Is that legal? If so, how?
Those two questions come up a lot these days in America, where Donald Trump’s succeeded in establishing something that looks very much like attenuated authoritarianism during the first year of his second term.
Every week — hell, let’s face it, every day — some new Rubicon’s crossed. And Trump doesn’t take weekends off.
On Sunday, he decided that rather than wait for the appeals process to play out after a judge (a Trump appointee, it should be noted) blocked the deployment of the Oregon National Guard to Portland, the administration would instead send federalized California troops to the city.
That’s according to Gavin Newsom who, for better or worse, spent much of the last six months trying to beat Trump at his own peevish propaganda game, and who’s fighting fire with fire on the redistricting front in a bid to offset Texas’s new congressional maps.
On Sunday, Newsom alerted the nation to what he described as “a breathtaking abuse of power.”
Without knowing the specifics of the relevant laws, it’s hard to disagree. Trump’s effectively using the California National Guard as an expeditionary force, sending them “abroad,” as it were, to another state where they’ll be tasked with staring down (or maybe putting down) Portland’s notoriously indefatigable penchant for protests.
If nothing else — i.e., if it isn’t illegal or unconstitutional, and it’s probably both — the decision’s brazen even as Trump maneuvers go. Because it suggests he’s no longer willing to wait on the courts, even for a couple of days.
It’s also worth noting that the California deployment was itself judged to be illegal. Trump won a injunction in that case, but it’s still pending appeal. So, in deploying those troops to Oregon, he’s potentially committing two crimes at once which, to be fair, is hardly the record for Trump.
“This isn’t about public safety,” Newsom said, stating the obvious. “The commander-in-chief is using the US military as a political weapon against American citizens.”
So, what are American citizens going to do about it? Nothing if they don’t want to get shot. I’m kidding, relax, I’m kidding. Maybe. I certainly hope I’m kidding. Newsom’s suing which is what you’d do in a system where the executive feels bound by the courts, but there’s something ironically asinine about suing a president for defying a court order.
I have to believe, by now, that most Trump voters understand we’re in completely uncharted territory vis-à-vis Trump’s authoritarian machinations, if not perhaps literally, in every case, then certainly in spirit, when viewed as an all-encompassing, programmatic attempt to claim for the office of the president all manner of authority not specifically accorded it by the Constitution.
Whether most Trump voters are still ok with this as long as it’s “our guy” doing it is another matter. The answer’s almost surely “yes,” at least for a while longer. Yes, they’re still on board, but states’ rights is thorny. That’s a “don’t tread on me” issue and it can be a flashpoint.
Normally, Republicans are aggrieved at perceived affronts to states’ rights, even if the rights being violated are those of blue states. This is — or should be — a matter of principle for the GOP in the same way it’d be a matter of principle if Trump were to confiscate all privately-owned firearms in Democratic locales.
Of course, “principles” and “Republicans” are mutually exclusive post-2016, so don’t expect any pushback. For now, red states and red cities are content to believe “It can’t happen here.” Good luck with that.
I’m old enough to remember Kent State. Bad day all around. Almost certain to happen again. Bet the national response is different this time though.
In his book on the Kent State shooting, Howard Means recounts that as the students left campus in its immediate aftermath, the local residents jeered at them. Some went so far as to tell the stunned kids that more of them should have been shot. I suspect that such sentiments will be seen again.
Red to blue. Check.
It’s funny that people who are proud of never voting give a shit at all. Non-voters whining constantly make me sick…
I get that you’re disappointed I didn’t turn out to be the Captain America figure you so desperately need in your life, but I can assure you that leaving irritable comments isn’t going to help your psychological disposition in that regard. Also, I don’t “give a shit.” “At all.” I’m not sure how many times I have to say that. I must’ve said that 500 times over the past half decade. This is one of those scenarios where copping to the criticism doesn’t negate it, because instead of blunting the peanut gallery, they just pretend they didn’t hear you and level the same criticism again. I don’t care about any of this. Life’s short, and then we die. In the interim, it’s annoyance on good days and suffering on all the rest. Womp, womp. I write because I’m good at it, people enjoy it and in that enjoyment, they find a measure of respite from the suffering I just mentioned. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want a revolution, go start one yourself. I’m not a revolutionary. I’m just a guy trying to find some joy and meaning in an otherwise joyless, meaningless void.
35% of the voting age population did not vote last presidential election. That means more people did not vote than voted for either candidate. Apathy or disgust at the choices offered. I haven’t voted since Nixon was reelected. Many people I have spoken with typically vote against a candidate rather than for someone. In my opinion the quality of choices the past 40 plus years has been abysmal. The most recent one pitting a clown who would be king and who regularly torches other people’s money versus a career politician who conspired to hide the failing condition of the president and frankly who was the desperate choice thrown out to the wolves.
Frankly there hasn’t been a candidate I would have voted for versus against since Nixon. Apparently many other people feel the same way
Yeah, that, but also, my response above was aimed at driving home a point: There’s a small share of the readership here which is determined that I’m a combination of Ben Rickert (the character from The Big Short) and Beto O’Rourke, and they won’t let go of it. Ironically, that reader (the one who left the comment I responded to) actually doesn’t think that, but all the same, his criticism of me there is reflective of the let-down vibes I get sometimes from people who can’t accept that I’m not the version of me that they have in their minds. Of course, I can’t be responsible for the version of me that’s in other people’s minds if that version’s not accurate. And that one — Ben + Beto — has never been accurate. I can only be the best version of me. The real me. That’s it. That’s the best I can do for everybody, and that’s exactly what I do every day. Anybody clinging to the idea that I’m an ex-hedge fund trader, or ex-sell sider who might run for high political office needs to give it up. Because exactly no part of that’s true. I don’t know how many times I’ve said it. Dozens. Hundreds probably.
“Tin soldiers and Nixon coming”