Thanks for this, Dan. As coauthor of an Intro American Politics textbook titled Keeping the Republic, now being revised for its 12th edition, this Franklin story and all its implications are always on my mind. Trying to write that revision right now, in real time, while all these events are taking place is a bit paralyzing. When I read the quotation from Kevin Roberts about the country being able it avoid bloodshed if the left just surrenders quietly almost made me physically ill. I hadn’t heard the whole speech and wasn’t aware that he was relying on Federalist #70 for his defense of the Court’s immunity ruling. Of course he assumes most won’t read it so thanks for putting it out there. Such an important argument — the Constitution isn’t perfect (though, quite possibly, perceptible) but the whole point is to hold power accountable and limited, even though the whole enterprise is more complicated and risky than the Articles of Confederation.
I wonder what kind of contortions you have to go through in your brain to believe that Hamilton would have been okay, or even happy, with a revolution to empower the executive over all the branches and the citizenry, with the intent to fulfill an illiberal Christian Nationalist agenda through the mechanism of an amoral psychopath.
I can’t get over my constant surprise that the Constitution is being so thoroughly undermined from within while most of us continued to hold our faith in the guardrails. We titled our book Keeping the Republic 25 years ago because it was apparent this could happen — It was in progress long before the arrival of Trump. But it is amazing how much the acceleration of the destruction can be due to one truly amoral, self-interested human being.
Here's another thought that extends this analysis. It's plain that this has been a steady counter-revolutionary movement gathering steam since 1964. You'd think it would at least slightly pain the older conservatives who used to do a lot of flag-waving and Constitution-celebrating as a patriotic counterpoint to their vision of an unpatriotic left to find themselves embracing talk of coups, violent suppression of enemies, and a lack of interest in the Constitution (I mean, we have a SCOTUS judge who is more interested in 16th Century English law as a binding precedent than the Constitution). But it evidently disturbs very few of them and I think what that shows is that they were only happy to live in a Constitutional republic as long as it wasn't *really* all that democratic, free or equitable--as long as the laws on the books and the enforcement of those laws accepted racial underclasses, the second-class status of women, and barriers to elite status. Once the U.S. started to be more like what its laws and ideals clearly implied, then a course was set for overturning and suppressing not just the new consensus about American liberty but all the people associated with producing that consensus.
Americanism as a dead ideal (rather than the active practice of democracy) was specifically invented in the early 20th century to defend an imagined white, christinanist, hierarchical status quo against socialist agitation; the constitution-wielders were always ready to overthrow government and the actually letter of the constitution (see the KKK, Butler being approached for a coup..). The New Deal consensus was only a temporary reprieve from said reactionary project.
There’s a reason why people like Kevin work at places like Heritage Foundation, outside the rigors of academic peer review, and it ain’t because he’s too smart for college.
The same arguments could be made for a unitary Legislative, following the example of Finland, Iceland and (de facto) the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
As long as Legislative authority is divided between the House, the Senate, the President and the Supreme Court (the latter of which even crafting legislation on their own), the People don't know whom to hold accountable not just for passing laws they don't like (bank bailouts), but also not passing laws they like (69% support for Medicare for all).
Also, a divided Legislative will always be at a disadvantage against a unitary Executive.
Not knowing whom to hold accountable for legislative inaction and having no recourse to direct democracy to overrule it play a big role in the current disillusionment and cynism on politics
I'm just a retired English teacher of very little brain, but I'm one who tries to understand what sort of world the new revolution wants to create. I get what they what to get rid of: marriage between Bob & Steve, Fauci telling folks to get vaccinated, EVs, Gupta being HS valedictorian & Gomes, quarterback, etc. Other than a return to a mythic 1950s, I don't understand what the want to create.
It was helpful to me to read about the Seven Mountain Mandate, a belief system subscribed to by the AL judge who wrote the IVF decision. Christian nationalism. One of the articles I read about it said 30% of Americans support Christian nationalist principles. Not a majority, which is why democracy won’t do.
I recommend that you read Patrick Deneen's books. He argues that capitalism & individualism have failed us & democracy can't save us. The failures are documented by Marx, the Romantics, & lots of 19th century fiction. The only thing which can save us is a dictator who will force us back to traditional values & Catholicism.
We call these people conservatives? My question is: “What are they conserving?” It seems to me they want to tear everything down! They are radicals, not conservatives!
Sadly selfish democratic leaders who don’t even buy their own public concerns about trump will lead America to trumpism and then pay the consequences when he prosecutes them. SAD!
"the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity sure seems to bestow rather monarchical privileges to the American president." Possibly. But these privileges were always respected. The decision merely codified this understanding.
The author does not accuse the right of certain acts. He accuses the right of certain motivations, for which it appears he does not agree, not because of any principle, but because of outcome. And absent principle, fact and evidence with which one might speak to the mind, he instead frantically seeks to sow fear. How does he do that? By interpreting - not even actions, but plans - through his lens. The circular argument then is "be afraid because I am right" followed by "I am right so be afraid".
Are there civil servants who have overstepped? The Supreme Court appears to think so - hence bye-bye Chevron deference. The author, however, presumes that no such overreach has occurred - he is entitled to his opinion, to be sure, but he then accuses those who disagree with him, people who are just as entitled to their opinion as he is, and who are entitled to bring what they believe to be bad behavior into the light - he accuses them of pushing the country back to a monarchy. Ridiculous.
He bemoans Trump's tweets calling for Biden and Harris to be jailed. Does the author take issue with those in government who have called for Trump to be jailed? The author might claim Trump has committed crimes worthy of incarceration. If such a determination was made in respect of Trump, in the face of a credible accusation against Biden and Harris, should they then be exempt from similar scrutiny? If so, then the author himself is asking for special, some might say monarchical treatment, of Biden and Harris.
This author, like many on the left who bemoan anything and everything that swings to the right of their extreme positions, has no fact, no reason, no logic to offer. Beware the fear-mongering liberal.
Thanks for this, Dan. As coauthor of an Intro American Politics textbook titled Keeping the Republic, now being revised for its 12th edition, this Franklin story and all its implications are always on my mind. Trying to write that revision right now, in real time, while all these events are taking place is a bit paralyzing. When I read the quotation from Kevin Roberts about the country being able it avoid bloodshed if the left just surrenders quietly almost made me physically ill. I hadn’t heard the whole speech and wasn’t aware that he was relying on Federalist #70 for his defense of the Court’s immunity ruling. Of course he assumes most won’t read it so thanks for putting it out there. Such an important argument — the Constitution isn’t perfect (though, quite possibly, perceptible) but the whole point is to hold power accountable and limited, even though the whole enterprise is more complicated and risky than the Articles of Confederation.
I wonder what kind of contortions you have to go through in your brain to believe that Hamilton would have been okay, or even happy, with a revolution to empower the executive over all the branches and the citizenry, with the intent to fulfill an illiberal Christian Nationalist agenda through the mechanism of an amoral psychopath.
I can’t get over my constant surprise that the Constitution is being so thoroughly undermined from within while most of us continued to hold our faith in the guardrails. We titled our book Keeping the Republic 25 years ago because it was apparent this could happen — It was in progress long before the arrival of Trump. But it is amazing how much the acceleration of the destruction can be due to one truly amoral, self-interested human being.
Here's another thought that extends this analysis. It's plain that this has been a steady counter-revolutionary movement gathering steam since 1964. You'd think it would at least slightly pain the older conservatives who used to do a lot of flag-waving and Constitution-celebrating as a patriotic counterpoint to their vision of an unpatriotic left to find themselves embracing talk of coups, violent suppression of enemies, and a lack of interest in the Constitution (I mean, we have a SCOTUS judge who is more interested in 16th Century English law as a binding precedent than the Constitution). But it evidently disturbs very few of them and I think what that shows is that they were only happy to live in a Constitutional republic as long as it wasn't *really* all that democratic, free or equitable--as long as the laws on the books and the enforcement of those laws accepted racial underclasses, the second-class status of women, and barriers to elite status. Once the U.S. started to be more like what its laws and ideals clearly implied, then a course was set for overturning and suppressing not just the new consensus about American liberty but all the people associated with producing that consensus.
Americanism as a dead ideal (rather than the active practice of democracy) was specifically invented in the early 20th century to defend an imagined white, christinanist, hierarchical status quo against socialist agitation; the constitution-wielders were always ready to overthrow government and the actually letter of the constitution (see the KKK, Butler being approached for a coup..). The New Deal consensus was only a temporary reprieve from said reactionary project.
There’s a reason why people like Kevin work at places like Heritage Foundation, outside the rigors of academic peer review, and it ain’t because he’s too smart for college.
The same arguments could be made for a unitary Legislative, following the example of Finland, Iceland and (de facto) the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
As long as Legislative authority is divided between the House, the Senate, the President and the Supreme Court (the latter of which even crafting legislation on their own), the People don't know whom to hold accountable not just for passing laws they don't like (bank bailouts), but also not passing laws they like (69% support for Medicare for all).
Also, a divided Legislative will always be at a disadvantage against a unitary Executive.
Not knowing whom to hold accountable for legislative inaction and having no recourse to direct democracy to overrule it play a big role in the current disillusionment and cynism on politics
Brilliant, Dan. Let's enjoy the holiday, and keep up the fight!
I'm just a retired English teacher of very little brain, but I'm one who tries to understand what sort of world the new revolution wants to create. I get what they what to get rid of: marriage between Bob & Steve, Fauci telling folks to get vaccinated, EVs, Gupta being HS valedictorian & Gomes, quarterback, etc. Other than a return to a mythic 1950s, I don't understand what the want to create.
It was helpful to me to read about the Seven Mountain Mandate, a belief system subscribed to by the AL judge who wrote the IVF decision. Christian nationalism. One of the articles I read about it said 30% of Americans support Christian nationalist principles. Not a majority, which is why democracy won’t do.
I recommend that you read Patrick Deneen's books. He argues that capitalism & individualism have failed us & democracy can't save us. The failures are documented by Marx, the Romantics, & lots of 19th century fiction. The only thing which can save us is a dictator who will force us back to traditional values & Catholicism.
What’s his definition of “save?”
I personally would like to be saved *from* traditional values and Catholicism.
But that is indeed the argument that many “conservatives” are making today. Orbanesque!
We call these people conservatives? My question is: “What are they conserving?” It seems to me they want to tear everything down! They are radicals, not conservatives!
Sadly selfish democratic leaders who don’t even buy their own public concerns about trump will lead America to trumpism and then pay the consequences when he prosecutes them. SAD!
"the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity sure seems to bestow rather monarchical privileges to the American president." Possibly. But these privileges were always respected. The decision merely codified this understanding.
Fitting.
Worth keeping. Voting is fighting for it now.
Most enjoy Professor Drezner’s morning reading after Ft.com and Free Press. Unambiguous and well researched. CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor
Excellent column -- thanks, and Happy 4th!
The author does not accuse the right of certain acts. He accuses the right of certain motivations, for which it appears he does not agree, not because of any principle, but because of outcome. And absent principle, fact and evidence with which one might speak to the mind, he instead frantically seeks to sow fear. How does he do that? By interpreting - not even actions, but plans - through his lens. The circular argument then is "be afraid because I am right" followed by "I am right so be afraid".
Are there civil servants who have overstepped? The Supreme Court appears to think so - hence bye-bye Chevron deference. The author, however, presumes that no such overreach has occurred - he is entitled to his opinion, to be sure, but he then accuses those who disagree with him, people who are just as entitled to their opinion as he is, and who are entitled to bring what they believe to be bad behavior into the light - he accuses them of pushing the country back to a monarchy. Ridiculous.
He bemoans Trump's tweets calling for Biden and Harris to be jailed. Does the author take issue with those in government who have called for Trump to be jailed? The author might claim Trump has committed crimes worthy of incarceration. If such a determination was made in respect of Trump, in the face of a credible accusation against Biden and Harris, should they then be exempt from similar scrutiny? If so, then the author himself is asking for special, some might say monarchical treatment, of Biden and Harris.
This author, like many on the left who bemoan anything and everything that swings to the right of their extreme positions, has no fact, no reason, no logic to offer. Beware the fear-mongering liberal.
Democrats should draft Liz Cheney. Trump and MAGA are an existential threat to our laws and norms. Time to act like it.
Excellent…!
"Ilk," :stupid"? C'mon man, the paryisanship is being phoned in here . . .