Mino highlighted a great piece. I noted in a comment that there is a lot of last days thinking, and that was infecting politics and is a result for the bitterness we see.
Booman quoted an article saying something to the effect that a Trump win would be the end of democracy in America.
Which is absolute nonsense.
So David French writes:
Ponder American exceptionalism for long, and you’ll be drawn to a remarkable paradox: We’re exceptional in large part because the Founders realized that we’re normal. Our nation is full of human beings who possess the same will to power and temptations to dominate as have existed in every society that ever existed. So Hamilton as his colleagues made the exceptional decision to limit and diffuse governmental authority, an act that to this day helps make — and keep — America great. When, barring any shocking developments, Hillary Clinton is sworn in on January 20, 2017, she’ll take the oath of office with the knowledge that her actions will be judged by voters in less than two years. Absent a truly historic electoral rout, she won’t have a free hand to implement her agenda for even one day of the first half of her first term, and if the mid-terms go badly for her, her freedom will be further limited. That just isn’t the recipe for an extinction-level constitutional event.
Replace Clinton with Trump and he is still right.
At some point some sense of reason has to return, some sense that the republic isn’t about to collapse.
When that happens it may be possible to actually come together as a country in a far less acerbic
way. This will effect the GOP the most: The Tea Party breathes off the this stuff.
Neoliberal “social” theory is anti-community. That might be why it is so toxic as a form of government. It loves to signal virtue with its meritocracy claims on one hand and special pleadings on the other.
Thank you for the comment on my thread.
Don’t agree at all. We simply have not had a president willing to push their constitutional authority to the limit since Lincoln, and that was during a Civil War. If the president was Trump, he’d drag the GOP to his level and push the constitutional framework to its absolute limit.
I think you need to wade into the waters of “alt right” twitter to understand just how wrong this is, who people like Steve Bannon are, and who is the real mouth piece for the campaign right now.
We simply have not had a president willing to push their constitutional authority to the limit since Lincoln…
Bollocks. Plenty have not only been willing but did push. Sometimes they got away with it and sometimes they didn’t. Depends on whether the public, congress, perma-gov, or the courts are willing and able to slap down such presidential efforts.
Pikers. Perhaps when I say “push the constitutional limit” I should emphasize that I mean more along the lines of the Enabling Act.
Nixon.
Patriot Act.
Well, I agree that NR author French is right—HRC is a completely mainstream conservative Dem whose proposed policies (which will never be enacted) would certainly not harm the republic in any way, and that those who think she or they will are simply irrational collapsarians stuffed to the gills with “conservative” claptrap. Just as there is no rational basis to believe the completely inoffensive Obama is a “tyrant” or “dictator”–a characterization which NR has spent the past 8 years foisting upon its cretinous readers.
But I cannot agree that the opposing scenario with Trump is equivalent, as I spent some time on mino’s diary attempting to explain. I’d say in addition that two years of complete control of the federal government by a radical Repub party (led by an obviously deranged narcissist) will indeed result in a country that we will no longer recognize, especially given the resulting radical “conservative” Supreme Court that will exist for another 30 years. Do you really think that these two scenarios can rationally be seen as equivalent threats to the republic?
Of course NR should attempt to talk its nuts off the ledge, since their fears really are baseless. But a “sense of reason” is not operational with radical Repubs.
Do you see Trump as some sort of mainstream American politician that our constitutional system can (and will) successfully constrain? I myself have never seen a “politician” like him, and I have severe doubts that a radical Repub Congress will do very much to “moderate” him…Hell, a more moderate Repub Congress kowtowed to Bush Jr! And what’s left of the fragile global climate policy after 2 years of radical Repub control?
Could a radical rightwing alteration of the federal government and its policies be reversed by voters in future? Given unconstrainable gerrymandering, nationwide vote suppression techniques (which a radical Repub Congress and prez will statutorally mandate) and a Repub-favoring Supreme Court, it is entirely speculative IMO…
Do you see Trump as some sort of mainstream American politician that our constitutional system can (and will) successfully constrain?
Did our system constrain Dubya and his clown show? People seem to forget, or what to forget, all the insanity and wackiness of the Bush the Lesser years.
iirc a goodly chunk of Democrats (voters and politicians) rolled over for Bush/Cheney and the MSM was totally infatuated with the frat boy.
Is that the level of political power that Trump would have? Have yet to hear anyone make the case that all senior members of the GOP in Congress will take orders from Trump.
A great deal of the “collapsitarian” fears now infecting this country are actually quite reasonable. The situation in which we find ourselves…along with the developed countries of Western Europe particularly…is absolutely new.
1-A single massive hack or other sort of digital shutdown (EMP-style) would completely freeze this country in its tracks. This is so different than the Mutually Assured Destruction system in place during the Cold War. Only those countries that have become almost totally dependent on digital infrastructure are at risk, and those with the most digital dependence…the U.S. right at the top of that list followed by most of Western Europe…are the most vulnerable.
2-I am not aware of any major country in the world that is so divided by different cultures that its entire governing system is threatened. The federal government has essentially been in a stalemate condition for 8 years. Nothing is really getting done except show talk. No real “go” going on, just posturing. And whatever parts of the government remain functional, they are functioning on a C- or worse level. Sorry, but there it is. In a stalemate, everything gets stale..
3-The U.S. is the single greatest debtor that history has ever seen. The same Cold War concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is essentially the only thing that is keeping its creditors from foreclosing, and as Russia and China become more and more prosperous that whole MAD thing looks less and less viable. Pull out the rug and the whole economy will follow.
4-A well coordinated set of terrorist attacks would shut the U.S. down. Sorry, but there that is as well. Blow up a few tactically important bridges and tunnels and the whole thing would shut down. Retaliation? Who did it? We still don’t really know who was behind 9/11…at the very least we certainly haven’t been told the whole story…and it’s been over 15 years now. Upon whom would the retaliation descend and in what form? Like the Bush II Iraq War? Nice. That worked really well, eh?
People realize all of this, at least on a gut level. And they are afraid.
Enter the current execrable presidential race.
Nice.
AG
Booman Tribune ~ In which the National Review is right
I would like to note that there is a big difference between national debt (the sum of expenditure minus the sum of taxes over the existence of the state) that is largely and foreign debt. The national debt is largely an accounting figure and nothing to worry about, like you would not worry about a debt denoted in AG-dollars that you can print yourself.
The foreign debt on the other hand represents what used to be called imperial tribute. The world sends goods, raw materials and services to the US in exchange for empty promises. But really it is for access to the rest of the world and not getting bombed or couped.
The US empire is likely at its high water mark (or the history books might mark the occupation of Iraq in 2003 as the high water mark, historians loves maps). The edge in strategic raw materials is gone (during world war two the US produced mroe then half of the worlds oil) the dominance in industrial production is gone, the edge in weapons quality is likely gone. The empire is running on empty, likely failing to pass imperial reforms (ie TTP and TTIP), seeing vassals like the Phillipines negotiate directly with competitors like China. The imperial services appears to be mostly busy figuring out which small country to start a civil war in next.
And when an empire falls the tribute stops flowing. But until then you can expect the debt to keep rising.
Yes, as I recall, every President in the last few decades has repeatedly threatened to jail his opponent if elected. And has promoted torture and war crimes. And has gone around claiming that the whole electoral process is fraudulent. And has wondered out loud about why the US hasn’t been using nuclear weapons. And…
What the fuck. Donald Trump is an absolutely garden variety candidate. Any fool can see that.
It’s that absolutely historical rout that I am hoping for, not because it gives Clinton a free hand but because it (1) ends any possibility of the gridlock strategy for four/eight years by Republicans, (2) it shows that the repudiation of Trumpism crossed previous red state/blue state divides and was a national rejection, and (3) it allows Democrats to push CLinton in a direction other than the one that she might drift as a result of here large campaign contributors and close ties with the national security establishment.
It’s that absolutely historical rout that I am hoping for, not because it gives Clinton a free hand…
Exactly how does such an “historical rout” not give HRC a free hand? That is a truly scary proposition IMO.
And what do you by “historical rout?” Like Nixon ’72? (GOP lost two senate seats that year.) LBJ ’64? FDR ’36? 1920 — Harding 60+%, but he didn’t carry as many states as Hoover did in ’28 with his measly 58+% of the popular vote.