3 ms·

Bruce 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 http

by apo 10y ago

Bruce 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 ago
Can you explain that point on cabinet-level departments? I don't understand where Elizabeth Warren fits into that.
eumoria 10y ago
The 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 ago
  I 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%).
  - eumoria 10y ago
    Those are good points... I guess was just implying more along the lines of a larger scale citizens oppression a la rounding up people on a national scale. Kent or the march are akin to police shootings that we still currently have happening as far as scale/injuries but I guess that's being semantic. Riots (even imposed by the people there to "control them") will always be difficult, confusing, awful situations. However the hyperbole of this problem being akin to Nazi Germany bothers me. Our military would simply tell a President to go get fucked before they would round up US citizens.
- some_guy_there 10y ago
  It definitely will (refuse orders), especially if Trump gives an at-face unconstitutional order (say shooting the protesters at Dakota pipeline). In normal times, the Congress will impeach the President, removing him from office. But as norms erode, that might not be the case. The officers of US Armed forces take an oath for the constitution, and not the President. Now for this special case right now, military refusing orders will be a "good" thing. But in long run, it only means that civilian institution have eroded so far that having military deciding what is constitutional might appear to be a "good thing". So the idea isn't that military personal will use force against citizens, but rather they will not, and that will erode the system regardless. That never has been the case yet. While the President after as President has tried to stretch his authority (while Congress receded), we haven't reached a point of resistance from extra-governmental organizations. But that's the logical direction where this is headed.

by apo 10y ago

ben010783 10y ago

Can you explain that point on cabinet-level departments? I don't understand where Elizabeth Warren fits into that.

eumoria 10y ago

The 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 ago
I 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%).
- eumoria 10y ago
  Those are good points... I guess was just implying more along the lines of a larger scale citizens oppression a la rounding up people on a national scale. Kent or the march are akin to police shootings that we still currently have happening as far as scale/injuries but I guess that's being semantic. Riots (even imposed by the people there to "control them") will always be difficult, confusing, awful situations. However the hyperbole of this problem being akin to Nazi Germany bothers me. Our military would simply tell a President to go get fucked before they would round up US citizens.
some_guy_there 10y ago
It definitely will (refuse orders), especially if Trump gives an at-face unconstitutional order (say shooting the protesters at Dakota pipeline). In normal times, the Congress will impeach the President, removing him from office. But as norms erode, that might not be the case. The officers of US Armed forces take an oath for the constitution, and not the President. Now for this special case right now, military refusing orders will be a "good" thing. But in long run, it only means that civilian institution have eroded so far that having military deciding what is constitutional might appear to be a "good thing". So the idea isn't that military personal will use force against citizens, but rather they will not, and that will erode the system regardless. That never has been the case yet. While the President after as President has tried to stretch his authority (while Congress receded), we haven't reached a point of resistance from extra-governmental organizations. But that's the logical direction where this is headed.