US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Let’s be specific. It’s Trump that has made this so. Not Biden, Obama, either Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, nor those who ran against them. But now in the future, the potential for charlatans is exponentially higher, because the precedent has been set by Trump AND CONFIRMED AS A VIABLE APPROACH TO GOVERNING by the highest court in the land.

There has always been personal aggrandizement and ideological stringency as part and parcel of the motivation to get oneself elected. But now they can be the SOLE reasons, with NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

This is a potential national calamity.
Click to expand...
I mean, of those you listed, Reagan is closest to Trump in the “charlatan” category.

And I know you and I have clashed on this point in the past, but Reagan very much contributed to the state of politics in the US today (especially when considering the GOP was on the verge extinction until his hard shift to the right, creation of true party partisanship, and his genesis of modern culture wars).

As I have said before, many scholars argue Trump becoming president would simply not have occurred without Reagan laying the foundation for it (both in creating the American electorate’s belief that an “outsider” entertainer could run the country and creating the basis for the MAGA movement, with charged identity politics, WASP-theocratic principles of governance, rejection of government as a public good, and dog whistle and outright lie-filled rhetoric, even coining the MAGA motto itself).

The evangelical right (and far-right) is largely what propelled Trump to the presidency and what has lead to the state of SCOTUS today, and their rise to relative dominance of national politics is almost entirely down to Reagan, as well.

In many ways Reagan’s legacy is the current composition of SCOTUS who have made the decision to remove most—if not at all—checks on presidential power in anticipation of getting the evangelical far-right’s chosen charlatan (as was the case with Reagan) back in to office.

This was literally part of their stated objectives in the 80s and one of the major reasons they locked on to and cultivated Reagan’s candidacy and stature within that movement.

We are seeing their wet dreams become reality.
 
Last edited:
SebastianBlue said:
I mean, of those you listed, Reagan is closest to Trump in the “charlatan” category.

And I know you and I have clashed on this point in the past, but Reagan very much contributed to the state of politics in the US today (especially when considering the GOP was on the verge extinction until his hard shift to the right, creation of true party partisanship, and his genesis of modern culture wars).

As I have said before, many scholars argue Trump becoming president would simply not have occurred without Reagan laying the foundation for it (both in creating the American electorate’s belief that an “outsider” entertainer could run the country and creating the basis for the MAGA movement, with charged identity politics, WASP-theocratic principles of governance, rejection of government as a public good, and dog whistle and outright lie-filled rhetoric, even coining the MAGA motto itself).

The evangelical right (and far-right) is largely what propelled Trump to the presidency and what has lead to the state of SCOTUS today, and their rise to relative dominance of national politics is almost entirely down to Reagan, as well.
Click to expand...
It’s too late tonight to walk through all this other than to say Reagan was the popular governor of CA before becoming President, and was heavily-involved in political organizations long before stepping into government officially. He was no outsider. Some of the seeds of today’s conservative ideology were sown by him, but the strategy to leverage Southern evangelicals’ religious fervor and focus on partisan prosecution of rivals was far more the creation of Newt Gingrich. A failure as a professor, with no route to success other than through politics in a hick-laden district, he remains a craven opportunist even in his dotage.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
It’s too late tonight to walk through all this other than to say Reagan was the popular governor of CA before becoming President, and was heavily-involved in political organizations long before stepping into government officially. He was no outsider. Some of the seeds of today’s conservative ideology were sown by him, but the strategy to leverage Southern evangelicals’ religious fervor and focus on partisan prosecution of rivals was far more the creation of Newt Gingrich. A failure as a professor, with no route to success other than through politics in a hick-laden district, he remains a craven, evil man.
Click to expand...
He used the political outsider tag — I wasn’t saying he was an actual outsider, far from it. He was a popular governor of CA after drastically shifting his political ideology to a proto-evangelical theocratic framework (from a far more left-leaning earlier ideology), largely because of his wife’s religious beliefs and political affiliations.

And the strategy to leverage Southern evangelicals’ religious fervor started well before Gingrich—it originated with the early seeds of that movement latching on to Reagan’s candidacy and cultivating him for their political objectives. In fact, Gingrich was one of Reagan’s “loyal leuitenants” and very much built upon the foundations the evangelical right were able to set with Reagan.

Reagan, as the puppet he was, originated the MAGA movement, and the electorate’s belief that entertainers could effectively govern. He also softened the American public to dog whistle laden, lie-filled speeches and general rhetoric, setting the groundwork for the modern culture wars that the right and far-right have weaponised to great affect.

And beyond all that, his and his evangelical handlers dream was a SCOTUS like the one we have today which would put women “back in their proper place”, elevate evangelical religious beliefs to the law of the land, and re-marginalise (and functionally subjugate) non-white people.

This is important to recognise and acknowledge, as reverence of Reagan and his ideologies and policies (political, social, and economic) is dangerous, for the reasons we are seeing now.

Trump is only a symptom of a cancer that has been metastasising through the American body for several generations. And he is being used by those that want to realise a white-controlled theocratic state in the same way Reagan was.

I do agree Gingrich is a craven, evil man, though.

By the way, Clarence Thomas was a great admirer of Reagan, and the feeling was mutual from the former president.
 
Last edited:
SebastianBlue said:
He used the political outsider tag — I wasn’t saying he was an actual outsider, far from it. He was a popular governor of CA after drastically shifting his political ideology to a proto-evangelical theocratic framework (from a far more left-leaning earlier ideology), largely because of his wife’s religious beliefs and political affiliations.

And the strategy to leverage Southern evangelicals’ religious fervor started well before Gingrich—it originated with the early seeds of that movement latching on to Reagan’s candidacy and cultivating him for their political objectives. In fact, Gingrich was one of Reagan’s “loyal leuitenants” and very much built upon the foundations the evangelical right were able to set with Reagan.

Reagan, as the puppet he was, originated the MAGA movement, and the electorate’s belief that entertainers could effectively govern. He also softened the American public to dog whistle laden, lie-filled speeches and general rhetoric, setting the groundwork for the modern culture wars that the right and far-right have weaponised to great affect.

And beyond all that, his and his evangelical handlers dream was a SCOTUS like the one we have today which would put women “back in their proper place”, elevate evangelical religious beliefs to the law of the land, and re-marginalise (and functionally subjugate) non-white people.

This is important to recognise and acknowledge, as reverence of Reagan and his ideologies and policies (political, social, and economic) is dangerous, for the reasons we are seeing now.

Trump is only a symptom of a cancer that has been metastasising through the American body for several generations. And he is being used by those that want to realise a white-controlled theocratic state in the same way Reagan was.

I do agree Gingrich is a craven, evil man, though.

By the way, Clarence Thomas was a great admirer of Reagan, and the feeling was mutual from the former president.
Click to expand...
Great conversation, which (I hope) is helping people put Trump into some context.

The genius of Trump, though, has been his ability to gaslight a very specific segment of the American public by making them believe a supposed silver spoon billionaire understands their plight and is their savior.

His not so subtle racism and hate of “other” (under the guise of America First) is like cream to a cat and he has co-opted the patriotic symbology of America. However, in stark contrast to Reagan, he has done so by creating a very dark, almost apocalyptic vision of America today, as opposed to the “shining city on a hill.” This imagery itself was from a 1630 sermon by John Winthrop, a Puritan who led the original Massachusetts Colony and helped establish the original governance of the first colonies. In short, a reference back to an original patriot, puritanical in belief and a white male at a time when white males made the rules and enforced them.

America First, combining the imagery of George Washington alongside swastikas and emoting Nazism, was the cornerstone of the American Bund, a movement that held great sway over 1930s American whites and was not entirely peripheral to American apathy towards Hitler and the Nazi movement in the 40s.

And here we sit, with a bigoted, nationalistic, felonious ex-President, whose father was arrested at a Klan rally, and who, in a full page tombstone in the NYT, called for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, black men who, it turned out, were not even guilty, running for a second term of office.

If it were not so absurd and dangerous, it could be an hilarious parody of American politics written by Iannucci.

Sadly, it is America’s current reality, albeit with every ounce of absurdity and danger possible.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Great conversation, which (I hope) is helping people put Trump into some context.

The genius of Trump, though, has been his ability to gaslight a very specific segment of the American public by making them believe a supposed silver spoon billionaire understands their plight and is their savior.

His not so subtle racism and hate of “other” (under the guise of America First) is like cream to a cat and he has co-opted the patriotic symbology of America. However, in stark contrast to Reagan, he has done so by creating a very dark, almost apocalyptic vision of America today, as opposed to the “shining city on a hill.” This imagery itself was from a 1630 sermon by John Winthrop, a Puritan who led the original Massachusetts Colony and helped establish the original governance of the first colonies. In short, a reference back to an original patriot, puritanical in belief and a white male at a time when white males made the rules and enforced them.

America First, combining the imagery of George Washington alongside swastikas and emoting Nazism, was the cornerstone of the American Bund, a movement that held great sway over 1930s American whites and was not entirely peripheral to American apathy towards Hitler and the Nazi movement in the 40s.

And here we sit, with a bigoted, nationalistic, felonious ex-President, whose father was arrested at a Klan rally, and who, in a full page tombstone in the NYT, called for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, black men who, it turned out, were not even guilty, running for a second term of office.

If it were not so absurd and dangerous, it could be an hilarious parody of American politics written by Iannucci.

Sadly, it is America’s current reality, albeit with every ounce of absurdity and danger possible.
Click to expand...
Agree with much of that, though, I would say that Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” was predicated upon the existence of a possible dark, almost apocalyptic alternate America, which he alluded to quite regularly, both on the campaign trail and in office. He used stark contrasts and charged (racist) rhetoric to make a case for America needing to be “saved” from the barbarians at the gates of the “shining city”. Those barbarians were mostly non-white, non-Christian, non-conservative people, all of whom the Klan despised. He (or his speech writers, partially at his direction) frequently fabricated horrific accounts of crimes perpetrated by those groups, and patently lied about crime statistics at times to try to sway public opinion in favour of some of his more draconian policy goals, most of which targeted non-white people for incarceration.

You are right that Trump has used a much more direct and bombastic (and most often nonsensical) approach with his rhetoric of “catastrophe”, but although Reagan’s was far more subtle and refined, it was equally dark in its own way. And it cast the bell for Trump’s rhetoric ringing true to that “gaslit” subset—many of Trump’s most ardent supporters now revere Reagan and were primed to respond to his messaging with the same dog whistle phrases and demonstrably false claims from Reagan.

I definitely encourage anyone that wants a better understanding of these parallels to listen to some of Reagan’s campaign speeches, and later pressers and releases in office. It is striking how much of the language Trump uses is repurposed from Reagan (intentionally or not). It makes sense, though, given the overlap of support—much of his audience responds to that language because they responded when Reagan said it (his 60+ were cutting their teeth politically with Reagan’s rise), so there is a feedback loop leading to more of that language.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
The genius of Trump, though, has been his ability to gaslight a very specific segment of the American public by making them believe a supposed silver spoon billionaire understands their plight and is their savior.
Click to expand...
That segment seems to be around 80 Million Americans. How can he hoodwink that many folk and have them under his spell.
 
SebastianBlue said:
Agree with much of that, though, I would say that Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” was predicated upon the existence of a possible dark, almost apocalyptic alternate America, which he alluded to quite regularly, both on the campaign trail and in office. He used stark contrasts and charged (racist) rhetoric to make a case for America needing to be “saved” from the barbarians at the gates of the “shining city”. Those barbarians were mostly non-white, non-Christian, non-conservative people, all of whom the Klan despised. He (or his speech writers, partially at his direction) frequently fabricated horrific accounts of crimes perpetrated by those groups, and patently lied about crime statistics at times to try to sway public opinion in favour of some of his more draconian policy goals, most of which targeted non-white people for incarceration.

You are right that Trump has used a much more direct and bombastic (and most often nonsensical) approach with his rhetoric of “catastrophe”, but although Reagan’s was far more subtle and refined, it was equally dark in its own way. And it cast the bell for Trump’s rhetoric ringing true to that “gaslit” subset—many of Trump’s most ardent supporters now revere Reagan and were primed to respond to his messaging with the same dog whistle phrases and demonstrably false claims from Reagan.

I definitely encourage anyone that wants a better understanding of these parallels to listen to some of Reagan’s campaign speeches, and later pressers and releases in office. It is striking how much of the language Trump uses is repurposed from Reagan (intentionally or not). It makes sense, though, given the overlap of support—much of his audience responds to that language because they responded when Reagan said it (his 60+ were cutting their teeth politically with Reagan’s rise), so there is a feedback loop leading to more of that language.
Click to expand...
The first 2 minutes of Reagan’s Inauguration Speech provide the kind of stark difference to which I was referring. Even his subsequent comments are centered more on traditional conservative principles.

Carter did leave the country is a difficult position, albeit much of it had absolutely nothing to do with him, but Reagan’s language was nowhere near as dark as Trump’s.



Regardless, we are in agreement and splitting hairs. What is important is understanding the clear and present danger of a second Trump presidency.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
And arguably its biggest flaw was to allow Congress to decide how the Supreme Court functioned. You know, the bit that’s supposed to be independent.

I’m sure it made sense at the time.
Click to expand...
The biggest flaw is the President’s core power of Appointment which has allowed Trump to subvert SCOTUS and many other federal courts. In the UK the judicial appointments commission is free of party politics, no politician can sit on it.
 
Is it worth my lobbying the American branch of the family or will they already know the clear and present danger? (One is minister of an evangelical church trying not to offend anyone...)

Here's one take from a leading evangelical magazine (not the "evangelical right" camp). Why would Bible-believing Christians assume a president would act righteously? All have sinned, and the biblical kings sinned more than most...

www.christianitytoday.com

There Is No President Who Is Righteous, No, Not One

A government built on the assumption of its leader’s good character is a government badly built.
www.christianitytoday.com www.christianitytoday.com
 
KS55 said:
The biggest flaw is the President’s core power of Appointmen.t which has allowed Trump to subvert SCOTUS and many other federal courts. In the UK the judicial appointments commission is free of party politics, no politician can sit on it.
Click to expand...
It hasn't always prevented political judgments. See Bromley v GLC (against Ken Livingstone's cheap tube and bus fares).
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
No that is something of an unintended consequence that I’ve seen a few legal commentators discuss, it basically exonerates Nixon in full. Obviously, he was pardoned so it’s always been more of a thought experiment anyway.

If the Supreme Court of today were the Supreme Court of 1972 then Nixon need not have resigned.
Click to expand...
The pardoning of Nixon was a dreadful error. Sure, it avoided an awkward situation but it must have encouraged the likes of Trump to ‘risk it’.
 
Vic said:
It hasn't always prevented political judgments. See Bromley v GLC (against Ken Livingstone's cheap tube and bus fares).
Click to expand...
Agreed nothing is perfect but our reform of judicial appointments at least understood the need to avoid contamination. Bromley v GLC predates the foundation of the JAC by many years.
The judiciary has changed quite substantially since the reforms. We even have black women judges now!
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
AOC has announced her intention to file articles of impeachment against the SCOTUS judges. Should be interesting, but the democrats will need to win the House for the case to get anywhere. She is a very determined and ferocious woman.
Click to expand...

I like AOC and am a firm believer that if you’re not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

That said, impeachment has no teeth as long as it is decided on by politicians. There’s no way two thirds of the Senate vote to convict even if they get it through the House.

Even if Senators agree with the fundamental principles of the impeachment, they know the ramifications are that they would need to appoint new members of SCOTUS hand-picked by Biden. The GOP senators will see that as a greater evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top