Skip to main content

The Coming Trump Trainwreck

Image for the news result

Let's make the following assumption: Hillary Clinton is about to win the Presidency, and the Democratic Party is about to regain control of the U.S. Senate. Control of the House may remain in Republican hands.

Further, let's assume that Trump responds to the loss with his usual grace. He announces that (a) the election was rigged, (b) all major media, including Fox News, were part of the rigging, and (c) he'll keep the revolution going, he's going to create the Trump News Network, offering Movement News (after a lot of gastroenterology jokes, that phrase will be abandoned).

Assume all that, with some slight variations at your discretion. What does this mean? What will our politics look like during the first four years of the HRC administration?

I suspect that the Grand Old Party is headed for its final crack-up. The Reagan coalition has consisted, roughly speaking, of three parts: white nationalists (more or less openly avowed, or hotly denied, to be such); small government conservatives (like Ron and then Rand Paul, and at least arguably Ted Cruz), and big government conservatives (think of the Bush family, or Irving and Bill Kristol, or the fellow pictured above, Evan McMullin). It is reasonable to suppose, given the above assumptions, that those three parts will come unglued, and there will be three parties where there now are one.

The three opposition parties will give HRC little trouble. This scenario has her party winning control of the House in 2018, and essentially redefining the Supreme Court over the course of her first term. Voila! the U.S. has its "fourth republic," something far more along European social democratic lines than anything anyone expected before Trump came down that escalator.

For those who came in late, I think of the first Republic as the period beginning with the ratification of the US constitution and continuing until sectional rivalry really got out of hand and a civil war became necessary. The second Republic began when the victors in that war created three sweeping new constitutional amendments and continued until the stock market crash of 1929 and its aftermath. The third republic was in place by the time the Supreme Court caved to Roosevelt's demands in 1937, and continued until ... well, let's say the global financial crisis of 2007-08. Now the fallout from that third disaster has finally settled and -- again given the above assumptions, the fourth republic is at hands, its outlines are predictable.

I'm not cheer leading for it, just describing events as I see them. Feel free to comment but please don't shoot the piano player.

For me, the intriguing question is what happens THEN? Over time, I'm sure (and not too much of it) something will emerge as the ONE key opposition party to the HRC Dems. Perhaps the core of the new opposition will incorporate one or more of the three parts of the old Republican Party, and will combine it with disaffected Dems after some crisis within their ranks. What its broad features will be, I don't pretend to know.  I've been as speculative already as I dare.


Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…