Very well written. There are true checks to presidential power by design, despite the expansion of its scope by every president since Washington.
The real story I’m interested in is Congress. They were designed to be primary, with their own checks and balances in the bicameral setup to ensure deliberation and alignment.
Our current Congress is constantly running for re-election to a great job with amazing perks. They also seem more like influencers and personal brands than legislators.
I’d like for them to rise to the occasion and reclaim their role within the government.
I appreciate your thorough analysis of the choices that Trump is making, in terms of how he is implementing his agenda (such as it is), and their potential for lasting impact. As I read this, however, I find myself thinking of the "dual state" (Fraenkel), and wondering to what degree this kind of analysis is focusing on the normative state, rather than including the impacts of the prerogative state (to use his terminology). For example, I have been observing proceedings and detentions at our local federal courthouse. People who have been following immigration procedure, sometimes for decades, come in for a regular check-in at DHS and find themselves handcuffed and taken to detention by ICE (often in inadequate facilities) for an untold period of time, with no opportunity to let even their families know what is happening. And then they disappear into a "system" where they sometimes cannot be found or tracked by outsiders for weeks. There is much more I could say, but the point that I am making is that there are the processes that are "working", as you describe, but at the same time, countless numbers of people are being impacted by a very different state apparatus which gives them no real recourse. This is the same apparatus that led to the deaths of Good and Pretti - deaths in which, it would appear, no one will be held accountable. (It is also worth noting that this isn't a new thing in the US, of course - merely a significant ramping up of something that has always been going on.) So, I think when many of us are saying that perhaps we are much further down the road to authoritarianism than this analysis would suggest, this may be some of what we're taking into consideration in our analysis. I'd love to see a deep dive, as you do so well, into this alternate universe.
Great analysis. Though while Trump isn't *building* much that will last, he's also *tearing down* a lot, which will have more lasting impact. The East Wing of the White House may not have been destroyed by legislative action, and thus the next president can un-do, re-do, or do whatever they want with it. But they can't magically bring it back to what it was with the stroke of a reverse executive order. And that feels like a metaphor for a lot of other things he's done too (shutting down various agencies, etc)
I find your analysis comforting, although that's probably not why you wrote it. I'll be interested in how your thoughts pan out in the midterms, esp. and where the potentially reasonable Republicans go when they find Trump's favor is not the route to wealth and fame.
Trump reminds me of a boss I had once. Everything was built on Sandcastles. Aside from a few of us who remain long after he’s gone, no one remembers his name, just the feeling that his tenure was a sham.
Trump’s executive actions have reshaped the view of immigration, both legal and illegal, for many Americans and for many wanna-be migrants. I think this rethink will be a lasting legacy attributable to Trump. This too is a form of persuasion. Trump may not be interested in immigration reform via Congress, but he has, as they say, set the table for future leadership to tackle the issue without some of the romantic and White savior baggage that has immobilized any reform.
Immigration is an issue where Trump is having the opposite long term effect of what his supporters want. This administration is going to discredit reasonable anti-immigration restrictions and controls for decades to come. The backlash to Trump’s overreach is huge and getting stronger. It also doesn’t help that Trump and his team are poster children for white mediocrity and incompetence.
How much thought did you give to our immigration laws before Trump? I have been following the issue since 1986 (the Reagan reform which failed.) I believe when the American people focus on this issue, the laws will be changed to reflect economic sense, common sense and empathy. The asylum laws are reflective of another era (the grandfather of one of my friends was killed by a pitchfork during a pogrom.) The new asylum seekers are escaping poor governance and economic mismanagement of the resources oof their home country. The 1965 reform had massive unintended consequences and the numbers of new immigrants was so mistaken as to constitute a fraud on the American people. As my new friend AI says: "Interestingly, the architects of the bill—including LBJ—publicly stated they didn't expect it to "reshape the structure of our daily lives." They were wrong.
Demographic Shift: While lawmakers thought Europeans would still dominate through family ties, European interest in immigrating declined. Meanwhile, immigration from Asia and Latin America skyrocketed.
"Chain Migration": The family reunification focus allowed new immigrants to sponsor more relatives, creating a "chain" that rapidly grew the immigrant population.
Unauthorized Immigration: By placing the first-ever numerical cap on the Western Hemisphere (specifically Mexico), the law inadvertently turned established labor migrations into "illegal" entries, as the demand for labor far exceeded the new legal limits."
Your “Sandcastle Presidency” article was a well done inspection of the fragility of Trump’s presidential power.
I never considered that Trump cared about the country. In his previous life as a businessman it was obvious that only narcissistic gratification and financial embellishment were important. These are the forces guiding his presidency: he gets tremendous egotistically savory coverage for his executive orders and incredible financial enrichment (conservatively estimated at more than $2 billion) for selling his power to whoever pays.
Very well written. There are true checks to presidential power by design, despite the expansion of its scope by every president since Washington.
The real story I’m interested in is Congress. They were designed to be primary, with their own checks and balances in the bicameral setup to ensure deliberation and alignment.
Our current Congress is constantly running for re-election to a great job with amazing perks. They also seem more like influencers and personal brands than legislators.
I’d like for them to rise to the occasion and reclaim their role within the government.
This was well worth the read, and more than worth the subscription cost. Thank you.
I appreciate your thorough analysis of the choices that Trump is making, in terms of how he is implementing his agenda (such as it is), and their potential for lasting impact. As I read this, however, I find myself thinking of the "dual state" (Fraenkel), and wondering to what degree this kind of analysis is focusing on the normative state, rather than including the impacts of the prerogative state (to use his terminology). For example, I have been observing proceedings and detentions at our local federal courthouse. People who have been following immigration procedure, sometimes for decades, come in for a regular check-in at DHS and find themselves handcuffed and taken to detention by ICE (often in inadequate facilities) for an untold period of time, with no opportunity to let even their families know what is happening. And then they disappear into a "system" where they sometimes cannot be found or tracked by outsiders for weeks. There is much more I could say, but the point that I am making is that there are the processes that are "working", as you describe, but at the same time, countless numbers of people are being impacted by a very different state apparatus which gives them no real recourse. This is the same apparatus that led to the deaths of Good and Pretti - deaths in which, it would appear, no one will be held accountable. (It is also worth noting that this isn't a new thing in the US, of course - merely a significant ramping up of something that has always been going on.) So, I think when many of us are saying that perhaps we are much further down the road to authoritarianism than this analysis would suggest, this may be some of what we're taking into consideration in our analysis. I'd love to see a deep dive, as you do so well, into this alternate universe.
Great analysis. Though while Trump isn't *building* much that will last, he's also *tearing down* a lot, which will have more lasting impact. The East Wing of the White House may not have been destroyed by legislative action, and thus the next president can un-do, re-do, or do whatever they want with it. But they can't magically bring it back to what it was with the stroke of a reverse executive order. And that feels like a metaphor for a lot of other things he's done too (shutting down various agencies, etc)
Great column today. I'm fine with your new schedule. Didn't Jimmy Hendricks have a song about castles made of sand?
I find your analysis comforting, although that's probably not why you wrote it. I'll be interested in how your thoughts pan out in the midterms, esp. and where the potentially reasonable Republicans go when they find Trump's favor is not the route to wealth and fame.
Trump reminds me of a boss I had once. Everything was built on Sandcastles. Aside from a few of us who remain long after he’s gone, no one remembers his name, just the feeling that his tenure was a sham.
Why do you appear to rule out a "successful" tampering with the midterms, by "federalizing" or "state of emergency" etc.?
Source e.g. NYT (no paywall): https://archive.is/WHN6f
Thank you for breaking it down into understandable language. I so appreciate the work you put into this.
Trump’s executive actions have reshaped the view of immigration, both legal and illegal, for many Americans and for many wanna-be migrants. I think this rethink will be a lasting legacy attributable to Trump. This too is a form of persuasion. Trump may not be interested in immigration reform via Congress, but he has, as they say, set the table for future leadership to tackle the issue without some of the romantic and White savior baggage that has immobilized any reform.
Immigration is an issue where Trump is having the opposite long term effect of what his supporters want. This administration is going to discredit reasonable anti-immigration restrictions and controls for decades to come. The backlash to Trump’s overreach is huge and getting stronger. It also doesn’t help that Trump and his team are poster children for white mediocrity and incompetence.
I
How much thought did you give to our immigration laws before Trump? I have been following the issue since 1986 (the Reagan reform which failed.) I believe when the American people focus on this issue, the laws will be changed to reflect economic sense, common sense and empathy. The asylum laws are reflective of another era (the grandfather of one of my friends was killed by a pitchfork during a pogrom.) The new asylum seekers are escaping poor governance and economic mismanagement of the resources oof their home country. The 1965 reform had massive unintended consequences and the numbers of new immigrants was so mistaken as to constitute a fraud on the American people. As my new friend AI says: "Interestingly, the architects of the bill—including LBJ—publicly stated they didn't expect it to "reshape the structure of our daily lives." They were wrong.
Demographic Shift: While lawmakers thought Europeans would still dominate through family ties, European interest in immigrating declined. Meanwhile, immigration from Asia and Latin America skyrocketed.
"Chain Migration": The family reunification focus allowed new immigrants to sponsor more relatives, creating a "chain" that rapidly grew the immigrant population.
Unauthorized Immigration: By placing the first-ever numerical cap on the Western Hemisphere (specifically Mexico), the law inadvertently turned established labor migrations into "illegal" entries, as the demand for labor far exceeded the new legal limits."
Hate to rain on everyone's parade, but in the long run, you have 8 more years of Vance/Rubio. Those executive actions might last alittle longer.
Can you explain what you mean?
Your “Sandcastle Presidency” article was a well done inspection of the fragility of Trump’s presidential power.
I never considered that Trump cared about the country. In his previous life as a businessman it was obvious that only narcissistic gratification and financial embellishment were important. These are the forces guiding his presidency: he gets tremendous egotistically savory coverage for his executive orders and incredible financial enrichment (conservatively estimated at more than $2 billion) for selling his power to whoever pays.
He is flailing in a castle of sand.