We don’t have a parliamentary system where a party can kick out an elected member for not supporting the party’s agenda and replace them with someone else. Each member is individually elected to represent their state or district. For better or for worse, they get to decide what is best for their constituents and their constituents get to respond in the next election.

Joe Manchin was the major impediment in 2021-2023. He mostly supported the party’s agenda but had some sticking points. He had to be onboard with whatever passed given the razor thin majority.

I saw all these screeds about how he should be kicked out of the party, but the objective reality is there is very little you can do to pressure a centrist Democrat from a state that voted for Trump by 50 points. The only option available was to placate him and come to a compromise (which he ultimately agreed to for major climate change reduction investment).

The reality is that the Democratic Party is not monolithic, it has some centrists who don’t support some of the more ambitious goals of the party. If you want bigger action, you have to have a bigger majority. Slim majorities give small wings of the party outsized influence on policy.

The thing you have to keep reminding yourself is just how disconnected from politics the average voter is. We’ve seen 2 full months of every day bringing some new chaos, but for most Americans, the only major things that have happened are:

1. Elon Musk is firing lots of government workers
2. Trump is enacting tariffs

Everything else is just noise to them and they filter it out. Until things really start to affect them directly, apathetic Trump voters who thought voting for him would magically turn the economy back to what it was before Covid are going to assume things are improving (because they already were before the election, they were just in a sour mood and refused to admit it).

Democrats don’t usually force shutdowns because the people most likely to suffer under a shutdown are federal, state, and local government employees, people who work in academia, and people in major metropolitan areas, all of whom make up a significant portion of the Democratic base. It doesn’t make sense to force a shutdown if your own voters are just going to blame you for the disruption it causes to their lives anyway.

Now there’s far more to lose, and Trump is going to get the blame for it. Shutdown for a few weeks to protect a few hundred thousand federal workers for at least a year is a pretty safe gamble when you’re not likely to get blamed for the short-term disruption anyway.

Absolutely. They can’t amend the Constitution through ordinary means. Which is why they’ve installed a bunch of extreme right-wing Supreme Court justices who can interpret the Constitution however they want to benefit right-wing extremists.

Here’s a completely plausible scenario: Donald Trump orders ICE to deport any child born here to non-citizen parents in complete defiance of the court order. The district court judge gets really annoyed and issues criminal contempt rulings against the head of DHS and ICE for disobeying an order of the court. Trump orders DHS and ICE to ignore the court and promises pardons to anyone facing criminal contempt charges.

Because the SCOTUS has ruled “core powers” are “absolutely immune” and the pardon is an explicit power granted to the president with no limitations, he can use the pardon power literally however he wants, including as part of a criminal conspiracy to break the law.

And bam, full blown constitutional crisis because the SCOTUS basically neutered the entire judicial branch and gave the president dictatorial powers.

Strategic tariffs can be useful for lots of reasons. Protecting a culturally important industry, supporting certain values in that industry that aren’t respected in other countries, maintaining an industry that is important to national security (e.g., domestic steel production) that would be difficult to ramp up in an emergency if the domestic industry collapses in the face of foreign competition.

The inherent tradeoff is that there will be retaliation by the tariff recipient on some other industry in your country; you basically accept a detriment for one domestic industry to gain a benefit for another.

But blanket tariffs are just stupid. There are lots of industries for which it will never be cheaper to produce locally than in low-wage countries in East or Southeast Asia and that are the kinds of jobs most industrialized nation workers just aren’t interested in doing. Companies will simply pass that tariff onto consumers instead of investing massive capital and spending much more on labor to relocate domestically.

People will buy less of everything because it’s suddenly way more expensive. Companies will sell less and have to lay people off. Blanket tariffs are effectively a regressive tax increase that directly impacts economic growth.

Short answer: the Supreme Court

Longer answer: National emergencies are perfectly reasonable to the SCOTUS when declared by a Republican but ridiculous overreach when done by a Democrat and the SCOTUS will use any opportunity to neuter the power of the federal government where a Democrat is in charge.

“So why don’t they just try anyway?” you might ask. And the answer there is that the SCOTUS can do more than just say “you can’t do that one thing anymore.” They can use it as an excuse to block 100 other things that were either flying under the radar or were being challenged one-by-one previously and tied up in appeals.

Biden tried to regulate CO2 through the EPA. The Supreme Court not only said he couldn’t do that, but they concocted a brand new standard called the “Major Questions Doctrine” that basically says government agencies aren’t allowed to implement any significant new regulations unless Congress explicitly authorizes them. And now all those under-the-radar regulations are falling like dominoes in the district courts with no path for appeal.

Every family gathering with my conservative relatives starting on 1/20, I’m going to complain about prices and ask why Trump hasn’t brought them down yet like he said he would on day 1.

Any time gas prices go up, I’ll be sure to point it out. Airplane tickets, same thing. Any item that fluctuates in price, I’ll be sure to let them know it’s clearly Trump’s fault it’s gotten more expensive. It must be his policies.

When they inevitably bend over backwards to try to explain that it’s more complicated than that, I’m going to remind them just how often they complained about Biden being singlehandedly responsible as President for high prices and how easily they said he could bring them down if he just “changed his policies.”

I’m sure they’ll see no issue with their past positions, but it’ll be cathartic for me nonetheless having to listen to them for the last 4 years.

Right now, it’s 50 R and 46 D with the 4 Independents (Sanders, King, Sinema, Manchin) caucusing with the Democrats to give it a 50/50 tie.

The Senate is currently 51-49. The Democratic Caucus has 51 members.

Stephen Miller is an advisor to Trump and is probably a psychopath. I don’t use that label lightly either.

When a normal person gets genuinely angry, their facial expressions and body language convey the anger too. It’s a natural reaction humans have when experiencing emotions and it’s tough to hide or fake.

Stephen Miller raises his voice, he uses an indignant tone, he makes aggressive motions with his body, but his face shows no change in expression at all. It’s not just this clip either, he’s like this all the time. He’s generally good at lying and changing topics during normal interviews, but he was cornered here and fell back to “pretend to be angry and change the topic.” Clearly this reporter was having none of it.