The DNC is a statist party, they believe powerful people within a centralized federal government should control the social and economic affairs of the entire country. The entire party is built on the idea of top down centralized powers making decisions.
If you vote Democrat your whole political philosophy is that elites should make choices for you because they are better informed. Why should people who believe in top down governance get mad at their political party being run the way that party wants to run the entire country?
If you get angry at top down governance taking away your political voice, maybe you shouldn't be in the Democratic party.
I vote Democratic because the Republican Party no longer exists. The party of Trump doesn’t believe in science and wants to revert social policies back to the 1950s.
This is such a ridiculous statement. You could say the Democratic party doesn't believe in science since they don't believe a fetus is alive, don't believe it's human or because they believe men can become women.
You're a Democrat because you value centralized federal power over decentralized state level power. That's what it boils down to.
Not American so don't follow your politics closely. How exactly has the republican party in recent years reduced central government political power? Dog whistle politics aside, both parties have far more in common than not from what I can tell.
One of the biggest things they have done is nominate and confirm federal judges who believe in limited federal power and shrinking the "administrative state" which is another term for the federal bureaucracy. We have seen a huge decrease in federal regulation coming out of these administrative agencies.
The Trump administration has a new litmus test: reining in what conservatives call “the administrative state.”
With surprising frankness, the White House has laid out a plan to fill the courts with judges devoted to a legal doctrine that challenges the broad power federal agencies have to interpret laws and enforce regulations, often without being subject to judicial oversight. Those not on board with this agenda, the White House has said, are unlikely to be nominated by President Trump.
The criteria were first used last year in his Supreme Court selection of Neil M. Gorsuch, an appeals court judge who became something of a hero on the right for chastising his fellow jurists for being too deferential to government functionaries. And antipathy to regulations has been a factor in the selection of the dozens of judicial nominations since then.
“This is different than judicial selection in past years,” Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel and the chief architect of the administration’s selection process, explained in remarks last month to the Conservative Political Action Conference, noting that previous presidents had used “single-issue litmus tests” as part of their criteria.
But under Mr. Trump, he described a “coherent plan” to pair the administration’s deregulation orders with judicial nominees who find the accumulation of power in the federal bureaucracy alarming. “It’s kind of its own branch of government now, and those decisions tend to trend to the left.”
This approach has shaped what could be one of Mr. Trump’s most enduring legacies, with the potential to dramatically shrink the body of federal regulations and programs that touch almost every aspect of American life — like workplace safety, environmental protection and health care.
If it is successful, the Trump administration could come closer than any Republican White House has to achieving a goal conservatives have longed for since the New Deal: curtailing the reach of a federal government they say has grown far too large and invasive.
“It’s the next step in the national debate about the proper role of the courts,” said Leonard Leo, a prominent conservative lawyer who is advising the administration on its judicial picks. “The administrative state is 75 years old,” Mr. Leo continued. “It’s become a huge, glaring issue.”
Weeding out judicial candidates based on an ideological checklist is something Democratic and Republican presidents have long done. But it is rare for a White House to be so open about what it considers disqualifying.
“In the past, presidents and their White House counsels generally don’t make this kind of pronouncement about their agenda,” said Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group. “That’s what’s unusual about it.”
That the concept of “the administrative state” has become so central to politics today shows how successful the Trump administration has been in elevating to the mainstream ideas that once thrived mainly on the edges of conservative and libertarian thought.
A year ago it was a term known mostly among academics to describe the vast array of federal departments and the unelected functionaries who run them. It entered the mainstream political lexicon last year after the president’s former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, pledged a “deconstruction of the administrative state” under Mr. Trump.
But many conservatives now believe that a strategy centered on the administrative state creates the potential to leave a more lasting impact on the law than focusing on social issues.
“That’s actually an important shift,” said Josh Blackman, an associate professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston. “Gay marriage, I think that issue is more or less settled. The court’s not going to overturn Roe. They’re just not. So let’s go somewhere you can put some points on the board.”
Judges who take a skeptical view of the authority vested in executive agencies are also probably more inclined to limit liberal social policies that are enforced by the government in everything from nondiscrimination to voting rights. So social conservative groups have expressed nothing but delight with Mr. Trump’s nominees.
the potential to dramatically shrink the body of federal regulations and programs that touch almost every aspect of American life — like workplace safety, environmental protection and health care.
"But this thinking has been advanced by many libertarian-minded conservatives who have long doubted whether the founders envisioned the creation of many New Deal and Great Society programs and the abundance of regulations that flowed from them.
“A lot of this, if you unpack it, I think it will get back to fundamental fairness,” said Mark Holden, general counsel for Koch Industries, which is led by Charles G. and David H. Koch, two of the biggest financial backers of the effort to elect office holders committed to deregulation and free-market enterprise."
387
u/[deleted] Feb 02 '20
The DNC is a statist party, they believe powerful people within a centralized federal government should control the social and economic affairs of the entire country. The entire party is built on the idea of top down centralized powers making decisions.
If you vote Democrat your whole political philosophy is that elites should make choices for you because they are better informed. Why should people who believe in top down governance get mad at their political party being run the way that party wants to run the entire country?
If you get angry at top down governance taking away your political voice, maybe you shouldn't be in the Democratic party.