US Politics Thread

[The blue phantom]

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.

That segment seems to be around 80 Million Americans. How can he hoodwink that many folk and have them under his spell.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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.

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.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

That segment seems to be around 80 Million Americans. How can he hoodwink that many folk and have them under his spell.

Education, Fox News, Talk Radio, Deep seated racism, Gullibility…need I go on?

 

[KS55]

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.

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.

 

[Vic]

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...

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

 

[Vic]

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.

It hasn't always prevented political judgments. See Bromley v GLC (against Ken Livingstone's cheap tube and bus fares).

 

[KS55]

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.

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’.

 

[KS55]

It hasn't always prevented political judgments. See Bromley v GLC (against Ken Livingstone's cheap tube and bus fares).

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!

 

[KS55]

Let's face it. The Supreme Court ruling makes Nixon innocent.

Let that sink in.

“ The people need to know that the President is not a crook” Nixon.

 

[KS55]

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.