Hamilton was a monarchist. — frank

On what basis do you say that?

I think the quote you posted is an argument for monarchy. — frank

Read the Federalist Papers I linked to. Hamilton constantly contrasts the character of the Executive against the nature of the English monarch.

I'm not quite getting your point. — frank

The context of #70 is that a number of groups were arguing that the office of President should be a plurality of some kind. The Constitution was written only recognizing a single occupant. Hamilton's comparison with the British Monarchy is to note that the Monarch does not have the checks on his power that the President has so the role of councils should not be seen in the same light.

Hamilton was a monarchist.
— frank

On what basis do you say that? — Paine

An attempt to create an elective monarchy in the United States failed. Alexander Hamilton argued in a long speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the President of the United States should be an elective monarch, ruling for "good behavior" (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers. Hamilton believed that elective monarchs had sufficient power domestically to resist foreign corruption, yet there was enough domestic control over their behavior to prevent tyranny at home.[44] His proposal was resoundingly voted down in favor of a four-year term with the possibility of reelection. — Wikipedia

The American democracy exists because of this fascinating guy: Thomas Jefferson:

Read the Federalist Papers I linked to. Hamilton constantly contrasts the character of the Executive against the nature of the English monarch. — Paine

They were breaking away from England, but many of the founders thought they should try to reproduce the British government as closely as possible. It made sense. They basically wanted to be England, so why not make their government English?

The opposing view was more daring and precarious. It meant creating something that had never existed: a giant Athens with no slaves, while in the middle of nowhere without a clue as to how they would fend off future attacks from the French. And they were all keenly aware that the British aristocracy had proclaimed that democracy was impossible, especially if conducted by a bunch of riff raff.

What followed is expressed by the title of a book by this awesome historian. It's a great book and the introduction is some amazing insights about the work of a historian:

The context of #70 is that a number of groups were arguing that the office of President should be a plurality of some kind. The Constitution was written only recognizing a single occupant. Hamilton's comparison with the British Monarchy is to note that the Monarch does not have the checks on his power that the President has so the role of councils should not be seen in the same light. — Paine

Ok. Musk is working under Trump's authority, so there is no plurality.

Hamilton was undoubtedly a proponent of a strong central government. The Federalist Papers hammers out a negotiation with those who opposed the idea. That is why the rules for impeachment and criminal liability were agreed to in them. The separation of government powers was developed for the same reason. Hamilton uses these concessions to argue against those who wanted to stay within the articles of "confederation."

Ok. Musk is working under Trump's authority, so there is no plurality. — frank

The point of my observation is that DOGE is acting as a council outside the role of "advise and consent" apportioned to Congress. Hamilton was comparing the role of councils in the proposed government with their use in the British Monarchy. Hamilton was arguing that executive councils in a system of checks and balances would obscure the source of decisions rather than make them more democratic. The lack of transparency of the Musk operation is a fair example of Hamilton's concern.

You may be right. I think Musk is working under Trump's authority, so there isn't any official plurality.

I am not saying that DOGE amounts to a plurality of the executive. Hamilton was not saying having such councils were a sharing of power. He was arguing against those who thought such councils would help provide a balance of power. Musk is Donald's dog. My observation is different than wondering whose tail is wagging who, interesting as that may be. The point of #70 is about taking responsibility and how an Executive may avoid it.

Yea. Sometimes leaders openly take responsibility for the disasters caused by their subordinates, but it always sounds like some sort of formality to me. Everyone knows the cause of the pain has been fired.

In this case, Hamilton is addressing decisions that the Executive makes and does not want to own.

In this case, Hamilton is addressing decisions that the Executive makes and does not want to own. — Paine

Ok. Eisenhower told the CIA to fight communism and don't tell him anything about their actions. People associated with the issue warned Eisenhower that the CIA was getting out of control. And they were. This sort of thing happens, right?

Would you grant that your example of willful unaccountability of an agency, which is supposed be overseen by Congress, is different than the motives behind the formation of DOGE?

How does your question relate to my assertion that monarchy will not provide the efficiency you suggest it could provide?

Would you grant that your example of willful unaccountability of an agency, which is supposed be overseen by Congress, is different than the motives behind the formation of DOGE? — Paine

Different in what way?

How does your question relate to my assertion that monarchy will not provide the efficiency you suggest it could provide? — Paine

I didn't say anything about efficiency. It's the effectiveness of monarchy that caused every ancient democracy to transition into monarchy.

I didn't say anything about efficiency. It's the effectiveness of monarchy that caused every ancient democracy to transition into monarchy. — frank

King-making is a deep seated drive and this has played out in American history and the presidency has evolved from a minor federal figurehead to something like a king in the sense that the whole political tone changes due to presidential agenda. This is not the result of a nefarious plot. It's because over and over, we found that an integrated, centralized authority can solve problems that the competing states simply can't. — frank

Different in what way? — frank

The agencies and bureaus are established through law whereas DOGE has sprung directly from Trump's forehead.

The agencies and bureaus are established through law whereas DOGE has sprung directly from Trump's forehead. — Paine

However it was established, the CIA was part of the executive branch and under the authority of the president.

I guess if there's something unconstitutional about DOGE, somebody will bring a case to the SCOTUS and sort it out.

And again: I said absolutely nothing about efficiency. Look up the difference between efficiency and effectiveness.

Exactly. This is why I see it as easily the most disastrous of his plans. The Feds also benefit from a great deal of prestige. People want to work there. They get to recruit from top schools the way big consulting or law firms do, despite paying a fraction of the pay. They are going to lose that. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for underlining this aspect. Knowing many excellent government workers, their sense of service in exchange for gain they could have had elsewhere is palpable.

I guess if there's something unconstitutional about DOGE, somebody will bring a case to the SCOTUS and sort it out. — frank

Good luck with that. Let the supreme court think about it make a decision once the things have been already done.

DOGE is just an example of executive power gotten totally out of hand. Even if Trump has the GOP ruling the Congress, that won't matter. They don't plan to go by "the book". And it's totally logical, because these people do see the government as the real enemy here. It was intended so: make sweeping cuts and then look if it works. If something is absolutely needed, then get the funding back. This is the way Musk has told he will do. Sure, DOGE acts without no congressional oversight and simply doesn't take into consideration at all the separation of powers and how a republic ought to work. It's intension simply is to create havoc, that creative destruction and afterwards people can talk, but once the cuts are done, they have been done and Congress can take as de facto.

This will continue in the FBI and other places.

Hungary is perfect example of what is happening in the US. What does this mean? Well, since Trump & DOGE hasn't yet erased past US government findings, here's what the US State Department had to say about Hungary in 2022:

(US State Department, 2022) According to its constitution, Hungary is a multiparty parliamentary democracy. The unicameral National Assembly (parliament) exercises legislative authority. For the past three years, however, Hungary has been operating under consecutive states of emergency that allow the government to pass laws by edict, bypassing parliament, which elects the president (the head of state) every five years. The president appoints a prime minister from the majority party or coalition in parliament following national elections every four years. In parliamentary elections on April 3, the Fidesz-Christian Democratic People’s Party alliance led by Fidesz party leader Viktor Orban won a two-thirds majority in parliament. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe election observation mission found that the elections “were well-administered and professionally managed but marred by the absence of a level playing field” and concluded that a “pervasive overlap between the ruling coalition and the government blurred the line between the state and party.” Orban has been prime minister since 2010.

Since 2015, under a declared state of emergency prompted by mass migration, defense forces may assist law enforcement forces in border protection and handling mass migration situations. In September the migration-related state of emergency was renewed for an additional six months. A constitutional amendment from May introducing a state of emergency due to Russia’s war against neighboring Ukraine granted the government the power to rule by decree through November, which was later extended until May 31, 2023. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the security forces. There were no reports that members of the security forces committed systematic abuses, although there were credible reports that security forces assigned to the southern border abused migrants attempting to enter the country.

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: actions that aimed to interfere with or diminish the independence of the judiciary; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media, including censorship and content restrictions at the public service media broadcaster; political intimidation of and legal restrictions on civil society organizations, as well as criminal and financial penalties for migration-related work of nongovernmental organizations; exposure of asylum seekers to risk of refoulement; corrupt use of state power to grant privileges to certain economic actors; and threats of violence and harassment by extremists targeting Roma and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex persons.

these people do see the government as the real enemy here — ssu

The unfortunate fact is that America has elected a President who hates Government and is also really bad at governing.

Trump’s power grabs will go on until someone stops him – and that’s not happening soon.

Doesn't look like there's any useful opposition to any of this. Surely some disgruntled and powerful ex FBI/CIA types are making plans...

Possibly the next step is for Trump to start dividing the military into those loyal to his vision and those not so much. Perhaps he will create a new military arm, a MAGA elite who can help him dispatch any opposition should Musk and Thiel want him to throw out the constitution.

Surely some disgruntled and powerful ex FBI/CIA types are making plans... — Tom Storm

If not, a screenwriter, based on that scenario. As far as the police, military and intelligence community goes, how much loyalty do you think they'll have to the Orange Emperor? My guess would be, precious little. The police likely hate him for releasing all the Jan 6th police bashers. He routinely denigrates the intelligence community and military. So if push comes to shove, how much of a chance do you reckon the Proud Boys militia would have? (This is why he's desparately trying to purge the entire intelligence community and putting appartchiks in charge of them and the military.)

Agree, which is why he needs his loyalists. It’s likely to get much uglier, don’t you think?

It’s likely to get much uglier, don’t you think? — Tom Storm

I'm frankly very scared about it. A lot of people (including my dear other) think I'm overdoing it, but I think we're looking at the worst global crisis since 9/11. It dismays me that so many people are shrugging it off or falling in behind him. I don't think they understand what's happening.

The next really big part of this crisis will be the budget resolutions and debt ceiling negotiations, middle of next month (beware the Ides of March).

I'm frankly very scared about it. A lot of people (including my dear other) think I'm overdoing it, but I think we're looking at the worst global crisis since 9/11. It dismays me that so many people are shrugging it off or falling in behind him. I don't think they understand what's happening. — Wayfarer

I think part of the problem with this matter is that we have to follow inferences to come to particular conclusions. Not everyone will make the same inferences. Churchill was right about a certain Austrian
when many others thought he was overstating the case.

Some folk I know have held for some years that Trump is a puppet for Peter Thiel (the real danger) and that his chaos and the MAGA shitshow is merely an excellent smokescreen for the real work - the remaking of America along radical libertarian lines. They are expecting concentration camps any day soon. This seems overly paranoid, but who really knows?

hey are expecting concentration camps any day soon. — Tom Storm

Large scale internment camps of 'hostile aliens' are an immanent possibility. Trump has already ordered construction of one at Guantamo Bay, to accomodate 30,000 unfortunates.

the remaking of America along radical libertarian lines. — Tom Storm

and in the the event of total economic collapse, all of the ultrawealthy will withdraw to heavily armed gated communities. Sounds dystopian, doesn't it?

Absolutely. The world has become a Bond movie. One way to deal with climate change is to kill 80% of all people, right? :wink:

The unfortunate fact is that America has elected a President who hates Government and is also really bad at governing. — Wayfarer

Well, those that voted for him wanted that. We have already seen on term of his government, so there's absolutely no way to be surprised now on what he is doing. He just continues from where he left in the last few months of the previous Trump administration.

This seems overly paranoid — Tom Storm

Libertarian concentration camps? Yes, it seems so.

More from Rubio:

He seems a decent fellow, but if actually was, he’d resign immediately. Read for yourself what's actually happening:

The Trump administration’s abrupt decision to repatriate the U.S. Agency for International Development’s overseas workforce has thrust the agency’s global staff into chaos and despair, as workers scramble to uproot their lives and brace for what they fear will be a shutdown of all American aid missions in 30 days.In interviews, USAID staffers said Tuesday’s recall order has sent them racing to make temporary housing arrangements back in the United States, identify new day cares or schools for their children, and plan for a future in which, as many now believe is inevitable, they are left unemployed.

These employees, some assigned to dangerous “hardship” posts, are attempting to navigate that process with little information from the Trump administration and while many are locked out of all agency computer systems.

“You find yourself in a foreign country, in all likelihood a place you moved to despite the terrorism or security risks, and you’re being treated as if you’re somehow an enemy of the state,” one USAID official told The Washington Post. “That’s not even the worst of it. You know that your career matters far less than the lives of those you were trying to help, and … a lot of them are going to die without American aid.”

...Some USAID officials now expected to return to the United States are just months into multiyear assignments. Many spoke with emotion about the disruption facing their families and anger at the characterization, by Musk and others, of USAID as a corrupt and “criminal” organization. The administration has produced no evidence indicating that is true. ...

USAID employees said that initially they were encouraged when Trump tapped Marco Rubio, who had supported foreign aid during his time as a U.S. senator from Florida, for secretary of state. Expecting tighter scrutiny from the Trump administration, some officials prepared dossiers for incoming agency leaders showing the impact of programs they oversee. ...

Rubio has said he regrets the recent actions hadn’t been in an “orderly fashion,” but he said the process had unfolded that way because USAID officials had not provided “information and access.” (a.k.a 'victim blaming'.)

“Congress sets our budget. They determine our priorities in country. It is not a USAID thing,” one employee in Africa said. “So when he says that … he’s feeding into this lie that USAID is this rogue agency. It is extremely hurtful.”

“What I have found to be more disheartening, as a someone who has dedicated their life to federal service and as an American, is Secretary Rubio’s willingness to parrot that narrative that somehow our disobedience and our insubordination is the cause of our current pain,” another affected official said. — Washington Post

He seems a decent fellow, but if actually was, he’d resign immediately. — Wayfarer

Ok, Wayfarer. You read an article from WaPo and now you're passing judgment regarding Rubio's resignation? From Australia? :roll:

Why do you think you have any idea what is going on with this highly complicated case, mere days after the story broke? What if it's more complicated than the left-leaning media is telling you? Because that's never happened before! Your facts have been wrong, you are contradicting the most reliable sources we have, and you are randomly posting weird conspiracy theory-esque photos of Trump and Musk. Gossipy sensationalism isn't doing anyone any good.

What is coming out of the USAID investigation are pretty grievous misappropriations of funds, from a country whose national debt far exceeds its GDP. It's no wonder that the USAID employees refused to cooperate with Rubio, the acting administrator of USAID. Folks with a bit more prudence are waiting to see how deep and dark the USAID rabbit hole goes before opining on who needs to resign. Rubio has said that in some cases as little as 17% of the funds were making it to the endpoints that the program was meant to serve. But we can't talk about that because it doesn't paint Musk in a bad light, and that's the goal here, right? :roll:

It’s a complete disgrace, what Musk and Trump are doing. They’re trampling over laws, Congressional authority, and accepted practice. This is the man who’s first official act was to commute the sentences of 1500 people sentence to prison for storming the US Capital on 6th Jan 2021, in in all likelihood would have been convicted and sentenced over that, if not for the willingness of the US electorate to overlook his egregious acts. By all means, merge USAID, close the programs, retrench the staff. But not in the dead of night, on a moments notice, and without any congressional oversight, by an unelected appointee.

Incidentally my news feed is Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Authority, CNN, NY Times, WaPo, Politico, TheHill, Daily Beast, and a few others. I do not, as a matter of principle, pay any attention to Murdoch media outlets.

This is the man who’s first official act was to commute the sentences of 1500 people sentence to prison for storming the US Capital on 6th Jan 2021 — Wayfarer

Here's a fun story from Dr. Joshua Hochschild, who you are so fond of:

Pardoning the January 6 protestors in 2025 formally completes the rejection of the manufactured narrative. It permits us to raise questions that have been too long avoided. It should prompt the masses who fell victim to psychological warfare to wonder what made them so vulnerable to manipulation. And it redirects the burden of shame to those—whoever they are—who tried to control a nation by manufacturing an ignoble lie. — Joshua Hochschild, Begging your Pardon

Wayfarer, it looks like you're being brainwashed by the media. I would suggest taking a breather, turning off the computer for a bit, reconnecting with nature and reality, etc. Let the dust settle. Stop jumping to conclusions. Wait and see what the investigation brings, whether USAID is actually shut down, and whether the US ceases its aid programs (Rubio and everyone else have said that this is not going to happen). Don't let these news agencies manipulate your emotions.
In the US the sort of anti-Trump sensationalism you are caught up in has become a bit of a joke: