Angehefteter Tweet
Since you seem to be asking a sincere question, I'll give a sincere answer.
Part of it, to be sure, is partisan preference ("rage", as you put it). Democratic voters, compared to Republican voters, tend to have a significantly more favorable view of, say, government funding of medical research, or government funding of medical aid to impoverished communities in Africa. Though I'd say voters "in the middle" tend to have somewhat conservative views on that, which is why these are good soft targets.
But the deeper concern that many Democrats have is that something much bigger is going on. In 1932, FDR made enormous changes to the nature of American society. He instituted social security over the strenuous objections of republicans, who feared (correctly) that it would be very difficult to unwind. Some of his techniques (e.g., threats to pack the court) were very rough justice, but it must be noted that he had the support of 71% of congress (and by definition, the vast majority of voters), as opposed to 51%. These were hardball threats *within* the bounds of our constitutional system.
The Democratic concern is not so much that he will do things that we don't like--of course he will. Elections have consequences. It's not even a concern that he will do things which are broadly popular and thus hard to unwind (like social security, medicare or Obamacare), or that he will do such a good job that Vance is elected just as GHWB followed Reagan. If that happens, so be it.
The major concern is that there will not be any more elections, that the current government will do unpopular things, but simply refuse to leave because they have unfettered control of the military and intelligence operations. I for one am not persuaded that Trump will leave voluntarily in 4 years, nor do I think he will leave involuntarily. There is a very real chance that Trump will be "president" for the rest of his life, and perhaps then Barron (or Elon) will be president for the remainder of *my* life.
Trump has several uncommon insights about the nature of power, the most important of which is: if you achieve a certain level of power, you do not have to relinquish it. He has stated that he never should have left in 2020. Putin had term limits, until he abolished them. Xi had term limits, until he abolished them. Mao was removed from power by the party, but he refused to leave. Erdogan is going nowhere. Orban is going nowhere. Kim Jong-un is going nowhere, nor did his father or grandfather. Hitler was elected to a limited role by a minority of the population, but quickly overthrew the remaining parts of the government, installing himself as Fuhrer with unlimited powers. Caesar was just a man, who was forbidden by law to cross the Rubicon, until he did it because LOL, and thus ended the Roman Republic. Caesar did not live forever, but the Republic was dead forever.
Every other American president has felt compelled to follow the law, although I acknowledge that FDR and Lincoln pushed things pretty far. Trump is, after all, a convicted felon who scorned the notion that any court of law could tell him what to do. I understand that many Republicans agreed with his decision to defy the courts, but that only makes democrats more concerned, not less.
Of course I do not expect to persuade any Republicans about this--I presume that most Trump voters either think this is alarmist TDS, or else relish the prospect.
Bringing it back to the immediate matter at hand, there are ways to reduce spending which are consistent with the U.S. constitution. Under our constitutional system, only Congress is able to set spending priorities, and only congress is allowed to create or abolish agencies like the CFPB, the USAID, or the Department of Education. The president's only role is to sign or veto the bills, and then ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. It would be perfectly legal for Congress to pass laws accomplishing what Musk and Trump intend to do, and in fact Trump has such unfettered control over his party that he could easily strong-arm them into doing so. Mike Johnson only has a 3-vote majority in the house, but who would dare vote against Trump on anything right now?
Which raises the question: why aren't they taking that route? Why haven't they passed the DOGE authorization act, or even contemplated such? One possible interpretation is that the lawlessness is the point. If you are able to unilaterally usurp congressional authority over an unpopular program like USAID, you may be able to unilaterally detain U.S. citizens and place them into camps, or cancel elections due to a "national emergency", or throw out ballots you don't like, etc.
Don't get me started on invading Greenland, or Gaza, or Panama, or Canada. Canada! Not only our closest ally, but possibly the closest ally any nation has ever had in human history.
This is already way too long, but I would also add that Musk and AI raise the stakes quite a bit. While this is not yet consensus, there is zero doubt in my mind that AI is the most powerful thing that humanity has ever invented. The fact that Trump's strongest ally (and arguably, the shadow president) is also in the running to control AI (inasmuch as it can be controlled, which I doubt), is pretty concerning. China became a technological police state with 2000-era technology. It would be incredibly easy to have total 1984-style surveillance of the entire U.S. population with a few hundred billion dollars worth of investment in the right AI tools even using today's technology, let alone the 2027 technology.
I fear that we are all frogs with a scorpion on our back, in water that is rapidly coming to a boil.
I hope this helps to address your sincere question. And needless to say, I hope I'm wrong about all of this.
English
