Courts must save US along with reviving of public spaces and debate, it is preplexing of how no one in the US is talking about state of emergency legislation and powers invocation as justifications of what's going on.
Did the transcript we just read seriously give you hope that "courts" can possibly "save" anything with the other two branches in their current attitudes?
Makes me want to cry with how so many people are forgetting the magnificent dream that is America. If enough hearts once understood how it was supposed to be they will shine again and help the everyone else back on their feet.
This is an excellent and useful discussion. As a lawyer, I find the dilemmas excruciating. One point to add. It is said that "the federal bureaucracy was a check on a lot of the things that he wanted to do. They simply slow-walked, for example ...". I don't think that is correct, on the whole. What the "deep state" did was mostly just to enforce the law, to say, the statute doesn't allow this, or you have to follow the usual procedures. That's not slow-walking. It's not deep-state subversion. It's the rule of law. Ironically, the main law that the bureaucracy was enforcing and the administration was resisting was (is?) the Administrative Procedure Act, which was enacted in the late 40's as a Republican check on the potential excesses of the New Deal state. So they're actually fighting a prior Republican remedy for governmental overreach, one that has functioned reasonably well ever since. More basically, "deep state" is a bad term: I wish non-Trumpistanis wouldn't use it ... it came from the description of how the security services undermined the real, constitutional state in Pakistan, and is grossly inappropriate to describe how the Civil Service in this country is supposed to function. Let's not adopt one of Trump's lazy and mendacious slurs into responsible discourse.
All the panelists are familiar to me but it is Frank Fukuyama and his 2 volumes on political order that got me deeper into political science. I believe the conversation among all of you confirms my desire to understand more. OTOH I doubt anyone on the panel holds the ideas and beliefs of the 77 million Americans who voted for Trump - again. I know, I know, many of those salt-of-the-earth types just were misled/bamboozled/Foxed/budget-busted by eggs/etc. but it is so clear the damage has been done. I compare it to the redemption of Confederate traitors who founded then a 100-year fascist terror state whose consequences we all stll live with. I may follow your commentator north in the few years I have remaining (84th birthday in 8 days).
Actually, loads of surveys have shown us that, in fact, *most* Americans hold very similar views on *most* subjects. People generally don't vote their "ideas and beliefs" AKA their rational brain. They vote their feelings, AKA their hearts. No rational brain involved. The Dems have never managed to factor this into their approaches to voters. Hence the disdain of many voters to their "wonky" solicitations and pronouncements.
Not to overwhelm the comments with my blather, but..............
Robert makes an intriguing assertion, that 'most' Americans hold very similar views on 'most' subjects. I appreciate the qualificative quote marks and so want to just throw some areas where I've stumbled over some genuine non-comprehension. "Shouting" or spirit possession aka being filled with the Holy Ghost as a sinequa non for genuine salvation. How about life in the country better than crowded soggy cities, complete with massive insects and sporadic emergency care. How about spelunking or sky diving? Curling? Prostitution. Contraception. Anything to do with sex. Republicans. Libertarianism. Given my 'feelings' about shouting, I could round up a bunch of people I know who shout or some who go spelunking (I've done it twice, once as a Scout and once involuntarily) and then begin developing rational reasons for these things (already done on shouting - it's called theology). So which on my list might be dividing voters? Oh, and abortion.
There are multiple studies over the years that very clearly show that 'most' Americans, usually in the 70% range, agree (pretty much; some haziness on some things) on a wide variety of major political issues. From Google AI:
"In essence, despite the focus on political divides, when examining specific policies and issues, a surprisingly large number of Americans find themselves on the same side, especially on issues that have a direct and practical impact on their daily lives. This common ground exists even amidst differing approaches to government's role and contrasting ideological stances."
No quarrel with this as presented viz. "a wide variety of major political issues." Note that the 30% matches what I've been viewing over the past decade and more in polling and other measures direct and indirect, that about 30% of the population is either out of the loop altogether or hopelessly uninformed (is Ukraine a branch of UFit Health Clubs?) ON MAJOR POLITICAL ISSUES though perhaps expert on other important things in life. Then there are those who appear committed to nutty theories around which they do their "research." In sum, I believe you and I can agree on the shape of the landscape. Thanks for engaging with this.
Great discussion and it’s great that this panel has both left leaning and right leaning legal and political experts. I think the legal profession still has a degree of professionalism about it, even a conservative lawyer can argue for a liberal case. And I think that when the House flips to the democrats, the house will once again be able to make it tough for the Republicans to continue to enable authoritarianism!
How did that "make it tough for the Republicans..." work under Obama or Biden? Congressional gridlock predates thRump and looks prepared to continue long after he's gone. Instead of "authoritarianism" we'll get nothing. Probably better, but not what we need. A Pyrrhic victory.
"I disagree with all of you. I’m going to be the ray of sunshine here. There are three things that a Congress coming in can do, and none of them involve legislation.
The first is appropriations. Ninety percent of what Trump is doing can be stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriations committee that gives a shit. The second is investigations. Investigations are a non-legislative function of Congress. The House of Representatives in the first Trump administration did a heck of a job with investigations. The Ukraine investigation was a very, very serious piece of work, done with no executive branch cooperation, under difficult circumstances. We learned a lot from it. And the Jan. 6th committee, which was created in the House of Representatives—everybody’s forgotten the name Liz Cheney; you shouldn’t—was an amazing accomplishment that she and Bennie Thompson and the others did. It was really a terrific piece of work. And the third is impeachment. It bothers Donald Trump a great deal that he’s been impeached twice. And it was an important moral statement both times.
So congressional action ... it is not the perfect branch of government—it’s never going to be. But I want to resist the sort of Debbie Downerism on Congress, particularly about the House of Representatives, which vacillates between extremities but is capable of doing great things."
Yes I guess even he is not that optimistic about how effective this will be to stop the MAGA/TeaParty/Project 2025 crowd from their desperate purge of the Deep State! But at least the Democrats would be in control, rather than the supine Republican house...
When he had a majority in the House, how did Obama do with Congress? Passed ACA and not a whole lot else. Mitch the Bitch was determined to make Obama a 1-term president and without both houses you don't get much done, and he didn't. Until Rs get out from under the thumb of thRump and grow spines, I don't see any way for Congress to do *anything*. Rs in Congress: "Our way or the highway." NOT conducive to any legislative progress. Investigate, document, impeach... all wonderful. VERY similar to: "The economy is excellent! See what a great job I did?" Did that or the great Congressional accomplishments prevent thRump 2024? Nope. Another Pyrrhic victory. Yes, if they would do their job we could love 'em. But how do we wake them up???? If you're not the cult leader, cult members are notoriously hard to convince to do anything. Godspeed!
Totally agree about Obama but I’m still pissed that Biden did not step down in 2022 . We would have had a much better shot at holding the presidency and the house. I have the book original sin by Tapper and Thompson, I’ll post a review after I read it!
The President will save us from the courts
Courts must save US along with reviving of public spaces and debate, it is preplexing of how no one in the US is talking about state of emergency legislation and powers invocation as justifications of what's going on.
Did the transcript we just read seriously give you hope that "courts" can possibly "save" anything with the other two branches in their current attitudes?
Makes me want to cry with how so many people are forgetting the magnificent dream that is America. If enough hearts once understood how it was supposed to be they will shine again and help the everyone else back on their feet.
This is an excellent and useful discussion. As a lawyer, I find the dilemmas excruciating. One point to add. It is said that "the federal bureaucracy was a check on a lot of the things that he wanted to do. They simply slow-walked, for example ...". I don't think that is correct, on the whole. What the "deep state" did was mostly just to enforce the law, to say, the statute doesn't allow this, or you have to follow the usual procedures. That's not slow-walking. It's not deep-state subversion. It's the rule of law. Ironically, the main law that the bureaucracy was enforcing and the administration was resisting was (is?) the Administrative Procedure Act, which was enacted in the late 40's as a Republican check on the potential excesses of the New Deal state. So they're actually fighting a prior Republican remedy for governmental overreach, one that has functioned reasonably well ever since. More basically, "deep state" is a bad term: I wish non-Trumpistanis wouldn't use it ... it came from the description of how the security services undermined the real, constitutional state in Pakistan, and is grossly inappropriate to describe how the Civil Service in this country is supposed to function. Let's not adopt one of Trump's lazy and mendacious slurs into responsible discourse.
Have you had a chat about that last point with Deep State Radio? (I don't know how snarky they are today compared to 2017 ...)
All the panelists are familiar to me but it is Frank Fukuyama and his 2 volumes on political order that got me deeper into political science. I believe the conversation among all of you confirms my desire to understand more. OTOH I doubt anyone on the panel holds the ideas and beliefs of the 77 million Americans who voted for Trump - again. I know, I know, many of those salt-of-the-earth types just were misled/bamboozled/Foxed/budget-busted by eggs/etc. but it is so clear the damage has been done. I compare it to the redemption of Confederate traitors who founded then a 100-year fascist terror state whose consequences we all stll live with. I may follow your commentator north in the few years I have remaining (84th birthday in 8 days).
Actually, loads of surveys have shown us that, in fact, *most* Americans hold very similar views on *most* subjects. People generally don't vote their "ideas and beliefs" AKA their rational brain. They vote their feelings, AKA their hearts. No rational brain involved. The Dems have never managed to factor this into their approaches to voters. Hence the disdain of many voters to their "wonky" solicitations and pronouncements.
Not to overwhelm the comments with my blather, but..............
Robert makes an intriguing assertion, that 'most' Americans hold very similar views on 'most' subjects. I appreciate the qualificative quote marks and so want to just throw some areas where I've stumbled over some genuine non-comprehension. "Shouting" or spirit possession aka being filled with the Holy Ghost as a sinequa non for genuine salvation. How about life in the country better than crowded soggy cities, complete with massive insects and sporadic emergency care. How about spelunking or sky diving? Curling? Prostitution. Contraception. Anything to do with sex. Republicans. Libertarianism. Given my 'feelings' about shouting, I could round up a bunch of people I know who shout or some who go spelunking (I've done it twice, once as a Scout and once involuntarily) and then begin developing rational reasons for these things (already done on shouting - it's called theology). So which on my list might be dividing voters? Oh, and abortion.
Pat
There are multiple studies over the years that very clearly show that 'most' Americans, usually in the 70% range, agree (pretty much; some haziness on some things) on a wide variety of major political issues. From Google AI:
"In essence, despite the focus on political divides, when examining specific policies and issues, a surprisingly large number of Americans find themselves on the same side, especially on issues that have a direct and practical impact on their daily lives. This common ground exists even amidst differing approaches to government's role and contrasting ideological stances."
What's AI's answer to "what if the people with the most & biggest guns & bombs don't care who agrees?"
No quarrel with this as presented viz. "a wide variety of major political issues." Note that the 30% matches what I've been viewing over the past decade and more in polling and other measures direct and indirect, that about 30% of the population is either out of the loop altogether or hopelessly uninformed (is Ukraine a branch of UFit Health Clubs?) ON MAJOR POLITICAL ISSUES though perhaps expert on other important things in life. Then there are those who appear committed to nutty theories around which they do their "research." In sum, I believe you and I can agree on the shape of the landscape. Thanks for engaging with this.
Great discussion and it’s great that this panel has both left leaning and right leaning legal and political experts. I think the legal profession still has a degree of professionalism about it, even a conservative lawyer can argue for a liberal case. And I think that when the House flips to the democrats, the house will once again be able to make it tough for the Republicans to continue to enable authoritarianism!
How did that "make it tough for the Republicans..." work under Obama or Biden? Congressional gridlock predates thRump and looks prepared to continue long after he's gone. Instead of "authoritarianism" we'll get nothing. Probably better, but not what we need. A Pyrrhic victory.
This quote from panelist Witter
"I disagree with all of you. I’m going to be the ray of sunshine here. There are three things that a Congress coming in can do, and none of them involve legislation.
The first is appropriations. Ninety percent of what Trump is doing can be stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriations committee that gives a shit. The second is investigations. Investigations are a non-legislative function of Congress. The House of Representatives in the first Trump administration did a heck of a job with investigations. The Ukraine investigation was a very, very serious piece of work, done with no executive branch cooperation, under difficult circumstances. We learned a lot from it. And the Jan. 6th committee, which was created in the House of Representatives—everybody’s forgotten the name Liz Cheney; you shouldn’t—was an amazing accomplishment that she and Bennie Thompson and the others did. It was really a terrific piece of work. And the third is impeachment. It bothers Donald Trump a great deal that he’s been impeached twice. And it was an important moral statement both times.
So congressional action ... it is not the perfect branch of government—it’s never going to be. But I want to resist the sort of Debbie Downerism on Congress, particularly about the House of Representatives, which vacillates between extremities but is capable of doing great things."
Yes I guess even he is not that optimistic about how effective this will be to stop the MAGA/TeaParty/Project 2025 crowd from their desperate purge of the Deep State! But at least the Democrats would be in control, rather than the supine Republican house...
When he had a majority in the House, how did Obama do with Congress? Passed ACA and not a whole lot else. Mitch the Bitch was determined to make Obama a 1-term president and without both houses you don't get much done, and he didn't. Until Rs get out from under the thumb of thRump and grow spines, I don't see any way for Congress to do *anything*. Rs in Congress: "Our way or the highway." NOT conducive to any legislative progress. Investigate, document, impeach... all wonderful. VERY similar to: "The economy is excellent! See what a great job I did?" Did that or the great Congressional accomplishments prevent thRump 2024? Nope. Another Pyrrhic victory. Yes, if they would do their job we could love 'em. But how do we wake them up???? If you're not the cult leader, cult members are notoriously hard to convince to do anything. Godspeed!
Totally agree about Obama but I’m still pissed that Biden did not step down in 2022 . We would have had a much better shot at holding the presidency and the house. I have the book original sin by Tapper and Thompson, I’ll post a review after I read it!