The authors of the US Constitution worried deeply about democratic populism. They very much had men like Donald Trump in mind when they created our government, demogogues who would rile up the people and use the mechanisms of democracy to seize power and overthrow it. Their solution was to set up the Senate and the Supreme Court as bulwarks against populism and what they called "faction." The idea was that those institutions would be made up of wealthy, prominent men who were to some extent above the fray, whose personal fortunes and devotion to their own reputations would lead them to oppose factional fury.
When the Supreme Court declined to strike down Trump's tariffs, and all the Republicans in the Senate voted to confirm RFK, that vision comprehensively failed. There is now no force in America but faction, and nothing to our politics but all-out war between factions that, I fear, will recognize fewer and fewer limits on how they pursue power.
We have also relied on other parts of our society to limit presidential power: the business world, the labor unions, the universities. The unions have been destroyed as a political force by divisions over social issues, and lately we have seen a miserable, disgusting parade of businessmen kowtowing to Trump. The universities lost all their independent power when they become dependent on Federal funding, giving them no choice but to acquiesce in whatever the President demands.
What is left?
Factionalism, or partisanship as we usually say these days, is nothing new in America. It has risen and fallen over the decades, and our politics have always been contentious. They have often been ugly. But I always thought there were some limits, some things people would not do. Trump's attempt to undo the 2020 vote failed, with many Republican local and state officials faithfully counting Democratic votes. Congress ratified Biden's election, with Republican support.
Will that ever happen again?
We have major tests coming. Will the votes in the 2026 elections be counted fairly? And will Trump be forced from office in 2028 as the Constitution requires?
I don't know. I worry that Americans simply hate each other too much to care about anything but victory over their enemies.
The provisions the framers of our Constitution put in place to prevent dictatorship have failed. It remains to be seen if Americans can find some other way to curb their passions, share power with each other, and live in peace.
18 comments:
This is the problem with a system where most of the "checks and balances" are not actually codified or laid out, but are mere tradition and gentleman's agreements. There are no real enforcement methods to employ once people start breaking the unwritten rules, and once any one party stops playing by the rules, there's suddenly no more incentive for anyone else to either.
This was something that was foreseen by many, many commenters over the years. Lots of people have historically called for us to actually codify our mere traditions into actual rules and laws with actual consequences for breaking them, and the classic response of Americans has to be recoil from the very idea and cling ever harder to tradition. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Except now that it's broken, there's no clear way to fix it. Which we were also all warned about, time and time again. But if there's one thing America excels at, it's arrogantly believing its own system is the best that is, was, or ever will be, and refusing to take advice for improvement from anyone, for any reason.
That's not to say there's zero hope. An informal method of fixing things might be found - another gentleman's deal might be struck, if only all parties involved can convince each other that the situation has become untenable, and we need to reset back to an earlier state, bring back old rules and arrangements, etc.
But things are going to have to get very bad first, for that to happen - as in, Irish Troubles bad. People are going to have to become exhausted by the conflict to the point where everyone recognizes compromise is far preferable to continuing the factional fighting. And probably a lot of the older generation will have to die off first, and a wave of younger leaders will have to take their place and usher in a deep cultural shift.
https://reason.com/2025/04/07/trump-columbia-free-speech-obama-biden-title-ix/
The road was paved before Trump. People warned about using Fed funds to discipline schools, but of course "we're on the right side on history so get out of the way" and so forth, and now Trump is using the same cudgel. It was a stupid precedent to set, but they did it anyway.
Utter bald faced lies.
In 2011, the only thing Obama did was issue "guidance" - non binding directives which lacked the force of law, and which existed solely to clarify the law and remind schools of what the extant text actually said, and what their obligations actually were under the law, as Title IX is famously brief and vague in its wording.
In 2021, Joe Biden did amend the formal text of Title IX via executive order - but only in response to changes made by Trump during his first term, which Biden's order reversed.
The applicability of Title IX and how it is enforced was well established and largely unchanged for over 40 years. It was more or less a settled issue, with only a few details needing to be addressed at various points by Congress. It was Trump who set the precedent of a sitting president bypassing Congress and unilaterally making changes to the document.
Every time the GOP takes power they celebrate and act like it will never end. It will. The pendulum always swings back and forth. Also an unconstitutional, criminal tyrant wielding total power could ultimately be dealt with via the 2nd Amendment, I mean that's what it there for, isn't it?
The 2nd Amendment plainly spells out what it is there for - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state..." Since the security of the modern American plainly state does NOT still rely on a militia ("well regulated" or otherwise), the 2nd Amendment arguably could be considered self nullified.
As for overthrowing the state if and when it becomes subverted by tyrannical forces? The 2nd Amendment makes no provisions for such a situation whatsoever. Claims otherwise are just revisionist rhetoric used by the gun lobbies to obfuscate the discussion.
But even if the 2nd Amendment WAS about overthrowing a tyrannical government... you do realize that the only body in America that could possibly accomplish such an act in the modern day is the US Military? I don't care about many gun toting militiamen you scrape together, a bunch of irregular infantry with small arms and nothing else simply DO NOT win against the most expensive and sophisticated war machine on the planet, if said war machine has pledged its loyalty to the tyrant.
I cry for you. I have read your blog gor years, and I think this is the first time I see you in this mood.
Yo, G, the Obama administration sent letters to 400 universities threatening them with loss of Federal funding under Title IX if they did not change their policies with regard to sexual harassment on campus. The threat was quite explicit.
Utter bald faced lies.
Utter bald faced lie.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/06/us/politics/trump-universities-title-ix-vi-obama.html
Trump Amps Up an Obama Strategy to Crack Down on Colleges
Under Obama, federal rules pushed universities to build new bureaucracies to address sexual misconduct. Trump is doubling down on that tactic for antisemitism claims.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/13/477896804/obama-administration-to-offer-schools-guidance-on-transgender-bathrooms
That's not a new position for the federal government; officials have said that before. But the message was amplified this week by the North Carolina controversy. And the administration is making it very clear to school districts that if they discriminate against transgender students, they could be in violation of Title IX, and they could be at risk of losing federal money.
It was a precedent followed even before that
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32116686
President Obama is leaning hard on the nation's schools, using the promise of more than $4 billion in federal aid — and the threat of withholding it — to strong-arm the education establishment to accept more charter schools and performance pay for teachers.
The pressure campaign has been underway for months as Education Secretary Arne Duncan travels the country delivering a blunt message to state officials who have resisted change for decades: Embrace reform or risk being shut out.
"What we're saying here is, if you can't decide to change these practices, we're not going to use precious dollars that we want to see creating better results; we're not going to send those dollars there," Obama said in an Oval Office interview Wednesday. "And we're counting on the fact that, ultimately, this is an incentive, this is a challenge for people who do want to change."
Yo, G, the Obama administration sent letters to 400 universities threatening them with loss of Federal funding under Title IX if they did not change their policies with regard to sexual harassment on campus. The threat was quite explicit.
Naw, man, that's just "guidance".
Yes. The president told those universities that, under the extant law, which had been in place for decades, and which the president had no hand in establishing or modifying in any way, they stood to lose federal funding because they were not meeting the requirements of said law.
Imagine! A president enforcing the law as it stands! Shocking, I know. Unprecedented, even!
Or rather, not even enforcing the law, but rather merely advising certain parties that they were currently in breach of the law, and suggesting that they fix that before the appropriate offices and agencies which DO enforce the law got around to DOING THEIR LAWFUL DUTY and revoking funding.
This is like if your neighbor knocked on your door and told you that some aspect your house wasn't up to building codes and was illegal, and advised you to fix it before you got fined or whatever. To try to spin that as your neighbor threatening you with fines would be utterly insane.
Oh, the irony. You jest, but yes - it is exactly that.
The universities in question were in breach of the law as it stood. All Obama actually did was inform them that under his administration, the offices responsible for enforcing said law were not going to continue to turn a blind eye, but actually do their duty unlike previous administrations. And he was gracious enough to give said universities an opportunity to remedy their breach of the law BEFORE directing the appropriate agencies to begin enforcement.
Obama is guilty of not turning a blind eye to people breaking the law. The horror!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This is like if your neighbor knocked on your door and told you that some aspect your house wasn't up to building codes and was illegal, and advised you to fix it before you got fined or whatever. To try to spin that as your neighbor threatening you with fines would be utterly insane.
This is like if your boss knocked on your door and told you that some aspect your house wasn't up to building codes and was illegal, and advised you to fix it before you got fined or whatever, and that if you don't, maybe next week your paycheck isn't going to clear.
The university in question were in breach of the law as it stood in regards to antisemitism. All Trump actually did was inform them that under his administration, the offices responsible for enforcing said law were not going to continue to turn a blind eye, but actually do their duty unlike previous administrations. And he was gracious enough to give said universities an opportunity to remedy their breach of the law BEFORE directing the appropriate agencies to begin enforcement.
Also, isn't this, "under his administration, the offices responsible for enforcing said law were not going to continue to turn a blind eye, but actually do their duty unlike previous administrations." Basically what Trump is doing in regards to immigration? I keep hearing he's "threatening sanctuary cities" and the like. Why, it's nothing of the kind! He's "gracious enough to give said cities an opportunity to remedy their breach of the law BEFORE directing the appropriate agencies to begin enforcement." What's the problem?
@Anonymous
Wait, is there a law against antisemitism? Can you give us details about this law? I'm genuinely curious.
So silly. Yes, there are laws against discrimination based on religion. You've never heard of them? Is there a law against antisemitism IN PARTICULAR? No, that's not generally how laws work. Is there a law against me stabbing David? No, but there are laws against assault and murder IN GENERAL. You see how that works? Why play dumb?
Interesting. I really did just want to know what you were talking about. Indeed, it occurred to me that you could do what Trump is doing to the Ivies under a sort of Title IX argument.
Post a Comment