Trump is clearly not happy with many of his key hires during his first term in office, regularly slamming former lackeys like Attorney General Bill Barr, Chief of Staff John Kelly, and National Security Adivser John Bolton. Axios reported in 2022 that Trump planned to ensure the loyalty not just of his high-profile appointments, should he win in 2024, but of thousands of mid-level staffers working throughout the government. Political views, rather than credentials or experience, are driving the process.
The outlet reported on Monday that the effort is well underway — and it’s sophisticated. The campaign is contracting “smart, experienced people, many with very unconventional and elastic views of presidential power and traditional rule of law,” according to Axios, to ensure new hires are fully onboard with the brutal policy proposals Trump has floated. It’s also using AI to vet potentail staffers, including by srubbing their social media.
Yup, that’s bullshit. It’s not that the Democrats are letting it happen without a fight. It’s that the media aren’t reporting on what Democrats are trying to do as much as they’re reporting on the juicy details of Republican corruption. Better ratings.
In the end, it comes down to elections. Democrats will follow the rules. Republicans won’t. So if we don’t want the worst case scenario, we have to do our part and let the Democrats do theirs.
Like nearly every single “both sides” argument in all of online history, this fulfills one of these two roles:
Detract from something good about Democrats
Deflect from something shitty about Republicans
You’ll hardly ever see a “both sides” argument in the wild that does one of these things:
Detract from something good about Republicans
Deflect from something shitty about Democrats
You may draw your own conclusions from that, gentle reader.
Credit belongs to be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
It’s a really poignant observation. If you’re constantly putting down only one side to try and argue it’s the same as the other side, the two sides are very obviously not the same.
I also wanted to touch on this – the very nature of Good versus Evil is that Good is always handicapped. Evil can let bystanders die as collateral. Evil can abandon its allies and those it claims to protect. Good can’t. Good is bound by rules even when it’s being morally questionable. It’s what separates Good from Evil, in usual circumstances.
This isn’t to say that we should sit and twiddle our thumbs if Trump creates concentration camps for “vermin” and his undesirables. At that point, it’s not usual circumstances anymore. Good cannot do Good unless it breaks some of those rules for the bigger picture. We can’t rig elections preemptively, but we sure as hell can rebel against a legally, duly elected president.
I’m not saying this out of idealism, but because of what we want to protect. If we readily abandon the institutions and laws we want to protect, that weakens those even further. The best outcome that will protect and preserve a peaceful democracy just be accomplished through that peaceful democracy. When that isn’t possible, you’re still going to protect it, but if you succeed the democracy will be considerably weakened. Change through violent rebellion just makes it more likely that the change will be overthrown in a new violent rebellion.