US Politics

Here’s a detailed analysis of each question, touching on checks and balances, individual motivations, and institutional limits:

1. Did those around Trump in his first term prevent him from carrying out more extreme actions?

   There’s evidence that some advisors, like former Defense Secretary James Mattis and White House Counsel Don McGahn, did curb Trump’s impulses on several occasions. For example, Mattis reportedly countered Trump’s musings about using military force against civilian protesters. Trump also mentioned wanting to fire FBI director James Comey early on, which his team initially slowed down to avoid immediate backlash. So yes, his more extreme ideas often faced internal pushback.

2. Is it reasonable to assume Trump won’t follow through on his more extreme statements?

   While Trump has made provocative statements, his actual follow-through has been inconsistent. For example, although he frequently spoke about building a "border wall," much of it remained incomplete due to logistical, legal, and funding challenges. Given this track record, some might assume he wouldn’t act on certain threats. However, assuming he "won't" act might underestimate his willingness to test limits, especially if he perceives fewer constraints or more public support.

3. How do you distinguish between things Trump will do and won’t do?

   His pattern often suggests he acts when actions align with personal interests, require minimal opposition, or fulfill his base’s core priorities. For instance, Trump prioritized actions like tax cuts and conservative judicial appointments, which aligned with his supporters' expectations and faced less institutional resistance. However, initiatives requiring extensive cooperation, funding, or facing strong institutional resistance (like repealing the Affordable Care Act) often stalled.

4. Are US checks and balances sufficient to prevent Trump from implementing anything fundamentally authoritarian?

   The US system has a robust structure designed to prevent unilateral actions by the executive branch, including Congress, the judiciary, and federalism itself (state powers). While checks and balances can limit authoritarian measures, they aren’t absolute. Certain executive powers—like issuing executive orders, commanding the military, or influencing regulatory agencies—can be used to substantial effect within those checks, especially if branches of government don’t actively counterbalance the executive.

5. Do you think Trump will almost always make the correct decisions?

   "Correct" decisions are subjective, depending on one’s perspective. Trump often values decisions based on his self-assessed "success metrics," such as loyalty and personal gain. Supporters may argue he pursues outcomes they favor, like economic deregulation, while critics often argue his decision-making prioritizes personal interests over national welfare, particularly regarding policies or actions with divisive effects. So "correct" here largely depends on one’s priorities and expectations.

6. Do you think Trump puts America ahead of his personal interests?

   Trump’s actions often indicate that personal interests are a priority. His business interests, refusal to divest from his companies, and recurring focus on loyalty within his administration suggest a significant self-oriented decision-making process. While he promotes policies beneficial to certain groups, it’s frequently debatable whether they align more with national interest or personal brand.

7. Without any controls, would he use his power against political/media opponents?

   Trump has often voiced contempt for specific media and political opponents and has taken various actions that reflect this disdain, such as attempting to revoke press credentials and promoting investigations into opponents. Without institutional controls, it’s plausible he would escalate efforts to suppress opposition voices and critics. His past statements and behavior suggest that, with fewer checks, he might leverage power more directly against opponents.

In summary, Trump’s first term showed that while he’s constrained by both institutions and key advisors, he often pushes against these limits. His motivations appear to mix personal interests with political ones, and without checks, he may well act more forcefully against opponents or critics. The robustness of checks and balances remains a central guardrail, but they’re effective only when actively exercised by each branch of government.