Subject: Re: The Ballroom
Which is why I think it's a losing proposition for Democrats to keep labelling as "authoritarian" instances where an elected person makes a decision that isn't subject to an unending series of checks, reviews, and restrictions. Because it makes it seem like they want choices to be made primarily by anyone other than the folks that actually win elections - by experts, by professionals, by "community leaders" or "stakeholders," by courts....or that the choice isn't one that government ever gets to make at all.

I think you're slipping very close to strawman territory here.

IMHO, it is absolutely authoritarian for the head of a government to make decisions that don't follow the processes for making such a decision as set out in the laws of the country. Especially when there is no attempt at all to follow the defined processes.

In the specific case of the ballroom, I didn't see Trump attempt to follow the law, consulting the appropriate authority in DC regarding changes to public property - such as the White House. I didn't see him run design plans by anyone of authority. I didn't see him ask permission to demolish a publicly owned structure - the East Wing. I didn't see him consider the pros and cons for this ballroom and provide anything other than his typical lying bluster of "people are saying".

He's also failing to follow laws regarding funding of public projects - anti-deficiency laws and Congressional approval for spending public money.

He made zero attempt to follow any laws applicable to this project. So to come in after the fact and say that the laws were too hard or that they weren't considering the needs of the Office of the President, is just trying to whitewash reality. In reality, Trump just raised a huge middle finger to all of the laws and effectively said that he's not going to attempt follow them, nor is he going to attempt to change them. He's just going to do what he wants to do and the law be damned.

That is nothing less than an authoritarian move.

But reverting to your point that there is a gauntlet of laws that are making it difficult for elected officials do do what they were elected to do, I actually can see that point. There is a good argument to be made that the multitude of laws are stifling both the executive and legislative branches of our Federal government. The solution to that is to work to change the laws, not to utterly ignore them.

If our Republic is to continue, we can't have a President simply running roughshod over any and every law as he sees fit. We need a President who acts to change the laws, or at least makes an attempt to follow the laws before carefully and specifically failing to follow certain laws to bring public attention to the issue in a way that could promote changes to the law. But that's not what Trump is doing - at least not from a PR standpoint. He hasn't made a case - at least not one that I have heard about - that the laws are getting in the way of progress. From my perspective, he's just indulging his whims and creating a monument to himself that has destroyed a bit of American history in the process.

For clarity, I'm not arguing that the ballroom is unnecessary or that the East Wing needed to be preserved at all costs. What I am saying is that Trump didn't even pretend to make more than a token argument for that to all of the American public. And the token argument was one that about half of the country believes is a hallmark of him lying. What I am saying is that his approach to the ballroom isn't one that could promote productive change in the system, it's one that promotes further divisiveness. I'm saying that Trump doesn't really care about bringing the American public together to some compromise position. Instead he is actively promoting divisiveness as a way to further cement his power in office. And that if this power goes far enough, we could very easily lose our democratic republic to authoritarianism. I'm saying that this ballroom is just one of many pieces of evidence that a move toward authoritarianism is actually happening, and happening at a fast pace.

--Peter