Read on Twitter
It seems like Trump is the end of an experiment with government that started with the Founding Fathers: a thread.
While the Constitution and the Federalist Papers outlined a system of government that would work pretty well, what they failed to anticipate was how it would break down over time. We'd remember the setup but forget why things were set up that way.
Perhaps there was no way to anticipate that. I suppose you can't hypothesize everything that could possibly happen.
Anyway... if you read the Federalist Papers, you'll see that a recurring fear, and a danger that everybody at the time seemed to recognize, was that someone like Trump would take over.
They felt there were sufficient protections in the new political system to prevent something this from happening, and the fact that it took over 200 years is a testament to their abilities.
But now here we are. This happened because over the decades, we have gradually stripped the protections we had against a bombastic, populist dictator taking over.
The first mistake happened soon after the Constitution was ratified; political parties were formed. The natural antagonism that the Founders had hoped would exist between the Executive and Legislative branches was mitigated to an extent by party loyalties.
Still, this wouldn't be a huge problem for a while.
A larger mistake was the de facto dissolution of the Electoral College.
A larger mistake was the de facto dissolution of the Electoral College.
Originally, the people or (even better) state legislatures would select a slate of electors to send to the Electoral College to vote for President.
This was a good compromise between letting the people elect a president directly, which could have disastrous results, and having the president be selected by Congress, which would make the Executive branch too dependent on the Legislative, and killing the counterbalance.
But as time went on, the pressures for more direct democracy mounted. We gradually switched over to a system where people voted, on a per-state basis, directly for president. The Electoral College became just a pointless rubber stamp.
Even this isn't good enough for people anymore; now the very fact that we have individual state elections is considered by most people to be an inexcusable hindrance on direct democracy, and pressure is mounting to switch to a single national election.
Luckily, this, at least, probably won't happen until we throw out the Constitution altogether.
But anyway... a Trump would never have been elected under the old system, as state legislatures would have recognized him for what he was, if he was even up for consideration at all, which would be unlikely.
But the Electoral College was effectively blown up, so so much for that.
There was a newer stopgap, though, unforeseen by the Founding Fathers, that became crucial once the EC was effectively gone; the political parties became gatekeepers, deciding who would be essentially allowed to run.
This was an imperfect substitution for electors being selected by state legislators, simply because the people holding power in parties often had that power for purely arbitrary reasons, as opposed to the legislators being elected.
Why should, say, the mayor of Chicago, have a disproportionate say in who the party's presidential candidate will be? But still, it was better than what was to come.
The party system worked pretty well in keeping populists in check; the only person who came close to bucking it was Teddy Roosevelt, in 1912. He managed to beat one party but not both.
But again, this insane idea that the more direct democracy, the better, broke the parties' power, as it broke everything down over time. Starting in 1960, primary elections grew to control more and more of the nominating apparatus.
By 1972, party conventions no longer determined the candidates, although that didn't really sink in with everybody until 1976. We had destroyed another gatekeeper, and the parties now served a function more like the opening rounds of an NCAA tournament.
After that, it was only the memories of political decency that stopped people from taking advantage of the new system, and these wouldn't last forever.
It was only a matter of time before a cynical bombastic populist, like the European fascists of the 1930s, would exploit the ignorance and fears of the general public and run successfully for president.
Still, despite everything, it wouldn't have been so damaging were there still a Legislative Branch capable of reining in a dangerous lunatic in the White House. But there wasn't, for two reasons:
First, the development of political parties, as I discussed earlier. Now members of Congress had a reason to align themselves with the president; a way of thinking of themselves as on the same "team", which was what the Founders wanted to avoid.
Second, the passage of the 17th Amendment assured that U.S. senators would be accountable directly to the people rather than to state legislators, which was disastrous for much the same reason as the de facto dissolution of the Electoral College, discussed earlier.
Now we have a system where senators feel loyal to Trump, due to party loyalties, and are scared to cross him, due to his popularity with the pitchfork-and-torches section of the electorate.
Were the senators only answerable to the state legislatures, both their loyalties and fears would be directed elsewhere. Trump would still have some power indirectly due to his popularity among the people that voted for the state legislators, but it would be greatly diluted.
But now we're in a terrible position. The only counterweight to Trump is the opposing party, which is better than nothing, but in the long run can't be relied on.
This is simply because there's no reason there can't be a Trump from the Democratic Party down the road. The Republicans have no monopoly on scoundrels.
Sanders may well be a dry-run for the sort of left-wing populist we have to fear in the future. He's a decent enough person that he hasn't resorted to the scorched-earth tactics that worked for Trump on the Republican side, but that won't be the case for future candidates.
Sanders has inclinations that would be tragic for the future of American government, but they're held in check by the simple fact that he's not pure evil, like Trump. The future, though, may bring us somebody like @sairasameerarao (only better at presenting herself).
Well, this thread has thoroughly depressed me now, so I hope (again) that I'm the only one who's read it (probably a safe assumption).
I think part of the reason "1984" was so unrelentingly bleak is that Orwell was extremely ill when he wrote it. Things ended up not being as bad as all that.
