![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmut posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsRight-wing statism. Heh. I never thought such an animal could possibly exist, but there it is. What do you know. You learn a new thing every day.
"When authority is total, so too is the madness of the man who declares it, and the potential for abuse of power." That's what a recent write-up by The Daily Beast concluded. And it's not wrong. Of course it's not like the president's claims that the power of the president is "total", has any semblance of truth in it. There are still some checks and balances remaining in place, or at least they're supposed to be there (hard to trust that they're working when most institutions are in the hands of the president's lackeys, but anyway). While his claim may or may not be true, it does raise an interesting point about Trump's administration. Namely, is it really as conservative as his supporters would like to believe it is? Let's take a look.
Under Trump's administration, we've seen the state's role in the US economy dramatically expanding. State protectionism, turning America to the inside and isolating it from international affairs, closing (or vowing to close and/or control) borders with some of its neighbors, and of course - tariffs. He's been using tariffs as a punitive tool for exerting control more than any other president in recent history. All the while, pushing China to exert less control over its own economy. I'm sure you're noticing the discrepancy here, but then again, you're hardly surprised.
All in all, Trump's approach has consistently been to turn his back on the free market, and adopt an ever growing role for the federal government in the day to day workings of the economy. Which would've been great from a progressive perspective, had its end goals not been entirely wrong - again, from a progressive perspective.
Even in the wake of the race tensions following George Floyd's murder, Trump has insisted that if Democrat state governors who fail to maintain law and order during those protests, he wouldn't hesitate to bring in the National Guard, and get the federal government heavily involved. This is much in line with his general pattern of putting his executive powers over those of the legislative branch of power, and tilting the scales in the balance of powers (which has long been monstrously unbalanced anyway) further into the executive's direction.
That the Senate and Supreme Court are acting as mere appendixes to his policies, whether because they're fearful they might lose their standing in the face of his wrath (in the former case), or just because they're his cronies that he has personally installed there in their positions in the first place (in the latter case), is not helping restore our faith in this whole checks and balances thingy, is it.
It's no secret that Trump is very much opposed to internationalism, and to large-bloc alliances, where he believes America's sovereignty is diminished if it has to deal with the necessity of striking a consensus between multiple interests. He's not a consensus man, so why would he try working that way? He prefers dealing at a government to government level, the latest China trade deal talks being yet another example. He's been pressuring private companies to tear up their existing supply chains and ultimately make manufacturing more expensive. He's been trying to interfere in the electricity sector by offering government support for politically favored sectors like coal (much of his electoral base hails from there, after all).
He has recently politicized the Fed, trying to influence its decisions on interest rates and the economy to serve strictly partisan purposes. He's now been trying to turn that institution, itself so far famously independent, into a mere appendix to the executive branch by nominating his own sycophants and stark Fed critics to its board of directors (we've seen the pattern with appointing critics of climate change on positions that are supposed to combat it, as well as many other such moves that are as cynical as they may've seemed absurd at an initial glance).
While his administration is nominally Republican, and indeed does enjoy the support of a horde of Yes-folk in Congress, he's been doing the exact opposite to what most of those self-declared conservatives claim to stand for: he's been amping up the government's role in societal affairs, especially the economy, to levels unseen since FDR times. And remember, he was the one who used to bash Obama for having a big government.
Question is, how many of his supporters are going to keep turning a blind eye to all that, especially the more right-wing among them, but also including the more mainstream-conservative leaning ones from the Never Trump camp around Romney, who almost seem like they'd prefer a reasonable centrist Democrat in office rather than a psychotic right-wing statist.
We've talked before about the Dems' internal divisions along the left-wing Bernie camp vs the mainstream ("swamp") Clinton clique, whose champion Biden obviously is. But don't forget about the respective divisions within the Republican, either. This election is going to be quite fascinating.
"When authority is total, so too is the madness of the man who declares it, and the potential for abuse of power." That's what a recent write-up by The Daily Beast concluded. And it's not wrong. Of course it's not like the president's claims that the power of the president is "total", has any semblance of truth in it. There are still some checks and balances remaining in place, or at least they're supposed to be there (hard to trust that they're working when most institutions are in the hands of the president's lackeys, but anyway). While his claim may or may not be true, it does raise an interesting point about Trump's administration. Namely, is it really as conservative as his supporters would like to believe it is? Let's take a look.
Under Trump's administration, we've seen the state's role in the US economy dramatically expanding. State protectionism, turning America to the inside and isolating it from international affairs, closing (or vowing to close and/or control) borders with some of its neighbors, and of course - tariffs. He's been using tariffs as a punitive tool for exerting control more than any other president in recent history. All the while, pushing China to exert less control over its own economy. I'm sure you're noticing the discrepancy here, but then again, you're hardly surprised.
All in all, Trump's approach has consistently been to turn his back on the free market, and adopt an ever growing role for the federal government in the day to day workings of the economy. Which would've been great from a progressive perspective, had its end goals not been entirely wrong - again, from a progressive perspective.
Even in the wake of the race tensions following George Floyd's murder, Trump has insisted that if Democrat state governors who fail to maintain law and order during those protests, he wouldn't hesitate to bring in the National Guard, and get the federal government heavily involved. This is much in line with his general pattern of putting his executive powers over those of the legislative branch of power, and tilting the scales in the balance of powers (which has long been monstrously unbalanced anyway) further into the executive's direction.
That the Senate and Supreme Court are acting as mere appendixes to his policies, whether because they're fearful they might lose their standing in the face of his wrath (in the former case), or just because they're his cronies that he has personally installed there in their positions in the first place (in the latter case), is not helping restore our faith in this whole checks and balances thingy, is it.
It's no secret that Trump is very much opposed to internationalism, and to large-bloc alliances, where he believes America's sovereignty is diminished if it has to deal with the necessity of striking a consensus between multiple interests. He's not a consensus man, so why would he try working that way? He prefers dealing at a government to government level, the latest China trade deal talks being yet another example. He's been pressuring private companies to tear up their existing supply chains and ultimately make manufacturing more expensive. He's been trying to interfere in the electricity sector by offering government support for politically favored sectors like coal (much of his electoral base hails from there, after all).
He has recently politicized the Fed, trying to influence its decisions on interest rates and the economy to serve strictly partisan purposes. He's now been trying to turn that institution, itself so far famously independent, into a mere appendix to the executive branch by nominating his own sycophants and stark Fed critics to its board of directors (we've seen the pattern with appointing critics of climate change on positions that are supposed to combat it, as well as many other such moves that are as cynical as they may've seemed absurd at an initial glance).
While his administration is nominally Republican, and indeed does enjoy the support of a horde of Yes-folk in Congress, he's been doing the exact opposite to what most of those self-declared conservatives claim to stand for: he's been amping up the government's role in societal affairs, especially the economy, to levels unseen since FDR times. And remember, he was the one who used to bash Obama for having a big government.
Question is, how many of his supporters are going to keep turning a blind eye to all that, especially the more right-wing among them, but also including the more mainstream-conservative leaning ones from the Never Trump camp around Romney, who almost seem like they'd prefer a reasonable centrist Democrat in office rather than a psychotic right-wing statist.
We've talked before about the Dems' internal divisions along the left-wing Bernie camp vs the mainstream ("swamp") Clinton clique, whose champion Biden obviously is. But don't forget about the respective divisions within the Republican, either. This election is going to be quite fascinating.
(no subject)
Date: 25/6/20 20:34 (UTC)I think this is what it comes down to - is Joe Biden a reasonable centrist?
Even if the answer to this is yes, how enthusiastically can he own up to it?
What reasonable positions can he take that wont piss off the left side of the left? Even with the media helping by never asking him any uncomfortable questions, Trump (and the far left for that matter) could pressure him into taking sides on certain issues.
(no subject)
Date: 25/6/20 20:55 (UTC)I'm one of those "left side of left" people and I would still vote for Biden over Trump in a heartbeat because, y'know, he's not Trump. I would have preferred Sanders, Warren or even Yang, but really, ideological purity is what cost us 2016. (FYI, I voted for Clinton too even though I would have preferred Sanders.) Right now I'm willing to settle for "good enough", versus "outright evil".
It'll be definitely interesting to see how things shake out come November, and how many people will still be supporting him as he finds new ways to shock and appall the public every week. Carly Fiorina (former GOP candidate for 2016; also ran for governor when I was still living in Cali) came out recently and said she will not be voting for Trump again in 2016, and I wonder how many conservatives would be willing to vote for Biden on the same principle that he's not Trump.