Sure, its a fine line, because Trump could lead to the stagnation.
But, what if, the threat of a centralized extractive institution leads to a resurgence of states and private sector leading key initiatives?
We’re already seeing a bit of this:
1. California reacting as opposed to DT’s immigration policy: http://www.latimes.com/…/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updat…
2. Oregon pushing back on voter fraud allegations: http://kuow.org/…/washington-oregon-secretaries-state-react…
3. California and New York plan to move ahead with anti-climate change initiative with renewed vigor: https://www.nytimes.com/…/states-will-lead-on-climate-chang…
4. Bill Gates set up a $1 billion climate change fund: http://fortune.com/…/12/11/bill-gates-john-doerr-venture-f…/
Could this lead to a curtailment of the effective power of the federal government? The federal government has always meant to be a coordinating agency rather than the sole executive power.
This power has gradually increased over time. Especially in the post world war 2 era where the executive branch holds the keys to the nuclear weapons.
Maybe this will swing the pendulum back in the other direction?
What do you think?
^Day 192/90 205 words
Konrad Kopczynski 