State Terror, American Style(paulkrugman.substack.com)
paulkrugman.substack.com
State Terror, American Style
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/state-terror-american-style
124 comments
It certainly doesn’t feel good to have turned out being correct after warning that this is where we were headed way back in the dubyah years. This has always been the plan, it hasn’t been hidden, corporate media has just succeeded in sanewashing it for decades. Abdication of journalistic responsibility in the name of profits has allowed construction of alternate realities for so many people that these atrocities are now possible with few noticing.
The only part I would disagree with here is that there was a plan dating back to the George W. Bush Admin. I think "the plan" in earnest came into being between 2020 and 2024, and I don't think anyone from the Bush years would find a home in the party let alone the current administration. It's not that they had no plans necessarily, they just weren't the ones in charge anymore.
I do think the Bush years were the first major destabilization of rule of law domestically that helped create conditions for today, along with Obama's "look forward, not backward" enshrinement of it as bipartisan consensus. Bush also normalized a kind of partisan unresponsiveness to mass democratic uprisings that people used to believe were capable of influencing the government.
I do think the Bush years were the first major destabilization of rule of law domestically that helped create conditions for today, along with Obama's "look forward, not backward" enshrinement of it as bipartisan consensus. Bush also normalized a kind of partisan unresponsiveness to mass democratic uprisings that people used to believe were capable of influencing the government.
I don't like putting the blame on a "plan". Democracy is about a kind of equality among people, and the US has had a strong anti-democratic strain since slavery. Probably even feudalism before that. Once you see it, you see it everywhere and can't unsee it. There's a reason Trump's best polling issue is immigration
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil...
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil...
Yeah viewing it as a single plan is wrong.
I think the more complete view is that the current generation of fascists learned from the Bush admin's mistakes (or, I suppose you could say, they feel unshackled by Bush era "restraint").
Combined with a cult of personality frontman to distract, aided by a captured media ecosystem and a radicalized judiciary, they are empowered to build on the shoulders of giants.
It was not self evident in the 00's that we would end up with Miller/Vought running the show - the actual form could have been something completely different. Indeed, Rove himself recently popped back up to chastise them!
I think the more complete view is that the current generation of fascists learned from the Bush admin's mistakes (or, I suppose you could say, they feel unshackled by Bush era "restraint").
Combined with a cult of personality frontman to distract, aided by a captured media ecosystem and a radicalized judiciary, they are empowered to build on the shoulders of giants.
It was not self evident in the 00's that we would end up with Miller/Vought running the show - the actual form could have been something completely different. Indeed, Rove himself recently popped back up to chastise them!
I think it's because we've gotten so used to avoiding political speech as a method of "civility", we've collectively put our heads in the sand.
The people who were shouting their worries and concerns were told they were being political. Politics is just life now a days, I don't know how you can actually excise that.
The people who were shouting their worries and concerns were told they were being political. Politics is just life now a days, I don't know how you can actually excise that.
I was just too young and things exploded by the time I really could start to understand what was gonig on.
I was very early Elementasry for 9/11, Middle school for the GFC. I was early 20's focusing on college in 2016, which would have been the 2nd nationals I could vote in. Then I was only a few years into my career when COVID hit.
The Obama era gave me hopes, but I didn't realize how easily it could be relinquished in the name of corporate interest. I just figured all the checks and balances would keep things from really going backwards. Obviously Trump winning was the first huge red flag, but things seemed fine. But the real red flag I (personally) saw was Ruth Bader Ginsburg not stepping down and instead dying during the Trump administration. Having 3 judges appointed by Trump (plus 3 from W. Bush beforehand) was a death knell for decades to come, even if Trump never got elected.
I was very early Elementasry for 9/11, Middle school for the GFC. I was early 20's focusing on college in 2016, which would have been the 2nd nationals I could vote in. Then I was only a few years into my career when COVID hit.
The Obama era gave me hopes, but I didn't realize how easily it could be relinquished in the name of corporate interest. I just figured all the checks and balances would keep things from really going backwards. Obviously Trump winning was the first huge red flag, but things seemed fine. But the real red flag I (personally) saw was Ruth Bader Ginsburg not stepping down and instead dying during the Trump administration. Having 3 judges appointed by Trump (plus 3 from W. Bush beforehand) was a death knell for decades to come, even if Trump never got elected.
I guess we grew up in the same era, but I couldn't disagree more about any administration giving hopes. While Obama mostly didn't make things dramatically worse, he did keep the status quo and all the troubling policies that came with it. Refusing to prosecute Bush-era crimes? Check. Keeping Guantanamo? Check. Expanding illegal mass-surveillance systems? Check. Expanding military drone programs and extrajudicially killing civilians outside of war zones? Check. Breaking the record on whistleblower prosecutions? Check. That's in stark contrast to the leniency given to those who caused the financial crisis. On the positive side, I guess he tried to fix healthcare, but it's still broken as ever.
It was so bad that it's unbelievable that subsequent administrations managed to make matters even more astronomically worse.
It was so bad that it's unbelievable that subsequent administrations managed to make matters even more astronomically worse.
> I guess he tried to fix healthcare
Yeah, he tried, but anyone with working brain cells could tell you that ACA was just going to end up in a bigger payout to the healthcare industry. It was a status quo pro-corporate bill just like the rest of his centrist policies.
The actual solution has and always will be to reduce costs, which means people losing jobs and hospital admins not owning 3 vacation homes.
Yeah, he tried, but anyone with working brain cells could tell you that ACA was just going to end up in a bigger payout to the healthcare industry. It was a status quo pro-corporate bill just like the rest of his centrist policies.
The actual solution has and always will be to reduce costs, which means people losing jobs and hospital admins not owning 3 vacation homes.
Obama very much helped deliver us to this point, similar to how the current opposition party doesn't seem to be doing that much opposition. The old george carlin bit, it's a big club and you ain't in it.
I'm in the same age cohort. Obama's candidacy and election gave me hope. Obama's presidency disgusted me and disillusioned me.
"Please avoid political speech" is often just shorthand for "you are not allowed to talk about how the current rules just so happen to be my rules".
Flagged!
And this post was flagged and is no longer on hn front page
It's easy to forget the Hacker website is actually just a VC discussion board and the "avoid politics" is simply "avoid talking about our future business lines"
Haha, yes. I meant more in general discourse though. Maybe HN should shift to "how to prosper in a dictatorship". :)
> It certainly doesn’t feel good to have turned out being correct after warning that this is where we were headed way back in the dubyah years.
This has been happening long before W, and the Democrats are complicit too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
This has been happening long before W, and the Democrats are complicit too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
It might take a couple more generations, a lot more misery, and maybe even a complete breakdown of democracy in the USA, for its population to finally learn that Democrats or Republicans are bound to the same higher power in the USA: money.
Money is what decides everything, the speeding up of its accumulation brought by neoliberal economic policies under Reagan and onwards just made it abundantly clear that either party will always look out for the moneyed interests, anything else they might champion for is just there to give a veneer of democratic legitimacy. It's the foundation of American democracy, donations, aggressive lobbying, business-first mentality, the votes are there just to decide which side of the coin will move these interests forward, not to decide what platform is best for the citizenry in general.
Money is what decides everything, the speeding up of its accumulation brought by neoliberal economic policies under Reagan and onwards just made it abundantly clear that either party will always look out for the moneyed interests, anything else they might champion for is just there to give a veneer of democratic legitimacy. It's the foundation of American democracy, donations, aggressive lobbying, business-first mentality, the votes are there just to decide which side of the coin will move these interests forward, not to decide what platform is best for the citizenry in general.
How convenient that you have an argument for lumping together both a party that wants to continue the liberal democracy and a party that wants to cling to power at the expense of creating an actual authoritarian state complete with a secret police.
In short: republicans are the effectuators, democrats are the enablers. The democrats have been deferring to moneyed interests too over the last decades, just in a less agressive way. They spend a great deal of energy pushing actual leftists out of the party or keeping them ineffectual. And most importantly: they don't push back against the GOP's terrible policies and destruction of our democracy at all.
The two parties are not the same, but the privately funded electoral system of the US applies to all parties. Democrats cannot escape the corrupting influence of money.
Consider, as a revealing example, the Patriot Act of 2001. There was more resisitance to it from Democrats than from Republicans, yet there was still not nearly enough resistance. In the Senate, the vote was 98-1, with only Democrat Russ Feingold against. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act?#Legislative_histo...
In my "free speech zone" link above, the Democrats were the first to use that blatant violation of free speech, at their national convention.
Republicans take advantage of the precedents set by both parties.
Consider, as a revealing example, the Patriot Act of 2001. There was more resisitance to it from Democrats than from Republicans, yet there was still not nearly enough resistance. In the Senate, the vote was 98-1, with only Democrat Russ Feingold against. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act?#Legislative_histo...
In my "free speech zone" link above, the Democrats were the first to use that blatant violation of free speech, at their national convention.
Republicans take advantage of the precedents set by both parties.
>Democrats cannot escape the corrupting influence of money.
They could. These are not people struggling to pay rent, they do not live paycheck to paycheck. Heck, the median age of congress is 58 so a good portion of them are free to retire and never work another day in their lives.
But they in general choose not to escape it. The money, the networks, the power. I guess the sad thing is that the populace aren't aware enough to properly primary anyone who does turn their backs on them.
They could. These are not people struggling to pay rent, they do not live paycheck to paycheck. Heck, the median age of congress is 58 so a good portion of them are free to retire and never work another day in their lives.
But they in general choose not to escape it. The money, the networks, the power. I guess the sad thing is that the populace aren't aware enough to properly primary anyone who does turn their backs on them.
By "Democrats" I meant the Democratic Party.
Democratic politicans are not a fixed group of people: anyone can run for office. The issue is not so much that money is corrupting otherwise good people. Rather, the issue is that political campaigns are self-financed, and wealthy donors put their money behind candidates who they know to be friendly to their interests. The wealthy do not fund candidates who are unfriendly to their interests and indeed may throw their money behind an opponent, or just directly fund "interest groups" that malign candidates whom the wealthy dislike.
> I guess the sad thing is that the populace aren't aware enough to properly primary anyone who does turn their backs on them.
The fundamental problem is that primary campaigns require money, just like general election campaigns. The situation may be even worse for primary campaigns, because the news media provides much less free coverage for primary campaigns than for general elections campaigns. And the news media tends to distribute coverage based on "electability," which is invariably a euphemism for the ability to raise campaign funds.
Democratic politicans are not a fixed group of people: anyone can run for office. The issue is not so much that money is corrupting otherwise good people. Rather, the issue is that political campaigns are self-financed, and wealthy donors put their money behind candidates who they know to be friendly to their interests. The wealthy do not fund candidates who are unfriendly to their interests and indeed may throw their money behind an opponent, or just directly fund "interest groups" that malign candidates whom the wealthy dislike.
> I guess the sad thing is that the populace aren't aware enough to properly primary anyone who does turn their backs on them.
The fundamental problem is that primary campaigns require money, just like general election campaigns. The situation may be even worse for primary campaigns, because the news media provides much less free coverage for primary campaigns than for general elections campaigns. And the news media tends to distribute coverage based on "electability," which is invariably a euphemism for the ability to raise campaign funds.
>The fundamental problem is that primary campaigns require money, just like general election campaigns
That's part of the thing that irks me. In the age of the internet, I just don't get how and why money needs to correlate with outreach. As the most extreme examole: is 1 billion in funding really getting your name out there more than 2 billion? And is 1 billion really doing a better Job than 50m that's hyper focused on engaging the right audiences smartly? That's a big part of how you "disrupt an industry" here in tech. Get modest funds and focus efforts on what the core. Not all the bells and whistles.
Maybe among older audiences who rely on traditional media, but the internet doesn't scale that well with throwing money to compete (we can look at Google+, Mixer, and many gaming storefronts as examples). I feel there's gonna be a shift in this thinking as legacy media dies out and there's too many internet newscasters to pay off and weave a narrative.
That's part of the thing that irks me. In the age of the internet, I just don't get how and why money needs to correlate with outreach. As the most extreme examole: is 1 billion in funding really getting your name out there more than 2 billion? And is 1 billion really doing a better Job than 50m that's hyper focused on engaging the right audiences smartly? That's a big part of how you "disrupt an industry" here in tech. Get modest funds and focus efforts on what the core. Not all the bells and whistles.
Maybe among older audiences who rely on traditional media, but the internet doesn't scale that well with throwing money to compete (we can look at Google+, Mixer, and many gaming storefronts as examples). I feel there's gonna be a shift in this thinking as legacy media dies out and there's too many internet newscasters to pay off and weave a narrative.
Pushing youtube channels, buying spots in podcasts, meta ads, google ads, AI ads, AI alignment. It's all money game.
What do you want people to do about the current crisis? What action could be taken to resolve the situation today?
This appears to be a marked change in subject. How are your questions directly responding to my comment?
I would say that, if taken literally, resolving the situation today is not possible. We're currently living in a deep hole that was a very long time in the making (one might even say hundreds of years in the making), and it would likely take a very long time to climb our way out of it. There's no magical, immediate solution.
The US political system has always been corrupted by money, but modern technology has enabled a vast increase in the scale and efficiency of such corruption. It used to be said, "all politics is local," but now it might be said that all politics is international.
I would say that, if taken literally, resolving the situation today is not possible. We're currently living in a deep hole that was a very long time in the making (one might even say hundreds of years in the making), and it would likely take a very long time to climb our way out of it. There's no magical, immediate solution.
The US political system has always been corrupted by money, but modern technology has enabled a vast increase in the scale and efficiency of such corruption. It used to be said, "all politics is local," but now it might be said that all politics is international.
Just to add to this.
We (many people) voted for Biden in 2020, and that was supposed to be at least part of the solution. What happened? He appointed an AG who he knew would drag his feet and not hold Trump accountable. He continued Trump's illegal asylum policies and even kept building Trump's border wall. They played chicken with Republicans to see who could shovel more money into ICE, and spent 4 years repeating Republican anti-immigrant fear mongering but then saying "we shouldn't go that far on policy". They did almost nothing about Roe V. Wade being overturned, despite having an unprecedented leak that gave them months of notice before the decision.
And what was done to fundamentally restrain the power of the presidency in preparation for the possibility of a Trump win? Well, we had a lot of talk about "norms" and finger wagging. I'm sure glad that finger and those norms are here to protect people I care about now. If only there were something more they could have done.
We (many people) voted for Biden in 2020, and that was supposed to be at least part of the solution. What happened? He appointed an AG who he knew would drag his feet and not hold Trump accountable. He continued Trump's illegal asylum policies and even kept building Trump's border wall. They played chicken with Republicans to see who could shovel more money into ICE, and spent 4 years repeating Republican anti-immigrant fear mongering but then saying "we shouldn't go that far on policy". They did almost nothing about Roe V. Wade being overturned, despite having an unprecedented leak that gave them months of notice before the decision.
And what was done to fundamentally restrain the power of the presidency in preparation for the possibility of a Trump win? Well, we had a lot of talk about "norms" and finger wagging. I'm sure glad that finger and those norms are here to protect people I care about now. If only there were something more they could have done.
Same with Obama. He let Bush and Bush's administration get away with 0 accountability.
we didn't get here in a day, or even a decade. So it won't be solved overnight.
But sure, in the ideal world:
1. Call every bluff Trump makes. Do not capitulate to anything. Drown him in lawsuits. He's lost at least a 3rd of the DOJ so they cannot handle suing every company, college, and state at once.
2. Anyone in a red and especially purple states, make it a habit to call your represenatives every day. emails can (and probably will be) ignored. Don't let their lines be anything but people telling these congressmen to knock it off and actually do their jobs. Collorary: anyone in a blue state calls in and makes sure their congressmen know they need to also resist, fight back, and not capitulate.
3. If you can, townhalls are even better than calling. If you see the local townhalls you know this scares the GOP congressmen stiff.
4. if you see federal agents in the wild, always be recording. The truth is the beth antidote to corruption. Make sure you livestream as well so they can't just seize your phone. The more live feed out there the harder it is to spin.
5. heck, if we're really dreaming big we plan some general strike. Shut down the country for a day and you'll have everyone reeling to try and backpedal.
Varying levels of realism there, but the theme is clear: resist and make sure others resist. They can't ignore us all if we work together. But that "working together" in such a hyper-individualistic society is the hard part. It may just be more realistic to wait until someone dies or midterms happen.
But sure, in the ideal world:
1. Call every bluff Trump makes. Do not capitulate to anything. Drown him in lawsuits. He's lost at least a 3rd of the DOJ so they cannot handle suing every company, college, and state at once.
2. Anyone in a red and especially purple states, make it a habit to call your represenatives every day. emails can (and probably will be) ignored. Don't let their lines be anything but people telling these congressmen to knock it off and actually do their jobs. Collorary: anyone in a blue state calls in and makes sure their congressmen know they need to also resist, fight back, and not capitulate.
3. If you can, townhalls are even better than calling. If you see the local townhalls you know this scares the GOP congressmen stiff.
4. if you see federal agents in the wild, always be recording. The truth is the beth antidote to corruption. Make sure you livestream as well so they can't just seize your phone. The more live feed out there the harder it is to spin.
5. heck, if we're really dreaming big we plan some general strike. Shut down the country for a day and you'll have everyone reeling to try and backpedal.
Varying levels of realism there, but the theme is clear: resist and make sure others resist. They can't ignore us all if we work together. But that "working together" in such a hyper-individualistic society is the hard part. It may just be more realistic to wait until someone dies or midterms happen.
It's not convenient, it's quite sad to be honest. I'm not American nor live in the USA so seeing it from the outside makes me quite sad that Americans believe to be under a democratic system where choosing their representatives matter.
Not even the liberal democracy that one of the parties want is properly a liberal democracy, it is to the limits where it infringes into business needs, and moneyed interests. They can't fight the system that enables them to exist.
There are the token attempts to make it look less than that, to appear more altruistic: ACA, better paths for immigrants to be legally integrated into society, etc. but overall the majority of Democrats are also entirely bound to the powers that fuel their campaigns, money is the only real power in the end.
The issue with the other party increasingly becoming more authoritarian and extreme over time is a side-effect from grievances caused exactly by the issue of the people not having actual any power to course-correct policies, there aren't many policy choices, it's business and money or business and money and fascism. Normal people were led to believe they can just become one of the moneyed elites if they just work hard enough, and government stays out of their way, so they vote against their interests as what they are: common people.
I wish the USA would learn that a two-party system eventually will breakdown, that it will eventually cause the fracture to be too great, and that some members of the politician class would use this wedge as a weapon to achieve power, just like what happened with the GOP. You simply cannot have only 2 parties to determine the political will of 300+ million people, it's impossible that either of them represent the variety of wants and needs of the whole population but you are stuck with that.
Continuing democracy as it was before also doesn't seem to be a good solution, it was exactly the system that brought into power the current tyrants. Too many norms, protocols, and procedures relying on tradition and decorum rather than codified, it was bound to be abused at some point, and it's quite incredible it has lasted this long.
Not even the liberal democracy that one of the parties want is properly a liberal democracy, it is to the limits where it infringes into business needs, and moneyed interests. They can't fight the system that enables them to exist.
There are the token attempts to make it look less than that, to appear more altruistic: ACA, better paths for immigrants to be legally integrated into society, etc. but overall the majority of Democrats are also entirely bound to the powers that fuel their campaigns, money is the only real power in the end.
The issue with the other party increasingly becoming more authoritarian and extreme over time is a side-effect from grievances caused exactly by the issue of the people not having actual any power to course-correct policies, there aren't many policy choices, it's business and money or business and money and fascism. Normal people were led to believe they can just become one of the moneyed elites if they just work hard enough, and government stays out of their way, so they vote against their interests as what they are: common people.
I wish the USA would learn that a two-party system eventually will breakdown, that it will eventually cause the fracture to be too great, and that some members of the politician class would use this wedge as a weapon to achieve power, just like what happened with the GOP. You simply cannot have only 2 parties to determine the political will of 300+ million people, it's impossible that either of them represent the variety of wants and needs of the whole population but you are stuck with that.
Continuing democracy as it was before also doesn't seem to be a good solution, it was exactly the system that brought into power the current tyrants. Too many norms, protocols, and procedures relying on tradition and decorum rather than codified, it was bound to be abused at some point, and it's quite incredible it has lasted this long.
We are a frog in a pot of water placed upon a stove.
Every time the Republican party gains power, they turn up the burner.
When the Democratic party gains power, they don't turn the burner up any further, but the most we can give them credit for is they may occasionally toss an ice cube in the water.
They do not turn the burner down.
They do not remove the pot from the stove.
They do not take the frog out of the water.
The Democratic party isn't as bad as the Republican party, but they're still ultimately boiling the frog.
---
For all their crowing about how bad Republican policy is, how often do you really see them repealing bad laws passed by Republicans - especially the disastrous tax cuts and sabotage of government agencies? Biden couldn't even be bothered to replace all of Trump's appointees.
The last few decades have demonstrated that at the very least, we need a number of constitutional amendments to fix the cracks and gaping holes in our current governmental structure that allowed us to get here, and it'll probably take burning down both major political parties and starting with new ones to make that happen.
Every time the Republican party gains power, they turn up the burner.
When the Democratic party gains power, they don't turn the burner up any further, but the most we can give them credit for is they may occasionally toss an ice cube in the water.
They do not turn the burner down.
They do not remove the pot from the stove.
They do not take the frog out of the water.
The Democratic party isn't as bad as the Republican party, but they're still ultimately boiling the frog.
---
For all their crowing about how bad Republican policy is, how often do you really see them repealing bad laws passed by Republicans - especially the disastrous tax cuts and sabotage of government agencies? Biden couldn't even be bothered to replace all of Trump's appointees.
The last few decades have demonstrated that at the very least, we need a number of constitutional amendments to fix the cracks and gaping holes in our current governmental structure that allowed us to get here, and it'll probably take burning down both major political parties and starting with new ones to make that happen.
> how often do you really see them repealing bad laws passed by Republicans - especially the disastrous tax cuts and sabotage of government agencies?
how often do you see a D majority in the House AND the Senate with a D president?
how often do you see a D majority in the House AND the Senate with a D president?
We saw (an admittedly razor-thin) majority in the first half of Biden's term and a much more solid majority in the first half of Obama's first term. Clinton also had a solid majority in the first half of his first term, and Carter had a solid majority throughout his entire term.
It may feel skewed in favor of Republican majorities across the executive and legislative branches due to GWB having it for 6 years, but the fact is, every president in the last 30 years has had a majority in both branches at the start of their first terms.
It may feel skewed in favor of Republican majorities across the executive and legislative branches due to GWB having it for 6 years, but the fact is, every president in the last 30 years has had a majority in both branches at the start of their first terms.
> We saw (an admittedly razor-thin) majority in the first half of Biden's term
Two (2) years.
> more solid majority in the first half of Obama's first term.
Two (2) years and one (1) month out of Obama's Eight (8) years. Okay.
> It may feel skewed in favor of Republican majorities across the executive and legislative branches due to GWB having it for 6 years
Four (4) years, One (1) month total majority TOTAL in the past Twenty-Four (24) years.
Two (2) years.
> more solid majority in the first half of Obama's first term.
Two (2) years and one (1) month out of Obama's Eight (8) years. Okay.
> It may feel skewed in favor of Republican majorities across the executive and legislative branches due to GWB having it for 6 years
Four (4) years, One (1) month total majority TOTAL in the past Twenty-Four (24) years.
The last time Democrats tried to turn down the heat, they lost tons of seats countrywide, up and down the ballot.
https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/under-obama-democ...
Your problem is the people. The call is coming from inside the house.
Biden is given 4 years to grow a tree, Trump is given 8 years to cut down as many trees as he can. The government is also intrinsically hard to change (filibuster, gerrymandering, fptp, electoral college, supreme court etc).
https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/under-obama-democ...
Your problem is the people. The call is coming from inside the house.
Biden is given 4 years to grow a tree, Trump is given 8 years to cut down as many trees as he can. The government is also intrinsically hard to change (filibuster, gerrymandering, fptp, electoral college, supreme court etc).
> This has always been the plan
This implies a (bipartisan) conspiracy to agitprop the nation into violent division as pretext.
This implies a (bipartisan) conspiracy to agitprop the nation into violent division as pretext.
Why does it imply that? You only need one side to consistently antagonize the other and turn everything into us-vs-them rhetoric. The other side can either choose to ignore it, try to maintain higher-level discourse, or start playing the same game; the end result is still the same. I don't see why a bipartisan conspiracy would be required.
Are they limiting their raids to be within 'blue' states / districts to minimise the collateral damage their reputation may receive from those sympathetic to this cause?
Chicago was 77% Democrat in the last election.
These behaviours won't stop if there's no blowback from the MAGA base.
Chicago was 77% Democrat in the last election.
These behaviours won't stop if there's no blowback from the MAGA base.
Blue states and heavily-Democratic urban areas are also likely to have explicit local laws preventing local police authorities from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, since whether it is good or bad to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement is a central point of disagreement in partisan American politics right now. For the same partisan reasons involving political support for illegal immigrants, there are probably more illegal immigrants physically residing in heavily-Democratic urban areas and in blue states. So if you're federal immigration enforcement and you want to mass-arrest illegal immigrants, blue states and districts are where you're gonna be inclined to conduct raids anyway.
In any case, visibly arresting illegal immigrants is a core political demand of the MAGA base, and they eagerly want to see more raids like this one. The fact that prominent figures from Democratic-party aligned institutions like prestige news media and academia (which certainly describes Paul Krugman) strenuously object to these raids and think they are deplorable is not a critique any member of the MAGA base will take seriously. There's not gonna be blowback from the MAGA base over the government doing precisely the thing that the base wants and that their political enemies hate.
In any case, visibly arresting illegal immigrants is a core political demand of the MAGA base, and they eagerly want to see more raids like this one. The fact that prominent figures from Democratic-party aligned institutions like prestige news media and academia (which certainly describes Paul Krugman) strenuously object to these raids and think they are deplorable is not a critique any member of the MAGA base will take seriously. There's not gonna be blowback from the MAGA base over the government doing precisely the thing that the base wants and that their political enemies hate.
> strenuously object to these raids and think they are deplorable is not a critique any member of the MAGA base will take seriously. There's not gonna be blowback from the MAGA base over the government doing precisely the thing that the base wants and that their political enemies hate.
Every day MTG’s “national divorce” sounds like the only real solution. These people live in entirely different realities and despise each other. Insane to believe you can manage a functional country that way.
Too bad it’s a political and logistical pipe dream.
Every day MTG’s “national divorce” sounds like the only real solution. These people live in entirely different realities and despise each other. Insane to believe you can manage a functional country that way.
Too bad it’s a political and logistical pipe dream.
Even if there was somehow a way to do a "national divorce" without a bloody civil war (no chance), who gets to keep the kids? (nukes)
I worry that as bad as things are, at least the blue state resistance (pathetic as it is) provides SOME restraint on the red states/MAGA's worst instincts.
Even if there was a way to divide the country evenly without dealing with the urban/rural divide, I have to imagine the first thing the new separate Red America do is start invading it's neighbours, if not outright nuking parts of the world.
There is no way that a breakup of the most powerful empire in the history of the world, with military bases around the entire planet, can happen without severe consequences for the rest of us.
I worry that as bad as things are, at least the blue state resistance (pathetic as it is) provides SOME restraint on the red states/MAGA's worst instincts.
Even if there was a way to divide the country evenly without dealing with the urban/rural divide, I have to imagine the first thing the new separate Red America do is start invading it's neighbours, if not outright nuking parts of the world.
There is no way that a breakup of the most powerful empire in the history of the world, with military bases around the entire planet, can happen without severe consequences for the rest of us.
> Are they limiting their raids to be within 'blue' states / districts to minimise the collateral damage their reputation may receive from those sympathetic to this cause?
As of right now, it's pure agitation. They're pointing the guns into protest zones (not "blue states" really, though that's obviously where they concentrate) hoping things get out of control. At that stage, it becomes easier to paint political enemies as military ones. And you'll start seeing the use of state power against sitting legislators and judges, etc...
You can't dismantle democracy all at once. The military[1] won't follow those orders[2]. But if you create a culture where "antifa" or whoever is actually shooting stuff and blowing things up, the moral calculus becomes an easier sell. They aren't "doing a coup" by ejecting the governor of Washington State (or whatever), they're just defending America.
[1] At the end of the day, remember that authoritarianism is always executed by the military. The figurehead may come from somewhere else originally (like New York real estate development in this case), but when the regime is based on the use of force it is always run, ultimately, by the users of force.
[2] Because the military aren't MAGA, not yet. They're career officers who built careers in an existing bureaucracy and, all other things being equal, see value in that bureaucracy and don't want to tear it down.
As of right now, it's pure agitation. They're pointing the guns into protest zones (not "blue states" really, though that's obviously where they concentrate) hoping things get out of control. At that stage, it becomes easier to paint political enemies as military ones. And you'll start seeing the use of state power against sitting legislators and judges, etc...
You can't dismantle democracy all at once. The military[1] won't follow those orders[2]. But if you create a culture where "antifa" or whoever is actually shooting stuff and blowing things up, the moral calculus becomes an easier sell. They aren't "doing a coup" by ejecting the governor of Washington State (or whatever), they're just defending America.
[1] At the end of the day, remember that authoritarianism is always executed by the military. The figurehead may come from somewhere else originally (like New York real estate development in this case), but when the regime is based on the use of force it is always run, ultimately, by the users of force.
[2] Because the military aren't MAGA, not yet. They're career officers who built careers in an existing bureaucracy and, all other things being equal, see value in that bureaucracy and don't want to tear it down.
It’s also about scaring the liberals into compliance.
Let's not be naive -- scaring people into compliance is what they do to conservatives via Fox News.
With liberals, deploying the military to their cities is about instigating actual violence, so they can imprison and kill them.
With liberals, deploying the military to their cities is about instigating actual violence, so they can imprison and kill them.
Ah. They actually want a violent confrontation. That would explain some things.
> Ah. They actually want a violent confrontation. That would explain some things.
There's a movement all about making things go faster so the 'rebuilding' part can then happen sooner:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
There's a movement all about making things go faster so the 'rebuilding' part can then happen sooner:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
Yes, if you look back at Trump's reaction to J6, you can tell he reveled in the violence that day. Pausing and rewinding Fox News to watch the crowds while not picking up the phone or tweeting to quell it; when he did tweet it served to instigate bloodlust for Mike Pence; and when he was confronted by Kevin McCarthy, who begged Trump to call off the mob, Trump said "Well, Kevin, I guess they are just more upset about the election theft than you are".
So yeah, it's all about creating a violent confrontation to assuage a galactic, battered ego.
So yeah, it's all about creating a violent confrontation to assuage a galactic, battered ego.
Yes. Even Putin needed a pretext (in his case false flag operations) in the beginning of his reign. But any kind commotion, large enough, will do in a pinch. The dictator playbook is different in a newly minted dictatorship and a mature one. Rules become progressively less important the longer it goes on.
100% yes.
The article features a prominent screenshot of a post from Stephen Miller. I cannot find that post on his account https://x.com/stephenm. Is this a quirk of X being difficult to navigate?
Search "from:stephenm insurrection": https://x.com/StephenM/status/1974647432299327904
My impression of Trump is that he's a showman with crazy ideas, but ultimately not organised or determined enough to see them through. On his own, he might flail about and go round in circles a bit like his first term. Undeniably, he is good with the public.
The thing that really terrifies me is the people who attach themselves to him, thinking they can use his mandate to push their agendas through. Because there seems to be plenty of skill and determination, paired with objectives I find repulsive. I suspect it is those people who really push, or at least permit this process.
Why aren't senators stopping this? Why aren't judges? I suspect they all think they can use Trump to achieve their own means.
I suspect that in the end Trump will destroy anyone he thinks is getting in his way or using his name to get ahead, but the whole process will cause tons of chaos and pain the US and beyond.
The thing that really terrifies me is the people who attach themselves to him, thinking they can use his mandate to push their agendas through. Because there seems to be plenty of skill and determination, paired with objectives I find repulsive. I suspect it is those people who really push, or at least permit this process.
Why aren't senators stopping this? Why aren't judges? I suspect they all think they can use Trump to achieve their own means.
I suspect that in the end Trump will destroy anyone he thinks is getting in his way or using his name to get ahead, but the whole process will cause tons of chaos and pain the US and beyond.
A lot of senators and judges are trying to stop various aspects of the Trumpist poltical agenda. And in turn the Trump administration is working against those senators and judges, to the great approval of the MAGA base.
There are a lot of people who really want the objectives you find repulsive, and they want the elected officials they support to smash through the opposition of the elected officials (and judges) that you support. In a democracy, it will often happen that different elected officials supported by rival factions of citizens bitterly fight each other for control of what policies the state actually carries out.
There are a lot of people who really want the objectives you find repulsive, and they want the elected officials they support to smash through the opposition of the elected officials (and judges) that you support. In a democracy, it will often happen that different elected officials supported by rival factions of citizens bitterly fight each other for control of what policies the state actually carries out.
What I found so remarkable was Trump's address to the generals.
I am a little queasy of throwing the fascism word around willy nilly, but the story of "internal enemies" could not have been more formulaic.
I am a little queasy of throwing the fascism word around willy nilly, but the story of "internal enemies" could not have been more formulaic.
This was after Trump's secretary of war said the following on the same stage:
“We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy,” Hegseth said. “We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement.”
It's not exactly subtle. The message is "we're going to commit war crimes more" and "we plan to use the military against people inside the US".
“We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy,” Hegseth said. “We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement.”
It's not exactly subtle. The message is "we're going to commit war crimes more" and "we plan to use the military against people inside the US".
[deleted]
> stupid rules of engagement
This should be repeated far and wide in the media for, as you have specified, what it really means.
I mean, Secretary Pete Hegseth, in his prior role as a Fox News mouthpiece, he defended the actions of a convicted war criminal[0][1], so he has form in displaying a total lack of ethics.
[0]: https://time.com/7176342/pete-hegseth-donald-trump-pardon-wa...
[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/turning-a-blind-eye...
This should be repeated far and wide in the media for, as you have specified, what it really means.
I mean, Secretary Pete Hegseth, in his prior role as a Fox News mouthpiece, he defended the actions of a convicted war criminal[0][1], so he has form in displaying a total lack of ethics.
[0]: https://time.com/7176342/pete-hegseth-donald-trump-pardon-wa...
[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/turning-a-blind-eye...
All very vague
We all have an understanding of the power of the US military and its foreign agencies
But it’s tough to square this quote with that - what is going to change ?
What does a nuclear superpower need to be untied ? Mass world surveillance, bombing foreign countries?
All of that has happened - what more is needed and why ?
We all have an understanding of the power of the US military and its foreign agencies
But it’s tough to square this quote with that - what is going to change ?
What does a nuclear superpower need to be untied ? Mass world surveillance, bombing foreign countries?
All of that has happened - what more is needed and why ?
> All of that has happened - what more is needed and why ?
Who they are threatening:
1) Latin American people and countries
2) Canada + Greenland
3) US Liberal cities.
The American war machine has come home to the Western hemisphere. This is a declaration of war against us.
As for the why... again listen to them. Trump said it: "I am your retribution". This is all about settling petty vindictive scores.
Who they are threatening:
1) Latin American people and countries
2) Canada + Greenland
3) US Liberal cities.
The American war machine has come home to the Western hemisphere. This is a declaration of war against us.
As for the why... again listen to them. Trump said it: "I am your retribution". This is all about settling petty vindictive scores.
The main difference is that the US doesn't flex it's imperialistic attitudes on its own citizenry. That's reserved for the global periphery, where we can conveniently ignore it.
[deleted]
In the past there was a sense that certain kinds of war crimes needed to at least be done secretly and sparingly by the US military.
Although this statement might be seen as a new era of honesty, I'm not looking forward to the next stage. If Hegseth thinks the US war machine is too restrained now, imagine what things won't even be surprising in a few years.
Although this statement might be seen as a new era of honesty, I'm not looking forward to the next stage. If Hegseth thinks the US war machine is too restrained now, imagine what things won't even be surprising in a few years.
That entire event was the loud, blaring claxon that the current administration has actually declared war on the US. It was straight-up treasonous.
Yes. The "swear an oath to the leader" comes a bit later in the game. At this pace though, who knows? It could be really soon. Something drastic must be done about the midterms, or Trump could be impeached, and that is not in the cards of these people.
I fear that, yes, Trump is on a path to do something drastic to prevent the midterms.
It will either be 1) war, 2) martial law, or 3) declaring an insurrection.
1 is dicey. It will require, first, a declared war, not just Trump saying so, and second, the courts agreeing (against all precedent) that we can't hold elections in wartime. This isn't Ukraine; our constitution doesn't have a provision for elections not happening during war. So, while Trump has sounded like he likes the idea, this one is unlikely to work.
2 or 3 seem more workable. At the moment at least some members of the administration seem to be leaning toward 3 (see, for example, Miller stating that a judge ruling against Trump sending troops to Portland was "a judicial insurrection").
Note that when I say "Trump is on the path to", that does not mean that he will inevitably do so. We will see whether he will restrain himself, or whether others around him can restrain him. And if they don't, then we will see whether the courts can.
And if they can't, then we'll see if there's ever a point where the military will decide that his orders are illegal, and their oath is to the constitution.
It will either be 1) war, 2) martial law, or 3) declaring an insurrection.
1 is dicey. It will require, first, a declared war, not just Trump saying so, and second, the courts agreeing (against all precedent) that we can't hold elections in wartime. This isn't Ukraine; our constitution doesn't have a provision for elections not happening during war. So, while Trump has sounded like he likes the idea, this one is unlikely to work.
2 or 3 seem more workable. At the moment at least some members of the administration seem to be leaning toward 3 (see, for example, Miller stating that a judge ruling against Trump sending troops to Portland was "a judicial insurrection").
Note that when I say "Trump is on the path to", that does not mean that he will inevitably do so. We will see whether he will restrain himself, or whether others around him can restrain him. And if they don't, then we will see whether the courts can.
And if they can't, then we'll see if there's ever a point where the military will decide that his orders are illegal, and their oath is to the constitution.
Kinda thankful that you didn't continue the if-then after the military. Many possible outcomes after that are really depressing. Almost all options involve China laughing all the way to hegemony.
>Kinda thankful that you didn't continue the if-then after the military.
There's so many possibilities of what happens if elections are halted that you no one can truly predict anything. It never happened for nationals and it very very rarely happens in state elections. Having a hostile takeover of the ballot box will truly throw things into chaos. In what way and against who, it's hard to tell.
And yes. Of all things I think having a civil war as Russia is teetering on attacking Europe and China is at the peak of its power is a great way to reverse 80 years of progress. Or of course, erase eons of civilization all at once.
There's so many possibilities of what happens if elections are halted that you no one can truly predict anything. It never happened for nationals and it very very rarely happens in state elections. Having a hostile takeover of the ballot box will truly throw things into chaos. In what way and against who, it's hard to tell.
And yes. Of all things I think having a civil war as Russia is teetering on attacking Europe and China is at the peak of its power is a great way to reverse 80 years of progress. Or of course, erase eons of civilization all at once.
There are so many options besides halting elections outright
You could -
close Congress
ignore Congress
declare a sufficient number of Democrats "antifa" and arrest/disappear
require a special passport for traveling to DC (magically, some democrats are denied)
Whatever happens, the midterms is a ticking clok.
You could -
close Congress
ignore Congress
declare a sufficient number of Democrats "antifa" and arrest/disappear
require a special passport for traveling to DC (magically, some democrats are denied)
Whatever happens, the midterms is a ticking clok.
"Ignore Congress" isn't an option. Congress can impeach.
"How did you run that red light? It is illegal!"
Enforcement is key. Who would enforce congressional impeachment? The hope is the military. The same military that is being sent out to "democrat strongholds" already.
Enforcement is key. Who would enforce congressional impeachment? The hope is the military. The same military that is being sent out to "democrat strongholds" already.
Would the military still obey him if he were impeached? I really doubt it.
Would the Secret Service?
Would the federal bureaucracy?
Even the Supreme Court says he has immunity for what he does while in office. If he's impeached, he's no longer in office.
So yeah, if he's impeached, it's over.
Would the Secret Service?
Would the federal bureaucracy?
Even the Supreme Court says he has immunity for what he does while in office. If he's impeached, he's no longer in office.
So yeah, if he's impeached, it's over.
Exactly how did that impeachment turn out the first two times, and why do you expect a third impeachment to have a different effect?
> We will see whether he will restrain himself
There's a 0% chance that this will happen. Self-restraint has never been in his nature. That said, Trump isn't the real danger. He's the Useful Idiot for the ones who are.
There's a 0% chance that this will happen. Self-restraint has never been in his nature. That said, Trump isn't the real danger. He's the Useful Idiot for the ones who are.
[deleted]
TTF (Time To Flag) 15 - 20 minutes on the front page?
bko(7)
I visited Portland a month ago. There are security guards at each pharmacy and supermarket. I got screamed at by a violent/homeless person because I walked on her block. Some streets - and we are talking downtown/center - I was just afraid or disgusted to walk on.
So, yes, Portland is a dump that needs to get cleaned up.
I was in Portland less than a month ago and had no problems. Sure, there was one time I crossed the street to avoid someone who was clearly homeless and mentally ill, but I never found myself feeling unsafe.
Unfortunately homelessness is something that can't be solved by one city or even one state. Feeding, housing, and getting them treatment is expensive and not something even the wealthier cities have the budget to do on their own. And the first major city that tries will have to deal with other places dropping more homeless people on their doorstep - that's one thing that both red and blue cities have been guilty of as you can read about at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
Unfortunately homelessness is something that can't be solved by one city or even one state. Feeding, housing, and getting them treatment is expensive and not something even the wealthier cities have the budget to do on their own. And the first major city that tries will have to deal with other places dropping more homeless people on their doorstep - that's one thing that both red and blue cities have been guilty of as you can read about at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
> there was one time I crossed the street to avoid someone who was clearly homeless and mentally ill, but I never found myself feeling unsafe.
Seems a contradiction.
Seems a contradiction.
In my experience, the largest predictor for how often you run into homeless people isn't city size, how much money the local police have, or how the residents vote, but how walkable the area is. Homeless people go where traffic is, foot traffic especially, because panhandling needs an audience.
There is a big difference between feeling uncomfortable and being in a genuinely unsafe situation, and the less you are used to seeing the homeless, the more out of touch with reality your gut feelings are.
There is a big difference between feeling uncomfortable and being in a genuinely unsafe situation, and the less you are used to seeing the homeless, the more out of touch with reality your gut feelings are.
There's homeless and mentally ill people in all major cities. Or, at least, the ones that matter.
They're usually harmless, just troubled. You're not in much danger walking down the street; you're actually in much more danger driving down it.
They're usually harmless, just troubled. You're not in much danger walking down the street; you're actually in much more danger driving down it.
You... want to bring in the US military to clean up some bums and garbage?
How much time do you spend in cities, generally?
Let's seriously ask ourselves here: even if we sit down and let ICE detain, say, 10k people (mind you, that's about 1.5% the population of Oregon, or 1 in 60 people): do you really think they are going to bother with the violent homeless person you complain about?
They aren't hitting gangs or any actually dangerous people, they are looking for weak targets. They aren't trying to clean up the streets, they are geting their rocks off playing GTA IRL.
They aren't hitting gangs or any actually dangerous people, they are looking for weak targets. They aren't trying to clean up the streets, they are geting their rocks off playing GTA IRL.
The problematic part is usually the solution, not the assessment part of these regimes, politicians, ideologies. Are there issues in Portland? Certainly. Will Trump's actions lessen them actually? Highly doubtful.
Doubly doubtful for the following reason: these people need the problems to exist, so that they can write their narrative around them, and offer their "solutions" for them. Same as how cults target vulnerable people.
Doubly doubtful for the following reason: these people need the problems to exist, so that they can write their narrative around them, and offer their "solutions" for them. Same as how cults target vulnerable people.
> I was just afraid or disgusted to walk on.
Sounds like a job for the Texas National Guard
Sounds like a job for the Texas National Guard
Who asked?
So you experienced one person being mean to you. Time to send in the troops to just crack heads? Really?
[deleted]
I visited Fargo a couple years ago where a drunk homeless guy got way too close to my wife and dogs while asking us for money. He made my wife feel unsafe and my dogs nearly bit him, so it's clear we should deploy the national guard to Fargo.
/s
/s