What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think Sir Keir Starmer's Marxist credentials are somewhat weak. 

He could pass for Zeppo.

[Jacob]

I wonder how a classic "keys to keeping power" analysis could be applied to the Trump government- now and in the future:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

It'd also be instructive to understand where it doesn't apply and how.

[Valmy]

The military and the tech oligarchs are the main keys. Hard to imagine any government holding on to power in the US for long if they are against them.

[grumbler]

The military and the tech oligarchs are the main keys. Hard to imagine any government holding on to power in the US for long if they are against them.

It's clear that Trump and Hegseth do not consider the military a key to power.  If they did, they wouldn't have made the 800 flag officers jump through hoops to get to Quantico on short notice, only to insult them and trash-talk their retired comrades in arms.

I'd argue that Trumps principal keys are the USSC, Fox News, and right-wing podcasters like Joe Rogan. The latter two are important in his campaign to cow the House and Senate Republicans by threatening to primary them.

[Jacob]

A few thoughts in the "keys to power" analysis and American politics:

1: From what I've read, there's a growing percentage of the US population that has become basically economically irrelevant. They neither generate any amount of money, nor does their consumption matter much. This undermines the structural necessity of democracy per the "keys to power" lens.

2: Perhaps the shift to the virtual economy - as championed by Silicon Valley - has radically changed how wealth is generated and how it is distributed. Therefore a rearranging of the political order is basically inevitable.

3: Perhaps similarly the advent of social media has radically changed the nature of some of the keys. Influencers (in aggregate) matter. Controlling "the algorithm" is supremely important (I've been seeing rumors that Barron Trump is going to have a controlling role in American TikTok for example).

4: It is very interesting to me how - as grumbler points out - the armed forces don't seem to be given much shrift by the Trump clique. There are a few possible interpretations that jump to mind, but that's a longer (and IMO interesting) conversation. It comes down to if, when, and how the armed forces' reluctance to interfere with domestic politics breaks down. There's the problem (at least for me) of identifying who actually holds the keys to control the armed forces.

5: From a pure schadenfreude point of view I look forward to seeing some of the key holders required for taking power get eliminated when they become unnecessary to hold power. I expect that might include some oligarchs, the Supreme Court (as a player, not as a title), and any number of GOP "people of consequence."

6: The undermining of public goods (the CDC, education etc etc) makes a lot of sense if the goal is to undermine stable democracy and turn the US into a place more susceptible to a coup or revolution.

[Jacob]

Another related thought on the whole "keys" thing:

If AI lives up to a significant amount of its billing, it could render a significant number of the educated middle class surplus in various ways. This means that they'll become less economically relevant and/ or unnecessary to administer the apparatuses of the state and the economy; which in turn means it's unnecessary to cater to them.

In the US, it means that those who've long nursed a hatred for the "liberal coastal elites" might get to see some joy in watching that group getting short shrift (along with the institutions of democracy that are typically required to keep the broader middle classes in line).

On the flip side, as I understand it a disenfranchised middle class is historically fertile grounds for revolutions and coups.

Of course it remains to be seen if AI delivers on the promise (or threat, depending on your perspective).

[Jacob]

Also #2 - the whole "keys to power" lens seems pretty apt for explaining the overall arcs of both Putin and Xi, though that's probably not for the Trump thread 

[DGuller]

Another related thought on the whole "keys" thing:

If AI lives up to a significant amount of its billing, it could render a significant number of the educated middle class surplus in various ways. This means that they'll become less economically relevant and/ or unnecessary to administer the apparatuses of the state and the economy; which in turn means it's unnecessary to cater to them.

In the US, it means that those who've long nursed a hatred for the "liberal coastal elites" might get to see some joy in watching that group getting short shrift (along with the institutions of democracy that are typically required to keep the broader middle classes in line).

On the flip side, as I understand it a disenfranchised middle class is historically fertile grounds for revolutions and coups.

Of course it remains to be seen if AI delivers on the promise (or threat, depending on your perspective).

I think AI has much more potential for disruption than devastating the white collar class.  AI makes surveillance state far more efficient.  A mature AI solution would be able to listen to everyone, process everything it listens to, and connect all the dots, because AI can essentially function as one spy with infinite time and attention span. 

The most depressing part of it is that this surveillance capability will not be used to protect democracy from its enemies, but the moment anti-democrats wedge themselves into power, it will definitely be used to keep pro-democrats from wedging themselves back in.

[Jacob]

I think AI has much more potential for disruption than devastating the white collar class.  AI makes surveillance state far more efficient.  A mature AI solution would be able to listen to everyone, process everything it listens to, and connect all the dots, because AI can essentially function as one spy with infinite time and attention span.

I agree that AI can be used to create a very efficient and pervasive surveillance state (and, incidentally, it's one of several reasons I'm not embracing things like Alexa and smart fridges and whatnot, though of course an efficient surveillance AI will be able to tease out whether I'm a likely troublemaker or merely a harmless crank).

I think that is linked to my point about the educated middle class (which I think includes more than white collar workers, but whether it does or not isn't super important to my main point right now) - which is:

(and again this is using the "keys to power" lens for analyzing the way to gain, maintain, and exercise power):

It is, I think, basically a truism to say that over most of human history the power of a state (or other state level actor) depended on how well it collected, organized, and deployed its resources (human or otherwise).

I also think it's fairly non-controversial to say over most of human history (and civilized pre-history) the ability of a state (or equivalent) to collect and administer its resources was roughly proportional to the quality of its middle classes. Historically we've needed bureaucrats to administer, merchants to trade, skilled craftsmen to manufacture, some combination of intellectual and creative people to give meaning to our various activities and so on. The mix has changed over time, but generally the more educated folks you had (and this includes skilled blue collar type work), and the better their quality the better off your state was.

Of course, if you need all those people to prosper and increase your power then those people end up demanding a seat at the table to some degree.

The ascendance of Western liberal democracy growing out of the renaissance and into the industrial revolution can be seen as the natural consequence of having society with democratic rights, individual freedom, the rule of law, and high quality education produces a higher quality middle class in larger numbers compared to alternative methods of governance. So we have democracy because democracy produces the human capital required for a stronger state.

... but if AI replaces most of the value that the middle class brings (with automation having replaced most of the value that skilled blue collar workers in the middle class provided), then they (we) are not really needed to create power or wealth; and therefore, by the "keys to power" analysis they (we) don't really need to have a seat at the table. So democracy (or any other means of maintaining the support of the middle class) ultimately becomes superfluous from the perspective of those who wield the power of the state.

So it's not so much about the likes of you and I no longer having jobs (though that's obviously important to us individually) and more about the complete revolution in the social and political order when our class goes from being integral to generate power and wealth for the state and for the powerful to being superfluous (or alternately the required size of our class being massively reduced, with most of it being pushed into something else).

That is, of course, if AI delivers. Which it might.

And of course the shape society takes after that upheaval is up for grabs, though right now it's not looking too good IMO.

The most depressing part of it is that this surveillance capability will not be used to protect democracy from its enemies, but the moment anti-democrats wedge themselves into power, it will definitely be used to keep pro-democrats from wedging themselves back in.

Yeah I think that's inevitable.

It'll be one of multiple redundant layers of control, because if popular culture is shaped against democracy, if the propagation and presentation of information (i.e. "the algorithm") is shaped to be against democracy, if education is shaped to make the idea of democracy questionable in practice, then who is going to want democracy (or understand it) to begin with?

That said, if the exercise of democracy is compromised (say if the tallying of votes is handled non-transparently by cronies of the party in power) and enough of the population believes the stories, then there may not even be a need to do away with the appearance of democracy.