The head of Protect Democracy discusses how eroding restraints on presidential authority combined with political violence will make a second Trump term dangerous
Great discussion! I'm reminded of an article I once read about "rule of law" that compared the reality of the rule of law to that of Tinkerbell in "Peter Pan". In the play, the audience is asked to clap in order to acknowledge Tinkerbell's existence, because in that part of the play, she is portrayed as weakening and dying. The idea is that she will only survive if the audience believes in her and shows it. The writer points out how "rule of law" is basically in the same position. There is no rule of law if people don't actively acknowledge it and believe in it, calling out when people in positions of power dismiss and negate it. Truly, institutions like "rule of law" only exist because enough people actively support it.
"I think what's interesting about Trump is I don't get the sense that he is predominantly motivated by some overarching political project or philosophical agenda about how society should be organized. He really does see[m], on a spectrum of those leaders, on the pretty extreme end of just in it for himself."
This was a great conversation and raised a lot of interesting points. But I think the above analysis leaves out some pretty important things about coalitional dynamics in the GOP. It's true, as far as it goes, that Trump *personally* doesn't care all that much about an overarching political project. But understanding him and the threat he poses requires understanding his close alliance with a conservative movement that is deeply committed to a philosophical agenda of reordering society in profound ways.
A central fact about the Trump Era is that Trump and the conservative movement need each other and have therefore formed a powerful alliance. Ideological conservatives want upper-class tax cuts, social program rollbacks, and abortion bans, all of which are unpopular and difficult to campaign on. So they need a skilled demagogue who can make politics revolve around culture war so they can conceal this agenda and ride his coattails to power. And Trump wants power and its attendent benefits - so he needs people throughout the executive, legislative, and judicial branches who will protect him.
A purely venal Trump might in some ways be preferable, because he'd be willing to compromise on the conservative movement's most unpopular goals where they conflict with his interests. But the venal Trump theory has a hard time explaining a lot of important outcomes, whereas the Trump-conservative movement alliance theory fits the data. Trying to take health care away from 30 million people, and extinguishing reproductive rights in America, both served Trump's personal interests quite badly. But he did them because that was his end of the bargain if he wanted the continued loyalty of Republican legislators and judges to protect him. Similarly, a venal non-ideological Trump would have been easy to cast aside after 1/6 - but the conservative movement, recognizing that Trump's political appeal is their key route to imposing their agenda, did not do so. And this decision, horrible and amoral as it was, has worked out pretty well for them as a matter of raw politics.
Trump benefits quite a bit from the *perception* of non-ideological venality. Many people who like his culture war vibes - a very big chunk of the electorate! - assume he isn't committed to and therefore won't pass an aggressive right-wing agenda. But he will! If he wins, he will absolutely turn over the country to the Freedom Caucus and Sam Alito. And even his pretty open authoritarian aspirations could be understood as a solution to the unpopularity of the bracing right-wing agenda that will result.
The Trump-conservative movement alliance theory explains all of this. Bringing this out of the shadows and making clear to the public that these are the stakes is probably our only hope of defeating him.
What about the administrative state? It claims the type of absolute power claimed by kings, but you don’t mention it except to laud Biden’s efforts to insulate career bureaucrats from accountability to elected officials. It seems what you are really concerned about is threats to the progressive agenda.
Oh Christ, who is responsible for the overwhelming balance of political violence? Not conservatives, and you all damn well know it. Will you ever stop it with this shit?
Nobody is buying it other than Democrats who maintain the myth in order to make themselves feel better and to distract from the fact that it’s the left that traffics in violence when they don’t get their way. For every one deranged right winger who does something violent and idiotic, there’s ten leftists who do the same.
What’s the difference? Political conservatives actually abhor violence, believe it’s counterproductive, and condemn it when it occurs. For the left, it’s part of your fucking playbook. Leading Dem politicians remain silent, deny it’s happening, or excuse/rationalize it and bail the fucking low-lifes out of jail.
Another of the left’s “tells” - the incessant condemnation of others for conduct which they are largely responsible. Such horse shit.
(1) Congress directs agencies to accomplish certain things, often by identifying general goals and providing vague instructions that give the agencies broad discretion. As Charles Murray notes, Congress passes laws with legislative guidance barely more specific than “Do what you think appropriate.”
(2) Agencies issue rules and regulations that are binding law. They often provide a “notice and comment” period but are not required to hold a rule-making hearing and may decline to make changes in proposed rules if they can identify good reasons not to. Some types of rules are exempt from the notice and comment requirement, including non-binding “guidance” that people often treat as binding law because they fear the agency will seek to enforce it. An example is the “guidance” the Obama administration issued that said schools might violate federal civil rights laws if they discipline students of color at rates higher than their proportion of the school population.
(3) Agencies have broad enforcement powers, so they can require people to keep records and report certain information, respond to subpoenas, and submit to inspections without showing “probable cause” of a violation, the standard that applies when the police conduct a search.
(4) When agencies prosecute citizens for alleged violations, they often have the option of doing so through an internal agency tribunal before a judge employed by the agency. These judges lack the degree of independence of judges in regular federal courts, and studies show agency judges are more likely to rule for their agencies than regular federal judges.
(5) Agency hearings are not subject to the rules of procedure and evidence that apply in federal court, and they are not automatically subject to the “due process” fairness protections provided in federal court. According to a leading expert on administrative law, “agencies . . . repeatedly deprive Americans of their procedural rights,” including reversing “the burdens of proof and persuasion required by due process.” Also, agencies are not required to share exculpatory evidence with targets, something the Department of Justice is required to do in criminal cases. And there is no recognized right to trial by jury before an agency, even in cases that threaten significant fines or other penalties.
(6) A party to a case may appeal the judge’s decision to another body within the agency and eventually to a federal court, but sometimes court review is not available because the underlying Congressional legislation prohibits an appeal outside the agency. Even if court review is available, it often is delayed for years pending completion of the agency proceedings and federal courts are required to defer to agency factual determinations and must apply a high threshold before overturning an agency decision.
Unsurprisingly, this is written from the classic position that the fundamentally simplistic and misleading/misinformative design of our "democratic" systems in the first place (that caused the main and suffering we see all around us in the first place) *are not themselves dangerous*.
"Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...."
Wow. I could not get half way through the mini-bio before being concussed by the irony. The founder and executive director of an organization dedicated against authoritarianism who was counsel for Mister “I have a pen and a phone”. Seems to me someone without a drop of integrity.
1) Ian was there before Obama made that statement (2) He's a critic of Democratic abuse of presidential powers too (3) He in fact has sued the Biden administration for its abuses, which you would have known if you'd stuck with it.
So, "someone without a drop of integrity" managed to reflect on his own side's shortcomings far more critically than any of his counterparts on the other side of the political aisle. In this very discussion, Bassin criticizes certain actions by the Biden administration; in this very discussion, Bassin includes the Obama administration—whom he worked for—in the list of recent presidencies that have seen expansions of executive power, something he by and large frowns on. But that's what happens when you cover your ears whenever "the other side" is talking: you ignore what they actually have to say.
Great discussion! I'm reminded of an article I once read about "rule of law" that compared the reality of the rule of law to that of Tinkerbell in "Peter Pan". In the play, the audience is asked to clap in order to acknowledge Tinkerbell's existence, because in that part of the play, she is portrayed as weakening and dying. The idea is that she will only survive if the audience believes in her and shows it. The writer points out how "rule of law" is basically in the same position. There is no rule of law if people don't actively acknowledge it and believe in it, calling out when people in positions of power dismiss and negate it. Truly, institutions like "rule of law" only exist because enough people actively support it.
"I think what's interesting about Trump is I don't get the sense that he is predominantly motivated by some overarching political project or philosophical agenda about how society should be organized. He really does see[m], on a spectrum of those leaders, on the pretty extreme end of just in it for himself."
This was a great conversation and raised a lot of interesting points. But I think the above analysis leaves out some pretty important things about coalitional dynamics in the GOP. It's true, as far as it goes, that Trump *personally* doesn't care all that much about an overarching political project. But understanding him and the threat he poses requires understanding his close alliance with a conservative movement that is deeply committed to a philosophical agenda of reordering society in profound ways.
A central fact about the Trump Era is that Trump and the conservative movement need each other and have therefore formed a powerful alliance. Ideological conservatives want upper-class tax cuts, social program rollbacks, and abortion bans, all of which are unpopular and difficult to campaign on. So they need a skilled demagogue who can make politics revolve around culture war so they can conceal this agenda and ride his coattails to power. And Trump wants power and its attendent benefits - so he needs people throughout the executive, legislative, and judicial branches who will protect him.
A purely venal Trump might in some ways be preferable, because he'd be willing to compromise on the conservative movement's most unpopular goals where they conflict with his interests. But the venal Trump theory has a hard time explaining a lot of important outcomes, whereas the Trump-conservative movement alliance theory fits the data. Trying to take health care away from 30 million people, and extinguishing reproductive rights in America, both served Trump's personal interests quite badly. But he did them because that was his end of the bargain if he wanted the continued loyalty of Republican legislators and judges to protect him. Similarly, a venal non-ideological Trump would have been easy to cast aside after 1/6 - but the conservative movement, recognizing that Trump's political appeal is their key route to imposing their agenda, did not do so. And this decision, horrible and amoral as it was, has worked out pretty well for them as a matter of raw politics.
Trump benefits quite a bit from the *perception* of non-ideological venality. Many people who like his culture war vibes - a very big chunk of the electorate! - assume he isn't committed to and therefore won't pass an aggressive right-wing agenda. But he will! If he wins, he will absolutely turn over the country to the Freedom Caucus and Sam Alito. And even his pretty open authoritarian aspirations could be understood as a solution to the unpopularity of the bracing right-wing agenda that will result.
The Trump-conservative movement alliance theory explains all of this. Bringing this out of the shadows and making clear to the public that these are the stakes is probably our only hope of defeating him.
What about the administrative state? It claims the type of absolute power claimed by kings, but you don’t mention it except to laud Biden’s efforts to insulate career bureaucrats from accountability to elected officials. It seems what you are really concerned about is threats to the progressive agenda.
Oh Christ, who is responsible for the overwhelming balance of political violence? Not conservatives, and you all damn well know it. Will you ever stop it with this shit?
Nobody is buying it other than Democrats who maintain the myth in order to make themselves feel better and to distract from the fact that it’s the left that traffics in violence when they don’t get their way. For every one deranged right winger who does something violent and idiotic, there’s ten leftists who do the same.
What’s the difference? Political conservatives actually abhor violence, believe it’s counterproductive, and condemn it when it occurs. For the left, it’s part of your fucking playbook. Leading Dem politicians remain silent, deny it’s happening, or excuse/rationalize it and bail the fucking low-lifes out of jail.
Another of the left’s “tells” - the incessant condemnation of others for conduct which they are largely responsible. Such horse shit.
(1) Congress directs agencies to accomplish certain things, often by identifying general goals and providing vague instructions that give the agencies broad discretion. As Charles Murray notes, Congress passes laws with legislative guidance barely more specific than “Do what you think appropriate.”
(2) Agencies issue rules and regulations that are binding law. They often provide a “notice and comment” period but are not required to hold a rule-making hearing and may decline to make changes in proposed rules if they can identify good reasons not to. Some types of rules are exempt from the notice and comment requirement, including non-binding “guidance” that people often treat as binding law because they fear the agency will seek to enforce it. An example is the “guidance” the Obama administration issued that said schools might violate federal civil rights laws if they discipline students of color at rates higher than their proportion of the school population.
(3) Agencies have broad enforcement powers, so they can require people to keep records and report certain information, respond to subpoenas, and submit to inspections without showing “probable cause” of a violation, the standard that applies when the police conduct a search.
(4) When agencies prosecute citizens for alleged violations, they often have the option of doing so through an internal agency tribunal before a judge employed by the agency. These judges lack the degree of independence of judges in regular federal courts, and studies show agency judges are more likely to rule for their agencies than regular federal judges.
(5) Agency hearings are not subject to the rules of procedure and evidence that apply in federal court, and they are not automatically subject to the “due process” fairness protections provided in federal court. According to a leading expert on administrative law, “agencies . . . repeatedly deprive Americans of their procedural rights,” including reversing “the burdens of proof and persuasion required by due process.” Also, agencies are not required to share exculpatory evidence with targets, something the Department of Justice is required to do in criminal cases. And there is no recognized right to trial by jury before an agency, even in cases that threaten significant fines or other penalties.
(6) A party to a case may appeal the judge’s decision to another body within the agency and eventually to a federal court, but sometimes court review is not available because the underlying Congressional legislation prohibits an appeal outside the agency. Even if court review is available, it often is delayed for years pending completion of the agency proceedings and federal courts are required to defer to agency factual determinations and must apply a high threshold before overturning an agency decision.
Unsurprisingly, this is written from the classic position that the fundamentally simplistic and misleading/misinformative design of our "democratic" systems in the first place (that caused the main and suffering we see all around us in the first place) *are not themselves dangerous*.
"Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...."
Wow. I could not get half way through the mini-bio before being concussed by the irony. The founder and executive director of an organization dedicated against authoritarianism who was counsel for Mister “I have a pen and a phone”. Seems to me someone without a drop of integrity.
1) Ian was there before Obama made that statement (2) He's a critic of Democratic abuse of presidential powers too (3) He in fact has sued the Biden administration for its abuses, which you would have known if you'd stuck with it.
So, "someone without a drop of integrity" managed to reflect on his own side's shortcomings far more critically than any of his counterparts on the other side of the political aisle. In this very discussion, Bassin criticizes certain actions by the Biden administration; in this very discussion, Bassin includes the Obama administration—whom he worked for—in the list of recent presidencies that have seen expansions of executive power, something he by and large frowns on. But that's what happens when you cover your ears whenever "the other side" is talking: you ignore what they actually have to say.