4 ms·

The key point this writer is making > we are watching the perfect and perhaps inevitable combination of a domestic-security superagency and a President who rej

by Dwolb 6y ago

The key point this writer is making > we are watching the perfect and perhaps inevitable combination of a domestic-security superagency and a President who rejects all mechanisms of accountability, including the Senate confirmation process. Accountability appears to be broken with a two party system. Combined with a President who’s willing to push boundaries and a federal agency built to act more swiftly with broader powers, we could see a lot more civil strife before this term is up.

rsynnott 6y ago
I think the presidential system is also a factor; it makes it a little too obvious and immutable where the blame lies. In a parliamentary system, there’s much more scope for the ruling party to resolve this sort of thing by, say, quietly sacrificing the minister for justice, without much blame attaching to the PM (even if it’s their fault to begin with). In a presidential system it’s harder to do this without criticising dear leader. I can’t imagine many republican leaders are actually very happy about this whole mess, but very few of them are willing to publicly break ranks and they have limited ability to check the executive even if they do.
- vsskanth 6y ago
  The equivalent here is asking for the resignation of the DHS secretary. Unfortunately, that has already happened when ICE separated children from their families. A second resignation would only make the president look bad.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >I can’t imagine many republican leaders are actually very happy about this whole mess, but very few of them are willing to publicly break ranks I think this is one of the most fundamental factors in the breakdown at higher levels of discourse. Most liberals I personally know used to put a strong emphasis on benefit of the doubt and pragmatism when it came to judging Republican leadership - there was always plenty of strong criticism, but there was also a lot of "well, in such-and-such case, they are just doing what they honestly think is best for the country". But that attitude is now utterly gone, because of the silence of such leaders on the incredibly overt hatred and unreasonableness of Trump and other proponents of spite-motivated authoritarianism. They still have plenty of good faith for Republicans, but what's changed is that they now have absolutely zero for Republican leaders. What's happening is awful.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    That has, looking from the outside, been one of the weirdest aspects of the whole Trump thing to me. Traditionally, prime ministers in parliamentary systems are _terrified_ of their own parties; it's their own party who can most conveniently get rid of them, and even very popular leaders will be conscious of this. I understand that it's less so in the US system (as it's much harder for the party to get rid of the president) but even still, the level of support for Trump by republican leadership seems bizarre. Like, there _have_ to be quite a few of them who have misgivings about this (either on a 'this is wrong' basis, or, more cynically, on a 'we will suffer for this electorally' basis), but practically none have voiced any.
    - pandaman 6y ago
      The President of the US is elected by the people, not his party. The only thing the party can do to the president is to sabotage the next election and give it to the opposite party. While Democrats probably think its a rational thing for Republicans to do, some Republicans might disagree.

by Dwolb 6y ago

rsynnott 6y ago

I think the presidential system is also a factor; it makes it a little too obvious and immutable where the blame lies. In a parliamentary system, there’s much more scope for the ruling party to resolve this sort of thing by, say, quietly sacrificing the minister for justice, without much blame attaching to the PM (even if it’s their fault to begin with). In a presidential system it’s harder to do this without criticising dear leader. I can’t imagine many republican leaders are actually very happy about this whole mess, but very few of them are willing to publicly break ranks and they have limited ability to check the executive even if they do.

vsskanth 6y ago
The equivalent here is asking for the resignation of the DHS secretary. Unfortunately, that has already happened when ICE separated children from their families. A second resignation would only make the president look bad.
happytoexplain 6y ago
>I can’t imagine many republican leaders are actually very happy about this whole mess, but very few of them are willing to publicly break ranks I think this is one of the most fundamental factors in the breakdown at higher levels of discourse. Most liberals I personally know used to put a strong emphasis on benefit of the doubt and pragmatism when it came to judging Republican leadership - there was always plenty of strong criticism, but there was also a lot of "well, in such-and-such case, they are just doing what they honestly think is best for the country". But that attitude is now utterly gone, because of the silence of such leaders on the incredibly overt hatred and unreasonableness of Trump and other proponents of spite-motivated authoritarianism. They still have plenty of good faith for Republicans, but what's changed is that they now have absolutely zero for Republican leaders. What's happening is awful.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  That has, looking from the outside, been one of the weirdest aspects of the whole Trump thing to me. Traditionally, prime ministers in parliamentary systems are _terrified_ of their own parties; it's their own party who can most conveniently get rid of them, and even very popular leaders will be conscious of this. I understand that it's less so in the US system (as it's much harder for the party to get rid of the president) but even still, the level of support for Trump by republican leadership seems bizarre. Like, there _have_ to be quite a few of them who have misgivings about this (either on a 'this is wrong' basis, or, more cynically, on a 'we will suffer for this electorally' basis), but practically none have voiced any.
  - pandaman 6y ago
    The President of the US is elected by the people, not his party. The only thing the party can do to the president is to sabotage the next election and give it to the opposite party. While Democrats probably think its a rational thing for Republicans to do, some Republicans might disagree.