4 ms·

I think that you're overestimating Trump's ability to dismantle institutions, even if we stipulate that he's a machiavellian schemer who's successfully sowing c

I think that you're overestimating Trump's ability to dismantle institutions, even if we stipulate that he's a machiavellian schemer who's successfully sowing chaos among his opponents by "destabilizing the narrative coherency."

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
But he doesn't have to do any of the dismantling work himself. He's just installing the loyalists and sycophants who already understand that the mission is to raid the institutions/country of riches and integrity. He doesn't even need to openly give them instructions, just nod and say "Fantastic job."
- aetherson 10y ago
  You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? How does one "raid the institutions of integrity"? Even if that were your explicit job? Do you visit in the dark of night and go to their integrity safe, crack it, and then bring your stolen integrity home to add to your family's integrity store? At any rate, I wasn't saying that Trump is personally incompetent (I'm agnostic in that respect), and thus that he will not succeed in dismantling institutions. I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. Might he do some damage? Of course. But in general, Presidents break against the entrenched powers in Washington, not the other way around. Four years from now, we'll have another election and probably Trump will be gone. Eight years from now, he'll definitely be gone. There's no sign that Trump has the ability to dismantle the government in the way that Putin did in Russia.
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    > You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? I hope it proves to be! Also I lol'ed at the integrity safe metaphor. >I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. But to be serious, I think this response is making a number of dangerous assumptions, which I hear from a lot of moderate voices urging hope/non-alarm/give him a chance. To address them point by point: - The power of the executive branch relative to the others has steadily risen in the modern era. - I think he does have significant political support - the senate would likely have flipped if not for the party line support he generated. - Our "long, stable government" is only 238 years old, not really that significant on any timescale, even compared to other governments in recorded history. And has already included a catastrophic civil war that almost ended it. It's a hard cognitive bias to buck, underestimating our society's fragility. - Who are these entrenched interests he's going against? The "entrenched interests" of the left, well they may be entrenched, but they don't have trillions or even billions of dollars in their war chests. The actually powerful ones are all going to be represented on his cabinet. Like I said, I hope I'm being wrong and alarmist, but it seems like the prudent side to err on.
    - aetherson 10y ago
      I agree that the executive branch has gained in power recently, and I hope probably against hope that the next time the Democrats are in power they do not continue their long-standing tradition of waving off concerns about the imperial Presidency because probably nobody they despise will ever be President. Trump is the incoming president with the worst approval ratings in modern history, who lost the popular vote by a considerable margin, and did so after a lengthy public fight with the Republican leadership. He doesn't have "no" political support, certainly. But he doesn't have the kind of overwhelming popular support that might allow him to bend or break the rules that govern him with impunity, certain that his political enemies are too cowed to make a fuss. 238 years is a pretty long time by governmental standards. Our government is much older than Russia's, China's, France's, Germany's, Japan's, etc. Older than essentially every government in South America or Africa. The UK hasn't had an actual revolution in the last 238 years, but 238 years ago it was a genuine monarchy, and now it's not. Etc. The entrenched interests of Washington are the government itself, and Congress, and they do have all the money they need. Also, money, it turns out, is not actually as big a deal as people would have you believe. Clinton's campaign outspent Trump's about 2:1.
bbctol 10y ago
Well, his chief strategist is Steve Bannon, whose stated goal is to destroy both sides of the establishment in a Lenin-esque uprising through misleading narratives and clever media manipulation.
- aetherson 10y ago
  Neat. My stated goal is to have my current stock options be worth $20 million+ in the next three years. It's possible that both Bannon and I will be disappointed.
  - kharms 10y ago
    Well, you're just a dude on the internet, while Bannon got a Trump elected so I'd say his odds of success are a little higher than yours.
    - aetherson 10y ago
      His goal is also a little more ambitious than mine. And it's far from clear that Bannon was anything like dispositive in getting Trump elected. Having a stated goal doesn't mean that you have the means to make that goal happen. Also: You're just a dude on the internet, but you've apparently deciphered the evil scheme of this master of media manipulation. Are we supposed to believe that you're uniquely talented, or what?
      - roninb 10y ago
        You should proofread your comments before you hit "reply" to avoid easy downvotes and flags. > stated goal and > deciphered the evil scheme very directly conflict as concepts. The above poster did not have to "decipher" anything because the goal is "stated."
      - patcon 10y ago
        > but you've apparently deciphered the evil scheme of this master of media manipulation. Uh. He paraphrased, but could've just copy-pasted for same effect. Jeez man, just do a search before you challenge... > “I’m a Leninist,” Mr. Bannon was quoted as saying by a writer for The Daily Beast who met him at a party in 2014. He later said he did not recall the conversation. “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too,” the site quoted him as saying. “I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/stephen-bannon-breitbart-words.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/stephen-bannon...
alphonsegaston 10y ago
Institutions in the United States, because of our size and emphasis on Federalism, have always existed in a tenuous position from the beginning. Throughout our history, we have seen the large parts of the judiciary, criminal justice system, and in practice, whole state governments collapse in pursuit of things like racial and economic inequity (robber barons, civil rights era south, populist leaders like Huey Long, Mafia control of Providence). By fanning the flames of racial and religious intolerance, as well as economic populism, Trump has set the stage for a similar collapse under whatever local conditions most conveniently serve his interests. Maybe in Arizona, we have to suspend the rule of law because the immigration situation is out of control, in West Virginia it's because of economic conditions, New York is at risk from terrorism. All of these circumstances have some truth to them, which is why the make great pretexts.
- aetherson 10y ago
  And yet, Joe Arpaio lost re-election, New York is still reliably and deeply blue, and it is still the case that nobody at all cares about West Virginia. If the US is in fact constantly on the brink of collapse, it sure is a wonder we made it this far.
CoryG89 10y ago
This is probably what they said about many other of the world's worst dictators and human rights abusers until they actually did dismantle all the institutions that opposed them.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

But he doesn't have to do any of the dismantling work himself. He's just installing the loyalists and sycophants who already understand that the mission is to raid the institutions/country of riches and integrity. He doesn't even need to openly give them instructions, just nod and say "Fantastic job."

aetherson 10y ago
You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? How does one "raid the institutions of integrity"? Even if that were your explicit job? Do you visit in the dark of night and go to their integrity safe, crack it, and then bring your stolen integrity home to add to your family's integrity store? At any rate, I wasn't saying that Trump is personally incompetent (I'm agnostic in that respect), and thus that he will not succeed in dismantling institutions. I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. Might he do some damage? Of course. But in general, Presidents break against the entrenched powers in Washington, not the other way around. Four years from now, we'll have another election and probably Trump will be gone. Eight years from now, he'll definitely be gone. There's no sign that Trump has the ability to dismantle the government in the way that Putin did in Russia.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  > You don't feel like your rhetoric is a little overblown? I hope it proves to be! Also I lol'ed at the integrity safe metaphor. >I'm saying that he's a figure within a Constitutional democracy with limited power, who does not have any kind of enormous political support, in a country with a long, stable government, and going up against entrenched interests. But to be serious, I think this response is making a number of dangerous assumptions, which I hear from a lot of moderate voices urging hope/non-alarm/give him a chance. To address them point by point: - The power of the executive branch relative to the others has steadily risen in the modern era. - I think he does have significant political support - the senate would likely have flipped if not for the party line support he generated. - Our "long, stable government" is only 238 years old, not really that significant on any timescale, even compared to other governments in recorded history. And has already included a catastrophic civil war that almost ended it. It's a hard cognitive bias to buck, underestimating our society's fragility. - Who are these entrenched interests he's going against? The "entrenched interests" of the left, well they may be entrenched, but they don't have trillions or even billions of dollars in their war chests. The actually powerful ones are all going to be represented on his cabinet. Like I said, I hope I'm being wrong and alarmist, but it seems like the prudent side to err on.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    I agree that the executive branch has gained in power recently, and I hope probably against hope that the next time the Democrats are in power they do not continue their long-standing tradition of waving off concerns about the imperial Presidency because probably nobody they despise will ever be President. Trump is the incoming president with the worst approval ratings in modern history, who lost the popular vote by a considerable margin, and did so after a lengthy public fight with the Republican leadership. He doesn't have "no" political support, certainly. But he doesn't have the kind of overwhelming popular support that might allow him to bend or break the rules that govern him with impunity, certain that his political enemies are too cowed to make a fuss. 238 years is a pretty long time by governmental standards. Our government is much older than Russia's, China's, France's, Germany's, Japan's, etc. Older than essentially every government in South America or Africa. The UK hasn't had an actual revolution in the last 238 years, but 238 years ago it was a genuine monarchy, and now it's not. Etc. The entrenched interests of Washington are the government itself, and Congress, and they do have all the money they need. Also, money, it turns out, is not actually as big a deal as people would have you believe. Clinton's campaign outspent Trump's about 2:1.

bbctol 10y ago

Well, his chief strategist is Steve Bannon, whose stated goal is to destroy both sides of the establishment in a Lenin-esque uprising through misleading narratives and clever media manipulation.

aetherson 10y ago
Neat. My stated goal is to have my current stock options be worth $20 million+ in the next three years. It's possible that both Bannon and I will be disappointed.
- kharms 10y ago
  Well, you're just a dude on the internet, while Bannon got a Trump elected so I'd say his odds of success are a little higher than yours.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    His goal is also a little more ambitious than mine. And it's far from clear that Bannon was anything like dispositive in getting Trump elected. Having a stated goal doesn't mean that you have the means to make that goal happen. Also: You're just a dude on the internet, but you've apparently deciphered the evil scheme of this master of media manipulation. Are we supposed to believe that you're uniquely talented, or what?
    - roninb 10y ago
      You should proofread your comments before you hit "reply" to avoid easy downvotes and flags. > stated goal and > deciphered the evil scheme very directly conflict as concepts. The above poster did not have to "decipher" anything because the goal is "stated."
    - patcon 10y ago
      > but you've apparently deciphered the evil scheme of this master of media manipulation. Uh. He paraphrased, but could've just copy-pasted for same effect. Jeez man, just do a search before you challenge... > “I’m a Leninist,” Mr. Bannon was quoted as saying by a writer for The Daily Beast who met him at a party in 2014. He later said he did not recall the conversation. “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too,” the site quoted him as saying. “I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/stephen-bannon-breitbart-words.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/stephen-bannon...

alphonsegaston 10y ago

Institutions in the United States, because of our size and emphasis on Federalism, have always existed in a tenuous position from the beginning. Throughout our history, we have seen the large parts of the judiciary, criminal justice system, and in practice, whole state governments collapse in pursuit of things like racial and economic inequity (robber barons, civil rights era south, populist leaders like Huey Long, Mafia control of Providence). By fanning the flames of racial and religious intolerance, as well as economic populism, Trump has set the stage for a similar collapse under whatever local conditions most conveniently serve his interests. Maybe in Arizona, we have to suspend the rule of law because the immigration situation is out of control, in West Virginia it's because of economic conditions, New York is at risk from terrorism. All of these circumstances have some truth to them, which is why the make great pretexts.

aetherson 10y ago
And yet, Joe Arpaio lost re-election, New York is still reliably and deeply blue, and it is still the case that nobody at all cares about West Virginia. If the US is in fact constantly on the brink of collapse, it sure is a wonder we made it this far.

CoryG89 10y ago

This is probably what they said about many other of the world's worst dictators and human rights abusers until they actually did dismantle all the institutions that opposed them.