Author Topic: The Trump Presidency  (Read 398952 times)

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #135 on: March 03, 2017, 01:29:06 PM »
I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment...

Yes, you make a good point.  I had it in my mind that the reforms for electing the executive came later than 1803, i.e., after the generation who weren't founding fathers came to power.  Clearly partisanship took an early foothold.  But I don't think it was sufficiently considered when the checks and balances were first formulated.  Even with the coherently elected executive, I reckon they thought partisanship in Congress wouldn't reach a point where they'd refuse to impeach an errant president of the same party.
Sounds like they were maybe a wee bit naive.

I heard it say that America is a monarchy with an elected king while Britain is a republic with a hereditary president. Apparently that was said by an American journalist in the late 19th century.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #136 on: March 03, 2017, 03:59:58 PM »
Sounds like they were maybe a wee bit naive.

Just a bit, yes.

James Madison believed (or is commonly interpreted to believe) that partisan politics were inevitable, and that the only solution was to mitigate the effects, not stem the causes.  He wrongly assumed a number of things.  First, he assumed that only the rabble would be partisans.  Second, and therefore following from his first assumption, he assumed that anyone qualified enough to be electable from a party would be smart enough to put the public interest before party.  Third, he assumed a multitude of factions, not a bifurcation toward two dominant parties.  And on and on.  Madison's arguments were not founded in the separation of powers directly, but in the careful analysis of the scale of the prospective government and the proportions of representation.  His analysis was reasonably cogent for the 18th century but not for the 21st, and not in light of how the American party system actually developed.  But inasmuch as Madison's argument was founded in quantitative electoral arguments, the whole thing exists in the framework of the separation of powers in which those elected to the offices of one power would not necessarily be subject to the same flavor of factious emotions as the other branches.

Quote
I heard it say that America is a monarchy with an elected king while Britain is a republic with a hereditary president. Apparently that was said by an American journalist in the late 19th century.

I wouldn't dispute this.  I assume entire books have been written comparing the American republic to the British one from which it sprang.  But I wouldn't have the time to read them all.  I see vestiges in the American system that give homage to a "ruling class," which may or may not ever have existed in valid form anywhere.   Judges were appointed and senators given lengthier terms on the basic understanding that the people holding these offices were not the "rabble" of the House, but rather those who -- for lack of a better characterization -- had been groomed into the leadership class.  The Founding Fathers had not yet warmed fully to the idea that any of the unwashed rabble would ever be fit to lead.  This harks back to the notion of monarchs and peers who followed genealogical lines of succession and were thus bred from youth to assume offices of leadership.  (There is, however, a remarkable episode of Netflix's The Crown in which Elizabeth realizes she has been inadequately prepared intellectually.)  Whether some hereditary lord or monarch actually had leadership talents was mitigated in the idea that for better or for worse they would be prepared as well as possible for the role.

I gather the Founding Fathers were somewhat conflicted about the executive.  On the one hand it's obvious, having just escaped what they believed to be the tyranny of a monarch, they felt reticent about vesting in one person so much power.  But on the other hand, if the executive could be a person who was carefully and soberly chosen and vetted by a similarly conscientious college of electors -- and not so much just the person bearing the proper DNA or having electioneered most viciously -- then they could be less anxious about giving him so much direct power.  Thus I can see that the English system benefits from the primacy of Parliament in order to quench the power of whatever random monarch ascends the throne.  It makes sense.  Succession is what it is, and it points to the next bloke in line regardless of his actual qualifications.  That's a rational reaction to having lived for hundreds of years in a monarchy, and taking steps over the following hundreds of years (i.e., since Magna Carta) to move toward democracy.

In contrast, had the American electoral college worked the way it was in part envisioned, Trump would not have been elected.  That was one of the mechanisms envisioned to prevent despots and demagogues from acquiring the kinglike powers the Constitution granted to the executive.  Contrary to the feelings that evolved later, the President was, from the start, not to be elected directly or by a purely popular vote.  Even in the now-remote case where the House would elect the President it does so by state, contrary to the customary method of polling the House.  In the context of your quote, we seem to have elected ourselves into the mess England learned long ago to avoid.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #137 on: March 04, 2017, 05:40:33 AM »
I wouldn't say "long before"; it was just a few years before the "factionalism" that Washington warned about in his farewell address was firmly established. It's the reason for the 12th Amendment...

Yes, you make a good point.  I had it in my mind that the reforms for electing the executive came later than 1803, i.e., after the generation who weren't founding fathers came to power.  Clearly partisanship took an early foothold.  But I don't think it was sufficiently considered when the checks and balances were first formulated.  Even with the coherently elected executive, I reckon they thought partisanship in Congress wouldn't reach a point where they'd refuse to impeach an errant president of the same party.

I read an article somewhere (no hope now of finding a link) in which the writer pointed out that in any parliament (or congress or whatever you want to call it) where members are each elected to represent a single electorate, you're always going to move towards a two-party system; whereas where members are elected by proportional representation you're always going to move towards endless multiple coalitions. The former occurs because being part of a party machine represents the better chance of being elected than standing as an independent, and the latter occurs because even a small party can be guaranteed getting enough votes across a country/representative region to gain at least one seat.

Here in Australia, the Federal Parliament started out in 1901 with three factional groupings - Free Traders, Protectionists and the Australian Labor Party. For the first few years they formed and broke a number of coalitions until eventually the Free Traders and Protectionists formed a permanent alliance (known initially as Fusion) of more conservatively aligned politicians against the more left wing workers party of the ALP. And that alignment has stayed pretty firm over the last century. The ALP has split a few times (for example, in World War One over conscription, and in the 1960s over Communism) but it has generally stayed the party of choice for working class people.

But that's changed since the 1990s and the (arguably neo-con) reforms of the Hawke and Keating ALP governments of 1983-1996. Since then the ALP has drifted to the political centre as union power has weakened, and its place on the left wing has been occupied by the Greens.

The return of One Nation in the last few years doesn't quite fit the same narrative on the right. For one thing the Liberals (who are actually the conservative party in the country) haven't drifted to the centre, despite comments by deposed PM Tony Abbott. As I understand it, One Nation supporters have generally come from working class and middle class families with a conservative outlook, many of whom in the past would have voted for the ALP; they're similar to Trump Republicans as people who feel they've lost out from globalism.

Now the difference between the USA and Australia is how our political systems cope with these protest votes. In Australia our House of Reps has individual seats, and as mentioned above this promotes a two-party outcome: out of 150 seats in the HoR, 147 are held by members of the two major parties. But the Senate, with 12 Senators elected in each state (and two in each territory), allows far wider political representation. As a result, the two major parties between them hold only 55 of the 76 seats; the crossbench of 21 represents a wide range of political views, and quite a headache for the government to get legislation passed. But at least it's possible to say that nearly everyone's political views have been represented in the Senate, at least to some extent.

But in the USA, where each state elects only two Senators, there isn't much chance for minor parties to be elected. So their best chance has been to be part of one of the two major parties of the System, hence the infiltration of the Republican Party by the Tea Party. If the US Senate had provided for more Senators per state then I'd suggest the Tea Party people may have preferred to guarantee representation in the Senate by running their own candidates outside the Republican Party, while the Democrats could easily fracture into a worker's party and a more liberal middle-class party.

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #138 on: March 04, 2017, 07:55:10 AM »
The thing is that news travelled slowly in the 18th century (cf the apocryphal story of George III writing in his diary on 4th July 1776 that nothing important happened that day), and it may well be that the colonial leaders were a little out of touch with how far British system had moved. The Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement established the precedent that the monarch can be changed if not suitable (just a few years ago, not one but a half dozen elected Parliaments changed the line of succession again). The succession of the House of Hanover, itself the result of Parliament choosing the line succession, brought in a King who didn't speak English and so started the practice that the monarch doesn't lead the Cabinet.  So it may be that the Founding Fathers diagnosed the problem based on an outdated perception.  They're called Intolerable Acts not Intolerable Royal Proclamations.

The House of Lords here is also a bastion if crossbenchers. However it is also a mess. It is one of only a small handful of upper houses larger than lower houses, because it gets packed with new wood after every change of government while the old wood remains. It's a truly British thing of just fudging and making do. Everyone agrees it needs to change, but no-one agrees to what. Change doesn't necessarily mean making it elected. There is value in it being appointed and therefore not just a clone of the Commons. But if appointed, how to keep the herd suitably thinned and how to avoid it just being a dumping ground for political apparatchiks who can't win Commons seats? Of course, anything radical is likely to be put on hold for the next few years to see if the UK lasts out the next decade.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #139 on: March 04, 2017, 02:18:13 PM »
But in the USA, where each state elects only two Senators, there isn't much chance for minor parties to be elected.

Or for dark horse candidates to attract the attention of one of the major parties.  I was tangentially involved with one of my colleagues' unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate, on a major party ticket.  He lost in the primaries, as we expected he would, because the winning candidate was carefully tailored to be just off-center enough to get nominated -- not because he had any great ideas for how to govern.  Or any prior experience in governing.  But yes, I think your discussion of Australian parties is very much in the same vein as Madison's in the 18th century, albeit with more hindsight.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #140 on: March 04, 2017, 02:44:25 PM »
...and it may well be that the colonial leaders were a little out of touch with how far British system had moved.

Quite likely, although as a vital colony of the Crown it's not as if the inhabitants of the Americas were unaware of English politics.  It's more likely that my analysis lacks sophistication.  Hamilton (the statesman, not the musical) was reasonably correct about how the electoral college should have worked to deny Trump the presidency, but there is more to the crafting of the executive than I can recall off the top of my head.  My personal feeling is that the American Republicans are content to let Trump lead the media around by the nose and be generally the buffoon we knew he would be in order to distract attention from the efforts of the Republican establishment to dismantle and defuse the previous eight years of progressive policy.

Quote
It's a truly British thing of just fudging and making do. Everyone agrees it needs to change, but no-one agrees to what.

On the contrary, some of the UK's deepest and most respected thinkers have proposed a marvelous way of culling the herd.


Quote
...to see if the UK lasts out the next decade.

Yikes, don't say that.  Various forces in my life are making it somewhat likely I may sojourn in the London area for a few years.  Or that's one possibility.  I understand Dalston is a nice place to have a flat, but I'm also considering Hammersmith (having stayed there some years ago and recalling liking it).
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #141 on: March 04, 2017, 03:09:50 PM »
Dalston? I guess it has been gentrified a bit lately, especially since the extension of London Overground. Hammersmith is fine. Of course, you don't get much for your money these days. London will of course always be there and chugging just fine. Still so much development. What it's the capital of is the question.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #142 on: March 05, 2017, 05:35:20 AM »
Okay, so what's the go with Trump's Twitter allegation about Obama bugging his office during the election campaign?

According to the Australian ABC article, Trump provided no evidence, but it seems pretty clear he was basing his claim on the Breitbart article.

Over on Unexplained Mysteries, Trump supporters are just about going into meltdown, with the basis of the allegation being (if I understand it correctly) the likelihood that Obama authorised the phone tapping which demonstrated Trump's team had been talking to the Russians.

So is that so? Or is it completely wrong? Or is it plausible?

Offline grmcdorman

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #143 on: March 05, 2017, 10:06:20 AM »
Standard Trump diversionary tactics: when under attack, attack back with bigger allegations.

It's extremely unlikely the Obama Whitehouse did what he alleges: it's illegal, it's not Obama's style; see http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-early-morning-tweets for one.

Trump, though, gets much of his news from sites like Brietbart and Alex Jones' site, both of which are prone to breathless unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as I'm sure you know.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #144 on: March 05, 2017, 12:02:44 PM »
If Obama had Trump's office bugged (amusing as Stephen King's flight of fancy about Obama doing it personally is, it seems unlikely!), it was likely with a legitimate warrant.  The only way one would be likely to be issued by a judge would be if there were sufficient evidence to prove that the Trump campaign had been involved in some nasty shenanigans.  So either Trump has evidence of a criminal activity and is releasing it by tweet instead of having it investigated, he's revealing evidence of an ongoing criminal investigation that doesn't make him look good, or he's making things up.  None of those say good things about him.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #145 on: March 05, 2017, 03:00:37 PM »
There is no way this Administration will last four years.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #146 on: March 06, 2017, 06:30:35 AM »
There is no way this Administration will last four years.

Possibly so. But how it ends and what comes after worries me more than what the Trump Administration is doing now.

I find it hard not to draw comparisons between events in the USA at the moment and the closing decades of the Roman Republic. To that end, I strongly recommend reading Tom Holland's "Rubicon".

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #147 on: March 06, 2017, 08:07:12 AM »
How does the administration end early though? As Jay has said, the system has become so corrupted by partisanship, the accusation would need to be treason before Congress would impeach him. Little misdemeanours wouldn't get a look in.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #148 on: March 06, 2017, 11:15:08 AM »
For one thing, I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled a Palin.  "No, I'm done.  I've made America great, and I don't have to do this anymore."  He's discovering that this is work, and he can't just do whatever he wants to and expect people to do what he tells them to.

I also have several scenarios considered where he just dies, not least because he's seventy and not in great health.  Or I could see someone pulling a Guiteau and assassinating him because he hadn't, say, actually had Hillary Clinton locked up or even investigated again.  Or an accident involving a gun at one of his rallies.

Or, possibly, everything is getting too big even for the Republicans in Congress to ignore.  Treason sounds like it's coming up, to me.  Failing that, the Democrats could take back Congress in two years and do what needs to be done.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #149 on: March 06, 2017, 11:22:51 AM »
As long as he continues to sign executive orders that dismantle environmental protections, restrictions on big business and fossil fuels the Republicans will continue to back him. If he had an attack of morality or consciousness and refuses to continue to remove years of progress then he will be out of the White House post haste.
Sad, but true. He's just a puppet for dangerous people and his whole Twitter fiasco is nothing more than a puppet-show on stage whilst the truly nefarious deals are being done in the shadows of the wings.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov