Friday, July 15, 2016

There is no anti Alarmist Case for a Trump Presidency

In my last post I argued that if you don't have Trump Derangement Syndrome, there's something wrong.

Some claim we should not be alarmed by a Trump Presidency, our system is strong enough to withstand it.

"But an anti-alarmist caucus responds that the U.S. system is stronger than any single person — that we could rely on the Constitution, on long-established checks and balances, on watchdogs in the press and elsewhere, and on leaders who would stand up for the rule of law."

"For example, Trump has endorsed the torture of terrorism suspects and the punitive bombing of their innocent families. But if he tried to implement such illegal measures, the reassurers argue, military officers and civilian bureaucrats would refuse to obey. If he tried to round up and deport 11 million people without due process, judges would object. Congress, too, would check executive overreach."

That is an argument that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell use. 'Don't worry we'l sue him if he bans Muslims.'

What's interesting is that it's those who say don't worry and learn to love Donald Trump who are up in arms over Ruth Bader Ginsberg because of her rather mild stepping outside of norms.

Yet at the same time they're arguing that we should not worry about his vow to 'waterboard and worse' because, after all, the military and civilian bureaucrats will disobey. 

Right, like they disobeyed Dick Cheney.

But how do you censure RBG for a rather mild case of disobedience with her comments and yet tell us that after Trump has full powers of the powers of the office at his disposal, we shouldn't worry because everyone will just disobey him-and so flout the norms-on an exponentially larger scale than RBG has here?

I think two things are foolish:

1. To think that Trump will behave more appropriately when he has this power.

2. Think that those who are minimizing his threat now, will magically stop him once he's in office.

I agree with this comment by Che Hammond-regarding a piece by Steve Sanders about why Ruth Bader Ginsberg's comments are indefensible.

"his is a very "Spock" argument. High minded and logical. Unfortunately the other side is not comprised of rational actors. They won't play fairly. You can keep your high mindedness or stop the impending apocalypse of a Trump Presidency, you can't do both. He is an existential threat to America. I'd say they (the liberal SCOTUS Justices) should use whatever legal power they have to subpoena his tax records and expose him for the Faker his is. My cousin, an ardent Trump supporter, was more "energized" by RBG backing down than what she said initially. Trump is a bully, followed by people that like bully's. When RBG backs down to Trump's bullying (albeit due to high minded principles) she looks weak. And Liberals look weak. She should have dug in, doubled down, and challenged Trump to publicly prove he's not a fake. If not RBG, then HRC should take it on."

But the anti alarmists already contradict themselves. You could argue that RBG is doing what they say would save us in a Trump Presidency, and she has been censored and forced to back down not Donald Trump.

Overall, their argument seems to be-'our house is strong enough to withstand just a little fire.' Trump is just a little fire. Maybe, maybe not. But why would you ever deliberately set your house on fire even if you believe it would be contained?


  1. Trump.... he's gonna make such great deals!

  2. So what is RedState and Jennifer Rubin saying about Pence?

    1. They aren't really fans. Erickson is disgusted with Pence in general (for several reasons), and Rubin thinks he brings nothing to the Trump ticket (he won't help is what she said).

  3. List of Trump BIG lies: