[SpicyLemonZest]

No? The tariffs aren't popular with anyone, have already produced multiple defections from his own party in Congress, and severely undercut the rationale business and financial leaders had for supporting him in 2024. His co-consul Musk, who normally spares no effort to hype up Trump's decisions, has spent the past few days carefully avoiding even indirect acknowledgement of the tariffs. It's really hard to see how this policy could possibly lead to consolidating power.

[kowabungalow]

A bad leader and a dictator are kind of the same. They want things to get so bad that their personal relationship with their tiny number of remaining allies and still profitable ventures look so essential in the short term that they don't have to suppress talk of jumping the J-curve with anything but rational fear of starving.

[abraxas]

At this point he gives no fucks about what anyone thinks because the plan is to consolidate the oligarchic power to its maximum, russia style. Winning the hearts and minds is not and never was a part of his plan. And the sad thing is that they will probably succeed.

I have no idea why you Americans are so naive about someone who staged a putsch to give up power voluntarily now that he's got it. You will be a russia style full on kleptocracy by the time he's done with you. And then his heirs will lord over you for generations (unless one of them fucks something up). Godspeed.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'm just not sure what people mean when they talk about "consolidating power" as something distinct from convincing people that you should have lots of power. "Russia style" consolidation of power under Putin involved quite a lot of winning hearts and minds. Rather than inducing a recession, for example, Putin doubled the Russian GDP over his first 4 years.

I'm not naive about the fact that Trump would like to stay in office after 2028 (he doesn't exactly keep it a secret), but the desire doesn't make him any good at it.

[watwut]

> I'm just not sure what people mean when they talk about "consolidating power" as something distinct from convincing people that you should have lots of power.

When Trump threatens to destroy law companies that sued him and gets submission because he has actual power to do it, that is "consolidating power". It does not matter whether people think he should have that power or not, he has it. And he is using it so that everyone is afraid to oppose him in the future. Or sue him.

When Trump fires prosecutors that prosecute criminal acts by him and his friends, he is consolidating power. When he hires loyalist and uses prosecution against his political opponents, ignoring unfavorable laws and judges, he is consolidating power. Because all of that makes sure that it does not matter what people think, they will shut up and wont oppose.

When Trump changes election laws so that students have it harder to vote, he is consolidating power. People who are likely to vote against him will vote less for practical reasons and their opinions wont matter.

> I'm not naive about the fact that Trump would like to stay in office after 2028 (he doesn't exactly keep it a secret), but the desire doesn't make him any good at it.

All he has to do is to harm those who oppose him, so there are less people opposing him. And to ignore the laws he finds inconvenient, which is something he is already doing.

[vkou]

Putin wasn't who consolidated power in Russia, Yeltsin did, when he successfully carried out his coup. Russia stopped being a semi-functional democracy in ~1993, even if it wasn't yet clear to anyone living there at the time.

Putin just stepped into the nest of ~unlimited executive power that was already made for him.

[SpicyLemonZest]

If you put the end date of Russia's democracy 2 years after its start date, I'm not sure it's right to say it ever had one.

[vkou]

People certainly thought they were still living in one in 1996 and 2000, but there was no golden path out of it. The press was fully compromised, the security apparatus was in the hands of one man, and parliament was an irrelevant sideshow.

But you can't see any of this, when you're on the inside looking out - and you can't be certain of it when you're on the outside looking in.

[SpicyLemonZest]

You can't be certain of anything, I suppose. I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Whether or not Trump has secretly ended American democracy, it's still the case that popular leaders have more power than unpopular leaders and criticizing unpopular decisions is a good way to try and stop them.

[ArtTimeInvestor]

Making people rich and powerful wins their hearts and minds pretty fast.

Look up the military leaders of the USA. Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Service Chiefs (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force) ... all appointed by Trump.

[SpicyLemonZest]

You've gotten inaccurate information. Only the Secretary of Defense and Navy chief were appointed by Trump, the rest were appointed by Biden. (The incoming chairman will also be a Trump appointee, of course.)

[ArtTimeInvestor]

Who do you think the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is and who appointed them?

[SpicyLemonZest]

The seat is formally unfilled, so the vice chairman Christopher Grady (appointed by Biden) is the current acting chairman. You may be thinking of Dan Caine, who Trump nominated for the position but hasn't yet been confirmed.

[tzs]

Even Ted Cruz criticized them. When I read that I had to check to make sure it wasn't April 1 and that I wasn't reading The Onion.

[ArtTimeInvestor]

Are you saying Trump has to be popular to stay in power?