CDZ America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

[DustyInfinity]

First of all, sorry that this is late. Was called away this morning ...

I think we ought NOT to think that the core of Trumpism is “authoritarianism” so much as it is rightwing nationalist populism. The Atlantic article is a bit misleading in this sense, but it is clearly talking about “nationalist authoritarian populists” who all over the world are being elected:

“Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world: Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, my home country. These people win elections but subvert democratic norms ... Orbán proudly uses the phrase illiberal democracy [my emphasis] to describe the populism practiced by these men; Trump has many similarities to them, both rhetorically and policy-wise.”

This article says that Trump FAILED to become a successful populist authoritarian like those above because of his incompetence in governing, because he demonized, frightened and infuriated unnecessarily too many otherwise potential supporters. It speaks mostly of voters in the recent election.

Behind the election game and two-party “democracy” there have always been other factors at play. Everyone knows Trump ran against and was hated by mainstream liberal media (whom he “played” to perfection). A key point not often discussed, however, is that over three years — despite throwing valuable economic benefits their way — Trump personally alienated key players on Wall Street and powerful private capitalist networks (e.g. the Koch brothers) which otherwise agreed with his policies and were willing to give him a chance to “grow into the presidency.” There were others at the high summits of the “Security State” who became convinced he was simply unstable, incompetent and irresponsible — a “moron” at actually running the complex world empire our system depends upon. A rightwing “patriotic” demagogue more competent at uniting the nation and governing it would have been able to win much greater support from the MIC and “Security State,” just as Trump won support from most cops. Few people, liberal or conservative, really appreciate this fact.

I’m not interested in arguing here with martybegan for flacaltenn or others who are convinced everything wrong in America is the fault of Democrats, or that their being asked to wear masks or flush toilets or give up their 60 watt incandescent bulbs is an intolerable sacrifice imposed by authoritarian communists. I am no defender of Biden either, though I confess I resentfully voted for him. I am just arguing that Republicans, with their crackpot minority intact, with Trump’s self-same “nationalist” policies, will probably sweep back into power sooner rather than later.

I agree with Republicans that “left” populist authoritarianism is often obnoxious. Under certain conditions and in other countries it can be a serious problem. But as a social movement, as an electoral bloc, it has and can have very little traction in this country. What remains of the U.S. “working class” mostly supported Trump, or is atomized, its unions broken. Many “progressive” liberal millennials will grow out of their Harry Potter dream worlds, like most hippies did. I believe real conditions in the U.S. will continue to deteriorate for those without a stock portfolio regardless of which party is in power, and this will help demagogic Republicans sweep back into power. Democrats (if they should win the Senate in 2022) may slightly cushion the economic blow, but I think this unlikely, and very unlikely to last. Clearly the Democratic version of gender, race and other identity politics cannot “trump” demagogic “Americanism” domestically. Even the conman Trump ALMOST won re-election, and probably would have, had Covid not arrived. Invoking the Flag, Guns, the Bible, and The Wall, attacking “socialist” Democrats — this remains the likely way forward for Republicans.

The last serious and lasting “progressive” or “left” re-formulation of national American politics (not counting the Civil Rights Movement which was initially bi-partisan) was the New Deal. The likelihood that another liberal capitalist like FDR can arise and lead another transformational reform movement addressing “bread and butter” and structural economic issues ... is very small. The necessary domestic conditions simply do not exist. The likelihood that such a movement could be led by a real authoritarian leftist ... is far, far smaller.

Early on, even before the COVID pandemic hit the U.S. and while Trump was still playing footsie with XiJinping, I predicted Trump would use the “China issue” to beat up on Democrats. This issue is not going away. Nor can corporate “globalism” be replaced by national autarchy. Trade with India and South America, competition from Japan, Korea, and old Europe, these all have already tended to devastate wages for working people in the U.S.A. The rise of the Amazon / Walmart / high tech economy will continue to bifurcate wealth. Democrats may also play tough with China, but the Wall Street & Federal Reserve American Empire, like U.S. military dominance all over the world, is riddled with (not always obvious) weaknesses. Protectionism, U.S. sanctions against competitors (easily redefined as “enemies”) and refusal to abandon our existing world supremacy, will almost certainly lead the U.S. into conflicts with China and other powers, and all the old nationalist madness will return. It will smooth the way for an elected, popular, rightwing authoritarian to take power.

So this is all about globalism? If you love your country and autonomy, it is part of the old madness? Don't you think it is pessimistic to think countries can't be independent without killing each other? I don't think it makes sense to give up our autonomy because aggressive bad actors such as China may be displeased.

I am an American and also an internationalist. Just as Thomas Paine was an Englishman who became an American patriot and along with Lafayette played a fine and honorable role in the French Revolution, I find no problem with “patriotism” so long as it is not just a front for backwardness and reaction.

We live in a very specific age of corporate globalism, which the “American Century” shaped into a financial empire dominated by Wall Street and policed in the Cold War interests of the West. After being on the winning side of two inter-imperialist world wars, controlling Middle East energy resources, and helping destroy the Soviet Union after it exited from its long Stalinist past, an arrogant assumption in D.C. grew that Washington could forever exercise “full spectrum dominance” over the world. This arrogance — added to other well known long unresolved historical problems — have led U.S. society to crisis.

So yes. The growing instability of the post-WWII liberal global capitalist order is what is leading to the rise of nationalist populists here as elsewhere. “Aggressive bad actors such as China” could be perfect Constitutional Democracies, but if they undercut our nation’s world economic dominance “the powers that be” in the U.S. would still treat them as “enemies” and project unto them the aggressive acts we ourselves have often been guilty of. Of course that China is non-Western and not at all a “liberal bourgeois democracy” makes resolving differences and maintaining “detente” much more difficult. It is not a question of national pride, “autonomy,” or national “independence” per se.

Also, parenthetically, our present problems are not caused by any formal “constitutional” issues, as Donald H seems to fear. Great empires have risen and fallen without constitutions, with unwritten constitutions, and dictatorships have overcome nations with very well written constitutions, in the past.

Our biggest problem comes from our gradual loss of economic and political domination of the world, and our nation’s apparent inability to understand that this is natural and inevitable.

Could you explain what a nation's power has to do with nationalism, and why it makes nationalism a bad thing. I understand global markets are complicated, and that you are predicting a decline in American power, but how does that have anything to do with national identity and independence. Can't countries be unique, and take pride in their cultures while still being a part of a global community? I have yet to hear why nationalism is a bad thing, and whether a country is powerful or not does not seem to have a relevance on cultural independence. Do you look down on England for voting to be free. Was that evil, or harkening to the bad old days? I'm not denying that America's history has many dark chapters, but how is our decline going to improve the world, or cause the Chinese to alter their behavior. Surrender will not spare us from the hostile intent of other countries. You may be right, America may be on the decline, but why does that make Trump a bad leader for wanting fair dealings with other nations? Why is Trump wrong for being proud of our country and wanting the best for its citizens? Trump actually was a calming factor on the world stage. The Middle East is as quiet as it has ever been, and we have not engaged in any stupid nation building bullcrap. What exactly do you want Biden to do in foreign relations? China's aggression to Hong Kong and their military buildup tells me that we can't just play nice and they will leave us alone.

 

[flacaltenn]

The media that we knew is no longer "providing facts".. They are being consciously re-designed as "safe places" where only "non triggering" marshmallow fluff hot cocoa is served. It's obvious to MORE than 1/2 of America.

It is the half of America you refer to that is skidaddling away from the truth to bubbles where they don't have to hear uncomfortable facts, FCT. With Trumps ongoing efforts. Credible media verify facts independently before reporting them. If they make a mistake they retract it. If WaPo reports in six months that Joe Biden has taken million in bribes from China, I will believe them. You know why? Because they will present the facts behind that news and explain why it is credible.

Half the country has lost the ability to respect the truth.

I know I said I was leaving, but here I am.. How in this LIFE can you say that about the WaPo after them being TOTALLY WRONG 3 times a day on Russia Russia Russia stories for 4 years that had ONLY un-named sources? And PLEASE DO show me where they EVER EVER EVER acknowleged how INCREDIBLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG they were for all that time... Some of it was published KNOWING that they were supporting a false narrative from FBI/Intel sources..

Forget it.. Guess I don't care about your media selection or your lack of concern about the increasing FILTERED nature of what you consume as news...

 

[Natural Citizen]

[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.

Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.

Do you have any further ideas?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?

He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.

Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?

Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?

It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.

It's my understanding that is correct. but consider that the laws being enacted need to be Constitutional. Therefore, is there a law that could have been considered to bring charges against Trump. And would the Constitution be able to stand with and behind that law?

Apparently Trump could have shot a citizen dead on Main street and escaped any law to punish him for the crime of murder.

Is that an indication of a fatally flawed Constitution that isn't capable of demanding trial and punishment be carried out?

I'm no expert on constitutional matters in the US but I'm trying to make rational suggestions on dealing with the questions

Your comments? And then, do you have an opinion on how the Scotus will deal with the lawsuit by Texas, etc. parties?

No, I don't think it's a flaw that the Supreme Court only deals with Constitutional issues. There are many other courts to handle criminal matters and their appeals. Justice has every opportunity to be served.

I know nothing about Constitutional law, so I am basing my opinion on every expert I have heard, who all say that the Texas case is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

Section 2 of Article III dictates that the Supreme Court ''shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, 'with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"

Further, Section 1 of Article III dictates that Congress also maintains power over the lower courts. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''

Putting that aside, no place in Article III is the Supreme Court granted the luxury of having the last word on interpreting the Constitution. This is an authority which the Supreme Court assumed and granted itself, completely absent the authority to grant itself that power. See Marbury vs Madison, 1803. Judicial supremacy is factually and constitutionally incorrect. In fact, I'd challenge anyone to find it in Article III and share it with the group. Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court say something is or isn't constitutional doesn't make it as such. In fact, their record on such matters is dismal. The fact that so much of what government does is through mandate is reflective of the issue(s).

The Constitution is not flawed. In fact, it's crystal clear. The flaw lies in the virtue of those who were delegated with protecting it. It lies in the negligence and apathy of the many in the electorate and Congress and in the calculated attacks against it on the part of the few.

 

[Skylar]

[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.

Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.

Do you have any further ideas?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?

He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.

Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?

Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?

It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.

It's my understanding that is correct. but consider that the laws being enacted need to be Constitutional. Therefore, is there a law that could have been considered to bring charges against Trump. And would the Constitution be able to stand with and behind that law?

Apparently Trump could have shot a citizen dead on Main street and escaped any law to punish him for the crime of murder.

Is that an indication of a fatally flawed Constitution that isn't capable of demanding trial and punishment be carried out?

I'm no expert on constitutional matters in the US but I'm trying to make rational suggestions on dealing with the questions

Your comments? And then, do you have an opinion on how the Scotus will deal with the lawsuit by Texas, etc. parties?

No, I don't think it's a flaw that the Supreme Court only deals with Constitutional issues. There are many other courts to handle criminal matters and their appeals. Justice has every opportunity to be served.

I know nothing about Constitutional law, so I am basing my opinion on every expert I have heard, who all say that the Texas case is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

Section 2 of Article III dictates that the Supreme Court ''shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, 'with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"

Further, Section 1 of Article III dictates that Congress also maintains power over the lower courts. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''

Putting that aside, no place in Article III is the Supreme Court granted the luxury of having the last word on interpreting the Constitution. This is an authority which the Supreme Court assumed and granted itself, completely absent the authority to grant itself that power. See Marbury vs Madison, 1803. Judicial supremacy is factually and constitutionally incorrect. In fact, I'd challenge anyone to find it in Article III and share it with the group. Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court say something is or isn't constitutional doesn't make it as such. In fact, their record on such matters is dismal. The fact that so much of what government does is through mandate is reflective of the issue(s).

The Constitution is not flawed. In fact, it's crystal clear. The flaw lies in the virtue of those who were delegated with protecting it. It lies in the negligence and apathy of the many in the electorate and Congress and in the calculated attacks against it on the part of the few.

Nonsense. Federalist 78 makes it beyond clear that the judiciary was supposed to interpret the constitution when the Federalists were arguing for the Constitution.


"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."


Marbury did nothing more than record in formal SCOTUS precedent what was the intention of the framers from the very beginning: that the judiciary be the interpreters of the constitution.

 

[Mac1958]

This use of Authoritarian in this context simply means "policies you dont agree with"... AMIRITE?

No. It's meant literally.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.

Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.

Do you have any further ideas?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?

He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.

Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?

Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?

It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.

It's my understanding that is correct. but consider that the laws being enacted need to be Constitutional. Therefore, is there a law that could have been considered to bring charges against Trump. And would the Constitution be able to stand with and behind that law?

Apparently Trump could have shot a citizen dead on Main street and escaped any law to punish him for the crime of murder.

Is that an indication of a fatally flawed Constitution that isn't capable of demanding trial and punishment be carried out?

I'm no expert on constitutional matters in the US but I'm trying to make rational suggestions on dealing with the questions

Your comments? And then, do you have an opinion on how the Scotus will deal with the lawsuit by Texas, etc. parties?

No, I don't think it's a flaw that the Supreme Court only deals with Constitutional issues. There are many other courts to handle criminal matters and their appeals. Justice has every opportunity to be served.

I know nothing about Constitutional law, so I am basing my opinion on every expert I have heard, who all say that the Texas case is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

Section 2 of Article III dictates that the Supreme Court ''shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, 'with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"

Further, Section 1 of Article III dictates that Congress also maintains power over the lower courts. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''

Putting that aside, no place in Article III is the Supreme Court granted the luxury of having the last word on interpreting the Constitution. This is an authority which the Supreme Court assumed and granted itself, completely absent the authority to grant itself that power. See Marbury vs Madison, 1803. Judicial supremacy is factually and constitutionally incorrect. In fact, I'd challenge anyone to find it in Article III and share it with the group. Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court say something is or isn't constitutional doesn't make it as such. In fact, their record on such matters is dismal. The fact that so much of what government does is through mandate is reflective of the issue(s).

The Constitution is not flawed. In fact, it's crystal clear. The flaw lies in the virtue of those who were delegated with protecting it. It lies in the negligence and apathy of the many in the electorate and Congress and in the calculated attacks against it on the part of the few.

[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.

Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.

Do you have any further ideas?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?

He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.

Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?

Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?

It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.

It's my understanding that is correct. but consider that the laws being enacted need to be Constitutional. Therefore, is there a law that could have been considered to bring charges against Trump. And would the Constitution be able to stand with and behind that law?

Apparently Trump could have shot a citizen dead on Main street and escaped any law to punish him for the crime of murder.

Is that an indication of a fatally flawed Constitution that isn't capable of demanding trial and punishment be carried out?

I'm no expert on constitutional matters in the US but I'm trying to make rational suggestions on dealing with the questions

Your comments? And then, do you have an opinion on how the Scotus will deal with the lawsuit by Texas, etc. parties?

No, I don't think it's a flaw that the Supreme Court only deals with Constitutional issues. There are many other courts to handle criminal matters and their appeals. Justice has every opportunity to be served.

I know nothing about Constitutional law, so I am basing my opinion on every expert I have heard, who all say that the Texas case is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

Section 2 of Article III dictates that the Supreme Court ''shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, 'with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"

Further, Section 1 of Article III dictates that Congress also maintains power over the lower courts. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''

Putting that aside, no place in Article III is the Supreme Court granted the luxury of having the last word on interpreting the Constitution. This is an authority which the Supreme Court assumed and granted itself, completely absent the authority to grant itself that power. See Marbury vs Madison, 1803. Judicial supremacy is factually and constitutionally incorrect. In fact, I'd challenge anyone to find it in Article III and share it with the group. Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court say something is or isn't constitutional doesn't make it as such. In fact, their record on such matters is dismal. The fact that so much of what government does is through mandate is reflective of the issue(s).

The Constitution is not flawed. In fact, it's crystal clear. The flaw lies in the virtue of those who were delegated with protecting it. It lies in the negligence and apathy of the many in the electorate and Congress and in the calculated attacks against it on the part of the few.

Nonsense. Federalist 78 makes it beyond clear that the judiciary was supposed to interpret the constitution when the Federalists were arguing for the Constitution.


"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."


Marbury did nothing more than record in formal SCOTUS precedent what was the intention of the framers from the very beginning: that the judiciary be the interpreters of the constitution.

Your dicussion raises interesting questions of Constitutional interpretation and the Supreme Court’s historically evolved status. These would have central relevance if one party or another tried to “pack the court” or if Congress ever has a major confrontation with the Supreme or lower Federal Court system. But it is not really relevant to this thread.

There are many issues, not only of Constitutional interpretation, that can lead to a coup, or autogolpe, or to the rise of an elected authoritarian or to “bonapartism.” This is really not the place to go into all that.

 

[Natural Citizen]

[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.

Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.

Do you have any further ideas?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?

He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.

Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?

Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?

It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.

It's my understanding that is correct. but consider that the laws being enacted need to be Constitutional. Therefore, is there a law that could have been considered to bring charges against Trump. And would the Constitution be able to stand with and behind that law?

Apparently Trump could have shot a citizen dead on Main street and escaped any law to punish him for the crime of murder.

Is that an indication of a fatally flawed Constitution that isn't capable of demanding trial and punishment be carried out?

I'm no expert on constitutional matters in the US but I'm trying to make rational suggestions on dealing with the questions

Your comments? And then, do you have an opinion on how the Scotus will deal with the lawsuit by Texas, etc. parties?

No, I don't think it's a flaw that the Supreme Court only deals with Constitutional issues. There are many other courts to handle criminal matters and their appeals. Justice has every opportunity to be served.

I know nothing about Constitutional law, so I am basing my opinion on every expert I have heard, who all say that the Texas case is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

Section 2 of Article III dictates that the Supreme Court ''shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, 'with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"

Further, Section 1 of Article III dictates that Congress also maintains power over the lower courts. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''

Putting that aside, no place in Article III is the Supreme Court granted the luxury of having the last word on interpreting the Constitution. This is an authority which the Supreme Court assumed and granted itself, completely absent the authority to grant itself that power. See Marbury vs Madison, 1803. Judicial supremacy is factually and constitutionally incorrect. In fact, I'd challenge anyone to find it in Article III and share it with the group. Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court say something is or isn't constitutional doesn't make it as such. In fact, their record on such matters is dismal. The fact that so much of what government does is through mandate is reflective of the issue(s).

The Constitution is not flawed. In fact, it's crystal clear. The flaw lies in the virtue of those who were delegated with protecting it. It lies in the negligence and apathy of the many in the electorate and Congress and in the calculated attacks against it on the part of the few.

[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.

Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.

Do you have any further ideas?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?

He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.

Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?

Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?

It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.

It's my understanding that is correct. but consider that the laws being enacted need to be Constitutional. Therefore, is there a law that could have been considered to bring charges against Trump. And would the Constitution be able to stand with and behind that law?

Apparently Trump could have shot a citizen dead on Main street and escaped any law to punish him for the crime of murder.

Is that an indication of a fatally flawed Constitution that isn't capable of demanding trial and punishment be carried out?

I'm no expert on constitutional matters in the US but I'm trying to make rational suggestions on dealing with the questions

Your comments? And then, do you have an opinion on how the Scotus will deal with the lawsuit by Texas, etc. parties?

No, I don't think it's a flaw that the Supreme Court only deals with Constitutional issues. There are many other courts to handle criminal matters and their appeals. Justice has every opportunity to be served.

I know nothing about Constitutional law, so I am basing my opinion on every expert I have heard, who all say that the Texas case is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

Section 2 of Article III dictates that the Supreme Court ''shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, 'with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"

Further, Section 1 of Article III dictates that Congress also maintains power over the lower courts. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.''

Putting that aside, no place in Article III is the Supreme Court granted the luxury of having the last word on interpreting the Constitution. This is an authority which the Supreme Court assumed and granted itself, completely absent the authority to grant itself that power. See Marbury vs Madison, 1803. Judicial supremacy is factually and constitutionally incorrect. In fact, I'd challenge anyone to find it in Article III and share it with the group. Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court say something is or isn't constitutional doesn't make it as such. In fact, their record on such matters is dismal. The fact that so much of what government does is through mandate is reflective of the issue(s).

The Constitution is not flawed. In fact, it's crystal clear. The flaw lies in the virtue of those who were delegated with protecting it. It lies in the negligence and apathy of the many in the electorate and Congress and in the calculated attacks against it on the part of the few.

Nonsense. Federalist 78 makes it beyond clear that the judiciary was supposed to interpret the constitution when the Federalists were arguing for the Constitution.


"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."


Marbury did nothing more than record in formal SCOTUS precedent what was the intention of the framers from the very beginning: that the judiciary be the interpreters of the constitution.

Your dicussion raises interesting questions of Constitutional interpretation and the Supreme Court’s historically evolved status. These would have central relevance if one party or another tried to “pack the court” or if Congress ever has a major confrontation with the Supreme or lower Federal Court system. But it is not really relevant to this thread.

There are many issues, not only of Constitutional interpretation, that can lead to a coup, or autogolpe, or to the rise of an elected authoritarian or to “bonapartism.” This is really not the place to go into all that.

It does come up in this sort of discussion, however. I suppose it's the natural progression of dialogue.

While the Federalist is certainly lauded as the blueprint for the Constitution, and I tend to reference it regularly, I don't think that Skyler realizes that Hamilton was citing Montesquieu in #78. Subsequently, no mention of an unchecked judicial having the last word with regard to interpreting the Constitution by the Framers is therefore found in Article III. In fact, they're silent on the very concept aside from dictating that the Congress was delegated with the greatest power in the new system of checks and balances and the new system they were establishing of State Republics reserving the greater authority over the Federal Republic in what would become our Compound Republic. What they did place into Article III of the Constitution is actually specific to telling them they were the least powerful of the branches, in fact. So that's pretty much that. That's the convenience and luxury of blueprints. You can just scratch out and disregard dialogue that doesn't resonate with intent when you get to the final draft.

It's one of those situations where one can't just simply go Googling talking points. It's a deep discussion and requires thorough capacity.

But yeah. I suppose you're right with regard to relevance in your initial thought there in the OP. I've always been rather clear on my disapproval of Trump's policies. And I've spent a great deal of wasted time explaining precisely what he was actually doing. But at this point political action is required. Talking about it isn't helpful any more. I've read a few threads here and there lately, just whenever I pop in here, which isn't that often anymore, but it appears that the lists of perspective future candidates offered by my so-called conservative peers are loaded with the same old rabid Keynesian, warmongering neocons of years past. Rest assured, there will be other options operating from within that party, however. Oh yes indeedy. It just takes time. Much of which has already passed by rather fruitfully and well under the radar to be perfectly honest. And that's really the more desirable approach anyway. Brush fires...

 

[martybegan]

First of all, sorry that this is late. Was called away this morning ...

I think we ought NOT to think that the core of Trumpism is “authoritarianism” so much as it is rightwing nationalist populism. The Atlantic article is a bit misleading in this sense, but it is clearly talking about “nationalist authoritarian populists” who all over the world are being elected:

“Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world: Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, my home country. These people win elections but subvert democratic norms ... Orbán proudly uses the phrase illiberal democracy [my emphasis] to describe the populism practiced by these men; Trump has many similarities to them, both rhetorically and policy-wise.”

This article says that Trump FAILED to become a successful populist authoritarian like those above because of his incompetence in governing, because he demonized, frightened and infuriated unnecessarily too many otherwise potential supporters. It speaks mostly of voters in the recent election.

Behind the election game and two-party “democracy” there have always been other factors at play. Everyone knows Trump ran against and was hated by mainstream liberal media (whom he “played” to perfection). A key point not often discussed, however, is that over three years — despite throwing valuable economic benefits their way — Trump personally alienated key players on Wall Street and powerful private capitalist networks (e.g. the Koch brothers) which otherwise agreed with his policies and were willing to give him a chance to “grow into the presidency.” There were others at the high summits of the “Security State” who became convinced he was simply unstable, incompetent and irresponsible — a “moron” at actually running the complex world empire our system depends upon. A rightwing “patriotic” demagogue more competent at uniting the nation and governing it would have been able to win much greater support from the MIC and “Security State,” just as Trump won support from most cops. Few people, liberal or conservative, really appreciate this fact.

I’m not interested in arguing here with martybegan for flacaltenn or others who are convinced everything wrong in America is the fault of Democrats, or that their being asked to wear masks or flush toilets or give up their 60 watt incandescent bulbs is an intolerable sacrifice imposed by authoritarian communists. I am no defender of Biden either, though I confess I resentfully voted for him. I am just arguing that Republicans, with their crackpot minority intact, with Trump’s self-same “nationalist” policies, will probably sweep back into power sooner rather than later.

I agree with Republicans that “left” populist authoritarianism is often obnoxious. Under certain conditions and in other countries it can be a serious problem. But as a social movement, as an electoral bloc, it has and can have very little traction in this country. What remains of the U.S. “working class” mostly supported Trump, or is atomized, its unions broken. Many “progressive” liberal millennials will grow out of their Harry Potter dream worlds, like most hippies did. I believe real conditions in the U.S. will continue to deteriorate for those without a stock portfolio regardless of which party is in power, and this will help demagogic Republicans sweep back into power. Democrats (if they should win the Senate in 2022) may slightly cushion the economic blow, but I think this unlikely, and very unlikely to last. Clearly the Democratic version of gender, race and other identity politics cannot “trump” demagogic “Americanism” domestically. Even the conman Trump ALMOST won re-election, and probably would have, had Covid not arrived. Invoking the Flag, Guns, the Bible, and The Wall, attacking “socialist” Democrats — this remains the likely way forward for Republicans.

The last serious and lasting “progressive” or “left” re-formulation of national American politics (not counting the Civil Rights Movement which was initially bi-partisan) was the New Deal. The likelihood that another liberal capitalist like FDR can arise and lead another transformational reform movement addressing “bread and butter” and structural economic issues ... is very small. The necessary domestic conditions simply do not exist. The likelihood that such a movement could be led by a real authoritarian leftist ... is far, far smaller.

Early on, even before the COVID pandemic hit the U.S. and while Trump was still playing footsie with XiJinping, I predicted Trump would use the “China issue” to beat up on Democrats. This issue is not going away. Nor can corporate “globalism” be replaced by national autarchy. Trade with India and South America, competition from Japan, Korea, and old Europe, these all have already tended to devastate wages for working people in the U.S.A. The rise of the Amazon / Walmart / high tech economy will continue to bifurcate wealth. Democrats may also play tough with China, but the Wall Street & Federal Reserve American Empire, like U.S. military dominance all over the world, is riddled with (not always obvious) weaknesses. Protectionism, U.S. sanctions against competitors (easily redefined as “enemies”) and refusal to abandon our existing world supremacy, will almost certainly lead the U.S. into conflicts with China and other powers, and all the old nationalist madness will return. It will smooth the way for an elected, popular, rightwing authoritarian to take power.

You aren't interested in arguing it? Why is that? is it easier to rail against people voting for their own interests, your disdained "populism" than admit to the slow actual rise of freedoms lost by a thousand cuts?

 

[OldLady]

The media that we knew is no longer "providing facts".. They are being consciously re-designed as "safe places" where only "non triggering" marshmallow fluff hot cocoa is served. It's obvious to MORE than 1/2 of America.

It is the half of America you refer to that is skidaddling away from the truth to bubbles where they don't have to hear uncomfortable facts, FCT. With Trumps ongoing efforts. Credible media verify facts independently before reporting them. If they make a mistake they retract it. If WaPo reports in six months that Joe Biden has taken million in bribes from China, I will believe them. You know why? Because they will present the facts behind that news and explain why it is credible.

Half the country has lost the ability to respect the truth.

I know I said I was leaving, but here I am.. How in this LIFE can you say that about the WaPo after them being TOTALLY WRONG 3 times a day on Russia Russia Russia stories for 4 years that had ONLY un-named sources? And PLEASE DO show me where they EVER EVER EVER acknowleged how INCREDIBLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG they were for all that time... Some of it was published KNOWING that they were supporting a false narrative from FBI/Intel sources..

Forget it.. Guess I don't care about your media selection or your lack of concern about the increasing FILTERED nature of what you consume as news...

I'm going to bow out now that posters are discussing what OP was interested in. It's way above my pay grade. I'm sure we will meet again to argue over fake news in another thread

 

[Donald H]

I defend the basic view of this article. If you disagree, explain why. I am especially interested in debating liberal views, but of course all are welcome to express their opinions.

Trump was ineffective ... A future strongman won’t be...


America’s Next Authoritarian Will Be Much More Competent

Tom, your prediction can be correct if the US Constitution isn't amended to prevent it happening.
The reason being is that Trump (or his team) have come to the realization that the US Constitution allows for election cheating in states where they have enough control to do so.

I suggest to you that amendment (s) to the Constitution can rectify the problem by limiting a future strongman.

Is it that the solution can be nothing less than stripping away states' autonomy to conduct their own elections on the level of the election having negative and unlawful influence on the others?

The Scotus must have come to the same conclusion when it handed down it's ruling, and the ruling hinted on as much. Had the remedy been something that was indeed possible to grant, the palintiffs would have a case that would have to be heard. The remedy of overturning the election was impossible.

But the stage is set for the next time if fairness and honesty doesn't rule the day. America's elections may have indeed moved beyond any respecting of those basic qualities.

 

[Donald H]

I'm going to bow out now that posters are discussing what OP was interested in. It's way above my pay grade. I'm sure we will meet again to argue over fake news in another thread

Come back!! I've put it in terms that are very simple to understand for everybody.

 

[Donald H]

Ukraine was not legal. Many of his EO'S were shot down as unconstitutional. What he is doing now with undermining the vote is contrary to the laws of the states and the Constitution. Fortunately, the checks and balances that were established for just such a scenario, worked. This time.

What's happening NOW post election aftermath is NOT "authoritarian".. THere was MASS DISREGARD for trivial little crap like State and Federal Constitutions by the Democrats and their partisans in govt to UNLAWFULLY ACTUALLY CHANGE election law just prior to the election.. This we KNOW happened. And it just might have resulted in NULLIFYING the votes of 1/2 of this country..

Finding OUT -- is not any kind of Authoritarian..

You don't understand. The US Constitution allows for each state to cheat on their election for president as much as they like.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Ukraine was not legal. Many of his EO'S were shot down as unconstitutional. What he is doing now with undermining the vote is contrary to the laws of the states and the Constitution. Fortunately, the checks and balances that were established for just such a scenario, worked. This time.

What's happening NOW post election aftermath is NOT "authoritarian".. THere was MASS DISREGARD for trivial little crap like State and Federal Constitutions by the Democrats and their partisans in govt to UNLAWFULLY ACTUALLY CHANGE election law just prior to the election.. This we KNOW happened. And it just might have resulted in NULLIFYING the votes of 1/2 of this country..

Finding OUT -- is not any kind of Authoritarian..

You don't understand. The US Constitution allows for each state to cheat on their election for president as much as they like.

So they can disenfranchise the voters who live there.

*****SMILE*****

 

[harmonica]

nothing wrong at all with Mr Trump

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

First of all, sorry that this is late. Was called away this morning ...

I think we ought NOT to think that the core of Trumpism is “authoritarianism” so much as it is rightwing nationalist populism. The Atlantic article is a bit misleading in this sense, but it is clearly talking about “nationalist authoritarian populists” who all over the world are being elected:

“Trump is just one more example of the many populists on the right who have risen to power around the world: Narendra Modi in India, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, my home country. These people win elections but subvert democratic norms ... Orbán proudly uses the phrase illiberal democracy [my emphasis] to describe the populism practiced by these men; Trump has many similarities to them, both rhetorically and policy-wise.”

This article says that Trump FAILED to become a successful populist authoritarian like those above because of his incompetence in governing, because he demonized, frightened and infuriated unnecessarily too many otherwise potential supporters. It speaks mostly of voters in the recent election.

Behind the election game and two-party “democracy” there have always been other factors at play. Everyone knows Trump ran against and was hated by mainstream liberal media (whom he “played” to perfection). A key point not often discussed, however, is that over three years — despite throwing valuable economic benefits their way — Trump personally alienated key players on Wall Street and powerful private capitalist networks (e.g. the Koch brothers) which otherwise agreed with his policies and were willing to give him a chance to “grow into the presidency.” There were others at the high summits of the “Security State” who became convinced he was simply unstable, incompetent and irresponsible — a “moron” at actually running the complex world empire our system depends upon. A rightwing “patriotic” demagogue more competent at uniting the nation and governing it would have been able to win much greater support from the MIC and “Security State,” just as Trump won support from most cops. Few people, liberal or conservative, really appreciate this fact.

I’m not interested in arguing here with martybegan for flacaltenn or others who are convinced everything wrong in America is the fault of Democrats, or that their being asked to wear masks or flush toilets or give up their 60 watt incandescent bulbs is an intolerable sacrifice imposed by authoritarian communists. I am no defender of Biden either, though I confess I resentfully voted for him. I am just arguing that Republicans, with their crackpot minority intact, with Trump’s self-same “nationalist” policies, will probably sweep back into power sooner rather than later.

I agree with Republicans that “left” populist authoritarianism is often obnoxious. Under certain conditions and in other countries it can be a serious problem. But as a social movement, as an electoral bloc, it has and can have very little traction in this country. What remains of the U.S. “working class” mostly supported Trump, or is atomized, its unions broken. Many “progressive” liberal millennials will grow out of their Harry Potter dream worlds, like most hippies did. I believe real conditions in the U.S. will continue to deteriorate for those without a stock portfolio regardless of which party is in power, and this will help demagogic Republicans sweep back into power. Democrats (if they should win the Senate in 2022) may slightly cushion the economic blow, but I think this unlikely, and very unlikely to last. Clearly the Democratic version of gender, race and other identity politics cannot “trump” demagogic “Americanism” domestically. Even the conman Trump ALMOST won re-election, and probably would have, had Covid not arrived. Invoking the Flag, Guns, the Bible, and The Wall, attacking “socialist” Democrats — this remains the likely way forward for Republicans.

The last serious and lasting “progressive” or “left” re-formulation of national American politics (not counting the Civil Rights Movement which was initially bi-partisan) was the New Deal. The likelihood that another liberal capitalist like FDR can arise and lead another transformational reform movement addressing “bread and butter” and structural economic issues ... is very small. The necessary domestic conditions simply do not exist. The likelihood that such a movement could be led by a real authoritarian leftist ... is far, far smaller.

Early on, even before the COVID pandemic hit the U.S. and while Trump was still playing footsie with XiJinping, I predicted Trump would use the “China issue” to beat up on Democrats. This issue is not going away. Nor can corporate “globalism” be replaced by national autarchy. Trade with India and South America, competition from Japan, Korea, and old Europe, these all have already tended to devastate wages for working people in the U.S.A. The rise of the Amazon / Walmart / high tech economy will continue to bifurcate wealth. Democrats may also play tough with China, but the Wall Street & Federal Reserve American Empire, like U.S. military dominance all over the world, is riddled with (not always obvious) weaknesses. Protectionism, U.S. sanctions against competitors (easily redefined as “enemies”) and refusal to abandon our existing world supremacy, will almost certainly lead the U.S. into conflicts with China and other powers, and all the old nationalist madness will return. It will smooth the way for an elected, popular, rightwing authoritarian to take power.

So this is all about globalism? If you love your country and autonomy, it is part of the old madness? Don't you think it is pessimistic to think countries can't be independent without killing each other? I don't think it makes sense to give up our autonomy because aggressive bad actors such as China may be displeased.

I am an American and also an internationalist. Just as Thomas Paine was an Englishman who became an American patriot and along with Lafayette played a fine and honorable role in the French Revolution, I find no problem with “patriotism” so long as it is not just a front for backwardness and reaction.

We live in a very specific age of corporate globalism, which the “American Century” shaped into a financial empire dominated by Wall Street and policed in the Cold War interests of the West. After being on the winning side of two inter-imperialist world wars, controlling Middle East energy resources, and helping destroy the Soviet Union after it exited from its long Stalinist past, an arrogant assumption in D.C. grew that Washington could forever exercise “full spectrum dominance” over the world. This arrogance — added to other well known long unresolved historical problems — have led U.S. society to crisis.

So yes. The growing instability of the post-WWII liberal global capitalist order is what is leading to the rise of nationalist populists here as elsewhere. “Aggressive bad actors such as China” could be perfect Constitutional Democracies, but if they undercut our nation’s world economic dominance “the powers that be” in the U.S. would still treat them as “enemies” and project unto them the aggressive acts we ourselves have often been guilty of. Of course that China is non-Western and not at all a “liberal bourgeois democracy” makes resolving differences and maintaining “detente” much more difficult. It is not a question of national pride, “autonomy,” or national “independence” per se.

Also, parenthetically, our present problems are not caused by any formal “constitutional” issues, as Donald H seems to fear. Great empires have risen and fallen without constitutions, with unwritten constitutions, and dictatorships have overcome nations with very well written constitutions, in the past.

Our biggest problem comes from our gradual loss of economic and political domination of the world, and our nation’s apparent inability to understand that this is natural and inevitable.

Could you explain what a nation's power has to do with nationalism, and why it makes nationalism a bad thing. I understand global markets are complicated, and that you are predicting a decline in American power, but how does that have anything to do with national identity and independence. Can't countries be unique, and take pride in their cultures while still being a part of a global community? I have yet to hear why nationalism is a bad thing, and whether a country is powerful or not does not seem to have a relevance on cultural independence. Do you look down on England for voting to be free. Was that evil, or harkening to the bad old days? I'm not denying that America's history has many dark chapters, but how is our decline going to improve the world, or cause the Chinese to alter their behavior. Surrender will not spare us from the hostile intent of other countries. You may be right, America may be on the decline, but why does that make Trump a bad leader for wanting fair dealings with other nations? Why is Trump wrong for being proud of our country and wanting the best for its citizens? Trump actually was a calming factor on the world stage. The Middle East is as quiet as it has ever been, and we have not engaged in any stupid nation building bullcrap. What exactly do you want Biden to do in foreign relations? China's aggression to Hong Kong and their military buildup tells me that we can't just play nice and they will leave us alone.

A lot of complicated and hard-to-answer questions here, some abstract and some concrete. “Definitions” can be found in modern dictionaries of differences between supposedly healthy “patriotism” and bad or unhealthy “nationalism” — but they are not very useful in analyzing specific cases. I try to analyze manifestations of nationalist ideology concretely. You ask many questions, but time is short.

“Nationalism” is an ideology that binds — or divides — people. Like patriotism or religious belief it is — out of context — neither good nor bad. The rise of modern nationalist movements was linked to the rise of modern nations, that were themselves the product of economic development. The development of printing presses and newspapers brought language consolidation. Larger states consolidated as growing capitalist markets grew. Western nations grew where feudal domains earlier existed over the course of hundreds of years. They also gave birth to those common interests, common feelings of belonging, cultural and customary notions, institutions, laws, and “citizenship” of different national groups today.

Nationalist ideology and nation state building was often bloody, often torn by older religious loyalties, but overall domestic European “nationalism” was early on associated with many positive advances, including extending “the rights of man and the citizen.” The world’s uneven development of capitalism meant “national liberation struggles” often later emerged as anti-imperialist struggles. But of course such struggles were often strangled or stillborn, and sometimes ended up creating puppet or chronically indebted or failed states. Earlier and more consolidated nation states formed alliances that fought in world wars for control of resources, markets, and labor. These wars and the rise of fascism in Germany warn us of the dangers that unrestrained or extreme nationalism can unleash even in the “civilized” world if “all the old madness” returns.

Of course as an ideology of belonging or not belonging, “nationalism” developed differently in different conditions. It grew (despite class differences) out of earlier tribal, feudal and dynastic-aristocratic societies, with modern West European and then U.S. national consolidations (marked by “bourgeois revolutions”) at its cutting edge. U.S. history is rather unique. The national re-consolidation of long suffering and prostrate China under communist leadership, and their difficult path to modernization, has also been (painfully) unique.

I don’t think a U.S. “decline” (from world supremacy) will necessarily be “good” for the world, only that it is something more or less natural and inevitable. I also don’t expect any U.S. leader or party will willingly surrender U.S. supremacy. I expect conflict. How it will be managed is crucial. Inevitable conflicts will probably not be handled well — average Americans in particular are unprepared to live in a world where a more or less state capitalist / “socialist” China wields real power. Many “free” Americans live in a bubble of crazed unreality. I expect a resurgence of right populism here, “illiberal democracy,” or worse. The Chinese side will make its own errors, but will not collapse like the the USSR did. By the way, I reject your characterization of Chinese “aggression” toward its own city of HongKong.

I do not think China is going to replace the U.S. as world hegemon ... unless we simply commit suicide. A U.S. consumed by extreme partisan strife or near civil war every four years over the results of nothing more than a presidential election — this would be tantamount to suicide. Needless to say I think Trump was not “a bad leader for wanting fair dealings with other nations,” or that he was simply “proud of our country and wanting the best for its citizens.” I don’t believe in any of those sympathetic characterizations of him. I certainly don’t think Trump was “a calming factor on the world stage” either.

Of course, I am no Nostradamus. There is no way to know with any certainty what will happen in the future.

 

[Anathema]

I defend the basic view of this article. If you disagree, explain why. I am especially interested in debating liberal views, but of course all are welcome to express their opinions....

...Make no mistake: The attempt to harness Trumpism — without Trump, but with calculated, refined, and smarter political talent — is coming. And it won’t be easy to make the next Trumpist a one-term president.

That sounds like a complete and total dream situation, so far as I’m concerned.

 

[Anathema]

... The anger is real in his supporters. I wonder where it comes from? Maybe if we address this anger we can prevent such a thing in the future.

There is no way to address that anger and fr you folks to continue to exist, because the exist of you and your Liberal ideology is what we are angry about.

 

[Donald H]

Also, parenthetically, our present problems are not caused by any formal “constitutional” issues, as @Donald H seems to fear. Great empires have risen and fallen without constitutions, with unwritten constitutions, and dictatorships have overcome nations with very well written constitutions, in the past.

I didn't suggest any such thing. I did claim that the root of all the problems was racism and I have claimed several times that the next election could cause very big problems for America because the Constitution has no way of dealing with cheating as long as states have the autonomy to hold their own elections in any way they see fit.

It's not at all complicated and the Scotus ruled in a way that proved there was a very important issue left outstanding.

Some states will cheat in the next election for the side that holds the power to do so in those states.
Any state that doesn't cheat to ensure a win for their preferred side would be foolish if they don't cheat too.

 

[d0gbreath]

The media that we knew is no longer "providing facts".. They are being consciously re-designed as "safe places" where only "non triggering" marshmallow fluff hot cocoa is served. It's obvious to MORE than 1/2 of America.

It is the half of America you refer to that is skidaddling away from the truth to bubbles where they don't have to hear uncomfortable facts, FCT. With Trumps ongoing efforts. Credible media verify facts independently before reporting them. If they make a mistake they retract it. If WaPo reports in six months that Joe Biden has taken million in bribes from China, I will believe them. You know why? Because they will present the facts behind that news and explain why it is credible.

Half the country has lost the ability to respect the truth.

I know I said I was leaving, but here I am.. How in this LIFE can you say that about the WaPo after them being TOTALLY WRONG 3 times a day on Russia Russia Russia stories for 4 years that had ONLY un-named sources? And PLEASE DO show me where they EVER EVER EVER acknowleged how INCREDIBLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG they were for all that time... Some of it was published KNOWING that they were supporting a false narrative from FBI/Intel sources..

Forget it.. Guess I don't care about your media selection or your lack of concern about the increasing FILTERED nature of what you consume as news...

Since you use a ton of capitalized words, I'm pretty sure that you must be right.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Nobody picked up on a point I made earlier that I hoped would catch the attention of liberals:

Clearly the Democratic version of gender, race and other identity politics cannot “trump” demagogic “Americanism” domestically.

This conclusion may be controversial. But it seems to me that if the Democrats want to remain a ruling party, or even a competitive one, they need to change their priorities, their messaging, and their real policies in a number of important ways. I haven’t any expectations that the professional “strategists” in the DNC have any idea of how they might do that, or any real interest in change. Unfortunately, nobody in the “progressive” wing of the party, nobody in the “left,” seems to have the ability, savvy or even a program to change the party either.