If you think America is a democracy, then you should be supporting Donald Trump as he won the vote and represents the will of the majority. You should also support usurping the powers of Congress and treating the courts with contempt as these are all mechanisms designed to limit the government to protecting individual rights, which makes them undemocratic institutions.
Democracy is, in fact, "a rejection of constitutional operating system itself, the very premise that government power is bound by law," and represents a return to mob rule, which is how you get Trump and worse.
In other words, opposing Trump on the grounds of authoritarianism doesn't make sense if you're just going to turn around and support democracy. Only supporting rights-protecting government opposes authoritarianism. Everything else is just different flavors of authoritarianism.
The democrats are a party of big government authoritarians and are enormously responsible for today's crisis. They're not going to be reconstructing anything. In fact, given the precedent that Trump has set, I'd expect democrats to be even worse going forward. They can pretty much do anything they want, and the GOP can't oppose anything given what they've enabled.
But the issue facing us today has nothing to do with voting, or political parties. It's all about a historic crisis of expertise in the field of politics. Until we get political intellectuals who actually understand the subject and can effectively communicate it to the mainstream, our slide towards authoritarianism and third-world poverty will continue.
I would add to Jose's valid point only by saying that "majority rule" is a stupid idea if it means 50 percent plus 1 get to tear down institutions and radically change the form of governance. Such a "majority" (which, as Jose points out, Trump πππππ received) is too thin, and cannot likely be held (unless of course the party holding it resorts to lying and unconstitutional means to do so), which means the government (and the people) would face vicious volatility in governance based on the "swing voter" inclination in various elections. Not a good system at all. America worked best when there was a single "party" that had factions, but would "log roll" to get things done. Now, the "other" party is indeed portrayed as "the other". They are demons, enemies, insert your own pejorative. This won't work, of course. The center will not stand. The American experiment, will fall.
What interests me most is the broader question: every society depends on institutions, but institutions ultimately depend on human character. No constitutional design can fully replace civic virtue. The tension between the two seems permanent.
A good start. Just a side add to this = Lets not forget that reforms and guardrails are needed for the Supreme Court. This is [also] a high priority, and I felt it needed to be explicitly said. Thanks!
All of our political institutions have functioned better for centuries than any others in human history. The issues we face today have nothing to do with the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court requires no reforms or guardrails.
The real issue is that we lack political professionals in the mainstream who actually understand how these mechanisms function. Consequently, any institutional changes forced through today would necessarily be for the worse.
What we truly need are reforms and guardrails within the field of political commentary and higher standards for our political intellectuals.
During Reconstruction Republicans were closer to what Democrats are today. Article's closing comment may be misleading to those who don't recall that. And yes, today's Democrats need to lead a new Reconstruction. Republicans certainly won't.
Hopefully reform of the executive branch extends to trimming in the expansive administrative state.
I would only add in the irony that the Republicans who performed the Reconstruction πππ indeed today's Democrats, via "The Great Switch".
If you think America is a democracy, then you should be supporting Donald Trump as he won the vote and represents the will of the majority. You should also support usurping the powers of Congress and treating the courts with contempt as these are all mechanisms designed to limit the government to protecting individual rights, which makes them undemocratic institutions.
Democracy is, in fact, "a rejection of constitutional operating system itself, the very premise that government power is bound by law," and represents a return to mob rule, which is how you get Trump and worse.
In other words, opposing Trump on the grounds of authoritarianism doesn't make sense if you're just going to turn around and support democracy. Only supporting rights-protecting government opposes authoritarianism. Everything else is just different flavors of authoritarianism.
The democrats are a party of big government authoritarians and are enormously responsible for today's crisis. They're not going to be reconstructing anything. In fact, given the precedent that Trump has set, I'd expect democrats to be even worse going forward. They can pretty much do anything they want, and the GOP can't oppose anything given what they've enabled.
But the issue facing us today has nothing to do with voting, or political parties. It's all about a historic crisis of expertise in the field of politics. Until we get political intellectuals who actually understand the subject and can effectively communicate it to the mainstream, our slide towards authoritarianism and third-world poverty will continue.
I would add to Jose's valid point only by saying that "majority rule" is a stupid idea if it means 50 percent plus 1 get to tear down institutions and radically change the form of governance. Such a "majority" (which, as Jose points out, Trump πππππ received) is too thin, and cannot likely be held (unless of course the party holding it resorts to lying and unconstitutional means to do so), which means the government (and the people) would face vicious volatility in governance based on the "swing voter" inclination in various elections. Not a good system at all. America worked best when there was a single "party" that had factions, but would "log roll" to get things done. Now, the "other" party is indeed portrayed as "the other". They are demons, enemies, insert your own pejorative. This won't work, of course. The center will not stand. The American experiment, will fall.
Donald Trump has never captured a majority of the votes of the people of the United States.
He's only president thanks to a broken electoral system that places land area above the will of the people.
What interests me most is the broader question: every society depends on institutions, but institutions ultimately depend on human character. No constitutional design can fully replace civic virtue. The tension between the two seems permanent.
A good start. Just a side add to this = Lets not forget that reforms and guardrails are needed for the Supreme Court. This is [also] a high priority, and I felt it needed to be explicitly said. Thanks!
All of our political institutions have functioned better for centuries than any others in human history. The issues we face today have nothing to do with the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court requires no reforms or guardrails.
The real issue is that we lack political professionals in the mainstream who actually understand how these mechanisms function. Consequently, any institutional changes forced through today would necessarily be for the worse.
What we truly need are reforms and guardrails within the field of political commentary and higher standards for our political intellectuals.
We will be running a piece expressly on that next week
During Reconstruction Republicans were closer to what Democrats are today. Article's closing comment may be misleading to those who don't recall that. And yes, today's Democrats need to lead a new Reconstruction. Republicans certainly won't.
Couldn't agree more with the supposition. Only facing reality can lead to the restorative solutions.
Not sure about all, but agree the pardon power needs to be limited to prevent abuse.