He's not off to a good start. Amongst those pardoned were those who attacked police officers and those who literally tried to overthrow the government. (in the literal sense--see: Enrique Tarrio, the guy convicted in a court of law of seditious treason, and received a full pardon)
I've always said Trump's closest modern historical analogue was Mussolini, and the parallels continue to be striking and profuse. Both came to power on a wave of discontent during a time of sociopolitical malaise (post-WWI Italy/post-COVID US), leveraging anger- and fear-inducing rhetoric and new communication technologies (Mussolini was a masterful user of the radio, Trump a Twitter Ace), each on the promise to 'make his country great again', and to hurt and shame the left. (Mussolini's promise to expunge the 'traitorous' socialists--which he violently followed through with--and Trump's promise to 'own the libs') Rather than simply accepting their money, they actively invited their country's oligarchs into their cabinets. (Mussolini, after privatizing the telephonic system in Italy, welcomed the oligarch that essentially bought it into his private circle; Trump has his co-president, Musk) And, of course, they developed a cult of personality that captured a vast swathe of the population, and an unparalleled propaganda machine. (anyone who argues that Trump doesn't have the latter has either never heard of the Sinclair broadcasting empire, or is lying)
The only parallel that was missing was the cultivation, through legal protection, of paramilitary organizations dedicated to them, and we finally have that now. (Mussolini's brownshirts would never be punished for their actions, and now the J6 crew won't either)
One hopes for a better outcome for the US than with Italy, but narcissists rarely rule well for very long. What I will be interested to see is, if Trump *does* rule poorly, will there be consequences, as there was with Il Duce? Rational people assume so, but Trump has a uniquely effective grassroots propaganda machine that Mussolini did not. One that is not top-down, but bottom-up, and composed of information silos. If we endure an economic depression, and Trump tweets, "The Democrats have sabotaged the nation's economy, and now want to blame me for it!", will the people believe him, if they are caught inside the right silo? So far that has been the case for every one of his fibs. And he has been given a pass for his greatest failures--COVID being the highest profile. So one wonders.
And one hopes, as you point out, that we don't have to find out.
Well there are really no black-masked Democrat violent rioters of 2020, events in which many cops were killed and injured, in prison. The apparent justification for why they were never charged and convicted is that they had constitutional rights to protest and it includes support for a level of civil disobedience. And this was also during a global pandemic where they spread the virus.
Your analysis is too one-sided here and frankly one of the reasons that the Democrats lost the election. Voters really hate such blatant unfairness in the administration of justice.
I think the way the Democrats lost actually only deepens the parallel, in that they were/are very much analogous to the Italian interwar left, beset with a lot of the same problems TLP talks about. The socialists of Mussolini's time were seen as effete, out of touch and ineffectual internationalists. Much of their rhetoric and the writing in their newspapers revolved around pie-in-the-sky dreams of 'fostering the global revolution of the working class', and they squabbled amongst themselves over niche Marxist issues so that they couldn't rule effectively in Parliament. Meanwhile the average provincial Italian was being impoverished and immiserated by the postwar malaise, and could care less about whether the working class in other countries were 'partaking of the revolution' or not, when they were barely getting by in their own country. As such, they began to feel as if the socialists "talked a good game" about helping the working class, but only really cared about their esoteric pet issues--a feeling of alienation that ultimately led to a falling out between the working class the socialists were supposed to be advocates for, and the working class itself.
And the next step for the discontented common folk, of course, was to embrace a charismatic populist leader who was selling the message that liberal institutions are just mechanisms for exploitation by elites, and a strongman is required to brush them aside and "get the job done for the common man" without liberalism getting in the way. Maybe if the socialists had dropped the byzantine debates over 'the nature of surplus value' or 'revolution vs reformism vs syndicalism vs whatever', and spent more time helping the workers they were voted into office to support, the liberal democratic state and the common folk wouldn't have been as susceptible to capture by an authoritarian leader.
True, but only because he was busy from another location coordinating a carefully planned operation by the Proud Boys aimed at disrupting the certification of the electoral vote, in order to prevent the transfer of power to Biden.
We know this from the reams of evidence presented at his trial for seditious conspiracy--for which he was found guilty--which included, among other things, the infamous "1776 Returns" document, in which he outlined a plan to occupy government buildings at the Capitol in the hopes of holding up the process of turning the state's offices over to Biden, thereby de facto keeping Trump in power.
Among those operating under directives he made were the Proud Boys members involved in assaulting Capitol police, including Ethan Nordean and Joe Biggs, who you can actually catch on video as some of the first people to breach the Capitol police barricade.
So, no, I'm not being irrational at all--what *is* irrational is pardoning people who conspired to overthrow the government and coordinated violent insurrectionary activity just because they support you. Especially if you're claiming to be the one who is "backing the blue".
Again, with all due respect, you are articulate and obviously intelligent, but you speak with very little wisdom, IMO.
Trump is off to an excellent start. Why? Because he is restoring truth and justice, which you will no doubt find ironic. On his first day, he has reassured Americans that truth and justice matter.
1) There are only two sexes (you can see this as inconsequential, but then you are missing the point, one side does not believe in absolute truth, one does, that is foundational)
2) Men do not belong in women's spaces (again, tell me that this hardly matters because so few have been impacted, not the point, the point is the attack on common sense and decency)
3) Any organization, especially a government should run on meritocracy, not appearances (Our Creator said it best, "For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” 1 Sam 16:7; though this is not a perfect comparison, hopefully you get my point)
4) Green lighting illegal immigration is not only unfair to those who did it legally but unfairly increases the risk to citizens in several arenas
5) Endless, out of control, regulation (have you seen the size of our federal code lately?) created by largely unaccountable bureaucrats decreases economic prosperity (the executive order to pause regulations)
6) When you deliberately try to deceive Americans because you don't like a candidate you deserve to be held accountable (51 signers of the Hunter laptop warning losing security clearance)
7) Free speech is a cornerstone of our Republic (I don't think this executive order will do much but at least we are unlikely to see a Twitter files from this administration showing that they respect free speech, foundational)
8) Spending the citizens tax money is a privilege that should be done with integrity. (DOGE)
Hopefully you will agree, that what truly matters is what is right and what is wrong, as defined by God, not by man. Trump is an imperfect vessel who at least on day one, has started to swing us back to Biblical truth. God bless you Minsky.
Democrats are now the party of government employees. (I can't wait for the howling about civil servants actually having to come into the office). Before popping off about "gutting the civil service" please dig into the details of the impossibility of eliminating positions or firing anyone. Civil service has now evolved into a lifetime guaranteed job. No one else in America (except academia) has these kinds of job protections. There is no way to cut the bloat and deadwood without cutting positions.
Most civil servants are there to do the work of government, regardless of who’s in power. Ditto the Justice Department. As Michael says, it’ll just depend on how far Trump goes. Many people on the right falsely see these people as “the deep state,” which doesn’t portend moderation from Trump. But I hope I’m wrong.
I didn't say anything about the deep state. I specifically talked about cutting waste and bloat, and you can't do that if every single position is off the table.
Why say that Americans who reject cultural radicalism yearn for an earlier time when life was easier?
Why not accept that Americans reject extremist views out of common sense? Maybe we recognize that our future depends upon economic growth and fairness, not on virtue signaling.
I like this essay but the author does infantilize voters, at least a bit.
Believe in the good sense of the people, who get right so many things that elites get wrong. Democracy works.
BLM took a hit? The BLM "protests" resulted in more than 2 dozen people dead, $2 billion dollars in property damage, a police station burned to the ground, and an occupied Federal Courthouse set a blaze. After such death and destruction, only a few participants were ever arrested, fewer still were charged, and convicted. Next, came revelations of massive embezzlement by BLM leaders, buying multimillion dollar luxury homes and enjoying first class travel, rather than assisting minorities in need. If BLM still exists, it is but a shell.
More importantly, it appears the vast majority of DC Dems, still do not understand why Trump won the election. This was abundantly clear, when 158 Dem House members refused to support the deportation of foreign sex offenders, who confess or are convicted in a US Court. The bill also forbade migration into the US, by convicted of sex offenders.
Reasonable people can debate deportation targets, how many new migrants the US should accept, annually, and their level of taxpayer support. There exists no reasonable argument for convicted foreign rapists and those who molest children, continuing to reside in the US, post prison. Moreover, why on earth, would Dems seek to import such predators?
Sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates, of any criminals. Demanding convicted sexual predators remain in the US, is tone deafness on a scale, rarely seen in the US politics prior to the last 4 years. Only suppression of the vote results by the Press, has saved Dems from public outcry. Eventually Americans will become aware, Dem immigration insanity remains. That may prove to be, more important than Trump's actions.
Over 10k people were arrested in connection with the BLM riots, and 120 of the worst offenders were convicted of federal crimes--none of whom were pardoned by the president.
There's simply no comparison to what Trump just did.
Sometimes, when the enemy of your enemy is not your friend you still need to support some of his objectives. I'm a centrist Dem and a sex realist who welcomes Trump's embrace of biological reality and his rejection of the gender identity myth. Had Democrats been listening, they would have heard the voices of the left-of-center gender critical movement that has been calling for an end to the excesses of trans activism. Instead they believed trans activists' lie that all critics of gender identity ideology are transphobic haters.
Until recently, sex realists lacked access to the mainstream media, though trans activists and their allies could advance their policies and programs in the media upon request. That’s a key reason why the left doesn’t get that trans ideology is harmful to real women and children. Our message hasn’t gotten past the censorship, or if it has it has been rejected as hate speech.
There will be much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth among liberals and progressives over the fate of "trans kids" as a result of Trump's executive orders.
It is an open question how sensitively the Trump people will sell the gender related executive orders and which conceptual framework they will use. Imagine what a setback it would be for sex realists if James Lindsay were tapped by the White House to spread his idea that gender ideology is a Commie plot. They could do worse than to outsource the messaging to figures such as Helen Joyce.
Big big difference. Trump will succeed and his programs, as most did before (despite 100% Democrat opposition) will succeed; America will be much greater, hence the "long leash" will be incredibly long (I say 12 years). Just to remind you, I correctly called this election six months out at PRECISELY 312 EVs and 1.5% popular vote and +3 GOP senators (was 4, could easily have been 7 if not for questionable late counting). As they did in 2017-2020, Trump's policies will dramatically reduce energy costs, and this time there will be no "long leash" for antifa/Black Lives Matter to destroy cities as there was by that ignoramus Jeff Sessions.
At this point, I'm guessing J.D. Vance would win the EC by 320-340 EVs, and the popular vote again. For the Democrats to reverse ANY of this, they would have to recant the vax support (which Trump partially recanted), their support for trans idiocy, their support for global warming, and their support for replacement theory. None of this is on the horizon. Hence, 2036 before they really have a chance again, by which time Rs add a minimum of 6 more EVs from the census. Democrats better think long and hard because this is Reconstruction-level denial of reality.
There are two types of people in the political chattering class. One lacks the actual understanding of what type of leadership is required to get things done, or are otherwise served well by the ongoing existence of certain system problems they exploit for their own status, power and wealth. The former can be forgiven as they are just ignorant. The latter is a greedy force of continued system decline that must be eliminated.
Examples include NGOs that feed off the continued perpetuation of a system problem. These NGOs are not committed to the solution they advocate for, because it would cause their demise being no longer needed. We need to get rid of them as they do more harm than good.
The Shirky Principle is that organizations will invariably perpetuate the problem they claim to advocate for.
One way to think about this is there are two types of organizational activities: functions and projects. Functions are ongoing and must be managed as ongoing. Examples includes the FDA approval of drugs and food, and the SBA small business loan programs. Projects are temporary with a final goal, and once the goal is achieved, the organization supporting the project goes away or shifts to something else. Projects should include project-programs to address hunger or homelessness. These project-programs are to solve a system problem. They should have final goals attached to them. If not meeting the goals, the project-programs get scrapped. And if hitting the goals, the projects might get implemented as some ongoing functional program... but not to "solve hunger of homelessness" but to maintain the level achieved by the initial project-program.
Much of our government bloat is that we have too many perpetual project-programs. We have spent trillions on "the war on hunger" yet the hunger industrial complex keeps screaming that we have ongoing problems with hunger. That being the case, this hunger industrial complex needs to be dismantled as it is clear it isn't meeting the required goals of the project.
DOGE is really just a label for what this second cohort of people know... that there is a ubiquitous organizational leadership principle that exists in the private sector but has generally never seen the light of day in most government. The principle is one of constant improvement... always working to create greater efficiencies and value for customers and constituents. The need is to constantly cut and remove that is not needed, what is not effective... and to reorganize around a clear mission and strategy to focus on the essential, critical and useful.
Because the tendency of people in any organization is to strive to a point of mastery and then shift to defense of their power position, bureaucratic bloat happens. Management action is required to combat that.
The private industry has all manner of management methodologies applied to help with the challenge: Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering, Six-Sigma, etc. These types of methodologies can be applied in government organizations, but for the power that rejects them due to the people in government position that want to protect their power and position.
The reason that the Democrats are on the wrong side of cultural issues today is they succeeded in defining their stance on those issues as right, good, and proper - and then reality proved that their success did nothing to improve the happiness and prosperity of any but a very select few Americans. The transgender rights movement wasn't satisfied with gaining acceptance for transgender individuals and defined transgender rights in a way that trampled the rights of biological women - both straight and gay - to have their own "penis-free" spaces. Black Lives Matter not only didn't make Black lives better, it made Black lives in many Black-majority neighborhoods much worse. DEI became an end in itself rather than a means to make organizations benefit from the contributions of previously excluded populations. Unregulated immigration didn't limit itself to the huddled masses of the tired and poor but instead brought massive burdens on local budgets and infrastructure and increased crime and disorder in many places. Harm reduction and housing first policies didn't get homeless people off the street but enabled them to die slowly, mired in addiction, mental illness, and economic hopelessness. The Green movement achieved few of its declared environmental goals but diverted resources from economic activity that powered the livelihoods of real people. Infrastructure programs diverted even more resources from real economic activity into bureaucratic tar pits that insured that none of the infrastructure actually got built.
American voters have seen that the Progressive vision of society and governance has not produced a new millennium of harmony and prosperity but instead has worsened societal tensions and economic turmoil to their detriment. For them, these are no longer cultural issues: they are bread and butter issues and quality of life issues. Since Progressives were not content to take a live and let live attitude regarding these issues, the voters aren't willing to take a live and let live attitude in their backlash. If Trump succeeds in making voters' lives better economically and less fraught socially, he will bury Progressivism as a viable political movement for a generation or more. (And without Progressivism, does the Democratic Party have anything to offer in contrast to Trump's version of Republican populism?)
Trump's problem is Republicans, not Democrats. The GOPe, while cowed into silence is still out there. Perhaps more dangerous is the triumphantalism among MAGA types. This will be the source of overreach. Populist fusion will temper this should it occur.
He's not off to a good start. Amongst those pardoned were those who attacked police officers and those who literally tried to overthrow the government. (in the literal sense--see: Enrique Tarrio, the guy convicted in a court of law of seditious treason, and received a full pardon)
I've always said Trump's closest modern historical analogue was Mussolini, and the parallels continue to be striking and profuse. Both came to power on a wave of discontent during a time of sociopolitical malaise (post-WWI Italy/post-COVID US), leveraging anger- and fear-inducing rhetoric and new communication technologies (Mussolini was a masterful user of the radio, Trump a Twitter Ace), each on the promise to 'make his country great again', and to hurt and shame the left. (Mussolini's promise to expunge the 'traitorous' socialists--which he violently followed through with--and Trump's promise to 'own the libs') Rather than simply accepting their money, they actively invited their country's oligarchs into their cabinets. (Mussolini, after privatizing the telephonic system in Italy, welcomed the oligarch that essentially bought it into his private circle; Trump has his co-president, Musk) And, of course, they developed a cult of personality that captured a vast swathe of the population, and an unparalleled propaganda machine. (anyone who argues that Trump doesn't have the latter has either never heard of the Sinclair broadcasting empire, or is lying)
The only parallel that was missing was the cultivation, through legal protection, of paramilitary organizations dedicated to them, and we finally have that now. (Mussolini's brownshirts would never be punished for their actions, and now the J6 crew won't either)
One hopes for a better outcome for the US than with Italy, but narcissists rarely rule well for very long. What I will be interested to see is, if Trump *does* rule poorly, will there be consequences, as there was with Il Duce? Rational people assume so, but Trump has a uniquely effective grassroots propaganda machine that Mussolini did not. One that is not top-down, but bottom-up, and composed of information silos. If we endure an economic depression, and Trump tweets, "The Democrats have sabotaged the nation's economy, and now want to blame me for it!", will the people believe him, if they are caught inside the right silo? So far that has been the case for every one of his fibs. And he has been given a pass for his greatest failures--COVID being the highest profile. So one wonders.
And one hopes, as you point out, that we don't have to find out.
Well there are really no black-masked Democrat violent rioters of 2020, events in which many cops were killed and injured, in prison. The apparent justification for why they were never charged and convicted is that they had constitutional rights to protest and it includes support for a level of civil disobedience. And this was also during a global pandemic where they spread the virus.
Your analysis is too one-sided here and frankly one of the reasons that the Democrats lost the election. Voters really hate such blatant unfairness in the administration of justice.
I think the way the Democrats lost actually only deepens the parallel, in that they were/are very much analogous to the Italian interwar left, beset with a lot of the same problems TLP talks about. The socialists of Mussolini's time were seen as effete, out of touch and ineffectual internationalists. Much of their rhetoric and the writing in their newspapers revolved around pie-in-the-sky dreams of 'fostering the global revolution of the working class', and they squabbled amongst themselves over niche Marxist issues so that they couldn't rule effectively in Parliament. Meanwhile the average provincial Italian was being impoverished and immiserated by the postwar malaise, and could care less about whether the working class in other countries were 'partaking of the revolution' or not, when they were barely getting by in their own country. As such, they began to feel as if the socialists "talked a good game" about helping the working class, but only really cared about their esoteric pet issues--a feeling of alienation that ultimately led to a falling out between the working class the socialists were supposed to be advocates for, and the working class itself.
And the next step for the discontented common folk, of course, was to embrace a charismatic populist leader who was selling the message that liberal institutions are just mechanisms for exploitation by elites, and a strongman is required to brush them aside and "get the job done for the common man" without liberalism getting in the way. Maybe if the socialists had dropped the byzantine debates over 'the nature of surplus value' or 'revolution vs reformism vs syndicalism vs whatever', and spent more time helping the workers they were voted into office to support, the liberal democratic state and the common folk wouldn't have been as susceptible to capture by an authoritarian leader.
What?!? This is hysterically irrational. I wonder if you even know that Tarrio wasn't even in DC on January 6th.
True, but only because he was busy from another location coordinating a carefully planned operation by the Proud Boys aimed at disrupting the certification of the electoral vote, in order to prevent the transfer of power to Biden.
We know this from the reams of evidence presented at his trial for seditious conspiracy--for which he was found guilty--which included, among other things, the infamous "1776 Returns" document, in which he outlined a plan to occupy government buildings at the Capitol in the hopes of holding up the process of turning the state's offices over to Biden, thereby de facto keeping Trump in power.
Among those operating under directives he made were the Proud Boys members involved in assaulting Capitol police, including Ethan Nordean and Joe Biggs, who you can actually catch on video as some of the first people to breach the Capitol police barricade.
So, no, I'm not being irrational at all--what *is* irrational is pardoning people who conspired to overthrow the government and coordinated violent insurrectionary activity just because they support you. Especially if you're claiming to be the one who is "backing the blue".
Again, with all due respect, you are articulate and obviously intelligent, but you speak with very little wisdom, IMO.
Trump is off to an excellent start. Why? Because he is restoring truth and justice, which you will no doubt find ironic. On his first day, he has reassured Americans that truth and justice matter.
1) There are only two sexes (you can see this as inconsequential, but then you are missing the point, one side does not believe in absolute truth, one does, that is foundational)
2) Men do not belong in women's spaces (again, tell me that this hardly matters because so few have been impacted, not the point, the point is the attack on common sense and decency)
3) Any organization, especially a government should run on meritocracy, not appearances (Our Creator said it best, "For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” 1 Sam 16:7; though this is not a perfect comparison, hopefully you get my point)
4) Green lighting illegal immigration is not only unfair to those who did it legally but unfairly increases the risk to citizens in several arenas
5) Endless, out of control, regulation (have you seen the size of our federal code lately?) created by largely unaccountable bureaucrats decreases economic prosperity (the executive order to pause regulations)
6) When you deliberately try to deceive Americans because you don't like a candidate you deserve to be held accountable (51 signers of the Hunter laptop warning losing security clearance)
7) Free speech is a cornerstone of our Republic (I don't think this executive order will do much but at least we are unlikely to see a Twitter files from this administration showing that they respect free speech, foundational)
8) Spending the citizens tax money is a privilege that should be done with integrity. (DOGE)
Hopefully you will agree, that what truly matters is what is right and what is wrong, as defined by God, not by man. Trump is an imperfect vessel who at least on day one, has started to swing us back to Biblical truth. God bless you Minsky.
Democrats are now the party of government employees. (I can't wait for the howling about civil servants actually having to come into the office). Before popping off about "gutting the civil service" please dig into the details of the impossibility of eliminating positions or firing anyone. Civil service has now evolved into a lifetime guaranteed job. No one else in America (except academia) has these kinds of job protections. There is no way to cut the bloat and deadwood without cutting positions.
Most civil servants are there to do the work of government, regardless of who’s in power. Ditto the Justice Department. As Michael says, it’ll just depend on how far Trump goes. Many people on the right falsely see these people as “the deep state,” which doesn’t portend moderation from Trump. But I hope I’m wrong.
I didn't say anything about the deep state. I specifically talked about cutting waste and bloat, and you can't do that if every single position is off the table.
Curious to see if DOGE will make any meaningful progress on that front, too.
I know you didn't, and I understand your point. I am open to Trump (or any president) getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse (and bloat).
Why say that Americans who reject cultural radicalism yearn for an earlier time when life was easier?
Why not accept that Americans reject extremist views out of common sense? Maybe we recognize that our future depends upon economic growth and fairness, not on virtue signaling.
I like this essay but the author does infantilize voters, at least a bit.
Believe in the good sense of the people, who get right so many things that elites get wrong. Democracy works.
www.savedemocracyinamerica.org
BLM took a hit? The BLM "protests" resulted in more than 2 dozen people dead, $2 billion dollars in property damage, a police station burned to the ground, and an occupied Federal Courthouse set a blaze. After such death and destruction, only a few participants were ever arrested, fewer still were charged, and convicted. Next, came revelations of massive embezzlement by BLM leaders, buying multimillion dollar luxury homes and enjoying first class travel, rather than assisting minorities in need. If BLM still exists, it is but a shell.
More importantly, it appears the vast majority of DC Dems, still do not understand why Trump won the election. This was abundantly clear, when 158 Dem House members refused to support the deportation of foreign sex offenders, who confess or are convicted in a US Court. The bill also forbade migration into the US, by convicted of sex offenders.
Reasonable people can debate deportation targets, how many new migrants the US should accept, annually, and their level of taxpayer support. There exists no reasonable argument for convicted foreign rapists and those who molest children, continuing to reside in the US, post prison. Moreover, why on earth, would Dems seek to import such predators?
Sex offenders have one of the highest recidivism rates, of any criminals. Demanding convicted sexual predators remain in the US, is tone deafness on a scale, rarely seen in the US politics prior to the last 4 years. Only suppression of the vote results by the Press, has saved Dems from public outcry. Eventually Americans will become aware, Dem immigration insanity remains. That may prove to be, more important than Trump's actions.
Over 10k people were arrested in connection with the BLM riots, and 120 of the worst offenders were convicted of federal crimes--none of whom were pardoned by the president.
There's simply no comparison to what Trump just did.
Sometimes, when the enemy of your enemy is not your friend you still need to support some of his objectives. I'm a centrist Dem and a sex realist who welcomes Trump's embrace of biological reality and his rejection of the gender identity myth. Had Democrats been listening, they would have heard the voices of the left-of-center gender critical movement that has been calling for an end to the excesses of trans activism. Instead they believed trans activists' lie that all critics of gender identity ideology are transphobic haters.
Until recently, sex realists lacked access to the mainstream media, though trans activists and their allies could advance their policies and programs in the media upon request. That’s a key reason why the left doesn’t get that trans ideology is harmful to real women and children. Our message hasn’t gotten past the censorship, or if it has it has been rejected as hate speech.
There will be much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth among liberals and progressives over the fate of "trans kids" as a result of Trump's executive orders.
It is an open question how sensitively the Trump people will sell the gender related executive orders and which conceptual framework they will use. Imagine what a setback it would be for sex realists if James Lindsay were tapped by the White House to spread his idea that gender ideology is a Commie plot. They could do worse than to outsource the messaging to figures such as Helen Joyce.
Big big difference. Trump will succeed and his programs, as most did before (despite 100% Democrat opposition) will succeed; America will be much greater, hence the "long leash" will be incredibly long (I say 12 years). Just to remind you, I correctly called this election six months out at PRECISELY 312 EVs and 1.5% popular vote and +3 GOP senators (was 4, could easily have been 7 if not for questionable late counting). As they did in 2017-2020, Trump's policies will dramatically reduce energy costs, and this time there will be no "long leash" for antifa/Black Lives Matter to destroy cities as there was by that ignoramus Jeff Sessions.
At this point, I'm guessing J.D. Vance would win the EC by 320-340 EVs, and the popular vote again. For the Democrats to reverse ANY of this, they would have to recant the vax support (which Trump partially recanted), their support for trans idiocy, their support for global warming, and their support for replacement theory. None of this is on the horizon. Hence, 2036 before they really have a chance again, by which time Rs add a minimum of 6 more EVs from the census. Democrats better think long and hard because this is Reconstruction-level denial of reality.
There are two types of people in the political chattering class. One lacks the actual understanding of what type of leadership is required to get things done, or are otherwise served well by the ongoing existence of certain system problems they exploit for their own status, power and wealth. The former can be forgiven as they are just ignorant. The latter is a greedy force of continued system decline that must be eliminated.
Examples include NGOs that feed off the continued perpetuation of a system problem. These NGOs are not committed to the solution they advocate for, because it would cause their demise being no longer needed. We need to get rid of them as they do more harm than good.
The Shirky Principle is that organizations will invariably perpetuate the problem they claim to advocate for.
One way to think about this is there are two types of organizational activities: functions and projects. Functions are ongoing and must be managed as ongoing. Examples includes the FDA approval of drugs and food, and the SBA small business loan programs. Projects are temporary with a final goal, and once the goal is achieved, the organization supporting the project goes away or shifts to something else. Projects should include project-programs to address hunger or homelessness. These project-programs are to solve a system problem. They should have final goals attached to them. If not meeting the goals, the project-programs get scrapped. And if hitting the goals, the projects might get implemented as some ongoing functional program... but not to "solve hunger of homelessness" but to maintain the level achieved by the initial project-program.
Much of our government bloat is that we have too many perpetual project-programs. We have spent trillions on "the war on hunger" yet the hunger industrial complex keeps screaming that we have ongoing problems with hunger. That being the case, this hunger industrial complex needs to be dismantled as it is clear it isn't meeting the required goals of the project.
DOGE is really just a label for what this second cohort of people know... that there is a ubiquitous organizational leadership principle that exists in the private sector but has generally never seen the light of day in most government. The principle is one of constant improvement... always working to create greater efficiencies and value for customers and constituents. The need is to constantly cut and remove that is not needed, what is not effective... and to reorganize around a clear mission and strategy to focus on the essential, critical and useful.
Because the tendency of people in any organization is to strive to a point of mastery and then shift to defense of their power position, bureaucratic bloat happens. Management action is required to combat that.
The private industry has all manner of management methodologies applied to help with the challenge: Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering, Six-Sigma, etc. These types of methodologies can be applied in government organizations, but for the power that rejects them due to the people in government position that want to protect their power and position.
The reason that the Democrats are on the wrong side of cultural issues today is they succeeded in defining their stance on those issues as right, good, and proper - and then reality proved that their success did nothing to improve the happiness and prosperity of any but a very select few Americans. The transgender rights movement wasn't satisfied with gaining acceptance for transgender individuals and defined transgender rights in a way that trampled the rights of biological women - both straight and gay - to have their own "penis-free" spaces. Black Lives Matter not only didn't make Black lives better, it made Black lives in many Black-majority neighborhoods much worse. DEI became an end in itself rather than a means to make organizations benefit from the contributions of previously excluded populations. Unregulated immigration didn't limit itself to the huddled masses of the tired and poor but instead brought massive burdens on local budgets and infrastructure and increased crime and disorder in many places. Harm reduction and housing first policies didn't get homeless people off the street but enabled them to die slowly, mired in addiction, mental illness, and economic hopelessness. The Green movement achieved few of its declared environmental goals but diverted resources from economic activity that powered the livelihoods of real people. Infrastructure programs diverted even more resources from real economic activity into bureaucratic tar pits that insured that none of the infrastructure actually got built.
American voters have seen that the Progressive vision of society and governance has not produced a new millennium of harmony and prosperity but instead has worsened societal tensions and economic turmoil to their detriment. For them, these are no longer cultural issues: they are bread and butter issues and quality of life issues. Since Progressives were not content to take a live and let live attitude regarding these issues, the voters aren't willing to take a live and let live attitude in their backlash. If Trump succeeds in making voters' lives better economically and less fraught socially, he will bury Progressivism as a viable political movement for a generation or more. (And without Progressivism, does the Democratic Party have anything to offer in contrast to Trump's version of Republican populism?)
We shall see
Trump's problem is Republicans, not Democrats. The GOPe, while cowed into silence is still out there. Perhaps more dangerous is the triumphantalism among MAGA types. This will be the source of overreach. Populist fusion will temper this should it occur.