5 ms·

I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive

I’d go further. To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. Now trump is using executive orders even MORE expansively, to do things that are patently undemocratic and unconstitutional (federalizing who can vote, ilegal tariffs). The kludges and hacks are causing a crumbling of democracy, not just mediocre law.

canarypilot 8mo ago
Yes, and, Bush-Cheney were the modern forefathers of pushing the unitary executive theory, building on the work of Reagan after a 90’s shaped lull. Reagan took ideas from The Heritage Foundation, who returned in the ‘24 elections pushing Project 2025. A natural endgame and roadmap for the movement of power to the president, that is being followed as approximately as any political roadmap ever is. Remember that each time you’re tempted to crack a Coors light!
- kennywinker 8mo ago
  So I should remember that… never? Got it. ;)
- edgyquant 8mo ago
  Unitary executive is popular and doesn’t have to mean an imperial presidency. Actually the most popular version, albeit not the one you hear about the most, is the libertarian idea that the executive should have little power at all and almost no bureaucracy to command.
AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
The problem here isn't the temptation to bypass a system intended to require consensus before action can be taken. That temptation is present with any system that provides any checks on autocratic tyranny. The problem is that something like executive orders are being used to bypass that system instead of being prevented from doing so.
- Panzer04 8mo ago
  The point is that if you can't do the thing the democratic way (because the system is so biased against change as to make it impossible) then people will look for workarounds. The workarounds are accepted since otherwise nothing would get done at all, and then people are surprised when the workaround gets used in ways they no longer like.
  - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
    When people say "nothing gets done" they mean "we can't do things that a substantial plurality of the public doesn't want done" -- which is exactly what's supposed to happen. If you break the mechanisms ensuring that stays the case, what do you honestly expect to happen the next time it's you in the minority?
    - watwut 8mo ago
      Things substantial plurality of public wants are not being done. The votes in legislature dont match what plurality of voters want. Public opinion is not really represented in a way your comment implies.
      - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
        It's not supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public wants to happen. It's supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public doesn't want to not happen.
- IgorPartola 8mo ago
  The problem is that the US constitution was written before people realized that the natural consequence of that type of constitution is a two party system. You cannot have a viable third party in the long run because it will necessarily weaken one or the other existing party and that party will then absorb it. So no you have a situation where the government can have split brain: some parts of the legislative branch can be party A and other parts can be party B and the president isn’t tied to either. From what I understand when the US “brings democracy” to another country we set up a parliamentary system and that system is widely seen as better. You cannot form an ineffective government by definition, though you can have a non-functioning government that is trying to form a coalition. These types of systems tend to find center because forming a coalition always requires some level of compromise. Our system oscillates between three states: party A does what they want, party B does what they want, and split brain and president does what he wants because Congress has no will to keep him accountable. What I would like to try is a combination of parliamentary system, approval voting, and possibly major legislation passed by randomly selecting a jury of citizens and showing the the pros and cons of a bill. If you cannot convince 1000 random citizens that we should go to war, maybe it’s not a good idea.
michaelt 8mo ago
> To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. While I agree - this has been an issue long before Obama. Any reasonable country should be able to decide on the legality of abortion through the normal political process - the public deliberates, they elect representatives, the representatives hammer out the fine print and pass legislation. But in the American system, the legality of abortion is decided at random, based on the deaths of a handful of lawyers born in the 1930s. If that person dies between ages 68-75, 84-87 or 91-95 abortion is illegal, if they die aged 76-83, or 88-91 it's legal. Why doesn't America deal with political questions using their political process?
- jjmarr 8mo ago
  Because that requires compromise and Americans are raging absolutists that need immediate results. In 1791, abolitionists tried to end slavery in the British Empire but couldn't get it passed by the House of Commons. Henry Dundas changed the bill so it would be phased-in. Existing slaves wouldn't be emancipated but their children would be. That bill did pass. Slavery naturally ended over the following decades until the much smaller slave population was bought by the government and freed in 1833. In the USA, nobody budged until a Civil War happened and then the slaves were freed by force in the 1850s without monetary compensation. But that time, emancipation happened immediately after they got full power, there was no need to give money to racists, and no moral compromises were required.
  - kelnos 8mo ago
    > But that time, emancipation happened immediately after they got full power, there was no need to give money to racists, and no moral compromises were required. I really hope you were being sarcastic here... Emancipating the slaves during/after the Civil War was not an orderly, immediate process. And even once all slaves were freed, they continued to live second-class lives due to the laws of the time.
    - jjmarr 8mo ago
      Yes, it's sarcasm. I'm contrasting how Britain made their legal process gradual enough to match reality with the USA's demand that legal processes create reality. For reference, fully elective abortion legally doesn't exist in most of the UK. It's just that a fetus being dangerous to the mental health of the mother has progressively been interpreted more and more broadly... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom
Dig1t 8mo ago
>federalizing who can vote Almost every single democracy in the world requires proof that you are eligible to vote. 80% of Americans agree with the idea as well. https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/02/voter-id-americans-support-wisconsin-poll-photo-identification/ https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/02/voter-id-americans-suppor...
- amanaplanacanal 8mo ago
  So let's have a national ID, given to all citizens. Unfortunately the party calling most strongly for proving eligibility absolutely hates that idea.
  - IAmBroom 8mo ago
    And that national ID has to be free, and available to people who cannot appear at federal offices during business hours without losing what sparse wages they get...
ivell 8mo ago
It could be my interpretation, the framing of the above comment feels as if Obama gave Trump the idea to use executive orders in expansive ways. I think Trump would have used executive orders expansive even if no president ever had used executive orders. Trump is just trying to get away with as much as he can. The tariffs used by Trump and his "jokes" about skippings election and other things he did are quite unprecedented.

canarypilot 8mo ago

Yes, and, Bush-Cheney were the modern forefathers of pushing the unitary executive theory, building on the work of Reagan after a 90’s shaped lull. Reagan took ideas from The Heritage Foundation, who returned in the ‘24 elections pushing Project 2025. A natural endgame and roadmap for the movement of power to the president, that is being followed as approximately as any political roadmap ever is. Remember that each time you’re tempted to crack a Coors light!

kennywinker 8mo ago
So I should remember that… never? Got it. ;)
edgyquant 8mo ago
Unitary executive is popular and doesn’t have to mean an imperial presidency. Actually the most popular version, albeit not the one you hear about the most, is the libertarian idea that the executive should have little power at all and almost no bureaucracy to command.

AnthonyMouse 8mo ago

The problem here isn't the temptation to bypass a system intended to require consensus before action can be taken. That temptation is present with any system that provides any checks on autocratic tyranny. The problem is that something like executive orders are being used to bypass that system instead of being prevented from doing so.

Panzer04 8mo ago
The point is that if you can't do the thing the democratic way (because the system is so biased against change as to make it impossible) then people will look for workarounds. The workarounds are accepted since otherwise nothing would get done at all, and then people are surprised when the workaround gets used in ways they no longer like.
- AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
  When people say "nothing gets done" they mean "we can't do things that a substantial plurality of the public doesn't want done" -- which is exactly what's supposed to happen. If you break the mechanisms ensuring that stays the case, what do you honestly expect to happen the next time it's you in the minority?
  - watwut 8mo ago
    Things substantial plurality of public wants are not being done. The votes in legislature dont match what plurality of voters want. Public opinion is not really represented in a way your comment implies.
    - AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
      It's not supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public wants to happen. It's supposed to cause things a significant plurality of the public doesn't want to not happen.
IgorPartola 8mo ago
The problem is that the US constitution was written before people realized that the natural consequence of that type of constitution is a two party system. You cannot have a viable third party in the long run because it will necessarily weaken one or the other existing party and that party will then absorb it. So no you have a situation where the government can have split brain: some parts of the legislative branch can be party A and other parts can be party B and the president isn’t tied to either. From what I understand when the US “brings democracy” to another country we set up a parliamentary system and that system is widely seen as better. You cannot form an ineffective government by definition, though you can have a non-functioning government that is trying to form a coalition. These types of systems tend to find center because forming a coalition always requires some level of compromise. Our system oscillates between three states: party A does what they want, party B does what they want, and split brain and president does what he wants because Congress has no will to keep him accountable. What I would like to try is a combination of parliamentary system, approval voting, and possibly major legislation passed by randomly selecting a jury of citizens and showing the the pros and cons of a bill. If you cannot convince 1000 random citizens that we should go to war, maybe it’s not a good idea.

michaelt 8mo ago

> To bypass the deadlocked congress, obama used executive orders in new and expansive ways. That ratcheted things up. While I agree - this has been an issue long before Obama. Any reasonable country should be able to decide on the legality of abortion through the normal political process - the public deliberates, they elect representatives, the representatives hammer out the fine print and pass legislation. But in the American system, the legality of abortion is decided at random, based on the deaths of a handful of lawyers born in the 1930s. If that person dies between ages 68-75, 84-87 or 91-95 abortion is illegal, if they die aged 76-83, or 88-91 it's legal. Why doesn't America deal with political questions using their political process?

jjmarr 8mo ago
Because that requires compromise and Americans are raging absolutists that need immediate results. In 1791, abolitionists tried to end slavery in the British Empire but couldn't get it passed by the House of Commons. Henry Dundas changed the bill so it would be phased-in. Existing slaves wouldn't be emancipated but their children would be. That bill did pass. Slavery naturally ended over the following decades until the much smaller slave population was bought by the government and freed in 1833. In the USA, nobody budged until a Civil War happened and then the slaves were freed by force in the 1850s without monetary compensation. But that time, emancipation happened immediately after they got full power, there was no need to give money to racists, and no moral compromises were required.
- kelnos 8mo ago
  > But that time, emancipation happened immediately after they got full power, there was no need to give money to racists, and no moral compromises were required. I really hope you were being sarcastic here... Emancipating the slaves during/after the Civil War was not an orderly, immediate process. And even once all slaves were freed, they continued to live second-class lives due to the laws of the time.
  - jjmarr 8mo ago
    Yes, it's sarcasm. I'm contrasting how Britain made their legal process gradual enough to match reality with the USA's demand that legal processes create reality. For reference, fully elective abortion legally doesn't exist in most of the UK. It's just that a fetus being dangerous to the mental health of the mother has progressively been interpreted more and more broadly... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom

Dig1t 8mo ago

>federalizing who can vote Almost every single democracy in the world requires proof that you are eligible to vote. 80% of Americans agree with the idea as well. https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/02/voter-id-americans-support-wisconsin-poll-photo-identification/ https://wisconsinwatch.org/2026/02/voter-id-americans-suppor...

amanaplanacanal 8mo ago
So let's have a national ID, given to all citizens. Unfortunately the party calling most strongly for proving eligibility absolutely hates that idea.
- IAmBroom 8mo ago
  And that national ID has to be free, and available to people who cannot appear at federal offices during business hours without losing what sparse wages they get...

ivell 8mo ago

It could be my interpretation, the framing of the above comment feels as if Obama gave Trump the idea to use executive orders in expansive ways. I think Trump would have used executive orders expansive even if no president ever had used executive orders. Trump is just trying to get away with as much as he can. The tariffs used by Trump and his "jokes" about skippings election and other things he did are quite unprecedented.