Trump Redux: The Death of Democracy is now a Horrifying Reality

[Buck_Mulligan]

@SGR # 972 Another great post. I particularly like your last graf.I think it would be great if countries would sign on, however, I fear there would be a lot of resistance from low income countries who will say the big emitters must shoulder the big burden, and that's only fair. I'm not suggesting that the US/West should regress economically to the level of the average country. I would take your model and refine it a bit. Instead of having one price per ton, have a sliding scale depending on size of emissions either in aggregate by country, or per capita by country, or some merged version of those two. The more you emit, the more you pay per unit, just like your water bill.
Some relevant links on US and global energy production/consumption.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

https://www.eia.gov/international/rankings/world?pa=12&u=0&f=A&v=none&y=01%2F01%2F2023

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

Lest we derail, I suggest moving further discussion of this topic to the Environment Thread.

[Auroras In Ice]

So the emphasis of the question is less so how democratic have we been, and more so where are we headed? I  don't  think the way we answer this question would be isolated to just  measuring access to the ballot box.  An assault on free speech is an assault on democracy. So is eroding away due process rights.  So is undermining the peaceful transfer of power.

I said earlier this year that at this rate it feels like we will be living in a country that is more like Russia than it is like pre-trump America.  Within 10-20 years I said.  But to be honest I'm not even confident in us having another peaceful transition of power. What are your thoughts, do I just have TDS?

Agree quite a bit with this.

(my reply is both to you and SGR and in general, but in elaboration to the points laid out rather than refutation)


My reply to SGR is mostly that the rapid erosion and subversion of checks and balances on executive power is a much more important indicator of the shift towards authoritarianism and loss of democracy than electoral processes alone. I can't comment on statements about opinions on specific policies, mostly because I don't think that's very relevant to the broader topic of threat to democracy. I get that the original argument came from the dictionary definition of democracy, but lexicographers are pretty lousy arbiters of knowledge. Just to reiterate, I'm hoping to elaborate not refute these points. Not a knock on the use of a dictionary definition either because it's never wrong to establish a common point of reference and he makes a solid argument in that context, but I think the relatively distinctive US model of democratic society is a better point of reference and one of the core planks is the three-branch model that keeps power in check which was designed specifically to prevent the rise of an autocratic ruler. That model is dying rapidly as the judicial branch is either being subverted or ignored with only SCOTUS offering some fight, though they have no real enforcement mechanism which is why the administration is just ignoring them too. It seems everyone here is in agreement that Trump is a threat to democracy to varying degrees, but he has his foot pinning the gas pedal towards the wall of all out authoritarianism and has essentially cut the brake lines. There's not much in the way now, and the democrats are not doing much other than rolling over. It's not hard to see where this goes though exactly what it looks like and how long it will take to get there is up for discussion... but you are already well on the way there.

About the only ideologically consistent and coherent element of Trumpism, even starting with his first term, is the push towards a unitary theory of the executive branch which essentially relies on consolidating absolute dictatorial power into the hands of the president. One of the more open mouth-pieces of this view is Steven Miller who also seems to be driving a lot of the policy directions this time around. We also know what Trump, and the broader MAGA movement, think of democratic processes when they don't go their way. Jan 6th should have had far more severe consequences rather than this "let's look forward and not back". From a foreign perspective, the lack of accountability for that looks insane lol. There's some hope of a fair midterm election cycle which may stall things a bit... maybe lol. Not that I expect the Democrats to do much if they won back some power since they seem hell bent on keeping with the same neoliberal trash and deference to corporate lobby interests that create the conditions for someone like Trump to rise in the first place.

I also agree with you, Jwb, that things will probably end up looking more like Russia, though Turkey shares a lot of parallels too. Erdogan and Trump also share some attributes that draw cults of personality to them. Anyhow, I don't think authoritarianism in modern developed nations will do things like outright cancelling elections or anything like that. Sham elections and sham democracies like Russia and Turkey are probably the way this all goes down. Not only does it create the crude illusion of "democracy" which placates the sensibilities of supporters for the ruling party with some plausible deniability, but going into election campaign mode also keeps people spun up and propagandized. Reading the room and playing to the crowd is Trump's only real area of competence and he is extremely talented in that. Whether it's him again in 2028 or some puppet for him to pull strings on, they'd be fools to get rid of election campaigns where they gin up the most energy.

[Jwb]

Yeah, the thing about unitary executive theory that's more unsettling than anything else is the broad trend even pre Trump was that the executive seemed to amass more power with each successive admin. Once power is acquired by the executive of one administration, naturally it isn't at all likely to be relinquished by the next.  So once it's here, it's likely to stay.

So even if MAGA has so far been unsuccessful at directly thwarting election results, if you build up enough power in the executive it's going to become such a high stakes game that there's going to be an overwhelming incentive to try to cling to power, once you get it.  And even presuming they somehow can't figure out how to do that, that would just mean that we are going to have the chaotic dynamic of temporary dictators that lead the country in potentially drastically different directions for 4-8 years at a time.  That hardly seems stable.

As you pointed out there are other countries to draw parallels with and many configurations of what it could look like. Hungary is another example.  But they do tend to technically hold elections, that's a fair point.  You basically have to at least pretend to be a democracy. 

I think that at this rate, Congress is fairly irrelevant and the SC is desperately trying to maintain some kind of seat at the table.  But I think if anything it's going to be a real benchmark when they can break the will the of media apparatus and academia  and force them into submission. I think Trump has been less successful with the media than probably any other source of independent power he can try to bring to heel. Not that they are the most effective at what they do... but for the most part at least there's still the same level of criticism on open display. How long that continues to be the case will be an important benchmark for where we are headed.

[Trollheart]

Here we go: get rid of the weaklings, eh?


News Alert: RFK Jr. says Covid-19 shot will no longer be recommended for healthy children and pregnant women


US Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Tuesday said the Covid-19 vaccine will no longer be among the recommended vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children on the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's immunization schedule.

Pregnant women and children with underlying conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from Covid-19.

The recommendation shift comes among other changes to Covid-19 vaccine policy. The FDA said last week it's overhauling how it approves Covid-19 vaccines, a move that may limit future shots to older Americans and people at higher risk of serious Covid-19 infection.

[Buck_Mulligan]

Diary of a DOGE worker...

https://sahillavingia.com/doge

[Buck_Mulligan]

WaPo...

Trade court blocks Trump's tariffs, saying they are illegal
The Court of International Trade ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority in imposing tariffs on all imported goods. The president invoked a law that granted him emergency powers over the economy.

[Buck_Mulligan]

^^^
The ruling covered 2 cases, one brought by five small businesses, the other by 12 states. The decision was unanimous on all counts in both cases. DoJ has said it will appeal.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/28/we-won-our-tariff-case/
 

[Lexi of the Dawn]

RFK Jr.'s FDA head wants diabetics to get cooking classes instead of insulin

Can they just stop being weasely cowards with these cutesy little quips and just say they want to kill all the poor, sick, queer and neurodivergent people already.

[DJChameleon]

https://www.newsweek.com/hidden-provision-trump-bill-court-2075769

A provision "hidden" in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—from enforcing their orders.
No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued," the provision in the bill, which is more than 1,000 pages long, says.

The provision "would make most existing injunctions—in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases, and others—unenforceable," Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Newsweek. "It serves no purpose but to weaken the power of the federal courts."

Even though hes already been ignoring court orders, this budget bill that just passed had this clause in it so now he can legally disregard the courts orders.

[SGR]

https://www.newsweek.com/hidden-provision-trump-bill-court-2075769

Even though hes already been ignoring court orders, this budget bill that just passed had this clause in it so now he can legally disregard the courts orders.

This bill gets worse and worse.

But it still needs to pass the senate.

This is the text of the rule, that I was able to find:

(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

So if I'm reading it right, a contempt order can't be enforced unless the injunction or temporary restraining order was issued by the United States gov't, or a security was given. The security would be meant to compensate for costs associated with the injunction/TRO and it could be quite substantial (it would depend on the arguments from the gov't as to what the damage would be, I think). So basically, if you're not rich, good luck seeking injunctions/TROs against the federal gov't.

[Buck_Mulligan]

Appeals court for the Federal Circuit has reinstated the tariffs. Off to the Supremes now I guess, but they recess in about 30 days.

[Buck_Mulligan]

This bill gets worse and worse.

But it still needs to pass the senate.

This is the text of the rule, that I was able to find:

So if I'm reading it right, a contempt order can't be enforced unless the injunction or temporary restraining order was issued by the United States gov't, or a security was given. The security would be meant to compensate for costs associated with the injunction/TRO and it could be quite substantial (it would depend on the arguments from the gov't as to what the damage would be, I think). So basically, if you're not rich, good luck seeking injunctions/TROs against the federal gov't.

I think you're basically right except the wording of the rule you quoted refers to "any party" not just the gummint.
There has been grumbling from senate republicans on both end of the spectrum. Goes too far/not far enough.Senators are not as easily intimidated as house members, so there's still hope it will get amended.

[Lexi of the Dawn]

The Trump Administration Wants to Create an 'Office of Remigration'

The State Department Published A Substack Manifesto On 'Western Civilizational Heritage'

MAGA is a white nationalist movement

[SGR]

@SGR

I don't want to try to respond to all your points, though I did read your posts and there's plenty I would comment on or ask questions about.  I'm going to stick to a couple basic points instead.

With regard to a threat to democracy, yeah I couldn't remember the specifics of your answer nor did I know where to find it, so thanks for reposting it.

I think in retrospect you spent a lot of time focusing on abstractions like voter ID laws, the electoral college, and various ways in which our democracy doesn't live up to the ideal.

When I ask about a threat to democracy I'm citing the common media narrative about Trump potentially ushering us into a more authoritarian form of government, and the extent to which that poses a real risk. 

So the emphasis of the question is less so how democratic have we been, and more so where are we headed? I  don't  think the way we answer this question would be isolated to just  measuring access to the ballot box.  An assault on free speech is an assault on democracy. So is eroding away due process rights.  So is undermining the peaceful transfer of power.

I said earlier this year that at this rate it feels like we will be living in a country that is more like Russia than it is like pre-trump America.  Within 10-20 years I said.  But to be honest I'm not even confident in us having another peaceful transition of power. What are your thoughts, do I just have TDS?

Yes, you're right - in my original post, I did focus on a lot of different things I associate with 'democracy' as we have it (and also shared some thoughts on how much of a 'democracy' we have now) - while trying to establish what we're really talking about with the idea of 'threat to democracy'. As @Auroras In Ice pointed out, I was just trying to establish a common reference point - as 'democracy' itself is often used rather loosely, even in the way it's used in media narratives - to mean different things depending on the context in question. And of course, 'democracy' isn't a black and white thing (a binary) either. The Economist Democracy Index for example rates the USA between a 7 and 8 out of 10 (with the likes of France, Poland, Italy and South Korea). Russia hovers around a 2.

If we wanted to simplify the question to simply: "Will government under Trump become more authoritarian?" then I think the answer is yes. But I'm not convinced we're going to be Russia-level in terms of authoritarianism/democracy (or lack thereof) in 10-20 years. It seems very slippery slope-ish to me. There's a lot that can happen in 10-20 years. To presuppose that because the Trump admin is becoming more authoritarian, that we're more or less doomed to become more and more authoritarian, less and less democratic, regardless of politicians, party or circumstance until we're Russia (or more like them than we are like pre-Trump America) in 20 years time just doesn't seem convincing to me. What I will readily concur on though is that over time (as you mentioned), executive power has broadly increased. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's always used (or destined to be used) to oppress the citizenry or undermine democracy. Throughout our history, executive power has certainly been leveraged in many cases to make life of the citizenry better or increase democratic efficacy (even if many at the time decried executive overreach). Also of course, there's been many times past when our executive branch or federal government has acted in authoritarian ways, but said practices didn't last and didn't presage more authoritarianism in the near future (or next administration). I think it probably has much to do with how we the public serve somewhat as watchdogs and a bulwark against authoritarian practices. As soon as people start to see hints of it, in almost any domain, they sound the alarms and the press (ideally) does as well. It's mostly been that way since Washington's presidency when newspapers which were politically aligned with the Jeffersonians (then known as Republicans) claimed him and Hamilton were too favorable to Britain and were trying to set up an American monarchy (after the likes of the Jay Treaty, the whiskey rebellion, and American neutrality between France/Britain during the French Revolutionary Wars). If we got tired of the practices of politicians, we can vote them out. If the press and free speech were to be effectively stifled/crushed, or the elections effectively rigged, we'd lose that bulwark though.

Of course, it's all speculation. If you told someone 20 years ago that in 20 years time, Donald Trump would be serving his second term as president and Kanye West would be writing "Heil Hitler" songs, they'd assume you were off your meds and were delirious. One other thing we haven't factored in is the possibility that Jesus could return this year (how might that factor into our equation? Well, he'd probably whip us first once he saw what we we've been up to but after that, it's up for discussion). Polymarket is now letting you trade on that. Who knows, you could make a killing if the big guy decides it's finally time for the grand reveal.

[Buck_Mulligan]

Should be some fireworks at the Trump/Musk presser this afternoon...

It's, um, not going to go like Musk (or Trump) wants. Why not? Because the New York Times just dropped a stunning investigative piece detailing the extent of Musk's drug use and his, um, complicated relationships with the women in his life.

You absolutely need to read the whole thing. But here's a taste:

Mr. Musk's drug consumption went well beyond occasional use. He told people he was taking so much ketamine, a powerful anesthetic, that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. He took Ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms. And he traveled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant Adderall, according to a photo of the box and people who have seen it.

It is unclear whether Mr. Musk, 53, was taking drugs when he became a fixture at the White House this year and was handed the power to slash the federal bureaucracy. But he has exhibited erratic behavior, insulting cabinet members, gesturing like a Nazi and garbling his answers in a staged interview...

...One of his former partners, Claire Boucher, the musician known as Grimes, has been fighting with Mr. Musk over their 5-year-old son, known as X. Mr. Musk is extremely attached to the boy, taking him to the Oval Office and high-profile gatherings that are broadcast around the world.

Ms. Boucher has privately complained that the appearances violate a custody settlement in which she and Mr. Musk agreed to try to keep their children out of the public eye, according to people familiar with her concerns and the provision, which has not been previously reported. She has told people that she worries about the boy's safety, and that frequent travel and sleep deprivation are harming his health.

Another mother, the right-leaning writer Ashley St. Clair, revealed in February that she had a secret relationship with Mr. Musk and had given birth to his 14th known child. Mr. Musk offered her a large settlement to keep his paternity concealed, but she refused. He sought a gag order in New York to force Ms. St. Clair to stop speaking publicly, she said in an interview.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/elon-musk-drugs-children-trump.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email