Basically Trump can only call in the military if the states request it.
Yes, yes, I know. . . the law doesn’t necessarily stop Trump, ever. But there it is. I guess in theory there is a loophole where he could call in the Coast Guard or the “Space Force.”
The question is: if Trump tries to do this, what will actually happen, and how will it impact the GOP?
I can see blue states refusing to allow the military to do it, a standoff. I can see red states welcoming it and we have a bloodbath on national TV, followed by another impeachment. And this is an election year.
It’s obvious Trump wants to be a dictator. What’s not so obvious is how far the GOP will go in allowing that.
They will go as far as it takes, as long as Trump’s rising tide lifts their boats and drowns everybody else. There are no good conservatives. They have shown us who they are, we should believe them.
That’s the thing-- they hitched their boats to Trump long before he was even running for president, they glommed onto the whole “southern strategy” and all the horrible Fox News variations of it that followed. So they’re kind of stuck with it.
But.
We still have elections. And it’s an election year.
Bad economy. Shitty COVID response, more cases in rural areas too.
Is violent bloodshed going to help them in the voting booth? I can’t tell.
The GOP base will go wherever Trump goes, but if it gets distilled down to just the base then it’s no longer a viable national party.
A lifetime ago on April 20, some of the Senior Democrats warned the GOP that they would regret allowing Trump to flout Congressional oversight. In the WaPo, Senator Bob Menendez is quoted as saying, " “So all of these things, you know, I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament. If this is the way you’re going to operate things in your own majority, then don’t expect that somehow comity is going to return." I think Menendez is misreading the plot. The GOP believes the fix is in; they aren’t worried about what happens once they are out of power because they don’t believe they will ever be out of power.
If it was a normal time, I’d say that a bungled pandemic response, thousands of preventable American deaths, and a nation convulsing in flames would equate with electoral disaster for the party in the White House. This year though, I just hope we have an election at all.
Is that what people tend to end up with? I mean, you know so much more than me. But while I’m ashamed to admit how long my reading of history was only politics and war, I promise you can still get some idea that war sucks for everyone involved. Starting at least as far back as Thucydides who writes basically nothing but.
Maybe they aren’t really studying it or are reading it very selectively? But I think there’s also the possibility that they know, and it’s what they want, to burn out in what they imagine will be some meaningful way. I come back a lot to George Orwell on Mein Kampf:
Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings *don’t* only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin’s militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time,’ Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.
Scott became famous for freezing to death in Antarctica Columbus made history thinking some island was India General Custer’s a national hero for not knowing when to run All of these men are famous And they’re also very dumb
History is made by stupid people Clever people wouldn’t even try If you want a place in the history books Then do something dumb before you die
This is a frighteningly real possibility, and the consequences I am afraid would be utterly out of anyone’s control. Once you “let slip the dogs of war” it is not an easy thing to get them back on the leash, and the price in blood would be very high. I cannot even begin to hope Trump will have sufficient self-control to stop before we get there, but I have some weak hope that some of his underlings might balk. And weak hope is still hope, so there is that.
No, they embrace war and violence as cleansing and even a holy deed, especially if you can spin it through the Just War theory.
And that what they want is to get rid of anyone who is not like them. They want an ethnically cleansed country, or at least one where only certain people have civil rights and the rest of us accept our second class citizenship.
They won the peace, which gave them another century of white supremacy.
Let’s hope that works in our favor, especially now that we can expect a spike in cases where ever we saw uprisings.
I think that’s because you’re not an asshole? But it depends on who you read. History of war and politics are written from a much more human perspective and even our popular histories tell those stories in a much more nuanced way since Vietnam. But if you’re right wing, you’re not reading those histories or watching those movies that are more humanistic, you’re reading classics on war and politics (which is war by other means) that reinforce you’re world view of what you think war is about, which is glory, not pain and destruction. Those histories are still being written as if wars do not destroy people and communities.
Yes, because human-centered history is marxist and politically charged in their view.
I don’t know what Kemp would do. He’s shown a willingness to buck Trump, and he knows he needs ATL in the state, as we’re one of the major economic engines of the state economy (along with the southern farming region that has yet to recover thanks to Trump’s policies). He ran to the far right, but he’s governing not far from where he predecessor did, who was pro-business, but not out on the fringes. However, he’s also tried some power grabs (the shit with two seats on the State Supreme court, trying to take control of the airport, etc), though, so it’s a toss up if he’d accept troops. If he did, the city would be fucked.
I imagine no one remembers (or wants to remember) the Kent State protests, or for that matter, most other protests the last hundred years. Admittedly it was the National Guard who fired on the protesters, but ‘same song, second verse/ a little bit louder and a little bit worse.’
But it depends on who you read. History of war and politics are written from a much more human perspective and even our popular histories tell those stories in a much more nuanced way since Vietnam. But if you’re right wing, you’re not reading those histories or watching those movies that are more humanistic, you’re reading classics on war and politics (which is war by other means) that reinforce you’re world view of what you think war is about, which is glory, not pain and destruction. Those histories are still being written as if wars do not destroy people and communities.