Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
Hi walto, good to see you back — even if only for a brief visit.
I looked at your linked blog entry: “Is it obvious that the Earth is a globe or is it actually more certain that it couldn’t be?”
It’s of course certain that the Earth is not a globe. But it is approximately a globe. And, of course, it is approximately flat. So much depends on approximation, and that’s part of what allows wild theories to proliferate.
My conclusion from all of this is that truth is a social construct. And in a divided society, there will be divisions about what is considered to be true.
Hi, Neil! I guess you’re a Flattish Earther! 🥸
I’m a pragmatist.
When I am navigating the streets of Chicago, then a flat earth model works pretty well. But if I want to take a trip to Europe or Australia, I’ll go with the globe model.
Those people exist and they are the absolute majority. See DNA_Jock just below your comment.
I’ve met maybe one American online who has a view somewhat more nuanced than the straightforward, I vote for the president and this is the only truth! That’s one among dozens.
Primaries are how nominees become candidates. In some states, people can very well vote for a nominee, but a nominee is not a candidate. And the direct result of the elections is the electoral college, not the president – so again, the people do not elect the president.
Due to all this, my claim is that the people do NOT vote for the president, provided that we go by the books of law and established procedure. What can refute the books? Not you, and not even the overwhelming majority opinion that the people vote for the president. Actions speak louder than words.
In France, yes, the parties set up the candidates. Everybody in France knows this. Nobody thinks that the people are setting up the candidates. The parties set up the candidates and the people vote for them.
The differences are that in France there are more viable parties than two and therefore more viable candidates than two. And there’s a straightforward counting of the votes, no electoral college. In USA there has been just two viable candidates from the same two parties for centuries now. The people may somehow have all the rights to set up any candidate they like as you claim, but it has had zero effect.
“Swing the result” has nothing to do with it. The point under discussion is that you either vote for a president or you don’t. The fact is that you don’t. And another fact is that you very strongly think you do.
walto,
Hi, Walto. Pleased you found a moment to visit. 👍🤗
I grew up in Warwickshire. My local MP was John Profumo till 1963, then some idiot called Angus Maude. I see the current incumbent is one Nadhim Zahawi.
I still don’t think you quite understand. A vote for an elector who in turn will vote for the candidate of your choice, really IS a vote for that candidate, albeit indirect. The electoral college doesn’t select electors at random, they actually DO vote for the candidate who got the most votes in that state. If a majority of the people in a given state vote for candidate X in the general election, that candidate will get all the electors. People know this.
Now, this might be a bit too nuanced for your delusions, but the problem here is NOT that people vote for electors rather than for candidates directly (and then the electors vote for the winning candidate). The problem is that a vote for a slate of electors in one state counts considerably more (or less) than a vote for a slate of electors in another state. In other words, not every vote is counted equally. Worst case, one vote (for a slate of electors) in Wyoming counts as much as 47 votes for a slate of electors in California.
You seem convinced that if people see a candidate’s name on the ballot and vote for that candidate, that vote isn’t for the candidate at all, but for some nameless set of electors, and the ballot is therefore meaningless. I tried to tell you that IF we abolished the electoral college and voted directly for the candidate BUT some states counted more than others anyway, it wouldn’t make any difference from the current system – the President could still win with a minority of the votes.
Conversely, if the number of electors per state was exactly proportional to the number of electors in every other state based on voting population, then the electoral college system would make exactly ZERO difference and the winning candidate would ALWAYS have the majority of the popular vote.
In other words, you are barking up the wrong tree. The problem is NOT the indirect election through electors, the problem is the inequality of the states. And the problem underlying that one is, the representatives of the states to which the system grants excess power are the very people whose votes would be required to make the system fair – the very last thing they’d want.
Now, this is another topic entirely. The reason there are only 2 viable parties in the US is because our Constitution provides for single-member districts. Each district is distinct from all other districts, and can have one and only one representative (though two Senators run statewide, and several states in fact have one Democrat and one Republican Senator). This is unlike France and I think much of the world, where all candidates run “at large” and the ones who get the most votes become the representatives.
My state has seven Congressmen, therefore 9 electors. If candidates ran “at large” statewide, with the top 7 vote-getters going to Congress, we’d have multiple viable parties. If we kept the electoral college, we’d have to choose whether to have all electors vote for whichever candidate got the largest plurality, or have the electors represent candidates proportional to the vote.
These are two terrible choices. In the first case, a President could be selected with far less than a majority of votes, perhaps less than 25%. Would that be the “people’s choice”? But the second choice has the same problem – no single candidate would get a majority of electors. So as in much of Europe, these electors representing all these different candidates would have to work out some sort of coalition, bound to be unstable. I think in Europe, the compromise Prime Minister lasts not much longer than the coalition supporting him, so new elections can be called at any time. With the US system of a new vote every leap year, we’d have a compromise President spending perhaps years as a lame duck.
Now, I’m not entirely convinced that the French have a “better” government than the US, but switching the US to the French system could not be done incrementally. We’d need a new Constitution from scratch.
Not sure what hinges on this “disagreement.” You both seem to agree how the U.S. President is elected, but continue to fight about how this procedure should be described. The point is, it’s a rotten method, extremely undemocratic, however it’s termed. I believe it was a Madisonian compromise, put in place to protect the property and standing of the conventioneers, who worried about all the other sorts of procedures that had been proposed. It’s still there (and likely always will be) both because smaller, rural states aren’t terribly fond of majoritarian democracy and because the Constitution is so difficult to amend.
The National Popular Vote Compact has gained ground over the last couple of years, but I don’t know if its passage would withstand SCOTUS scrutiny anyhow. I haven’t really looked into that matter: if anybody here has, I’d be curious to hear their thoughts!
I’m afraid you have this precisely backwards: in fact, primaries are how candidates become nominees. The rest of your output is similarly divorced from reality.
Wow, that’s quite the self-selecting sample you’ve got there, and I have no faith in your ability to accurately discern their true understanding from your online interactions. I’ve lived and worked in the USA for 36 years, and You. Are. Wrong.
I do wonder where you get your information.
Erik: Primaries are how nominees become candidates.
Jock: I’m afraid you have this precisely backwards: in fact, primaries are how candidates become nominees.
————————————————————–
I think you should def continue fighting about this crucial matter for as long as it may take! In the name of God, do not back down! Let only the truth prevail!!
Oh come on walto,
Erik also wrote
Bull(Moose)shit!
There’s lots to discuss — I just picked the most obvious one.
To return to the topic of conversation, I don’t believe a National Popular Vote would change politics enough, even if it were achievable.
We need to get away from FPTP elections. Multi-member districts (and AV or STV) make gerrymandering really tricky…
Unachievable for the same reasons, of course.
Now you’re talking! Right on!!
Re the (only) two candidates biz that Eric mentions, I think Duverger was largely correct about his “law”: Single winner districts do tend to produce exactly two meaningful parties. (I know, though, that fusion advocates think a bit differently about this matter…)
Re my question about the National Popular Vote Compact, I just saw this: https://electionlawblog.org/?p=137235
In the US, the vote for President/Vice President is the only race for national office. All other races are within states. So what would be required is some sort of carve-out for that one specific race, establishing the unique national protocols determined at the Federal level, set by Congress. Which would probably require amending the Constitution.
DNA_Jock:
Just philosophically speaking, no matter what system is established (not just political system or electoral system, but really the rules for any game) this is going to benefit some more than others. The problems creep in when any rule changes can be effectively vetoed (de facto or de jure) by those who enjoy the greatest benefits. This isn’t just visible when you look at national popular election, it’s visible when you look at racial advantages and disadvantages throughout American society, which are pervasive, lifelong, and as durable as human nature. The appeal of being king of the hill is, it grants the power to remain king. Who was it who first observed that those who crave power the most are the last people who should have it – but perpetually those most likely to have it.
I would argue that third party candidates decided several recent elections.
W Bush, Bill Clinton, Trump.
But the interesting stuff is in the way candidates get chosen. They used to be chosen in smoky back rooms. Then smoke became unacceptable, and primaries were mandated.
But it looks to me like the back room is back. Watch and see if Biden is forced out. And Trump. Sausage making was never pretty, but now it’s in the open, if you dare look.
But this is something quite different from being a viable candidate. Ross Perot and George Wallace had no realistic chance of winning. Neither did the Bullmoose Party.
Elections these days are decided by a fraction of a percent. Third party candidates change the landscape by changing the dialog.
Just mused about Carl Schmitt here if anybody is interested: luckorcunning.blogspot.com
Almost entirely not true. Of the 435 seats in Congress, 390 are regarded as “safe” seats – that is, expected to be noncompetitive. A fraction of a percent is irrelevant when the difference exceeds 10%, and often 20%. In the last election for Senator, exactly one seat changed parties.
Yes, I’m aware that there have been races where the margin of victory is exceeded by the vote for some third party candidate. In 2016, the votes for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson together, exceeded Trumps margin of victory in Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. Who their voters would have selected otherwise is hard to pin down.
I don’t think the green party or the libertarian party really change anyone’s dialog, except possibly in the pre-primary debates.
I know about more parties like that that pretend to represent an alternative. For example remember the Tea Party that some think to have been a grassroots movement? The more recent attempts are Andrew Yang’s Forward party and whatever it is Kyrsten Sinema is doing. None of this has even remotely made a dent into the two-party system. Whoever calls the likes of Bill Clinton, W or Trump third-party candidates, sorry…
There’s nothing in the cards or stars threatening the two-party system. Rationally speaking, the Republican Party should have self-destructed in shame after the storming of the Capitol. Instead, it looks like the Democratic Party is keeping them on life support as a known safe weak enemy. There is no room for any fresh unpredictable competitors.
Again, this comes back to single member districts. If there can only be one winner, and that person requires a majority, there simply isn’t room for anyone else. But I really don’t believe the Democrats are keeping the Republicans around in the hope that they’re weak. I think Fox News is doing that.
Have you seen the video clips of poor Mike Pence telling an audience full of Trumpies that he did what the Constitution requires, and Trump is lying to them? They don’t want to hear it – Fox News and Saint Donald say otherwise. Republican voters WANT to be lied to, because the lies align so comfortably with their prejudices.
The senate has been split almost 50-50 for a long time. The House and senate majorities can be flipped by a dozen seats. Presidential races can be flipped by less than one percent in three states. The 2000 race was flipped by 200 votes.
A third of the states have inadequate voting and counting procedures. That the other two thirds are competent means there’s no excuse.
On another unrelated note, and as a member of the Vietnam baby killer generation, I find it a bit ironic that Democrats have made cluster bombs great again.
I’m predicting the rather weird war against Biden will continue to escalate. Maureen Dowd just did a hit piece. He is not loved by Democrats.
From an article at evolutionnews.org about an ID conference in São Paulo:
Creepy……..
Seriously, a news organisation owned by an Australian moghul is determining the political system? Then why was it the same last century and two centuries ago when there was no Fox News?
Networks news reaches about two percent of the American population.
Determining the political system? Of course not. Misinforming and influencing voters? Very much so.
Uh, would you be so kind as to, you know, name the Australian mogul who determined the American political system one and two centuries ago? All the history books I’ve read tell me the system was determined by the founding fathers who were in turn influenced by the writing of Mill and Locke. I had no idea these political philosophers were Australian. Australia wasn’t even a nation until 1901.
Google is your friend. A quick google search tells me:
The point I’m making is that the system has been the same all along. Fox News was not there in the beginning. Fox News is here now, but it’s still the same two-party system. I say that the way things are is because of the system, not because of Fox News.
The way big media works in USA may have influenced storming the Capitol, but storming the Capitol was Trump’s attempt at a coup. In a normal country you get barred from politics (or worse) and your party gets purged or banned when you are a leader of the party and attempt a coup. So why are these normal things not happening? Because of Fox News? I’d say it’s because state officials and Democrats are not doing what they have to do to maintain normalcy. They prefer to keep up the two-party system with the usual competitor even when the competitor, the Republican Party, attempts a coup. New competitors are kept out regardless of the reputational cost and the growing perception of illegitimacy of the system.
From the premise that you have a two-party system it follows that no presidential race or election was ever flipped. The two parties that are assigned to power always held the power.
The fact that you have alternately the president from one party and then from the other gives you the illusion of choice and gets you excited about elections, but the bigger picture is that you have a two-party system. The same two parties always held the power, exactly as the system dictates.
I think you have driven this particular delusion into the ground and you continue to beat on it. The two party system is a necessary and inevitable result of having single member districts. The US has single member districts. That’s the way it was designed. If you don’t like it, good thing you live somewhere where the design of your political system produces such excellent political results!
And clearly nobody is ever going to penetrate into your delusion that a two party system doesn’t curtail choices at all. How many different parties offering different choices does it take to make popular and/or wise political policy? The choices being offered by two parties are certainly not the SAME two choices over any sustained period of time. How can you look at a US Republican party which is now championing the exact opposite of what they championed a generation ago, and saying it’s the same old same old?
Republicans in the recent past were the party of Big Money, of the upper classes, of the owners. Democrats were the party of the workers, the vast sea of little guys. Today the Republican voting strength is with the rural, less educated, less affluent. The Democrats now find their support among the more educated, the better-off, the less religious. These are very different voting blocs.
Ultimately, regardless of the political structure, the government moves with the will of the people, however expressed. Should we spend tax dollars to build a road from point A to point B? We either do it or we don’t. Why does it require Europeans 17 different parties to decide to build or not? Government makes countless decisions of this sort all the time, whether it’s a two party system or a coalition government of many parties.
As for parties being “assigned” power, who does this assignment? Could it be the voters, or are you suggesting it’s the secret illuminati doing it?
So you agree: It’s the system.
Could it be, perhaps, the way the system is designed? And it seems to be working as intended, because this is the way it has worked for centuries and no changes are in the plans or cards or stars.
To put it another way, when I say that the people do not elect the president and I have the constitution on my side, you deny. When I say that the two-party system is a system, i.e. by design, and you actually agree, you still deny. The bone-headed denial of Americans is invincible. You are totally embracing post-truth.
I have another possibly controversial viewpoint about the American political system: Trump demonstrated that there are no checks or balances to the office of the president. For example, the “impeachment” thing does not work, never once worked. And even after leaving the office, there’s no accountability for Trump for anything he did in office. I took a look at the stolen documents indictments and I see that they are framed so that they cover strictly what Trump did after he left the office: It’s about that he kept the documents after leaving office, stored them in his mansion, he did not cooperate when asked to return the documents, and showed them to whom not supposed to. None of this touches what he did in office.
I will change my mind on this point when Trump’s election theft (“I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break!”) will be prosecuted. This happened in office.
Try being more honest, it leads to better discussions;.
First, the people DO elect the president. The election is indirect, but an indirect election by the people is still an election by the people. Why would there have been so many recounts of the vote, and audits of the ballots, if they didn’t matter?
I certainly do not deny that the two party system is built into the system. I already said it was an inevitable result of single member districts. But I do deny that a two party system truly restricts what governments can accomplish.
PLEASE be honest.
I think you almost have a valid point here. The US system, much like the British system, relies quite heavily on traditions rather than rules, established by a couple of centuries of politicians basically acting in good faith in the interests of the nation. We have had the “loyal opposition” who disagrees on tactics but not on goals. And yes, someone like Trump who simply does not care about traditions, about good faith, about the health of the nation, about the democratic system, can (and has) trampled a good many guiderails that existed by agreement and practice rather than rules.
So basically you’re right, but your critique applies to any and every system of government that has ever existed. NO set of rules, laws, guiderails, etc, can survive the corrupt intent to ignore and violate them. Checks and balances work only when they are allowed to work. When judges are selected for their partisan ideology, by politicians who drew district lines to ensure their continued power, any system will fail.
Golly, one might think the votes for President by the people MEANT something! It’s almost like the people didn’t vote for him.
Hopefully, you understand that the will of the people can be a prickly thing when the people are both polarized and ignorant. Trump has skated all these years because of the vast and fanatical public support he enjoys. Those lacking such support have routinely been prosecuted, found guilty, and punished – for doing in many cases far less frequent or serious crime than Trump.
Imagine trying to empanel a jury for any of Trump’s crimes. Forget the evidence, nobody will pay any attention to it. Nearly every US citizen either worships or despises Trump. Any trial is over as soon as a jury is selected. But should we scrap a jury trial in favor of a bench trial? Immediately the question would become, who appointed the judge? And yes, it’s discouraging to realize how the US or any other democratic system can collapse in the face of a corrupt strongman with enough public support.
Golly, you’re right. If we only a count a single channel, and only count prime time, it’s not all that many people. But for the proper spin, let’s simply ignore all other hours and all other channels, present a hopelessly misleading conclusion, and claim it’s based on the facts!
I think you could find work at Fox.
So it’s somewhere between 2 and 67 percent.
But the discussion was originally about how Fox News warps politics, and Fox News reaches a very small percentage of people.
Not sure if this is what the discussion was “originally” about. Anyway, “a very small percentage of people” (presumably in terms of direct subscribers) is not relevant when we talk about that it warps politics.
When we talk about that it warps politics, then we are rather talking about whether it takes sides on the political spectrum, what kind of politicians it promotes and demotes and whether it has an effect or not. For example, Ted Cruz said about the January 6 event that it was a violent terrorist attack, and in his next interview with Tucker Carlson he was humiliated and made to apologise for characterising the event this way. (This interview should really be an eye-opener: Who was in the dominating role in that interview? Tucker was. And Ted the Senator was treated as a nobody who should shape up to hopefully become a somebody.)
This is one way Fox News and other media outlets influence politics and politicians. Another is the way journalists end up as press secretaries and advisors or, vice versa, politicians go from politics to think tanks and opinion/expert roles in the media. And still another is the way political campaigning funds the media (via advertising money) and the media of course can choose whether to accept or refuse the advertising space or perhaps give more space on air or in print under normal reporting, interview or visit or whatever.
I personally have not subscribed to any TV channel or cable or “service” or newspaper all this century. By your metric, I should be unaffected by media, but I am not. I know all about media half a globe away despite not having paid a single cent to them.
Gotta agree with Erik here. “reach” is not the same thing as “influence”.
Consider: A large percentage of Republican voters continue to believe, quite strongly, that the 2020 election was rigged and fraudulent. And this despite a good many recounts and audits, none of which found any such problems. So why do so many people continue to believe the Big Lie? Do you think Trump told them all in person?
You don’t need to be a direct consumer to be influenced by an opinion leader, whose opinions are reflected on half a dozen or more significant sites, on facebook and on social media. Whose consumers in turn influence friends and family and their workplaces. Influence propagates like ripples in a pond.
And a lot of democrats believe the 2000 election was stolen.
I believe three things.
Presidential elections have been extraordinarily close.
Many states have election systems that are sloppy and not worthy of trust.
Third thing: this is inexcusable.
Evidence?
As Trump likes to say, “many people say this”. He also provides no examples
Do you mean your claims are inexcusable, or do you mean that holding beliefs despite lack of (or contrary) evidence is inexcusable?
I have pop evidence of this from 2004 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq79wG3DqvI
Yes, there are Democrats who believe W. Bush victories were unjust or at least suspicious, but the difference from Trumpites is that those Democrats are not arranging coups because of it, not actively engaging in election-rigging on their own side. They did not even sue the election machine company. They let it slide.
There’s also a fourth thing: The people who created this system and are perpetuating it, do you trust them to improve it?
I believe things improve over time regardless of the efforts or intentions of individuals.
At least those things we routinely measure. Life expectancy, per capita income, mean education level. We are used to reading that important things are getting worse, but this is a false impression. Of course the time scale for this needs to be decades, and your personal neighborhood may deteriorate.
This is not a Marxian position. Nor is it the same as social Darwinism. It is not inevitable. But so far, it is the trend.
As for improvements in voting procedures, I trust no one. I have observed a trend and suspect it will continue. I really don’t worry about specific elections. I have in the past, but over time I noticed the world goes on heedless of my desires.
I will add that I believe the same about climate. I refuse to worry about the details of policy and such. Many approaches are being tried, and I think this is a good thing.
The only thing I worry about is monoculture. The absence of variants.
So you actually have no reason to believe it will improve. The same political system has been in place for a century, if not more, and it has not moved a nudge. But sure, keep up the faith.
By the way, did you guys see this? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/y1Rwwb6Qaas
The voice belongs to Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican nuthead in Congress who thinks she is exposing a Democrat authoritarian conspiracy to ruin the country and that Biden must be impeached for it. For everybody else, those are completely uncontroversial policies, including for Biden who simply took her speech and made his own presidential campaign ad of it.
Hilarious and wacky. What’s up with this rage against perfectly normal policies?
No. One of the blessings of being hard of hearing is not having to listen to YouTube videos. I occasionally watch science or technology videos, if they have real captions.
Watching with auto captions gives me the feeling that we are far away from any useful AI. Something that could assist the handicapped.
I haven’t had network TV in twenty five years. No cable, no satellite, no network news. I do read about political controversies, but reading doesn’t elicit the same kind of strong emotions. All political activists look like clowns to me.
Well, the video is carefully captioned, but yes, without audio you miss some worth while nuances like the way MTG pronounces “education” as if she’s about to throw up in disgust.
The point is not emotions. The point is to get to know your politicians and what they are up to.
I can see what politicians are up to.
On a completely unrelated note:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06288-x
It’s because the “conservatives” concentrated in the former slave-owning states are caught in the grip of the delusional belief that the federal government is King George and the states are the Founding Fathers. They are constantly agitating for a revolution that could not possibly succeed and that almost no one actually wants. Given this delusion, all expansion of the federal government is identical to expansion of tyranny. It must therefore be resisted at all possible costs.
In one sense they are not entirely wrong: the administrative state of the 20th and 21st centuries is completely incompatible with the limited and paralyzed state envisioned by the Founding Fathers and enacted by the Constitution. They envisioned a government that was deliberately intended to work as badly as possible while still performing the basic actions of government. That is, since all governments are bad but some government is necessary, the best kind of government is that which is the worst at being government.
This is why they are ideologically opposed to any competence in government. This is why they love Trump: not because he’d be good at the job, but rather precisely because he is so terribly bad at it. The conservatives aren’t so dumb as to believe that Trump is competent; they think he should be president because he’s incompetent, and that’s what our government needs.
From this perspective, those who want a strong, competent government — like those of many other successful, flourishing nation-states — are accused of denying “American exceptionalism”, the insane belief that there is something about the US that is categorically distinct from the rest of humanity. (Marxism could not flourish in the US precisely because we are too Hegelian.)
The amendment process is sufficiently open-ended that necessary governmental policies are messily grafted onto the constrained powers of the federal government as originally intended. But the process of having amendments passed is itself unnecessarily difficult, due to the need to recognize the slave-owning states as sovereign states fully equal to those of the North. This need was based on the need for national defense of the former colonies from an empire interested in reacquiring them.
The major fault-line in American politics is between those who think that the policies of FDR and LBJ were a good thing or a bad thing. The arguments about why those are good things, seem to be pretty obvious: people live better lives under those conditions, and so government should demonstrate care for the people by implementing those conditions. And conservatives do not loudly broadcast their argument, because on some level they know how bonkers it is to think that every Democratic president is King George and every Republican president is George Washington: a change in ideology of the person in that role does not make so great a change in the functional powers of the persons in that role, since the functions of that role are constrained by the functions of all other roles.
I think this is why conservative arguments are so bad: because in some sense they understand that if they articulated what they really believe and why they really believe it, they’d be laughed out of the room. No one would take them seriously, and they’d go back to being the John Birch Society.
With appropriate due respect, this is bullshit. The government the founders envisioned was one based on a stable tripod of enumerated powers, with the goal that no single leg could come to completely dominate. And that was a reaction against the absolute power of a king, as well as an intelligent reading of Locke.
Granted, the founders had little faith in the population generally, and sought to put a buffer between the threat of mass voting ignorance and the competent administration of politics and government by citizens known to be intelligent, literate, and responsible. Some of that distrust has been formally discarded (indirect election of Senators) and some has been (until Trump) supplanted with traditional processes that have worked.
Seriously, you seem to be suggesting that a government that rests almost entirely on the will of the citizens, as mediated through balanced powers, is the worst form of government. And here, I’m with Churchill. A democratic republic is the worst form of government except for every other form that has been tried.
Really, I’m appalled at you. Could you be arsed to lay out in general terms what you would consider to be a GOOD form of government? Perhaps one that could act responsibly as broker between what the people want and what can be done towards the goal of the greatest good for the greatest number while protecting the good enjoyed by minorities.
I agree that FDR and LBJ did good things by and large, and that Trump’s cult is dangerous. But not because Trump is incompetent. It’s because he’s corrupt, surrounds himself with capably corrupt cronies, and is a direct threat to all processes that might deflect or correct any of it. You know, the checks and balances you claim are the worst form of government!
However, Trump has shown that he’d literally be King George, even all the way to preventing peaceful transition of power. How does this factor into the conservatism you describe? Is this just a minor inconvenience counterbalanced by Trump’s perfect incompetence and corruption? Or is the entire idea that the ideology is so delusional that it does not even have to make sense, since nobody really thinks it through?
@Flint
The way I read it, KN is not describing his own ideology, but what he sees as conservatism. In modern history, USA has been the stablest government, so definitely there is something good about it in that sense. It’s just that USA is less good with social services. There’s some quite wild and irrational pushback to providing services to the society.