Well, yes and no, Ron. You make some good points about how the Republican Party has devolved in general, separate from Trump. But let's look at how, as you say, the current devolved MAGA Republican Party "... has everything to do with public domination, cutting taxes on those at the top, cutting benefits for those at the bottom, cutting …
Well, yes and no, Ron. You make some good points about how the Republican Party has devolved in general, separate from Trump. But let's look at how, as you say, the current devolved MAGA Republican Party "... has everything to do with public domination, cutting taxes on those at the top, cutting benefits for those at the bottom, cutting public services, and cutting those burdensome government regulations that protect the public." Aren't those pretty much the policy stances of the traditional, un-devolved Republican/Conservatives, with public domination being the possible exception? As I understand it, the idea is that since the free market is much better and more efficient than the government (per Ronald Reagan and his "nine scariest words in the English language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."), then we should cut taxes because wealthy people and their businesses will create wealth that will trickle down to everyone. And we can cut benefits, because there will be far less need for them since the free market will all but eliminate the poor. And we can cut public services, because businesses will efficiently take over maintaining roads and bridges and running the utilities. And we won't need those pesky regulations to ensure clean water and untainted food, because the free market will take care of that too. After all, if people start dying of water and food borne illnesses again, the companies that caused those disasters would be run out of business and more responsible businesses would take over. And to all that, I ask, how has that worked out for us so far? I submit, not well. The free market and the businesses that make it up have one goal: to make as much money as they can. They don't have, and maybe we can't expect them to have, an equal goal of public service. We need some government structure and tax supported regulations to take care of the value of maintaining a safe and humane society.
I'm not sure if this worship of the free market logically leads to the free rein "value" of "get government out of my business so I'm free to do whatever it takes to make money, and the good of society be damned" or not. That's maybe where you're going with your very good analysis of why the problem is beyond Trump.
However, I think I'm in agreement with Charlie in his interview where he says that Trump is in a class of his own as far as his dangerousness to our country. If DeSantis or some Paul Ryan type became president, they would probably continue the freewheeling support of the free market and the continued destruction of the structures that the other side (well, my side, as I think is obvious) thinks we need to contain it, but they would not be the clear and present danger to our constitutional government as would Trump.
Thanks Mary, great comments! Yup, if you lived near a nuclear plant would you really want the nuclear industry to be unregulated? What could go wrong? The Preamble to the Constitution makes pretty clear that our government exists to serve the interests of the people, and the Bill of Rights provides at least some protections for individual freedom. Most businesses are not democratic and do not exist to do either of these. I always remember Tom Harkin when he was running against Bill Clinton asking "Aren't you tired of being trickled on?" Our economy is designed to suck money up from the bottom to the top. I never quite understood why putting more money in at the top is better for those at the bottom than putting more money in at the bottom and let those at the top make more money the old fashioned way - by earning it! :) Freedom comes with responsibility, and we need to have government, business and the people working together for a balance that best serves the interests of all.
As for Trump, yes I agree he would be more dangerous as president than other Republican candidates, though DeSantis would make an awfully effective autocrat. But the other candidates also pose another threat - we know what to expect with Trump, but while some of the other candidates may appear more "normal", would any of them stand up against MAGA and would any of them veto any extremist legislation that could get through Congress if MAGA gets control?
That is a good point. We do know what will happen if Trump gets re-elected--he's told us--but we are just guessing that any other Republican president would stand up against the destructive power of the MAGA legislators backed by the rage-filled MAGA base. I think we are predicting they would but most "normie" Republicans were not predicting how far across the borders of Crazyland so much of the Republican voter base would travel.
I have no doubt that DeSantis would sign any extremist MAGA legislation that came his way, if not push for it to be even more extreme. Some of the rest might advocate for a kinder gentler MAGA, but I can't say that I see any of them actually opposing the MAGA GOP party line in any way. Nikki Haley featured Christian nationalist pastor John Hagee in her campaign kick-off, and I saw Tim Scott yesterday trotting out the "liberal lie that our country is evil". Huh??? And then of course there's also the Supreme Court...
Well, yes and no, Ron. You make some good points about how the Republican Party has devolved in general, separate from Trump. But let's look at how, as you say, the current devolved MAGA Republican Party "... has everything to do with public domination, cutting taxes on those at the top, cutting benefits for those at the bottom, cutting public services, and cutting those burdensome government regulations that protect the public." Aren't those pretty much the policy stances of the traditional, un-devolved Republican/Conservatives, with public domination being the possible exception? As I understand it, the idea is that since the free market is much better and more efficient than the government (per Ronald Reagan and his "nine scariest words in the English language: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."), then we should cut taxes because wealthy people and their businesses will create wealth that will trickle down to everyone. And we can cut benefits, because there will be far less need for them since the free market will all but eliminate the poor. And we can cut public services, because businesses will efficiently take over maintaining roads and bridges and running the utilities. And we won't need those pesky regulations to ensure clean water and untainted food, because the free market will take care of that too. After all, if people start dying of water and food borne illnesses again, the companies that caused those disasters would be run out of business and more responsible businesses would take over. And to all that, I ask, how has that worked out for us so far? I submit, not well. The free market and the businesses that make it up have one goal: to make as much money as they can. They don't have, and maybe we can't expect them to have, an equal goal of public service. We need some government structure and tax supported regulations to take care of the value of maintaining a safe and humane society.
I'm not sure if this worship of the free market logically leads to the free rein "value" of "get government out of my business so I'm free to do whatever it takes to make money, and the good of society be damned" or not. That's maybe where you're going with your very good analysis of why the problem is beyond Trump.
However, I think I'm in agreement with Charlie in his interview where he says that Trump is in a class of his own as far as his dangerousness to our country. If DeSantis or some Paul Ryan type became president, they would probably continue the freewheeling support of the free market and the continued destruction of the structures that the other side (well, my side, as I think is obvious) thinks we need to contain it, but they would not be the clear and present danger to our constitutional government as would Trump.
I would welcome to hear what you think of this.
Thanks Mary, great comments! Yup, if you lived near a nuclear plant would you really want the nuclear industry to be unregulated? What could go wrong? The Preamble to the Constitution makes pretty clear that our government exists to serve the interests of the people, and the Bill of Rights provides at least some protections for individual freedom. Most businesses are not democratic and do not exist to do either of these. I always remember Tom Harkin when he was running against Bill Clinton asking "Aren't you tired of being trickled on?" Our economy is designed to suck money up from the bottom to the top. I never quite understood why putting more money in at the top is better for those at the bottom than putting more money in at the bottom and let those at the top make more money the old fashioned way - by earning it! :) Freedom comes with responsibility, and we need to have government, business and the people working together for a balance that best serves the interests of all.
As for Trump, yes I agree he would be more dangerous as president than other Republican candidates, though DeSantis would make an awfully effective autocrat. But the other candidates also pose another threat - we know what to expect with Trump, but while some of the other candidates may appear more "normal", would any of them stand up against MAGA and would any of them veto any extremist legislation that could get through Congress if MAGA gets control?
That is a good point. We do know what will happen if Trump gets re-elected--he's told us--but we are just guessing that any other Republican president would stand up against the destructive power of the MAGA legislators backed by the rage-filled MAGA base. I think we are predicting they would but most "normie" Republicans were not predicting how far across the borders of Crazyland so much of the Republican voter base would travel.
I have no doubt that DeSantis would sign any extremist MAGA legislation that came his way, if not push for it to be even more extreme. Some of the rest might advocate for a kinder gentler MAGA, but I can't say that I see any of them actually opposing the MAGA GOP party line in any way. Nikki Haley featured Christian nationalist pastor John Hagee in her campaign kick-off, and I saw Tim Scott yesterday trotting out the "liberal lie that our country is evil". Huh??? And then of course there's also the Supreme Court...