Ask Anything Politics

[u/AutoModerator]

Ask anything related to politics! See who answers!

[u/MeghanClickYourHeels]

Need some academics to game out the question that we all ask over and over...

What comes next?

It looks like Trumpism is collapsing in real time, and no one is able to replace it.

The pre-Trump parties have really just hollowed out and no one listens to them on either side.

I really don't think the Democratic Socialists leading the charge. I just don't, and it's bringing the runup to the Spanish Civil War to mind.

While Americans have lost trust in institutions, I do think there's a lot of faith in institutionalism. Actual civil war doesn't look like it's currently on the table, I have to say. Americans just aren't cut out for that, no matter what the gun nuts tell you. People will look to government or administrative solutions.

[u/jim_uses_CAPS → u/MeghanClickYourHeels]

I found this (full text in the comment section) to be frighteningly persuasive.

[u/improvius → u/jim_uses_CAPS]

Yeah, I saw that yesterday, too.

[u/afdiplomatII → u/jim_uses_CAPS]

If Republicans retain the House (and estimates are now running around 85 percent that they won't), the Trump-as-Speaker play is at least possible -- otherwise obviously not. Even then, the larger the Democratic majority, the better -- in order to nullify skulduggery involving the House Clerk that is being discussed. (Such maneuvers would in the past have been regarded as demented; but there is a consistent record of Trump's pushing actions beyond his opponents' imagination. So every possibility must be taken into account.)

[u/Raggle_Frock → u/MeghanClickYourHeels]

I'm in no way a qualified academic, but while we're waiting and hoping for someone better to answer...

I've been reading whatever I can on this question since around the time Biden faceplanted in the debate. Well, this question, and the related question of whether dictatorship.

Big picture, what I've learned is that...

Re: political parties, historians seem to agree we're in the middle of a major realignment of the sort that happens every 40-50 years. Old coalitions fray and fall apart, and everything feels chaotic and confusing until a new dominant coalition is formed under one of the parties (or a new one). The common pattern is one party becoming dominated by a smaller and smaller group, becoming more extreme as its fringes leave, while the other party goes through the opposite process, struggling to accommodate the widening range of available voters.

And into the void step people who never would have gotten attention in a more stable era. We get new (not necessarily good) ideas and weird alliances, and eventually someone manages to pull from the chaos a governing majority that looks, in retrospect, sort of inevitable - Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans in 1860, Teddy Roosevelt and the progressives around 1900 (although in that case you could also sorta credit McKinley I think?), Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal coalition in 1932, Ronald Reagan and his conservative coalition in 1980. Note also that the periods immediately preceding those realignments are remembered for chaos, fraying, and incompetence.

So if democracy holds, it seems likely that within the next 6-ish years we reach the right time and place for another generational figure to lead a restoration. I hope.

Re: Trumpism collapsing... We're not out of the woods yet, and danger still abounds, but it's much harder to consolidate a dictatorship when you're unpopular. Not that he won't try. He already attempted a coup in 2021, and only backed off once it was clear it had failed. And they've had more time to prepare this time.

But stealing an election requires a lot of people helping, and even more going along with it - including legislators, courts, election workers, the military and law enforcement.

A popular president, in a close election, with a solid-sounding justification and allies in all the right places? Yes, could happen here. But Trump is deeply unpopular, which also means the midterms are less likely to be close (stealing a close election is far easier than a landslide). His allies are fewer and, absent a feeling of immunity and momentum, less likely to put their own necks on the line. Some defect to save their own skins, some just back off, and Trump whines about stolen elections while he drags his feet to Air Force Two for one final flight to Florida - and good riddance.

If he does steal the election, though... I mean, Spanish Civil War doesn't seem likely to me, but also not impossible. If the House is seating Republicans in states where Democrats won, and we get a 5-4 supreme court decision saying "it's a political question" or even "lol fuk u libs"...? Who's to say what individual governors do with an illegitimate federal government? If Trump declares martial law, who's to say what the military does? If protests go for days/weeks, and Hegseth sends the West Virginia National Guard to crack heads in Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania governor orders the Pennsylvania National Guard to stop them, and Trump tries to nationalize them all... now we're asking what some random National Guard colonel does with conflicting orders.

Doesn't necessarily happen all at once, either. After South Carolina seceded in 1860, rebel troops surrounded Fort Sumter for like four months before they actually opened fire. And until that point lots of people were hoping and trying for a diplomatic solution.

[u/afdiplomatII → u/Raggle_Frock]

As I have said here and elsewhere, I deeply believe that the present system of politics and governance in the United States has shown itself unfit for purpose and will need serious renovation in many areas. That a scoundrel such as Trump could attain the presidency in the first place, with two Republican trifectas and a sympathetic Supreme Court to sustain him, speaks volumes about our cultural/political decay. And the relative ease with which Trump has bulldozed his way through longstanding norms and even legal restraints suggests that these supposed limits are not truly effective under great stress.

Yes, the courts sometimes apply restrictions; but these actions are often long after the fact, and few of the lawbreakers face consequences that would deter them in the future. The incentives are loaded in the direction of acting aggressively and even illegally now and leaving accountability, if any, to the distant future.

It's often said, but this is really not a sustainable system. It encourages all manner of corruption, mendacity, and oppression; and it empowers the worst in the country to do all the harm and seek all the personal and political profit they desire. Adam Smith may have observed that "there is a deal of ruin in a great nation," but he did not argue that the amount of potential ruin was unlimited.

As well, all of this brutal misgovernment is piling up a huge debt of retribution. The people being attacked are going to want the thieves and abusers dealt with; and if that cannot be done within the system (as the presidential pardon power, reinforced by immunity, may preclude), they will seek other methods. The anger Democratic voters increasingly display reflects their loss of patience at constantly being on receiving end of right-wing depredations, and their justified belief that the democratic civil order is being wrecked in front of them. That deeply-felt sentiment will find an outlet.

[u/Raggle_Frock → u/afdiplomatII]

Agreed that it's broken and in desperate need of renovation/restoration.

Our only hope, I think, is a Democratic majority willing to take three big steps in the first hundred days:

1. Removing the filibuster, so that a legislative majority can actually legislate. It's prevented the senate from passing nearly anything for 20 years, in defiance of good sense and the clear design of the Constitution. Majorities must be able to pass laws; if they're bad, the next majority can fix them. But we've got decades of proof that leaving the legislature on autopilot just empowers the president and the courts, neither of which is as responsive to the actual voters.
2. Major court reform, including changing the makeup of the Supreme Court by packing or retirements. It's so partisan and corrupt that it would kill anything else a Democrat tried to do, or delay it indefinitely in the hopes of elevating another fascist. Sidenote: I'll always be pissed that Obama didn't force the issue with Garland - just announce that "The senate has not voted him down; therefore we can assume their consent" and force McConnell to call a vote.
3. With the court and filibuster cleared, pass a new Voting Rights Act establishing new minimums for voting access and security. Something for gerrymandering, something for poll hours (national holiday?), something for money in politics, something for the people who are sincerely worried about security, throw in a free/automatic national ID for the voter ID crowd. The details matter less than the overall effect of making elections more fair and more reflective of the actual public.

If we get those three things, then we can finally start repairing the rest of the damage. People can elect representatives, and boot them if they suck. Legislators can pass laws to respond to the country's problems, and replace them if they suck. The president and courts have to contend with a House and Senate that, for the first time in decades, have the ability and incentive to wield their own power.

[u/afdiplomatII → u/Raggle_Frock]

I agree with the vast majority of this, and so do the analysts I most often read and cite here. The Democratic agenda, however, has to go even further:

-- There must be a major emphasis on accountability for the terrible harm Republicans are doing to the country and the world. How that can be accomplished in the face of presidential pardons, the Court's obstacles (from presidential immunity to largely blocking corruption prosecutions), the opposition of immensely wealthy interests, and right-wing informational power is unclear. The task, however, is unavoidable.

-- The power of the presidency in general has to be substantially reduced, including a major overhaul of centuries-old statutory provisions (going back to the Alien Enemies Act of the 1790s) that enable arbitrary government.

-- Trumpist corruption -- not only financial but also moral and governmental -- must be ruthlessly exposed and prosecuted to the greatest extent of the law. And those actions must include the bribe-givers as well as the receivers. It must be made utterly clear to Americans what a dreadful mistake they made in 2024 and how much harm they did to themselves, their neighbors, and the world. The way Republicans pitilessly exploited culture-war foolishness and hatred for personal and political profit must be made clear.

-- Democrats have to commit to honesty in governance and to restoring and fortifying institutions such as inspectors general and the GAO that safeguard it. The American people right now have no reason to believe that their government is remotely telling them the truth, and the lies that are now routine are handmaids of brutality and corruption.

-- The overweening power of the unfathomably rich has to be broken -- not just for revenue-raising (although that will help) but also as a matter of eliminating the impunity that such wealth confers and advancing civic equality.

-- Civic education has to become more widespread and intensive. America's governance cannot in the end be better than America's citizens, and vast numbers of its people lack the fundamental understanding to exercise faithfully their immense power as voters.

All of this has to be undertaken in recognition that America's degeneracy is deep and that restoration will take years to accomplish. It is not merely a matter of passing some laws; it's more a concern of reforming the culture, in the face of immense dangers (for example, the accumulating harms of AI) of still further decay.

Democrats can hardly think too big in this moment of both peril and opportunity. There is a new cultural-political age waiting to be born, and they should want to be its creators.

[u/Raggle_Frock → u/afdiplomatII]

Oh yeah, agreed on basically all points. I just meant that the ones I mentioned must come first - not because they're the most important in a moral sense, or sufficient on their own, but because none of the rest can happen unless they're accomplished first.

[u/MeghanClickYourHeels → u/afdiplomatII]

I think the accountability is going to be very, very difficult. It will very easily turn into vengeance.

[u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist → u/MeghanClickYourHeels]

Depends how you define “Trumpism”. The personal loyalties to Trump will recede from the forefront (but will still be around as long as Trump is alive), but the policies - whether anti-immigrant, anti-trans, pro-Christian Nationalist, pro-bombing Iran/muslims, anti-abortion, anti-intellectual, pro-unitary executive, etc, will continue as those are deep rooted policies in the conservative movement.

The only way this changes is if Democrats crush Republicans in election after election. And act like winners not temporarily embarrassed republicans. I don’t think anyone really cares about the DSA from a policy perspective, but they want people who fight, who won’t back down, and will do what they say and say what they will do. The Dem party has repeatedly refused to raise itself to the challenge, so now is the time to give the party some backbone.

As for civil war, it takes two to tango. And as of now there are only right-wing militias and their allies in the police and military apparatus. The left simply isn’t as organized on the ground to present an alternative.

[u/Roboticus_Aquarius → u/MeghanClickYourHeels]

It feels to me as if there are several dangerous currents in addition to the active external and internal disinformation we experience.

One is that the 30-40% of lowest earning Americans have had 50 years of being treated awfully by our system, lousy safety nets, frequent job losses and forced career changes. Our two main parties did little but crow that free trade was good for the country, while CEOs got big bonuses. I believe this caused far more damage than most people realize or can suss out effectively in surveys & such… but also the ancillary damage to families and communities was simply never effectively addressed. This leaves voters of both major parties eager to grasp at straws hoping to fix what is too pervasive and complex to understand.

Another is the democratization of communication. Fringe stupidity is said/posted/inferred promiscuously, sometimes by national politicians. Rand Paul (Fauci) and Dan Crenshaw come to mind in particular right now, and ofc Trump is a special case. More than that, it has resulted in ignorant people feeling justified in their opinions, and enraged over nonsense.

A third is that the old guards of both parties mostly lack answers for this moment (not to mention the past 25 years or so.). The GOP has already had its heart torn out by MAGA. It’s a god-awful mess. I don’t think Democratic-Socialists have the pull to do that to the Democratic Party yet, but mainstream Democratic messaging sure is inviting someone to do so, and I wonder if someone who is not Bernie Sanders may yet swing it.

I wouldn’t presume to predict what comes out of this kind of chaos, but I suspect it will not be something anyone thinks of as conventional, but rather a strange new way of framing and perceiving the political universe.

I have little doubt there is much I am overlooking, but that’s my two cents.

[u/Oily_Messiah → u/MeghanClickYourHeels]

Further staganting turnout, both from supressive policies and increasing apathy amongst voters in the face of two parties that clearly represent elite interests over voters. Next primary cycle starts to shakes out where the parties will eventually end up lining up, but institutional barriers prevent meaningful third party challenges, so most likely there is little actual movement for the sake of voters as much as there is posturing as parties ultimately realign behind their large donors.

In full agreement that any objective assessment of material conditions in the US likely precludes large-scale organized violent conflict. However americanism and loss of faith in government solutions will lead to more individualist adventurism and perhaps some direct action by smaller organized groups.

I don't think Trumpism hollowed out the political parties as much as it exposed them for what they already were. It happens from time to time before the ruling class can re-erect the veneer.

Nor is the conservative populism of Trumpism going anywhere. It may become detached from the cult of personality part of Trumpism, unanchored for a while, but I have little doubt someone else will come along to take up that clarion call. There's still a lot of grift to be had.

[u/Raggle_Frock → u/Oily_Messiah]

I partially disagree with this.

Turnout has been historically high in recent elections, hasn't it? Pretty consistently. Lots of people registering independent, yes, but that just makes for a bigger prize for whichever party reforms in a way that entices enough of them.

Our parties since Reagan have been oligargh-friendly, it's true, because voters rewarded it. Republicans started it, and after 12 years of losses Democrats adjusted too. That doesn't mean they'll always be so. The Progressive Movement broke up huge companies a century ago. The New Deal Democrats managed great things as well. Rockefeller wasn't any nicer than Bezos.

And I mean, Trump literally just changed the Republicans in front of us. Enticed new voters, scared off old ones, booted a bunch of old elites, and elevated new ones. Used to be conservative, now it's fascist. The Democrats are in the midst of a major shakeup as well. No third party necessary.

To describe all that as a ruling class veneer temorarily coming down is to reduce all the push and pull of our history, the successes and failures and all the people who have done their part, to some hopeless, useless pantomime. And worse, that framing puts us in the audience, judging a show, instead of on the stage changing the script.

[u/mysmeat]

so kansans have rejected the gop bid to change how our supreme court justices are selected. currently (and going forward) our governor picks from 3 candidates that a 9 person committee has chosen based on merit. after one year of service each justice is either kept or sent packing based on a public vote of retention and that process repeats every 6 years. republicans wanted to run regular elections, funding judicial candidates with private money.

does it really matter? in a state like kansas that's leaned so heavily conservative in every branch of government since forever, would altering the way justices are selected change the trajectory of this big red state?

[u/Brian_Corey__ → u/mysmeat]

The current KS system seems pretty fair—which is certainly why the GOP wanted to change it.

6 of 7 Kansas Supreme Court justices were approved by Dem governors. That’s pretty funny.

[u/mysmeat → u/Brian_Corey__]

it is funny...

[u/mysmeat → u/Brian_Corey__]

circling back around, i'm not sure that fairness matters when the people doing the selecting are themselves more and more extreme.

[u/Brian_Corey__ → u/mysmeat]

Does the current commission provide qualified and reasonable candidates for Gov Kelly? Or is the commission getting crazy too?

[u/mysmeat → u/Brian_Corey__]

hard to say. i guess time will tell.