5 ms·

This is a half-truth that obscures what makes The United States unique. From the day the constitution was signed, it was a compromise between competing economie

This is a half-truth that obscures what makes The United States unique. From the day the constitution was signed, it was a compromise between competing economies, geographic incentives, cultures, religious movements, political philosophies, and individual ambitions. This is what makes the country free and prosperous-- it was conceived under conditions that make centralization of power extremely difficult.

bulbar 9mo ago
Looks like the current US government is trying to centralize the power by multiple means, one of them sending federal officers and troops into states. To me it's crazy how many went from "we favor the Republic" to "all power to a singular person, what could go wrong, he is cool" pretty fast.
- coffeemug 9mo ago
  Yes, but this tension has been there since the founding of the republic. The federalists wanted to centralize power (some much more than others), and the republicans (the "jeffersonians") bitterly opposed it. In his second term George Washington personally lead troops to Pennsylvania to put down the whiskey rebellion. Zooming out of the 24h news cycle, "all power to a singular person" concerns seem far too overblown. Half the country hates Trump. He won the popular vote, but not by all that much (despite what he may assert). By comparison LBJ, FDR, and Nixon won ~60% of popular vote. Even if he were a young man, I don't think we're in any danger of a caesar.
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    I think the scarier part is how utterly polarized the US is. The ratings are awful for trump, but it gets really scary when you zoom in. 80% conservateives at worst still support trump, while 7% liberal at best support him. Maybe someone can bring up polling to prove me wrong, but that is utterly unheard of levels of polarization. The only solace here is that independent voters are tanking, so in polls this close that can be the breaking point for all of this. >Even if he were a young man, I don't think we're in any danger of a caesar. The scary part is that he's not a young nor healthy man. He can blow the world up and not live to see the utter destruction he triggered. At least Caesar was assassinated and had to be on edge for years. Trump will have lived a full life never being punished and the world will burn afterwards.
    - coffeemug 9mo ago
      From my reading of history the level of polarization was at least as high or higher during the early republic, and obviously higher leading up to and through the civil war. I don't know American history in any meaningful depth outside these two periods, but I suspect there were other periods of extreme polarization. I really don't think this is new.
      - bigbadfeline 9mo ago
        Comparing the early republic to today is apples and oranges, disagreements and passions are supposed to go down as things settle down with time. Instead, both parties display an obstinate lack of compromise and wishy-washy, unworkable platforms while the media is only happy to make all of it worse. Increasing polarization is surely a symptom of problems and that needs to be analyzed, explained and addressed, not excused. You make it sound like a civil war is a walk in the park, you do need more history and more imagination in order to understand the human cost of obstinance and shallow thinking.
  - treetalker 9mo ago
    To be clear, a plurality of individual voters voted for Trump and Vance's electors. Trump still had less than 50% of all votes cast. At 64.1% turnout, that means that less than 32% (approximately) of eligible voters voted for Trump.
  - lovich 9mo ago
    Why would a small difference in voters supporting him or not matter if he has all the guns and fanatics willing to use them? The number of Americans willing to check the other person on the ballot is a lot lower than the number of Americans willing to pick up arms when he ignores the law like all the other laws he ignores.
- SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
  But a huge constraint on the current regime's aspirations is that they can only exercise power by sending federal officers and troops into states. We'd be in a much worse place if Stephen Miller could issue an order taking over local law enforcement every time someone harasses his goons.
johnnyanmac 9mo ago
Took a while, but it seems it only needed 250 years for it to happen. Including a complete revamp of the original draft and a civil war. Still, 250 years is pretty short on the grand history of humanity.
Spooky23 9mo ago
Much of that was always in dispute and while the “freedom of states” stuff has intellectual appeal and often prevails over shorter periods, the trendline has always been towards one nation. In the post constitution era, 17 amendments were passed by the house, including an amendment that would make states supreme by law. 6 years after the constitution was ratified, Marbury v. Madison established judicial supremacy for interpreting law, 11 years after that, the court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that states are subordinate to federal power. Political compromise got it done, but centralized power is necessary for survival and prosperity. Congress and the courts realized this immediately. Most of the realpolitik of “states rights” is really about wielding tyrannical power locally.
- Jensson 9mo ago
  > Most of the realpolitik of “states rights” is really about wielding tyrannical power locally. I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything. Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it. Marijuana is still illegal and those undocumented immigrants are also illegal, more federal influence would make it so states cannot legalize those any more, is that what you want? So states rights goes both ways, it lets states both be more progressive and more conservative than the average.
  - watwut 9mo ago
    I see conservatives actively oppressing blue states right now. Somehow states rights do not protect civilians from being mistreated, kidnapped and shot by violent agents sent by conservative minority.
  - lovich 9mo ago
    >I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything. > Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it. The states are not compelled to enforce federal law. Doing nothing about people violating federal law has always been a right of the states. You are trying to, or already have in your head, conflate non enforcing federal law, with actively violating state law. Where marijuana is legalized, it means the State made it legal in terms of State law, not that it superseded federal law. Zero States have made illegal immigrants legal. Some states stop going after them and assisting the federal government in their immigration duties. You are talking about state's rights and have no idea what the boundaries of those rights even are.
throw0101c 9mo ago
> This is what makes the country free and prosperous-- it was conceived under conditions that make centralization of power extremely difficult. Tell that to the Republicans in Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. And the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
- coffeemug 9mo ago
  The surface level reading of history is that everyone always agreed centralization of power is bad and operated in a gentlemanly way to further this principle, until Trump came along. But that's not the case at all. In the two parts of American history where I read more or less deeply (early republic and civil war), the factions bitterly vied for absolute power but were prevented from getting it through intangible American magic.
  - HaZeust 9mo ago
    >"through intangible American magic" What is this statement even appealing to, and what are you getting at by saying it?
    - coffeemug 9mo ago
      That America works and keeps working for reasons nobody understands. We seem to make a ton of mistakes, and often act in the same way as far less successful countries do, but somehow keep coming out on top. It often feels like our success is despite our actions, not because of them. That's what I mean by "intangible American magic".
      - archagon 9mo ago
        That’s almost the textbook definition of American exceptionalism.
  - Spooky23 9mo ago
    I didn’t say that. There’s been a few. Wilson, FDR, Jackson come to mind. Trump is unique in that the previous folks predated the massive standing army and propaganda capabilities that exist today. The intangible magic is brave individuals and institutions. It’s harder for those individuals with the secret police and army running around.
IAmBroom 9mo ago
> This is what makes the country free and prosperous-- it was conceived under conditions that make centralization of power extremely difficult. Well, and the isolation of the country by oceans on both east and west, and by the glaciers to the North, which make invasion by any but Mexico or Canada unthinkably expensive. As for prosperous, a vast, then-untapped swath of forests, thick humus deposited by glaciers, and mineral deposits, all serviceable by waterways unprotected by competing nations, did play a minor role. American exceptionalism is always a falsehood.
cmurf 9mo ago
Maybe you're thinking of the 1st constitution, which was replaced because it made centralized power too difficult?

bulbar 9mo ago

Looks like the current US government is trying to centralize the power by multiple means, one of them sending federal officers and troops into states. To me it's crazy how many went from "we favor the Republic" to "all power to a singular person, what could go wrong, he is cool" pretty fast.

coffeemug 9mo ago
Yes, but this tension has been there since the founding of the republic. The federalists wanted to centralize power (some much more than others), and the republicans (the "jeffersonians") bitterly opposed it. In his second term George Washington personally lead troops to Pennsylvania to put down the whiskey rebellion. Zooming out of the 24h news cycle, "all power to a singular person" concerns seem far too overblown. Half the country hates Trump. He won the popular vote, but not by all that much (despite what he may assert). By comparison LBJ, FDR, and Nixon won ~60% of popular vote. Even if he were a young man, I don't think we're in any danger of a caesar.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  I think the scarier part is how utterly polarized the US is. The ratings are awful for trump, but it gets really scary when you zoom in. 80% conservateives at worst still support trump, while 7% liberal at best support him. Maybe someone can bring up polling to prove me wrong, but that is utterly unheard of levels of polarization. The only solace here is that independent voters are tanking, so in polls this close that can be the breaking point for all of this. >Even if he were a young man, I don't think we're in any danger of a caesar. The scary part is that he's not a young nor healthy man. He can blow the world up and not live to see the utter destruction he triggered. At least Caesar was assassinated and had to be on edge for years. Trump will have lived a full life never being punished and the world will burn afterwards.
  - coffeemug 9mo ago
    From my reading of history the level of polarization was at least as high or higher during the early republic, and obviously higher leading up to and through the civil war. I don't know American history in any meaningful depth outside these two periods, but I suspect there were other periods of extreme polarization. I really don't think this is new.
    - bigbadfeline 9mo ago
      Comparing the early republic to today is apples and oranges, disagreements and passions are supposed to go down as things settle down with time. Instead, both parties display an obstinate lack of compromise and wishy-washy, unworkable platforms while the media is only happy to make all of it worse. Increasing polarization is surely a symptom of problems and that needs to be analyzed, explained and addressed, not excused. You make it sound like a civil war is a walk in the park, you do need more history and more imagination in order to understand the human cost of obstinance and shallow thinking.
- treetalker 9mo ago
  To be clear, a plurality of individual voters voted for Trump and Vance's electors. Trump still had less than 50% of all votes cast. At 64.1% turnout, that means that less than 32% (approximately) of eligible voters voted for Trump.
- lovich 9mo ago
  Why would a small difference in voters supporting him or not matter if he has all the guns and fanatics willing to use them? The number of Americans willing to check the other person on the ballot is a lot lower than the number of Americans willing to pick up arms when he ignores the law like all the other laws he ignores.
SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
But a huge constraint on the current regime's aspirations is that they can only exercise power by sending federal officers and troops into states. We'd be in a much worse place if Stephen Miller could issue an order taking over local law enforcement every time someone harasses his goons.

johnnyanmac 9mo ago

Took a while, but it seems it only needed 250 years for it to happen. Including a complete revamp of the original draft and a civil war. Still, 250 years is pretty short on the grand history of humanity.

Spooky23 9mo ago

Much of that was always in dispute and while the “freedom of states” stuff has intellectual appeal and often prevails over shorter periods, the trendline has always been towards one nation. In the post constitution era, 17 amendments were passed by the house, including an amendment that would make states supreme by law. 6 years after the constitution was ratified, Marbury v. Madison established judicial supremacy for interpreting law, 11 years after that, the court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that states are subordinate to federal power. Political compromise got it done, but centralized power is necessary for survival and prosperity. Congress and the courts realized this immediately. Most of the realpolitik of “states rights” is really about wielding tyrannical power locally.

Jensson 9mo ago
> Most of the realpolitik of “states rights” is really about wielding tyrannical power locally. I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything. Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it. Marijuana is still illegal and those undocumented immigrants are also illegal, more federal influence would make it so states cannot legalize those any more, is that what you want? So states rights goes both ways, it lets states both be more progressive and more conservative than the average.
- watwut 9mo ago
  I see conservatives actively oppressing blue states right now. Somehow states rights do not protect civilians from being mistreated, kidnapped and shot by violent agents sent by conservative minority.
- lovich 9mo ago
  >I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything. > Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it. The states are not compelled to enforce federal law. Doing nothing about people violating federal law has always been a right of the states. You are trying to, or already have in your head, conflate non enforcing federal law, with actively violating state law. Where marijuana is legalized, it means the State made it legal in terms of State law, not that it superseded federal law. Zero States have made illegal immigrants legal. Some states stop going after them and assisting the federal government in their immigration duties. You are talking about state's rights and have no idea what the boundaries of those rights even are.

throw0101c 9mo ago

> This is what makes the country free and prosperous-- it was conceived under conditions that make centralization of power extremely difficult. Tell that to the Republicans in Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. And the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

coffeemug 9mo ago
The surface level reading of history is that everyone always agreed centralization of power is bad and operated in a gentlemanly way to further this principle, until Trump came along. But that's not the case at all. In the two parts of American history where I read more or less deeply (early republic and civil war), the factions bitterly vied for absolute power but were prevented from getting it through intangible American magic.
- HaZeust 9mo ago
  >"through intangible American magic" What is this statement even appealing to, and what are you getting at by saying it?
  - coffeemug 9mo ago
    That America works and keeps working for reasons nobody understands. We seem to make a ton of mistakes, and often act in the same way as far less successful countries do, but somehow keep coming out on top. It often feels like our success is despite our actions, not because of them. That's what I mean by "intangible American magic".
    - archagon 9mo ago
      That’s almost the textbook definition of American exceptionalism.
- Spooky23 9mo ago
  I didn’t say that. There’s been a few. Wilson, FDR, Jackson come to mind. Trump is unique in that the previous folks predated the massive standing army and propaganda capabilities that exist today. The intangible magic is brave individuals and institutions. It’s harder for those individuals with the secret police and army running around.

IAmBroom 9mo ago

> This is what makes the country free and prosperous-- it was conceived under conditions that make centralization of power extremely difficult. Well, and the isolation of the country by oceans on both east and west, and by the glaciers to the North, which make invasion by any but Mexico or Canada unthinkably expensive. As for prosperous, a vast, then-untapped swath of forests, thick humus deposited by glaciers, and mineral deposits, all serviceable by waterways unprotected by competing nations, did play a minor role. American exceptionalism is always a falsehood.

cmurf 9mo ago

Maybe you're thinking of the 1st constitution, which was replaced because it made centralized power too difficult?