The Big Downgrade of the American Democracy and Economy

 

The Big Downgrade of the American Democracy and Economy

Where Denial, “Correct Thinking,” Autocratic Propaganda Replace Truth & Rule of Law is an “Obstacle”

Even as we sacrifice our representative government with a kleptocracy, even our oligarchs are not having a good time. The inordinate power that Donald Trump has illegally seized, with the massive backing and support by richest man in the world, actually isn’t good for anyone except Trump, his family and those oligarchs for as long as they kowtow to the Orange King. But if you look at Putin’s oligarchs, as is typical the longer an autocrat stays in power, even they wind up in ugly prisons or dead on the streets if the King even senses a slight departure from the path the King sets out. And while Russia and Europe have had a long history of monarchs and conquerors, the United States, founded to avoid these perils, does not.

For most economists savvy enough to have dealt with totalitarian regimes overseas, they are seeing a massive economic structure, recently the envy of the world, unravel and degrade. While we often are guided by the ups and downs of the stock market, those are reactive symptoms that belie a deeper and perhaps permanent reset to a second-rate former great power. The places you really have to look is the bond market, particularly the market for government treasuries, and the value of the currency. Where stocks plunge as interest rate skyrocket, in moderate doses, that can be view as a normal cyclical pattern. But if those trends reflect a global dumping of American assets, including the dollars themselves, that is a much bigger problem.

It seems that Trump has combined his hobby with his underlying skillset in governance: intimidation. It is reflected in the alternate universe all Trump administration acolytes and sycophants must accept as reality, even knowing that “alternative perspective” is a serious perversion of truth. It may involve ignoring standard accounting rules such that only rosy Trump statistical fabrications are deemed valid – see my recent An Accounting System Built on Lies blog – that only his geographical designations are truth (welcome to the Gulf of America), his clear and convincing evidence is always irrefutable (such as his using footage from the Congo as representative of South Africa’s pattern of genocide against white Afrikaner farmers?!) or that his utterances of “fact” can lead to firing for any government employee who issues facts to the contrary. In short, nothing purportedly “factual” issued by any government agency can be trusted.

Trump has based his entire arrest, detain and deport (without a trial) immigration policy on 18th century statutes intended to be used in times of invasion or rebellion. He claimed that Venezuela was directing its gangs to “invade” the United States to wreak havoc. But “In February, the National Intelligence Council completed an internal assessment that found no credible evidence linking Venezuela's government to the criminal gang Tren de Aragua, despite Trump publicly declaring such a connection to justify mass deportations under the Alien Enemies Act…

“Trump's proclamation asserted that Venezuela was using the gang to conduct ‘irregular warfare’ against the U.S., a claim not supported by intelligence findings, the New York Times reported. Emails reveal that Joe Kent, chief of staff to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, urged analysts to revise the original report to avoid political fallout.

“On March 24, just days after a New York Times article exposed the contradiction between Trump's statement and the intelligence report, Kent emailed analysts to ‘rethink’ their assessment and produce a version more aligned with ‘basic common sense’ and the administration's policy narrative. He also suggested the Biden administration had effectively aided the gang's migration efforts through lax border enforcement.” Latin Times, May 21st. In The May 22nd The Conversation, Andrew Reeves, Professor of Political Science and

Director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, Washington University in St. Louis, writes under this headline: “Trump treats laws as obstacles, not limits − and the only real check on his rule-breaking can come from political pressure.” His article continues, addressing the role of Congress and federal courts in checking presidential power:

“But law alone has never been enough to prevent presidents from abusing their power. The law’s force depends on political will. Presidents often follow the law not simply because they must, but to avoid backlash from Congress, the media or the public…What the United States is witnessing in 2025 is not just a president testing the system. It is a transformation of the presidency into a fully political institution. The president acts until political resistance becomes strong enough to stop him… President Donald Trump criticizes judges whose decisions he doesn’t like.

“In his first 100 days back in office, he took aggressive steps on federal spending, appointments to key executive branch positions, tariffs and deportations. Trump has announced he will not enforce legislation that the Supreme Court confirmed was constitutional. Many of these actions have already triggered legal challenges.

“These are not isolated incidents. Taken together, they reveal a broader pattern… Trump appears to treat legal rules not as limits but as obstacles to be negotiated or ignored. One recent scholarly paper has described Trump’s approach as ‘legalistic noncompliance,’ where the administration uses the language of law to give the appearance of compliance while defying the substance of court orders… The executive branch can move quickly. Courts cannot. This structural mismatch gives Trump a significant advantage. By the time a ruling is issued, the political context may have changed or public attention may have moved on… Judges have begun to notice. In recent weeks, courts have flagged not only legal violations but also clear signs of intentional defiance…

“Trump is not guided by precedent or legal tradition. If there is a limit on presidential power, it is political. And even that constraint is fragile… In a February 2025 national survey [is reflected in his chart above, a survey] by the Weidenbaum Center, a research institute that I head at Washington University in St. Louis, just 21% of Americans said the president should be able to enact major policy without Congress. The public does not support unchecked presidential power…

“So far, no judge has held the Trump administration in contempt of court. But the signs of erosion are unmistakable. Trump recently accused the Supreme Court of ‘not allowing me to do what I was elected to do’ after it temporarily blocked his administration’s effort to deport migrants with alleged ties to Venezuelan gangs. Treating the judiciary as just another political adversary and ignoring its rulings risks an even deeper constitutional crisis… The most meaningful check on presidential power will be political.” Until Donald Trump, no president has meaningfully or successfully defied the Court’s constitutional determination. If Trump does ignore such rulings without consequences, the result is simply that the United States as a democracy is done.

Will voters have a chance to mandate democracy in the 2026 midterms? If midterms are not rigged and actually take place. Republicans led passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE Act) in the House, but Democrats and advocates have slammed the bill, which among other things would require voters to show proof of citizenship [birth certificate] in person for federal elections. It would disenfranchise many voters, particularly in rural areas or those born on Native American reservations or pueblos, and perhaps a recently married woman whose name on a document does not reflect their current married name. So, until there is a fair midterm election – which seems to be leaning toward the GOP loss of at least the House – I remain skeptical. 

 I’m Peter Dekom, and I keep thinking I am sleeping through a horrible dream that cannot be true, but I don’t have to wake up to see reality.