Phew, I hope I can sleep tonight after reading your article TD.
'The whole point of the world order that developed in the wake of World War II was to establish an international system that contained the tendency of states to devolve into prerogative states of arbitrary, politicised rule, and it worked for a while.'
'and it worked for a while' - I've only just read and now being informed by Anthropic's AI Claude 3.5 about the 'The Iron Law of Oligarchy' developed by Robert Michel in 1911. This is what it has to deliver:
'Core Concept
Michels argued that all organizations, regardless of how democratically they begin, will inevitably develop into oligarchies where power concentrates in the hands of a small leadership group. His famous summary was: "Who says organization, says oligarchy."
'Yes, Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy has been widely applied to national governments as well. This application is particularly relevant for:
Democratic governments - Despite democratic elections and constitutional checks and balances, many scholars argue that real power tends to concentrate in:
Professional political classes
Bureaucratic institutions
Wealthy elites who influence politics
Party leadership structures
Post-revolutionary governments - Michels noted that revolutionary movements often start with egalitarian ideals but frequently develop into new oligarchies after taking power
Parliamentary systems - Where party discipline and leadership control can concentrate decision-making power
Administrative states - As government bureaucracies grow, specialized knowledge and institutional complexity create administrative elites with significant power'
I posed the following Q to Claude 'is Trump's America now a result of Iron Law of Oligarchy' & it carefully delivered this measure response which ended with: Some scholars view Trump's rise as evidence of oligarchical tendencies, while others see it as evidence that outsiders can still disrupt established power structures.'
I'm afraid Claude has not made me feel anymore optimistic; I just hope Australia choses its next government wisely and who can distil what is meant by 'oligarchy V disruption'.
Aha - I thought you had written something on this. Pls include it when you have a chance. This is fascinating if not down right scary & I hope the duopoly gets the next moves right. I'm not sure how Russia will react to a 'new' Europe sans USA.
So, have all the actions that Trump has taken so far been Executive Orders? Are there any that could be overturned by the legislature?
How likely is it that Trump would nonchalantly let his enemies of the state die or be killed in prisons? Would he just get pleasure from intelligent and diligent people being sacked from responsible positions or would he imagine that they all might rise against him and so create a force of secret police to further harrass them? I really don't know.
The way to undermine government here is to create a culture of fear amongst public servants, perhaps aided by senior public servants who are paid so much that they will go along with anything the government wants to do, whether it's illegal or not.
You can also rely on governors-general to play a role. John Kerr as GG was able to use his 'reserve powers' to sack an elected PM, Gough Whitlam. Then David Hurley in recent times, was told what a great idea his leadership training scheme was and he thought it was neither here nor there to be requested by that PM, Scott Morrison to sign him up for extra ministerial responsibilities such as Health, Treasury and Home Affairs.
The importance of executive orders is overstated. The legislature, with narrow Republican majorities in both houses, is compliant but (because of procedural veto points) cumbersome. Given a disciplined majority in both houses, Trump would have just as easy a time in a parliamentary system like that in Australia
It's mainly EO, though there is a lot of other manipulations, like removing personel and installing dupes and the like. See also JQ's point about the weakness of the legislature atm, thus giving the EOs a better than usual chance of working.
But broadly speaking, to answer your question, yes, EOs can be overturned. But I think that is why he working towards ways of limiting/stopping/neutering future elections.
It's a sad reflection on US society that, if anything is to stop Trump, it will be the failure of his tariff policy. It's possible that this will go pear-shaped before the dictatorship is properly in place, and that the need to deal iwth economic chaos will throw Trump off-course.
But it's already clear that the entire Republican party is (or will be in due course) cool with mass arrests, murder of political opponents etc. That's half the country and way over half of the white men who represent the default identity/unmarked category of Americans.
We (the free world) need to separate ourselves from this toxic mess as soon as possible, and to make it impossible for domestic Trumpists to separate themselves from what is happening htere, except by repudiating the entire ideology.
'separate ourselves from this toxic mess as soon as possible', hear, here, I hope you're penning an article for the Guardian & follow it up with plenty of radio interviews.
Unfortunately, this is outside my area of expertise, so it’s unlikely I can successfully pitch an article. But I think commentary is heading this way anyway
I really think too many in our government--less so in Europe--think that "things will go back to normal" after the midterms or maybe after 2028. Delusional, obviously. Still, I've been taken by the number of "serious commentators" locally--not just Substack riffraff!--who are calling for us to openly distance ourselves. Maybe sense will be seen.
Agree about the prospect of tariffs bringing the whole thing down. I keep thinking how "markets" intervened to limit the damage Truss was doing (as they saw it) and keep waiting for it to happen in the US.
Trump has backed off for a month on cars, where the damage is most obvious. But he could have included the delay in the original announcement. This kind of chaos is likely to cause more trouble. But even if Trump-supporting/leaning/neutral Americans get upset by economic mismanagement, that doesn’t change who they are.
Excellent. I admire your tone or demeanor here, because it allows a dispassionate examination of the available evidence with historical analogies in view but not imposed on the contemporary sequence of events. To characterize this kind of rhetorical agility, we used to say, "he wears his learning lightly." It's an expression that applies here. Thanks, Tim.
While I shudder I can’t help wondering if Trump is actually NOT heading into dementia which kept me going these last few years ! But….a clever nasty old man who has planned this for a long while along with other evil characters who envisage exactly what you have described .Is Trump insane ?
My view is that it is more important to think past any one individual, whether Trump or Musk or whomever, and look at the systems they are embedded in, that gave them rise in the first place. Trump is as much symptom as cause. I was reminded of this fact by this piece by Matthew Lamb, which I am currently recommending to people. Might be of interest. Regardless, I am sure he is heading into cognitive decline and by any normal human standard of decency, he is damaged material.
I second James Livingstone, Tim. Excellent and admirably dispassionate. Although I don't (yet) share the extent of your concerns, it would be foolish not to acknowledge the dangers.
The dual state framework provides a valuable analytical perspective, a way of evaluating and sorting the flood of events. As more of Trump's initiatives are legally challenged, some of the core issues will find their way to the Supreme Court, probably before too long. That, I think, is the point at which the validity of the fears you describe so well will crystallise.
P.S. Part of the reason I'm not convinced this administration will develop into the sort of horror show described by Fraenkel is that I think the previous administration was exceptionally dangerous in its own fashion, and believe Trump can be seen as an understandable, indeed arguably necessary, reaction to its excesses and failures. One example, its provocation and relentless pursuit of of the Ukraine crisis. Another, it's continuous support for the egregious death and destruction in Gaza and the West Bank (whether Trump will be any better on this front is unfortunately doubtful).
Of course, this says little about how things will in fact turn out. I simply felt some explanation for my present comparative calm was required.
You're right, Ingolf, there is much in US history that Trump is mere extension of, but as I say, I think things have sharpened up quite a lot. Getting the balance right between not overreacting and stating clearly what is happening in front of us is always hard. It's why I like something like Fraenkel's model. (And I just can't believe he was able to formulate that in the circumstances under which he was living!)
Relevant to this discussion for two reasons: Raby's dispassionate and, it seems to me, deeply informed views on the US, Russia, China and how their relationships may play out in this new phase.
And secondly: from about 50 mins. onwards, a review of the deeply awkward spot Australia has managed to back itself into.
Looks to me that Russia is receiving more focus as snippets about Putin blackmailing Trump for years . The awful part is that disgusting stuff in USA who were such prudes is now part of the qualifications to run the USA government .Alcoholism …Good show! Paedophiles. ???better…..rape ! What a man! Three wives …proof that this guy is a true American .
All the forces are towards a particular sort of patriarchy and inevitably these behaviours will be normalised. It is all about destroying any semblance of women's equality, let alone power. The violence inherent in the system, as those well-educated Python guys once joked.
Do you subscribe to the Public Domain review as well?
I started using it a few months back and am really enjoying it. Right up your alley, I would imagine?
Absolutely! I've been a fan for years. And I adore their new image archive. Great for sourcing great images.
I should've realised.
Nice alt to AI images I was using.
I loved the Bruegel in this latest piece.
There's a nice series of them in the connected article. You probably saw...
I did! I love Bruegel's work. He's one of my favourite artists - such a wonderful observer of human nature and society. Which is why he's a great choice for your latest article. I actually became a fan after reading this poem about his work 'The Fall of Icarus': “About suffering they were never wrong, / The Old Masters: how well they understood / Its human position; how it takes place / While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along” – WH Auden. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/159364/musee-des-beaux-arts-63a1efde036cd?utm_source=Poetry%20Foundation&utm_campaign=212a54fd14-NO_TITLE&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ff7136981c-212a54fd14-471117561&mc_cid=212a54fd14&mc_eid=5a81cd0280
Phew, I hope I can sleep tonight after reading your article TD.
'The whole point of the world order that developed in the wake of World War II was to establish an international system that contained the tendency of states to devolve into prerogative states of arbitrary, politicised rule, and it worked for a while.'
'and it worked for a while' - I've only just read and now being informed by Anthropic's AI Claude 3.5 about the 'The Iron Law of Oligarchy' developed by Robert Michel in 1911. This is what it has to deliver:
'Core Concept
Michels argued that all organizations, regardless of how democratically they begin, will inevitably develop into oligarchies where power concentrates in the hands of a small leadership group. His famous summary was: "Who says organization, says oligarchy."
'Yes, Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy has been widely applied to national governments as well. This application is particularly relevant for:
Democratic governments - Despite democratic elections and constitutional checks and balances, many scholars argue that real power tends to concentrate in:
Professional political classes
Bureaucratic institutions
Wealthy elites who influence politics
Party leadership structures
Post-revolutionary governments - Michels noted that revolutionary movements often start with egalitarian ideals but frequently develop into new oligarchies after taking power
Parliamentary systems - Where party discipline and leadership control can concentrate decision-making power
Administrative states - As government bureaucracies grow, specialized knowledge and institutional complexity create administrative elites with significant power'
I posed the following Q to Claude 'is Trump's America now a result of Iron Law of Oligarchy' & it carefully delivered this measure response which ended with: Some scholars view Trump's rise as evidence of oligarchical tendencies, while others see it as evidence that outsiders can still disrupt established power structures.'
I'm afraid Claude has not made me feel anymore optimistic; I just hope Australia choses its next government wisely and who can distil what is meant by 'oligarchy V disruption'.
My response to this didn't come through for some reason, Gavin.
Basically I was saying that I'll have to dig the book out to have a re-read. I think I know which box of old Uni stuff it is in!
Thanks for the reminder.
Aha - I thought you had written something on this. Pls include it when you have a chance. This is fascinating if not down right scary & I hope the duopoly gets the next moves right. I'm not sure how Russia will react to a 'new' Europe sans USA.
So, have all the actions that Trump has taken so far been Executive Orders? Are there any that could be overturned by the legislature?
How likely is it that Trump would nonchalantly let his enemies of the state die or be killed in prisons? Would he just get pleasure from intelligent and diligent people being sacked from responsible positions or would he imagine that they all might rise against him and so create a force of secret police to further harrass them? I really don't know.
The way to undermine government here is to create a culture of fear amongst public servants, perhaps aided by senior public servants who are paid so much that they will go along with anything the government wants to do, whether it's illegal or not.
You can also rely on governors-general to play a role. John Kerr as GG was able to use his 'reserve powers' to sack an elected PM, Gough Whitlam. Then David Hurley in recent times, was told what a great idea his leadership training scheme was and he thought it was neither here nor there to be requested by that PM, Scott Morrison to sign him up for extra ministerial responsibilities such as Health, Treasury and Home Affairs.
The importance of executive orders is overstated. The legislature, with narrow Republican majorities in both houses, is compliant but (because of procedural veto points) cumbersome. Given a disciplined majority in both houses, Trump would have just as easy a time in a parliamentary system like that in Australia
It's mainly EO, though there is a lot of other manipulations, like removing personel and installing dupes and the like. See also JQ's point about the weakness of the legislature atm, thus giving the EOs a better than usual chance of working.
But broadly speaking, to answer your question, yes, EOs can be overturned. But I think that is why he working towards ways of limiting/stopping/neutering future elections.
It's a sad reflection on US society that, if anything is to stop Trump, it will be the failure of his tariff policy. It's possible that this will go pear-shaped before the dictatorship is properly in place, and that the need to deal iwth economic chaos will throw Trump off-course.
But it's already clear that the entire Republican party is (or will be in due course) cool with mass arrests, murder of political opponents etc. That's half the country and way over half of the white men who represent the default identity/unmarked category of Americans.
We (the free world) need to separate ourselves from this toxic mess as soon as possible, and to make it impossible for domestic Trumpists to separate themselves from what is happening htere, except by repudiating the entire ideology.
'separate ourselves from this toxic mess as soon as possible', hear, here, I hope you're penning an article for the Guardian & follow it up with plenty of radio interviews.
Unfortunately, this is outside my area of expertise, so it’s unlikely I can successfully pitch an article. But I think commentary is heading this way anyway
I really think too many in our government--less so in Europe--think that "things will go back to normal" after the midterms or maybe after 2028. Delusional, obviously. Still, I've been taken by the number of "serious commentators" locally--not just Substack riffraff!--who are calling for us to openly distance ourselves. Maybe sense will be seen.
Agree about the prospect of tariffs bringing the whole thing down. I keep thinking how "markets" intervened to limit the damage Truss was doing (as they saw it) and keep waiting for it to happen in the US.
Trump has backed off for a month on cars, where the damage is most obvious. But he could have included the delay in the original announcement. This kind of chaos is likely to cause more trouble. But even if Trump-supporting/leaning/neutral Americans get upset by economic mismanagement, that doesn’t change who they are.
I saw he had flipped, however temporarily. Talk about prove a point about arbitrary behaviour!
Great reading, but also disturbing (in a good way), ultimately beneficial, helping to organise thinking about what is unfolding in the US.
Excellent. I admire your tone or demeanor here, because it allows a dispassionate examination of the available evidence with historical analogies in view but not imposed on the contemporary sequence of events. To characterize this kind of rhetorical agility, we used to say, "he wears his learning lightly." It's an expression that applies here. Thanks, Tim.
Appreciate that, James. Have really enjoyed (and learned from) your recent pieces. As ever.
While I shudder I can’t help wondering if Trump is actually NOT heading into dementia which kept me going these last few years ! But….a clever nasty old man who has planned this for a long while along with other evil characters who envisage exactly what you have described .Is Trump insane ?
My view is that it is more important to think past any one individual, whether Trump or Musk or whomever, and look at the systems they are embedded in, that gave them rise in the first place. Trump is as much symptom as cause. I was reminded of this fact by this piece by Matthew Lamb, which I am currently recommending to people. Might be of interest. Regardless, I am sure he is heading into cognitive decline and by any normal human standard of decency, he is damaged material.
https://open.substack.com/pub/publicthings/p/the-banality-of-elon-musk?r=bhqa3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I second James Livingstone, Tim. Excellent and admirably dispassionate. Although I don't (yet) share the extent of your concerns, it would be foolish not to acknowledge the dangers.
The dual state framework provides a valuable analytical perspective, a way of evaluating and sorting the flood of events. As more of Trump's initiatives are legally challenged, some of the core issues will find their way to the Supreme Court, probably before too long. That, I think, is the point at which the validity of the fears you describe so well will crystallise.
P.S. Part of the reason I'm not convinced this administration will develop into the sort of horror show described by Fraenkel is that I think the previous administration was exceptionally dangerous in its own fashion, and believe Trump can be seen as an understandable, indeed arguably necessary, reaction to its excesses and failures. One example, its provocation and relentless pursuit of of the Ukraine crisis. Another, it's continuous support for the egregious death and destruction in Gaza and the West Bank (whether Trump will be any better on this front is unfortunately doubtful).
Of course, this says little about how things will in fact turn out. I simply felt some explanation for my present comparative calm was required.
You're right, Ingolf, there is much in US history that Trump is mere extension of, but as I say, I think things have sharpened up quite a lot. Getting the balance right between not overreacting and stating clearly what is happening in front of us is always hard. It's why I like something like Fraenkel's model. (And I just can't believe he was able to formulate that in the circumstances under which he was living!)
"Getting the balance right between not overreacting and stating clearly what is happening in front of us is always hard."
You're so right, and maintaining a constant awareness of that difficulty is uncomfortable but essential.
Geoff Raby on Neutrality Studies, one of the best interviews on geopolitics I've listened to in quite a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVfCEHaQ7x0
Relevant to this discussion for two reasons: Raby's dispassionate and, it seems to me, deeply informed views on the US, Russia, China and how their relationships may play out in this new phase.
And secondly: from about 50 mins. onwards, a review of the deeply awkward spot Australia has managed to back itself into.
Thank you. I will have a listen.
I just listened and it was very useful, thanks. (Turns out my wife knows him quite well, from DFAT days.) I'm going to read his book.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Looks to me that Russia is receiving more focus as snippets about Putin blackmailing Trump for years . The awful part is that disgusting stuff in USA who were such prudes is now part of the qualifications to run the USA government .Alcoholism …Good show! Paedophiles. ???better…..rape ! What a man! Three wives …proof that this guy is a true American .
All the forces are towards a particular sort of patriarchy and inevitably these behaviours will be normalised. It is all about destroying any semblance of women's equality, let alone power. The violence inherent in the system, as those well-educated Python guys once joked.