There was an idea
David Frum on how it could play out:
[S]crape aside the audacity, the self-pity, and the self-aggrandizement, and there was indeed an idea in Donald Trump’s speech at a conference hosted by the America First Policy Institute: a sinister idea, but one to take seriously.
Trump sketched out a vision that a new Republican Congress could enact sweeping new emergency powers for the next Republican president. The president would be empowered to disregard state jurisdiction over criminal law. The president would be allowed to push aside a “weak, foolish, and stupid governor,” and to fire “radical and racist prosecutors”—racist here meaning “anti-white.” The president could federalize state National Guards for law-enforcement duties, stop and frisk suspects for illegal weapons, and impose death sentences on drug dealers after expedited trials.
That may all be just Trump’s Favorite Fantasy, but it’s useful to know what he’s dreaming of.
Trump’s first term was mitigated by his ignorance, indolence, and incompetence. Since the humiliation of his 2020 defeat, however, Trump has been studying how to use a second chance if he gets one. The one abiding interest of his life, revenge, will provide the impetus. Next time, he will have the wholehearted support of a White House staff selected to enable him. Next time, he will have the backing in Congress of a party remade in his own image. Next time, he’ll be acting to ensure that his opponents never again get a “next time” of their own.
We have to hope his head explodes first.
Don’t worry, I’m sure that those intrusions on states’ rights will be struck down by those principled conservatives on the Supreme Court.
I would suggest that Trump is probably not the real danger right now. Absent “… an emphasis on enjoying while affirming our values and freedoms, the West will continue to slide into a kind of medievalism, ruled by unread men in gilded houses and ex-bankers dreaming of holy war” [reference there to Steve Bannon.] “In such circumstances, extremists may one day find a genuine ‘Fuhrer’ to lead them, from among the cartoonish thugs and blonde cranks who have hitherto held the job.” (Paul Ham, ‘Young Hitler,’ Penguin Random House, 2017.)
The yet-to-be-revealed candidate is no doubt waiting in the wings, to be brought to prominence by whatever economic disaster or such lies around the next corner down history’s street.
I saw that Trump won a straw poll at CPAC (for president in 2024) with 69% of the vote to DeSantis’ 28% and Cruz’s 2%. CPAC is probably only an indication of fringe sentiment, but still.
We’ve seen how he eats. Why hasn’t his heart exploded by now?
The big weakness of democracy is that it can be taken over by demagogues promising “freedom” by destroying or limiting the freedoms of the Others. We got a breather in Biden, who is notable for not being a populist and, for all his faults, is just kind of trying to be a competent president steering the country through a perilous time. Democracy is not served well by populists, but I’m not sure how that can be guarded against.
Here’s another one of my personal stories, so you can scroll past if you’re sick of them.
When I was first active in politics I drove down to the state Democrat-Farmer-Labor nominating convention. During the Sunday morning activities, there was a prayer service (yawn) so I wandered around Rochester for a while on a Sunday morning. I needed a pack of smokes so I went into a grocery store owned by recent Somali immigrants.
We started chatting and there were some regulars who had gathered. One asked me if I was from Rochester and I answered I was from St. Paul but in town for a political convention. He replied that he likes “Republic” because “Repbublic” are strong. I told him I think that it’s dangerous to be “strong but wrong.” I found it interesting because at the time, Somalia had no real government, and was largely ruled by local chieftains. It was a failed post-colonial state, which is why so many Somalis emigrated. So, he probably had the perspective of seeing how awful a weak government can be. When Clinton was elected, the knock on him from the conservatives (or one of them) was based on the assumption that he carried antipathy towards the military, so he would be at odds with them and weaken our military. I think that’s a good thing, whether in Clinton’s case it was true or not. I don’t think it was, I think it was an assumption based on how he got out of serving in Vietnam.
I was at a county fair yesterday, and in one of the buildings there was a display people for people to fill out a sheet and tell the fair what they would like to see at the fair next year. A large number of them wrote “Trump.” There were kids wearing t-shirts reading “I wish I was old enough to vote for Trump.” (I wonder if they picked that out themselves?) Yes, even after the hearings revealed how much shit he pulled to try to hold on to power. They just want a strong man in power.
We really shouldn’t have “strong” executives with overreaching power, but largely the people who still want Trump don’t care what he stands for other than not being a Democrat and that he is popular for being popular. It’s nice when a policy shift that we want is needed, and swift action required, but then when the power swings back to the other “team,” the good work can be undone. And, if they have the military on their side then Trump’s dream could come true, even in the hands of someone else.
It’s possible that Trump’s individual influence in the party is waning as some of his endorsed candidates lose the primaries. And none of those who are clamoring to succeed him have anything like the celebrity cachet that he carries into politics. DeSantis? Not even close. So, if Trump doesn’t dominate this next election we may be able to catch a breather until the next big celebrity strong-man comes along to take over politics.
it might be worth it to send a few bucks to Liz Cheney’s campaign and help her win, not because we like her policy, but to poke a finger in Trump’s eye and weaken his brand.
I don’t know how many people I have heard complaining that Clinton cut the military budget. He didn’t. As with all presidents, the military budget increased (Congress has the final say, anyway). It just didn’t increase by quite as much as it does under Republican presidents. But to a lot of people, that can be sold as a “decrease”. “Didn’t get every cent we wanted” can be translated in polispeak to “Got less than we got last year”.
Funny how conservatives give Republicans who got out of serving in Vietnam a pass. Did any of them ask about Dick Cheney’s “other priorities?” Probably not, given that many of them likely had those same “priorities” themselves. And what about Capt. Bonespurs and his contempt for the “losers” and “suckers” buried in Arlington National Cemetary?
It’s like the assumption that Republicans are more fiscally responsible than “tax and spend” Democrats. At least that’s what benefactors of Republican tax cuts and privatization would have you believe.