6 ms·
America’s system of checks and balances might struggle to contain a despot
- a2tech 10y agoWhen more than half of one of the checks firmly backs the despot of course it'll struggle.
- jackmott 10y agoplz stop, gop.
- jackmott 10y agoman, it is pretty disheartening that the majority seems to think it is good that the gop is backing the despot.
- jdmichal 10y agoYou're not being downvoted on content, and downvotes are not disagreements. That's not a good HN comment; there's no constructive response to be made to that comment. In particular, from the guidelines: > Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. I would say that politics is the classic flamewar topic. And your comment certainly didn't add anything new or even interesting. > Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. The comment I'm responding to is an indirect example of this.
- noobermin 10y agoActually, on HN, downvoting can represent disagreement. Usually, flagging is for abuse.
- jdmichal 10y agoI mean, yes it can. However, I'd say that's relatively rare here. In my reading, if a comment is grey, the majority of the time it's not really contributing in a constructive way.
- vorotato 10y agoIt can also represent disagreement with atomically small HN posts. shrugs In this case I highly doubt most HN commenters support Trump, because he already has majority disapproval. Most normal republicans aren't super fond of tax hikes, even if they are done indirectly.
- sctb 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13550846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13550846 and marked it off-topic.
- jackmott 10y agomight?
- davidkellis 10y agoTiming is suspect. We've known this for a long time.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoHow is it suspect? We now have a president with authoritarian tendencies, it makes sense to be worrying about this now.
- Shivetya 10y agothis entire article has no place on this site and the DNC through its sycophants and the press has been pressing the Hitler angle since before the swearing in. Do you feel like a parrot yet? This site is rapidly sliding into uselessness with all the direct and indirect political crap. apparently the rules don't apply when one side is upset. No one blinked an eye when the last President decided assassination of American citizens abroad was okay nor having investigations to include wiretaps of journalists.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jdmichal 10y agoInterestingly, the article was flagged dead at one point but has apparently been restored. So there is at least some contingent that agrees with you.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- macintux 10y agoMany, many people were unhappy with the abuses of national security powers under Obama, including those who supported him in general. "No one blinked an eye" is palpably untrue. The problem with Trump is that he openly declared war on the defining characteristics of the United States even before he was elected. We are a nation of immigrants. We embed religious neutrality in our constitution. We cherish those who have served and died for our country in the military.
- coldcode 10y agoIn 1933 few people expected that 12 years later, no one would admit to being in the 43% that voted for the Nazi party. But in their defense they had no idea what the future would hold, the economy was a disaster, the country downtrodden, and the Party kept the worst of their ideas rather quiet in the big cities. The problem here is different, but we still don't know where this will go, while we can see what was done so far we don't know if this is mild compared to the future or the worst is done. Having said that, the time to deal with a despot of some kind is before it's too late, the problem is knowing when that is and not waiting until you can't do anything any more. Our system here was an amazing design for the 1780s but they couldn't know all the problems that would only appear 240 years later. At the start they weren't even sure it would last to the 2nd president.
- maxlybbert 10y agoIt's hard to know where to begin. It appears that the Economist believes that as long as the right person is president (and, I presume, the right people control Congress), then the Constitution works fine. That isn't a compliment. As James Madison said: "[W]hat is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" (Federalist 51, https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=10&page=transcript https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=10&page... ). The Constitution was designed with the assumption that the people in any branch of the government wouldn't necessarily be "the right people," and the other branches would need to serve as watchdogs (even though the other branches wouldn't necessarily be run by the right people either; in the worst case, ruthless politicians in Congress are expected to keep tabs on a ruthless president, and a ruthless president is expected to keep tabs on a ruthless Congress). There are mistakes in the original Constitution (e.g., the elections of 1796 and 1800), but if today's Constitution relies on the people electing angelic politicians, then we've done something seriously wrong. Having Congress and the president keep each other in check appears to work in practice as long as they are controlled by different parties. Of course, they are currently controlled by the same party, so there is good reason to worry. The only real solution in that case is to not give power to the president if it bothers you that the person in the Oval Office might not always be someone you like. If you don't like the fact that President Trump can order the assassination of an American citizen, the time to speak up is when President Obama first claims that authority ( http://www.salon.com/2010/02/04/assassinations/ http://www.salon.com/2010/02/04/assassinations/ ).
- jcranmer 10y ago> If you don't like the fact that President Trump can order the assassination of an American citizen, the time to speak up is when President Obama first claims that authority. The Economist DID speak up against that when Obama tried to do it. http://www.economist.com/node/21531477 http://www.economist.com/node/21531477
- 10y ago
- noobermin 10y agoAckerman's quotes throughout the article are pretty spot on: >from an 18th-century notable to a 19th-century party magnate to a 20th-century tribune to a 21st-century demagogue I also largely agree, we have given power to the President over the years because they at least had some reasonableness to them, at least in their context. I am squarely of the opinion that it isn't quite "both sides do it" equally, but it is true both have contributed to Trumps soon to be zero checks on power.
- cryptarch 10y agoCould someone tell me more about the American Enterprise Institute? They critique "Trump's executive-orders" situation, which a lot of organizations could do but they ended up in the Economist. They basically enter the picture like "we're an authority and we're saying stuff is bad, like we have an actual code for how bad it almost is". They're a conservative think-tank, they seem to have intelligence/military ties, seem to be pro-intervention (foreign war), were against emission trading (but pro CO2 tax) and have received large donations at one point from ExxonMobil. It's still a bit of a murky picture to me. The name sets off alarm bells for me. On the article: I noticed the phrase "students of the constitution"; it's an odd combination that elicits (for me) student protests and conservative ideology. I'm not surprised by the current Trump situation. I've been following the shift to authoritarianism in the US and UK for a while, and this seems like the logical next step. I haven't considered the US as a travel destination in a while, the same goes for the UK. These countries aren't stable, they're very unfree relative to where I live (NL), and I just won't stand for the level of humiliation their checks at airports have arrived at. They also seem like dangerous places to go, as they're close to no-law zones where the TSA has free reign. It's bad enough that our largest airport has scanners that make 3D images of your naked body, but to top it up you often get a full pat-down, especially if you wear clothes with pieces of metal in it (like of jeans). I'd much rather go spend my time and money in countries that don't require my genitals to be patted down by strangers. Off-topic: I'm not sure why this thread was flagged. I also think it's weird that replies were disabled for e.g. the comment by TulliusCicero, but that might just be because I don't understand the disable-reply-button system.
- norea-armozel 10y agoThey're right to criticize any president when it comes to executive orders. The biggest flaw in them is that they lean heavily on implied powers which in itself is a hotly debated clause of the constitution. Anyone worth their salt on any part of the US political spectrum would oppose their overuse and abuse. Frankly, the fewer EOs any POTUS issues the better since each one expands the reach of the executive branch at the expense of the others.
- sdenton4 10y ago
- rm_-rf_slash 10y agoMight? They've been struggling since the Bush Administration ushered forth an era of warrantless wiretaps and black sites. My biggest criticism of Obama has always been his lax attitude towards the War in Terror infrastructure: NSA mass surveillance; drone strikes against American citizens in countries we are not at war with; the unaccountable FISA court, to name a few. Obama gave his successor a loaded gun. I was uncomfortable with Obama handling it, much less anybody else.
- jacquesm 10y agoAnd that is exactly the reason why all these 'I've got nothing to hide' types are so wrong, you never know what the next government will be like and all that data is just one small step away from being subpoenaed and abused, if it hasn't found its way to a government owned server already.
- mtgx 10y agoCongress is supposed to be a check on that power. However, because of the systematic corruption of money, Congress is full of compliant and easily bought politicians, though, thus leaving few that would actually have the willingness to fight a despot.
- maxlybbert 10y agoThe only way to get money out of politics is to stop making it a worthwhile investment. As long as people can turn a profit, they will be willing to spend money to get in line.
- ConceptJunkie 10y agoThat will never happen until the power of the Federal government is rolled back to its strictly enumerated powers as intended by the framers. That, unfortunately, isn't going to happen any time soon unless an Article V convention starts whittling away at the last century of overreach.
- nilkn 10y agoThe power of the Presidency has been slowly expanded over the last few centuries. Each time, when the power was expanded, it was done so under a President who seemed reasonable enough that nobody was afraid of what the change truly meant. They knew that their current President wouldn't abuse it, and they didn't think much further ahead than that. Many of these expansions of power were made for very short-term political gain that seems downright silly in retrospect. Trump should be a lesson that reverberates throughout future history on why we should always be wary of expanding the Presidency's power. There will come along a President every once in a while who will abuse every drop of power given to him and who will basically act like he's in an episode of Game of Thrones. The government should be designed to work fairly even with such a person in power.
- lineindc 10y agoI have no stakes in here (I'm not American), but as far as I know, he's just doing what he promised he'd do if he got elected. What you're asking for is... to protect people from themselves? I don't understand.
- rock_hard 10y agoMany of his voters believed he wouldn't be able to do many of the outrageous things he promised...that's why they voted for him anyways! But these people are now slowly warming up to reality :(
- sorrymate 10y agoA majority of voters did not actually vote for Trump. And a majority of voters laughed off his promises because nobody thought he would be elected. The foundation of "checks and balances" in the United States was that we have representatives that would speak for the people. Those congressional representatives would move the ball forward. The president was never supposed to have the power to create unilateral policy. In a sense, the people need protection from someone they never wanted in the first place. The majority of Trumps views are held only by the minority. This is what people need protection from.
- rbehrends 10y ago
- apo 10y agoBruce Ackerman, whose work was cited in the article, gave a dead-on analysis of the current situation in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7lCgKfxmuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7lCgKfxmuQ He appears to be discussing certain points in his book, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic. Here are a few: - The rise of a dual-election system for president increases the likelihood of an extremist president. Imagine a political spectrum ranging from 1 to 100. In a single election, the winning candidate appeals to the fat 50 range. In a dual-election primary system the winning candidate appeals to the fat extremes of 25 and 75. - The decline of the press leaves an information vacuum which political media manipulators fill to the president's advantage - The constant rat-tat-tat of the War on X (where X is drugs and terror) gives a sense of urgency that only unilateral presidential action can address. - The rise of the military as a check (or aid) to presidential power (think Turkey). - Cabinet-level departments are increasingly influenced or controlled by non-confirmed staffers (e.g., Elizabeth Warren), removing an important check on presidential power. - The lack of a "Leader of the Opposition" position in the American system leaves the job of braking presidential power to a diffuse Congress. - The rise of polls as de facto privatized elections that legitimize the administration's agenda ("polls show the majority of Americans favor the President's actions"). Ackerman also notes the key role the Obama administration played in advancing these trends. This is not a question of parties, but of institutions.
- ben010783 10y agoCan you explain that point on cabinet-level departments? I don't understand where Elizabeth Warren fits into that.
- eumoria 10y agoThe rise of the military as a check (or aid) to presidential power (think Turkey) is one thing that I strongly believe can't happen in this country not solely in a legal sense but military personnel won't be used in force against citizens they will simply refuse to.
- ben010783 10y agoI wouldn't assume that. The Kent State shootings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings) and Bloody Sunday (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches) are enough to convince me that it is possible. Additionally, the current president had strong support in the military and police (estimates have him winning their votes with a margin of over 10%).
- disease 10y agoDavid Frum recently wrote a piece for the Atlantic outlining the likelihood of a "backsliding democracy" in the United States. I found it chilling: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-...
- germinalphrase 10y agoI didn't care so much for his opening narrative - but the later arguments about (potentially inadequate) check/balances definitely makes the article worth reading. It is indeed chilling to consider how quickly things could deteriorate if media/congressional opposition are coopted/made feckless.
- njharman 10y agoWe deserve Trump. We deserve every fucked up thing that happens. We deserve this because we did heed the warnings, we did not stop expansion of powers, we were complacent. It's too late to be angry now.
- mgarfias 10y agohttps://books.google.com/books/about/The_Cult_of_the_Presidency.html?id=1JeGAAAAMAAJ&hl=en https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Cult_of_the_Preside...
- oxide 10y agoWhy is this flagged? The flagging feature is not a "hide" button. Try the "hide" feature to make posts disappear.