This is the problem with people being OK with executive overreach when "their team" is in power. Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further.
We should desire that the legislative side actually legislates and each branch of the government holds the other two in check, regardless of partisan control.
Further having our judicial branch become openly partisan while remaining lifetime appointments despite younger appointees with longer lifetimes, is really the finishing touch on this slow rolling disaster.
You've nailed it. I call this the Galadriel Principle and it can be applied to many things: weapons, executive procedures, etc.:
“And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!”
Oppression when Galadriel is on the throne may be better than that for Sauron; it's still oppression.
This is the crux of the issue. Executive power has been gradually expanded since at least the end of WWII, but things have accelerated since the early 00's. Think GWB's "signing statements" or Obama's "phone and pen." Trump I, Biden, and now Trump II have continued to push the limits, in part because of a desire for more power but also because Congress hasn't functioned as an institution in decades. Congress has passed a budget on time only 4 times since 1977, the last time being in 1997.
Presidents are elected based on promises made to various parts of the electorate, and if/when Congress won't act (often even when Congress is controlled by the president's party, nearly always when controlled by the opposition), no one generally makes a fuss if the president pushes through a popular-ish thing by executive authority. Republicans may be happy now but they won't be when a Democratic president ups the ante in a few years, just like Democrats were perfectly happy with Obama and Biden's overreaches but are furious at Trump's.
Congress needs to be expanded to do its job, and drop the filibuster. We need more, proportionally allocated representatives. Representatives that come from more than one of two parties. Representatives that spend more time at home than on the campaign trail or in DC.
I think filibusters just need to go back to how they used to be. If you feel strongly about something you better be prepared to blab for hours on end, on your feet. If you can't physically do that... well, maybe that's a sign in and of itself.
All for reps expansion. Remember that we haven't expanded in nearly 100 years because "we were out of room in the building". Meanwhile we have 435 people representing 330 million people (average of 760k people per rep), when the population representation was roughly 250k/rep the last time it expanded.
We should have at least 1000 reps by these numbers.
> If you can't physically [philibister for hours/days] ... well, maybe that's a sign in and of itself.
And reason has prevailed again.
But sarcasm aside, its a difficult question who controls parlaments, when democratic participation is not enough. Maybe oversight or veto rights by randomly picked citizen councils are a better way then blindly trusting anything that happens in-house.
Representatives with term limits. It blows my mind that someone can be a career congressperson. It creates precisely the same adverse incentives as being a career president. Your whole focus becomes making sure you stay in power. Which for congresspeople means toeing the party line.
Term limits lead to institutional knowledge and skills being concentrated in unelected staffers and lobbyists. Effective legislating involves building relationships, negotiating skills, and deep subject matter knowledge in at least some areas.
Yes, we have tons of bad legislators: some just not good at their jobs, some actively harmful (leaving that vague on purpose—I think all partisans can agree that they exist, even if we disagree on who they are). In theory, they can be excised via the ballot box. However, we don't want to kick out the good ones just as they're getting to be their most effective—not only do we lose their direct skills, but we lose their ability to mentor the promising up-and-comers.
I place more blame on the way we do primaries and general elections: in most districts, the only thing that matters is the primary, and that produces some truly rotten results.
I'm not sure I buy that. Sure, if everyone in Congress terms out at the same time, and your next Congress is full of fresh faces, you absolutely run into that problem.
As long as things are staggered, senior legislators will mentor junior legislators, and that institutional knowledge will be passed on.
And I don't think we're talking about limiting representatives and senators in the same way we do for the president. I would say it would be fair to allow them to serve for something on the order of 15-20 years.
But sure, I think there are many other problems that matter more: winner-takes-all elections that essentially require you have only a two-party system, the electoral college, and (as you mention) the primary system.
I'd rather the people casting the votes have (on average) a decent amount of institutional knowledge and skills. Otherwise, they either end up leaning on others to inform their decisions, or (worse) they end up making decisions that aren't informed at all.
> It blows my mind that someone can be a career congressperson.
Related gripe: How both houses of congress prioritize "seniority", so that changing a representative indirectly harms the interests of the people being represented. (Though possibly not as much as keeping the wrong representative in office.)
In other words, State X benefits more when their seats are _not_ competitive and subject to turnover, the quality of candidates being equal.
if the voters can't keep someone they like in office, there must also be strong restrictions on time served as congressional / governmental aides, or else those people will become even more powerful than they already are. far too many elected officials already appear to be nothing more than fronts for their unelected staff.
I was reading a rocking history book (Dark Continent), and it argued that Germany had already lost democracy before Hitler, as basically all rules were done by the executive. Sent a shiver down my spine when I applied it to recent US presidents. (The book was written in 1998 fwiw, so not contaminated by current events).
While I agree with the essential point you're making, it's pretty clear this overreach was always part of this administration's game plan. At least until Pence delayed it through validating the 2020 elections.
Very. Election officials, across states and across parties, have been faithfully discharging their duties, often under pressure to not do so. This is a responsibility of the states, and not the federal government. If you're concerned, then work as a poll officer on election day.
In Virginia, I get to participate an incredibly professional and structured process that makes it easy for everyone who can vote to vote and makes sure there are many checks that the process is being followed correctly.
Meanwhile the SAVE act is working it's way through congress. This bill has language that seems to prevent a lot of people from voting:
Women who changed thier last name to their husband's.
Naturalized citizens who come from places where the language requires non ascii characters.
Anyone without a passport.
Anyone from a place where the courthouse burned down taking thier original birth certificates with it... Copies don't count.
To name tens of millions. Maybe trump will interpret the law in a way that lets people vote, or maybe he'll decide that correct interpretation is to limit voting to people more likely to vote for his third term.
> Maybe trump will interpret the law in a way that lets people vote, or maybe he'll decide that correct interpretation is to limit voting to people more likely to vote for his third term.
Trump doesn't execute those laws, though. The states do, as they are in charge of running elections. Certainly Trump's DoJ could bring lawsuits against states that don't comply in the way Trump wants them to, but it's far from certain that the courts (even Trump's stacked SCOTUS) will agree with Trump's interpretations.
Federal laws and guidelines for voting must be followed by the states. I don't see this changing with this act. For example - the voting rights act of 1965 is a federal law that states must comply with for elections. This is what the constitution has to say about it for congress:
> The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators
For president it just says states will send electors chosen by the state legislature. This has been the source of immense fuckery for decades... state legislatures often want to ignore the popular vote and just send their party's electors and it's unclear how the current court would sway if that actually happens (particularly if the state's constitution doesn't bind their legislature to send electors based on the popular vote). Further, federal laws like the voting rights act have often been held to apply to presidential election as well as congress.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. This administration is already much more aggressive and corrupt than the previous go around. Trump has been abundantly clear that he does not like or respect democracy and he might very well have the power to end it now. Congress's authority is already being usurped in blatant ways and they are openly talking about not following court orders. If they completely toss the courts aside and survive the resulting backlash (very likely) our system of government as we know it is over.
The conditions for this are being set as we watch. Dictators always prize loyalty above competence, which is exactly what our current leader is doing.
I don't doubt that nearly everyone involved in managing our recent elections are conscientious and professional, but what are they going to do if a bunch of troops with guns show up to change the results?
On the other hand, the popular power of the GOP is currently concentrated around a single person, someone who is also the oldest person to ever start a presidential term, and who does not lead a particularly healthy lifestyle. There is every chance that "What will Trump do during the 2028 election?" will be a question resolved by time and nature.
There is no one waiting in the wings to take over popularly if this happens. Previous people who have at various times looked like they might, have fallen mightily from grace in the eyes of the party, such as DeSantis.
It all falls apart without Trump. And Trump is an old man, doing a stressful job.
The confusing thing about this is that Trump himself isn't the problem when it comes to actual policy. The Project 2025 stuff is not from Trump's head. He has nowhere near enough domain knowledge to build a policy document like that.
The current problem is that Trump is happy to implement the policies that all these hard-right lunatics have come up with. It's not like Trump writes those executive orders. He just agrees with them and signs them.
Certainly Trump is a problem. He's the one that has united the party around this horrifying agenda, and who is amenable to letting others like Musk dismantle the federal government. The question, after Trump is gone, is if there is anyone else that can motivate the party to vote for someone who will continue to do things The Trump Way (that is, let other, smarter people do things).
I don't know. Like you say, people like DeSantis seemed to have a shot for a bit, but they've fallen out of favor. But it's unclear if these people need another Trump, or if someone with even half of his weird... charisma... will do.
(All of this is of course the standard hypocrisy: Trump and his cronies run on the whole "drain the swamp", "eliminate the deep state" nonsense. But of course Trump just immediately installs a different unelected deep state to run things.)
> The question, after Trump is gone, is if there is anyone else that can motivate the party to vote for someone who will continue to do things The Trump Way (that is, let other, smarter people do things).
And I think the answer is no.
You're correct, that none of the policy being pushed through comes from Trump. It comes from various other people who are using Trump as a vehicle for their legislation.
But that doesn't really matter, because Trump didn't run on policy. He ran on force of personality.
I don't think anyone else will be able to strike quite the same balance Trump does, once he's gone. They'll either lean too hard into the policy stuff, which will backfire, or they'll lean too hard into the personality stuff, which leads to broadly unpopular people like Marjorie Taylor Green.
I think the only reason that Trump was/is as successful as he is, is that he has spent literal decades being in the news for something-or-other. By having headlines about him pop up every so often since the 1980s, he managed to engrain himself into the public consciousness in a way that let him then win the 2016 election, and everything since then.
Without that history, the immediate name recognition by everyone, I don't think the 2016 primary would have looked remotely like it did. And I don't think there's anyone else with that institutional name recognition waiting in the wings.
I would put the odds at 99.9% that the US will hold an election in 2028 and that it will be the international consensus that regardless of the outcome, the election will be decided fairly by the voters and will not be "hacked" or "unfair" as current and past fringe commentators have tried to present.
I mostly agree, but GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters they don't like have only stepped up further in recent years. (In particular, the SAVE Act, if passed, could really mess things up even more.) But I think the left sees the whole frothing-at-the-mouth "stop the steal" stuff as counterproductive and won't go that route, so I'd agree that, for the most part, the 2028 elections will be judged to be fair and free of fraud, regardless of outcome, at least by anyone who is not a Republican.
That's the reaction some extreme Trump supporters I know had after 2020. They claimed there would never be another fair election because of the manipulation of the electronic voting machines
That is a complete false equivalence. What evidence was there of fraud in 2020? We are watching what Trump is doing and saying with our own eyes right now.
There were a bunch of people who are easily tricked who latched onto the election fraud claims by habitual liars. That doesn't make the claims true.
I really don't understand what you are trying to do other than distract.
I'm Canadian and don't technically have a dog in this race, but I do enjoy calling people out on convictions they present but deep down don't earnestly hold.
Would you be open to a $10,000 bet that the 2028 election is, as decided by unbiased international publications (BBC, Reuters, etc.), fair?
Obviously we're not actually going to make that bet personally, with each other, because a) we are random people on the internet, and setting up some sort of trustworthy bet/escrow system is more work than I want to get into, and b) I will likely forget about this subthread by tomorrow, but:
Yes, if there was some sort of prediction market around that, I would absolutely make that bet. My rationale:
Elections are run by each individual state, not by the federal government. The federal government certainly has the ability to set standards for those elections (and something like the SAVE Act, if passed, will disproportionately disenfranchise likely-Democrat voters), but election integrity is managed by the states. The states don't really have an incentive to mess with their elections. Deep blue and deep red states will get the outcome that likely-of-the-same-party election officials expect/want without the need for any meddling. Swing states generally have enough people in power from both parties that those elections are going to be watched very closely by people who will call out irregularities and provide actual evidence of such, if it truly exists.
The only thing I'm worried about is legal disenfranchisement, but it's unclear if anything new there that happens in the next 3.5 years could meaningfully swing an election.
Regardless, I am less worried about 2028 than I am about the mid-terms in 2026. Not worried election-integrity wise... just worried about the Democrats getting their shit together and retaking at least one of the houses of Congress (and if they can only take one, preferably the Senate, even though that will likely be the more difficult one, as usual).
If you're being honest about your position that 2028 won't be a fair election, I'm effectively offering you free money, right? There are loads of bet/escrow systems out there - I'd be happy to do all the facilitation myself.
I think most folks believe at this point the election itself will be fair. The real question is whether those in power will accept the election results or not.
That's not really the point, though. Elections for federal offices are run by the states. The Trumpers can complain all they want about voter fraud and vote manipulation, but if the evidence isn't there (which it almost certainly won't be), then it will be a fair and free election.
Obviously I would prefer if these morons on the right wouldn't fall for Trump's conspiracy bullshit, as democracy functions much better when everyone has faith in the integrity of elections. But as long as the elections are fair, that's still something in the "plus" column.
That's nothing like the current situation. Those claims were based on stupid conspiracy theories with no supporting evidence. Everyone can see what this administration is saying and doing. Trump is telling us that he doesn't respect laws or democracy, and is following that up with action.
I'm debating on whether they will manage to stir up enough chaos to suspend the constitution, or whether there will be enough independent thought left in the military to oust them when the time comes for new elections - although I can't rule out Russian-style elections, one-man one-vote, and his vote is what counts.
My gut says there will be elections and they might even be "fair" but that there won't be much left to actually govern, having been sold off to corpo looters or just outright destroyed. Trump is his own aggressive buffoon, but ultimately still just a tool of the corpo authoritarians that have had a death grip on this country for decades (at least) - doubly so with the deals he undoubtedly had to make to get a second term to assuage his pitiful ego. Hence the captains of the surveillance industry throwing their support behind him with Musk gaining the de facto executive power.
Can we give this fear-mongering a rest? This is his second term, he didn't topple democracy in his first term and everyone made the same arguments back then.
If anything the democrats were the party to get rid of some of their democratic process. They didn't even vote on their parties candidate, and no, that doesn't scare me either.
Not to mention the democrats had far more private money spent all three times fighting Trump and yet he still won democratically twice and lost once democratically.
The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.
He incited an insurrection his first term, that came down to a few people doing the right thing. He learned from that so he's quickly firing everyone he can. He's dismantling the FEC and people who prevent foreign interference in our elections. He even removed the foreign bribery law. If he doesn't topple democracy this time, it won't be for lack of trying.
He issued an EO directing agencies to not enforce that law. So ‘worst of both worlds’. ‘legal’ as long as he doesn’t change his mind. It also opens up the possibility of selective enforcement to punish anyone he doesn’t like.
> The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.
If it was, we wouldn't have unelected kids breaking and entering in some of the most sensitive government organizations, getting access to private data and dismantling institutions without congressional oversight.
He didn't topple the system but it wasn't for lack of trying. Pence had to refuse Trump's repeated requests to fix the election (a precedent that would have guaranteed single-party rule). You are relying now, as you were then, on other people in the system conducting themselves with integrity. If it were up to Trump, Biden would never have assumed office.
Yeah, and a car with a knocking engine and multiple warning lights can still drive for thousands of miles before the engine explodes.
How many more alarms before you start taking the situation seriously? Complacency like what you suggest will be the order of the day right until things break, and then everyone will forget they thought this way and talk about how obvious it all was. Granted I don't have any solutions at hand, but better to start thinking about them now than later.
It's not fear-mongering; it's rooted in reasonable predictions based on what's different between 2017 and 2025:
1. Trump and his cronies didn't seem like they actually expected to win in 2016. They weren't prepared. Now we have Project 2025 and DOGE.
2. Trump's first-term cabinet picks and other political appointees (hell, even his VP) were not chosen all that well, in that they weren't fully bootlicking Trump loyalists. Many of them pushed back on some of the crazy things Trump wanted to do. This time, everyone has been hand-picked for their loyalty and agreement with advancing the agenda in Project 2025.
3. Members of the civil service also pushed back during his first term in ways of their own, slowing things down, and making the more destructive things hard to do. Now the civil service is being gutted.
4. In 2017, Trump hadn't yet packed federal courts and SCOTUS with hard-right loyalists. That's done now, and more will come.
5. There were Republicans in Congress during his first term -- even if not many -- who disagreed with Trump, and were willing to do so publicly. They voted against the more destructive things that Trump wanted. Some even voted to impeach/convict him! But today, Congress is stepping back and letting Trump do what he wants. Certainly what he wants in the executive branch will only get him so far; eventually he will need Congress to pass things to advance his agenda. But many of those uncomfortable Republicans who were present during his first term have retired or been replaced with card-carrying MAGA members.
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028 (which I think is certainly possible; one thing that I'm not that concerned about is the integrity of our state-run elections), I'm worried that there won't be much of an executive branch left for that president to be in charge of, and will spend nearly all of that 4-year term rebuilding what was destroyed, if they're even able to do so, both logistically and legally.
I'm not in the US, but I used to admire them, and I certainly understand that whatever happens to the US has a huge impact on the rest of the world. They used to be the backstop guarantee for democracy in the west, but now they've turned their back on allies.
Can't help but agree. If Trump and federal law enforcement refuse to allow for the peaceful transition of power, and the military has to step in (if they even would!), we've lost, plain and simple.
This is an example of what I like to call the "both sides fallacy". There are several reasons why people try and make a both sides equivalence in US politics. For example:
- As a way of not having to know anything while appearing intellectual or somehow "above it all";
- Genuine and fundamental misunderstanding of the political forces in the US. Example: thinking there's such a thing as "socialism" or "the far left" in America;
- To knowingly deflect from the excesses of the conservative movement.
Here are the two political forces in American politics:
1. The fascist party who has had a 50+ year project to take over and subvert every aspect of government to destroy any aspect of democracy and create a neofuedal dystopia masquerading as a Christian theocracy; and
2. The controlled opposition party who loves nothing more than to be out of power and, when in power, to do nothing. It's why Democrats not in office are suddenly for progressive policies like medicare-for-all (as Kamala Harris was in 2019) but when on the cusp of taking power, they have a policy of no longer opposing the death penalty, capitulating to right-wing immigratino policy, arming a genocidal apartheid state and the only tax breaks proposed are for startups.
Look at how successful progressive voter initatives were in the last election compared to the performance of the Democratic Party. Florida overwhelmingly passed recreational marijuana and abortion access (~57% for, unfortunately you need 60%+ to pass in Florida) while Trump carried the state by 14. Minimum wage increases passed in deep red Missouri. In fact, abortion access has never failed to garner a mjaority of votes whenever it's allowed to be put in front of voters, no matter how deep red the state.
So why if progressive policies are so popular, are the Democrats so opposed to them as a platform? Really think about that. The Democratic Party doesn't exist to abuse power. It exists to destroy progressive momentum at every level of government above all else.
> having our judicial branch become openly partisan
A lot of the decisions that have been flagged as "openly partisan" are just the Supreme Court saying exactly what you're saying: the executive branch and judicial branch don't have the authority to write laws and both branches should really stop writing laws and force Congress to do that.
We will see this year and in coming years whether this Supreme Court is partisan or just activist in tearing down executive authority. If they uphold this administration's opinions about executive power, then yes, they're blatantly partisan and have no integrity. If they stand in the way, then maybe they just finally had the numbers to rein in the executive branch like conservatives have been arguing for for generations.
I don't think we have enough information at this point to judge which is more likely (though I know most here will disagree with me on that point).
What say you of the Trump vs United States (appropriately named) ruling that gives the president immunity from crimes committed while in office? Does that align with the idea that SCOTUS may reign in presidential power?
I think that decision was wrong, but I don't think we can necessarily use that as a template for future SCOTUS decisions about the things Trump might do. During his first term (even after he'd appointed justices), there were still rulings that went against Trump's administration. Just as during Biden's time in office, there were rulings in favor of his administration. While I do not like the ideological bent of the current Supreme Court, it is not clear that they are in favor of the dismantling of government through illegal means.
(A nit: the word you're looking for is "rein", as in the thing you hold when riding a horse, not "reign", the ruling period of a monarch.)
Maybe, maybe not. It's not clear that Nixon's legal team could have successfully argued that planting listening devices in the DNC offices would constitute an "official act" of presidential power.
I would hope that, in this hypothetical reality, a judge and jury would still find that laughable.
Even if such a ruling would have kept Nixon safe from prosecution, Congress still could have impeached him, and at least that would have kicked him out of office.
Of course, Nixon was preemptively pardoned, so we didn't even get to see how that would have played out in the reality of the time.
Having a permanent bureaucracy that ignores directives from the executive only really benefits democrats (look at the Washington DC presidential vote totals). So this executive order is not a both sides thing, or about executive overreach.
Something like the REINS Act, forcing regulations to be voted on by congress, would be something that hurts both sides & prevents executive overreach.
I’d note that the Washington DC vote totals mainly reflect people who live in the District proper, most of whom are not federal civil servants. Plenty of those seem to live in the Virginia and Maryland suburbs, or closer to their federal workplaces in other parts of the United States.
Something tells me presidential vote totals around Fort Bragg or Oak Ridge—both home to notable numbers of career federal employees—might give a different impression.
We should desire that the legislative side actually legislates and each branch of the government holds the other two in check, regardless of partisan control.
Further having our judicial branch become openly partisan while remaining lifetime appointments despite younger appointees with longer lifetimes, is really the finishing touch on this slow rolling disaster.