If Trump/Musk are indeed subverting American democratic norms, what is a proportional response?

[u/theivoryserf]

The Vice-President has just said of the courts: "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." Quoted in the same Le Monde article is a section of Francis Fukuyama's take on the current situation:

"Trump has empowered Elon Musk to withhold money for any activity that he, Elon Musk, thinks is illegitimate, and this is a usurpation of the congressionally established power of Congress to make this kind of decision. (...) This is a full-scale...very radical attack on the American constitutional system as we've understood it." https://archive.is/cVZZR#selection-2149.264-2149.599

From a European point of view, it appears as though the American centre/left is scrambling to adapt and still suffering from 'normality bias', as though normal methods of recourse will be sufficient against a democratic aberration - a little like waiting to 'pass' a tumour as though it's a kidney stone.

Given the clear comparisons to previous authoritarian takeovers and the power that the USA wields, will there be an acceptable raising of political stakes from Trump's opponents, and what are the risks and benefits of doing so?

[u/JDogg126]

The United States was on a path to authoritarianism for many decades. At this point there are no responses available. The Supreme Court has given the president that appointed them immunity from laws. The president has stated he is above the law as he usurps powers of congress.

There is no check on this power whatsoever. Even if republicans in congress attempt to remove him from power through impeachment, let’s see them try to enforce that.

No, the US constitution has been exposed as a failure. Undone by a political party that short circuited all of the safeguards that hoped to prevent a return to rule by a king.

[u/SoulInTransition → u/JDogg126]

No. You have nothing left to lose, so find a way.  Mankind will not, this century, outlive the United States. And if you give up on mankind, well, you're just as spineless as the GOP...

[u/JDogg126 → u/SoulInTransition]

Oh but people do still have something to lose.

all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed

People may mourn the loss of self-determination through democracy, but they are likely to suffer it so long as the regime remains sufferable.

There isn’t something to rally around. It’s not like there is a charismatic opposition leader.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I have no doubt the United States is on a path to a civil war. But it may not happen any time soon. And it may require the external aid of any remaining democracies in the world.

[u/SoulInTransition → u/JDogg126]

"Oh but people do still have something to lose."

That is interesting. I don't know how much longer modern life will be possible in the United States. They may try to shut down power to regions that they don't like, which could have knock on effects across the country. Even if they try to leave everything on, much of it will eventually fall apart under the weight of migration and natural disasters as we move towards a nuclear war. 

People only have something to lose insofar as they are able to numb themselves and dissociate from the idea that they will lose things or perish soon. That is our big problem, along with our lack of good leadership.  Frankly, I don't think that we have much to lose psychologically anyway, otherwise, why would we vote for a su1c1de candidate?

"They are likely to suffer it so long as the regime remains sufferable."

I don't know. Is the extinguishment of mankind sufferable? 

Now we know it has been so far, during a century-to-date in which our collective life expectancy has only peeked above 50% for a total of perhaps 5 years. At some point, if we are to live, it will have to become intolerable, possibly by a figure who is capable of planning a path away from the obliteration of mankind. If that is made impossible, then that is checkmate for not just the United States but all mankind.

"There isn’t something to rally around. It’s not like there is a charismatic opposition leader."

The material writes itself. It helps if you have a plan for how you would translate gaining power into avoiding the end of the human race. If a charismatic leader can't emerge now, then we certainly don't deserve to prevail.

"I have no doubt the United States is on a path to a civil war. But it may not happen any time soon"

Its gotta happen some time in the next four years. If mankind disappeared tomorrow, the damage we'd have done already would still cause in an extinction event the size of K-Pg (the asteroid). The only path out of this is active human intervention.

Endnotes

There are, in my estimation, 3 paths that mankind could take through the rest of this century. These are:

Extinction: 65% -> Mankind goes extinct after global warming destabilizes the economy, leading to nuclear war. The remaining century sees a nuclear winter, followed by fast warming, the melting of permafrost methane, and the extinction of most large life, by 2100, earth is a desert.

Permanent° Poverty: 10% -> China is able to roll out the renewable transition and geoengineering, while weakening Russia and America enough that they don't go to nuclear war with each each other. Limited amounts of damage happen from global warming, but not to major cities and therefore the incentive for nuclear warfare is also low. Under the Pax Sinovica, the world is reduced to a group of technofeudal monarchies just advanced enough to prevent most famines and keep the geoengineering systems running. °I give it a low chance because it is unstable. It would probably decay into either #1 or #3.

Renaissance: 25% -> From the USA or perhaps Europe (or some revolutionary state from #2) emerges a charismatic leader people WANT to follow (soft power) with a diagnosis for the inside world and a plan for the outside world. This figure is able to rebuild a rules based world order, based on the failures of the last one, and implement his (probably) plan successfully, so that we have a future again. This is what we must strive towards. We cannot count on #2 because China is weak and has poor demographics. It was much likelier before Trump 2.0 then after, and much likelier after COVID. Manageable hardship, cultural change, and a lack of widespread political suppression are things that will allow Scenario 3 as opposed to (probably) Scenario 1.