Conservatism's Monstrous Endgame

[Levelfive]

Conservatism’s Monstrous Endgame

Apparatchiks are corroding the foundations of democracy.

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

The midterm elections were, to an important extent, a referendum on the Affordable Care Act; health care, not Donald Trump, dominated Democratic campaigning. And voters delivered a clear verdict: They want Obamacare’s achievements, the way it expanded coverage to roughly 20 million people who would otherwise have been uninsured, to be sustained.

But on Friday, Reed O’Connor, a partisan Republican judge known for “weaponizing” his judicial power, declared the A.C.A. as a whole — protection for pre-existing conditions, subsidies to help families afford coverage, and the Medicaid expansion — unconstitutional. Legal experts from both right and left ridiculed his reasoning and described his ruling as “raw political activism.” And that ruling probably won’t be sustained by higher courts.

But don’t be too sure that his sabotage will be overturned. O’Connor’s abuse of power may be unusually crude, but that sort of behavior is becoming increasingly common. And it’s not just health care, nor is it just the courts. What Nancy Pelosi called the “monstrous endgame” of the Republican assault on health care is just the leading edge of an attack on multiple fronts, as the G.O.P. tries to overturn the will of the voters and undermine democracy in general.

For while we may congratulate ourselves on the strength of our political institutions, in the end institutions consist of people and fulfill their roles only as long as the people in them respect their intended purpose. Rule of law depends not just on what is written down, but also on the behavior of those who interpret and enforce that rule.

If these people don’t regard themselves as servants of the law first, partisans second, if they won’t subordinate their political goals to their duty to preserve the system, laws become meaningless and only power matters.

And what we’re seeing in America — what we’ve actually been seeing for years, although much of the news media and political establishment has refused to acknowledge it — is an invasion of our institutions by right-wing partisans whose loyalty is to party, not principle. This invasion is corroding the Republic, and the corrosion is already very far advanced.

I say “right-wing” advisedly. There are bad people in both parties, as there are in all walks of life. But the parties are structurally different. The Democratic Party is a loose coalition of interest groups, but the modern Republican Party is dominated by “movement conservatism,” a monolithic structure held together by big money — often deployed stealthily — and the closed intellectual ecosystem of Fox News and other partisan media. And the people who rise within this movement are, to a far greater degree than those on the other side, apparatchiks, political loyalists who can be counted on not to stray from the party line.

Republicans have been stuffing the courts with such people for decades; O’Connor was appointed by George W. Bush. That’s why his ruling, no matter how bad the legal reasoning, wasn’t a big surprise. The only question was whether he would imagine himself able to get away with such a travesty. Obviously he did, and he may well have been right.

But as I said, it’s not just the courts. Even as Trump and his allies spin fantasies about sabotage by the “deep state,” the reality is that a growing number of positions in government agencies are being occupied by right-wing partisans who care nothing, or actively oppose, their agencies’ missions. The Environmental Protection Agency is now run by people who don’t want to protect the environment, Health and Human Services by people who want to deny Americans health care.

The same takeover by apparatchiks is taking place in politics. Remember when the role of the Senate was supposed to be to “advise and consent”? Under Republican control it’s just plain consent — there is almost literally nothing Trump can do, up to and including clear evidence of corruption and criminality, that will induce senators from his party to exercise any kind of oversight.

So how do people who think and behave this way respond when the public rejects their agenda? They attempt to use their power to overrule the democratic process. When Democrats threaten to win elections, they rig the voting process, as they did in Georgia. When Democrats win despite election rigging, they strip the offices Democrats win of power, as they did in Wisconsin. When Democratic policies prevail despite all of that, they use apparatchik-stuffed courts to strike down legislation on the flimsiest of grounds.

As David Frum, the author of “Trumpocracy,” warned a year ago: “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” That’s happening as we speak.

So Pelosi was right about Reed O’Connor’s ruling being a symptom of a “monstrous endgame,” but the game in question isn’t just about perpetuating the assault on health care, it’s about assaulting democracy in general. And the current state of the endgame is probably just the beginning; the worst, I fear, is yet to come.

I don't know if it's fair to lay this at the feet of "conservatism," but whatever you want to call the progenitor, the phenomena he's describing have been well under way for quite some time. (Even regarding installing clowns who oppose the work of the agencies they're charged with running--and then pointing to those deliberate, self-inflicted failures as proof that the government doesn't work--Thomas Frank wrote the Wrecking Crew 10 years ago.)

[Deleted]

Its just rich people looting, they wont abandon democracy just move to a managed democracy. (see russia)

America should be preparing for a permanent underclass.

[ezgeze]

This coming from a person who thought it was a good idea to run around congress and start minting trillion dollar coins. Genius! What a hack windbag.

[Levelfive]

Its just rich people looting, they wont abandon democracy just move to a managed democracy. (see russia)

America should be preparing for a permanent underclass.

They're actively involved in undermining democracy, outlined here in a few different ways, including by being on the payroll of foreign governments, so in some cases they already have.

[Kujako]

I thought their endgame was the Rapture?

[Dead Moose Fandango]

As long as I don't gotta go live in an undersea city. I hate needles.

[Adam Jensen]

As David Frum, the author of “Trumpocracy,” warned a year ago: “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” That’s happening as we speak.

This is the biggest threat to America that Trump empowers.

Trump might not be the genesis of it, but he's certainly emboldening and empowering it. Trump and his Republicans have spent the last two years doing exactly what Krugman is talking about, trashing American institutions to ensure that "conservatives" stay in power.

And by "conservatives" I mean "imbecilic reactionary fascists."

- - - Updated - - -

I thought their endgame was the Rapture?

No gods or kings, only man.

[Deleted]

Conservatives are anything but conservative...


Who knew...

[Coolthulhu]

The only monstrous thing here is the gullibility of anyone taking such doomsaying tripe seriously.

[Resurgo]

The only monstrous thing here is the gullibility of anyone taking such doomsaying tripe seriously.

except of course there are examples of it happening today.

blahblahblah short version, You're denying reality.

[Cthulhu 2020]

except of course there are examples of it happening today.

blahblahblah short version, You're denying reality.

I wouldn't even bother responding to those people dude. A meteor could be falling directly towards them and they'd just cross their arms and tell you that physics is fake news and a liberal scheme funded by Soros.

[NED funded]

Its just rich people looting, they wont abandon democracy just move to a managed democracy. (see russia)

America should be preparing for a permanent underclass.

The british tried to warned us.

- - - Updated - - -

The only monstrous thing here is the gullibility of anyone taking such doomsaying tripe seriously.

Conservatives (in the US) are literally rigging up elections by making it harder to vote and stripping the power of their successors in lame duck sessions. It is actually happening right now lol.

[Sunseeker]

Can't disagree with anything here.

[Mormolyce]

The US Republican Party is undeniably anti-democratic. That's been the case ever since they embraced the Southern Strategy.

This coming from a person who thought it was a good idea to run around congress and start minting trillion dollar coins. Genius! What a hack windbag.

Googled it, that was basically a way of getting around obstructionist government shutdowns. And it wasn't his idea, it's been around since at least 1992 (fun fact it was originally an idea from Bo Gritz, a candidate for the far right "Populist Party").

P.S. Remember when Trump told Gary Cohn to "print more money"?
https://qz.com/1387565/trump-told-ga...thats-bananas/

[Deleted]

The USA is fucked, because it's citizens are too afraid of properly resist their government, despite all that nothingness about the right to bear arms. Too many of them genuinely believe change comes from election results, which is why Republicans keep tampering with votes.

Most americans 'condemn' riots*... and then their grandchildren will be wondering how they all ended up in chains at the heel of authoritarianism. (* Just watch them all panicking and losing their minds about the Paris Yellow Jacket riots. They can't comprehend that exactly such is needed to push for change).

I hate to tell you this, the 2nd amendment was created to fight tyranny, not so socialists could commit sedition because they don't like property rights.

Please read up on the values the country was founded on, it was meant to be explicitly an anti-collectivist anti-socialist nation (before socialists still managed to pervert some of those values anyway FYI, but I guess some people are just not happy even with the current levels of socialism).

[Deleted]

Ultra-capitalism IS tyranny.

We don't even live in ultra-capitalism. What the hell are you talking about?

Do you have any idea how many regulations there are? You'd basically need an army of lawyers with PhDs to even comprehend most of it. And no, most of it has nothing to do with "safety", it's all about control and possibly screwing over smaller competitors.

[Felya]

I hate to tell you this, the 2nd amendment was created to fight tyranny, not so socialists could commit sedition because they don't like property rights.

Nope... it was an answer to a standing millitary.

Please read up on the values the country was founded on, it was meant to be explicitly an anti-collectivist anti-socialist nation (before socialists still managed to pervert some of those values anyway FYI, but I guess some people are just not happy even with the current levels of socialism).

What you said isn’t anything to do with founding fathers and failed on the most basic levels. If second Amendment was there to overthrow a tyrannical government, the dude that tried to assassinate Reagan wouldn’t be in jail. It makes absolutely no sense...

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any idea how many regulations there are? You'd basically need an army of lawyers with PhDs to even comprehend most of it. And no, most of it has nothing to do with "safety", it's all about control and possibly screwing over smaller competitors.

Funny... according to you, you only need the second Amendment to take on an actual army. lol

Edit: Seriously... think about it. If you express your second Amendment right to take on US government because you think they are tyrants, you go to jail. The only way you don’t go to jail, is if you succeed... making the second Amendment, if the intent is to prevent tyranny, completely inapt and pointless. Something founding fathers wouldn’t do, but a random internet poster, would have no problem attributioning to them.

- - - Updated - - -

Just to make this abundantly clear. The second Amendment was rendered moot to its point, as soon as US had a standing millitary. There is nothing that is more against second Amendment, than the US military complex. The second Amendment was explicitly to arm the people, so the government wouldn’t have a military coming into their homes and kicking them out for shelter, as red coats did. If you want to support the second Amendment, you should be supporting complete defunding of US military. Of course the problem there, is that the same people convincing you to arm your self against liberals, just happen to be the ones supplying US military.

If you think the second Amendment gives you the right to use guns against American citizens, because in your opinion they are tyrannical, then I need you to talk to John... he got out of jail in 2016:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley_Jr.

The second Amendment does not give you the right to kill American citizens.

[Deleted]

Nope... it was an answer to a standing millitary.

"The security of a free state" is explicitly mentioned even in the amendment itself.

What you said isn’t anything to do with founding fathers and failed on the most basic levels. If second Amendment was there to overthrow a tyrannical government, the dude that tried to assassinate Reagan wouldn’t be in jail. It makes absolutely no sense...

1. One guy doesn't decide if the government is tyrannical or not. There would have to be a broad consensus in multiple parts of the US to even get off the ground.
2. You couldn't have picked a worse example. John Hinckley Jr didn't even claim to want to overthrow a tyrannical government. His motivations were far more personal, he was also declared legally insane.

Funny... according to you, you only need the second Amendment to take on an actual army. lol

I never claimed that.

Edit: Seriously... think about it. If you express your second Amendment right to take on US government because you think they are tyrants, you go to jail.

1. Which is not what John Hinckley Jr did. He was a crazy bastard who thought he could impress some actress by doing the shooting.
2. It is true there are consequences for a failed rebellion (whether or not it was justified), nobody said there wouldn't be consequences for a failed rebellion. You think a tyrant wouldn't imprison you just because you rebel against him? LOL

History is written by the victors, nothing new here.

The only way you don’t go to jail, is if you succeed... making the second Amendment, if the intent is to prevent tyranny, completely inapt and pointless.

And it is FAR LESS LIKELY to succeed if the population doesn't have the right to acquire weapons as personal property.

So it's not pointless.

Just to make this abundantly clear. The second Amendment was rendered moot to its point, as soon as US had a standing millitary.

Actually that makes the 2nd amendment far more important. If the government grows in firepower then the population also needs to grow in firepower to maintain a balance.

What kind of "champion" for "social justice" wants the population to have close to ZERO firepower and the government to have it ALL? Please explain that. Weren't you guys supposed to be about "equality"???

[Felya]

"The security of a free state" is explicitly mentioned even in the amendment itself.

No shit... that was supposed to be the US military. If you shoot people because of US tyranny, you got to jail.

One guy doesn't decide if the government is tyrannical or not. There would have to be a broad consensus in multiple parts of the US to even get off the ground.

You mean the well regulated militia? You sure you want to be making that argument?

You couldn't have picked a worse example. John Hinckley Jr didn't even claim to want to overthrow a tyrannical government. His motivations were far more personal, he was also declared legally insane.

What do you think every person who talks about using their little guns to fight US military? Sane and well balanced? Here is a surprise, everyone who talks about fighting US government is insane, for personal reasons. Oh that’s right, he forgot to organize with others. Jeebus...

I never claimed that.

Then how do you plan to stop US tyranny by using guns? A gun is not a pen you sign laws with.

Which is not what John Hinckley Jr did. He was a crazy bastard who thought he could impress some actress by doing the shooting.

Every person that thinks their gun is to stop tyranny of the US, is just as crazy as Hinckley, but without taking actions.

It is true there are consequences for a failed rebellion (whether or not it was justified), nobody said there wouldn't be consequences for a failed rebellion. You think a tyrant wouldn't imprison you just because you rebel against him? LOL

I think anyone believing that they have a right to something, but then laugh about how they get punished for expressing it, doesn’t actually know what they are talking about. Yeah, a right that results in you going to prison, is laughable... but, not only do you believe it, you project the nonsense on those who you seem to think are intelligent.

History is written by the victors, nothing new here.

The new here, is you asserting there is a right that negates it. Yeah, the history is written by the victors, then why have a law that permits rebellion? If you recognize that it doesn’t make any since, due to the victor writing laws, regardless of what laws were there previously... why do you keep repeating it?

And it is FAR LESS LIKELY to succeed if the population doesn't have the right to acquire weapons as personal property.

Bullshit... you just said it doesn’t cover people just shooting American citizens. You just claimed you meant that it requires organization. Look at Waco and Ruby Ridge... that was when US government wasn’t trying to kill them.

The thing that impedes tyranny is voting. This is where you tell me the vote of the people doesn’t mater... vote in any idiot, then shoot them... right?

So it's not pointless.

No, it’s not pointless... you have listed at least a couple of points that don’t make sense or claim to give a right to shoot Americans. That’s the sort of point that gets idiots elected.

Actually that makes the 2nd amendment far more important. If the government grows in firepower then the population also needs to grow in firepower to maintain a balance.

Yes, delusions of grandeur are very important to make your argument. It’s why I am building an anti missile system in my back yard and turrets with gunner posts... oh, wait, no... I am not a meth head from Summner...

What kind of "champion" for "social justice" wants the population to have close to ZERO firepower and the government to have it ALL? Please explain that. Weren't you guys supposed to be about "equality"???

Social justice? How about people that don’t want to be shot, because you and your friends think US government is tyrannical? Seriously dude... please don’t shoot people... even if you think government is out to get you... random church goers and cops have nothing to do with it.

[Slant]

I can't take any text serious that uses words like "Aparatchik".