After listening to way too much Rush Limbaugh 30-some years ago, little of what's happening has been surprising, although that doesn't stop it from being distressing all the same.

The primary system means that nobody with any principles is left in the Republican Party, unfortunately.

But not all is lost. Many are very eager for the reins of power to come back and for laws to be enforced. Sure, the Trump regime may tell itself that it's immune from tax audits ever again, but that's not legal and as soon as the force of law is back there are many eager attorneys with high principles that will be hired back into the DoJ and enforce the law.

We saw this after Nixon's lawlessness too. Those who abetted Nixon in breaking the law were disbarred.

Prosecutions will come. Trumps's key mistake is thinking that his popularity doesn't matter anymore. It does. It means that people with morals and ethics can legally gain power and legally enforce the law.

If Trump was at 60% popularity, I would be singing a different tune. But at 35% popularity and 60% unfavorable, there is appetite left in our democracy to remain a democracy and to go after the crooks. Even if a good 30% of that unfavorable opinion is just about people's own pocketbooks rather than the principles of law and democracy, that's enough for those who care to actually enforce law.

Be concerned, but be ready tk supppprt those who will correct the course of our ship.

Not sure if it matters, but that is at least not true for nazi-style fascism. In there, they had a very strong rule of law for most people. But, there was a dual, a parallel system where there was no law at all, it operated outside of the legal system. You could win a trial and be exhonorated, only to be taken away by the gestapo at the door of the courtroom.

It was important for the nazis to keep businesses running, and have most people continue their lives without noticing major changes. Most people would not come into contact with the second system, and barely knew it existed. But if you entered the second system, you often would not come out alive.

This way, they could transit into an authoritarian system without hurting the economy. They knew this and planned it, and it turned out to be correct.

> The US is a Russian style oligarchy

FTFY. From the outside, people can easily see it.

Where do you imagine the power goes when you've taken it away from "the administrative state"?

I can totally understand an argument that says a certain administrative function was not working well and needed to be fixed. But if you're just suggesting destroying these institutions, what fills that power vacuum other than the far worse situation we're seeing unfolding now?

> Rule by administrators (or bureaucrats) is just as opaque/unaccountable/corrupt

I don't agree. The division of power is most likely preferable. Otherwise the politician also become the beurocrat but way more arbitrary.

The current path is replacing bureaucratic power with unchecked executive power which is the opposite of what you want. Bureaucrats who must follow the rule of law is what you want.

Going for whataboutism in the same week trump establishes a $2B find to pay off his cronies and tries to permanently exempt himself from taxes is laughable.

NCI and NSF recipients getting a taste of what EPA, DEA and ATF was doing to the plebs all along with random "interpretations" and bad-faith presentations of them to judge and jury. Maybe that whole "the academics and bureaucrats are so smart we totally need to cede power from congress to the executive" wasn't such a bright idea after all.

Of course, it's totally lost on the academic-bureaucratic class that the anti-intellectuals wouldn't hesitate to cut off their nose to spite their face by electing a president that would turn around and surprise pikachu the academics with the very machine they had helped build. Now that academics are losing their grips within the bureaucratic apparatus, suddenly they are deciding to rethink their strategy -- but it's not a coming to Jesus moment, but rather just a reactionary response.

Their fortunes are already built. They have shifted into defensive posture. They don't care about enabling more people to do discovery, that actually puts their position at great risk of disruption. What they want is to have very little innovation, and be able to capture the innovation that squeaks through.

I imagine some of them think that the industrial sector could replace academic sector for foundational scientific researcher ("the free market solves all known problems"). I imagine others believe we are headed for a huge crash that affects the whole world, in a way that having a large academic scientific establishment will not help. Just go live in a bunker in NZ until society rebuilds itself, or whatever (Altman). I suspect a few of the folks are just looney, and don't think rationally (Thiel).

It benefited them in the past, that allowed them to build up their fortunes. Bill Gates, for example, is now a big holder of farmland. Science allows others to build up fortunes that challenge theirs, and hurts the stasis in which they become gilded aristocracy.

Lowering their taxes while burning everything to the ground benefits them now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Step 1. Exploit the commons.

Step 2. Shut the door.

if you "genuinely" want to understand, start considering the opposite - what is the easiest way to defend policy like this?

"science with outside helps the other side" - done.

Current administration sees US as losing its positions, so the main answer is to close the leaks that feed its opponents with US effort

In my opinion, it’s been a problem for a long time. Sure, the titans of industry are very interested in the profitable applications of science, but they are generally less interested in investing in science, let alone the science itself. Science is seen as a cost center, and research is inherently risky. Even in the glory days of Bell Labs and Xerox PARC, both were backed by monopolies (the Bell System was the phone monopoly, and Xerox had patents in xerography). The former was subject to special government rules due to AT&T’s constant anti-trust troubles, and the latter’s culture was heavily influenced by ARPA due to ex-ARPA people like Bob Taylor.

I am reminded by this quote from an email exchange between Bret Taylor and Alan Kay, published in 2017:

“As I pointed out in a previous email, Engelbart couldn't get funding from the very people who made fortunes from his inventions.

“It strikes me that many of the tech billionaires have already gotten their "upside" many times over from people like Engelbart and other researchers who were supported by ARPA, Parc, ONR, etc. Why would they insist on more upside, and that their money should be an "investment"? That isn't how the great inventions and fundamental technologies were created that eventually gave rise to the wealth that they tapped into after the fact.

“It would be really worth the while of people who do want to make money -- they think in terms of millions and billions -- to understand how the trillions -- those 3 and 4 extra zeros came about that they have tapped into. And to support that process.”

https://worrydream.com/2017-12-30-alan/

The titans of industry not understanding the importance of science beyond its profitable applications doesn’t surprise me at all.

Because science is an abstraction for ann incredibly wide range of human activity some of which benefits industrial applications and some that doesn’t.

But it isn't required in order for them to get richer at this point.

That's just the political division. Scientists and academic types tend to lean left, the republicans are a right leaning party so they oppose them. It's not even a Trump thing, it's been like this for decades, though Trump is obviously more aggressive than previous Republican leaders.

heres a bit of a fringe view, from me, and others.

governments need influence, and yellow the truth,so as to manage the overall situation, thats a first assumption.

now we see a lot of actions that in the end seemlike footgunning, basically derailing the foundations of civilization.

perhaps this is not megalomania, greed, or sickness.

perhaps, as is often portrayed in popular scifi, we are all doomed to face a terrible challange, there are only few very closed mouth individuals that absolutely know. [remember this is a fringe conspiracy hypothesis]

we are being distracted and kept on the dark about impending catastrophe,so as to stave off absolute chaos,little hope of influencing anyone except by overwhelming show of force. perhaps "they" know its a matter of years, not decades until we experience that thing that suddenly, seemingly cyclically clears the board and the whole assembly begins again from square 2,or 3,not quite square one. [Re fringe;conspiracy]

"they" are behaving in an all bets are off manner, keeping thier hand hidden, playing an endgame rather than making a benign effort.

They already have that fortune. So, they dont care and dont have to care. Moreover, someone else using science to create fortune is just another competitor and a threat to said fortune.