American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

So its better that an autocrat just funnels all the money directly to themselves / cronies and policy is decided that way?

It is hard for the personal expenses of an autocrat to match the ever growing expense of a professional civil service class. Trump gets his kickbacks of some millions of dollars to his personal golf properties, but billions and billions of dollars are spent in the NSA to make American's lives worse, or spent in the Department of Education to produce worse and worse schooling. The ideal scenario would be where the autocrat does not spend such money on these kickbacks, but rather on commissioning beautiful works of art and architecture. If the king spends his taxes on a magnificent royal palace, then it can be a landmark and eventually a beautiful museum to be appreciated in thousands of years.

But, if the autocrat is friends with the civil service, as was FDR (the man who usually tops those idiotic 'best presidents' lists), then that is a problem.

However, the extreme contempt that members of the civil service automatically display for Trump precludes that fear.

So the fact that any trust busting can happen is a sign that the elite don't control everything.

No. this just means the definition of the elite is wrong. Those who can decide to trust bust or not are the elites, because they are the ones who control the law and the economy, even if the men they are trust busting technically happen to have more money.

[Mjmd]

@ Greenline YES we should push back against the NSA, but its not like Republicans are the answer to this......



I'm not saying expanding NSA powers wasn't bi-partisan during Trumps administration, but it did happen in a Republican administration with more Republicans voting for. Also, Autocrats are pretty famous for having secret police..... Autocrats are also pretty famous for limiting education and heavily controlling it.

Again, if you look back at history the power started with the landed wealthy elite. The fact we've moved SOME power away from them is a historical miracle. This isn't normal historically. You can keep redefining who the elite are and I won't deny there are reforms needed, but again some power to non elite is better than none.

Would you like to know the living conditions when those marvelous palaces that last generations were built. You can always have the populous eat grass! Shockingly palaces are not infrastructure or public services. They may be nice for GDP in 500 years, but they re pretty bad for it now.

[greenline]

@ Greenline YES we should push back against the NSA, but its not like Republicans are the answer to this......

Yes, now you are understanding why Trump wants to 'drain the swamp', because most non-radical Republicans and Democrats will passively continue enabling it. Trump has done far more than any other politician against the NSA by refusing to re-sign the PATRIOT act, even if his reasons for doing so were petty.

Again, if you look back at history the power started with the landed wealthy elite. The fact we've moved SOME power away from them is a historical miracle. This isn't normal historically.

Yes, it did start with the landed gentry. When we moved power away from them, where did it go? To 'the people'? If the people truly had the power, then they would be directly using it to get what they want, which would be lower inflation and lower immigration. They'd probably be asking for an end to the DMV.

Drop the naivety. The power went from one class of elite to another. Just because the current elite is not landed gentry or millionaire tycoons, doesn't mean that there isn't an elite. That elite is the progressive party upper crust, the Boston Brahmins and the motley crew who have clawed their way in such clubs over the years.

[Mjmd]

That bill went through UNDER Trump. Saying my guy passed it with the majority of HIS party (edit senate was even more lopsided by party), but HE is the answer is not logical. He could have vetoed it...... If you care, organize. Protest. This vote was closer than it has been in the past. Again, saying things can "never change except by some benevolent dictator" is patently false. The common people can never make changes in a democracy is FALSE. It has occurred.

People have more power. Heck the only reason Trump probably won his election was because of lower immigration. Its something I disagree with. Again, I can shockingly have empathy for people who look nothing like me and have different life experiences and are a benefit to the nation. But that is probably why he won. Inflation is a complicated beast. Would you care to wager how many bills the Republicans have put to vote since they took power in the house to fix? I wonder if inflation had anything to do with Trump publicly pressuring the Fed to keep interest rates low (mind you this was only 1 of 100 reasons, but it was A reason). Have you heard Biden berate the Fed for raising rates too much even though many keep predicting it will send us into recession which is a way he could lose? Oh you haven't?

[greenline]

I won't claim that Trump's campaign against the civil service has been the most coherently or clearly fought. But that he's the only one out there willing to fight it. Ross Perot had a similar idea, but didn't fully commit to winning. Who else would have backed out of the TPP with no hesitation?

Asking Trump voters to have a conscious and vote for a 'nice' Republican is a veil for asking them to give up on any attacks on the civil service. If Trump was working to make the lives of the bureaucracy easier, they would not be working in lockstep to make his job and his life miserable. I hope that his methodology for weakening the fourth estate will be better if he wins another term, but I am generally a pessimist.

People have more power.

In 1860 and in 1932, 'the people' had the power to elect presidents with near dictatorial powers. Now they do not. The unelected civil service has shown its muscle.

[Mjmd]

Ah the people are fighting him because he is a champion argument. I can't disprove this as its notoriously hard to prove non existence. But you haven't proven that he is either. I'm fighting him because he is a danger to democracy. And I repeat this reason is enough EVEN IF Trump turned out to be the best dictator or president in history. And I think there is plenty of evidence contrary only some of which I've presented.

I would actually argue that presidential power has grown. Most people would argue it has grown too much. I would argue both those elections the president only had so much power because they ended up with high majorities (one due to one side not accepting the results of an election and leaving).

[Mjmd]

I also want to point out it wasn't the unelected civil service that booted him from office. It was regular people. One of the problems with democracy accountability is different people have different reasons so its more of a vague directional than a direct. Did they vote against him because of corruption, bad foreign policy, bad domestic policy, or bad crisis management just to name a few. I'm pretty sure Biden won not because it was a "pro we want this guy" vote but rather an anti Trump vote. That was the people. And even with our funky electoral college it was still a sound defeat.

[greenline]

What Trump can claim during his term is that:

He unilaterally exited the TPP.
He put pressure on European nations to take on more of the NATO budget.
He withdrew troops from Iraq, and attempted to withdraw them from Syria.
He did not extend the Patriot act.
He lowered immigration during his term, both legal and illegal.
He raised employment during his term up until the arrival of COVID.
He put a series of tariffs on Chinese and other foreign goods.

These and other things are not huge victories. What they show is a commitment to going in the opposite direction the progressive elite has been driving for the last century.

I would actually argue that presidential power has grown.

Compared to a year like 1890, yes. But it has grown selectively. Presidents have more power to expand and empower the civil service. Bush found it easy to pass bills expanding the surveillance state. Obama was able to massively increase the administrative state working in healthcare. Going in the opposite direction proves itself very difficult. FDR had the power to unliterally create all these alphabet agencies. Do you think any president could dissolve the NSA?

[Mjmd]

So 1) its not like a different president COULDN'T have done those things. You don't need to vote for someone who attempted to overthrow democracy. Again, even IF he had been PERFECT as president this would disqualify him. That being said.

- Leaving the TPP was a mistake. Its not like Obamas "pivot to Asia" was about anything other than "CHINA!!!". He was just more subtle. Trade is Chinas power and this would have taken some of that power away.
- He did, but he did it in the most obnoxious way possible. It alienated a lot of allies. Allies that we need. There also isn't a lot to say this accomplished much other than pissing off other countries
- Ya Iraq was good. Giving into Turkey and abandoning our 20 year ally in the Kurds even earned him a rare Republican rebuke. Oh and it earned us NOTHING.
- Again, he did do a non zero amount of things. But I did point out the NSA increase under him. And again, autocracies are VERY bad for this type of thing.
- The US birth rate is below replacement rate. Even if you JUST look at it in terms of human capital we need some level of immigration. I've made arguments before in this thread that JUST from a human capital perspective immigration is ok. Now if you actually look at these people AS people...... This is something we get to see in democracies. We don't have to see them as a nameless mass of the "other". We get to see the human side. If we chose.
- He took over a growing economy and cut taxes (mainly on the wealthy) and pressured the fed to keep rates low. OF COURSE HE DID. Its like small children on holloween. And its opposite of sound fiscal policy..... In a good economy you should raise taxes and rates.
- Again, Obama's "pivot to Asia" and alliance building was a little more subtle. People really like the idea of mono e mono going against China. And that is foolish. You need allies. You need to undercut their soft power to other countries. If you tariff goods against China they can just 90% complete and stamp "made in allied country" on them. I will give minor credit for starting the trend of higher end tech.

Edit: about the NSA. Certainly NOT Trump. With enough public pressure though. ABSOLUTELY. Again, we've done bigger things.

[greenline]

So 1) its not like a different president COULDN'T have done those things. You don't need to vote for someone who attempted to overthrow democracy. Again, even IF he had been PERFECT as president this would disqualify him.

Until someone else is doing it, Trump is all there is. DeSantis has not been willing to go nearly that far in his own state.

I don't care if you dislike the policies, but they are examples of Trump being committed to his statements of belief. But this is worth mentioning.

- The US birth rate is below replacement rate. Even if you JUST look at it in terms of human capital we need some level of immigration. I've made arguments before in this thread that JUST from a human capital perspective immigration is ok. Now if you actually look at these people AS people...... This is something we get to see in democracies. We don't have to see them as a nameless mass of the "other". We get to see the human side. If we chose.

Relying on immigration to solve draining human capital has three problems.

It is passing the buck. The effects of modernity are lowering fertility rates in the countries where immigrants come from.

It treats all humans and human cultures as entirely fungible. Lest we forget many of the original stock of immigrants in the gilded age supported networks of anarchist firebombers. A great deal of modern immigrants have no interested in assimilating, and regard American culture and values with open hostility. This attitude is being encouraged by radical left wing groups.

Any benefits of propping up real estate prices and pensions comes at a cost of keeping wages depressed and native Americans underemployed. One might call this economic vampirism, although not on the scale of the COVID lockdowns.

It seems far more effective to me that the state might expend its resources looking at what might be done to increase native birth rates, rather than eternally relying on taking the poison pill of immigration.