I sometimes wonder if Arthur Schlesinger would be more surprised at the degree to which his concerns have become reality, or that it took a half century.
Even if some future president had a deep and sincere desire to return the federal government to a more balanced separation of powers, how would Congress be reformed?
The House and Senate have become cozy jobs for narcissists who want fame and fortune without the need to do much actual work, other than fundraising. Serous politicians who legitimately did want to solve problems, and were willing to do the difficult work of enacting legislation, have left the Congress in droves. Voters are choosing candidates who can bloviate on culture war topics, but lack the motivation and attention span to do anything substantive.
I don’t see how Liberal Democracy can function once a critical mass of voters make refusal to compromise their top policy concern. A president alone cannot fix this systemic disease of the people.
It's troubling enough that people like those at Heritage think we should have something close to a monarchy, with very little restraint on the actions of the person at the top. But to promote such an agenda when the person at the top is an ignorant, amoral sociopath - now showing signs of serious mental decline - is absolutely bonkers.
MAGA cultists and copium peddlers can say what they like. Trump and co's reshaping of the U.S. has already harmed Americans and the rest of us.
"So, while Trump has already exhausted the US military (more on that below) and has to abandon the vital western Pacific because he has bungled things so badly, Iran is rebuilding and planning on expanding the war. And, once again, former US partners in the region can see how weak the USA has become and are planning on a very different future. Oman, which has provided the US Navy with very useful support in the past, is clearly exploring cooperating with Iran in the Strait. Trump’s response to this, a situation he caused, was to threaten to bomb Oman! Indeed, the threat that he made towards this one time US friend was to “bomb the shit out of them.”
"If the USA were a serious country, it would realize it has lost this war (actually it would not have started it). And having lost, it is best to get out of it ASAP, as each day it lasts, as I’ve been trying to get across for months now, weakens the USA and strengthens Iran."
The question of whether these executive changes will last is a fascinating one, especially given how much depends on future leadership. I also think institutional checks and public expectations will play a major role in shaping what comes next. For anyone researching https://charlottecountypropertyappraiser.org having access to reliable public information can be equally valuable. The broader discussion about lasting institutional change is definitely worth following.
What I find most consequential in this argument is the distinction between concentrating power and preserving institutional capacity.
A presidency can accumulate authority very quickly, but institutional competence is much harder to rebuild once professional expertise, independent judgment, and internal checks have been weakened. This is especially important in complex security and foreign-policy environments, where information is fragmented and those closest to the problem often understand realities that cannot be fully visible from the top of the hierarchy.
From a field perspective, hierarchy is necessary—but hierarchy without informed dissent can become a vulnerability. The strongest institutions are not those in which every subordinate simply executes the will of the principal. They are those in which professional expertise can travel upward, inconvenient information can survive the chain of command, and decision-makers retain the ability to correct course before a political decision becomes an irreversible strategic failure.
This is why the question of what the next president inherits is larger than the question of who occupies the White House.
A successor may inherit expanded executive authority. The harder question is whether they will also inherit the institutional safeguards and professional capacity necessary to use that authority responsibly.
Power can be transferred overnight. Institutional trust and professional competence cannot.
— وحیدالله نورزی
Former Senior ANP/ANCOP Officer | Strategic & Security Analyst
The question of how much presidential power can expand is a fascinating one, especially when changes affect long-standing institutions. It will be interesting to see how courts, Congress, and future administrations shape these developments. For broader public-record research, https://indianriverpropertyappraiser.org can also be a useful resource. The lasting impact may depend as much on future precedents as on current policies.
The discussion raises an interesting point about how much presidential authority can shape the broader system of government. I think the actions of future administrations will be just as important as the changes made today. For those researching related legal matters, https://bentoncountycourt.org can be a useful resource for reviewing public information. The long-term effects of these changes will certainly be worth watching.
“However, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on many of the other cases, and in one case clearly ruled in favor of the administration. That was Trump v. Slaughter, decided last month, which overturned an earlier Supreme Court decision called Humphrey’s Executor. “
I think this was a correct decision by the Supreme Court. I think future decisions will come down to deciding which Agencies carry on quasi-legislative functions and which do not. Those which carry on solely or mostly Executive functions, like the FTC, will not be subject to Congressional limits on Presidential discretions. Those which have quasi-legislative functions, like the Fed?, will have some Congressional limitation on Presidential discretions. This is a correct and useful splitting of the hairs which is faithful to the Constitution and pushes back on Congressional overreach.
“Today’s executive branch is so large, sprawling, and powerful that there needs to be a separation of powers within the executive, and not simply between the executive and the other two branches of government. The chief argument in favor of such a separation has to do with the preservation of the expertise that is necessary to run a modern state.”
I agree this is desirable, but it is not current law as provisioned by the US Constitution. If we want this to be the law, then the Constitution needs to be changed, or as was the case prior to Trump, rational Executives need to adhere to this as if it were the law.
Yes, Trump has degraded many of the safeguards built up over many decades which make the US system function better. But it’s hard to argue that these safeguards take precedence over the Constitution. Some people seem to be advocating for ignoring the law, albeit couched in consequentialist arguments. But if you don’t want to follow those laws, well there are a whole bunch of laws I’d rather not follow and would feel empowered to ignore them if that is how our society is going to work. So again, if you want this to be law, the Constitution needs to be changed.
My last thought on this point is that it takes far too long for these issues to be decided with finality. It takes years usually to get to the Supreme Court and too much damage can occur in the meantime notwithstanding lower court injunctions.
Otherwise thank you Dr Fukuyama for your thoughts on these important issues.
"radical remaking" in the eyes of the MSM. In reality he's done barely anything beyond what past presidents have done.
--Iran? compare to Afghanistan Iraq Kuwait among others.
--Ukraine support nearly indistinguishable from OBiden. Many things he tried, struck down same as OBiden. tariffs vs. huge student loan giveaways, struck down by courts.
--Securing our borders that OBiden threw open? hardly radical. Google Obama, ClintonH and other mainstream democrats pledging to secure our borders. Biden is the radical one there.
I sometimes wonder if Arthur Schlesinger would be more surprised at the degree to which his concerns have become reality, or that it took a half century.
Even if some future president had a deep and sincere desire to return the federal government to a more balanced separation of powers, how would Congress be reformed?
The House and Senate have become cozy jobs for narcissists who want fame and fortune without the need to do much actual work, other than fundraising. Serous politicians who legitimately did want to solve problems, and were willing to do the difficult work of enacting legislation, have left the Congress in droves. Voters are choosing candidates who can bloviate on culture war topics, but lack the motivation and attention span to do anything substantive.
I don’t see how Liberal Democracy can function once a critical mass of voters make refusal to compromise their top policy concern. A president alone cannot fix this systemic disease of the people.
It's troubling enough that people like those at Heritage think we should have something close to a monarchy, with very little restraint on the actions of the person at the top. But to promote such an agenda when the person at the top is an ignorant, amoral sociopath - now showing signs of serious mental decline - is absolutely bonkers.
MAGA cultists and copium peddlers can say what they like. Trump and co's reshaping of the U.S. has already harmed Americans and the rest of us.
"So, while Trump has already exhausted the US military (more on that below) and has to abandon the vital western Pacific because he has bungled things so badly, Iran is rebuilding and planning on expanding the war. And, once again, former US partners in the region can see how weak the USA has become and are planning on a very different future. Oman, which has provided the US Navy with very useful support in the past, is clearly exploring cooperating with Iran in the Strait. Trump’s response to this, a situation he caused, was to threaten to bomb Oman! Indeed, the threat that he made towards this one time US friend was to “bomb the shit out of them.”
"If the USA were a serious country, it would realize it has lost this war (actually it would not have started it). And having lost, it is best to get out of it ASAP, as each day it lasts, as I’ve been trying to get across for months now, weakens the USA and strengthens Iran."
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/midweek-update-24-the-usa-is-not
The question of whether these executive changes will last is a fascinating one, especially given how much depends on future leadership. I also think institutional checks and public expectations will play a major role in shaping what comes next. For anyone researching https://charlottecountypropertyappraiser.org having access to reliable public information can be equally valuable. The broader discussion about lasting institutional change is definitely worth following.
What I find most consequential in this argument is the distinction between concentrating power and preserving institutional capacity.
A presidency can accumulate authority very quickly, but institutional competence is much harder to rebuild once professional expertise, independent judgment, and internal checks have been weakened. This is especially important in complex security and foreign-policy environments, where information is fragmented and those closest to the problem often understand realities that cannot be fully visible from the top of the hierarchy.
From a field perspective, hierarchy is necessary—but hierarchy without informed dissent can become a vulnerability. The strongest institutions are not those in which every subordinate simply executes the will of the principal. They are those in which professional expertise can travel upward, inconvenient information can survive the chain of command, and decision-makers retain the ability to correct course before a political decision becomes an irreversible strategic failure.
This is why the question of what the next president inherits is larger than the question of who occupies the White House.
A successor may inherit expanded executive authority. The harder question is whether they will also inherit the institutional safeguards and professional capacity necessary to use that authority responsibly.
Power can be transferred overnight. Institutional trust and professional competence cannot.
— وحیدالله نورزی
Former Senior ANP/ANCOP Officer | Strategic & Security Analyst
The question of how much presidential power can expand is a fascinating one, especially when changes affect long-standing institutions. It will be interesting to see how courts, Congress, and future administrations shape these developments. For broader public-record research, https://indianriverpropertyappraiser.org can also be a useful resource. The lasting impact may depend as much on future precedents as on current policies.
The discussion raises an interesting point about how much presidential authority can shape the broader system of government. I think the actions of future administrations will be just as important as the changes made today. For those researching related legal matters, https://bentoncountycourt.org can be a useful resource for reviewing public information. The long-term effects of these changes will certainly be worth watching.
“However, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on many of the other cases, and in one case clearly ruled in favor of the administration. That was Trump v. Slaughter, decided last month, which overturned an earlier Supreme Court decision called Humphrey’s Executor. “
I think this was a correct decision by the Supreme Court. I think future decisions will come down to deciding which Agencies carry on quasi-legislative functions and which do not. Those which carry on solely or mostly Executive functions, like the FTC, will not be subject to Congressional limits on Presidential discretions. Those which have quasi-legislative functions, like the Fed?, will have some Congressional limitation on Presidential discretions. This is a correct and useful splitting of the hairs which is faithful to the Constitution and pushes back on Congressional overreach.
“Today’s executive branch is so large, sprawling, and powerful that there needs to be a separation of powers within the executive, and not simply between the executive and the other two branches of government. The chief argument in favor of such a separation has to do with the preservation of the expertise that is necessary to run a modern state.”
I agree this is desirable, but it is not current law as provisioned by the US Constitution. If we want this to be the law, then the Constitution needs to be changed, or as was the case prior to Trump, rational Executives need to adhere to this as if it were the law.
Yes, Trump has degraded many of the safeguards built up over many decades which make the US system function better. But it’s hard to argue that these safeguards take precedence over the Constitution. Some people seem to be advocating for ignoring the law, albeit couched in consequentialist arguments. But if you don’t want to follow those laws, well there are a whole bunch of laws I’d rather not follow and would feel empowered to ignore them if that is how our society is going to work. So again, if you want this to be law, the Constitution needs to be changed.
My last thought on this point is that it takes far too long for these issues to be decided with finality. It takes years usually to get to the Supreme Court and too much damage can occur in the meantime notwithstanding lower court injunctions.
Otherwise thank you Dr Fukuyama for your thoughts on these important issues.
"radical remaking" in the eyes of the MSM. In reality he's done barely anything beyond what past presidents have done.
--Iran? compare to Afghanistan Iraq Kuwait among others.
--Ukraine support nearly indistinguishable from OBiden. Many things he tried, struck down same as OBiden. tariffs vs. huge student loan giveaways, struck down by courts.
--Securing our borders that OBiden threw open? hardly radical. Google Obama, ClintonH and other mainstream democrats pledging to secure our borders. Biden is the radical one there.
.
this dog don't hunt.
The classic "if I'm very vague and avoid any details, these two things are the same" lol