- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 80,330
- Reaction score
- 84,958
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
...When Mr. Trump and his cronies declare that they will destroy the deep state, it’s really the modern state — the state that supports the foundations of both public and private life — that they have in mind. Once we view the matter from this perspective, it’s much easier to understand why Mr. Trump invited Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to drastically downsize the American state.
In reality, though, government will not be downsized; it will be repurposed. Like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Trump aims not to streamline modern state bureaucracies, but rather to replace them with a much older form of rule based on personal loyalty to the ruler.
...Eviscerating modern state institutions almost always clears a path for a different type of political order, one built on personal loyalties and connections to the ruler. The German sociologist Max Weber had a word for this type of regime: patrimonialism, based on the arbitrary rule of leaders who view themselves as traditional “fathers” of their nations and who run the state as a family business of sorts, staffed by relatives, friends and other members of the ruler’s “extended household.”
Social scientists thought that patrimonialism had been relegated to the dustbin of history. And for good reason: Such regimes couldn’t compete militarily or economically with states led by the expert civil services that helped make modern societies rich, powerful and relatively secure.
...To reverse the global assault on modern government, then, will require more than a simple defense of “democracy.” After all, Mr. Trump won the presidential election fairly. The threat we face is different, and perhaps even more critical: a world in which the rule of law has given way entirely to the rule of men.
Link
Good points. I suspect we will all pay dearly for it.
and yet when the "people have spoken" some politicians ignore what they have to say.The People have spoken. This is what they wanted.
I wonder if Trump is going to punish America for rejecting him in 2020.
The People have spoken. This is what they wanted.
Republics almost never fall from outside influences.A bad omen, indeed.
"Trump will lead a nation very different from the one that booted him from office four years ago. Since then, millions of Americans have told campaign pollsters that they place a personal allegiance to Trump above their belief in the Constitution. The number of people willing to consider alternatives to democracy is at a level last seen during the crises of the 1930s."
Link
Nope - the DEEP STATE is a cancer on the State of the Nation. The DS uses its power to use the tools of government to enrich itself and increase its power over us....When Mr. Trump and his cronies declare that they will destroy the deep state, it’s really the modern state — the state that supports the foundations of both public and private life — that they have in mind. Once we view the matter from this perspective, it’s much easier to understand why Mr. Trump invited Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to drastically downsize the American state.
In reality, though, government will not be downsized; it will be repurposed. Like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Trump aims not to streamline modern state bureaucracies, but rather to replace them with a much older form of rule based on personal loyalty to the ruler.
...Eviscerating modern state institutions almost always clears a path for a different type of political order, one built on personal loyalties and connections to the ruler. The German sociologist Max Weber had a word for this type of regime: patrimonialism, based on the arbitrary rule of leaders who view themselves as traditional “fathers” of their nations and who run the state as a family business of sorts, staffed by relatives, friends and other members of the ruler’s “extended household.”
Social scientists thought that patrimonialism had been relegated to the dustbin of history. And for good reason: Such regimes couldn’t compete militarily or economically with states led by the expert civil services that helped make modern societies rich, powerful and relatively secure.
...To reverse the global assault on modern government, then, will require more than a simple defense of “democracy.” After all, Mr. Trump won the presidential election fairly. The threat we face is different, and perhaps even more critical: a world in which the rule of law has given way entirely to the rule of men.
Link
Good points. I suspect we will all pay dearly for it.
Nope - the DEEP STATE is a cancer on the State of the Nation. The DS uses its power to use the tools of government to enrich itself and increase its power over us.
Pretty much any progressive initiative.Can you give me an example?
Pretty much any progressive initiative.
Do you ever have an original thought, or do you solely rely on others to tell you what to think and say?...When Mr. Trump and his cronies declare that they will destroy the deep state, it’s really the modern state — the state that supports the foundations of both public and private life — that they have in mind. Once we view the matter from this perspective, it’s much easier to understand why Mr. Trump invited Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to drastically downsize the American state.
In reality, though, government will not be downsized; it will be repurposed. Like Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Trump aims not to streamline modern state bureaucracies, but rather to replace them with a much older form of rule based on personal loyalty to the ruler.
...Eviscerating modern state institutions almost always clears a path for a different type of political order, one built on personal loyalties and connections to the ruler. The German sociologist Max Weber had a word for this type of regime: patrimonialism, based on the arbitrary rule of leaders who view themselves as traditional “fathers” of their nations and who run the state as a family business of sorts, staffed by relatives, friends and other members of the ruler’s “extended household.”
Social scientists thought that patrimonialism had been relegated to the dustbin of history. And for good reason: Such regimes couldn’t compete militarily or economically with states led by the expert civil services that helped make modern societies rich, powerful and relatively secure.
...To reverse the global assault on modern government, then, will require more than a simple defense of “democracy.” After all, Mr. Trump won the presidential election fairly. The threat we face is different, and perhaps even more critical: a world in which the rule of law has given way entirely to the rule of men.
Link
Good points. I suspect we will all pay dearly for it.
So.Pretty much any progressive initiative.
Yes, the president should handle every issue personally.Strange that millions of nameless, faceless, unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrats is “democracy” to some people.
So you have nothing but bullshit.Pretty much any progressive initiative.
The biggest part of the problem is that the Executive branch is handling too much for lack of adequate law from the Legislative branch.Yes, the president should handle every issue personally.
The People have spoken. This is what they wanted.
Well, now we can just have the president do everything himself and he won't have time for making law. Or sleeping.The biggest part of the problem is that the Executive branch is handling too much for lack of adequate law from the Legislative branch.
Elections are decided by the people that show up.The majority of the People never spoke. In face, the majority of those who did, didn’t want this.
Do you ever have an original thought, or do you solely rely on others to tell you what to think and say?
Elections are decided by the people that show up.
If people didn't show up, they have abdicated their responsibility and get whatever they get.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?