I was going to cancel my paid subscription to this Substack, but now I’ve changed my mind. This is exactly the kind of writing and research I wish to see and aim to encourage.
This whole “wrong” thread is a great example of the kind of intellectual exploration possible in a moment of distributed information production. Of course, other…not so great…kinds of examples also exist. The Thomas More essay is a dedicated piece of scholarship; I admire your commitment to following the threads deep into the rabbit hole. Eager to see what’s next.
However, I have to post a red flag on what can only be classified as a mild form of TDS. (Trump Derangement Syndrome) It's kinda wild, and frankly weird, but perhaps Thomas More-ish of you that you would characterize Trump as an authoritarian figure in the same sentence as Mussolini and Hitler. Wtf?
I didn't vote for the man, but I can't help finding it amusing that in a series of posts on error-prone methods and institutions, you are guilty yourself of seeing a distorted view of reality.
What is the baseline rate of U.S. Presidents saying false things? Both frequency and magnitude. Where do our last five presidents rank against that baseline? How did their employees react to their false statements? Are Trump and his underlings outliers?
What is the definition of authoritarian? In what ways does Trump satisfy those conditions? In what ways does he satisfy them more than the last five presidents?
I hate to bog your beautiful post down, but man....you're talking like a bugman.
Below is a pithy guide to authoritarianism, along with a helpful indicator of where we are at this early stage of Trump 2.0. His mad rush to gut the federal government of civil servants is quite unlike anything that has come in prior administrations, even Trump 1.0. And mouthpieces from his administration (new FTC chair Ferguson) are already advocating for reversing 90-year-old protections for heads of independent agencies which provide at least a modicum of internal checks on the potential for authoritarianism in the executive branch. It’s all well and good to talk about how “deeply undemocratic” it is to put any sort of checks on the presidents power, but the fact is we live in CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not an unchecked democracy, so he really does need to be willing to work within the pesky boundaries of that darn stinkin’ constitution.
Step 1: set free the violent militants who are loyal to you.
Step 2: demonize and target marginalized segments of society
Step 3: purge civil servants and oversight.
Step 4: install unqualified private citizens to do your unlawful bidding <—-YOU ARE HERE.
You failed my request. You failed to run a comparative study.
At any rate, tirst time I've ever heard of an authoritarian who is cutting the size and scope of government. Not to mention he won the election.
You might want to check out Myers v. United States from 1926. The Court held that the President of the United States has the inherent authority to remove executive branch officials at will, without needing congressional approval.
You might also check out Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
Lmao, I failed to run a comparative study? Sure, I didn’t run a comparative study on the “falsehoods” issue. But I literally did give you a definition of authoritarian, and told explained that Trump companies unfavorably. I don’t have data for you, sorry. But it’s not exactly a close or nuanced issue—it is blatantly obvious.
The “he won the election” thing is true, but not relevant—see, the checks and balances of the constitution, as I previously referenced.
Authoritarianism has nothing inherently to do with the size of government. Any savvy authoritarian figure is going to start by reducing the size, specifically to get out the people that aren’t on the team.
What does the end of chevron deference (loper bright) have to do with this? And the reference to Myers is cute, especially considering that it was distinguished in 1935 by the very case that I referred to as a 90 year old precedent that they are eager to overturn (Humphrey’s Executor). For the record, the Humphreys Executor decision wasn’t a close one, it was 9-0. But sure, keep tossing around supreme court cases for funzies.
Myers is in reference to your point 3 in your definition. Humphreys addresses the head of independent agencies like the FTC. That does not apply to your avg civil servent.
Re: Myers, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean that you should. Are you saying that Myers somehow undermines my point about our slide towards authoritarianism? Or just that the supreme court has OK’d that part of the playbook?
I was going to cancel my paid subscription to this Substack, but now I’ve changed my mind. This is exactly the kind of writing and research I wish to see and aim to encourage.
This whole “wrong” thread is a great example of the kind of intellectual exploration possible in a moment of distributed information production. Of course, other…not so great…kinds of examples also exist. The Thomas More essay is a dedicated piece of scholarship; I admire your commitment to following the threads deep into the rabbit hole. Eager to see what’s next.
What a twist.
Absolutely brilliant side quest, as is your wont.
However, I have to post a red flag on what can only be classified as a mild form of TDS. (Trump Derangement Syndrome) It's kinda wild, and frankly weird, but perhaps Thomas More-ish of you that you would characterize Trump as an authoritarian figure in the same sentence as Mussolini and Hitler. Wtf?
I didn't vote for the man, but I can't help finding it amusing that in a series of posts on error-prone methods and institutions, you are guilty yourself of seeing a distorted view of reality.
What is the baseline rate of U.S. Presidents saying false things? Both frequency and magnitude. Where do our last five presidents rank against that baseline? How did their employees react to their false statements? Are Trump and his underlings outliers?
What is the definition of authoritarian? In what ways does Trump satisfy those conditions? In what ways does he satisfy them more than the last five presidents?
I hate to bog your beautiful post down, but man....you're talking like a bugman.
Are you experiencing the same reality as the rest of us?
Really funny, again, that in a series of posts on error-prone methods, you adduce nothing to support your position.
Below is a pithy guide to authoritarianism, along with a helpful indicator of where we are at this early stage of Trump 2.0. His mad rush to gut the federal government of civil servants is quite unlike anything that has come in prior administrations, even Trump 1.0. And mouthpieces from his administration (new FTC chair Ferguson) are already advocating for reversing 90-year-old protections for heads of independent agencies which provide at least a modicum of internal checks on the potential for authoritarianism in the executive branch. It’s all well and good to talk about how “deeply undemocratic” it is to put any sort of checks on the presidents power, but the fact is we live in CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not an unchecked democracy, so he really does need to be willing to work within the pesky boundaries of that darn stinkin’ constitution.
Step 1: set free the violent militants who are loyal to you.
Step 2: demonize and target marginalized segments of society
Step 3: purge civil servants and oversight.
Step 4: install unqualified private citizens to do your unlawful bidding <—-YOU ARE HERE.
Step 5: claim authority to rule by decree/fiat.
Step 6: so long democracy, welcome to fascism.
You failed my request. You failed to run a comparative study.
At any rate, tirst time I've ever heard of an authoritarian who is cutting the size and scope of government. Not to mention he won the election.
You might want to check out Myers v. United States from 1926. The Court held that the President of the United States has the inherent authority to remove executive branch officials at will, without needing congressional approval.
You might also check out Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
Lmao, I failed to run a comparative study? Sure, I didn’t run a comparative study on the “falsehoods” issue. But I literally did give you a definition of authoritarian, and told explained that Trump companies unfavorably. I don’t have data for you, sorry. But it’s not exactly a close or nuanced issue—it is blatantly obvious.
The “he won the election” thing is true, but not relevant—see, the checks and balances of the constitution, as I previously referenced.
Authoritarianism has nothing inherently to do with the size of government. Any savvy authoritarian figure is going to start by reducing the size, specifically to get out the people that aren’t on the team.
What does the end of chevron deference (loper bright) have to do with this? And the reference to Myers is cute, especially considering that it was distinguished in 1935 by the very case that I referred to as a 90 year old precedent that they are eager to overturn (Humphrey’s Executor). For the record, the Humphreys Executor decision wasn’t a close one, it was 9-0. But sure, keep tossing around supreme court cases for funzies.
Myers is in reference to your point 3 in your definition. Humphreys addresses the head of independent agencies like the FTC. That does not apply to your avg civil servent.
Re: Myers, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean that you should. Are you saying that Myers somehow undermines my point about our slide towards authoritarianism? Or just that the supreme court has OK’d that part of the playbook?