politics

People overestimate the threat of reactionary anti-institutionalism in the first term, but underestimate it in the second term. 

The first Trump term threatened to be a wrecking ball but landed like a hand-swung sledgehammer in just a few places. The worst damage (SCOTUS capture) was dealt by McConnell’s senate and Federslist society, not Trump. 

The second term looks like a moderated, mellowed rubber mallet but will likely land like a wrecking ball.

Delver at contraptions.venkateshrao.com, running summerofprotocols.com, host of /gloom ☀️

They usually don't have as strong of a second term majority.

> The last four second-term presidents were, on average, 30 percent less successful on House votes. George W. Bush was 41.4 percent less successful with House members during his second term, followed by Obama at 38.1 percent. Clinton and Reagan came in at 20.6 percent and 20.1 percent less successful, respectively.

https://rollcall.com/2024/02/26/data-suggest-biden-or-trump-may-struggle-with-congress-in-second-term/

Potentially the first president in the modern era not worried about re-election?

what would be an alt example? one that comes to mind is berlusconi who was a short lived buffoon in act one and then a bigger buffoon in act 2, leading to a dramatic increase in corruption and stagnant growth despite puffed out chest thumpery

lots of parallels

Agreed, but the real damage was always going to be by judicial appointments.  Very few presidents actually get an agenda off the ground.  Trump will appoint more Fed Soc. judges sliding this country further and further backwards.