Muda69 Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 https://reason.com/2021/01/07/where-do-we-go-after-the-trumpist-tantrum/ Quote As Americans deal with the aftermath of the Trumpist riot and invasion of the Capitol on January 6, a difficult question looms for the citizens of a troubled republic: How do you maintain a political system when much of the population ceases to believe in its underlying principles? The problem is not just President Donald Trump—whose petulant refusal to accept his loss at the polls set the grounds for the violence that disrupted Congress's count of Electoral College votes—but also his cultists who are more interested in maintaining one thuggish politician in power than they are in how power is acquired and used. Beyond them are all too many Americans who have come to believe they can't afford to lose elections. This moment didn't drop out of the blue. The country has suffered growing political polarization, harsh feelings between the political factions, and an increase in political violence in recent years. We saw that in the 2017 ambush of Republican members of Congress and their protective police detail, the violent "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and the litany of riots that started as demonstrations against abusive law enforcement before taking on a life of their own. Those concerns grew as the election loomed. "We are increasingly anxious that this country is headed toward the worst post-election crisis in a century and a half," wrote Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institution, Lee Drutman of New America, Tod Lindberg of the Hudson Institute, Nathan P. Kalmoe of Louisiana State University, and Lilliana Mason the University of Maryland in an October 1 piece in Politico. "Our biggest concern is that a disputed presidential election—especially if there are close contests in a few swing states, or if one candidate denounces the legitimacy of the process—could generate violence and bloodshed." They had good reason to fear a disputed election. "About three in 10 (29 percent) Republicans say it would be appropriate for President Trump to refuse to leave office because he claims that he has credible evidence of illegal voting," the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group warned last summer. "On the other hand, 57 percent of Democrats say that it would be appropriate for a Democratic candidate to call for a do-over election because they claim to have credible evidence of interference by a foreign government." The election results didn't exactly sweep in an era of good feelings. Twenty-four percent of likely U.S. voters "think Biden voters are America's biggest enemy as 2020 draws to a close," Rasmussen Reports noted early in December. "Nearly as many (22%) regard Trump voters as the biggest enemy." It's tempting to suggest that the Trumpist rioters in D.C. did a credible job of fulfilling their detractors' fears. But that overlooks the evidence from sources like the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group that neither dominant political tribe was prepared to accept a loss. Even the Biden-aligned Transition Integrity Project—which anticipated Trump's bogus claims of electoral fraud and unwillingness to concede—also warned of political chaos if Biden's supporters were disappointed. In the end it was the current president's fans who rioted, but an uneventful tally of ballots didn't appear to be in the cards. Elected officials, like Trump, who defy constitutional constraints and sheer reason can be removed from office at the polls, by impeachment, or by processes such as those outlined in the 25th Amendment. But what do you do when many voters themselves think the only legitimate elections are those that they win? One important step would be to make elections less consequential so that Americans aren't so fearful of the instruments of government in the hands of their enemies. "It is more and more dangerous to lose an election," economist John Cochrane, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute, wrote in September. "Regulation has supplanted legislation, and dear colleague letters, interpretations, and executive orders have supplanted regulation… The vanishing ability to lose an election and not be crushed is the core reason for increased partisan vitriol and astounding violation of basic norms on both sides of our political divide." For example, Trump threatened that companies which displease him "will be taxed like never before" as punishment. He led supporters in chants of "lock her up" aimed at his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. His opponents have had every reason to fear that his tenure in office constitutes a real danger. On the same note, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo strong-armed financial institutions into denying services to his political opponents in what the American Civil Liberties Union called a threat to "the First Amendment rights of all organizations to engage in political advocacy without fear that the state will use its regulatory authority to penalize them for doing so." The vast power he wields is perilous to people with whom he disagrees. In its reach into all areas of life, government in modern America increasingly resembles what the Israeli historian J. L. Talmon called "totalitarian democracy." This approach "treats all human thought and action as having social significance, and therefore as falling within the orbit of political action." Since there's no room for going your own way, contests for political power necessarily become existential fights that nobody can afford to lose. By contrast, wrote Talmon, liberal democracy "recognizes a variety of levels of personal and collective endeavour, which are altogether outside the sphere of politics." If most of life is under the control of the people living it rather than subject to the whims of government officials, losing elections is disappointing, but not catastrophic. To lower the political stakes, we need much more of our thought and action to be "altogether outside the sphere of politics." What does remain within the political sphere should be decided as locally as possible. Centralized decision making sets the stage for conflict in a vast country of diverse values and preferences. During the Trump presidency, his opponents spent much time and energy complaining that the Constitution gives his rural supporters too much power through the Electoral College and the Senate. With Biden in the White House, we're bound to hear renewed griping about the cultural and economic dominance of urban liberals. While tension between dissimilar groups is inevitable, it doesn't have to be poisonous—if those groups aren't battling to dominate each other. So, while we're expanding the realm of human life that's beyond the reach of government, much of what it does should be devolved down the political food chain, closer to the people who are affected, to reduce the likelihood of subjecting them to policies they despise. Ideally, as much decision-making as possible should be returned to individuals. None of this guarantees that the Trumpists who stormed the Capitol, or any other Americans who no longer believe in the peaceful transition of power, will suddenly regain faith in vote counts. But making election wins and losses less important should lower the political tensions that are consuming the country. And that might give us all a little necessary breathing room while we figure out, once again, how to get along with one another. A fantastic piece by Mr. Tuccille. I heartily agree with all this pints. "We the people" have for too long allowed our federal legislators to cede their responsibilities to the office of the POTUS, and now way to much power is invested in that office. As I have argued before the size, scope, and reach of the federal government needs to be reduced by at least 25% across the board. What we are seeing is the result of a federal government where as stated in the opinion piece "Regulation has supplanted legislation, and dear colleague letters, interpretations, and executive orders have supplanted regulation…". This needs to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 17 minutes ago, Muda69 said: https://reason.com/2021/01/07/where-do-we-go-after-the-trumpist-tantrum/ A fantastic piece by Mr. Tuccille. I heartily agree with all this pints. "We the people" have for too long allowed our federal legislators to cede their responsibilities to the office of the POTUS, and now way to much power is invested in that office. As I have argued before the size, scope, and reach of the federal government needs to be reduced by at least 25% across the board. What we are seeing is the result of a federal government where as stated in the opinion piece "Regulation has supplanted legislation, and dear colleague letters, interpretations, and executive orders have supplanted regulation…". This needs to stop. Maybe it would be better to have better elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 8, 2021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2021 1 minute ago, DanteEstonia said: Maybe it would be better to have better elections. By all means please expound on that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 3 minutes ago, Muda69 said: By all means please expound on that statement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law Start here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 8, 2021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2021 10 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law Start here. tl;dr. We all know in the past you have expounded on the virtues of having a de-facto King ruling the United States of America. It appears you still stick by that left wing socialist vision of utopia. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 2 minutes ago, Muda69 said: tl;dr. We all know in the past you have expounded on the virtues of having a de-facto King ruling the United States of America. It appears you still stick by that left wing socialist vision of utopia. Did you read that at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 8, 2021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2021 2 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said: Did you read that at all? I started to, then my eyes glazed over and I stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 4 minutes ago, Muda69 said: I started to, then my eyes glazed over and I stopped. Read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 8, 2021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2021 1 minute ago, DanteEstonia said: Read it again. Maybe after I have consumed some caffeine to keep me awake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 I kinda think the Libertarian party needs to thank President Trump.........He just explicitly exposed to a whole lot of Americans the "uni-party" that Muda teaches us about.....and maybe they invite him to join the Libertarian party before the next election......It would get my attention..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 14 hours ago, Muda69 said: Maybe after I have consumed some caffeine to keep me awake. Alright Muda, I'll ask you this question- why does the USA have a two-party system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 9, 2021 Author Share Posted January 9, 2021 7 hours ago, DanteEstonia said: Alright Muda, I'll ask you this question- why does the USA have a two-party system? To keep the elites in power while hoodwinking "the people" to believe they actually have a real choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 54 minutes ago, Muda69 said: To keep the elites in power while hoodwinking "the people" to believe they actually have a real choice. No- the answer is the way we vote. It's math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 9, 2021 Author Share Posted January 9, 2021 52 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said: No- the answer is the way we vote. It's math. No, the answer is elegantly described in the opinion piece. When virtually every presidential election is now the "election of our lifetime" then any rational person would realize that this is because the federal government, especially in the executive branch, have more and more power over the day-to-day lives of everyday citizens. The federal government is just too damn powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Just now, Muda69 said: No, the answer is elegantly described in the opinion piece. No, the answer is in mathematics. Why do you think Canada's provinces also have two-party systems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 9, 2021 Author Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 minute ago, DanteEstonia said: No, the answer is in mathematics. Why do you think Canada's provinces also have two-party systems? I really don't care about Canada. But since you are a socialist I see why you would be so enamored with our northern neighbors. Canada is a nice place to visit, no way in hell would I want to live there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 13 minutes ago, Muda69 said: I really don't care about Canada Theories need to be uniform; if a theory works in one place it works in all places. Why do the provinces of Canada have two-party systems? What do they have in common with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 9, 2021 Author Share Posted January 9, 2021 7 hours ago, DanteEstonia said: Theories need to be uniform; if a theory works in one place it works in all places. Why do the provinces of Canada have two-party systems? Again, I don't care what Canada does regarding it's voting practices and political parties. 7 hours ago, DanteEstonia said: What do they have in common with us? Both counties are on the North American continent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 13 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Again, I don't care what Canada does regarding it's voting practices and political parties Where did they get their voting practices from? 13 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Both counties are on the North American continent? Think some more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 On 1/9/2021 at 6:03 PM, DanteEstonia said: Where did they get their voting practices from? The Queen of England? On 1/9/2021 at 6:03 PM, DanteEstonia said: Think some more... They are both large countries, geographically speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 25 minutes ago, Muda69 said: The Queen of England? Sort of, yes. We use the same voting rules, and those rules have the same origins. Notice how they produce the same results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 11, 2021 Author Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said: Notice how they produce the same results? I don't follow Canadian politics at all so no, I don't notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteEstonia Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 5 hours ago, Muda69 said: I don't follow Canadian politics at all so no, I don't notice. You should, you would learn stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts