What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Barrister]

He cancelled the Hamilton LRT yesterday which seems pretty vindictive and it was done in a fairly rude fashion.  Big project in an NDP region.

Their line is that costs have ballooned from $1B to $5b.  They say they're still offering Hamilton $1b in infrastructure spending.

[PRC]

He cancelled the Hamilton LRT yesterday which seems pretty vindictive and it was done in a fairly rude fashion.  Big project in an NDP region.

Their line is that costs have ballooned from $1B to $5b.  They say they're still offering Hamilton $1b in infrastructure spending.

They're including operating & maintenance costs over the lifetime of the project to get to that $5B, which may or may not be a fair assessment to use.  Similar situation going on with the UCP and the Green Line LRT in Calgary.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I can't say for sure, but I think that a key difference is that there is a smaller percentage of Canadians who feel strong loyalty to a given political party than in the US.  There are Americans perfectly willing to see the US as a whole get hurt if the damage to the opposing party is great enough.  Thus, to his supporters, Trump's love of, and support for, anti-American dictators is a price worth paying because he drives the Democrats crazy.  Strict interpretation constitutionalists tolerate the destruction of the constitution because at least the Democrats don't get to appoint moderate judges to the Supreme Court.

Yeah, but all of this also isn't historical norm for us. While we could probably pontificate on when this started for a really long time, my personal opinion on the inflection point was the Speakership of Newt Gingrich. For a few reasons, most relevant of which is it was the first time at least in my life (most of which I've been an actual active-in-county/state party business Republican) where we got a Democrat President who was damn near willing to work with us on everything, and Newt still took the ultimate stance of "Clinton is not a political opponent, he is a dangerous enemy that we must destroy." That frankly just wasn't normal in the last like 80 odd years of governance in our country.

It's hard to pin point and delineate this stuff because it's usually easy to cherry pick extremely bad partisan behaviors in American history. But to me Gingrich represented maybe at the time a slightly subtle but very real positional switch: before Gingrich Republicans and Democrats were willing to break skulls, break rules, and broadly do what was necessary to defeat their political opposition in political battles. However after election season, both parties were at least relatively invested in governing and making things work. Gingrich on the other hand viewed his job as doing what was necessary to defeat a domestic enemy, which is distinctly different from a political opposition. Gingrich's worldview and the worldview that ultimately came to dominate the GOP after a decade or so of back and forth was that we don't live in a republic with a valid divergence of ideas. Instead we live in a society under siege, and the elements outside the siegewalls are mortal enemies and thus all the things you'd do to a mortal enemy now apply. A political opponent in a properly functioning democracy is not a mortal enemy.

The last time I think political factions in America talked about and felt about each other this way, it was the Whigs => Republican anti-slavery expansionists vs the pro-Slavery Southern Democrats, and we all know how that ended. Maybe it's because of how that ended we didn't have this viewpoint of the "other side" for so long. What's weird to me is the Southern Democrats were at least logical in how they felt. Slavery really was incompatible with the political direction of the country, and it was quite obvious it was not to be saved via democratic process. So in their case, they basically did have to view the other side as a mortal enemy, there was never going to be a reconciliation over slavery. The big question I have for my former party mates is what the hell do you think is happening to our society that needs to be defended this way? In most measures that actually count Republican voters have it better today than they did 10 years ago, and better than they did 20 years ago. There's voters on the margins in the industrial Midwest who have things shittier now than they did back in the old pre-NAFTA days, but even in most of the Rust Belt people are doing better than they were in the time of the parents. Trumpism also didn't win the party in the Midwest, Trump did not win Iowa, but won New Hampshire with commanding numbers, he then went on to win South Carolina and Nevada by large margins, on Super Tuesday Trump lost in Minnesota (Rubio) and lost Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska (Cruz) but won the old Confederacy states of Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia and Arkansas. Trump went on to lose Maine, Kansas, then won Kentucky and Louisiana decisively. He traded a few other states with Cruz and in the first show down in a Midwestern state since Minnesota on Super Tuesday, he won his first battle there in Michigan. Then he won a big victory in Florida. At this point few thought he would not be the nominee, but even still he lost Ohio to Kasich, barely won Illinois, and lost in Wisconsin to Ted Cruz.

I'm at least open to the idea that compared to the rest of America, the "disaffected" factory worker class in the old industrial Midwest have "some level" of reason to be upset, NAFTA did cut them deep, as did the continuing evolution of automation. Little has been done to really fix it, instead the large response has just been "move to where there are jobs." But I'm only willing to extend that so far, since most Midwesterners aren't that far from major cities that are doing decently well these days with new economy jobs (Chicago, MSP, Pittsburgh just to name a few), yes there are communities like Toledo and Youngstown and such that you probably can't really salvage a great life out of anymore, but it's not like you have to move to San Francisco to be doing better. All that being said, Trump didn't win the party in the Midwest where people actually had some logical disaffection with the direction of the country. By and large he did worse in the Midwest than most other regions in the primaries. Instead, he basically won the party in the states of the Old Confederacy, and while those states have a lot of negative cultural stuff, economically the whole region has been doing great for decades now. Florida, the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee have been growing and they've grown across most sectors. New manufacturing, IT, finance etc. These states and their people are doing tremendously better right now than they ever have before. States like Georgia and Tennessee are seen as pretty good places now, 30 years ago large swathes of both states were seen as being essentially third world countries. But for some reason among Republican voters, this is where Trump's destructive ideology gained broad and decisive acceptance.

[DGuller]

IMO, it's a race thing.  White people have been running the country since its founding, and it was up to them to decide how much others would be tolerated.  Now it's more and more conceivable that others may have a real say in how the country is run, and that's perceived as a threat.  Seeing a reminder for eight years that white people no longer have a monopoly on power in the US certainly didn't help.

[Valmy]

I have no idea why that is considered threatening.

[Maximus]

It's the idea that other people will be able to do to you as you've been doing to them. If you've treated others decently that's not threatening.

[crazy canuck]

Right I mean Trump is a cultural reflection of deeper problems.

But those same problems greatly influenced the sort of men who have power in the GOP in the House and Senate. The congressional Republicans are part of the same toxic culture Trump is, and they worship him as little more than passive slaves. In such an environment they would be no more effective a check on Trump in a parliamentary system.

The GOP is worshiping at the alter of Trump because they perceive he is their best route to accomplish their own political ambitions.  None of those ambitions can realistically include becoming President before 2024.  They have to wait until the appropriate Presidential cycle.  There is therefore not much upside for them to take him out - the VP will simply replace him.  But imagine a world where a powerful Senator could become President without the need for a Presidential election.

That is the difference between our systems.

I can't say for sure, but I think that a key difference is that there is a smaller percentage of Canadians who feel strong loyalty to a given political party than in the US.  There are Americans perfectly willing to see the US as a whole get hurt if the damage to the opposing party is great enough.  Thus, to his supporters, Trump's love of, and support for, anti-American dictators is a price worth paying because he drives the Democrats crazy.  Strict interpretation constitutionalists tolerate the destruction of the constitution because at least the Democrats don't get to appoint moderate judges to the Supreme Court.

I think that is one big difference.  But what if a Republican other than the VP could become President if Trump was impeached.  Would there be the kind of solidarity we are now seeing or would someone with a shot at being selected through a party only vote of some sort (similar to Parliamentary parties selecting their leader) help send Trump on his way so they could take over the Presidency. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, but all of this also isn't historical norm for us. While we could probably pontificate on when this started for a really long time, my personal opinion on the inflection point was the Speakership of Newt Gingrich. For a few reasons, most relevant of which is it was the first time at least in my life (most of which I've been an actual active-in-county/state party business Republican) where we got a Democrat President who was damn near willing to work with us on everything, and Newt still took the ultimate stance of "Clinton is not a political opponent, he is a dangerous enemy that we must destroy." That frankly just wasn't normal in the last like 80 odd years of governance in our country.

I agree - Gingrich firebombed the postwar political consensus and put the GOP on a dangerous path. There is a clear lineage from 1994 to the Tea Partiers to Trumpism. And when the old guard, Greatest Generation pols died off, the last guardrails were lost.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't really think it'd make a tremendous difference to be honest. Like the VP by most metrics would be much more popular in "Republican cloakrooms" than Trump is. Pence would give the GOP 100% of what they wanted on legislative, regulatory, judicial issues, but he also isn't a literal crazy person and can practice basic and sane "message discipline" when on the campaign trail. Lots of Republicans feel and know that Trump frequently embarrasses the party in ways that have genuine long term consequences. Tons of the big GOP money men and backroom apparatchiks, hell even Ted Cruz have been worried quite publicly that the Republicans may have lost suburban women for a generation. These guys aren't stupid, they know how to count and they fear an electoral landscape in which their best chances for winning elections is to get more uneducated, low income whites to come out and vote. More meaning more than voted in 2016, because the number that came out in 2016 probably isn't enough anymore.

Point being, if "access to a viable alternate candidate the Republicans could replace Trump with" might somehow change things, is the question--the answer is no. They have that right now in our system.

Honestly in the British parliamentary system at least, it takes more balls to stand up to the party leader than it does in America. Trump is the nominal leader of the Republican party. He can leverage opinions, but he can't choose who gets plum committee assignments in the legislature. He also can't choose who gets to be the party's nominee in specific districts. I'm less familiar with how party candidates for individual constituencies are done in Canada, but at least in the U.S. in many ways it's arguably much easier for Republican politicians to stand up to a Republican President. The reason they aren't has nothing to do with the mechanics of government but with two factors. Firstly is the voters themselves, elected Republicans are mostly in love with holding office because of the immense personal profits they can generate from being in high elected office, along with immense personal perks of various sorts. Nothing scares Lindsey Graham more than just being Citizen Graham. Trump's voters are devotedly loyal to him, and the GOP's politicians are deeply afraid of those voters turning on them. The second factor is I think Trumpism has reached a point where it is transformative. I think some of these guys are so loyal because they're actually on the MAGA train now, there's actually decent evidence even in traditional Republican elite circles there has been a mental shift on the view of our country and its future, what is important and what isn't.

Take Rich Lowry, an editor with National Review. NR has usually been the William Buckley type conservatives, usually skeptical of populists, usually in bed with old moneyed interests and globalism etc. Rich Lowry was in a discussion with Vox a few weeks ago defending what he calls American nationalism. This sort of culture war position is very strange for National Review, now admittedly 2019 National Review isn't 2005 National Review, but Lowry's words are pretty interesting. He's very very deliberate to say he's not talking about race at all (because he still occupies a position where he can't just openly say he wants a white land for white people), but he's making the argument that America has a distinct national culture that is important to protect above and beyond most other concerns. He explicitly says one of the cornerstones of that national culture is the English language and then the Christian religion. He believes furthermore that efforts to protect both are valid areas of government action.

Again, from a Breitbar commentator this wouldn't shock me, but when this is how National Review editors are speaking--to me that shows Trumpism has really changed the ideological core of the party.

[DGuller]

I have no idea why that is considered threatening.

Social animals don't like to give away power, whether their own individual power or their group's power.  Evolution probably programmed us to perceive it as a deadly threat, because it often can be that.  Loss of power means having to adapt to your environment rather than shaping it.

[crazy canuck]

Point being, if "access to a viable alternate candidate the Republicans could replace Trump with" might somehow change things, is the question--the answer is no. They have that right now in our system.

That misses the point though.  The issue isn't replacing with a more sane person, the issue is others other than the VP being able to become the President - that is the rough analogy to a Parliamentary system.  And that then gives an ambitious politician the ability to rise to the top immediately.  How much loyalty would there be then?  The knives come out pretty quickly if a leader shows weakness in a Parliamentary system.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean Trump hasn't shown weakness among the people GOP care about--Republican voters. It's literally the same reason Jeremy Corbyn held all the cards within Labour up until the day he lost a catastrophic national election--because an unbeatable group of Labour party members were supportive of him.

[Barrister]

Take Rich Lowry, an editor with National Review. NR has usually been the William Buckley type conservatives, usually skeptical of populists, usually in bed with old moneyed interests and globalism etc. Rich Lowry was in a discussion with Vox a few weeks ago defending what he calls American nationalism. This sort of culture war position is very strange for National Review, now admittedly 2019 National Review isn't 2005 National Review, but Lowry's words are pretty interesting. He's very very deliberate to say he's not talking about race at all (because he still occupies a position where he can't just openly say he wants a white land for white people), but he's making the argument that America has a distinct national culture that is important to protect above and beyond most other concerns. He explicitly says one of the cornerstones of that national culture is the English language and then the Christian religion. He believes furthermore that efforts to protect both are valid areas of government action.

Again, from a Breitbar commentator this wouldn't shock me, but when this is how National Review editors are speaking--to me that shows Trumpism has really changed the ideological core of the party.

Ah, National Review... I remember running across NR in my high school library in about 90, 91.  Now my family would talk politics and was pretty consistent in their vote for the PCs, but I'd never really been exposed to much in the way of political thought.  I devoured each issue as it would show up in the library.

Skip forward to 2015.  National Review devotes an entire issue to stopping Trump, titled "Against Trump".  Obviously, they failed.  Since Trump's inauguration though #NeverTrump conservatism hasn't been a big selling feature.  While lots of conservative sites just up and hitched their wagon to Trump, NR tried to balance it.  They had some prominent writers who weren't 100% anti-Trump, but were more "Balls and strikes" kinds of Conservatives: praise Trump when he does well, denounce him when he doesn't.  But of course anything less than 100% loyalty to Trump is unacceptable in MAGA world.

The nuanced Trump writers left NR a couple months ago.  They have some hacks that have gone full-MAGA, and others that practice a lot of "whataboutism".  As I look at NR's webpage right now, in the middle of impeachment proceedings, there's not one article that I would characterize as being anti-Trump.

[Razgovory]

I think a major factor is talk radio and later Fox News.  They've been telling people that liberals are going to murder them in their sleep for nearly 40 years.  That has to have some impact on the electorate.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah I mean I read/liked National Review for years but I basically had the exact same experience with it almost down to the year I first really started reading it and when I realized it was just filled with Trump collaborators now.