The 20,000 foot answer is that it takes a long time for a would-be autocrat to consolidate power in a presidential republic.
The model is not Germany 1933. While parliamentary system are harder to derail, once they do, the ruling party really rules. Instead, read and think about President Putin. Even after his first two terms, independent media still existed in Russia. Going from President to dictator is long hard work!
The ground level answer to your question is that the leading Republicans, in Trump’s first term, available for jobs like Attorney General and National Security Advisor, were not fully aligned with the MAGA ideology. Next time he can get more compliant underlings.
The U.S. is on balance a lucky nation. One bit of luck is that Trump is old. Although he has repeatedly talked about third term and president for life, I think he can’t pull it off, mainly due to age. And four more years won’t be enough to, for example, take away our freedom to post here.
I think that’s at least in part that, at first, Trump, although incompetent, still wanted to look like he knew what he was doing, so he chose a lot of the “normal” people to take these jobs. It was only when he figured out that normal people know that “absolute obedience to the president” wasn’t actually part of their job description that he started to look at putting straight-up yes-men into these positions.
Now he knows better, and no one who ever says “No” will get any job in a new Trump administration.
I’ve previously advocated for a unitary executive theory, and I just want to distinguish what I’ve advocated for from Trump &co.'s plans, as described by the New York Times article. Same name, but totally different visions.
On the one hand, enforcing regulations (or any other law) is a clearly executive power, which is vested in the President, not Congress. It is the President’s job to make sure the law is faithfully executed. By all means, if the President thinks some company is violating antitrust laws, he should have the power to force the FTC to take action. Or if the President thinks the company is in compliance, he should be able to direct the FTC not to take action. If the law says, should the FTC find a violation it shall bring suit, the President could direct the FTC to find a violation and bring suit. He should be able to fire anybody who refuses to comply. I go even further, further than most, and say the President could personally write the complaint, file it in court, and argue before the judge in the capacity of the United States. Even if Congress explicitly gave the FTC or Attorney General the right to bring suit, even though the President might not meet bar qualifications. That’s my vision of strong unitary executive theory, taken to its logical extreme.
On the other hand, I don’t think making law is an executive function. There’s no indication that Trump &co. recognize the distinction. Regulations are, in some cases, positive law. Congress will often explicitly write, according to such and such regulations as the Secretary may make. I’m against the President dictating those regulations, or otherwise pressuring an official for or against making those kinds of regulations. Consider the Librarian of Congress, for a less politically charged example. Every three years the Librarian makes rules to establish categorical exceptions to the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). For example one rule makes it legal to jailbreak or root your phone. The Act itself defers to the Librarian’s rules and give them force of law. I’m against the President directing the Librarian to make certain rules. It’s like that for most agencies, to some extent. I admit, we have so much federal regulation that if the President were to suddenly gain control of the regulatory process, he would practically become a dictator.
I don’t like the idea of independent executive agencies. I think it’s a mistake to roll up rulemaking and enforcement under the same department in the first place, be it the FCC or the FTC or whoever.
I do not want this to be a thread about any of Trump’s legal problems, we have plenty of those threads already. BUT, I think it’s fair to point out that Trump is being charged with crimes that he committed (or is “alleged” to have committed) while in office. The outcome of those trials might serve as a referendum on the infallibility of the position, and might poke a hole in the idea of the omnipotent POTUS if we see significant punishment for a former president, or if there is little to no consequence for what he did it might reinforce the idea that the president can do anything they want.
Something similar happened when Nixon was in office. There were checks put on the position as a result of his shenanigans.
One of those Nixon-era checks is the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which is relevant as the New York Times article says Trump wants to bring impoundment back. Furthermore, as I recall, it was cited when Mr. Trump was impeached (the first time).
Does this mean you are against the current conservative opinion on the administrative state? How does your support for unitary executive theory mix with the disdain conservatives have for the administrative state?
Max, I get that you want to distinguish your view of the Unitary Executive Theory from how Trump & Co are attempting to carry it out. However, as the OP, I think I was clear that I want this thread to be for those of us who are alarmed at seeing how it is in fact being carried out by Trump & Co. in the present day, along with quite a few others who sort of pretend they’re doing something different, such as Mitch McConnell.
I don’t really want to debate various degrees of this theory. I want to hear how posters who don’t want this sort of government feel we can stop it.
Ultimately, the only answer is “Vote Early, Vote Often”. Vote for the Dems, on every level, in every election there is. Ultimately, Dem supporters outnumber GOP supporters, so if you can get the vote out, the GOP can’t win.
I think this is also a good forum for anyone who does support this proposal to weigh in and debate.
Personally, I’m with you. But I’m not sure what we can do. Too many of our fellow citizens have lost their understanding of democracy that used to hold us together as a nation. Can you imagine what Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Eisenhower would have thought of someone like Trump? All believed in a strong executive, but I doubt they’d go for this.
I truly don’t understand the motivation of the right’s rank and file. I get Trump and those close to him. They like power and money. But half the country’s voters seem to have no problem with the criminality, the incompetence, or the grossness of Trump’s world. I know part of it is “at least he’s not a democrat,” but is that truly enough to get these people to throw the vote and $5/month his way?
I agree. The President taking control over the executive branch is not a revolution.
But it requires a capable energetic President and neither of those adjectives apply to Trump (and I doubt he’ll get another shot at the noun).
This is the 2023 equivalent of building the wall. Trump is talking about the massive things he’ll do when he’s President. But if he regains the office, he’ll spend four more years the way he spend his first term; whining and watching TV.
Talk openly and often with those in your sphere about this and what it means for our future if it comes to pass.
Donate what you can to organizations that are dedicated to fighting this type of government.
Keep on top of your congressional representatives in both the House and the Senate and stay abreast of how they are voting on all issues. Write to them and let them know how you feel about this crap. This applies to local politics, too. Stay informed as much as you can.
That’s fair. I just don’t want to get bogged down in the minutiae of how a Unitary Executive theory could be implemented. For the purposes of this thread, I’m working from the assumption that to a majority in this country, it is not a thing to be desired. For those who find a Unitary Executive government preferable, that would make a fine thread.
Yep. The best way to defend democracy is more democracy. And a functioning democracy has to be built on public involvement, that’s kind of the whole point. When large segments of the public are either entirely disengaged from the political process, or even worse, believe things about politics that are entirely based on lies, how can democracy function properly?
This is why I spent so many years fighting against the spread of conspiracy theories. I knew decades ago that if CT beliefs and mindsets became commonplace, it would be destructive of democracy. Well, hey, look where we are now!
Yep, and that’s where the battle has to be fought. It would be nice if the Republicans would stop doing this voluntarily, but they won’t so they’ll have to be forced.
I wouldn’t say Trump is in fact carrying out any vision of unitary executive theory at present. All his plans require a Republican in the White House. Even if Trump isn’t the standard bearer, the vision requires a Republican in the White House, at least so long as Democratic presidents continue to respect existing notions of independent agencies.
That being said, I read the article and I did find it alarming. I don’t want to live under a dictatorship either, and Trump is advocating for a sort of American dictatorship.
I’ll tell you what I’m going to do about it. I’m going to try and convince one or two people close to me, who I discuss politics with, to vote against Trump. They don’t need convincing not to vote for Trump so much as a stern reminder to vote in the primary elections. I’m probably going to remain a registered Republican, so I can vote in Florida’s primary elections. Then I’m going to vote in Florida’s general elections. How I vote downballot will depend on where exactly I live a year from now, but I almost certainly won’t be voting for Rick Scott. If I move to an area where local politics isn’t dominated by Republicans, I might switch party affiliation.
There will be no letters to my representatives in Congress, who are all three die-hard self-serving party liners. There will be no attending political rallies. There will be no political donations. I will probably post some opinions on the SDMB which I have no occasion to express, or question, offline. Election day will come and go, and for better or worse, life goes on.
I’m also doubtful about what this actually accomplishes anymore. Aren’t Congresscritters going to vote party-line on just about any issue that matters, regardless of how many emails they get on either side? They also likely know how everything polls in their state or district, so what do these letters tell them that they don’t already know?