My greatest fear is for America. He undermined it's institutions last time and there's no telling how much he'll weaken it now. I suspect the DoJ will be first to get gutted and then education, health, science. NATO, WTO, UN. I'm sure he'll embed gerrymandering to ensure republican victories. At the end of this we'll have a radically different America, domestically and Globally.
The US was supposed to be destroyed by Trump 2016-2020. That didn't happen at all. The US is now stronger, more powerful, richer. The corporate tax cuts have worked out extraordinarily well, like Ireland on steroids.
Meanwhile the rest of the world has fallen behind the US. China is weaker and sliding (in part thanks to the expansive authoritarianism). Russia is a joke and has been for decades (now a regional power that struggles against Ukraine). Europe broadly is weaker and no longer competitive at almost anything.
US GDP per capita is essentially now double that of Britain or France.
Weakened institutions don't necessarily mean a weakened economy. You can have a strong economy and a high GDP without an independent judiciary or constitutional rights for example. (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you, but pointing out a communications mismatch between your comment and the GP that you replied to; I think you're talking about different things).
Funny how the president who has faced the most political persecution in the history of the US has you thinking he’s against independent judiciary or constitutional rights.
This is the only thing that has me clinging to hope, is that last time it didn't turn out terribly. I have a sense of foreboding about what the supreme court will look like at the end of his term, and the consequences we'll have to live with for decades as a result. And a potential WW3, which seems more plausible on a daily basis. A large scale conflict feels almost unavoidable; I would prefer a cool, calm, collected individual at the helm when it hits.
There is enough protections built into the system, and enough maturity of the system (the "deep state"), that outside of something like war on our shores, no single president can destroy it in one term. But each time its degraded it becomes more susceptible. We just (popularly) elected an election denier. That means future presidents can run this play and get away with it. The most likely scenario now IMO is we get a more cunning strongman who successfully overturns the democratic outcome when not in their favor. We don't have to speculate, as we've see this play out in several other countries. Of course this line of thinking was never a viable political strategy for running against Trump, because its far too abstract for the average voter.
The reality is we are still benefiting from the leadership of some of our more visionary founders and leaders since; but without being reenforced in some way it won't hold up forever. Most people in the US are still under the guise of America being special, and hand waving those scenarios away thinking the worst can't happen here. Which makes it much easier to then vote for Trump, especially if you don't think the climate crisis is real or prescient.
> There is enough protections built into the system
I'm not even convinced of this. The problem is that that many of these protections aren't really legal (at least they aren't all legal), they're conventions and norms. They require the people in power to believe in them, and believe that they're good and useful, or they can be swept aside. The rule of law is a polite fiction that requires people to adhere to it.
Take Elon Musk, for example, who will now likely be involved in government to an alarming degree. By all accounts, he got his start in the US by working here illegally. No problem; rules for thee and not for me. His publicly-admitted drug use should disqualify SpaceX from government contracts. No problem; what are they going to do, cancel them? Musk was unhappy a Delaware judge struck down his Tesla pay package. No problem; reincorporate in Texas and find a different legal framework and judges who like him.
Musk is constantly flaunting norms and getting away with it, and he'll continue to push and ignore these boundaries with whatever government position Trump gives him. Trump does the same, but with a lot more power, and he and his cronies are actually prepared and organized this time, something that wasn't the case in 2016. He has a SCOTUS stacked in his favor, that has already given him broad immunity against illegal acts while in office. He has the Senate, again, and may have the House as well. This time the Senate will temporarily or permanently change the filibuster rules if they're having trouble hitting the 60-vote threshold on things to which it still applies.
I share your sense of foreboding. See my other comment about how I'm feeling about last time vs. this time, but I have one other hope: In the US, the states still retain a lot of power. There are still a lot of states that will continue to be governed sensibly regardless of what's happening at the Federal level. I think that state-level leaders tend to be more pragmatic and grounded, less likely to take things off-the-rails on impulse or to score political points, perhaps because they're closer to "the people" and have to live more with the practical results.
He didn’t have immunity from the Supreme Court, and majority of the Senate and the House back then. Some Republicans working with him still had integrity to prevent atrocities, but they are not there anymore.
I'd argue that the war in Ukraine was caused by the State Department being weakend and not being able to effectively deal with Russian plans to invade. Yes the US economy has been phenomenally succesful over the last 8 years and thats in no small part due to Trumps deregulation of the oil industry which has become the largest in the world. But in the mean time China is dominating renewables which is the future. People also voted for Trump because they're feeling economically insecure, the distribution of wealth is skewed to the rich. the US middle classes have not been a beneficiary of this economic bonanza at all. Which explains why they voted Trump. So either wages have to rise significantly for them, which means corporates endure lower margins or prices fall because of a massive supply side boom, which can be met domestically because it would be inflationary, and cant be met by imports because he's promised to impose 20% tariffs on everyone. Is a circle that cant be squared.
The last time he was surrounded by chiefs of staff, generals, legal counsel, agency directors, etc. who would say "that's crazy, you can't do that" against his worst impulses. Now, all those people are gone and people like them will not be welcome. Now, he has a conservative judiciary (thanks to his last-minute appointees) who recently ruled that he will not bound by the law. Now, his inner circle has a plan to rapidly cleanse all non-partisan Federal government positions of anyone who might tell the Trump administration why something he wants can't be done.
There is no reason to expect things to go like they did the last time around.
Well said. Speaking as a registered Republican dating back to the early 2000s, I thought Trump was a clown when he first announced his intention to run in 2015 (you could call me a "Never Trumper"). I was shocked like everybody else when he won, but I took comfort in the fact that he was still mostly surrounded by old establishment Republicans who I figured would keep things on-the-rails or just impeach him within the first six months. I mean, he had some wackos like Bannon and Flynn and his family members, but he also had old establishment Republicans (in his cabinet and congress) and other non-politicians that I (as a career Army officer) really respected like Kelly, Mattis, Esper, McMaster, and Milley. My expectations were sort of met.
But now what? The Republican establishment has been re-made in his image. The people I respect have all gone public against him in the strongest possible ways. Who will serve under him? I really don't know what to expect this time around.
> That didn't happen at all. The US is now stronger, more powerful, richer.
The proper comparison to make here isn't between America before and America after Trump. It's to America after Trump and a hypothetical America after Clinton.
It may be that we're better off after Trump (though "we" is doing a lot of work in that sentence). But the relevant question to voters is whether we would have been even better off if the other candidate had one.
Even without Trump, there are lots of people in the US who have been relatively dissatisfied with the general trend of the US the last 60-ish years. Small-c conservatives have been just as horrified by the available options as small-l liberals have been.
I doubt even the most radical president could do much to reverse or slow that trend. The strong central government permanent war surveillance state seems so much bigger and more powerful than even the highest office. It’s not like breaking up or not breaking up Google is gonna change the fact that feds can read everyone’s gmail without a warrant.
I personally believe that the office of the president’s effect on long term policy or institutions is generally massively overstated. Their main lever seems to be supreme court appointments and Trump has already pulled that one in his first term (to predictably destructive results). I am unsure whether that is because presidents generally “color inside of the lines” and haven’t attempted sweeping and radical reform, or because the institutions ultimately have more inertia than the temporary machinations of the executive office.
I guess we’ll see if the institutional destruction he seems to seek a) is even possible or b) may result in unexpectedly good outcomes. Then again, most of the stuff he says he seems to speak just for the momentary sake of speaking it; only a small fraction relates to things he plans (or is effectively compelled) to do. I lost count of all of the promises he made, good and bad, that not only weren’t kept, but weren’t even ever mentioned again.
I remain skeptical that his fervent drive during the campaign will translate into fervent reformation action, now that he has obtained what he wants. Despite the constant media hand-wringing, his first term wasn’t as apocalyptic as everyone made it out to be, despite his two main legacies both being perhaps the most destructive things he could have wrought: the supreme court appointments and the insanely massive mismanagement of a deadly pandemic.
His more hardworking and ideologically-motivated support staff have had a lot more time
to plan on his behalf this time around, however. Perhaps his weaponized ignorance will be deliberately wielded this time around and his second term will turn out to be massively more destructive than his first, but that is a very high bar to clear given the outsized effect that mismanaging the pandemic response caused. Not many presidents can have that much preventable death in their legacy, even if they explicitly try.
> Their main lever seems to be supreme court appointments
The President has far more power than that.
- Veto Power: Blocks congressional bills; overrides require a two-thirds majority, which is rare.
- Executive Orders: Directives to federal agencies that bypass Congress (limited by courts and future presidents).
- Foreign Policy Leadership: Sole power to negotiate treaties (requiring Senate ratification) and recognize foreign governments.
- Pardon Power: Can pardon federal offenses, unchecked by other branches.
- Appointment Authority: Nominates not only Supreme Court justices, but federal judges, and cabinet members, shaping long-term policy and judicial interpretation.
What goes along with that is ability to get people elected (or not) by backing them, both actually and monetarily. Trump killing the immigration bill during Biden's term is a good example, and he wasn't even President (yet) at the time. I expect he'll focus on more palatable legislation during the first two years, to keep the senate majority through 2028, but we'll see.
Vetos almost definitionally aren’t destructive as they prevent things from happening.
Executive orders are a big one. I imagine there will be many legal challenges as a result of novel applications of executive authority here. Fortunately whatever he does here can be just as easily reverted in a few years.
Foreign policy is another huge one, and this is probably where he can do lasting damage to the US and its allies.
Pardon power is another like veto: all it does is restrain the government (in this case, from punishing criminals). Not much damage.
Appointments to anything other than the Supreme Court are, in my view, not that big a deal. Activist judges below the Supreme Court will eventually get their rulings overturned if they are too extreme.
I think people overestimate the damage that can be wrought, absent some external crisis/threat (eg covid, or a war, etc) that results in mismanagement in response.
> Vetos almost definitionally aren’t destructive as they prevent things from happening.
Government funding flows through congress, and being able to veto it means Trump gets enormous control over what goes into it, because legislatures generally won't put things into it that he will refuse to approve, and conversely will put things in that he will approve. Outside of his war powers it's probably the most extreme power in the US.
There are three checks against this that I know of. One is if Congress is not aligned party wise, they can punt to a large degree. Non-issue for Trump since they control Congress. Second is 2/3 majority but given our highly partisan state, unlikely to play any role. Third is perception, Congress and President and play the blame game, which affects their re-election. But given Trump's level of influence that is also unlikely to be a playable card, at least in the near future.
In all Trump has an enormous ability to shape this country through this power alone.
> Pardon power is another like veto: all it does is restrain the government (in this case, from punishing criminals). Not much damage.
Yes but if he's pardoning people he knows, and in particular in a quid pro quo fashion, he can use it to effectively do illegal things without doing them himself. It's a serious loophole.
Overall if people are voting for him because they like what he's doing that is one thing. But I suspect many people voted for / not against him because they ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and say what's the worst that can happen. And the answer is a _lot_. Though I still believe electing an election denier is the biggest issue, because its the simplest way to short-circuit our institutional protections in the future.
He only realistically has two years to get any legislation through, the last two years he won't have the house with him so either he is on the defensive or just doing appointments (he will start the term with negative approval rating, and probably will never get above that, so the house definitely flips in 2026 like it did in 2018).
The question is how much damage can he do in two years? If he goes full loco and starts a global trade war with everyone via high tariffs, while at the same time juicing interest rates via a politicized fed, we will be in a depression within a year or two. If he uses his political capital more wisely, we might avoid that economic hit but have longer term damage to worry about. Thankfully, Trump is pretty impulsive, and he doesn't have a long list of good advisors to choose from (not that he would listen to them anyways), so I'm really just worried about the first scenario.
