Great essay, but I think you overestimate the extent to which the Founders rejected “anti-immigration sentiment”. Franklin categorically opposed immigration of non-Anglo-Saxons, Jefferson, Hamilton & John Jay argued immigrants diluted American culture (before the former flip-flopped in 1801 for self-serving partisan reasons), Washington thought immigration was unnecessary, Rufus King only wanted to accept immigrants of “good character” & so on. Obviously that doesn’t justify such views, but I think accurately characterizing their views is worthwhile.
"They exhort us to reject the rule of arbitrary power, to resist the appeal of strongman politics that makes a mockery of constitutional checks and balances, the recently revived idea that our head of state stands above the law rather than being subject to it, and the notion that power can be seized in defiance of the will of the people at a free and fair election."
This statement is chosen to conclude an otherwise cogent and thoughtful essay? Appears to be playing to the crowd at the UnPopulist who are clearly not enamored with a certain politician.
Recent presidents from both parties have misused their executive powers; a self-correction is underway, through the courts, to mitigate this abuse...as well as abusive use of power in the administrative state.
A little premature here with the recent SC decision regarding heads of state? There is plenty of time for this self-correction (?) to play out. Who knows where it will go?
"The notion that power can be seized in defiance of the will of the people at a free and fair election"...another self-correction underway here? It's clear that, in the future, such notions will not be taken lightly.
Our nation has a strong history of learning how to better govern itself...we have come a long way as was noted in this essay...although many times that seems to be forgotten. History may look back at this moment in time and recognize that the divisiveness - and, yes populism - that has surfaced may actually have been in the best interest of our country.
That you know which contemporary politician it's primarily (not exclusively) alluding to, from that description alone and without even having to name him, answers why it's relevant and included in discussing this topic.
Yes, clear as a bell. By the way, could the first two of the three assertions apply to another politician who is currently facing a crisis based on the results of a recent debate? I guess one reason for my subtle dig about "playing to the crowd" is that the essay revolves around a sweep of time hundreds of years in the making that is, then, concluded by an allusion based on what we know, or think we know, in the present. Hence, the last statement in my post. Can anyone truly know how this moment in our nation's history will unfold?
We don't know what will happen with Biden, but we know he will NOT say insane things about terminating the constitution, suspending elections, elections being rigged, or that someone who opposes him should be tried for treason in a military tribunal.
Nor will he bully anyone out of the party, or say things that inspire his followers to make death threats to the head of elections in Maricopa County.
No one "truly knows" what is going to happen, but it actually looks pretty bad for American democracy. Why? Because a liar, thief, felon, and former insurrectionist is running again for the Presidency and appears likely to win. And to top it off, The U.S. Supreme Court just made the office of President effectively immune from prosecution. From now on anything goes. Any future president can now do whatever he or she wants with no accountability for their misdeeds, because even American's right to reject the Executive in an election can be taken away by whim of a future president.
Aren’t most of Trump’s indictments related to his private conduct (which are still fair game)? While the SCOTUS ruling’s bad for many reasons, I’m under the impression that it doesn’t meaningfully affect his current charges.
I'm sure that Trump's lawyers are going to appeal everything, based on the new Supreme Court decision, and now have a good chance of winning their appeals. Just think, Trump has a good chance of winning the election, and the Supremes are squarely on his side. Congress and the Senate could both go Republican. The entire U.S. government structure could go monolith Trump, and implement project 2025 with no opposition, except in the streets. What guardrails? What checks and balances?
Great essay, but I think you overestimate the extent to which the Founders rejected “anti-immigration sentiment”. Franklin categorically opposed immigration of non-Anglo-Saxons, Jefferson, Hamilton & John Jay argued immigrants diluted American culture (before the former flip-flopped in 1801 for self-serving partisan reasons), Washington thought immigration was unnecessary, Rufus King only wanted to accept immigrants of “good character” & so on. Obviously that doesn’t justify such views, but I think accurately characterizing their views is worthwhile.
"They exhort us to reject the rule of arbitrary power, to resist the appeal of strongman politics that makes a mockery of constitutional checks and balances, the recently revived idea that our head of state stands above the law rather than being subject to it, and the notion that power can be seized in defiance of the will of the people at a free and fair election."
This statement is chosen to conclude an otherwise cogent and thoughtful essay? Appears to be playing to the crowd at the UnPopulist who are clearly not enamored with a certain politician.
Recent presidents from both parties have misused their executive powers; a self-correction is underway, through the courts, to mitigate this abuse...as well as abusive use of power in the administrative state.
A little premature here with the recent SC decision regarding heads of state? There is plenty of time for this self-correction (?) to play out. Who knows where it will go?
"The notion that power can be seized in defiance of the will of the people at a free and fair election"...another self-correction underway here? It's clear that, in the future, such notions will not be taken lightly.
Our nation has a strong history of learning how to better govern itself...we have come a long way as was noted in this essay...although many times that seems to be forgotten. History may look back at this moment in time and recognize that the divisiveness - and, yes populism - that has surfaced may actually have been in the best interest of our country.
That you know which contemporary politician it's primarily (not exclusively) alluding to, from that description alone and without even having to name him, answers why it's relevant and included in discussing this topic.
Yes, clear as a bell. By the way, could the first two of the three assertions apply to another politician who is currently facing a crisis based on the results of a recent debate? I guess one reason for my subtle dig about "playing to the crowd" is that the essay revolves around a sweep of time hundreds of years in the making that is, then, concluded by an allusion based on what we know, or think we know, in the present. Hence, the last statement in my post. Can anyone truly know how this moment in our nation's history will unfold?
We don't know what will happen with Biden, but we know he will NOT say insane things about terminating the constitution, suspending elections, elections being rigged, or that someone who opposes him should be tried for treason in a military tribunal.
Nor will he bully anyone out of the party, or say things that inspire his followers to make death threats to the head of elections in Maricopa County.
No one "truly knows" what is going to happen, but it actually looks pretty bad for American democracy. Why? Because a liar, thief, felon, and former insurrectionist is running again for the Presidency and appears likely to win. And to top it off, The U.S. Supreme Court just made the office of President effectively immune from prosecution. From now on anything goes. Any future president can now do whatever he or she wants with no accountability for their misdeeds, because even American's right to reject the Executive in an election can be taken away by whim of a future president.
Aren’t most of Trump’s indictments related to his private conduct (which are still fair game)? While the SCOTUS ruling’s bad for many reasons, I’m under the impression that it doesn’t meaningfully affect his current charges.
I'm sure that Trump's lawyers are going to appeal everything, based on the new Supreme Court decision, and now have a good chance of winning their appeals. Just think, Trump has a good chance of winning the election, and the Supremes are squarely on his side. Congress and the Senate could both go Republican. The entire U.S. government structure could go monolith Trump, and implement project 2025 with no opposition, except in the streets. What guardrails? What checks and balances?