This is one of the larger effects of Trump's rule-by-EO approach that I think people are coming to realize:

The US government moves slow and the US is big. Big-and-slow can be planned for. Big-and-fast cannot be planned for and is, in fact, hugely disruptive.

Apart from all other parameters, the US does poorly with tyrannical-style rule because it's bad for business.

▲

ajmurmann 2 days ago | parent [-]

You could rule by EO and just have them take effect further out, no?

▲

shadowgovt 2 days ago | parent [-]

And, indeed, it could be argued that past administrations have done that. Congressional deadlock has been an issue in the US for quite some time, and the administration has to go on anyway. Off the top of my head, I am reminded of Obama essentially ceding control of marijuana policy to the states by making it clear to the ATF that prosecuting federal possession crime in states that had legalized the drug was legal, within their authority... And a short path to locking in a desk job at their current level indefinitely.

But when previous administrations did this, they (usually, as far as I know) consulted with domain experts on predictable consequences and set timelines to factor that in. This administration seems to have "effective immediately" as the only timeframe it's aware of.

	▲	ajmurmann a day ago \| parent [-]
		Nah, that's unfair! "Two weeks" seems to be a very popular timeframe as well.