I agree that Trump has intimidated the business community. This will get worse as Trump pursues his witch hunt.Trump has railed against the violent “scum” that has infiltrated the government and called on the CIA to help purge his enemies. https://wallstreetdemocrat.substack.com/p/the-calm-before-the-storm?r=51yjs
Thank you for this post. Genuinely one of the worst things for my psyche in 2024 was how many people in these comments said that if Trump wins anyone who works in the government should quit if they aren't willing to do illegal things for him. I really hope they rethink that if and when we see the abuses of power that Trump and co want to do this term. Getting elected was never supposed to give anyone the right to send people with guns after people who disagree with them, and if you think it does then I hope you realize you are wrong before the boot that you have enabled is on your neck.
I agree with the general thrust that this is an ongoing menace, but I disagree that we should ever sympathize with or offer any whit of understanding or acceptance to those who believe that ANY policy concern outweighs Trump's conduct surrounding the 2020 election.
Fwiw, Kevin Williamson hasn't changed his mind, and he's still saying Trump attempted a "coup" after losing reelection in 2020, calling him "Moloch," unfit for the presidency, etc. See his Dispatch newsletter for today (gated, unfortunately).
"If you’re not willing to voice criticism of the president, even while generally supporting him, because you’re afraid of retaliation, that seems at least a little bit like Trump is an authoritarian menace."
I don't think this is a useful litmus test. Donald Trump is about to become America's chief executive. He leads a party that controls all three branches of government.
It would be completely irrational to needlessly antagonize him if you're, say, the CEO of Blackstone or JPM. What would that achieve? Brownie points with substack readers? They wouldn't badmouth any other incoming president.
Are you suggesting that they're afraid of winding up in some reeducation camp or something? If so, you really are being a hysterical lib.
Jamie Dimon has on multiple occasions been openly critical of Biden admin, and I doubt he ever feared any retribution for it. I doubt he'll be as outspoken with Trump in office.
I have always felt that the biggest gap in the Constitution is its silence on "factions", ie. political parties. It's understandable, b/c the primary goal at the time, was simply to create consensus on an actually national form of government, rather than a loose coalition of independent states. So at the time, states actually represented the relevant political actors with their own interests. They simply failed to foresee, that once our politics was national, we'd have new axes of political interest, and our constitution is silent on that.
I say all of that b/c the natural rebuttal to the president becoming a tyrant is that congress holds impeachment power. However, in a relatively balanced factional political system, there's no reason for congressional members of the president's faction to agree to impeachment.
If I may summarize and interpret Matt's advice to Democrats: Focus on issues that people care about, don't go out of your way to needlessly piss off voters with far left "woke" stuff.
By the same token, Republican normies may have concluded that's its best to focus on their version of a "popularist" agenda" and there is no point to keep bringing up 1/6.
It's interesting that pardons really haven't been significantly abused in US history.
Ford pardoning Nixon was very controversial, of course, but it does appear to have been based on a sincere desire to put the Watergate era behind rather than out of a corrupt quid-pro-quo.
And of course, there have been any number of allegations of presidents pardoning various well-connected criminals for bad reasons, but these have usually been self-serving white-collar crooks rather than political operatives.
But in general, it's interesting that large-scale abuses haven't been common.
The two biggest contributing factors to that I think were (1) sheer lack of federal crimes that people might theoretically need to be pardoned for (many of the dubious pardons in recent decades involve white collar crimes of various sorts that weren't even federal crimes until the mid-20th Century or later) and (2) concerns by Presidents about how they would be perceived by history. (The extent to which people used to be sincerely concerned about their historical legacy is severely underrated these days.)
I think part of the reason they’ve gone totally silent (and part of the reason Trump has been so successful in getting away with stuff) is that the zeitgeist is maximalist on moral judgments.
Either someone is 100% good or 100% bad. If you think there’s a bunch of stuff that’s just mid, there’s an army of people to call you a lair, shill, or moron.
So shutting up with your criticism is easy. If Trump is good for anything, he has to be good for everything. Just like everyone else. If you disagree, it’s because you’re dumb.
I'm curious on how folks think there could be some sort of logical construct that somehow blocks an authoritarian rise. Maybe if we ever move to unmotivated execution of constructs, but when the creation, execution, and interpretation are all done by people that can be influenced? How do you imagine it could work? This is akin to thinking "just say that criminal activities are not allowed."
To that end, I'm not entirely clear I can see the concerns about the pardon powers. I'm not a huge fan of them, I suppose. But they don't seem to pose any particularly more dangerous threat than the abilities to shape other branches of government.
Which sucks, as I don't feel like I have much constructive to offer here. But as long as we allow people to push for changes with no accountability in their rhetoric or general actions, I don't think any single federal lever will make a huge difference.
Surprised you didn't include the Trump immunity decision soecifically in your analysis here. Not even clear he needs to rely on the pardon power for his criminality.
The immunity decision covers only Trump and only in the performance of official acts, whereas the pardon power covers any federal crimes and anyone who Trump wants to protect. E.g., if Trump calls the leader of the Proud Boys and tells him to go beat up Democratic congresspeople on the streets of Washington, D.C., the immunity ruling wouldn't protect any of that, but Trump could still pardon the various people who committed the beatings (and he could arguably even pardon himself).
Suppose Trump simmers down a bit due to senility. Do people think that Musk has the requisite charisma and influence over the Republican hoi polloi to control Congress as thoroughly as Trump does? I know a zillion young tech bros worship him, but will the high school dropouts who post pictures of Trump as Jesus find Musk just as godlike?
(Yes, I know "hoi polloi" translates as "the people," so my sentence says "the Republican the people," I took Attic Greek, just roll with the colloquialism, ok?)
My anecdotal take from my junk mail folder is that in the last few months spammers at least have come to believe Musk has some sort of profile with low information people. (Starting about the time of the election, I noticed a larger and larger share of my junk e-mail started to feature "Elon" or "Musk" as part of the subject line, even when the product is hilariously unconnected to any of Musk's actual business endeavors. Although, now that I think about it, Musk *is* very pro-natalist, so maybe he is actually affiliated with some of the products using his name . . . .)
I agree with what you write, but I think you ignore an important part of what's going on, contrary to your customs and inclinations. Many of those voting for Trump did so despite disliking and/or fearing the man, because they feared Harris and/or the Democrats more. From my perspective as an elderly conservative Democrat, their concerns are substantial. Not quite enough to lead me to vote for the man, but close. Many of the unpopular Democratic positions grouped as "cultural" seem to me deeply illiberal threats to the country just as dangerous as those posed by Trump.
Hello, fellow elderly conservative Democrat. I was just thinking the other day about the campus protests about the Israel/Hamas war, and how "Maybe let's not nuke the entirety of Gaza" quickly morphed into "Sinwar is a noble leader and Hamas is great," and the echoes of mid-20th century leftists who praised Stalin and actively covered up the atrocities in the Soviet Union.
I could not and did not vote for Trump, but I sulk a lot about current leftist positions too.
Trump has a secret superpower: he doesn't give a damn about what people like Yglesias or those in their circles think or say about him.
He positively hates that sort of "respectability".
This is a major source of his political power, because a -lot- of the American electorate consider that range of people to be their enemies and would cheer if they burst into flame and died screaming.
For which those people have only themselves to blame. Nobody forced them to make themselves hated. They thought they had 'gatekeeping authority', the ability to say what could be said, to set and enforce 'norms'.
I agree that Trump has intimidated the business community. This will get worse as Trump pursues his witch hunt.Trump has railed against the violent “scum” that has infiltrated the government and called on the CIA to help purge his enemies. https://wallstreetdemocrat.substack.com/p/the-calm-before-the-storm?r=51yjs
Thank you for this post. Genuinely one of the worst things for my psyche in 2024 was how many people in these comments said that if Trump wins anyone who works in the government should quit if they aren't willing to do illegal things for him. I really hope they rethink that if and when we see the abuses of power that Trump and co want to do this term. Getting elected was never supposed to give anyone the right to send people with guns after people who disagree with them, and if you think it does then I hope you realize you are wrong before the boot that you have enabled is on your neck.
I agree with the general thrust that this is an ongoing menace, but I disagree that we should ever sympathize with or offer any whit of understanding or acceptance to those who believe that ANY policy concern outweighs Trump's conduct surrounding the 2020 election.
A short response: https://substack.com/@blastfaxkudos/p-154298162
Fwiw, Kevin Williamson hasn't changed his mind, and he's still saying Trump attempted a "coup" after losing reelection in 2020, calling him "Moloch," unfit for the presidency, etc. See his Dispatch newsletter for today (gated, unfortunately).
Just want to make sure you know Kevin Williamson has NOT reconned Jan 6 or Trump. The opposite, in fact.
"If you’re not willing to voice criticism of the president, even while generally supporting him, because you’re afraid of retaliation, that seems at least a little bit like Trump is an authoritarian menace."
I don't think this is a useful litmus test. Donald Trump is about to become America's chief executive. He leads a party that controls all three branches of government.
It would be completely irrational to needlessly antagonize him if you're, say, the CEO of Blackstone or JPM. What would that achieve? Brownie points with substack readers? They wouldn't badmouth any other incoming president.
Are you suggesting that they're afraid of winding up in some reeducation camp or something? If so, you really are being a hysterical lib.
Jamie Dimon has on multiple occasions been openly critical of Biden admin, and I doubt he ever feared any retribution for it. I doubt he'll be as outspoken with Trump in office.
I have always felt that the biggest gap in the Constitution is its silence on "factions", ie. political parties. It's understandable, b/c the primary goal at the time, was simply to create consensus on an actually national form of government, rather than a loose coalition of independent states. So at the time, states actually represented the relevant political actors with their own interests. They simply failed to foresee, that once our politics was national, we'd have new axes of political interest, and our constitution is silent on that.
I say all of that b/c the natural rebuttal to the president becoming a tyrant is that congress holds impeachment power. However, in a relatively balanced factional political system, there's no reason for congressional members of the president's faction to agree to impeachment.
Have you ever been to Dublin? Have you visited the GPO? Now that was an insurrection. If J6 was an insurrection, MAGA would’ve been armed.
If I may summarize and interpret Matt's advice to Democrats: Focus on issues that people care about, don't go out of your way to needlessly piss off voters with far left "woke" stuff.
By the same token, Republican normies may have concluded that's its best to focus on their version of a "popularist" agenda" and there is no point to keep bringing up 1/6.
It's interesting that pardons really haven't been significantly abused in US history.
Ford pardoning Nixon was very controversial, of course, but it does appear to have been based on a sincere desire to put the Watergate era behind rather than out of a corrupt quid-pro-quo.
There was a California governor who essentially sanctioned a lynching against the (white) murderers of a prominent heir by offering a pre-emptive pardon to any lynchers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Brooke_Hart_and_the_lynching_of_Thomas_Harold_Thurmond_and_John_M._Holmes). I would imagine there were comparable Jim Crow examples, though I can't find any offhand.
And of course, there have been any number of allegations of presidents pardoning various well-connected criminals for bad reasons, but these have usually been self-serving white-collar crooks rather than political operatives.
But in general, it's interesting that large-scale abuses haven't been common.
The two biggest contributing factors to that I think were (1) sheer lack of federal crimes that people might theoretically need to be pardoned for (many of the dubious pardons in recent decades involve white collar crimes of various sorts that weren't even federal crimes until the mid-20th Century or later) and (2) concerns by Presidents about how they would be perceived by history. (The extent to which people used to be sincerely concerned about their historical legacy is severely underrated these days.)
I think part of the reason they’ve gone totally silent (and part of the reason Trump has been so successful in getting away with stuff) is that the zeitgeist is maximalist on moral judgments.
Either someone is 100% good or 100% bad. If you think there’s a bunch of stuff that’s just mid, there’s an army of people to call you a lair, shill, or moron.
So shutting up with your criticism is easy. If Trump is good for anything, he has to be good for everything. Just like everyone else. If you disagree, it’s because you’re dumb.
I'm curious on how folks think there could be some sort of logical construct that somehow blocks an authoritarian rise. Maybe if we ever move to unmotivated execution of constructs, but when the creation, execution, and interpretation are all done by people that can be influenced? How do you imagine it could work? This is akin to thinking "just say that criminal activities are not allowed."
To that end, I'm not entirely clear I can see the concerns about the pardon powers. I'm not a huge fan of them, I suppose. But they don't seem to pose any particularly more dangerous threat than the abilities to shape other branches of government.
Which sucks, as I don't feel like I have much constructive to offer here. But as long as we allow people to push for changes with no accountability in their rhetoric or general actions, I don't think any single federal lever will make a huge difference.
Surprised you didn't include the Trump immunity decision soecifically in your analysis here. Not even clear he needs to rely on the pardon power for his criminality.
The immunity decision covers only Trump and only in the performance of official acts, whereas the pardon power covers any federal crimes and anyone who Trump wants to protect. E.g., if Trump calls the leader of the Proud Boys and tells him to go beat up Democratic congresspeople on the streets of Washington, D.C., the immunity ruling wouldn't protect any of that, but Trump could still pardon the various people who committed the beatings (and he could arguably even pardon himself).
Suppose Trump simmers down a bit due to senility. Do people think that Musk has the requisite charisma and influence over the Republican hoi polloi to control Congress as thoroughly as Trump does? I know a zillion young tech bros worship him, but will the high school dropouts who post pictures of Trump as Jesus find Musk just as godlike?
(Yes, I know "hoi polloi" translates as "the people," so my sentence says "the Republican the people," I took Attic Greek, just roll with the colloquialism, ok?)
Musk is going to be chasing drug induced fever dreams
My anecdotal take from my junk mail folder is that in the last few months spammers at least have come to believe Musk has some sort of profile with low information people. (Starting about the time of the election, I noticed a larger and larger share of my junk e-mail started to feature "Elon" or "Musk" as part of the subject line, even when the product is hilariously unconnected to any of Musk's actual business endeavors. Although, now that I think about it, Musk *is* very pro-natalist, so maybe he is actually affiliated with some of the products using his name . . . .)
I agree with what you write, but I think you ignore an important part of what's going on, contrary to your customs and inclinations. Many of those voting for Trump did so despite disliking and/or fearing the man, because they feared Harris and/or the Democrats more. From my perspective as an elderly conservative Democrat, their concerns are substantial. Not quite enough to lead me to vote for the man, but close. Many of the unpopular Democratic positions grouped as "cultural" seem to me deeply illiberal threats to the country just as dangerous as those posed by Trump.
Hello, fellow elderly conservative Democrat. I was just thinking the other day about the campus protests about the Israel/Hamas war, and how "Maybe let's not nuke the entirety of Gaza" quickly morphed into "Sinwar is a noble leader and Hamas is great," and the echoes of mid-20th century leftists who praised Stalin and actively covered up the atrocities in the Soviet Union.
I could not and did not vote for Trump, but I sulk a lot about current leftist positions too.
These people are constantly looking for a Trumplike figure to elevate as to excuse their worst behaviors.
Good to be reassured that others share my viewpoint, thanks.
Trump has a secret superpower: he doesn't give a damn about what people like Yglesias or those in their circles think or say about him.
He positively hates that sort of "respectability".
This is a major source of his political power, because a -lot- of the American electorate consider that range of people to be their enemies and would cheer if they burst into flame and died screaming.
For which those people have only themselves to blame. Nobody forced them to make themselves hated. They thought they had 'gatekeeping authority', the ability to say what could be said, to set and enforce 'norms'.
It turned out they didn't.