Domestic consequences of the 2024 US presidential election: the quickening

[karolus]

Basically those who argue that taking out the federal government is a good idea want to go back to the situation of the early Middle Ages, where little fiefdoms fought other little fiefdoms, and those on the border tended to get overrun by invaders every couple of years.

This is what happens when ideologues—not realists—take the reins.

A cursory view of Project 2025 confirms this type of thinking. That may convince people this "leadership" knows what they are doing due to the strong convictions and well-laid-out plans, but execution is something else entirely. That comes down to experience and practicality.

 

[Felix K]

Can you think of any empire that collapsed and came back even stronger in less than 2 centuries? I can’t. 30 years is laughably quick for a recovery.

Athens? Reconstituted several times from a democracy to a hegemony and back again.

Rome? Republic falls and returns even stronger as Empire... then Empire falls and Byzantine begins.

France?

 

[yd]

Looking in from the outside, I find this prediction likely. The US will find out what Machtergreifung means. Dark times ahead.

That would NOT be consistent with a strong dollar policy....oh sorry, nevermind, there is no poilcy.

 

[karolus]

That would NOT be consistent with a strong dollar policy....oh sorry, nevermind, there is no poilcy.

Project 2025 talks about a return to the gold standard. These people are ideologues, not realists.

 

[yd]

Project 2025 talks about a return to the gold standard. These people are ideologues, not realists.

Yea, the gold standard, that works soooo well. What a bunch of morons.

 

[Louis XVI]

Athens? Reconstituted several times from a democracy to a hegemony and back again.

Rome? Republic falls and returns even stronger as Empire... then Empire falls and Byzantine begins.

France?

Going from a republic to an empire is not a model I’d wish on America (or a world that has to interact with America). Also, the Eastern Roman Empire coexisted with the Western for some time; it did not rise out of the ashes of the Western Empire.

I’ll grant you France, though.

 

[fractl]

Going from a republic to an empire is not a model I’d wish on America (or a world that has to interact with America). Also, the Eastern Roman Empire coexisted with the Western for some time; it did not rise out of the ashes of the Western Empire.

I’ll grant you France, though.

So we should start building the guillotines now?

 

[karolus]

Going from a republic to an empire is not a model I’d wish on America (or a world that has to interact with America). Also, the Eastern Roman Empire coexisted with the Western for some time; it did not rise out of the ashes of the Western Empire.

I’ll grant you France, though.

Athens was also a much smaller city-state. The Western Roman Empire had some violent changes, before it finally petered out. As for France, is this medieval or modern?

The United States may end up fracturing, if some of the more questionable policies of this incoming administration come to pass, especially monetary. Were the US to have its Suez Crisis, and lose the hegemony of the dollar, all bets are off.

 

[Louis XVI]

So we should start building the guillotines now?

Guillotines are kind of a sore spot for me…

I was thinking of France’s gyrations between various forms of government throughout the 19th Century, after the initial revolution and Napoleon.

 

[Felix K]

Guillotines are kind of a sore spot for me…

I was thinking of France’s gyrations between various forms of government throughout the 19th Century, after the initial revolution and Napoleon.

I was thinking the time period between Napoleon and the Second Empire... no guillotines... plenty of counts and island prisons.

 

[Stern]

Can you think of any empire that collapsed and came back even stronger in less than 2 centuries? I can’t. 30 years is laughably quick for a recovery.

China.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

You joke, but I'm really starting to think that old line is them just projecting.

What other label fits but "soft" for a public who voted away their faltering republic and empire for cheaper eggs?

Stupidity isn't the exclusive property of the "soft."

 

[Deleted member 326875]

China.

Was there any dynasty come back in 30 years? I think most of the time, the dynasty break into multiple ones and take time to come back together.

 

[linnen]

China.

The Chinese empire management "dynasties" were replaced wholesale, occasionally at times by either infiltration or by outright conquest by non-Han groups, sometimes divided into rival groupings, but never was broken down so that one can point to a specific time and say the Chinese Empire, lock stock and barrel, from the "Son of Heaven" on down to the lowest appointed local magistrate, was completely wiped out and then point a short time later to when the empire became re-established anew. Even the current Communist regime leans heavily on older traditions and systems that were not wiped out by Mao's Cultural Revolution and the "Long March"

 

[karolus]

The Chinese empire management "dynasties" were replaced wholesale, occasionally at times by either infiltration or by outright conquest by non-Han groups, sometimes divided into rival groupings, but never was broken down so that one can point to a specific time and say the Chinese Empire, lock stock and barrel, from the "Son of Heaven" on down to the lowest appointed local magistrate, was completely wiped out and then point a short time later to when the empire became re-established anew. Even the current Communist regime leans heavily on older traditions and systems that were not wiped out by Mao's Cultural Revolution and the "Long March"

It kind of proves the aphorism China is the sea that salts all rivers. Excepting the Mongols, they were well-protected geographically (Siberia, Tibetan Highlands, et.al.) from foreign invasion until relatively recently.

The US has similar geographic advantages, but the question their case is whether they can withstand the internal division. Trump is certainly not a uniter.

 

[Stern]

The Chinese empire management "dynasties" were replaced wholesale, occasionally at times by either infiltration or by outright conquest by non-Han groups, sometimes divided into rival groupings, but never was broken down so that one can point to a specific time and say the Chinese Empire, lock stock and barrel, from the "Son of Heaven" on down to the lowest appointed local magistrate, was completely wiped out and then point a short time later to when the empire became re-established anew. Even the current Communist regime leans heavily on older traditions and systems that were not wiped out by Mao's Cultural Revolution and the "Long March"

By that standard, no government has ever changed in the history of humankind.

 

[karolus]

By that standard, no government has ever changed in the history of humankind.

Depends. As @linnen relates, the core of Chinese culture was able to withstand both internal and external disruptions. How many other societies have been able to do this? Most end up failing and being subsumed by other civilizations. Sometimes violently, as is the case with Russia—where outright genocide is committed. This was also the case in the US, by what was done to many Native American cultures. By the standard of recorded history, the US is young. How the next few years under Trump play out will be pivotal.

 

[wireframed]

I’m not sure that anecdote says what you think it does. Having a costume exemption is more complex than having a flat rate. A simpler law wouldn’t have created the opportunity for disagreements in interpretation. That seems like a pretty clear example of why simpler laws are easier to enforce.

Its not about avoiding complexity, its about how laws get increasingly complex because we (the people in the system) keep trying to find loopholes. and a flat tariff wouldn’t be optimal for lots of reasons.

 

[wrylachlan]

It’s not about avoiding complexity, it’s about how laws get increasingly complex because we (the people in the system) keep trying to find loopholes. and a flat tariff wouldn’t be optimal for lots of reasons.

Laws apply to real people not to how we want people to act. So you have to design your laws with the full expectation that people will try to find loopholes. You have the choice - make a simpler law with fewer loopholes and live with the fact that it’s not optimal or make a more complex law and live with the fact that people find the loophole.

 

[Thegn]

Its not about avoiding complexity, its about how laws get increasingly complex because we (the people in the system) keep trying to find loopholes. and a flat tariff wouldn’t be optimal for lots of reasons.

Kind of makes me wonder if there’s a way to work a “quacks like a duck” rule in there.

 

[fractl]

The Atlantic has a couple of pieces up on Kash Patel.

The first is from Tom Nichols titled "The Kash Patel Principle". Nichols points out that appointing loyalists as the heads of government institutions is how you get an authoritarian government. I hope that Trump voters are harmed more than others, but we will all suffer one way or another.

Patel’s nomination is shocking in many ways, not least because the FBI already has a director, Christopher Wray, whom Trump appointed to a 10-year term only seven years ago and whom he would have to fire almost immediately to make way for Patel. Worse, Patel is a conspiracy theorist even by the standards of MAGA world. Like other senior Trump nominees, his primary qualification for the job appears to be his willingness to do Trump’s bidding without hesitation. Patel will likely face a difficult path to confirmation in the Senate.

For Trump, naming Patel to the post serves several purposes. First, Trump is taking his razor-thin election win as a mandate to rule as he pleases, and Patel is the perfect nominee to prove that he doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. Even knowing what they know, Americans chose to return Trump to office, and he has taken their decision as a license to do whatever he wants—including giving immense power to someone like Patel.

Second, Trump wants to show that the objections of senior elected Republicans are of no consequence to him, and that he can politically flatten them at will. Some of his nominations seem like a trollish flex, a way to display his power by naming people to posts and daring others to stop him. Trump has always thought of the GOP as his fiefdom and GOP leaders as his vassals—and if the Senate folds on Patel and others, he may be proved right on both counts.

The second is from David Frum titled "A Constitutional Crisis Greater Than Watergate". Frum's main point is that removing Wray before his term is up would be a larger deal than replacing him with Patel.

For more than four decades before Donald Trump assumed the presidency, the FBI director was a position above politics. A new president might choose a political ally as attorney general, but the FBI director was different. An FBI director appointed by Richard Nixon also served under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Carter’s choice remained on the job deep into Reagan’s second term, when Reagan moved him to head the CIA. Reagan’s FBI appointee served through the George H. W. Bush presidency and into the Bill Clinton administration. Clinton fired the inherited official—the first time a president ever fired an FBI director—only because the outgoing Bush administration had left behind a Department of Justice report accusing the director of ethical lapses. (Clinton tried to coax the tainted director into resigning of his own volition. Only after the coaxing failed did Clinton act.)

And so it continued into the 21st century. Except in a single case of serious scandal, Senate-confirmed FBI directors stayed in their post until they quit or until their 10-year term expired. Never, never, never was a Senate-confirmed FBI director fired so that the president could replace him with a loyalist. Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that there must be no return to the days when J. Edgar Hoover did special favors for presidents who perpetuated his power.

Patel has stated his intent to go after politicians and media figures that have been critical of Trump. Since when is that the purview of the FBI?

Gift links:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...opy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...opy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

 

[DarthSlack]

Patel has stated his intent to go after politicians and media figures that have been critical of Trump. Since when is that the purview of the FBI?

Since Trump got elected. Trump is putting his personal goon squad in place and the Senate appears likely to go along with it. And the Supreme Court has already gone along with it. I mean, going after opposition politicians and media figures is completely a Presidential duty, right?

 

[derMarc]

If the worst happens, and it very well may, you'll be seeing thousands of politicians, federal employees and media people being herded into detention camps. Couldn't happen in the US? Think again.

 

[karolus]

Since Trump got elected. Trump is putting his personal goon squad in place and the Senate appears likely to go along with it. And the Supreme Court has already gone along with it. I mean, going after opposition politicians and media figures is completely a Presidential duty, right?

When the Senate let 1/6 slide, it probably tells all that's needed to be known on how it will go. The Gaetz confirmation may be the token resistance—applied to someone nearly universally reviled in both houses. It may give cover to letting the other confirmations go with token questioning.

 

[Arcturus]

Unless somebody is directly involved in the federal hiring process, I'm not going to take their word how it works in practice. I'm pretty sure there are posters in this forum that can confirm or deny whether that's how it works.

This is from all the way back yesterday, but I have relevant experience to share.

I've participated in 4 hiring panels in the last 18 months, leading two of them, and being a panel member on two others. My "day job" is in project management, these are for positions in the general area that I work (aka I'm not an HR person).

In my experience (and in nearly a decade of interacting with the hiring process), the resume keyword bingo is spot on - the HR types and their computer filters work their magic and provide us a list of people that are "qualified" based on resume (and sometimes the questionnaire where everyone rates themselves to be a genius).

That's where the actual worker person work starts. Before receiving the stack of resumes that made cert, the panel leader writes a scoring rubric - what are the qualities and experience you're looking for and a grading scale. You and the panel then evaluate all the resumes and come up with a numeric score (I usually use a 1-5 with 1=something relevant; 3=direct; 5=this person wrote the book, with 2/4 available to catch some nuance). Once everyone scores, math gives us an ordered list and we decide who to interview - set the cut line based on how many interviews you want to do/have time to do, if there's an obvious knee in the curve, etc. If there's someone below the cut line that you really want to talk to, it's not impossible, but you do have to be able to explain why #7 on your list is getting an interview, but #5 and #6 aren't.

Interviews are more of the same - everyone gets the same questions, and the questions get scored by the panel.

Based on interview and resume scores, you build a ranked list of candidates and a cut line. This person is #1, this person is #2, this person is #3, and we're not interested in hiring any of the others.

Then it goes back over to HR for them to do HR things, and some time later the person we selected shows up for work.

At the end of the day, it's the outcome that matters - we want the best, most qualified person in the job and we want to ensure that everyone has a fair shot at being the selectee. Is there a process to get there? Of course. Does the process matter more than the outcome? Absofuckingloutely not. Anyone claiming so hasn't been around the parts of the process that I've experienced.

I'm sure that the specifics of this vary from agency to agency - the wife works for a more different federal agency, and their process is similar in the broad strokes and different in the implementation details.

Relevance to the current topic? I sure as shit hope that it doesn't change and turn into nepotism central down in the working ranks, and that I'm junior enough to not have to worry about getting Schedule Effed into oblivion.

 

[Diabolical]

I'm sure that the specifics of this vary from agency to agency - the wife works for a more different federal agency, and their process is similar in the broad strokes and different in the implementation details.

This all reads very similar to my org and my experience going through the hiring process nearly three years ago when I moved the eight feet from the contractor desk to the federal civilian desk. New parent org (same Department) is a touch different in the bureaucratic details, but the broad strokes are the same.

When I was looking at State a decade ago, the process was a bit different, but mostly in the time periods involved.

I’m worried about what this all waves in the general direction of the world is going to do to out attempts to hire new folks. Just adds to the amount of generalized uncertainty.

Relevance to the current topic? I sure as shit hope that it doesn't change and turn into nepotism central down in the working ranks, and that I'm junior enough to not have to worry about getting Schedule Effed into oblivion.

This.

I’m fairly certain I’m safe. But I just don’t know.

 

[karolus]

This all reads very similar to my org and my experience going through the hiring process nearly three years ago when I moved the eight feet from the contractor desk to the federal civilian desk. New parent org (same Department) is a touch different in the bureaucratic details, but the broad strokes are the same.

When I was looking at State a decade ago, the process was a bit different, but mostly in the time periods involved.

I’m worried about what this all waves in the general direction of the world is going to do to out attempts to hire new folks. Just adds to the amount of generalized uncertainty.


This.

I’m fairly certain I’m safe. But I just don’t know.

As you undoubtedly know, who gets chosen to head an agency has a big bearing on this. In Trump v.1.0, some agency heads created a lot of heartburn, prompting some of those who could to either transfer, or get out of the federal service entirely.

 

[Shavano]

Can you think of any empire that collapsed and came back even stronger in less than 2 centuries? I can’t. 30 years is laughably quick for a recovery.

Indeed. If Trump succeeds in wrecking the federal government we are most likely in for decades of civil war, followed by decades if not centuries of trying to build back what was lost.

 

[Shavano]

I’m worried about what this all waves in the general direction of the world is going to do to out attempts to hire new folks. Just adds to the amount of generalized uncertainty.

New people will be hired based on how well they parrot the current administration's propaganda and commitment to the claimed goals of the organization's head. Promotions and job retention will be based on the same.

All organizations that are corrupted from the top down work the same way.

 

[RoninX]

Patel has stated his intent to go after politicians and media figures that have been critical of Trump. Since when is that the purview of the FBI?

Going after critics of the president might be new, but the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover had a long record of going after leftists and civil rights activists:

In 1956, Hoover was becoming increasingly frustrated by U.S. Supreme Court decisions that limited the Justice Department's ability to prosecute people for their political opinions, most notably communists. Some of his aides reported that he purposely exaggerated the threat of communism to "ensure financial and public support for the FBI."[66] At this time he formalized a covert "dirty tricks" program under the name COINTELPRO.[67] COINTELPRO was first used to disrupt the Communist Party USA, where Hoover ordered observation and pursuit of targets that ranged from suspected citizen spies to larger celebrity figures, such as Charlie Chaplin, whom he saw as spreading Communist Party propaganda.[68]

COINTELPRO's methods included infiltration, burglaries, setting up illegal wiretaps, planting forged documents, and spreading false rumors about key members of target organizations.[69] Some authors have charged that COINTELPRO methods also included inciting violence and arranging murders.[70][71]

In the 1960s, Hoover's FBI monitored John Lennon, Malcolm X, and Muhammad Ali.[74] The COINTELPRO tactics were later extended to organizations such as the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party, King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and others. Hoover's moves against people who maintained contacts with subversive elements, some of whom were members of the civil rights movement, also led to accusations of trying to undermine their reputations.[75]

 

[Thank You and Best of Luck!]

The United States may end up fracturing, if some of the more questionable policies of this incoming administration come to pass, especially monetary. Were the US to have its Suez Crisis, and lose the hegemony of the dollar, all bets are off.

Now don't go and start getting me excited. My God what I wouldn't give for the US to finally properly Balkanize.

Being stuck in a lease for a dilapidated property with a hundred fifty million of the worst roommates imaginable isn't a worthwhile use of one's life.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

My God what I wouldn't give for the US to finally properly Balkanize.

-Xi Jinping, probably

Imagine how he salivates at the thought of reclaiming the ancient Chinese lands of... [checks map] Hawaii.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Ahh yes, J Edgar Hoover, that famous textbook example of how to run a federal police force well.

Though, of course, while he went after protesters and such, I don't seem to recall reading about how he was going after reporters and such. Something tells me well will soon have a new rubric for how not to run a federal police force.

 

[RoninX]

Collins.

Susan Collins, soon-to-be Chair (and current Ranking Minority Member) of the Senate Appropriations Committee. She’s low-key one of the most powerful people in the Senate.

Why do I say Collins?

Take a look at the at the only two Republicans to vote for cloture on S. 4554 Reproductive Freedom For Women Act this summer. That would be Collins and Murkowski.

That bill died because it didn’t get to 60 votes necessary to proceed - it was part of Schumer’s blitz to highlight how the Republicans are not for women’s rights or reproductive freedoms.

The strategy didn’t work in the end. But It’s still a good exercise in showing that at least two of the Republican’s in the Senate aren’t necessarily ghoulish.


The third? Man. That’s tough. Depends on the individual going up and how much pressure is coming down from the White House. I can think of two or three who have occasionally grown spines, but they also bend the knee pretty much at the same rate.

Mitch McConnell is a wild card. He's not a moderate, but he is an institutionalist. He also personally loathes Donald Trump, and at this point, since he's almost certainly not going to run for another term, he has absolutely nothing to lose.

But you need four Senators to block Patel, and I'm not sure there is a fourth who will risk Trump's wrath.

 

[Shavano]

Mitch McConnell is a wild card. He's not a moderate, but he is an institutionalist. He also personally loathes Donald Trump, and at this point, since he's almost certainly not going to run for another term, he has absolutely nothing to lose.

But you need four Senators to block Patel, and I'm not sure there is a fourth who will risk Trump's wrath.

I'm not sure either but there were enough to block Gaetz.

 

[Diabolical]

Mitch McConnell is a wild card. He's not a moderate, but he is an institutionalist. He also personally loathes Donald Trump, and at this point, since he's almost certainly not going to run for another term, he has absolutely nothing to lose.

But you need four Senators to block Patel, and I'm not sure there is a fourth who will risk Trump's wrath.

I can’t think of one off hand. And I don’t know what the composition of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be - that’s Patel’s first hurdle.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

he's almost certainly not going to run for another term

Considering the language he and his office used after he publicly segfaulted more than once? He's done.

 

[9600man]

Patel has stated his intent to go after politicians and media figures that have been critical of Trump. Since when is that the purview of the FBI?

I wonder what the 76 million voters think about these appointees as this is a vendetta, anti-democratic and doesn’t solve their inflation problems.

“We’re not racist misogynistic assholes, we voted because we’re spending too much on eggs and pet safety!”

I wonder how Patel and all the other morally bankrupt list of potential appointees will solve 76 million voters “inflation” problems.

 

[linnen]

Mitch McConnell is a wild card. He's not a moderate, but he is an institutionalist. He also personally loathes Donald Trump, and at this point, since he's almost certainly not going to run for another term, he has absolutely nothing to lose.

But you need four Senators to block Patel, and I'm not sure there is a fourth who will risk Trump's wrath.

Unfortunately when you say institutionalist McConnell is a Mitch McConnell institutionalist first off, then a Republican Congressional institutionalist . And by institutionalist, he wants those two institutions to weather the Tea Party or MAGA base. He has shown no qualms about throwing over any any idea of Congress, much less America, as a institution. His record of going against Trump is on the level of a pup tent made of tissue paper standing up to a spring time sprinkle.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

I wonder how Patel and all the other morally bankrupt list of potential appointees will solve 76 million voters “inflation” problems.

Mike Rounds (R - Dakota Senate Seat #3) has made statements in support of Chris Wray. Patel may join Gaetz in the ranks of the quickly discarded. We'll see how many more Scaramuccis he's got in him.