As someone who lived most of my life under authoritarianism, this rings so many alarms. Pressing civil servants and government workers to vote the way you need is basically the first trick in the dictator's manual.
And the point isn’t that they should actually vote a particular way.
The point is that they should start feeling that it’s inconceivable to become a whistleblower, regardless of what they see on the job, because the implied punishment is so high.
Also, the authority forces individuals into acts that bind them tighter to the regime while isolating them from other options. Ex:
"Bob wants to join the resistance. He says he was lying about the loyalty oath the oppressors."
"I dunno, even if Bob was always lying about that, it still makes him the kind of person who would deceive people in order to keep his job, so I'm not sure we can trust him either."
I don’t think it’s over, we’ve just hit the end of post war prosperity, and we are shifting our parties’ respective structures.
The idea that we’ve literally never elected any president younger than a boomer is telling. The party is facing an intergenerational crisis, and but both parties are captured by one generation. If the electorate realigns or one party begins to concern itself with the struggles of the 80’s and 90’s, things will go back to normal.
This is a series of repudiations, not an embrace of fascism.
Do you think the people who are suffering consequences that are typically imposed by fascism care for your distinctions that we are not fascist enough?
it starts small and snowballs. these executive orders are using the same demonizing language and actions as the early anti-Jewish laws of 1930s Germany and we know how that turned out.
I'm a liberal democrat. I'm just going to be up front about that. I think the left has made some real tactical errors in their policy, and it's upsetting people. Most people just want to live their lives and are fine with others living theirs.
On the trans topic, I obviously think trans folks should be able to live their lives, and I think the nonsense about bathrooms is ridiculous. The solution is obviously just not segregating bathrooms by sex.
Most of the hostility here has to do with sport. Where I think the left has fumbled this is not taking the argument for trans folks seriously enough. Gender is a social construct, sex is not... but we don't segregate our sports because of gender differences (that it's somehow icky to have boys touching girls), we segregate our sports because sex differences means biologically female folks are at a natural disadvantage. If we on the left actually took this argument seriously, we should be arguing for trans women competing in (biologically) male sport, because the point of gender being a social construct means we shouldn't see this as a problem. Same for trans men competing in (biologically) female sport.
That we conflate them is an unforced error and honestly undermines the entire argument that trans solidarity is based on (an argument that I generally support).
The conflations continue when we are discussing "immigrants." I've long held that I have no idea why the American left seems totally fine with ignoring the fact that people are overstaying their visas. I'm pretty close to an open borders guy, so I very obviously hate our immigration policy. However, that doesn't mean we should just ignore laws we don't like. We fight to change them. If we're allowed to just ignore perfectly reasonable laws like visa limitations, then there's no reason the right can't start ignoring background checks for gun purchases, or prosecutions for civil rights violations of, say, trans folks. Ignoring laws we don't like breaks the "faithfully execute" oath that executives generally take... it's also wildly undemocratic.
Overstaying a visa is not something we should be exercising civil disobedience over. It has nothing to do with asylum seekers or refugees. It's just people ignoring the perfectly legitimate -- if onerous -- rules for visiting. If I want to live in France, it would be ridiculous to suggest that I should just go their on vacation and then stay.
Again, we elected a fascist, I'm not denying that, but the main complaints I've heard from the right that have led here aren't fascist arguments. They all seem like legitimate complaints about the left, complains I generally disagree with or are low priorities for me, but legitimate. When I start hearing actual fascist desires from the electorate, like eliminating opposition parties, then I'll start freaking out. That's not to say it's not bad, it is, my point is only that the previous three cycles look much more like repudiation results -- because the US is facing financial headwinds and an awkwardly divided electorate -- and the coalitions are shifting.
there's more nuance to sport than that. pre-puberty is not the same as college athletics. I'm not going to deep dive all the flawed logic around removing trans people from sport. internet search is there for you.
as to immigration... we're about to see what happens to the US food supply when you remove migrant workers from the equation. why do they never go after the employers, just the employees? (we both know the answer)
"first they came for..." resonates for a reason... this is the first line of a longer poem playing out.
>"I'm not going to deep dive all the flawed logic around removing trans people from sport. internet search is there for you."
I gave you paragraphs of my time. I'm trying to be open and honest about things that I honestly find difficult to discuss.
Again I completely understand and support the argument that gender is a social construct. Intersex and pre-puberty trans folks are deserving of dignity and respect. They are an absolutely minuscule part of society, and will always be a special case. When the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of trans athletes are trans women, I can understand when parents think it's not fair. Again, I think it's pretty clear that our sport segregation is about sex differences, not gender differences. There just aren't many Chris Mosier's out there.
>as to immigration... we're about to see what happens to the US food supply when you remove migrant workers from the equation. why do they never go after the employers, just the employees? (we both know the answer)
I fully agree, it's going to suck. If it helps us get to a sensible immigration system, it'll be a silver lining, but I'm not optimistic.
I am trans. I am scared. I am exhausted. do your own research.
I'll just say this... there aren't even vast vast vast vast numbers of trans athletes. Most states where this legislative is being pushed don't even have trans athletes. This is a wedge issue designed to create divison and it is working. It is designed to separate trans people and create hatred and it is working.
I'm in SF. I agree it's a wedge issue. My concern is that those of us on the left are losing. This entire thread started by being about my belief that we aren't falling into a fascist hole, even if we did elect a fascist again. We have real economic issues we are dealing with, neither party is actually dealing with them, and so the traditional parties are shifting in coalitions.
My hope is that we can find some middle way that gets us to a better place. I think the trans athlete issue is a distraction, but one I think it might want to reconsider, as it's mostly symbolic. I want trans folks to be treated with dignity and respect, and every day gender discrimination issues I see as non-negotiable.
My point is that it’s saying ‘hey maybe the house is at risk of a fire’ because they smell smoke - in the middle
of the house burning down around them.
Why do you think Trump fired almost everyone at the national security council already?
I can’t remember the exact, pithy phrasing - but there’s a sentiment expressed sometimes in activist work that I find helpful: “We wish you were with us before, but we are so happy you’re here now - there’s much work to do.”
A meditation, perhaps - shared because you will likely encounter this situation often over the coming years and maybe it will help you as it helped me.
Analogies are weak. We should discuss and express concern for everything that happens, and not give up part way through and cease highlighting/flagging anything at all, simply because of repetition, or the vague emotion of "you should have known already". The parent did know. Everybody did know. It's irrelevant to the specific topic.
I.e. the genre of negative response you've given is distracting, accomplishes nothing helpful, and, sadly, is very common.
I read the article and learned something new. Non political (aka career) Members of the NSC are deputized from their parent agencies - FBI, DOJ etc. Those that are removed return to their parent agency to continue line work.
And these are not some line DMV workers. They are high officials. It's not nearly as alarming as the headline makes it sound. I think it's fair for a new elected political leadership to expect high officials to be aligned with the policies they were voted in on.
> It's not nearly as alarming as the headline makes it sound
It is from a national security perspective. A body borne out of WWII has been rendered into a partisan shell [1]. That's a lot of institutional knowledge walking out the doors.
We started dismantling the spoils system in the 19th century and, other than in Chicago, had largely eradicated it by the nuclear era [2]. It's wild to think that a nuclear superpower's national security advisory board is no longer going to be merit based.
(From a domestic political perspective I agree it's being blown out of proportion.)
I don't have much of anything in common with the incoming admin but even I can see what you're saying is true. This is a special privilege, not a job, that is being conditioned. If everyone keeps crying wolf we won't be as alert when something fascist does happen.
Voting should never jeopardize your career... the last thing you want with voting is to associate fear and possible job insecurity. You should be able to freely vote for anyone without any consequences.
For now. We should never accept basic freedoms being sidelined like this just because there is another one that protects us — what if that one gets the same treatment.
I mean, it's true, but at an individual level, if your boss (whether this is a gov't job or not) asked you who you voted for, you might need to somehow protect your own interests by not making someone with power over you antagonized.
Of course, this should be made illegal - discrimination by political affiliation should be classified as illegal. But whether these laws are effective is another question.
> discrimination by political affiliation should be classified as illegal
Political affiliation is almost impossible to define. Voting records and party affiliations are not. It should be illegal to discriminate based on someone's voting record or party affiliation, and it should be illegal for the government to ask about it in the context of employment.
I was told by my city commission that it would be unlawful to screen our police for affiliation or sympathies with violent extremists like the oath keepers and proud boys. But I'm sure this is fine, it's only the federal civil service.
A good thing the parties don't have registered party affiliation lists they can x-verify the information against then. Of registered voters in the US, 47% have declared a party affiliation.
In most states it's public. The Republicans would also have access to their own proprietary voter lists or databases, as well as publicly available voter registration records.
You think they would stop at not being able to verify it properly?
They'll gladly fire you for "not being loyal enough" whatever the cause, for example like ever questioning the dear leader or refusing to do exactly as told.
Forcing victims to compromise themselves is part of the strategy. Even as a lie, it demoralizes them, binds them to your organization, and isolates them from one-another.
Under authoritarians, voting is theatre where everyone under the leader are rubber stamps which approve whatever the authoritarian wants. If they don't they get removed. Currently we're seeing 'soft' removals where people are being fired, or reclassified and then fired. If nothing stops this track then in future (not sure how far out) we'll be hearing stories about officials 'falling out of windows' as so many of Putin's people have.
1. Presidents and other rulers will always put people who align with them politically in the important offices. Because that's what the people voted for. Anything else would be undemocratic. It's not about "job security".
The US switched from the spoils system to the civil service system because the voters did not want a system where rulers could always put people who align with them politically into non-political offices.
The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (passed in 1883) and subsequent laws were put into place democratically. To think otherwise is farcical.
Guiteau took the spoils system pretty personally, as you might recall.
Quite clearly the Federal Reserve is an undemocratic institution.
However the banks are the owners of the nations and of the population, so it's rather they who would control who is president or king rather than the other way around. As history has shown about three thousand times.
> We have independent agencies of the United States government specifically to insulate them from presidential control.
That's the separation of powers. However, within the executive branch, where the president constitutionally has power, it is only reasonable that he will politically appoint the highest offices. Otherwise he cannot execute the policy that voters have obliged him to.
How can I explain my position so that you understand it? Of course, the post office is undemocratic if voters cannot influence who is head of it.
Are we talking past each other with different meanings? Any organisation where voters don't have a say is undemocratic. That doesn't mean I put any value in it, it is just what it is according to the definition of the word.
The voters do have a say. The voters can influence who is the head of it.
This control is indirect. The Postmaster General is selected and appointed by the Board of Governors of the Postal Service.
The members of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, with a seven year term. No more than 5 of the 9 governors may be from the same party. The president cannot fire or force a governor to resign.
This is far different than what you want, which is to have the president be able to replace anyone in an important position.
If you want everyone to vote for everything, move to Switzerland where there is a direct democracy.
If you want the president to be able to replace anyone in an important position, move to some place with a dictatorship.
I know people who saw Trump's first presidency as a shock to the system that would ultimately return us to the norm - much like an AED shocks the heart out of arrhythmia and back to normal beating. This was especially true after Jan 6 and many Republicans turning on him in the immediate aftermath.
However, just a few weeks later, as the Republican party resumed their Trump worship, it seemed pretty clear the damage was permanent.
The next step on this path would be for Republicans to introduce some innocuous-sounding legislation...
Perhaps something like "Act for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"?
> [§4] Officials whose previous political activities do not guarantee that they will always be fully committed to the national state may be dismissed from service.
> [§7] Dismissal from office [...] shall be pronounced by the highest Reich or state authority, which shall make the final decision without recourse to the courts.
And that's how the freshly-arrived executive guy started unilaterally firing people he felt were insufficiently servile to his agenda, ignoring prior checks-and-balances and without appeal.
I considered leaving the link out, but then where would the educational value be? It would be just snark on its own, with an obscure reference unlikely to be caught by the people who most-need to know how another republic collapsed with a lot of similar factors going on.
> Elizabeth Powel: "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
> Benjamin Franklin: "A republic... if you can keep it."
No - these people are loaned to the NSC, they don't lose their job if they no longer have a position there, they return to their previous position in the agency they came from.
Autocrats rarely value talent over loyalty. Look at the qualifications of the Oberfuhrer appointed as secretary of defense the other day for an example (With a 51/50 split because of 3 Republicans voting no - precisely the amount that is completely meaningless. His predecessor was appointed 91/2.)
Your mistake is assuming that good governance is a goal of the current administration, and anyone who only voted for it because of $3.50 eggs will be in for a rude surprise. And I will have not a drop of sympathy for them - they are adults who should have known better. None of this is a surprise.
I don't think that the current administration favors talent all that much. In fact, aren't they attempting to get rid of many of the civil servants to replace them with magical LLMs?
The headline is a lie. It doesn’t even try to support it in the article. They were asked if they can support the agenda that is literally their job to support.
it's just beyond belief that 100 million americans saw this career criminal who promised to absolutely fuck things up while lying about what he was going to let his mates do, and said "yeah, seems like a plan".
I think the moment that clicked for me was when I heard young people in my family circle (25 and below), _in_Europe_ claiming that Trump "will likely be good for the economy".
When I dug deeper they were effectively repeating talking points they heard on TT. When I dug deeper I also realized they are conditioned to distrusted mainstream news, but somehow 10sec videos on TT are legit.
If you can shape the opinions of young men in Europe, raised in social-democratic nations to have them believe that a bankrupt, convict, conman, traitor, kompromat, will be good for the US and global economy then you can truly shape any opinion anywhere.
> I think the moment that clicked for me was when I heard young people in my family circle (25 and below), _in_Europe_ claiming that Trump "will likely be good for the economy".
Same. I am on a plane from visiting family in Europe right now. They are all convinced Trump is good for America. When pressed, they agree he may not be good for America’s people, but definitely good for America.
The young ones get their news from Rogan (and do their own research), the old ones get it from TV and think the left-wing neoliberal elites have gone too far and must be stopped.
Nobody in my family is actually right-wing and they agree with all left-wing policies when presented individually. But not when they’re asked about “the left”.
There's precedent; notably see Berlusconi. Who, even after being removed from power and convicted of tax fraud, _managed to get elected again_ (albeit as an MEP; Italy does tend to treat their MEP vote as a _bit_ of a joke).
(Like Trump, Berlusconi was given special treatment; he was jailed for four years, but it was commuted to unpaid community service. Many countries indulge in this sort of special handling for their criminal politicians, and it's really a terribly bad idea; it only encourages more misbehaviour.)
Within mere days of Trump coming into office, we've seen:
1. ICE round up and deport violent illegal aliens. [1]
2. The US military deploy to assist with securing the southern border. [2]
These both appear to be fairly easily to implement and with tangible impacts and yet.... the previous administration did neither. So was their inaction due to incompetence, or malevolence? Either way many Americans are looking at the lying, cheating, corrupt NYC real estate demagogue and thinking "Maybe he can fix some of the stuff we actually care about...". Which is an absolutely scathing indictment of The Establishment (tm) politicians IMO.
No, I'm sorry that's not true. That's absolutely illegal. Everyone who works in the federal government knows this. If just one person was confronted by their manager and asked who they voted for, that person would already be on the news screaming, and the union would be having a meltdown.
Its kinda funny looking at it from another country. Before Trump was president, anyone who associated with Trump was labelled every bad word in the dictionary - racist, sexist, etc. If you had said you voted for Trump and supported Trump, you would lose your job - example being the Trumps administration's Publicist(? I dont know the exact job description). She had to disassociate with Trump so that she could be hired elsewhere.
Now since he won the election and the tides have turned, these very people who labelled others and fired people who sided with Trump, when faced with the same issue are making this a big issue. US media and the people there are something else lol.
Also if you guys had the same scrutiny for all the other presidents, your country would have been better. A person who said "okay" to bomb 8 countries and receive a Nobel peace prize? Well played.
After the experience of being sold out by Vindman the first time around, wanting to know that the staff isn't going to sandbag him seems natural for Trump.
Also natural are these breathless takes from the media.
The only constant in this universe is "change" so what ideology can be more illogical than one that rejects change? We are about to learn this lesson again as a society.
Didn't Trump have some of his first term plans frustrated by "civil disobedience" of his civil service?
I'd love to see his decisions overturned, but I suppose it shows the dangers of trying to smother populists in non-democratic ways. He is reacting reasonably to his first term, and he is not shy of such actions.
A better way to fight populism long-term is to deliver a system of fair government, and education so people can recognize that and not vote for tyrants. I am amazed what state schooling actually does for 12 years, at a huge cost to worldwide budgets, with people coming out the other end barely able to do maths and reading comprehension.
> Didn't Trump have some of his first term plans frustrated by "civil disobedience" of his civil service?
IIRC some portion of it was "wait one week and he'll forget the crazy thing and lose interest" and some "I won't commit crimes for you." I feel those both deserve a separate category.
Would it even matter? He was found guilty and just kinda let off without even a slap in the wrist. He’s crazy empowered to do whatever he wants, he stacked the Supreme Court and congress is basically all his too. Political views aside, this is a complete breakdown of our checks and balances
One incident is a single individual with a local team in one area and no authority (who was fired), the other is the government acting against its entire civil service. These are not remotely the same.
How well has that strategy worked out for the Republican party internally over the last ~9 years?
Rather than enabling them to glide over the brief uncomfortable moment with their backbones and stated principles intact, it seems to have left them congratulating the emperor on his new clothes.
There are additional layers here because "I voted for Dear Leader" both pumps up the narrative of popular inevitability a regime tries to advertise, and it also binds the speaker more tightly to the regime by making it hard for any broad opposition to cohere. ("If they lied once, why not twice?")
Of course. But until enough people feel the pain to actually fight back (and not in the courts, but you know - violently, so there are actual consequences), it’s clearly suicide to do anything else, yes?
> "But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait."
> "But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty." [...]
> "You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair."
-- They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (published 1955)
The issue is the people having to make the decision can only recognize it in retrospect - it’s why it works.
And there has been so much BS in corporate and academic circles the last 5-10 years, anyone willing to put up a fight for ‘the right thing’ likely got shown the door years ago.
The alternative to a president picking the advisors they want is to continue to employ advisors that they don't want, but to ignore them. How is that an improvement for anyone, except possibly the advisor?
I suppose one way to limit presidential power is to somehow force them to take meetings with advisors that they can't fire. You could neuter them with endless required meetings. That sure seems to be effective at my workplace.
Civil services typically have both kinds — political appointees and career servants,
The career servants are there for expertise and stability. For the political leadership, they bring deep knowledge of what's happened in the past years. For their department and for the population that the state serves, they bring stability and continuity to the projects their department executes.
Remember that the Department of Foo carries out Foo-related projects. One generally does not want to replace all the senior people mid-project.
> For their department and for the population that the state serves, they bring stability and continuity to the projects their department executes.
The less polite term for what you are describing is "The Deep State": unelected government bureaucrats who keep stuff rolling despite political turnover. Brian Berletic has some good videos on YT where he's described the continuing escalatory actions of the US with regards to Russia across every Presidency of the 21st century, both Democrat and Republican.
Bureaucrats keeping the Department of Commerce consistent is probably fine. Bureaucrats keeping the Executive Branch's own National Security Council (which is what the article is about) from changing course on major issues including foreign policy? Probably NOT fine.
> The alternative to a president picking the advisors they want is to continue to employ advisors that they don't want, but to ignore them. How is that an improvement for anyone, except possibly the advisor?
This isn't about political advisors, its about normal career civil servants.
> In politics and government, a spoils system (also known as a patronage system) is a practice in which a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its supporters, friends (cronyism), and relatives (nepotism) as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party. It contrasts with a merit system, where offices are awarded or promoted on the basis of some measure of merit, independent of political activity.
> The term was used particularly in politics of the United States, where the federal government operated on a spoils system until the Pendleton Act was passed in 1883 due to a civil service reform movement. Thereafter the spoils system was largely replaced by nonpartisan merit at the federal level of the United States.
> The term was derived from the phrase "to the victor belong the spoils" by New York Senator William L. Marcy,[1][2] referring to the victory of Andrew Jackson in the election of 1828, with the term spoils meaning goods or benefits taken from the loser in a competition, election or military victory.[3]
...
Note that this bit of corruption and incompetence was so entrenched once it got going that it was impossible to get rid of it for decades.
