-astray-on-medical-gender-transition-for-minors/
So yeah, I'm against mutilating and sterilizing kids. I'm against housing intact male rapists in women's prisons. I'm against allowing any boy who says "hey, right now I'm trans" to watch girls shower after gym class at school.
You are for all those things. Great, have a nice day.
At some level, it is nice to hear Mark's point of view - even if I find it absurd. BUT to be hammered by it 40 times in one thread is a bit painful. Especially if he is so terribly worried about the trans folks. I don't see Mark raving about all the unpunished pedophiles in the Catholic church, Southern Baptists, and Boy Scouts - who are a far far bigger threat to girls and boys than all the trans folks in the US many times over...
Fine to disagree - but try to worry about things that really have a large effect than cultural war junk.
I read one reply of his and immediately blocked him. I haven't the patience for such people.
It's hardly strange that Mark is not directing his concerns toward your preferred group of victims, since yours have the support of both parties.
This isn't a victimhood contest, but since you're interested in relative concern, it's notable that the victims that Mark is more concerned about is a larger group that is growing faster. More salient is that one party is wedded to growing the pool of victims of a runaway industry. While you paint Mark as a deranged bigot, he's with the majority, the normies that support both parties that have woken up and are starting to demand that some brakes get applied.
I'm replying to others. And don't give me your "whataboutism". Hundreds of kids (mostly gay and/or autistic) are mutilated in the US every year by quacks that have 100% support from MY PARTY, the Democrats. Thousands more are sterilized and desexed (chemical castration drugs, aka "puberty blockers", destroy adult sexual function), every year, year after year.
If you think that's not a "large effect", I don't know what to tell you.
What absolute hogwash.
The Democrats aren't the ones refusing to accept the legitimacy of any election they don't win and responding with violence when they lose, my man.
I do dearly hope that if Trump gets his wish and schedule F firings happen his cronies screw up the government services your old ass probably has no idea it depends on, because you deserve it.
Holy hell Noah, you're awfully cavalier towards those who will suffer at the entrenchment of right wing policies. Your heavy use of "probably" and "doubt" demonstrate a wild-ass lack of concern about the fallout currently underway. Maybe you'll escape the horrors but check in with the women in your world, just to name one group that are headed back to 1950. Or 1650 if the religious nuts have their way.
You aced your previous column about our tenuous grip on survival. This column is a flaming fail.
Look, I really don't like conservative policies toward abortion, etc. But if that is what people vote for, that is what they will get. I hope Americans care enough about that to vote out the people who made it happen.
The Democrats are crushing the right of women to privacy, security, and free association:
https://womensliberationfront.org/news
https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/21990140.Kara_Dansky
You seem to have linked to a bunch of weird TERFs. I'm not sure these organizations would even define themselves in a partisan way. The WoLF opposes the ERA just to carve out the ability to discriminate against trans people. These people don't strike me as obvious Democrats.
I’m thinking you meant to say Republicans
Very simply put, the main correction to the constitution needed was the ERA. All people not all men. That’s it and we would have a whole new ballgame.
There is no reason in the world to empower the government whenever federal state or local to make decisions for any other persons body. If we cannot assure that amount of protection from government then I honestly don’t want whatever else that government has to offer.
No, I meant Democrats. Read Kara Dansky's books, the goodreads link above. She is a self-described left-wing radical feminist and lifelong Democrat. She also has a great substack, highly recommended:
https://karadansky.substack.com
And life under Republicans will be so much better.
For women, it actually would be, on everything except abortion. Check the links, which are to left-wing radical feminists. Here are some more:
https://womensdeclarationusa.com
https://www.iwv.org
https://womensbillofrights.com
Two points: "Except abortion" is a BFD and undermines women every day. The feminists you cite are not driving policy in the WH or Congress.
I agree that "except abortion" is a BFD, and I understand people who come down on the side that the loss of abortion rights is more important that the loss of the rights to privacy and to free association. That, for example, incarcerated women forced to share their prison quarters with convicted male rapists is just not that much of a BFD, according to some. (This is policy in every blue state, passed into law with unanimous support of Democrats, see the Women's Liberation Front link I gave earlier.)
I don't understand your second sentence at all. Of course these feminists are not driving policy (in either party), but all women would be much better off if they were.
The Russia/China issue can be framed as autocracy versus democracy. That places Trump squarely on the side of Russia/China.
Why doesn't Russia just get along with Europe? I think it's Putin. I see no reason to believe there is any more to it. Maybe, you may know of thousands of Russians migrating to China. My take is they go west when they can.
While Russia is an autocracy, and Putin obviously calls the shots, he didn’t appear in a vacuum. Following the fall of the USSR, despite the propaganda and half truths of Putin apologists today, the West very much trying to bring Russia into the fold. Russia was let into the G8, despite being far from a developed major economy. It was declared the successor state to the USSR, and given the USSR’s seat on the UN Secret council. While this seems logical, there were (I believe) 17 newly independent countries that were technically co-equal parts of the Soviet Union. Why not just declare the USSR dead and cut the number of permanent members by 1? The West worked very closely with the now Russian security and scientific apparatus to secure the USSR’s nuclear arsenal, which was spread through the Soviet Empire and its satellite states. There was foreign investment, cultural initiatives, and close economic ties developed very fast. The West honestly believed Russia was on track to become a “normal country.”
While western liberals democracy and capitalism is objectively better on pretty much every metric, it depends on liberal ideas about the value of individuals, the role of the state, limits of state power, and the sources of political legitimacy. If you don’t really care that your society becomes wealthy and prosperous, or you care far more about maintaining power or something, liberal democracy isn’t that appealing. Based on their actions, many authoritarian clearly don’t care about that.
In both Germany and Japan, there was a concerted effort by the US and the Western allies to remake these societies. In the case of the French, following the revolution, there was over a century of conflict between monarchist, clerical, communist, socialist, and liberal forces, with periods including:
- 2 imperial periods, lead by Bonapartes.
-restoration of the Bourbons
-a constitutional monarchy
-multiple Republics
Political Catholicism and authoritarianism/monarchism remained a force in French political life until the 2nd World War utterly discredited them.
The Soviet Union was an illiberal society. Ideologically, it was economically communist, with a strong component of Russian chauvinism, especially with WWII. The values and ways of doing things don’t disappear overnight when the country collapsed.
On the issue NATO, which often comes up in such discussions: Yes, we expanded NATO, but in the 90s and early aughts, the US and Western Europe really weren’t all that concerned with Russian aggression, and there were talks (before Trump) about its continued usefulness. Macron once called it a “braindead” organization.
More importantly, NATO is a defensive alliance - if Poland decided to suddenly attack a peaceful Russia, the rest of the alliance is not required to join in! The rest of NATO didn’t begrudgingly join the US invasion of Iraq.
"The Russia/China issue can be framed as autocracy versus democracy."
LOL, no!
Look at what's happening in other "democracies", such as the Online Harms Act in Canada and the Hate Speech law in Scotland.
It's totalitarians vs totalitarians all the way down.
That's idiotic nonsense.
Every leader in a democracy can be replaced in elections. The U.S. also has term limits. Putin and Xi are leaders for life. Revolution is the only option for leadership change in Russia or China.
The Left is subverting democracy by crushing free speech wherever it can. You can't decide to throw the rascals out if you're not allowed to know what the rascals are doing. (Do I even have to mention the massive cover-up of Biden's mental state?) Still, the US is so far an outlier because of that pesky First Amendment, but to quote the SCOTUS Justice who doesn't know what a woman is, "My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways." We just need a Democrat POTUS to appoint a couple more Justices like she/her, and the First Amendment will no longer be "hamstringing the government" at all.
Once again, you make no sense.
Try this:
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence
How funny. The "elites" in the article are exactly who you blindly support.
The Supreme Court just made Presidents above the law, i.e. more "elite."
An "elite" gives Trump $50M and you're fine with it. Saudi Arabia gives $2B to the son-in-law and you're fine with it. Right?
Trump gives a massive tax cut to rich "elites" and you're fine with it. Right?
For all the reasons listed here, this is why it is essential for an American political movement to rise that is centered on building. There is latent demand for that type of movement.
Building.... what? Factories? Because we need those. Housing? That won't help anyone because housing prices are being artificially inflated, as the government is now investigating.
Our greatest strength is our unity, which Republicans have picked apart. To them there is one enemy: Democrats, and they would rather this country be defeated than for the Dems to win an election and get things done.
Our greatest strength is our unity, which Democrats have picked apart. To them there is one enemy: Republicans, and they would rather this country be defeated than for the GOP to win an election and get things done.
Take a hike, Republican.
You folks won’t quit until you repeal the rest of the post-New Deal world and force women to live in some version of The Handmaid’s Tale. By keeping people from voting, you seek to perpetuate minority control far into the future.
And try to be a little more creative in your response.
Typical Republican: Say nothing new, flip words around. Make other people live with your decisions rather than allow them to make their own.
You do know that the economy does better when there’s a Democrat in the White House? And when the Democrats have also have the majority in Congress the economy is even better. The Republicans have shown themselves completely unable to govern and do things that improve people’s lives. Facts matter.
It's Democrats who are forcing women in prison to share cells with intact convicted male rapists. That's the reality of the Handmaid's Tale in today's world.
Read this if you have the stomach for it, from the Women's Liberation Front:
"rapes are indeed occurring within women’s custody facilities, committed by men who leveraged SB 132 to transfer in, despite having committed prior sexual assaults"
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/the-fight-is-not-over-next-steps-in-chandler-v-cdcr
Is your day dedicated to writing anti-trans comments on the internet? We see you. You can stop now.
My day is dedicated to protecting women's rights, and to informing as many people as I can about the egregious violations of their rights that are going on in our country every day.
It's just fascinating to me that the person who gets all your sympathy is the convicted rapist who rapes again in prison. You have no sympathy at all for his victims. Solely because he claims to be "trans".
You're aware that there's no gatekeeping on that claim, right? That any convict who says he's trans gets put in the women's prison, solely on his say-so? Because that is the law in every blue state.
Fuck that law. It's created a horror show. Time to remove from power the Democrats who say it's FINE, actually.
Your source for the proposition "The recent SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity was probably not a radical departure from what existed before, and I’d be surprised if SCOTUS actually allows the President to become an elected dictator" is entirely unconvincing. His feed, while loudly proclaiming that he is "not a member of any tribe" is full of snark against Democrats. Why should we prefer his ungrounded assertions over Sotomayor's dissent.
Since there was nothing that existed before (no legal interpretation on this point at all), pretty much anything the Court did could be considered a radical departure. However, declaring that the president has legal immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial ones, and leaving it to lower courts to flesh that out doesn't seem particularly radical.
It's basically the same standard that's applied to other officeholders. Congresscritters have legal immunity for official acts: one who voted for the Use of Force Authorization in 2001 can't be prosecuted for the resulting deaths or property damage in the Middle East; a vote outlawing prostitution doesn't make a Congresscritter personally liable to Mustang Ranch for damages. Judges have the same immunity A judge who sentences someone to prison who later turns out to be innocent can't be tried for false imprisonment or kidnapping. However... none of those rules stop judges and Congresscritters from being prosecuted for truly personal behavior. I can't really see how this ruling regarding the President is any different.
More importantly, no immunity would have hamstrung every president and incentivized every future holder of the office to go after his predecessor; while blanket immunity would have made legal accountability impossible. Either of those would have been far worse.
This is totally wrong. Judges can be and have been convicted of crimes relating to their official conduct
https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-dragged-courtroom-month-jail-sentence/story?id=64507658
And plenty of prominent cases involving Congresscritters, going on right now
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/22/politics/bob-menendez-charges/index.html
I don't think sharing a court document with your brother to get him out of a jam in his job qualifies as an official act of a judge. Bribery certainly doesn't qualify as an official act of a Congresscritter.
I think you're misunderstanding the limits of "official acts". The SCOTUS decision is actually pretty narrow. Core Constitutional acts have blanket immunity. Other official acts have presumptive immunity that can be challenged. Personal acts (which both of your examples clearly are) have no immunity. All those terms will have to be fleshed out in more detail by lower courts, but the idea that this is somehow a broad and radical ruling that will empower the President to run rogue is pretty hard to square with the actual text of the ruling.
However, SCOTUS ruled that if the President pardons someone, that is an official act for which he is immune from prosecution, and the pardonee can subsequently give POTUS a million dollar gratuity or a $1,000,000 campaign contribution and POTUS is immune from prosecution. Also, if POTUS authorizes Seal Team 6 to assassinate a "security threat" who happens to be his political rival, he is immune from prosecution for that as well. He is also immune if he pardons the assassin. If Trump is re-elected, I very much expect he will go rogue, and his cult members will be delighted if he does.
"Also, if POTUS authorizes Seal Team 6 to assassinate a "security threat" who happens to be his political rival, he is immune from prosecution for that as well."
I actually made exactly this point on Alan Derschowitz's substack today. And I think you're correct. The combination of the President having the authority to designate someone a terrorist and to wage war against terrorists creates this problem. I think it was Obama who explicitly assassinated a US citizen in Yemen, and caused the deaths of 3 others unintentionally.
This goes with the territory of being President though, and it's why voters should be careful who they elevate and Congress should be prepared to impeach if need be. But if SCOTUS had returned a even more narrow "limited immunity" ruling for official acts, it is entirely plausible that Obama could be prosecuted for Anwar al-Aulaqi's (the SU citizen he targeted) death or George W Bush could be charged with murder for his actions in Iraq.
The "taking a bribe for a pardon" question isn't one I'm confident to opine on. In general, personal financial remuneration for an official act is is illegal. However... proving it is often hard, and the line between campaign contribution and bribe is pretty nebulous.
I can give you an example... 30 years ago I was managing an CA Assembly candidate's re-election campaign. I was with him at a public event talking to an attendee (who was a registered lobbyist) about a piece of pending legislation. The conversation went on for several minutes and finally, when the two of them were done, the attendee asked my Member (I'll call him John) to turn around. John was kind of surprised, but the guy insisted, "just turn around for me." So John did. As he turned back toward the attendee, the guy said, "Mr. Assemblyman, it's great to see you again. I'd like to talk to you about making a donation to your campaign." I couldn't believe it; it was so transparent. John was appalled. He asked me about it later and we agreed it left a really bad taste in both our mouths, so we returned the guy's check. However... even that probably wasn't technically illegal.
So a large campaign contribution given AFTER the donor was pardoned? Probably technically legal in any case but I'm not sure.
You have to be dreaming if you think Congress will be able to impeach a President any time in the next 50 years (if ever). And that doesn't assume that an official act is to remove some of Congress from office for unspecified (or made up) crimes - we have seen this around the world in almost all authoritarian regimes.
The Court could have refused to hear this at all until the case was tried - or acted 6 months earlier - or kept the ruling very narrow - they didn't do any of those. This was a very broad ruling - including even what Coney-Barratt couldn't stomach about "evidence" being used in clearly private acts....
And yes, by all means, we should prosecute any President who takes an illegal act - the Imperial Presidency is bad enough even before this ruling
Regarding Obama’s ordering a hit on a U.S. citizen accused of terrorism abroad, I think there’s an argument as to whether it was legal or not. Where there’s no argument, however, is that Trump’s crimes are all self serving in some way and should be prosecutable.
Maybe you should explain this to Trump, since his appeal is based on the claim that election subversion is an official act.
+1
Further, why even had a non-radical departure from what existed? Why have any sort of departure at all?
Was super frustrated by that reference. Would like to see this addressed if possible.
Noah, you’ve referenced a need for “austerity” in both this essay and in past ones as critical to coming to terms with our debt and our habitual deficits. But if you’ve written a post on just exactly what such austerity would look like in our society, I seem to have missed it. Who will make the sacrifices? How will they be shared? What impact will your version of austerity (or for that matter, our growing debt) have on our ability to confront our enemies and fight a war? What level of currency inflation will our society tolerate? And there are many, many more questions that can be asked about how we rebalance government revenues and expenditures? So whaddya say? Get on with it, please! I’m anxiously awaiting your thoughts.
Noah missed where Donald wants to repeal all income taxes and replace them with tariffs or the part where he wants to assume more control over the Fed Or the part where he wants to lower taxes for corporations even more or where he wants to retain all of his - very costly - tax cuts that are set to expire next year when making his *Trump won’t be so bad* calculations. I am not sure how any of these things will not hurt this country. And I don’t understand how this can’t be taken seriously when it comes from Donald’s own mouth hole. The Dems at least have a plan that won’t send the economy into a tailspin.
Hmmm…. “The Dems at least have a plan…”. And that plan might be…what exactly (aside from letting the tax cuts expire)?
Trump is, if not in fact, then in deed, a Russian Intelligence thrall. Which makes it highly unlikely he'd defend Taiwan from China. This, assuming a bipartisan coalition of Natsec hawks in Congress don't override him to DOW China/Russia.
But even an unresisted "peaceful" takeover of Taiwan--as the result of an extended blockade intended to force their capitulation--would only temporarily appease Xi, and would gather the storm clouds of a new world war just as surely as did the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in '38. Ditching Taiwan, and/or letting the Philippines be humiliated would also possibly fatally strain our current alliances, and certainly destroy our chances of allying India and Vietnam who are absolute must-haves for a peaceful non-war China containment policy.
Whether Trump is actually FSB or just a useful idiot, I do not see a Trump2 Admin capable of wooing India & Vietnam into alliance; the arguably irreplaceable part of a China containment. Trump2 is also likely to see. if not the exit of the US from NATO, then it's deterioration.
But ditching Taiwan in '27 could buy us a few months--or even years--to more strenuously beef up in preparation. Thus, the real strategic question regarding Taiwan: Should we go to war in '27 or thereabouts to defend Taiwan; or surrender Taiwan and get a slightly longer reprieve?
Meanwhile Trump2 will bully the Fed into cutting rates--which will cause the economy to boom. Which will also strongly boost the GOP in general and Trump's popularity in particular--and increase his leverage over the Supremes to "reinterpret" POTUS term-limits. And all without significantly boosting inflation, as Macroeconomists who predict otherwise are more akin to blind tea-leaf readers than practitioners of an actual science. Microeconomics = science. Macroeconomics = opinion.
I doubt he'll *want* to defend Taiwan from China, but I don't know if China will trust him not to. I doubt it.
If he's indeed Putin's thrall--as most non-ideologues on the Hill seem to believe--then he'll be *instructed* to abandon Taiwan. Putin will then inform Xi, who will then refrain from a pre-emptive strike on our Pacific Theatre assets, as a major victory without bloodshed has so many pluses.
Personally, I think it strategically best to not back down over Taiwan in '27. As long as Taiwan can hold out, the PLA will be constrained in other theatres and sub-theatres (like S. Korea).
Firstly, Putin didn't "invade" Ukraine in 2014, he "liberated" only Crimea; while Russian "freedom fighters" (Spetznatz with unit insignia removed) began a war of "liberating" the western Donbas region. Despite losing less than 10% of their territory, the ongoing low-grade war galvanized Ukrainian identity and nationalism, and accelerated a process of military and economic integration with the West.
Putin, through FSB/GRU influence campaigns had already supported Trump in his victorious bid against Clinton in '16; and had done the same for Trump in '20. No doubt Trump's loss to Biden, and the hardening Western opposition to Russia's ongoing efforts in the Donbas spurred Putin to destroy Ukraine once and for all. Trump, through direct influence with Speaker Johnson, prevented a floor vote on $60bn in crucial military aid to Ukraine for six months 2023-24, possibly fatally weakening their war effort. He's repeatedly promised to "end the Ukraine war on Day One", presumably by forcing Ukraine to accept substantial loss of territory.
If you want a more thorough explanation of why Trump is almost certainly an FSB/GRU asset--as opposed to just a pro-Russian "useful idiot"--you have but to ask.
It seems like Trump's actively undermining Ukraine's defense bodes poorly for democracy in general.
Hard to know. Trump doesn't like looking impotent, so China invading Taiwan might anger him. I could see it going either way.
Yeah, he was tough on China, up until Russia became a fully integrated vassal of Xi's. Then he did a 180' on Tik Tok.
There have been quite a few cogent analyses since '16 on the case for DJT as a Russian spy. Read up a bit on the topic and decide for yourself, as the weight of evidence is pretty damning.
After Rucho v. Common Cause, claims of partisan gerrymandering specifically cannot be adjudicated by federal courts.
yep
Trump may not care about ideology, but he does care about vengeance, and the more power he can grab, the more he can inflict.
Thomas and Alito are the only Supreme Court justices who might allow Trump to become a dictator. Amy Coney Barrett is very conservative but a decent person. Roberts is not extreme, and Brett Kavanaugh usually agrees with Roberts.
If there were five justices like Thomas and Alito, I wouldn't rule out any scenario, no matter how unlikely. Thomas's wife was involved in the 2000 election challenge.
*2020 election challenge.
If Trump wins, Ukraine gets thrown under the bus, which will endanger NATO and embolden China. Given your concern over Cold War 2 / Hot World War 3, I don't see how you can be so sanguine about Trump prevailing.
Partisan piece. The Democrats have only themselves to blame. Riots, tax give aways -Salt, loan forgiveness , debt, subsidies to cronies, excessive Covid handouts, open borders, Afghan chaos, wars, bureaucratic partisanship , inflation, a poor managerial class, culture wars, a broken health care system , etc. etc etc. The Democrats created Trump. They got what they deserve.
"Look what you made me do", as every abuser says.
Unfortunately that Twitter thread, regarding the immunity decision, is both incomplete and incorrect in ways that undermine the authors smug dismissal of concerns. Here's a more thorough explanation of the law.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-decision-of-surpassing-recklessness-in-dangerous-times
With all due respect from someone who almost always agrees with you about substantive policy, I think you are far too casual about the hugely destructive effect of the disruption of established political norms and the casual indifference of the Trumpist Supreme Court to overturning precedents which have provided the framework of rights and modern government for decades. The people who want to obviate every reform since the Pendleton Act and reverse every minority-protective and federal-power-enhancing Supreme Court decision since West Coast Hotel are doing violence to the concept of the United States as an evolved democratic republic. There really were social ills that were being addressed by those earlier measures, and led to their adoption. Many of us have grown up with the belief that progress builds on prior reform, albeit with the occasional Schlesingerian cycle of go-slow conservatism to let the country catch its breath briefly. It is very very dispiriting that we now seem to be a polity half of which is going to have to re-learn the lessons of Charles Guiteau, adulterated medicines, robber-baron power, discrimination, contraception and the Comstock Act, the Great Depression, back-alley abortions, impure air and water, and the like, before there is a consensus to turn again to reform. Two steps forward, one step back - that's life. One step forward, four steps back, exploiting ethno-nationalist grievances in order to get governance which indulges a bunch of radical-right hobbyhorses that we though died out with the Depression and World War II - that's actually terrifying. I think you are really really underestimating the corrosive impact of another Trump term (even acknowledging that his worst mischief, the Trumpist Supreme Court, is in place and likely to be a temple of reaction and integralist meanness for thirty or forty years). You make the generally fair point that the polity pretty much gets what it wants. If true now, that is hugely dispiriting. It would be great to get your further thoughts on what, in an era of generally unparalleled affluence, has brought half the American polity to this sad state.
The fact that "half the American polity" has not shared in this "era of generally unparalleled affluence" has a whole bunch of explanatory power.
If by that half, you mean down-and-out poor people, then by and large, they don't really appear to be the part of the polity that drives Trumpism. It's the car dealers, heartland franchise operators, successful local mini-chain owners and multi-van building contractors who comprise the backbone of MAGA, with people in income deciles three, four and five living inside the Fox media bubble who seem to be filling up the ranks. Not sure I'd say that someone on an income within 20% of the national median in a low-cost red-state area has entirely missed out on the era of affluence, even if they haven't been at the heart of it. The foregoing is a gross generalization but also has a non-trivial degree of descriptive accuracy, if not explanatory power.
This seems like your most naieve take yet, and considering the built in caveats, it feels like maybe you think so too. I hope you're right, but I doubt the anger of the American people of addressing some of these issues will subside without a reasonable way out, and fascists just can't help themselves. The history of fascist movements is they generally only one thing. But at least we can avoid the worst dangers of climate change here in the U.S. for the next couple of decades
We'll see!
The history of pre fascist periods is littered with people trying to soothe themselves into it "won't be that bad". You wouldn't be the first.
Yeah but the history of America is littered with people saying that the next President is going to be a dictator and a tyrant and destroy democracy. Never happened yet.
So, we'll see!
Did any of those previous possible tyrants have a Supreme Court that signed a permission slip for "official acts?"
I guess some people did claim Lincoln and FDR were tyrants and dictators.
I, uh...I disagree with them.
Lincoln literally fought a war against half the country, and FDR barely averted first the collapse of the USA and then the actual collapse of the global order. Under such circumstances enforcing marshall law on several states, appointing 8/9 supreme court justices and violating norms by running for a third term have a lot more context. Given the comparably benign 2010s/2020s a president / candidate desiring similarly autocratic powers is deeply troubling.
You didn't answer the question.