Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 6
I've been thinking about this recently.
What happens when the Felon's term is over (assuming he hasn't declared martial law, or done some similar power grab)?
If the economy is not a shambles, probably not much. A new Rep administration would be possible, and the Reps are now MAGA-heads. So...not much.
But, as I suspect will be the case, a wrecked economy will usher in a Dem administration. Voters tend to punish the party in control when the economy is bad. In that case, any pending EOs (and/or litigation of those EOs that is still pending) will be abandoned/canceled/not-defended. Seems obvious. I would expect a rescinding of any EOs that are not pending. So, the Dept of Education would be restored. Consumer Protection would be restored. CDC, FDA, even IRS. People would be rehired (assuming their terminations actually stuck, which is not a sure thing given all the TROs flying around). Basically, an unwinding of everything that has been going on. At least domestically. It seems ridiculous to cause all this chaos, knowing that it will almost certainly be undone in the future. Probably the near future.
Foreign policy won't be so easy. We have now lost trust, and it will be very difficult to earn it back. So that will be lasting, unfortunately.
But the domestic stuff, I don't see the point. It almost certainly won't last. Once the bull is out of the china shop, you sweep up the mess and restock your china.
No. of Recommendations: 6
But the domestic stuff, I don't see the point. It almost certainly won't last. Once the bull is out of the china shop, you sweep up the mess and restock your china.
Sure, but I bet it’s a whole lot more expensive to burn down a house and then have to rebuild it than it is to remodel a room or two.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sure, but I bet it’s a whole lot more expensive to burn down a house and then have to rebuild it than it is to remodel a room or two.
True. Which makes it even more foolish.
Plus, if the Dems get a trifecta in 2028, they could always say "since we're rebuilding, I never liked the layout of the den"... The Right would be giving them the opportunity to change stuff they really may not like.
Which, I assume, is why the APA exists. To prevent burning and remodeling on a whim, creating chaos and inconsistency.
I think a strengthening of the APA is in order to prevent either side from burning it all down, to assure some continuity across administrations.
No. of Recommendations: 8
I think the conservative theory of the government is that a lot of it has accrued through inertia. And Musk in particular is a big believer in reversing the default assumption that you continue the status quo, and instead that you start by assuming that everything you're doing now probably should stop unless you can prove it's worthwhile.
Conservatives believe that government is subject to capture by benefitted constituencies, so that once something is in place it is very difficult to get rid of it. If even a relatively small number of people would be very upset by something go away, it's rarely worth it for anyone to make the thing go away. Even the benefit to getting rid of it is much, much higher than the cost of doing so, those who like the thing are concentrated and the ones who think it useless (or harmful) are diffuse. The political cost to getting rid of it is higher than keeping it. So it stays.
But if you get rid of it, it's never coming back, because then the equation is reversed. Now, putting it back requires political capital. You need someone to invest the resources to do that thing instead of something else - which gets a lot harder. If some program was created in the 1970's (for example), then it probably reflects the political passions and interests that existed at the time. But those passions and interests are different now. So while it could continue (because of inertia), it's not something that someone would create again today - which makes it less likely to get put back. It forces the government to more closely match the current political moment.
Right now, Trump has shown enormous savvy in attacking stuff that is among the less popular parts of government first. So a lot of the stuff he's killing may stay dead for good, even if Democrats win back the WH in four years.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But if you get rid of it, it's never coming back, because then the equation is reversed.
I think you are wise. I think some of the regulatory agencies will have a difficult time coming back because of this. I wonder what the landscape will look like. The Oligarchs have tremendous sway, so there will be a tax cut and it will be extremely difficult to get them taxed again - so the picture can become bleak. I'm not sure that Trump's base will ever admit Trump's actions caused it if we head into an inflationary recession. It's much easier to never admit it to yourself. So I don't have high hopes we can move past it just by voting. Myths will abound.
I think we need to figure out what parts of the Republican base we can pick off while retaining most of what we already have. Trump should implode and we need to be ready. But I don't see the leadership.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think we need to figure out what parts of the Republican base we can pick off while retaining most of what we already have. Trump should implode and we need to be ready. But I don't see the leadership.
Agreed. Schumer probably isn't it. Pelosi is on her way out. There really isn't anyone else in the Dem party that could assume a leadership role, and energize people.
Of course, I could have said the same in 2008. I remember when this guy named Obama -whom I had never heard of- started talking. He quickly became a Dem leader, and -overall- a good one. Maybe we have someone in the wings that just needs to start speaking into a microphone to rev-up the Party? I like Bernie and Warren, but I don't think either of them are it. They're good at whipping-up the progressive wing (and Liz needs to be put in charge of banking again). AOC is too far left to be the standard bearer (if Dems ever want to win).
Here's hoping that Dems have another unknown Obama in the wings...
No. of Recommendations: 1
Conservatives believe that government is subject to capture by benefitted constituencies, so that once something is in place it is very difficult to get rid of it....But if you get rid of it, it's never coming back, because then the equation is reversed. Now, putting it back requires political capital. That sounds right. Sarah Longwell had an interesting audio poll on the Bulwark (paid subscription, though):
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/its-really-good-and-r... in which she discussed the last 60 days with trump voters who were previous Biden voters and how they feel now. She put them in the still pro-trump camp and the wary-of-trump camp.
The fascinating thing about those who were wary felt that while trump is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and tearing up the Constitution they, on the hand, applaud his preventing trans kids from getting hormones in a kind of equal weight view.
Pete
