Things in the US seem to keep sliding toward further power centralization. Regardless of politics, that is bad policy of the highest order (bit).
Great opportunity for someone to create some effective opposition.
There is a medal in it!
Ironically, someone who badly wants a medal is actually in the perfect position to turn around the brain/competency drain, “bring back science”, boost US competition with China’s green tech wave, help Ukraine win (instead of the endless: “not lose for now”), fire the all the senate confirmed bozos…
If he did, a Nobel prize would be unconventional under the circumstances. But well worth it nevertheless.
No Rushmore. There isn’t enough room left on that mountain for that size of an ego. But maybe a genuine gold working toilet installation for Rushmore tourists.
———
Humor, despair and any bias of mine aside. I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment, reaffirming key points of the existing constitution with a highlighter for supreme justices with poor eyesight, might be one promising approach.
> “No person shall” [something, something] “hold any office” [something, something], “who, having” [something, something] “engaged in insurrection”, [something, something] “or given aid” [or incited, or encouraged insurrection, or threatened a vice president for not implementing an insurrection, or delayed relief for law enforcement engaged in stopping an insurrection] “or comfort” [or praise or approval or promises of pardons] “to the enemies thereof.”
> […All the powers of the purse given to the representative branch, with no provision for presidential “creative” reinterpretation…]
> [Etc., etc.]
If anyone wants to give a shout out to anyone building effective resistance to the avalanche of presidential power, essentially being voluntarily abdicated by the other two branches, I would be interested to hear of them.
(Traditionally that has been a very high consensus bipartisan issue. Not everyone, but most everyone.)
> Humor, despair and any bias of mine aside. I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Interesting point! Bit of a tangent, bit Brazil is in the process of holding Bolsonaro to account for power grabs that have a lot of similarities with what's happening in the US.
Too early to call their long term efficacy, but definitely one to watch.
I don't pretend to be an expert in Brazil's politics, but to my knowledge, Bolsonaro is in jail for money laundering and abuse of office for financial gain - is there genuine doubt about him being guilty? If not, it doesn't seem like a fair claim to suggest he's a political prisoner?
I think the point I was trying to make was, a few years ago, it looked like Brazil might all out stop being a democracy. It now seems more likely that democracy will continue, and the process of that de-escalation is an important one to watch.
>I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Trump, and the regime associated with him, are an exploitation of preexisting degradation of limited, democratic and responsible governance in the United States. The restoration of"good government" is the obvious counter to his rising dictatorship, but that would result in other existing power blocs (themselves also abusive, if not so gratuitously as Trump) loosing their own ability to exploit the system after he exits the stage. Faced with a choice between "stop Trump and end our own abuses as a consequence" or "let him run rampant and hope the US survives so that we can exploit it later" established American institutions have overwhelmingly gone with the second option.
The Democrats don't appear to be falling down the same hole.
They are not rallying for or under an Anti-Trump, but looking for a credible remedy for Trump.
Unfortunately, that is a much harder challenge, given how centralized their opponent party's representative power has become. Centralized power is so dangerous, because it is so effective.
And the Supreme Court's participation in that centralization adds a formidable head wind to any reform.
I just don't see the Democrat being able to take the same road. Even if they wanted to.
I think the future for now is balanced between Trump successfully tilting the next elections enough to continue to sideline Democrats, or attempting to do so and triggering a sea change/backlash that gives Democrats some significant power to attempt reforms with.
Great opportunity for someone to create some effective opposition.
There is a medal in it!
Ironically, someone who badly wants a medal is actually in the perfect position to turn around the brain/competency drain, “bring back science”, boost US competition with China’s green tech wave, help Ukraine win (instead of the endless: “not lose for now”), fire the all the senate confirmed bozos…
If he did, a Nobel prize would be unconventional under the circumstances. But well worth it nevertheless.
No Rushmore. There isn’t enough room left on that mountain for that size of an ego. But maybe a genuine gold working toilet installation for Rushmore tourists.
———
Humor, despair and any bias of mine aside. I am quite seriously unaware of anyone with a good opposition plan, to reverse the power centralization, at this point.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment, reaffirming key points of the existing constitution with a highlighter for supreme justices with poor eyesight, might be one promising approach.
> “No person shall” [something, something] “hold any office” [something, something], “who, having” [something, something] “engaged in insurrection”, [something, something] “or given aid” [or incited, or encouraged insurrection, or threatened a vice president for not implementing an insurrection, or delayed relief for law enforcement engaged in stopping an insurrection] “or comfort” [or praise or approval or promises of pardons] “to the enemies thereof.”
> […All the powers of the purse given to the representative branch, with no provision for presidential “creative” reinterpretation…]
> [Etc., etc.]
If anyone wants to give a shout out to anyone building effective resistance to the avalanche of presidential power, essentially being voluntarily abdicated by the other two branches, I would be interested to hear of them.
(Traditionally that has been a very high consensus bipartisan issue. Not everyone, but most everyone.)