@HourofPoop While it sucks to see this show go, I can at least respect Michael and Zach for choosing creative quality over mediocre quantity.
I remember EmpLemon worrying about how this show could drag on turning into the next Rick and Morty. Clearly not going to happen now.
Great edit btw
Maduroâs capture illustrates what I believe is one of the biggest problems in politics: people frequently treat principles as costumesâworn when convenient, discarded when costly.
Over nearly two decades working in and around politics, Iâve watched the same pattern play out again and againâand todayâs events in Venezuela put it on display in neon. The US military carried out strikes in Caracas and captured Venezuelan President NicolĂĄs Maduro and his wife, flying them to New York in what the administration is framing as a kind of âlaw enforcementâ operation. ïżŒ
Look, there are plenty of people who never even pretend to have a core set of principles they cling to. Theyâre utilitarians and technocratsâruled by polling, vibes, ambition, and career incentives. Fine. At least theyâre honest about being wind vanes.
But most people do claim to stand for a consistent set of ideasâconstitutional restraint, limited government, âAmerica First,â non-intervention, rule of law, due process, sovereignty, you name it.
The problem is that theyâre often inconsistent, especially when the outcome is emotionally satisfying.
Today proved that again. People who claim to champion the Constitution suddenly ignore its restraints on executive power and, when pressed, point to court precedent, congressional statutes, and past presidential deviations as if those things are the Constitution.
âBut⊠the Barbary pirates!â
âBut George H.W. Bush removed Noriega in Panama!â
âBut the courts said XYZ!â
âBut Congress passed some statute in 199-whatever!â
So Iâve asked a simple question, repeatedly, across social media threads today: Where, exactly, is the constitutional provision authorizing the president to invade another country and depose its leader?
The replies come back empty, no constitutional provision cited. They can't, because it doesn't exist. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. No "targeted strikes" or anything of the like are separately authorized for the president to execute at his whim.
Thatâs the whole point of written limits: the text is supposed to bind you. Instead, we get arguments that past presidents did it, and some lawyers said it was okay. This is tantamount to saying âBilly did it, so I thought it was okay for me to do it.â Thatâs playground logic, not constitutional rigor.
And thatâs my point: there is no rigor. Thereâs only precedentâmeaning, prior lawlessness used to justify the next round of lawlessness. The administration itself appears to be leaning on the idea that indictments and ânational interestsâ somehow transform regime change into a lawful âarrest mission.â
Trump was elected in part because people were exhausted by foreign meddling. He was praised (by some of these same voices!) for resisting the interventionist itch. And now heâs kicking up dirt in Venezuela.
âBut Venezuelans are happy!â the commenters have repeatedly said. âTheyâre in the streets celebrating!â
Yes. Sometimes they are. Thatâs not a serious argument. Thatâs the-ends-justify-the-means dressed up as compassionâagain, playground-level reasoning.
Guess what: Iraqis filled the streets when Saddam was deposed. âBaghdad Celebrates Saddamâs Fall,â read a headline in Voice of America, for an article describing dancing and cheering as thousands poured into the streets. ïżŒ
Then Iraq spiraled into insurgency, sectarian civil war, mass death, displacement, and the conditions that helped give rise to ISIS.
Libyans filled the streets when Gaddafi fell. So then we got an article titled âLibyans celebrate Gaddafiâs deathâ in Al Jazeera, describing jubilant crowds and the âend of tyranny.â ïżŒ
Then Libya fractured into militias and rival governments, becoming a prolonged civil conflict and a humanitarian disaster.
I could go on. You get the pattern.
Hereâs the deeper point that people keep refusing to learn: if your principles only apply when theyâre easy, you donât have principles⊠you have preferences. And preferences make terrible guardrails for state power.
Every time you cheer an exception, youâre not just celebrating a moment⊠youâre authoring a precedent. You're excusing the next guy, in any political party, and for any reason, to do it too.
If youâre applauding unilateral regime change today because the target is a villain, youâre also applauding unilateral regime change tomorrow when the target is someone you donât want touched. Power doesnât care about your intentions (or your preferences). It cares about the permission slip we seemingly always give it.
To be clear: Maduro is no hero. Heâs a tyrant who has presided over ruin and repression. But the question isnât whether Maduro is bad (he obviously is). The question is whether we are governed by law or by appetite.
Because âheâs badâ is not a constitutional argument, nor is "Venezuelans are happy and freer." Itâs the (fake) argument every president uses when he wants to do something he has already decided to do.
And this is why presidents since Washington have gotten away with exceeding constitutional limits: because the public trains them to. They learn that violating restraints can spark national pride, satisfy a thirst for vengeance, and earn adoration from people who swear they oppose unchecked powerâright up until it produces an outcome they like.
You want a country of laws? Then act like law matters when itâs inconvenient.
Stop treating the Constitution as a decoration.
Stop citing precedent as if it were permission.
Stop excusing todayâs overreach because you hate todayâs target.
Because the bill always comes due, and the payment is usually made by people who never voted for the war, never authorized the mission, and never wanted their country turned into the kind of thing it once claimed to oppose.
So yes, we can answer James Madisonâs question: âWill it be sufficient⊠to trust to these parchment barriers (i.e., the Constitution) against the encroaching spirit of power?â Obviously not. Parchment only restrains power when the people treat it as a leashânot a suggestion. When half the country cheers the leash getting snapped because their guy did it to their enemy, the paper might as well not exist. And that's the cycle we've long been in.
Yes, Venezuela may be a little freer, for now. But listen to the triumphalism in Trump's announcement. In the same breath as announcing Maduroâs capture, he talked about sending in âour very large United States oil companies,â and about the U.S. ârunningâ Venezuela's government âuntil such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.â
This is the raw material of unintended consequences: blowback, corruption, and the kind of protracted entanglement that turns âjust this onceâ into the next twenty years.
Count me out. I've seen this story before, and I don't like how it ends.
@WallStreetApes@hodgetwins Much of Europe has shown farmers what they need to do.
A couple of hundred tons of (cough) "product" donated to the US House in a robust and amusing manner might help to clarify the thinking of those who pretend to represent Americans.