Topic: The US Presidency 2018

[Colin P]

Is it possible that, rather than some politicized conspiracy, Obama simply took a more active interest in education than his successor (thus providing something to write about)?

The Canadian government being smaller, seems to be more through in purging the previous government wording and achievements, generally changing promotional language to either just dates or oblique criticisms of the previous government without naming names. Happens with every change and they both do it. 

[Journeyman]

"The Suffocation of Democracy" by Christopher R. Browning in the New York Review of Books  (October 25, 2018) provides a very interesting look at the common and contrasting aspects of the current US government and Germany's 1930s transition from the Weimar Republic to Nazism.
LINK

The US in the 1920s valued a foreign policy of isolationism, rejecting international organizations like the League of Nations, financial agreements targeting “free-loading” former allies, high tariffs that crippled international trade, increased domestic income disparity, highly restrictionist immigration policies.... deja vu.

In Germany, von Hindenburg destroyed democratic norms, ruling by decree because parliamentary majorities were increasingly impossible to obtain because German politics had become hyperpolarized.  Given the shrinking support base for traditional, more moderate conservatism, Hindenburg and the old right made their deal with Hitler and installed him as chancellor, thinking that they could control him while enjoying the benefits of his popular support.

Browning has a particular hate-on for Mitch McConnell, but his analysis spans widely and is worth the read.  He considers aspects of the Mueller investigation, and the notion that a Trump presidency indebted to Putin is far preferable to the nightmare of a Clinton victory.  Hitler's Ministry of People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda is seen in a similar light to the privatized form of Fox News and Sean Hannity, in which "Fox faithfully trumpets the 'alternative facts' of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity.  The result is the creation of a 'Trump bubble' for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers" of other news services or those who read beyond confirmation biases.


While it's unfortunate that "Trump is not Hitler and Trumpism is not Nazism" doesn't come until the end, I can't imagine those who dismiss the premise out of hand reading that far anyway.   

[Colin P]

The Weimer Republic I suspect had neither the traditions, the law, the history, the Constitution and the extensive checks and balances that the US system has. Hillary knowingly abdicated the middle of the country, instead basked in her bubble, the results were predictable based on how the US system works. I am impressed the drafters have anticipated many of the pitfalls of democracy and wove in checks and balances. This to govern a people who had just so recently defeated one of the great powers of the world at their time. I suspect it has worked far better than even the drafters had hoped for.   

[mariomike]

The Weimer Republic I suspect had neither the traditions, the law, the history, the Constitution and the extensive checks and balances that the US system has. Hillary knowingly abdicated the middle of the country, instead basked in her bubble, the results were predictable based on how the US system works. I am impressed the drafters have anticipated many of the pitfalls of democracy and wove in checks and balances. This to govern a people who had just so recently defeated one of the great powers of the world at their time. I suspect it has worked far better than even the drafters had hoped for.   

For reference to the discussion of checks and balances in the United States during the 21 months he has been in power,

Globe and Mail ( "Published October 6, 2018 - Updated 17 hours ago" )
 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-kavanaughs-appointment-isnt-a-step-backward-its-a-head-first/

[Bird_Gunner45]

The Weimer Republic I suspect had neither the traditions, the law, the history, the Constitution and the extensive checks and balances that the US system has. Hillary knowingly abdicated the middle of the country, instead basked in her bubble, the results were predictable based on how the US system works. I am impressed the drafters have anticipated many of the pitfalls of democracy and wove in checks and balances. This to govern a people who had just so recently defeated one of the great powers of the world at their time. I suspect it has worked far better than even the drafters had hoped for.   

The reference to Clinton is a Red Herring that has no bearing on the article nor adds anything to the discussion and is completely irrelevant.

For the Weimar Republic, the system in place to elect representatives was similar to the British system in that states were given seats in the Reichstag based on population. The president in this system was were elected (for a 7 year term vice 4) and could issue decrees and new laws in "emergency" situations, though parliament had the right to veto these decrees with a majority. As the political situation grew more divided in the early '30's, Hindenburg (who hated democracy and wanted to restore the Kaiser) used more and more decrees to get things accomplished. The enabling acts which were declared by decree are generally where the Nazi era is believed to have begun.

For the article by Journeyman, I share his belief that the mentions of McConnell indicate a hate on and detract from the article. However, the general point in drawing a comparison to modern US politics and the Weimar republic is a useful one in that it at least makes one consider the course of divisiveness that the US is on and potential impacts. Ugly aspects of democracy such as the republicans essentially stealing a supreme court nomination than forcing through Kavanaugh who was a poor choice for many reasons, many republican supporters apparently being ok with Trump interacting with the Russians (such as the 2 gentlemen in the picture below), or the constant and persistent gerrymandering that occurs must be viewed with historical context such as the Weimar Republic. That way, agree or disagree, you can at least formulate an intelligent opinion on the matters. The constant "my side is better than your side" is both historically silly and unhelpful in a contemporary context as if you believe that one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong than you're not very intelligent, regardless of which side you fall on.

[FJAG]

The Weimer Republic I suspect had neither the traditions, the law, the history, the Constitution and the extensive checks and balances that the US system has. Hillary knowingly abdicated the middle of the country, instead basked in her bubble, the results were predictable based on how the US system works. I am impressed the drafters have anticipated many of the pitfalls of democracy and wove in checks and balances. This to govern a people who had just so recently defeated one of the great powers of the world at their time. I suspect it has worked far better than even the drafters had hoped for.   

One should note these general comments about the Weimar Constitution:

In his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, historian William L. Shirer described the Weimar Constitution as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." Yet, the Weimar Constitution had serious problems. . . .

The allocation of presidential powers was deeply problematic. The Weimar Constitution allowed the president to dismiss the chancellor, even if the chancellor retained the confidence of the Reichstag. Similarly, the president could appoint a chancellor who didn't have the support of the Reichstag. . . .

The use of a proportional electoral system without thresholds to win representation has also been cited. This system, intended to avoid the wasting of votes, allowed the rise of a multitude of splinter parties, many of which represented the extreme ends of the political spectrum, which in turn made it difficult for any party to establish and maintain a workable parliamentary majority. . . .

Even without these real and/or perceived problems, the Weimar Constitution was established and in force under disadvantageous social, political, and economic conditions. In his book The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans argues that "all in all, Weimar's constitution was no worse than the constitutions of most other countries in the 1920s, and a good deal more democratic than many. Its more problematical provisions might not have mattered so much had the circumstances been different. But the fatal lack of legitimacy from which the Republic suffered magnified the constitution's faults many times over."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution

The US Constitution itself is not a paragon of virtue. Most foreign democratic constitutions took their model from the US one but added or changed provisions where a weakness was seen or perceived.

In a parliamentary system the executive (prime minister and cabinet) is responsive to it's party's elected representatives. A conflict between them results in a change of leadership. The US President is not beholden to his party but does need to work on cooperation with the government. When a conflict exists (such as when they come from different parties, stasis can and does result.

Also, the US Constitution allocates substantial rights to the States based on it's historical foundation from a loose confederation of disparate societies (agricultural v industrial). The result is that there is only a veneer of a single unifying culture and, as a result, disparate individual rights. Add to that the the varying vestigial attitudes harkening back to the days of slavery and you have the social and political issues that divided Weimar Republic. But for the fact that the US economic situation has been generally favourable (even during it's recent recession it was nowhere near that which hit Weimar in the 1920s and 30s) the US could easily fragment again like it did in 1860. Remember that during the American Civil War each side was absolutely convinced that it acted in accordance with the country's constitution.

 

[Vitech]

Same old fear monger, Trumps going to unite the nazis and cause a civil war, it’s ridiculous at this point. Racism is at an all time low, and finally people get to have two distinct choices to vote for. The media pushes this nonsense, but too many people have woken up it’s like the Russia Pravda. Only the extremely useful idiots on the left will revolt, most people have too

[Journeyman]

Globe and Mail ( "Published October 6, 2018 - Updated 17 hours ago" )
 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-kavanaughs-appointment-isnt-a-step-backward-its-a-head-first

While I agree with the overarching sentiment, I think it's a bit too hyperbolic;  the world hasn't really ended.  My cynicism towards the electorate leads me to believe that this will be largely forgotten within two weeks because Kavanaugh isn't "the final nail in that coffin," he's merely another symptom. 

Same old fear monger, Trumps going to unite the nazis and cause a civil war

  You didn't actually read the article, did you.

[Fishbone Jones]

Same old fear monger, Trumps going to unite the nazis and cause a civil war, it’s ridiculous at this point. Racism is at an all time low, and finally people get to have two distinct choices to vote for. The media pushes this nonsense, but too many people have woken up it’s like the Russia Pravda. Only the extremely useful idiots on the left will revolt, most people have too

You've got a hard sell. Trump supporters are an anathema to many in Canada, even some here. People equate it with being a supporter of the US, opposed to Canada, right or wrong, which is a ridiculous premise, but fits their narrative. Favouring Trump over Trudeau is an act of a subversive, a traitor even, to some. Trump has done some great things, that detractors refuse to see or acknowledge, even in the clear light of day with overwhelming proof. Some will slight, with falsification, innuendo and outright lies, some will try beat others down with their self serving, intellectual diatribes. All designed to humiliate and dominate, not debate. Things are a little better here, but you may want to read back and just put your toes in the water before jumping right in. Just to get a feel how people think about Trump, the GOP and US politics around here. It may save you some angst. 

[Colin P]

The reference to Clinton is a Red Herring that has no bearing on the article nor adds anything to the discussion and is completely irrelevant.

For the Weimar Republic, the system in place to elect representatives was similar to the British system in that states were given seats in the Reichstag based on population. The president in this system was were elected (for a 7 year term vice 4) and could issue decrees and new laws in "emergency" situations, though parliament had the right to veto these decrees with a majority. As the political situation grew more divided in the early '30's, Hindenburg (who hated democracy and wanted to restore the Kaiser) used more and more decrees to get things accomplished. The enabling acts which were declared by decree are generally where the Nazi era is believed to have begun.

For the article by Journeyman, I share his belief that the mentions of McConnell indicate a hate on and detract from the article. However, the general point in drawing a comparison to modern US politics and the Weimar republic is a useful one in that it at least makes one consider the course of divisiveness that the US is on and potential impacts. Ugly aspects of democracy such as the republicans essentially stealing a supreme court nomination than forcing through Kavanaugh who was a poor choice for many reasons, many republican supporters apparently being ok with Trump interacting with the Russians (such as the 2 gentlemen in the picture below), or the constant and persistent gerrymandering that occurs must be viewed with historical context such as the Weimar Republic. That way, agree or disagree, you can at least formulate an intelligent opinion on the matters. The constant "my side is better than your side" is both historically silly and unhelpful in a contemporary context as if you believe that one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong than you're not very intelligent, regardless of which side you fall on.

Hillary's crap campaign led to the current result, despite the apparent pleadings of Middle America Dem candidates, so it is pertinent. Germany had no real experience running such a democracy and as FJAG points out, a lot of people trying to sabotage it. The US has had 200 years of creaking and groaning along with many crisis along the way to understand how to use it. Americans are pretty dam passionate about their system of government and many on both sides are well read and well informed, I guess I have faith in that.
 Those dry boring chapters of history, were just as painful and detailed as the events of today, we just have problems realizing that one day our events will be just as boring as those earlier chapters. Eventually the US and other current nation states will fail and be replaced by something else, but it won't be because of Trump or a somewhat conservative court bench. The Dems would happily stacked the deck with their brand of judges given the chance, which they were given and subsequently screwed the pooch and tossed their opportunity out the window. They appear to be setting up to repeat the process yet again.   

[Bird_Gunner45]

Hillary's crap campaign led to the current result, despite the apparent pleadings of Middle America Dem candidates, so it is pertinent. Germany had no real experience running such a democracy and as FJAG points out, a lot of people trying to sabotage it. The US has had 200 years of creaking and groaning along with many crisis along the way to understand how to use it. Americans are pretty dam passionate about their system of government and many on both sides are well read and well informed, I guess I have faith in that.
 Those dry boring chapters of history, were just as painful and detailed as the events of today, we just have problems realizing that one day our events will be just as boring as those earlier chapters. Eventually the US and other current nation states will fail and be replaced by something else, but it won't be because of Trump or a somewhat conservative court bench. The Dems would happily stacked the deck with their brand of judges given the chance, which they were given and subsequently screwed the pooch and tossed their opportunity out the window. They appear to be setting up to repeat the process yet again.   

Again, this thread is about the US president so references to Hillary are red herrings and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, particularly seeing as how the conversation was about an article related solely to the current US president. The further reference to democrats was equally as irrelevant.

To counter your point reference the efficacy of the US constitution, you may also note that the Weimar Republic and the US have had the same number of constitutional breakages, with the difference being that the US union was able to corral its slave owning cousins to the south back into the Republic whereas the Weimar republic wasn't as fortunate. If the US could break apart once there's no real reason why it couldn't happen again, particularly with a president who seems to mimic the worst aspects of the end of the weimar republic.

As for the boring aspects of history, context and understanding of the dull stuff is what allows you to understand why the more exciting things (WW2 in this case) happened. In reality, it's the more important part of understanding history or any topic.

[Chris Pook]

In a parliamentary system the executive (prime minister and cabinet) is responsive to it's party's elected representatives. A conflict between them results in a change of leadership.

This is a real problem that we are running into these days.  The Parliamentary Party and the Extra-Parliamentary Party are no longer aligned.  Before the EPP elected the PP and the PP elected the PM.  Now the PM can play both ends against the middle by arguing that he has the support of one or the other.  He/She no longer needs the support of the MPs of the PP if he/she carries the EPP.

This allows the PM even more dictatorial powers than the original parliamentary system granted.

And, just as a reminder, for those that have forgotten, I am a parliamentarian (with monarchist tendencies).

 

[Jarnhamar]

Again, this thread is about the US president

'US Presidency 2018'
So the collective administrative and governmental entity that exists around the office of the president  and not just the president IMO.

[mariomike]

Hillary's crap campaign led to the current result, despite the apparent pleadings of Middle America Dem candidates, so it is pertinent. 

In spite of her "crap" campaign, three million more Americans voted for her than him.

The current result is a Special Counsel investigation.

[FJAG]

Two years of shock-and-awe tactics have altered the missions of several federal departments and left others scrambling for money. And the policy isn’t even working.

By Roque Planas

Two years in, President Donald Trump’s promised immigration crackdown is hardly on pace to deliver his stated goal of deporting up to 3 million people. But it has produced something else: gaping budget holes that the administration has scrambled to fill.

Since taking office, the president has repeatedly ordered sweeping and often improvised changes that gave federal agencies a greater stake in immigration enforcement but muddled their missions. The sudden policy shifts sparked self-inflicted crises that regularly required band-aid solutions far more expensive than the status quo. And to pay for it all, the administration pulled money from federal agencies that have nothing to do with immigration ― including cancer research, Head Start and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It’s policymaking for the Trump era: rushed, chaotic, expensive — and ultimately self-defeating.

A Tent Camp For The Price Of A Luxury Hotel

Perhaps the most glaring example of the wastefulness of the White House’s approach is the creation of the tent shelter for migrant children at Tornillo, Texas. The administration had the camp hastily erected in June as an emergency measure to shelter 400 unaccompanied minors and children it had separated from their families at the border. The Tornillo contract was supposed to expire in September. But as the month wound to a close, officials decided to keep the facility open to solve a new crisis of the administration’s own making. . . .

See rest of article here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-immigration-crackdown-federal-agency-budgets_us_5bbd37c9e4b0876edaa336db

 

[Chris Pook]

A curious turn of events.

From Slate via RCP: "The Supreme Court Is a Historically Regressive and Presently Expendable Institution"

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/supreme-court-bad-history-reform.html

Apparently a real democracy doesn't need a Supreme Court after all.

[Bird_Gunner45]

'US Presidency 2018'
So the collective administrative and governmental entity that exists around the office of the president  and not just the president IMO.

Hillary has no part in this as she isnt the president aside from shes allowed to have an opinion like anyone else. It's a red herring, that's all.

[Jarnhamar]

Hillary has no part in this as she isnt the president aside from shes allowed to have an opinion like anyone else. It's a red herring, that's all.

I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to be a smartass.
Clinton has an opinion like everyone else but she also has a lot more political sway and horsepower than your average American.
She's a former secretary of state and owns the (aledged) pay for play Clinton foundation which gets "donations" from all kinds of political organizations and foreign countries.  I'd say she's very much still relative in the politics scene and can attect the  2018 US presidency even if she isn't in office.

[Bird_Gunner45]

I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to be a smartass.
Clinton has an opinion like everyone else but she also has a lot more political sway and horsepower than your average American.
She's a former secretary of state and owns the (aledged) pay for play Clinton foundation which gets "donations" from all kinds of political organizations and foreign countries.  I'd say she's very much still relative in the politics scene and can attect the  2018 US presidency even if she isn't in office.

Politics absolutely, presidency no. PM me if you want to debate.

[tomahawk6]

The US founding fathers would be astounded by the size of the bureaucracy grown up around the President,which I think makes governing difficult maybe impossible. Trump still has to deal with the Democrats embeded in the government which is like a shadow government.In the old days the previous government would resign and the next would staff their own departments.

[Fishbone Jones]

The title is the US Presidency. Not the US President.  The Presidency contains all the elements affecting the POTUS. That includes the acts of the Democrats and others intent on shortening his term. This thread is not specific to the POTUS only. It's about his Presidency and everything involved in it.
 

[Colin P]

Hillary has no part in this as she isnt the president aside from shes allowed to have an opinion like anyone else. It's a red herring, that's all.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. She and Obama are hell bent on trying to get rid of Trump, either through elections or other means. They use their influence to block and oppose as many of his initiatives as possible. She also influences any new potential candidate the Dem might run to oppose Trump. While she has much support from her base, she is a poison pill for those undecided, something the Dems have a hard time seeing.

[Colin P]

In spite of her "crap" campaign, three million more Americans voted for her than him.

The current result is a Special Counsel investigation.

Except the POTUS position is chosen through a process using the electoral college and she basically ignored that fact and gave up States that they might have been able to swing enough of the college votes to elect her. But they didn't and she decided to live in her own echo chamber. Self sabotage at it's finest.

[PPCLI Guy]

Self sabotage at it's finest.

So, Trump didn't WIN the election: Clinton LOST it?

[Colin P]

It's an odd mix, Trump galvanised a delusioned base that was fractured, so he definitely contributed to his win. Hillary, while happily appealing to her base was not appealing to a lot of people outside her base. Hillary could have won had they focused on ensuring they had enough electoral votes, but that would have meant a very hard road campaign and I have to wonder if her managers knew she could not hack such a campaign and major health breakdown would skewer her completely? So perhaps they risked taking the easier route, basically handing those States to Trump. Or it could be that they were living in a bubble where they thought that there was no way for Trump to win and Hillary could glide to an easy victory. Either way, they failed to fight in many of the States and therefore lost the college vote.