By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s second term deviates sharply from predecessors, exhibiting characteristics of an elected monarchy rather than a republic. His governance relies heavily on executive orders—exceeding previous presidents’ rates—often bypassing Congress and targeting institutions critical of his administration. This includes intimidation tactics against the judiciary, media outlets, and universities, coupled with the declaration of multiple national emergencies to expand executive power. Such actions, combined with his foreign policy choices, raise serious concerns about the erosion of democratic norms and institutions in the United States.
Read the original article here
After 100 days, Trump’s presidency feels like a vengeful monarchy. The sheer volume of executive orders, far exceeding any precedent, signifies a governing style that circumvents the legislative branch, mirroring the actions of a monarch issuing edicts rather than collaborating through legislation. This bypass of Congress is alarming, revealing a disregard for the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system. The speed at which these orders are implemented further underscores this perception; a swift, unilateral approach contrasts starkly with the deliberative nature of a representative government.
The dismantling of agencies and departments, built over decades, is similarly indicative of a vengeful, almost destructive approach to governance. These actions suggest a deliberate dismantling of established systems, potentially motivated by a desire to reshape the government in a personal image rather than through constructive collaboration. Such a rapid and comprehensive dismantling signifies a disregard for institutional knowledge and long-term stability, further reinforcing the feeling of a vengeful power grab.
Congress’s apparent inaction, characterized as having the “relevance of Putin’s Duma,” intensifies the impression of a monarchy. The lack of meaningful legislative response to the executive’s actions undermines the principle of divided power and suggests a complicity in the erosion of democratic processes. This legislative passivity further strengthens the perception of an unchecked executive branch operating as a de facto monarchy.
The rhetoric employed in many of these executive orders, described as “sneering” and “unusually laden with rhetoric,” further contributes to the sense of a vengeful reign. This aggressive and personal tone departs from the expected neutrality and professionalism of government decrees, implying a personal vendetta rather than objective governance. This highly personalized approach strengthens the idea of a ruler acting on personal grievances, not for the collective good.
This pattern of executive overreach and legislative inaction resonates with the idea of a revenge tour, precisely as it was described and predicted. The actions taken by the administration seem driven by retribution, targeting specific individuals and groups, seemingly ignoring the broader public interest. This focus on personal grudges rather than national concerns fuels the perception of a vengeful power wielding unchecked authority.
The lack of surprise among many regarding this turn of events highlights a concerning trend. It suggests a normalization of authoritarian tendencies, a growing acceptance of disregard for established institutions, and a widespread understanding that the current path aligns perfectly with the expressed intentions of the leader. This underscores the gravity of the situation, pointing to a concerning erosion of democratic norms and processes.
The frequent comparisons to historical figures like Stalin and Caligula further highlight the disturbing parallels between the current leadership and the tyrannical rulers of the past. These comparisons arise from the perceived abuse of power, the disregard for democratic institutions, and the focus on personal vengeance. The unsettling echoes of past dictatorships underscore the gravity of the situation and reinforce the sense of a vengeful monarchy emerging within a democratic framework.
The idea that this is not just a “feeling” but a demonstrable reality is a key point. The evidence of executive overreach, legislative inaction, and disregard for established norms all point to a power structure fundamentally at odds with a functioning democracy. This reality demands attention and immediate action to protect and preserve democratic principles.
Finally, the failure to properly characterize the situation as a dictatorship, or at least a drastic movement towards one, highlights a societal weakness. The continued use of softer terms, like “feels like a vengeful monarchy,” risks downplaying the magnitude of the threat. This subtle softening of language, while potentially intended to maintain civility, may ultimately hinder the recognition and response to the dangerous erosion of democratic governance.