The Extraordinary Danger to our Democracy

[Blackjack200]

Early Wednesday Morning, after the results were called for Trump, I was texting back and forth with a friend who was also a Clinton supporter, and badly disappointed in the results. He ticked off some of his fears: destructive trade policies, his tax plan, and pulling back from our commitments to NATO. I was astonished those issues were what most concerned him when he contemplated a Trump presidency, and it dawned on me just how few Democrats/Liberals/Leftists appreciate the danger this country's institutions now face.

I'm not a seasoned writer on these issues, and I didn't spend a lot of time before this year thinking about authoritarianism or fascism, so I may not do a good job articulating this, but I'm going to do my best. Let's look at Donald Trump's hallmark issue, immigration. Trump promised to deport the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country. Based on exit polling from the election, mass deportation is wildly unpopular. 66% of respondents opposed it. But in his 60 minutes interview that aired last night, Trump told CBS that mass deportations are 'not high on his agenda' (http://theweek.com/5things/661782/60-minutes-interview-trump-hedges-mass-deportations).

This comment, and other things he has said and done since election have led to suggestions that Trump is "moderating" or beginning to appreciate the complexity and nuance needed. I'd argue that this is the wrong way to look at these statements.

Jay Rosen, a professor of Journalism at NYU, summed it up well in a tweet yesterday, in a response to Jake Tapper:

"The policy of holding two opposite policies at the same time, so that there is no way to know the true policy, is now official policy."

Trump told us that he opposed the Iraq War, and simply ignored the evidence that was presented to the contrary. There is no question that he will tell us with a straight face that he is only deporting the convicted felons and drug dealers if he thinks that is what people want to hear, and he will say it whether he's deporting everyone, only a few, or no one at all. He is totally unmoored, and we have no way of knowing what policies he's pursuing.

Put another way, if Donald Trump dissolves Medicare and Social Security, if he completely destabilizes the Middle East by deploying American troops somewhere in the region, if he spends billions of dollars building a pointless wall and continues or expands on Obama's already record-breaking deportations, if he implements his tax plan, and he abandons all federal efforts to address global warming, and that's the worst of it, we will have dodged a bullet. If we come out of this with our democratic institutions still somewhat in tact, we will be lucky, not good.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I think a candidate's stated policy position during an election is overrated as an indicator for everything to do with their actual politics after the election. Obama's 2008 website was full of plans and ideas that never came to pass (Gitmo is still open), while his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, wasn't even mentioned on said wesbite in any detail when he was running. I think ever since at least Reagan voters vote based on personality, team/tribe mentality, and personal affinity for the candidate. People have learned that campaign promises are bullcrap, so it's better to vote for the person you like more.

The "way things are supposed to work" guide to being a good citizen is a book that has been outdated for decades. Watergate ruined the public trust that undoes the important of politician truthiness (to steal an awesome word) that is laid out in OP.

Those upset about Trump getting elected would be better served trying to rally the troops for the midterms in two years. All this bellyaching about civic life not being what they thought, or people not voting for "the right reasons," or even complaints about the electoral college denies the reality that Obama once benefitted from everything that Trump has benefitted from. When Obama changed his mind to follow a changing America (say on gay marriage) that was applauded by the left because the shift was in a direction they like. In comparison it feels like pure hypocrisy when they bash Trump for wanting to move away from his stated policy positions (especially when many of the left hated those positions).

Time to live in the real world and get out of the ivory tower.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think a candidate's stated policy position during an election is overrated as an indicator for everything to do with their actual politics after the election. Obama's 2008 website was full of plans and ideas that never came to pass (Gitmo is still open), while his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, wasn't even mentioned on said wesbite in any detail when he was running. I think ever since at least Reagan voters vote based on personality, team/tribe mentality, and personal affinity for the candidate. People have learned that campaign promises are bullcrap, so it's better to vote for the person you like more.

The "way things are supposed to work" guide to being a good citizen is a book that has been outdated for decades. Watergate ruined the public trust that undoes the important of politician truthiness (to steal an awesome work) that is laid out in OP.

Those upset about Trump getting elected would be better served trying to rally the troops for the midterms in two years. All this bellyaching about civic life not being what they thought, or people not voting for "the right reasons," or even complaints about the electoral college denies the reality that Obama once benefitted from everything that Trump has benefitted from. When Obama changed his mind to follow a changing America (say on gay marriage) that was applauded by the left because the shift was in a direction they like. In comparison it feels like pure hypocrisy when they bash Trump for wanting to move away from his stated policy positions (especially when many of the left hated those positions).

Time to live in the real world and get out of the ivory tower.

Excellent post!!!

 

[Torn Mind]

Silly bellyaching. Our democracy is safe. 4 years from now, the people will get to vote again and the candidates have to put on another show and whoever makes the better show will take the Presidency. Trump will not be dictator Trump four years from now because of the cold, hard, reality, that our structure of government is not that easy to change. Not to mention, there is not sufficient unity even within his own party to take orders from him. What is supposedly a fear of losing democracy is actually the loss of mono-party domination that tribal humans always default to. When two principles are in direct contradiction, there is no inbetween and it is a duel to the death on which side wins

If Trump truly stepped on the Clinton's toes, we'll be seeing his literal dead body soon enough. But if he actually was doing a favor to his friends by sabotaging the Republican party with a caricatured performance, he now has four 4 years to really embarrass the Republicans so badly there is no way the Democrats can lose four years from now.

The campaign is a expression of feeling and opinion for the voters, and the one who manages to express it for them well gets the vote. Theatrics and being emotionally in tune with the voters wins them, not reason. Get a rise out of the crowd with catchy words. There is no reason to be pragmatic when you're not in office. You don't win elections by being dry, nuanced, and boring. You win them being getting people riled up for what they believe. Obama did that well, and so did Trump.

But given the amount hate towards both candidates during the polling, it seems that the Trump victory has allowed the losers emotion to overrule reason(how about that for lack of empathy) that the voters for Trump might not all be into everything he says. Voting "not Clinton" is not 100% espousal of everything he does.

Trump's trade policies won't pass, because freeing up trade is what has been done regardless of political leanings. The economics make sense from a production standpoint; drop the barriers and more stuff gets made. Fact of the matter is that the working class see themselves as a luxury supply of labor, price themselves accordingly, and the companies go elsewhere. Congress won't give what he wants, since the Republicans have never been the pro-labor, anti-free trade party. There maybe fragmentation within the party about free trade, but protectionism would require the support of the Dems and their pro-labor wing.

Trump is indeed a walking contradiction. The ones who voted him in will not see what he promised them nor will his opponents see the doomsday they are predicting. Some of his promises are practically impossible and he flip flops on other things such as minimum wage. "WTF is he doing?" will be the question of the week rather than "Is he gonna become a Hitler?".

 

[boomerang]

Such a thoughtful post from a poster that is paying no attention to who is protesting and destroying property in various cities in the nation. Fear of Trump? Fear of fascism? Let us know when Trump calls for these activities and starts bankrolling them. Here's a newsflash, conservatives aren't behind and involved in these events.

Ooh, tender flowers think scary thoughts. Eastwood was right, we have an enormous "pussy generation".

 

[soundforbjt]

Here's a newsflash, conservatives aren't behind and involved in these events.

.

Do you think liberals are involved in the sharp increase in Hate Crimes against Minorities as documented by the FBI just since the election?

 

[sandorski]

It seems that of the last few Presidents many thought the US was going to drive off a cliff. What is different this time is that Trump's campaign rhetoric was so extraordinary that if he was to be believed, for the first time driving off a cliff seems plausible.

 

[zinfamous]

I think a candidate's stated policy position during an election is overrated as an indicator for everything to do with their actual politics after the election. Obama's 2008 website was full of plans and ideas that never came to pass (Gitmo is still open), while his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, wasn't even mentioned on said wesbite in any detail when he was running. I think ever since at least Reagan voters vote based on personality, team/tribe mentality, and personal affinity for the candidate. People have learned that campaign promises are bullcrap, so it's better to vote for the person you like more.

The "way things are supposed to work" guide to being a good citizen is a book that has been outdated for decades. Watergate ruined the public trust that undoes the important of politician truthiness (to steal an awesome word) that is laid out in OP.

Those upset about Trump getting elected would be better served trying to rally the troops for the midterms in two years. All this bellyaching about civic life not being what they thought, or people not voting for "the right reasons," or even complaints about the electoral college denies the reality that Obama once benefitted from everything that Trump has benefitted from. When Obama changed his mind to follow a changing America (say on gay marriage) that was applauded by the left because the shift was in a direction they like. In comparison it feels like pure hypocrisy when they bash Trump for wanting to move away from his stated policy positions (especially when many of the left hated those positions).

Time to live in the real world and get out of the ivory tower.

To be fair, you can't hang GITMO on Obama. That was one of the first actions on his first day at the desk (pretty sure releasing Federal funds for ES cell research was #1, GITMO might have been #2). He has actually been busting his ass on that, including appointing separate teams to deal with it. It is its own job that has passed through SecState's office at least twice, I think, but the real problem with this is dealing with Pubs.

If anything, he was naive about getting any sort of the cooperation needed to make it happen. It also involves grand international deal-making to find hosts for these prisoners.

This is one of those situations where the republicans cut off your water service, set your house on fire, than blame you for not paying the water bill and your house burning down.

 

[bshole]

To be fair, you can't hang GITMO on Obama. That was one of the first actions on his first day at the desk (pretty sure releasing Federal funds for ES cell research was #1, GITMO might have been #2). He has actually been busting his ass on that, including appointing separate teams to deal with it. It is its own job that has passed through SecState's office at least twice, I think, but the real problem with this is dealing with Pubs.

If anything, he was naive about getting any sort of the cooperation needed to make it happen. It also involves grand international deal-making to find hosts for these prisoners.

This is one of those situations where the republicans cut off your water service, set your house on fire, than blame you for not paying the water bill and your house burning down.

Why can't we charge them with a crime or release them outright? I don't understand.....

 

[Blackjack200]

It seems that of the last few Presidents many thought the US was going to drive off a cliff. What is different this time is that Trump's campaign rhetoric was so extraordinary that if he was to be believed, for the first time driving off a cliff seems plausible.

I never thought a president was an existential threat to the nation before. If you think about it, the erosion of democratic institutions was well under way already. Police powers are extraordinary now, and intelligence services have been abusing the privacy of Americans for years. I think these erosions have paved the way for Trumps election, and also made his presidency far more dangerous.

Why can't we charge them with a crime or release them outright? I don't understand.....

There is no reason. In fact, our constitution requires it.

 

[mikeymikec]

Why can't we charge them with a crime or release them outright? I don't understand.....

Probably due to a purpose-made quagmire of red tape that provided the legal basis for incarcerating people in a facility outside of US territory yet under US control (disclaimer: IANAL).

 

[poofyhairguy]

To be fair, you can't hang GITMO on Obama. That was one of the first actions on his first day at the desk (pretty sure releasing Federal funds for ES cell research was #1, GITMO might have been #2). He has actually been busting his ass on that, including appointing separate teams to deal with it. It is its own job that has passed through SecState's office at least twice, I think, but the real problem with this is dealing with Pubs.

I was just using that as an example. Pick one of the other broken Obama promises from the six pages of broken promises on politifact if you don't like the Gitmo one:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

The point is the same- we all expect politicians to break campaign promises. And they do. And Democracy survives just fine.

This is one of those situations where the republicans cut off your water service, set your house on fire, than blame you for not paying the water bill and your house burning down.

What are you talking about? Republicans don't want Gitmo closed. They built the damn thing.

The reason why I (as in me a not Republican) brought up Gitmo was it is a convenient example of a broken promise we all remember.

Honestly this whole obsession with Trump breaking his promises is weird. When Obama was elected many Republicans HOPED he would break his promises because they didn't want any of that stuff to happen. I don't think the left actually wants a Mexico wall or for Obamacare to go away completely so I can't even understand why this is an issue at all.

The only theory I have is after the election the mainstream media (read: liberal media elites) seems to have circled the wagons that it HAD TO be stupid racists that elected Trump (instead of real Americans with valid concerns about our leadership and party cronyism), so they want Trump to break his promises ASAP so they have evidence that Trump voters are stupid ("huh huh they believed a politician, what suckers") to confirm their pet theories above and beyond what polls full of "uneducated" voters can give them.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Trump told us that he opposed the Iraq War, and simply ignored the evidence that was presented to the contrary. There is no question that he will tell us with a straight face that he is only deporting the convicted felons and drug dealers if he thinks that is what people want to hear, and he will say it whether he's deporting everyone, only a few, or no one at all. He is totally unmoored, and we have no way of knowing what policies he's pursuing.

Put another way, if Donald Trump dissolves Medicare and Social Security, if he completely destabilizes the Middle East by deploying American troops somewhere in the region, if he spends billions of dollars building a pointless wall and continues or expands on Obama's already record-breaking deportations, if he implements his tax plan, and he abandons all federal efforts to address global warming, and that's the worst of it, we will have dodged a bullet. If we come out of this with our democratic institutions still somewhat in tact, we will be lucky, not good.

lol this is silly. We don't know what he really supports now, but we will know in 4 years (unless he gets nothing done, in which case he's still toast). A person making campaign promises and lying doesn't really make any statement on the function of our democracy, unless you're naive enough to believe that all presidents in the past have been strongly beholden to their electorate.

btw, in 1932 FDR ran on a platform of reduced government spending and regulation. We all know how that turned out (many would say for the better). There is nothing inherently wrong with lying and compromising to accomplish goals if the goals are good.

 

[boomerang]

Do you think liberals are involved in the sharp increase in Hate Crimes against Minorities as documented by the FBI just since the election?

If you're basing your question on information from the SPLC, my answer is that they can't be trusted. The FBI dropped them as a resource because they are unable to provide unbiased and even accurate data. They are just one of many institutions that have decided that the progressive agenda is important enough to lie about and fabricate information. You are of course welcome to continue to be duped by your news sources but the very recent election means that many of us can continue to recognize bullshit when we hear or read it and can proudly declare we do.

 

[Maxima1]

Trump can do a lot of damage if he gets more than 1 SC pick, and they're like Scalia.

 

[Maxima1]

lol this is silly. We don't know what he really supports now, but we will know in 4 years (unless he gets nothing done, in which case he's still toast). A person making campaign promises and lying doesn't really make any statement on the function of our democracy, unless you're naive enough to believe that all presidents in the past have been strongly beholden to their electorate.

btw, in 1932 FDR ran on a platform of reduced government spending and regulation. We all know how that turned out (many would say for the better). There is nothing inherently wrong with lying and compromising to accomplish goals if the goals are good.

The New Deal didn’t pursue Keynesian policies. Properly measured using cyclically adjusted deficit, fiscal policy was only modestly expansionary.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

He approximately tripled spending in the 1930s relative to that of the 1920s.

 

[raildogg]

So some economic policies and pulling from NATO make you concerned?

Is it not more concerning that people have elected a man with a character such as Trump's?

Also, I'm sorry you think this is a Democracy. That's what Trump and Hillary would want you to believe.

 

[Blackjack200]

Russian Journalist: Americans, especially the press, need to begin imagining the unimaginable.

https://www.propublica.org/podcast/item/how-journalists-need-to-begin-imagining-the-unimaginable
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/

“Thank you, my friends. Thank you. Thank you. We have lost. We have lost, and this is the last day of my political career, so I will say what must be said. We are standing at the edge of the abyss. Our political system, our society, our country itself are in greater danger than at any time in the last century and a half. The president-elect has made his intentions clear, and it would be immoral to pretend otherwise. We must band together right now to defend the laws, the institutions, and the ideals on which our country is based.”

That, or something like that, is what Hillary Clinton should have said on Wednesday.

A critique from a journalist with experience reporting on authoritarians. It can't be overstated, we are at a uniquely dangerous moment for our republic.

 

[momeNt]

Russian Journalist: Americans, especially the press, need to begin imagining the unimaginable.

https://www.propublica.org/podcast/item/how-journalists-need-to-begin-imagining-the-unimaginable
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/



A critique from a journalist with experience reporting on authoritarians. It can't be overstated, we are at a uniquely dangerous moment for our republic.

Which militia have you joined?

If you think it's that dangerous, like revolutionary war levels of dangerous, I think you need to respond appropriately.

Protesters get gassed or run over in authoritarian rule, tweeting and blocking traffic will not cut it if the times are as dire as you say they are.

 

[Moonbeam]

Blackjack, I think the problem with your post is that you are trying to raise the awareness of morally deficient people of who they voted for because of who they are. The facts are, I think, is that no matter how low people sink, they like to think in their own eyes they're upstanding people. Who would wake up from that dream? Only people with some real form of conscience still in tact, as far as I can see. So while the effort is noble enough, I fear the results will fall on their face.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The amygdala of liberals is growing by the minute...............LMAO!!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

If you're basing your question on information from the SPLC, my answer is that they can't be trusted. The FBI dropped them as a resource because they are unable to provide unbiased and even accurate data. They are just one of many institutions that have decided that the progressive agenda is important enough to lie about and fabricate information. You are of course welcome to continue to be duped by your news sources but the very recent election means that many of us can continue to recognize bullshit when we hear or read it and can proudly declare we do.

False-

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/27/no-the-fbi-hasnt-ditched-the-southern-poverty-l/198645

 

[agent00f]

I think a candidate's stated policy position during an election is overrated as an indicator for everything to do with their actual politics after the election. Obama's 2008 website was full of plans and ideas that never came to pass (Gitmo is still open), while his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, wasn't even mentioned on said wesbite in any detail when he was running. I think ever since at least Reagan voters vote based on personality, team/tribe mentality, and personal affinity for the candidate. People have learned that campaign promises are bullcrap, so it's better to vote for the person you like more.

The "way things are supposed to work" guide to being a good citizen is a book that has been outdated for decades. Watergate ruined the public trust that undoes the important of politician truthiness (to steal an awesome word) that is laid out in OP.

Those upset about Trump getting elected would be better served trying to rally the troops for the midterms in two years. All this bellyaching about civic life not being what they thought, or people not voting for "the right reasons," or even complaints about the electoral college denies the reality that Obama once benefitted from everything that Trump has benefitted from. When Obama changed his mind to follow a changing America (say on gay marriage) that was applauded by the left because the shift was in a direction they like. In comparison it feels like pure hypocrisy when they bash Trump for wanting to move away from his stated policy positions (especially when many of the left hated those positions).

Time to live in the real world and get out of the ivory tower.

There's a considerable difference between centrism and what Trump/Bannon do. One moves with prevailing sentiment a la gay rights, and the other will say anything to get what they want. It couldn't be more clear than the way the election was won by refusing to pivot from what got votes in the rust belt. They know they can screw the blue areas all they want with impunity due to the way the EC map is drawn.

Obama is opportunistic for sure, like all centrists to some degree, but we were never in danger of quite literal fascist power grab under someone like that.

 

[fskimospy]

I think a candidate's stated policy position during an election is overrated as an indicator for everything to do with their actual politics after the election. Obama's 2008 website was full of plans and ideas that never came to pass (Gitmo is still open), while his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, wasn't even mentioned on said wesbite in any detail when he was running. I think ever since at least Reagan voters vote based on personality, team/tribe mentality, and personal affinity for the candidate. People have learned that campaign promises are bullcrap, so it's better to vote for the person you like more.

The "way things are supposed to work" guide to being a good citizen is a book that has been outdated for decades. Watergate ruined the public trust that undoes the important of politician truthiness (to steal an awesome word) that is laid out in OP.

Those upset about Trump getting elected would be better served trying to rally the troops for the midterms in two years. All this bellyaching about civic life not being what they thought, or people not voting for "the right reasons," or even complaints about the electoral college denies the reality that Obama once benefitted from everything that Trump has benefitted from. When Obama changed his mind to follow a changing America (say on gay marriage) that was applauded by the left because the shift was in a direction they like. In comparison it feels like pure hypocrisy when they bash Trump for wanting to move away from his stated policy positions (especially when many of the left hated those positions).

Time to live in the real world and get out of the ivory tower.

Sadly, political science research shows that politicians usually follow through on the things they promise. If anything, voters UNDERRATE the likelihood of politicians following through with their stated goals.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/

It's easy to say 'there's no way he's going to do something that racist/stupid/irrational' and in some cases I'm sure you're right, especially given his general lack of consistent or coherent policy positions. I think you may be dismayed to find out that he meant a lot more than most people hoped he did though.

Also, isn't it a bit strange to say people should get out of the ivory tower as if they are out of touch when their candidate got millions more votes than her opponent?