The Trumpist right wants to co-opt the administrative state for its authoritarian ends, not limit its powers
"Yes, so sort of the idea is to have some a conservative revolution in which you use the levers of the state to cram as much of the conservative social agenda as possible and then to hell with the next, the Democratic government once it comes into power."
It is unclear why you think there will ever be another "election" after a second Trump term. As you say, the objective of the right here is power -- allowing elections is contrary to the idea of obtaining ultimate power. Whether you look at Hitler's Germany or Orban's Hungary or Putin's Russia, elections were/have been eliminated -- and until the governments collapse, there will not be another.
Operative sections: (1) PREAMBLE: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (2) TENTH AMENDMENT: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Does the Preamble authorize the federal government to legislate in support of public education, the arts, worker safety, protecting the environment, public health, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.? Plus necessary funding and personnel to enforce those laws? Arguably, the states should have had the primary role for some of these developments, but many fell short of providing for the "general Welfare" of ALL their citizens. The federal government stepped in again and again in an attempt to equalize citizens' "general Welfare." If the federal government is to be reduced in scope and scale, the states need to pick up the slack that would result. The impact of slavery, and its aftermath, is a big part of how the current "big government" situation came into being.
The bothsiderism here is a bit gratuitous IMHO. Some progressives might want to use the state to advance their goals, but they don’t have the power to do so, at least not to nearly the same degree. The right wing has vastly more power, partly because they’re advantaged by peculiarities in our system (Electoral College, Senate, etc), but mostly because they have much, much more money. The excessive attention to dumb things that university professors say vs the enormous power of oligarchs and their enablers (RW media, corrupted courts) gets tiresome.
Omitted from this discussion: our mammoth federal government might not have become so large if the various states had provided services, protections and supports to their citizens consonant with the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
That is deranged. Hunter Biden selling access to his father should be important to everyone. Only a true cultist would deny it.
You didn't answer the question: Why would you think that Trump and his cronies would need "backing of the ENTIRE US armed forces."? (Suppose there is a corporal in Missouri that does not back Trump.)
Sorry, don’t agree. The MSM (which does have real power) is very influenced by RW memes, see eg the endless hand-wringing over Biden’s age, with much less attention to Trump’s much more apparent cognitive decline or authoritarian plans. (That has improved a little recently, but there’s a long way to go. There was a recent study that showed how the NYT in particular is very responsive to RW concerns over LW ones.). Corporations (which again have real power) do make a lot of gestures to wokeness, but continue to pursue an aggressive agenda of lowering tax rates and regulations, including ones that protect consumers, workers, the environment, etc. The wokeness stuff is mostly performative IOW. Teachers’ unions, universities etc have relatively little political power, which is precisely why they get targeted so much by the DeSantises of the world. There are certainly people on the left who are rigidly ideological and shouldn’t be trusted with power (I’ve been SMH over much of the Gaza commentary for example), but they have very little actual power compared to oligarchs and their political enablers.