I guess now we have the answer to the 2025 Question of the Year:
Which will Trump invade first, Canada or Greenland?
4 weeks ago
Is there a cadre of old school (R)’s ready and able to turn the GOP around in 2008? I don’t see it. I don’t know how they would do it.
Is there a cadre of old school Republicans? I'm sure there is. Willing to turn the GOP around? That, too. Able? I beg leave to doubt it. Like russell, I don't see how anyone could.
The closest I can picture is explicitly splitting the party (with the old school guys willing to abandon the name, which I expect them to hate). But that would leave them with too small a base to compete effectively. They would do better to wait for the Democrats to fission, and join one of the pieces. But that's not a turn-around.
4 weeks ago
... the country will not be interested.
GOP by 15%.
Of course not. That's why McCain won in 2008. Well, that and the Democratic base picked a candidate they should have known was unelectable.
/s
4 weeks ago
Vance is a pail of lukewarm dog vomit and naked ambition. I don’t think he can hold any of it together for long.
What still terrifies me, though, is what comes after. I’m not convinced that the US Constitution can keep this place running with just another patch.
I completely agree on Vance. To hold their current coalition together post-Trump, they would need a figure who, among other things, is a showman like Trump is. Vance not only isn't, he not even vaguely close. And while there are doubtless would-be demagogues out there, there isn't one who seems likely to be the necessary unifying figure.
I see how the US and its Constitution could continue (with some modifications/Amendments, but recognizably a continuation). What my imagination is not adequate for is envisioning a path from here to there.
The Christianist nationalists can get pushed back into their former condition of minimal relevance. Just one more group of wierdos in a country which has long had a plethora of them. That's not the real challenge.
While other countries manage just fine with multiple parties, the US seems to favor a two party norm. The parties don't have to agree on much policy-wise, just be willing to accept that the majority of voters will sometimes favor one and other times the other. (That's a big piece of what is driving the Republicans into irrelevance: the voters overall like pieceful transfers of power. )
A third party can arise, but in a relatively short time it will either replace one of the two major parties or join the ranks of the essentially irrelevant minor parties (think Greens or American Independence Party). How does that happen? It's difficult to say, since there are only a couple of examples:
circa 1830 (partly as fallout from their stance on the War of 1812) the Federalists fell into irrelevance, and the Republicans (usually referred to, these days, as the "Democratic Republicans" for clarity) split into the Democrats and the Whigs,
In the 1850s (over the issue of slavery) the Whigs got displaced by the Republicans.
I doubt that the current Republican Party is salvageable. But will a new party arise (probably including many ex-Republicans, like the Whigs in the early Republican Party)? I'm not seeing any sign of that, at least not yet. Or will the Democrats split, and on what basis? I'm not seeing any glimmers of that either. There are places (e.g. California) where the Republicans have embraced irrelevance for decades, but the Democrats here are still divided by individual personalities, rather than by anything resembling groups.
As I say, I can see something of where we could get to, but not how to get there.
On the other hand, where else we might go is not obvious either. The mechanics are clear -- the Constitution provides for piecemeal amendment or complete replacement. But what would get hammered out in a Constitutional Convention, should we go that route? And how would it be able to satisfy the majority required to ratify the new one? "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future."
4 weeks ago
I'd say the biggest epiphantic sign is that the cultists, while they don't appear to be leaving the faith, are much less willing to flaunt it. The signs and banners and hats are far less in evidence than they a year ago, or during his first term. Might it be that they are, perhaps not entirely consciously, preparing themselves to bury their past?
P.S. I'm not sure the lack of turnover in Trump's cabinet reflects any concern about getting replacements approved. That would require a firmer grasp of reality than we see elsewhere. Instead, I think it reflects the fact that they are all shameless toadies who constantly tell him how wonderful he is, and feed him fantasies about how successfully they are doing what he wants. As opposed to last term, where there was a lot of turnover from people telling him No . . . and failing to lie about what was actually going on.
There were lots of disparaging comments, during the first term, about the so-called "adults in the room." Mostly reflecting the view that they didn't seem to be stopping him from creating one mess after another. Having now seen what happens without them, it's pretty apparent that a lot of restraint was, in fact, happening. It seems like some apoligies are in order. Not that I expect to see any.
I guess now we have the answer to the 2025 Question of the Year:
Which will Trump invade first, Canada or Greenland?
Is there a cadre of old school Republicans? I'm sure there is. Willing to turn the GOP around? That, too. Able? I beg leave to doubt it. Like russell, I don't see how anyone could.
The closest I can picture is explicitly splitting the party (with the old school guys willing to abandon the name, which I expect them to hate). But that would leave them with too small a base to compete effectively. They would do better to wait for the Democrats to fission, and join one of the pieces. But that's not a turn-around.
Of course not. That's why McCain won in 2008. Well, that and the Democratic base picked a candidate they should have known was unelectable.
/s
I completely agree on Vance. To hold their current coalition together post-Trump, they would need a figure who, among other things, is a showman like Trump is. Vance not only isn't, he not even vaguely close. And while there are doubtless would-be demagogues out there, there isn't one who seems likely to be the necessary unifying figure.
I see how the US and its Constitution could continue (with some modifications/Amendments, but recognizably a continuation). What my imagination is not adequate for is envisioning a path from here to there.
The Christianist nationalists can get pushed back into their former condition of minimal relevance. Just one more group of wierdos in a country which has long had a plethora of them. That's not the real challenge.
While other countries manage just fine with multiple parties, the US seems to favor a two party norm. The parties don't have to agree on much policy-wise, just be willing to accept that the majority of voters will sometimes favor one and other times the other. (That's a big piece of what is driving the Republicans into irrelevance: the voters overall like pieceful transfers of power. )
A third party can arise, but in a relatively short time it will either replace one of the two major parties or join the ranks of the essentially irrelevant minor parties (think Greens or American Independence Party). How does that happen? It's difficult to say, since there are only a couple of examples:
I doubt that the current Republican Party is salvageable. But will a new party arise (probably including many ex-Republicans, like the Whigs in the early Republican Party)? I'm not seeing any sign of that, at least not yet. Or will the Democrats split, and on what basis? I'm not seeing any glimmers of that either. There are places (e.g. California) where the Republicans have embraced irrelevance for decades, but the Democrats here are still divided by individual personalities, rather than by anything resembling groups.
As I say, I can see something of where we could get to, but not how to get there.
On the other hand, where else we might go is not obvious either. The mechanics are clear -- the Constitution provides for piecemeal amendment or complete replacement. But what would get hammered out in a Constitutional Convention, should we go that route? And how would it be able to satisfy the majority required to ratify the new one? "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future."
I'd say the biggest epiphantic sign is that the cultists, while they don't appear to be leaving the faith, are much less willing to flaunt it. The signs and banners and hats are far less in evidence than they a year ago, or during his first term. Might it be that they are, perhaps not entirely consciously, preparing themselves to bury their past?
P.S. I'm not sure the lack of turnover in Trump's cabinet reflects any concern about getting replacements approved. That would require a firmer grasp of reality than we see elsewhere. Instead, I think it reflects the fact that they are all shameless toadies who constantly tell him how wonderful he is, and feed him fantasies about how successfully they are doing what he wants. As opposed to last term, where there was a lot of turnover from people telling him No . . . and failing to lie about what was actually going on.
There were lots of disparaging comments, during the first term, about the so-called "adults in the room." Mostly reflecting the view that they didn't seem to be stopping him from creating one mess after another. Having now seen what happens without them, it's pretty apparent that a lot of restraint was, in fact, happening. It seems like some apoligies are in order. Not that I expect to see any.