This is really great context for understanding the Trump era both in history and in the wider world. But I would add that, in terms of the Unitary Executive Theory, Trump is Dick Cheney's monster. When GWB came to office, he brought a number of people with him, notably Cheney, John Bolton and John Yoo, who were adherence of this strong reading of executive power, and they set out to dismantle checks on presidential power, for example through Yoo's "torture memo." I think Cheney was moderately more principled in his belief in UET than Trump (who likely doesn't understand it, and may not even know the term) and his lackeys. But the only think surprising in any of this is that Cheney is somehow surprised that we ended up here.
I don't think that is the coda. Worth remembering that Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation product, and the Heritage Foundation in recent years has been heavily influenced by the Danube Institute, a Hungarian think tank dedicated to exporting the strategies of Viktor Orban's "illiberal democracy." That's a misnomer, but if they follow the Orban model, the goal is not to end elections, but to render them meaningless by controlling all the levers of democratic participation.
Fair points! And the anodyne near complicit behaviour of senior Dems supports your contention. The only thing is the rise of good young dems who could form the majority of dems in the house very soon?
We must watch the Smart elections case in Sept for hints?
Money, gerrymander and tech together support your view as well.
But there seems to be be a thirst for absolute power without any remote chance of a 'mistake' and l still think that may drive these to an ending of elections. If not by midterm by 2027-8.
It's possible. Writing yesterday made me think about the fact that of the authoritarians that have emerged in this century, it's a mixed bag. I need to think this through a little bit more. But, off the top of my head, I think maybe you could plot them on two axes: how much they are willing to take the gamble of a reasonably well-rigged election, and how much they are willing to tolerate violence.
A Putin rates high on the violence axis and low on the risk tolerance axis. An Orban is the opposite. Duterte was fine with election, and fine with killing the opposition. Trump, Bolsonaro and Bukele all tolerate risk, and flirt a bit with violence.
I guess what I am stumbling towards is the hunch that Trump won't cancel elections, but if the gaming of them gets a bit bloody, he could live with that.
This is a great explanation but for those of us who aren’t lawyers what are the plans to get us engaged? What can we do? Already protesting, calling congresspeople, and donating to legal orgs.
In the third to last paragraph, the word “control” was accidentally split into “contro” and “l” by the insertion of text. Please delete this comment if you have corrected it.
This analysis is so insightful and very very helpful. Thank you!
This is really great context for understanding the Trump era both in history and in the wider world. But I would add that, in terms of the Unitary Executive Theory, Trump is Dick Cheney's monster. When GWB came to office, he brought a number of people with him, notably Cheney, John Bolton and John Yoo, who were adherence of this strong reading of executive power, and they set out to dismantle checks on presidential power, for example through Yoo's "torture memo." I think Cheney was moderately more principled in his belief in UET than Trump (who likely doesn't understand it, and may not even know the term) and his lackeys. But the only think surprising in any of this is that Cheney is somehow surprised that we ended up here.
For your reading consideration: Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt’s “How Democracies Die”
Excellent analysis thanks. But you left out the coda. No more elections needed uno voce uno duce. Ie Fascism in full
I don't think that is the coda. Worth remembering that Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation product, and the Heritage Foundation in recent years has been heavily influenced by the Danube Institute, a Hungarian think tank dedicated to exporting the strategies of Viktor Orban's "illiberal democracy." That's a misnomer, but if they follow the Orban model, the goal is not to end elections, but to render them meaningless by controlling all the levers of democratic participation.
I've got some more on that here and in a few other posts:
https://everyfingday.substack.com/p/competitive-authoritarianism-or?r=5j6wij
Fair points! And the anodyne near complicit behaviour of senior Dems supports your contention. The only thing is the rise of good young dems who could form the majority of dems in the house very soon?
We must watch the Smart elections case in Sept for hints?
Money, gerrymander and tech together support your view as well.
But there seems to be be a thirst for absolute power without any remote chance of a 'mistake' and l still think that may drive these to an ending of elections. If not by midterm by 2027-8.
It's possible. Writing yesterday made me think about the fact that of the authoritarians that have emerged in this century, it's a mixed bag. I need to think this through a little bit more. But, off the top of my head, I think maybe you could plot them on two axes: how much they are willing to take the gamble of a reasonably well-rigged election, and how much they are willing to tolerate violence.
A Putin rates high on the violence axis and low on the risk tolerance axis. An Orban is the opposite. Duterte was fine with election, and fine with killing the opposition. Trump, Bolsonaro and Bukele all tolerate risk, and flirt a bit with violence.
I guess what I am stumbling towards is the hunch that Trump won't cancel elections, but if the gaming of them gets a bit bloody, he could live with that.
Excellent article
This is a great explanation but for those of us who aren’t lawyers what are the plans to get us engaged? What can we do? Already protesting, calling congresspeople, and donating to legal orgs.
In the third to last paragraph, the word “control” was accidentally split into “contro” and “l” by the insertion of text. Please delete this comment if you have corrected it.