I answer questions about Israel and the Palestinians, the future of conservatism and the Democratic Party, and whether it's ever legitimate for the government encourage procreation
“Now, if Trump does explicitly violate the Constitution, and especially if the system’s mechanisms for reining in such acts are failing to restrain him, then taking to the streets may well become necessary. Though I would very strongly urge protesters to keep their heads and obey the law.”
I realized, upon reading your answer, that a crisis for the Constitution is not the same as a crisis for American democracy, which I suspect means that by the time it’s time to take to the streets - under your formulation - the threat to democracy might well be under way or even complete. It might be lawful to send troops into American cities on the flimsiest of pretexts, but that doesn’t mean it would be anything but disastrous for our form of governance as we have come to know it.
Regarding the dealignment question, I'm not sure what your definition of right-wing populism is, but a less Trumpy right-wing populist might pose an even bigger problem for the dems by capturing the Bernie vote. There's a constituency in both parties for populist economics, even among the professional-managerial class.
Some remarkably thorough and thoughtful answers. Mr. Linker’s responses are in such contrast to so much of our public discourse as to sound like those of an adult coming in on the heels of a bunch of squabbling children on some vast playground. And yes, a part of my response is certainly based on the fact that I agree with him in large measure. But that doesn’t change the fact.
"I don’t know anyone outside of certain dark corners of the religious far right who thinks the government should “regulate consensual sexual activity” for any purpose. How would that even work?"
The well resourced DC insiders who were involved in formulating Project 2025 seem to have some ideas, don't they? Much greater government control on pornography. Challenges to the Supreme Court decisions in Obergefell and other "privacy" cases.
On Reaganite conservatism, we're wondering "what should it do?" and I suspect a more basic question is, will it survive? Buckley/Reagan conservatism emerged in a specific context, as you say, a context which is no longer ours. That will make it anachronistic, apart from some serious evolution. But, more importantly, can it survive without an inspiring leader? I wonder if intellectuals, who focus understandably on the power of ideas, ignore that aspect of movement-dynamics? People need a living face and voice to helm their ship. Someone to rally around, who imparts confidence and hope. Does Reaganism have that, or does all it have is a memory?
I'd say that did Mr Trump win (or lose and otherwise obtain) the Presidency again and institute his 'day* of "getting rough"' that would by its nature violate the Constitution, as would his being 'a dictator for a day'.
If he instituted his mass-deportation policy with the speed he and Mr Miller implies, that would not by its nature be unconstitutional (though intentional violations of the Posse Comitatus Act would be against the President's Constitutional mandate), but given the histories of other, slower, such as mentioned by Our Gracious Host, which _did_ include many instances of disregarding the rights of persons and of citizens, there inevitably would be many violations.
I don't know if even the current Court would uphold Korematsu….
*or did he say 'an hour', or 'a second'?—perhaps a millisecond of Perfect Barbarism were all that were needed to solve all our problems
Shorter: Sens. Graham and McConnell have demonstrated that a man may easily and enthusuastically stomp on the M.A.G.A. cap in apostasy then later place it again on their heads…repeatedly…and that many more may return if they're sure that they'll never have to wear it again.
I believe very many conservatives would return to a Trumpist-without-Trump Republican Party, as I believe that it is only their inability to stomach the presence of the man that got them to leave. Disagreement about policy can more easily be smoothed-over or lived-with 'because of what _really_ matters', be that zygotic and embryonic citizenship or the moral equivalence of my right to keep my last dollar and Mr Musk to keep his tenth house.
A lot of it might have to do with how well a post-Trump party quashed all its little barbarians, the Boeberts and Greenes and Robinsons and all the most obviously Fuentes-adjacent types—as opposed to those like Mr Vance who has discovered the uses of acting and speaking barbarously and could, if he thought it would benefit him, learn to express _different_, insincerely-held, beliefs.
(What do _I_ think Mr Vance sincerely believes? Well, foremost, that he would like to stay the Hell out of the holler.)
“Now, if Trump does explicitly violate the Constitution, and especially if the system’s mechanisms for reining in such acts are failing to restrain him, then taking to the streets may well become necessary. Though I would very strongly urge protesters to keep their heads and obey the law.”
I realized, upon reading your answer, that a crisis for the Constitution is not the same as a crisis for American democracy, which I suspect means that by the time it’s time to take to the streets - under your formulation - the threat to democracy might well be under way or even complete. It might be lawful to send troops into American cities on the flimsiest of pretexts, but that doesn’t mean it would be anything but disastrous for our form of governance as we have come to know it.
Regarding the dealignment question, I'm not sure what your definition of right-wing populism is, but a less Trumpy right-wing populist might pose an even bigger problem for the dems by capturing the Bernie vote. There's a constituency in both parties for populist economics, even among the professional-managerial class.
Some remarkably thorough and thoughtful answers. Mr. Linker’s responses are in such contrast to so much of our public discourse as to sound like those of an adult coming in on the heels of a bunch of squabbling children on some vast playground. And yes, a part of my response is certainly based on the fact that I agree with him in large measure. But that doesn’t change the fact.
"I don’t know anyone outside of certain dark corners of the religious far right who thinks the government should “regulate consensual sexual activity” for any purpose. How would that even work?"
The well resourced DC insiders who were involved in formulating Project 2025 seem to have some ideas, don't they? Much greater government control on pornography. Challenges to the Supreme Court decisions in Obergefell and other "privacy" cases.
On Reaganite conservatism, we're wondering "what should it do?" and I suspect a more basic question is, will it survive? Buckley/Reagan conservatism emerged in a specific context, as you say, a context which is no longer ours. That will make it anachronistic, apart from some serious evolution. But, more importantly, can it survive without an inspiring leader? I wonder if intellectuals, who focus understandably on the power of ideas, ignore that aspect of movement-dynamics? People need a living face and voice to helm their ship. Someone to rally around, who imparts confidence and hope. Does Reaganism have that, or does all it have is a memory?
I'd say that did Mr Trump win (or lose and otherwise obtain) the Presidency again and institute his 'day* of "getting rough"' that would by its nature violate the Constitution, as would his being 'a dictator for a day'.
If he instituted his mass-deportation policy with the speed he and Mr Miller implies, that would not by its nature be unconstitutional (though intentional violations of the Posse Comitatus Act would be against the President's Constitutional mandate), but given the histories of other, slower, such as mentioned by Our Gracious Host, which _did_ include many instances of disregarding the rights of persons and of citizens, there inevitably would be many violations.
I don't know if even the current Court would uphold Korematsu….
*or did he say 'an hour', or 'a second'?—perhaps a millisecond of Perfect Barbarism were all that were needed to solve all our problems
Shorter: Sens. Graham and McConnell have demonstrated that a man may easily and enthusuastically stomp on the M.A.G.A. cap in apostasy then later place it again on their heads…repeatedly…and that many more may return if they're sure that they'll never have to wear it again.
I believe very many conservatives would return to a Trumpist-without-Trump Republican Party, as I believe that it is only their inability to stomach the presence of the man that got them to leave. Disagreement about policy can more easily be smoothed-over or lived-with 'because of what _really_ matters', be that zygotic and embryonic citizenship or the moral equivalence of my right to keep my last dollar and Mr Musk to keep his tenth house.
A lot of it might have to do with how well a post-Trump party quashed all its little barbarians, the Boeberts and Greenes and Robinsons and all the most obviously Fuentes-adjacent types—as opposed to those like Mr Vance who has discovered the uses of acting and speaking barbarously and could, if he thought it would benefit him, learn to express _different_, insincerely-held, beliefs.
(What do _I_ think Mr Vance sincerely believes? Well, foremost, that he would like to stay the Hell out of the holler.)