The GOP didn't even have a platform. You're giving way too much credit to platforms, which are mostly marketing efforts. No one's crazy enough to put coup-proofing in their marketing materials.
People who oppose the genocide in Gaza are « hard left »? I would call such opposition the moral center. These are not « detractors « but the soul of the party.
lol this thing you accuse the DNC of, not rewriting their platform in light of new threats...this article -reeks- of being written before the largest threat to date, the SCOTUS "immunity" ruling, and not being revised aptly since. lol put the whole Justice Department under Roberts, get out the front door 🤣🤣 cannot proceed
J6 was a direct reaction to Democrats not playing fairly.
They co-opted the media, manipulated truthful information and outraged the general public by doing it.
I think Democrats should be much more concerned with preventing another BLM riot, which did much more damage to the country.
And I think Democrats should explain how a President who hasn't been mentally capable of walking or talking in a healthy manner in years, and definitely not capable of "running" anything can be allowed to be in power. The emperor has no clothes and it's ridiculous that half the country continues with the charade.
Apparently you didn't see his convention speech last night. "Old Joe" is yesterday's news. Now we have just one old, incompetent, incoherent and very weird man running for President and it isn't Kamala Harris.
As a conservative independent I will be voting for Harris because though I disagree with many of her policy positions I know that she isn't a corrupt criminal scamming the nation for his next million dollars and she will not lie as she takes the oath of office about upholding the Constitution.
Only a past Republican would attempt to analyze the Democratic party future as nothing more than the past. "More of the same". "Nothing new". Such predictable rhetoric. One thing Democrats can say unequivocally, "we won't let a Tea Party railroad our direction into an autocracy aligning our values with non-NATO nations.
Step back and expand your vision to include the global dilemma facing democracies.
"Moving the Justice Department out of the executive branch and placing it under the control of the federal judiciary . . ."
I like libertarians better when they're sweaty undergrad nerds endlessly debating the need for seat belts and motorcycle helmets. As adults they can come up with harebrained ideas, such as the proposal to put the Justice Department under the control of the federal judiciary.
This really is too unserious to merit a response, but is the separation of powers just one more big government assault on individual liberty, or is Cato now in favor of turning judges into prosecutors?
Thanks for the thoughtful read--- so many great ideas that kind of blew my mind. I always thought the DHS was weird. Organic combinations aren't needed to facilitate efficient communications between agencies. The idea about the DoJ is something I've not heard of before.
I agree coup-proofing is a serious concern but whatever reforms that might be possible must be bipartisan. To include this in the platform, while clearly establishing it as a Party priority, would also make it politically radioactive and more difficult to pass both houses of Congress.
The "100 Day" thing (as well as the "Day One" thing) is so much rhetorical garbage that I wish candidates and the media would just stop using it as a supposed measure of how important an issue is and especially when Congress has a lot to say about it.
About half the American people were apparently just fine with the last attempted coup and wouldn't mind if it happened again. Certainly the Supreme Court is prepared to accept it. All the Republican controlled states are open to it if not actively pursuing it.
If Harris is elected we will have no reason to fear a coup in the short term. If Trump is elected it won't make any difference what the laws are because he will not be held to account by Congress or the courts.
The reforms you suggest here are cogent and would do a lot to avoid a future coup by a rogue President. BUT such reforms would have been possible to contemplate before 2016 when it might have been possible to find a bipartisan pathway to reform. That moment has long gone and unless Democrats can amass a bulletproof majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate most of your proposals are dead on arrival. And anything passed in this term of Congress can be repealed at a later date.
So much you propose would depend upon the good faith of judicial appointments and the judiciary operating independently. As we have seen such independence is questionable.
In my mind reforming the judiciary is far more important than restructuring the DoJ and DHS.
A final point. I can assure you that Ron Desantis in Florida and Greg Abbot in Texas would LOVE to have personal control over Federal military resources located within their state.
Thanks again for an interesting and provocative read.
Thanks for the kind words. Trump lost 60 of 61 court-based election challenges in 2020, legal defeats handed down by judges appointed by presidents of both major parties. Accordingly, I have far fewer concerns about judges at the circuit & appellate level than I do SCOTUS.
If Trump wins but Dems retain control of at least one chamber of Congress, they can use a one-house veto over any appropriations bills containing unconstitutional or otherwise noxious, rights violating proposals contained therein. He can’t engage in mass deportations without the funds to carry it out, as an example.
The proposals in my piece were ranked from easiest to hardest, and I agree implementation of several would require both Dem control of the WH & Congress with the filibuster eliminated from Senate rules. That said, if they gain that level of control it’s then simply a matter of whether they accept the need to make the changes necessary & the will to do so.
As an Australian, I very much want a decisive result. Hillary and other Democrats used Russiagate to delegitimise Trump’s 2016 Electoral College victory and Presidency. Trump rhetorically upped the ante over the 2020 election. This spiralling denial of election legitimacy is how a country descends into civil strife.
Meanwhile, Britain burns because British elites stripped voting of any value re: migration.
Lack of border control shoves in the working class’s face how little say they have. Australia has 30% foreign born, the US, UK and France have 15-14% foreign born. Migration is a huge issue in US, UK and France far more than in Australia because we do migration far more sensibly while the US, UK and France do it stupidly.
The US has (or least had until 2016) a robust legal system to address election fraud and resolve election disputes.
Almost everything that the Democrats claimed about Russiagate has been proven true. No one seriously questioned the legitimacy of Trump's Electoral College victory. Everyone understood that Russian influence did not delegitimize the election. The first impeachment was in pursuit of Trump's cooperation with that Russian influence which the Mueller Report clearly established.
Only in 2020 was the claim persistently made without evidence that the election was stolen. Trump did not up the ante RHETORICALLY he actually attempted a coup.
Funny, Britain is burning. Wasn't immigration control one of the problems that BREXIT was supposed to fix? Wasn't that the people's voice against the prevailing judgment of "the elites"?Didn't the Tories have 7 years post-BREXIT to fix the problem? The best they could come up with was trying to forcibly relocate them to Rwanda. I'll admit Labour is hopeless on the issue.
Australia is a large/small country/island surrounded by water.
The US has a 2,000 mile border too big to adequately police.
Australia doesn't have 48,000 people flying in from around the globe every day who have proper visas but many of whom will not leave the country when their visas expire.
Australia has only 27 million people It's much easier to police and find illegal immigrants.
With 330 million people in the US it is easier for illegal immigrants to "go to ground" for years and decades.
The economy of Australia is not as big or dynamic as that of the US therefore Australia isn't an immigrant magnate... it's easier to control immigration when fewer people want to go there. (Personally, I love Australia and would move there in a heartbeat but the government has no interest in old retirees moving in.)
California and Texas each have economies bigger than Australia.
Thank you for the serious analysis.
Its troubling how little of this sort of thing is being broadcast.
I’m worried about state level shenanigans this cycle
thanks, and I couldn’t agree more.
The GOP didn't even have a platform. You're giving way too much credit to platforms, which are mostly marketing efforts. No one's crazy enough to put coup-proofing in their marketing materials.
Actually they did have a platform this time around but you are right about the marketing/branding aspect of platforms.
"Project 2025" is the real platform.
Project 2025 is the real platform, for sure.
People who oppose the genocide in Gaza are « hard left »? I would call such opposition the moral center. These are not « detractors « but the soul of the party.
lol this thing you accuse the DNC of, not rewriting their platform in light of new threats...this article -reeks- of being written before the largest threat to date, the SCOTUS "immunity" ruling, and not being revised aptly since. lol put the whole Justice Department under Roberts, get out the front door 🤣🤣 cannot proceed
J6 was a direct reaction to Democrats not playing fairly.
They co-opted the media, manipulated truthful information and outraged the general public by doing it.
I think Democrats should be much more concerned with preventing another BLM riot, which did much more damage to the country.
And I think Democrats should explain how a President who hasn't been mentally capable of walking or talking in a healthy manner in years, and definitely not capable of "running" anything can be allowed to be in power. The emperor has no clothes and it's ridiculous that half the country continues with the charade.
Apparently you didn't see his convention speech last night. "Old Joe" is yesterday's news. Now we have just one old, incompetent, incoherent and very weird man running for President and it isn't Kamala Harris.
As a conservative independent I will be voting for Harris because though I disagree with many of her policy positions I know that she isn't a corrupt criminal scamming the nation for his next million dollars and she will not lie as she takes the oath of office about upholding the Constitution.
Only a past Republican would attempt to analyze the Democratic party future as nothing more than the past. "More of the same". "Nothing new". Such predictable rhetoric. One thing Democrats can say unequivocally, "we won't let a Tea Party railroad our direction into an autocracy aligning our values with non-NATO nations.
Step back and expand your vision to include the global dilemma facing democracies.
"Moving the Justice Department out of the executive branch and placing it under the control of the federal judiciary . . ."
I like libertarians better when they're sweaty undergrad nerds endlessly debating the need for seat belts and motorcycle helmets. As adults they can come up with harebrained ideas, such as the proposal to put the Justice Department under the control of the federal judiciary.
This really is too unserious to merit a response, but is the separation of powers just one more big government assault on individual liberty, or is Cato now in favor of turning judges into prosecutors?
Thanks for the thoughtful read--- so many great ideas that kind of blew my mind. I always thought the DHS was weird. Organic combinations aren't needed to facilitate efficient communications between agencies. The idea about the DoJ is something I've not heard of before.
I agree coup-proofing is a serious concern but whatever reforms that might be possible must be bipartisan. To include this in the platform, while clearly establishing it as a Party priority, would also make it politically radioactive and more difficult to pass both houses of Congress.
The "100 Day" thing (as well as the "Day One" thing) is so much rhetorical garbage that I wish candidates and the media would just stop using it as a supposed measure of how important an issue is and especially when Congress has a lot to say about it.
About half the American people were apparently just fine with the last attempted coup and wouldn't mind if it happened again. Certainly the Supreme Court is prepared to accept it. All the Republican controlled states are open to it if not actively pursuing it.
If Harris is elected we will have no reason to fear a coup in the short term. If Trump is elected it won't make any difference what the laws are because he will not be held to account by Congress or the courts.
The reforms you suggest here are cogent and would do a lot to avoid a future coup by a rogue President. BUT such reforms would have been possible to contemplate before 2016 when it might have been possible to find a bipartisan pathway to reform. That moment has long gone and unless Democrats can amass a bulletproof majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate most of your proposals are dead on arrival. And anything passed in this term of Congress can be repealed at a later date.
So much you propose would depend upon the good faith of judicial appointments and the judiciary operating independently. As we have seen such independence is questionable.
In my mind reforming the judiciary is far more important than restructuring the DoJ and DHS.
A final point. I can assure you that Ron Desantis in Florida and Greg Abbot in Texas would LOVE to have personal control over Federal military resources located within their state.
Thanks again for an interesting and provocative read.
Thanks for the kind words. Trump lost 60 of 61 court-based election challenges in 2020, legal defeats handed down by judges appointed by presidents of both major parties. Accordingly, I have far fewer concerns about judges at the circuit & appellate level than I do SCOTUS.
If Trump wins but Dems retain control of at least one chamber of Congress, they can use a one-house veto over any appropriations bills containing unconstitutional or otherwise noxious, rights violating proposals contained therein. He can’t engage in mass deportations without the funds to carry it out, as an example.
The proposals in my piece were ranked from easiest to hardest, and I agree implementation of several would require both Dem control of the WH & Congress with the filibuster eliminated from Senate rules. That said, if they gain that level of control it’s then simply a matter of whether they accept the need to make the changes necessary & the will to do so.
On the other side, there are mirror concerns. https://barsoom.substack.com/p/what-happens-when-the-regime-steals
As an Australian, I very much want a decisive result. Hillary and other Democrats used Russiagate to delegitimise Trump’s 2016 Electoral College victory and Presidency. Trump rhetorically upped the ante over the 2020 election. This spiralling denial of election legitimacy is how a country descends into civil strife.
Meanwhile, Britain burns because British elites stripped voting of any value re: migration.
Lack of border control shoves in the working class’s face how little say they have. Australia has 30% foreign born, the US, UK and France have 15-14% foreign born. Migration is a huge issue in US, UK and France far more than in Australia because we do migration far more sensibly while the US, UK and France do it stupidly.
The US has (or least had until 2016) a robust legal system to address election fraud and resolve election disputes.
Almost everything that the Democrats claimed about Russiagate has been proven true. No one seriously questioned the legitimacy of Trump's Electoral College victory. Everyone understood that Russian influence did not delegitimize the election. The first impeachment was in pursuit of Trump's cooperation with that Russian influence which the Mueller Report clearly established.
Only in 2020 was the claim persistently made without evidence that the election was stolen. Trump did not up the ante RHETORICALLY he actually attempted a coup.
Funny, Britain is burning. Wasn't immigration control one of the problems that BREXIT was supposed to fix? Wasn't that the people's voice against the prevailing judgment of "the elites"?Didn't the Tories have 7 years post-BREXIT to fix the problem? The best they could come up with was trying to forcibly relocate them to Rwanda. I'll admit Labour is hopeless on the issue.
Australia is a large/small country/island surrounded by water.
The US has a 2,000 mile border too big to adequately police.
Australia doesn't have 48,000 people flying in from around the globe every day who have proper visas but many of whom will not leave the country when their visas expire.
Australia has only 27 million people It's much easier to police and find illegal immigrants.
With 330 million people in the US it is easier for illegal immigrants to "go to ground" for years and decades.
The economy of Australia is not as big or dynamic as that of the US therefore Australia isn't an immigrant magnate... it's easier to control immigration when fewer people want to go there. (Personally, I love Australia and would move there in a heartbeat but the government has no interest in old retirees moving in.)
California and Texas each have economies bigger than Australia.