In the past week or so, the courts have begun to try to set some boundaries on the MuskāMillerāTrump administrationās early blitz of recklessness.
. . .
This judicial review provides at least a small reprieve, hope that some of the administrationās most destructive impulses will be stopped. Or at least pared back. But even with the courts stepping up, and even with the reality of the administrationās ineptitude sinking in, this early MuskāMillerāTrump blitz remains veryāmaybe irreparablyādamaging. Of course, there are a lot of moles to whack: the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are being dismantled at an alarming rate, and the court system is not known for being nimble. The administration is betting, perhaps rightly, that at least some of its thoughtless, lawless efforts will slip through the cracks.
But even if the courts caught them allāand even if every court facing each lawless escapade said, āNope, thatās not a thingāāstill the entire process would be doing serious damage to our institutions. Think of it as someone spoofing your identity and going on a shopping spree with your credit cards. Even if the goon gets caught, you still have to go store by store to argue that the fraudulent purchase wasnāt legitimate and hope the debt is forgiven. And all the while, perhaps long after all the debts are dealt with, the torrent of uncertainty kills your credit score.
Letās all stop paying federal taxes
Doing only that would just give them more fodder to complain about a deficit. Mass violent resistance is just an excuse for crackdowns and martial law.
One interesting and simple idea Iāve seen is just opting out of the consumer economy. Americans in any socioeconomic strata can just stop buying anything but the bare minimum.
General strikes are effective but hard to coordinate and maintain, most people canāt risk skipping a paycheck. But anyone can switch to beans and rice, cancel subscriptions, learn to repair their own clothes, buy a phone second hand, etcā¦ Since a massive portion of our economy is driven by that spending (68% of our GDP) it would definitely hurt, but they couldnāt ignore it.
Itās easy to do and doesnāt have an outsized impact on poor or at risk groups, and itās not all or nothing so any way you can cut helps. I wonder how theyād react to 200 million people on an economic hunger strikeā¦
What could possibly go wrong?