Trump Senior Policy Advisor, Stephen Miller:

“We have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government. Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”

To which Trump responded :

“Congratulations Stephen Miller - on representing me this morning on the various Sunday morning shows. Great job!”

Recall that 'protecting security' and 'ensuring national stability' is generally the first step that autocracies take in suspending constitutional protections.

See the writing on the wall while you still have the chance.

There's deep seated fear of tyranny in the American culture, Wayfarer. They have a tendency to assassinate governors and presidents who appear tyrannical. A fascinating case of it was Huey Long, the American Stalin.

I'm curious about how your Buddhism bears on the issue. It just seems that it would allow you to be a little more philosophical about the whole thing.

Recall that 'protecting security' and 'ensuring national stability' is generally the first step that autocracies take in suspending constitutional protections. — Wayfarer

Trump has distinct tendencies toward demagoguery either as a matter of style or substance, or both. But... He didn't arrived at an 'unprepared' White House, however.

Executive power has been growing for decades at the expense of the legislative branch. The US has spent trillions of dollars and lost maybe 60-70,000 soldiers and killed millions of people, since 1960 on wars for which their was no congressional authorization (save financing). The executive branch has behaved either imperiously, deviously, or both under Johnson (Gulf of Tonkin incident) through Bush (Iraq's WMDs), to Trump.

The Via Demagogia was built before Trump decided to run for President. Had Hillary Clinton won, she also would have used the expansive presidential powers available to her. Would she have used them demagogically? Her style and substance do not seem to be so constituted.

The role of the courts is not fully defined in the Constitution and their power to set aside democratically passed law was conferred on the Court by the Court. While the issue is now historically settled, this issue was heavily debated by the founding fathers and there are many scholars who have expressed real doubt that it was intended the courts would play such a central role in American politics. That is to say, Trump's questioning of the Court is an American tradition. Maybe he's a bit bolder in his speech, but the very idea of judicial restraint derives from the otherwise unchecked power of the court and the questionable foundation of its authority.

What should cause more concern than a hothead screaming about the courts is a court that able to divine every contemporary moral principle from an 18th century document and impose that morality on a supposedly democratic body.

:s

A fascinating case of it was Huey Long, the American Stalin. — Mongrel

What is Stalinesque about this?

Huey Pierce Long, Jr. (August 30, 1893 – September 10, 1935), was ... a Democrat, he was an outspoken populist who denounced the wealthy and the banks and called for a "Share Our Wealth" program. As the political leader of the state, he commanded wide networks of supporters and was willing to take forceful action.

Long is best known for his Share Our Wealth plan, which he established in 1934 under the motto "Every Man a King". It proposed new wealth redistribution measures in the form of a net asset tax on corporations and individuals to curb the poverty and homelessness endemic nationwide during the Great Depression. To stimulate the economy, Long advocated federal spending on public works, schools and colleges, and old age pensions. He was an ardent critic of the policies of the Federal Reserve System.

He was very forceful, doing a full-court press on behalf of his policies. Bear in mind, though, that he had the "oil trust" (like Standard Oil") as a principle opponent, and they didn't play nice either.

What should cause more concern than a hothead screaming about the courts is a court that able to divine every contemporary moral principle from an 18th century document and impose that morality on a supposedly democratic body. — Hanover

What should cause more concern is a particular hothead appointing members to the court to divine contemporary moral principle from an 18th century document in the way preferred by said hotheaded devil and his running dog lackeys (or managers).

He was very forceful, doing a full-court press on behalf of his policies. Bear in mind, though, that he had the "oil trust" (like Standard Oil") as a principle opponent, and they didn't play nice either. — Bitter Crank

He took over the Louisiana legislature. There's a lot to admire about him, but he became a dictator through ruthless attacks on anyone who opposed him. I don't know who nicknamed him The American Stalin, but it fits.

I'm not very familiar with Long. How did he "take over" the Louisiana Legislature? "Dictators" do a lot more than just attack people who disagree with them. Like, they dissolve (or shoot) the legislature. Did Long do that? They declare martial law and use the armed forces to execute their will. Did Long do that? They arrest and imprison their opponents without a real trial. Did Long do that? They ally themselves with the appropriately conservative clergy (Franco) or they just get rid of the uncooperative collared bunch (Hitler).

So, he fired relatives of people who disagreed with him. Were they political appointees serving at the "pleasure" of the executive? Or were they civil service?

Stalin is on par with Hitler, Mao, et al. Are you really grouping Huey The Kingfisher Long with that crowd? He was, after all, the governor of a hick state which was about as backwards as any in the south.

He was a populist who (correctly) thought that Roosevelt didn't intend to distribute much wealth. Should he have been something else? Populism has a bad name, of late.

The biography I read was Huey Long, by T. Harry Williams. You can get it used for cheap from Amazon. I think you'd really enjoy it.

Hitler, Mao, and Stalin are names we stamp on the worst things (in terms of scale) the human species has ever done to itself. Contrary to what many in the world seem to think, the USA has never produced anyone to compare with them.

I'm curious about how your Buddhism bears on the issue. It just seems that it would allow you to be a little more philosophical about the whole thing. — Mongrel

Well, I don't think I've been particularly hyperbolic about it. What I said was the Trump fits the definition of 'demagogue', and nobody has taken issue with that. Consequently, I think his presidency is a threat to civic freedoms, the economy, and the environment; it puzzles me that there are people who can't see that threat. (But I'm no model of philosophic detachment, as I am frequently reminded by my wife.)

I hadn't heard of Huey Long, but he seems on the basis of his Wikipedia entry to have been a far more substantial politician than the Donald. And it's a matter of debate whether he was a demagogue.

Had Hillary Clinton won, she also would have used the expansive presidential powers available to her. Would she have used them demagogically? — Bitter Crank

Do you think any of the other candidates in the 2016 campaign fit the description of 'demagogue'?

That is to say, Trump's questioning of the Court is an American tradition. — Hanover

I don't agree; the constant refrain that 'the courts have been politicised' is another way to undermine the legitimacy of the President's opponents. By 'opponents', I don't mean the political opposition, i.e. the Democratic party, but the institutions, namely, the media, and the courts, which are supposed to act counterweights to the Executive. As I said, the pattern is to undermine faith in the courts and the press, and I think the motivation is basically dictatorial; Trump can't abide the idea that he might actually be wrong about something, so the notion of 'principled opposition' is beyond him.

What should cause more concern than a hothead screaming about the courts... — Hanover

The fact that 'the hothead' is also the President, is quite a cause for concern, I would have thought.

"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Andrew Jackson, telling the Chief Justice to enforce his order.

Well, I don't think I've been particularly hyperbolic about it. What I said was the Trump fits the definition of 'demagogue', and nobody has taken issue with that. Consequently, I think his presidency is a threat to civic freedoms, the economy, and the environment; it puzzles me that there are people who can't see that threat. — Wayfarer

Demagogues don't generally threaten anything. They gain support by making promises, discover that they don't actually have the power to change anything, resort to race-baiting to explain their failures, and retire to obscurity. That's how American demagogues usually do it.

Civic freedoms, the economy, and the environment were afflicted prior to Trump's recent expedition. It wasn't clear what actions we should be taking about any of those things.

(But I'm no model of philosophic detachment, as I am frequently reminded by my wife.) — Wayfarer

Well how do you put a little detachment into your life?

Demagogues don't generally threaten anything. — Mongrel

They're not usually given the chance - up till now. We'll see how this one goes.

Well how do you put a little detachment into your life? — Mongrel

By not taking myself too seriously, and by knowing we're all in the same boat. ;-)

Do you think any of the other candidates in the 2016 campaign fit the description of 'demagogue'? — Wayfarer

I don't know. Sanders? No. Most of the Republican candidates? No, probably not. Cruz?

What puzzles me is why the left can't appreciate that the right felt just as strongly that Obama posed a threat to America as the left now feels Trump poses. Had it not been for the gridlock after the midterms, the US would have been bombarded with socialist, crippling legislation. And let's not selectively forget Obama's attack on the courts.

Remember, dude, the Democrats won the popular vote. Trump didn't win by a landslide or anything.

Cruz is an ideologue, a far greater threat to a non-believer, thus the greater danger posed by Obama to the right.

Crippling legislation? Are you talking about Obama-care?

241 to 115 is a pretty decisive victory.

You know.. it's ok to be deeply disappointed in what your own party came up with.

You can get it used for cheap from Amazon. I think you'd really enjoy it. — Mongrel

I got it for cheap (hard bound) from AbeBooks.com . AbeBooks is an ordering service for used book stores all over. Thanks for the recommendation. I saw a PBS American history program devoted to Long, but that was many years ago.

On the Democratic and Republican Leadership
The High Popalorum Speech

"The Democratic Party and the Republican Party were just like the old patent medicine drummer that used to come around our country. He had two bottles of medicine. He'd play a banjo and he'd sell two bottles of medicine.
One of those bottles of medicine was called High Popalorum and another one of those bottles of medicine was called Low Popahirum.
Finally somebody around there said is there any difference in these bottles of medicines? 'Oh,' he said, 'considerable. They're both good but they're different,' he said.
'That High Popalorum is made from the bark off the tree that we take from the top down. And that Low Popahirum is made from the bark that we take from the root up.'
And the only difference that I have found between the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership was that one of 'em was skinning you from the ankle up and the other from the ear down — when I got to Congress."

Of course maybe our friends in Canada can show us the best way to resist Trump:

Justin Trudeau's handshake with Donald Trump the 'biggest display of dominance in the history of Canada'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/13/justin-trudeau-becomes-latest-world-leader-brave-trumps-awkward/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Cool!

What puzzles me is why the left can't appreciate that the right felt just as strongly that Obama posed a threat to America as the left now feels Trump poses. — Hanover

Obama demonstrated his menace by saving the auto industry, introducing affordable health care, attempting to disentangle America from the consequences of his predecessor's reckless war-mongering, and presiding over a modest but real recovery from the most dire economic emergency since the Great Depression.

Whereas the incumbent demonstrates his clear mastery of public policy by making mendacious public statements via Twitter, engaging in conspiracy theories, obsessing about his public image and the business affairs of his immediate family, having one of his first Executive Orders suspended by the Courts, and having his Security Adviser resign after 3 weeks in the job for acts tantamount to treason.

Progressives hardly need resist the Trump clown show. It's doing a better job of destroying itself than any of its opponents could. Sometimes the only way to teach a baby not to eat its own shit is to let it try some and see what it tastes like.

public education — Wayfarer

Same.

public health — Wayfarer

Same.

social equity — Wayfarer

Same.

free trade — Wayfarer

Nope! X-)

scientific progress — Wayfarer

Yes.

I don't believe in open borders — Wayfarer

Yes!

I oppose gun ownership — Wayfarer

Nope! Guns are good, how else are folks gonna defend themselves?

I support traditional marriage — Wayfarer

Same. Only that you're not very vocal about it...

action on climate change — Wayfarer

Yep.

>:O Yes, just like Clinton will win by 4-5% points X-)

What puzzles me is why the left can't appreciate that the right felt just as strongly that Obama posed a threat to America as the left now feels Trump poses. — Hanover

Is that really puzzling? We are talking about a group of people with a very limited and ignorant view of the world.

Progressives hardly need resist the Trump clown show. It's doing a better job of destroying itself than any of its opponents could. Sometimes the only way to teach a baby not to eat its own shit is to let it try some and see what it tastes like. — Baden

Only its not shit, but plutonium. The problem with this type of thinking is that while we dribble about the political show taking place, we fail to take into account the policies implemented by the real powers of the conservative party. George Bush Jr. was a colossal moron, but his foreign policies, military engagements and other major failures during his presidency had and continue to have catastrophic consequences at global level. Trump is another conservative puppet but the fact remains that in the space of four years a lot can happen. The situation in the Middle East is no joke the clown can make.

As Blackadder would say, twenty-four hours is a long time in politics.