The thing about Reagan is that he’s not unpopular in Europe at all, since he’s considered a major factor in bringing down the Iron Curtain and ending Soviet rule over half of the continent. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a German TV documentary on the end of the Cold War (and there are many) that didn’t feature either the Hoff or Reagan’s famous “Mr. Gorbachev, bring down this wall!”, which is almost as popular in Germany as Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner.”
Easy for us Europeans to look at Reagan that way, because we weren’t negatively impacted by his social and economic policies, at least not directly. I don’t disagree with your assessment that he caused a great deal of damage that was only increased by Bush Jr., but Clinton with his extensive policy of deregulation is hardly blameless either and is perhaps even more responsible for the current state of the US, in large part due to laying the groundwork for the current media oligopoly. I was however not conscious of this at the time and neither were many other people in Europe even years later - Clinton remained popular enough here post presidency that his 2004 autobiography became a major best seller across the pond, although it’s perhaps less surprising given the contrast to his successor.
The descent into fascism will come at us fast […] and the US is also kinda odd in that states also have a certain amount of political autonomy
I put these two quotes from your comment together, because I think that the federal structure of the US might end up preventing this from happening. If I were French, I would agree with you that federalism is odd (France is highly centralized, both politically and economically), but as a German, I’m aware of just how deliberately this style of government was chosen by the Western Allies for post-war West-Germany, because it makes it considerably more difficult for the federal government to take complete control over the country. It’s also worth stressing that German states are still far less powerful and less independent than American states (there’s no equivalent to the national guard, for example, and legislative powers are also far more limited beyond education) despite being literally conceived to prevent a Fascist government from taking over. The states might be the final line of defense of the American democracy (very much unlike the fourth estate, which is falling in line faster than you can say “Democracy dies in the darkness”).
You are right that the Republican-controlled Supreme Court is one of Trump’s most important assets, but one aspect worth considering about it is that it’s still in service of the Republican party, not Trump directly. For as long as the interests of this party and Trump align, they are on “his” side (and he has been rather shockingly effective at turning the so-called GOP into his personal cult), but if there was e.g. a chasm within it party (e.g. due to an unpopular purge started by Trump, perhaps as part of a blame game after he seriously mucks something up), it could result in some of the Conservative justices to abandon him and vote against him. Yes, this is far-fetched, but you have to consider that they are thinking far more long-term than he’ll ever live - and that Trump has no friends after all and no true allies. Every single person and organization aligning themselves with him is doing it solely out of opportunism, because there certainly is no vision, no ideology and no policy other than his personal brand. The moment there’s a falling out, which are more or less guaranteed to happen with anyone but his closest family members, it’s getting ugly - and Trump is terrible at keeping “talent”, increasingly surrounding himself with useless suck ups, which have no ability to survive for very long in the brutal political battle royale that is Washington DC.
It’s also worth stressing that German states are still far less powerful and less independent than American states (there’s no equivalent to the national guard, for example, and legislative powers are also far more limited beyond education) despite being literally conceived to prevent a Fascist government from taking over.
The National Guard is a major threat to US stability right now, because it has no legal hurdles to overcome in being deployed internally, and the Federal government can call up any state’s units for federal use, even overriding the state governors. Trump has already floated using NG units to assist ICE in deportations in Blue states.
This is also not hypothetical. In 2020 Trump used Natl. guard troops against the wishes of the DC city government, from another state, for policing actions, which is supposed to violate the Posse Commitatus Act, but did an end-run around this by saying they weren’t really federalized. Legal scholars have been objecting ever since, but that’s the precedent now. The author tries to pretend otherwise by rationalizing DC as an unusual edge cases, but the DC government specifically opposed the NG deployment, and was ignored, and now the president is legally immune for any “presidential acts” for term 2.
tl;dr the National Guard has created a legal gray area where the President can order troops into unwilling states, including for policing actions that were supposed to be explicitly prohibited, and maybe not violate the Constitution. Since it’s not 100% clear-cut, no Blue state is going to risk deploying their NG forces or LEOs against them, since it could (literally) be ruled as treason, especially with our SCOTUS.
I don’t know German law around deploying the military internally, but from a cursory glance online it appears to require parliamentary approval and be highly restricted in it’s activities, and never seems to allow for simple policing actions. US Natl. Guard bypasses congress entirely in its current incarnation, and appears unlikely to be restricted by the courts.
I want to start by saying I was just trying to add some context, and did not fundamentally disagree with your original statement, and don’t necessarily disagree with this one either, it is just missing some context.
Clinton with his extensive policy of deregulation is hardly blameless either and is perhaps even more responsible for the current state of the US, in large part due to laying the groundwork for the current media oligopoly
Oh for sure Clinton carries a lot of that responsibility too. Every president since Reagan does. The shift has been going ever rightward since his presidency. I was not alive for Reagan and missed a lot of Bush Sr. (Bush Jr. was the first election I could vote in), but in the US Reagan is a bit of an infamous person, so just wanted to add that context.
I think that the federal structure of the US might end up preventing this from happening
See, I think the opposite will happen. Left leaning states are going to start bumping up against Federal regulations, and the Supreme court is the arbiter of those disputes. It is going to cause mass conflict and division among the states, further solidifying the left/right divide and Trump’s cult of personality.
it is that it’s still in service of the Republican party, not Trump directly. For as long as the interests of this party and Trump align, they are on “his” side
speaking of his cult, Trump has his incredibly violent and loyal followers to fall back on. Most of the right wing militias in the US follow Trump, no questions asked. They have already shown they will literally commit treason in his name, and Trump has shown that he is not afraid to use them. That alone will probably keep the right from falling too far out of line.
Ultimately I know the right is thinking beyond Trump, but the issue is they also want fascism long term.
The thing about Reagan is that he’s not unpopular in Europe at all, since he’s considered a major factor in bringing down the Iron Curtain and ending Soviet rule over half of the continent. I don’t think I’ve ever watched a German TV documentary on the end of the Cold War (and there are many) that didn’t feature either the Hoff or Reagan’s famous “Mr. Gorbachev, bring down this wall!”, which is almost as popular in Germany as Kennedy’s “Ich bin ein Berliner.”
Easy for us Europeans to look at Reagan that way, because we weren’t negatively impacted by his social and economic policies, at least not directly. I don’t disagree with your assessment that he caused a great deal of damage that was only increased by Bush Jr., but Clinton with his extensive policy of deregulation is hardly blameless either and is perhaps even more responsible for the current state of the US, in large part due to laying the groundwork for the current media oligopoly. I was however not conscious of this at the time and neither were many other people in Europe even years later - Clinton remained popular enough here post presidency that his 2004 autobiography became a major best seller across the pond, although it’s perhaps less surprising given the contrast to his successor.
I put these two quotes from your comment together, because I think that the federal structure of the US might end up preventing this from happening. If I were French, I would agree with you that federalism is odd (France is highly centralized, both politically and economically), but as a German, I’m aware of just how deliberately this style of government was chosen by the Western Allies for post-war West-Germany, because it makes it considerably more difficult for the federal government to take complete control over the country. It’s also worth stressing that German states are still far less powerful and less independent than American states (there’s no equivalent to the national guard, for example, and legislative powers are also far more limited beyond education) despite being literally conceived to prevent a Fascist government from taking over. The states might be the final line of defense of the American democracy (very much unlike the fourth estate, which is falling in line faster than you can say “Democracy dies in the darkness”).
You are right that the Republican-controlled Supreme Court is one of Trump’s most important assets, but one aspect worth considering about it is that it’s still in service of the Republican party, not Trump directly. For as long as the interests of this party and Trump align, they are on “his” side (and he has been rather shockingly effective at turning the so-called GOP into his personal cult), but if there was e.g. a chasm within it party (e.g. due to an unpopular purge started by Trump, perhaps as part of a blame game after he seriously mucks something up), it could result in some of the Conservative justices to abandon him and vote against him. Yes, this is far-fetched, but you have to consider that they are thinking far more long-term than he’ll ever live - and that Trump has no friends after all and no true allies. Every single person and organization aligning themselves with him is doing it solely out of opportunism, because there certainly is no vision, no ideology and no policy other than his personal brand. The moment there’s a falling out, which are more or less guaranteed to happen with anyone but his closest family members, it’s getting ugly - and Trump is terrible at keeping “talent”, increasingly surrounding himself with useless suck ups, which have no ability to survive for very long in the brutal political battle royale that is Washington DC.
The National Guard is a major threat to US stability right now, because it has no legal hurdles to overcome in being deployed internally, and the Federal government can call up any state’s units for federal use, even overriding the state governors. Trump has already floated using NG units to assist ICE in deportations in Blue states.
This is also not hypothetical. In 2020 Trump used Natl. guard troops against the wishes of the DC city government, from another state, for policing actions, which is supposed to violate the Posse Commitatus Act, but did an end-run around this by saying they weren’t really federalized. Legal scholars have been objecting ever since, but that’s the precedent now. The author tries to pretend otherwise by rationalizing DC as an unusual edge cases, but the DC government specifically opposed the NG deployment, and was ignored, and now the president is legally immune for any “presidential acts” for term 2.
tl;dr the National Guard has created a legal gray area where the President can order troops into unwilling states, including for policing actions that were supposed to be explicitly prohibited, and maybe not violate the Constitution. Since it’s not 100% clear-cut, no Blue state is going to risk deploying their NG forces or LEOs against them, since it could (literally) be ruled as treason, especially with our SCOTUS.
I don’t know German law around deploying the military internally, but from a cursory glance online it appears to require parliamentary approval and be highly restricted in it’s activities, and never seems to allow for simple policing actions. US Natl. Guard bypasses congress entirely in its current incarnation, and appears unlikely to be restricted by the courts.
I want to start by saying I was just trying to add some context, and did not fundamentally disagree with your original statement, and don’t necessarily disagree with this one either, it is just missing some context.
Oh for sure Clinton carries a lot of that responsibility too. Every president since Reagan does. The shift has been going ever rightward since his presidency. I was not alive for Reagan and missed a lot of Bush Sr. (Bush Jr. was the first election I could vote in), but in the US Reagan is a bit of an infamous person, so just wanted to add that context.
See, I think the opposite will happen. Left leaning states are going to start bumping up against Federal regulations, and the Supreme court is the arbiter of those disputes. It is going to cause mass conflict and division among the states, further solidifying the left/right divide and Trump’s cult of personality.
speaking of his cult, Trump has his incredibly violent and loyal followers to fall back on. Most of the right wing militias in the US follow Trump, no questions asked. They have already shown they will literally commit treason in his name, and Trump has shown that he is not afraid to use them. That alone will probably keep the right from falling too far out of line.
Ultimately I know the right is thinking beyond Trump, but the issue is they also want fascism long term.