The forum likes to catastrophize Trump but I need to point out a few things for the sake of accuracy since this is very misleading and highly upvoted.
The current administration has done many things that I find horrible, but I donāt see any evidence of an authoritarian takeover. Being hyperbolic isnāt helpful.
Your Manifold question is horribly biased because you are the author and made it very biased. First, there is your bias in how you will resolve the question. Second, the wording of the question comes off as incredibly biased. For example, saying that Bush v Gore counts as a coup or āAnything that makes the person they try to put in power illegitimate in my judgment,ā. Your judgment is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
I think itās important to quantify this supposed incentive. Needless to say, I think itās very low.
I donāt think it matters much but I am Manifoldās former #1 trader until I stopped and Iām fairly well regarded as a forecaster.
The forum likes to catastrophize Trump but I need to point out a few things for the sake of accuracy since this is very misleading and highly upvoted.
The current administration has done many things that I find horrible, but I donāt see any evidence of an authoritarian takeover. Being hyperbolic isnāt helpful.
I think this statement is highly misleading. First, I think compared to most other fora and groups, this Forum is decidedly not catastrophizing Trump.
Second, if you donāt see āany evidence of an authoritarian takeoverā then you are clearly not paying very much attention.
I think there is a fair debate to be had about how seriously to take various signs of authoritarianism on the part of the Administration, but āseeing no evidence of itā is not really consistent with the signals one does readily find when paying attention, such as:
- an attack on the independence of the judiciary and law firms, complaining about the fact that courts exercise their legitimate powers - flirting with the idea of being in defiance of court orders - talking about a third term - praising Putin, Orban, and other authoritarians - undermining due process
I think this statement is highly misleading. First, I think compared to most other fora and groups, this Forum is decidedly not catastrophizing Trump.
On a relative basis to other left-wing places, the forum is not catastrophizing Trump. I should have said that this post is catastrophizing Trump and is only getting the upvotes (at the time I posted, it was all upvotes and āagreeā reacts), because of the forumās political bias.
Second, if you donāt see āany evidence of an authoritarian takeoverā then you are clearly not paying very much attention.
Again, I should be more precise but this is a misinterpretation I think. There is always evidence of authoritarian takeover by any President. Every President does things that are supposed to be done through Congress (for example, most military action). I agree that Trump has more authoritarian impulses than most but this is not nearly clearing the bar for, as the author says, āThe current US administration is attempting an authoritarian takeover.ā. Thatās a very strong statement and the evidence doesnāt back that up. Itās hyperbolic.
For the record, by authoritarian takeover I mean a gradual process aiming for a situation like Hungary (which theyāve frequently cited as their inspiration and something to aspire to). Given that Trump has tried to orchestrate a coup the last time he was in office, I donāt think itās a hyperbolic claim to say heās trying again this time. Iām also not making any claims about the likelihood of success.
is only getting the upvotes (at the time I posted, it was all upvotes and āagreeā reacts), because of the forumās political bias.
I think this is very uncharitable to other Forum users. (Unless you meant āis getting only upvotes [..]ā)
I was mostly objecting to your statement of āseeing no sign of authoritarian takeoverā, I do agree and mentioned in my comment that Siebeās statement was possibly too definite.
But I donāt think it is hyperbolic to say that there are many signs of Trumpās authoritarianism and signs consistent with an attempted authoritarian takeover and that this is qualitatively different than what we have seen from any other President in recent history, one has to go back to at least Nixon to get things in the same ballpark (and Nixon was arguably a lot more constrained by his own party than Trump is right now).
The examples you are citing āPresidents doing things that should be done through Congressā are not examples of authoritarian behavior and pretending that what Trump is doing is part of the regular testing of executive authority is also quite misleading.
Which other recent Administration was headed by someone denying a legitimate election result? Which other recent Administration had a VP flirting with the idea of not honoring Supreme Court rulings? Which other recent Administration was systematically invested in fighting against civil society institutions and law firms? Which other Administration has had so many people warning about authoritarian tendencies, both from their own party and from key senior staff from their own first administration?
A lie (it cannot be hyperbole as the claim he made was very specifically framed)
Legal under the constitution, because he would do it via running for Vice President and having the elected President resign, and anything technically legal is not an āauthoritarian takeoverā
Illegal under the constitution, but he would legally amend the constitution to remove term limits
Something else?
And then, for whichever you believe, could you explain how it isnāt an authoritarian takeover?
(I choose this example because itās relatively clear-cut, but we could point to Trump vs. United States, the refusal to follow court orders related to deportations, instructing the AG not to prosecute companies for unbanning Tik Tok, the attempts from his surrogates to buy votes, freezing funding for agencies established by acts of Congress, bombing Yemen without seeking approval from Congress, kidnapping and holding legal residents without due process, etc. etc. etc., I just think those have greyer areas)
Trump and crew spout millions of lies. Itās very common at this point. If you get worked up about every one of these, youāre going to lose your mind.
Look, Iām not happy about this Trump stuff either. Itās incredibly destabilizing for many reasons. But you are going to lose focus on important things if you get swept up into the daily Trump news. If you are focused on AI safety or animal welfare or poverty or whatever it may be, your most effective thing will almost certainly be focusing on something else.
I donāt think discussing authoritarian takeover is against Forum rules, though EA is not the ideal place for political resistance given its broad amount of causes for which it needs political tractability. However, itās tricky because US political dynamics are currently extremely influential for EA cause areas, and I think we need to do better thinking through how various areas will be affected, and how policies might interact with the affect that the US administration is proto-authoritarian. We should not simply pretend the US administration is a normal one.
That said, in these discussion we should be careful to not descend into āmere partisanshipā though I donāt know where that line is. I wish the Forum team would give more guidance.
This is something we should think about more as a mod team- Iāll discuss it with them.
Our current politics policy is still this. But it arguably wasnāt designed with our current situation in mind. In my view, itād be a bad thing if discussions on the Forum became too tied to the news cycle (It generally seems true that once something is on the news, you are at least several years too late to change it), our impact has historically not been had by working in the most politically salient areas (neglectedness isnāt a perfect proxy but it still matters). However, itād also be wrong if the Forum couldnāt discuss politically salient issues while they are going on, and there is something readers could do to stop them.
FWIW in this particular situation (and I havenāt conferred with the mod team) I donāt see this thread as being against Forum rules, because the participants could reasonably believe (or for that matter, not believe) that preventing authoritarian takeover in the US is a relevant cause area to EA.
Trump tried something arguably coup-like but it fails (25%, n=44) and the linked āTrump remains in officeā is 15% (n=43), putting the total attempt probability at 40%. Other markets put success at lower rates though, which seems more realistic.
The President has also already tried a coup once (fake elector scheme, J6). Thereās a much bigger case I could make but I donāt want to do that here
The forum likes to catastrophize Trump but I need to point out a few things for the sake of accuracy since this is very misleading and highly upvoted.
The current administration has done many things that I find horrible, but I donāt see any evidence of an authoritarian takeover. Being hyperbolic isnāt helpful.
Your Manifold question is horribly biased because you are the author and made it very biased. First, there is your bias in how you will resolve the question. Second, the wording of the question comes off as incredibly biased. For example, saying that Bush v Gore counts as a coup or āAnything that makes the person they try to put in power illegitimate in my judgment,ā. Your judgment is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
I think itās important to quantify this supposed incentive. Needless to say, I think itās very low.
I donāt think it matters much but I am Manifoldās former #1 trader until I stopped and Iām fairly well regarded as a forecaster.
I think this statement is highly misleading. First, I think compared to most other fora and groups, this Forum is decidedly not catastrophizing Trump.
Second, if you donāt see āany evidence of an authoritarian takeoverā then you are clearly not paying very much attention.
I think there is a fair debate to be had about how seriously to take various signs of authoritarianism on the part of the Administration, but āseeing no evidence of itā is not really consistent with the signals one does readily find when paying attention, such as:
- an attack on the independence of the judiciary and law firms, complaining about the fact that courts exercise their legitimate powers
- flirting with the idea of being in defiance of court orders
- talking about a third term
- praising Putin, Orban, and other authoritarians
- undermining due process
On a relative basis to other left-wing places, the forum is not catastrophizing Trump. I should have said that this post is catastrophizing Trump and is only getting the upvotes (at the time I posted, it was all upvotes and āagreeā reacts), because of the forumās political bias.
Again, I should be more precise but this is a misinterpretation I think. There is always evidence of authoritarian takeover by any President. Every President does things that are supposed to be done through Congress (for example, most military action). I agree that Trump has more authoritarian impulses than most but this is not nearly clearing the bar for, as the author says, āThe current US administration is attempting an authoritarian takeover.ā. Thatās a very strong statement and the evidence doesnāt back that up. Itās hyperbolic.
For the record, by authoritarian takeover I mean a gradual process aiming for a situation like Hungary (which theyāve frequently cited as their inspiration and something to aspire to). Given that Trump has tried to orchestrate a coup the last time he was in office, I donāt think itās a hyperbolic claim to say heās trying again this time. Iām also not making any claims about the likelihood of success.
I think this is very uncharitable to other Forum users. (Unless you meant āis getting only upvotes [..]ā)
I was mostly objecting to your statement of āseeing no sign of authoritarian takeoverā, I do agree and mentioned in my comment that Siebeās statement was possibly too definite.
But I donāt think it is hyperbolic to say that there are many signs of Trumpās authoritarianism and signs consistent with an attempted authoritarian takeover and that this is qualitatively different than what we have seen from any other President in recent history, one has to go back to at least Nixon to get things in the same ballpark (and Nixon was arguably a lot more constrained by his own party than Trump is right now).
The examples you are citing āPresidents doing things that should be done through Congressā are not examples of authoritarian behavior and pretending that what Trump is doing is part of the regular testing of executive authority is also quite misleading.
Which other recent Administration was headed by someone denying a legitimate election result? Which other recent Administration had a VP flirting with the idea of not honoring Supreme Court rulings? Which other recent Administration was systematically invested in fighting against civil society institutions and law firms? Which other Administration has had so many people warning about authoritarian tendencies, both from their own party and from key senior staff from their own first administration?
Weāre probably already violating Forum rules by discussing partisan politics, but Iām curious to hear how you view Trumpās claim that he is ānot jokingā about a third term. Is this:
A lie (it cannot be hyperbole as the claim he made was very specifically framed)
Legal under the constitution, because he would do it via running for Vice President and having the elected President resign, and anything technically legal is not an āauthoritarian takeoverā
Illegal under the constitution, but he would legally amend the constitution to remove term limits
Something else?
And then, for whichever you believe, could you explain how it isnāt an authoritarian takeover?
(I choose this example because itās relatively clear-cut, but we could point to Trump vs. United States, the refusal to follow court orders related to deportations, instructing the AG not to prosecute companies for unbanning Tik Tok, the attempts from his surrogates to buy votes, freezing funding for agencies established by acts of Congress, bombing Yemen without seeking approval from Congress, kidnapping and holding legal residents without due process, etc. etc. etc., I just think those have greyer areas)
I think 1, 3, and 4 are all possible.
Trump and crew spout millions of lies. Itās very common at this point. If you get worked up about every one of these, youāre going to lose your mind.
Look, Iām not happy about this Trump stuff either. Itās incredibly destabilizing for many reasons. But you are going to lose focus on important things if you get swept up into the daily Trump news. If you are focused on AI safety or animal welfare or poverty or whatever it may be, your most effective thing will almost certainly be focusing on something else.
What evidence would you need to see to conclude that an Orbanisation of the US government is beginning, but still early enough to prevent it?
I donāt think discussing authoritarian takeover is against Forum rules, though EA is not the ideal place for political resistance given its broad amount of causes for which it needs political tractability. However, itās tricky because US political dynamics are currently extremely influential for EA cause areas, and I think we need to do better thinking through how various areas will be affected, and how policies might interact with the affect that the US administration is proto-authoritarian. We should not simply pretend the US administration is a normal one.
That said, in these discussion we should be careful to not descend into āmere partisanshipā though I donāt know where that line is. I wish the Forum team would give more guidance.
This is something we should think about more as a mod team- Iāll discuss it with them.
Our current politics policy is still this. But it arguably wasnāt designed with our current situation in mind. In my view, itād be a bad thing if discussions on the Forum became too tied to the news cycle (It generally seems true that once something is on the news, you are at least several years too late to change it), our impact has historically not been had by working in the most politically salient areas (neglectedness isnāt a perfect proxy but it still matters). However, itād also be wrong if the Forum couldnāt discuss politically salient issues while they are going on, and there is something readers could do to stop them.
FWIW in this particular situation (and I havenāt conferred with the mod team) I donāt see this thread as being against Forum rules, because the participants could reasonably believe (or for that matter, not believe) that preventing authoritarian takeover in the US is a relevant cause area to EA.
I donāt think itās that misleading because
Will Manifold think Trump made a serious about to remain in charge? (35%, n=26, would be ~26% without my bets). Resolves via Manifold poll
Trump tried something arguably coup-like but it fails (25%, n=44) and the linked āTrump remains in officeā is 15% (n=43), putting the total attempt probability at 40%. Other markets put success at lower rates though, which seems more realistic.
The President has also already tried a coup once (fake elector scheme, J6). Thereās a much bigger case I could make but I donāt want to do that here