What Lines Should We Draw? President or Conqueror

I had an interesting exchange with an TPM reader this week about the takeover of the president of the Metro of the Metro of President Trump and his joint decision to deploy troops of the National Guard in the capital of the country. The argument of this reader was that it was a mistake to make a big problem, a dramatic abuse and consecutive to the power of the DC decision because in fact, Trump was acting in the law which gives to DC Home Rule. He said that what had happened in Los Angeles this summer was different because Trump had no legal right to do all of this. Reality – and it’s true – is that DC East different. It is not a state and it is in fact the field of federal government. Congress directs him. The congress decided to delegate this authority half a century ago to local autonomy. But the president can Do these things. He is in the law on endless rules. His justifications can be specious. But his actions in this case are probably invisible.

It was an interesting point and we went back and forth a few times. The opposition should save its mobilization and its indignation, argued the reader because when Trump crosses a line as he did in Los Angeles. DC is different.

My argument was that even if the unique rules governing DC make this legal, it is by the own argument of Trump in a deployment that he plans to use the federal police (ICE, CBP, FBI) and the National Guard to start taking control of major American cities, universally blue cities and in all cases in blue states. The substance is what is important and not the technical details. On my reflection, we have exceeded the point where we must be hung on technical details.

I remembered this when I saw this video clip today of the representative James Comer (R-KY) by explicitly saying that this is a case of test for the future role in “Democrat cities”, as he said. “We will support this in other cities if it works in Washington DC. We spend a lot for our soldiers. Our soldiers have been in many countries of the world for two decades to walk in the streets trying to reduce crime. We have to focus on major cities in America now. ” (You can see the clip here.)

Commer presents another interesting and revealing dimension. We actually spend large sums of money for the army. And the idea seems to be that now that we are not fighting abroad, it is logical to start occupying American cities. He is admirably frank on this subject. There is a whole story Arentian there, how the tools that a state uses in war abroad is suitable (or not terribly suitable) for use at home. But I want to focus on the main line: the aim of militarization of the police and the treatment of blue states as something like conquered territories, as it already does in Washington, DC, which is yes, the national capital but also an extremely democratic and plurality black city. In this sense, a senior administration official has just said that Rolling Stone said that a key objective of these deployments is to normalize them in American political culture, especially during the relative calm.

I strongly suspect that I mainly preach in the choir on the small electronic debate that I had with this TPM reader. The reason why I note the exchange is to assert a related point that we should all think of more explicitly. What violates specific laws is not really the point at the stage of the game in which we are. It is important in itself of course. It may have legal and judicial significance. But this is not what is most important. Because, let’s be frank, Trump breaks the law in many ways at the moment, it is difficult to follow them.

I return to a point that I have made several times in the last six months and more. We are fundamentally in a battle on public opinion. If a decisive majority of the public opposes Trump, his reign and crime will not remain. What comes from this is that what could be technically legal under an obscure or simply unavored law is not the point. It is deeply in weeds. It is to play for the state of mind and the political-cultural customs of the opposition itself-one of its great virtues and also one its deepest weaknesses. It is Michael Dukakis plunging into the statutes and the opposition of principle to the death penalty when the moment calls for fury and indignation.

The question is that people want to live under martial law, in the cities occupied by the army. The opposition to this kind of thing is deeply, deeply rooted in American political culture. We have already seen a lot of spectacle data in Los Angeles. People don’t like it. He cuts against all kinds of things instilled in Americans in their civic culture. Managers should focus on this question and this mantra: no troops in our cities, no troops with us.

We must put these questions at the forefront of the public spirit. Do you want soldiers in your streets? Do you want to self-generate at the local level or be the target of an avenger president and without law? These are the questions on which to concentrate. The technical details of the law are sad to say now.