[dimitrios1]

I am not buying this argument.

America for better or worse (mostly worse) has a two party system that in practice functions as mostly a uniparty prioritizing defense spending, entitlements, and the economy, with some lip service paid to red meat/blue meat issues to ensure power is maintained. This means you can reliably predict what American policy will be in any given moment for any given president.

Besides, EU member states have had much more iteration on their governments, policies, regulations, and parties. It's not uncommon for a European country to have 7 different parties. And unlike the US, EU's don't hold their constitutions in a such unchanging high regard. Ours is purposefully difficult to change. France, for example, on the other hand, has changed its constitution twenty-five times since circa 1958.

edit: I took out He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named because it seems even here on the board of Very Smart People ™ we can't help ourselves when we see that name and ignore the rest of the point someone tries to make.

[lolinder]

> Arguably, the biggest wrinkle to this was Trump

You say this as though he isn't favored to win the next election and take over the presidency and all its policies in about six months.

Edit in response to the edit: I latched onto this because it's entirely relevant to the rest of your point. Trump is the Republican party today, and his foreign policy dictates the acceptable stances for the majority of Republicans in Congress. His foreign policy is absolutely terrifying to our allies.

I didn't latch on to Trump because he's a big name, I latched on to Trump because you deliberately glossed over him as though he weren't an enormous glaring example of how quickly our foreign policy can (and is likely to!) pivot.

[pessimizer]

I never understand this mentality. They continue to support expanding the power of the executive until it consumes all functions of government, while simultaneously declaring that Trump (and every Republican candidate in every presidential election) is basically Hitler. As if it is inconceivable that the technocrats they relate to will never lose control of government (and legislative agencies.) This, when a wrestling valet Berlusconi-level carnival barker was just elected president eight years ago against the (appointed through a goofy primary) übertechnocrat H. Clinton. That was their best and brightest, and the public was disgusted.

My theory is that liberals were made mentally dull by the Warren court, that it created this unacknowledged model of government within their minds where all actual controversies are low level, and will eventually work their way up to the Supreme Court, who will simply dictate the consensus liberal opinion to be the law.

It's a world where Congress has no other function but to create regulatory agencies to which they appoint their campaign staff, thinktank creatures, friendly professors, lobbyists, and each other's friends and family. To fill in the gaps, the country is otherwise ruled through executive orders, and all resulting injustices from this system are to be straightened out by the Supreme Court. That world is very much gone, and nobody has adjusted because all of their theories on liberal governance come from a period during which this was close enough to true (although gradually less and less after Warren.) It is not now true. We (and liberals) can stop worshiping the members of the Supreme Court now, and simply treat them as smart, connected people writing opinions that we may or may not agree with, instead of some holy chamber of wizened elders.

It's profoundly anti-democratic. It's an exact counterpart to the theocrats on the conservative side, but not grounded in anything but current upper middle-class trends and a belief in Whig history to replace the belief in gods.

If we can't fix Congress, and get them to actually govern, there's no government worth saving. I'm not going to fight for the right of the president to unilaterally declare war, rule by executive order and Supreme Court dictates, or the actual functioning of the country to be delegated to unaccountable regulatory agencies. Doesn't spark joy.

edit: I think the existence of the Senate probably adds to the level of liberal cynicism about democracy. It should really be abolished or directly elected in a way unconnected with the states. We already have a geographically based body in the House. The Senate is clearly a distortion of democracy, like a sensory homunculus for representative government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus#Representa...)

[rayiner]

This is a home-run comment, particularly this:

> It's a world where Congress has no other function but to create regulatory agencies to which they appoint their campaign staff, thinktank creatures, friendly professors, lobbyists, and each other's friends and family.

And they call anything that takes power away from this unelected shadow government "anti-democratic."

[User23]

2016 was absolutely fascinating because, while it’s possible it was a double fakeout, it really looked like the first shoot in presidential politics in my lifetime. Insofar as there is a script, it sure does look like The Nameless One went off it. It was totally obvious the intent was for a Bush vs Clinton rematch.

[mmcgaha]

So you think Trump was supposed to be a spoiler liker Perot?