I'd argue the problem is that the US has never really had a political culture that respects the rule of law. Even the Supreme Court views doesn't really respect the law (or, rather, "respects" it selectively). The existence of partisan justices is evidence of this.
This is exactly my point. Some people can just disregard rule of law and others can't. The reason for this is this cognitive dissonance between what we tell ourselves the rule of law means (collective agreement found via legitimizing processes regarding acceptable behavior and what's supposed to happen when that agreement is violated), and what we actually feel when directly confronted by the true nature of power.
When people who have power disregard rule of law, we expect there to be consequences. Our collective agreement is that everyone should be subject to it. But when this intersects with authoritarian mentality, there is crisis. Because authoritarians believe in pecking order before they believe in rule of law. Normally it can be taken for granted that someone with authority, higher on the pecking order, will naturally come along and do the job of enforcement against someone lower than them. But things get weird at the higher tiers of power, where things are less defined. The president is characterized as top authority. An authoritarian's mind cannot process the idea of someone at the top being held accountable, because enforcement normally flows down the totem pole. And to some extent, most people struggle with this. The president is a criminal, so they should face consequences as a criminal. But in this situation, it can't just be taken for granted that someone of a higher authority will naturally step forward to do to the work.
And when the whole world sees power flaunted in such a fashion and nothing happens in response, those with deeply authoritarian mentalities know exactly who to fall in line with. The world makes a little more sense to them, and they get comfort from that.
And what that means is in essence, you have a someone who has power because they act like they have power and nothing more. It's a hypnosis.
For anything to happen, either someone has to boldly step out of their felt place in the pecking order without being obstructed, or a bunch of people who also play the game invite being taken to task on their own shit in the process of enforcing some honesty for just a moment. Because for example, if Democrats push enforcement because of Trump's crimes, then observers will wonder why this is happening without Democrats also having enforcement pushed on them for their own crimes. Trump's a pedophile? Weren't the Clintons also Epstein customers? Trump's election wasn't legitimate? What about the Democrat primary? Corrupted by corporate money? Pff, Obama's first cabinet was directly picked by Citibank (thanks Wikileaks).
Democrats base their existence on appealing to the less authoritarian among us. The liberals (in the classic sense of the word) who want to believe in the legitimacy of the system. But they've made the system a glass house by only appealing to the perception of legitimacy, which they must be careful to maintain. Republicans appeal to authoritarians. They don't need that glass house for things to be run the way they want, and can freely dare Democrats to throw stones. IMO, this has been the defining feature of USA politics for at least the last 15 years.
There is indeed a good deal of collective agreement behind Trump, and those second amendment nutters agreeing with him have guns.
And yeah, there's collective agreement behind Trump, but it's mainly of two natures, which are NOT the collective agreement behind rule of law I've been referring to:
1. Collective agreement to support the man himself, because of the way he wields power. The love for that circular logic. They love him because wields power because they love him because he wields power.
2. Collective agreement regarding his reinforcement of the authoritarian and bigoted elements of society. Which is only further manifestation of the projection of power via charade. The establishment of everyone in a pecking order based on nothing more than enough people believing that there's a pecking order. The majority of those living within that pecking order reinforcing its existence by behaving accordingly, because they fear consequences from someone higher on the pecking order, who in turn fears consequences from someone "above" them. When in reality, if everyone who didn't like it just stopped, it wouldn't exist. Most atrocities throughout history are a product of people "following orders" according to this dynamic.
The established Democrats would rather watch the world burn than change anything. Remember when President Obama took down the concentration camps? No? Because it didn't happen. Homeland Security and the concentration camps were created for the Patriot Act from 2001, and people only just started caring. The Democrats are part of the problem, not a solution.
If you've followed my history around here, you'll know I agree.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4465399 times)