I can tell them apart, but the result of the two is the same because once you centralize power (to get more leftist stuff done faster), those with power realize that the far-right offers dictators more. See Russia, for starters. Look at lists of what countries have the smallest percentage of poor people - it’s all social-ish democracies like Iceland, Japan, and France.
A more powerful democracy leads to more centralization. Because a more powerful democracy is a more powerful government. When you increase the size and scope of the things that a central government can control you by definition increase it’s power.
A larger government doesn’t mean that power is centralized in that government. Power centralization depends on who has and is wielding power. With an authoritarian government, the power is centralized to a very few number of people. The power in a democratic government is spread amongst the people which makes it very decentralized. The government may be big or small, but that doesn’t really matter in terms of power.
A “stronger democracy” at least in the context of modern Republics does mean a stronger central government; especially when implemented from a Western “Liberal” party. The thing is, in that these systems the choice isn’t (or at least Pre-Trump wasn’t) between a dictator and a democracy. It was a decision between federalization and centralization. Between limitations on a legislative branch of government or mob rule.
Strong Democracies gave us things like Jim Crow. Strong power delegation gave us things like Brown vs. Board of Education.
Not necessarily, there is nothing saying that a strong democracy will result in a big government. Just like there is nothing preventing authoritarians from having a big government.
I will agree though, if you are authoritarian, you probably don’t want a big government, it is just easier to threaten and enact violence against your people to get the outcomes you want. Likewise with a democracy creating state structures to help get peoples needs met gives you a higher chance of getting reelected.
Not necessarily, there is nothing saying that a strong democracy will result in a big government. Just like there is nothing preventing authoritarians from having a big government.
In theory, maybe that’s true. But that’s not the intention, design or historical reality of the situation.
I will agree though, if you are authoritarian, you probably don’t want a big government, it is just easier to threaten and enact violence against your people to get the outcomes you want.
Maybe but you definitely don’t want a heavily Federalized government. Federalization always diminishes the power of a central government.
I can tell them apart, but the result of the two is the same because once you centralize power (to get more leftist stuff done faster), those with power realize that the far-right offers dictators more. See Russia, for starters. Look at lists of what countries have the smallest percentage of poor people - it’s all social-ish democracies like Iceland, Japan, and France.
I think most leftists are against power centralization. Most leftist want a more powerful democracy.
A more powerful democracy leads to more centralization. Because a more powerful democracy is a more powerful government. When you increase the size and scope of the things that a central government can control you by definition increase it’s power.
A larger government doesn’t mean that power is centralized in that government. Power centralization depends on who has and is wielding power. With an authoritarian government, the power is centralized to a very few number of people. The power in a democratic government is spread amongst the people which makes it very decentralized. The government may be big or small, but that doesn’t really matter in terms of power.
A “stronger democracy” at least in the context of modern Republics does mean a stronger central government; especially when implemented from a Western “Liberal” party. The thing is, in that these systems the choice isn’t (or at least Pre-Trump wasn’t) between a dictator and a democracy. It was a decision between federalization and centralization. Between limitations on a legislative branch of government or mob rule.
Strong Democracies gave us things like Jim Crow. Strong power delegation gave us things like Brown vs. Board of Education.
Not necessarily, there is nothing saying that a strong democracy will result in a big government. Just like there is nothing preventing authoritarians from having a big government.
I will agree though, if you are authoritarian, you probably don’t want a big government, it is just easier to threaten and enact violence against your people to get the outcomes you want. Likewise with a democracy creating state structures to help get peoples needs met gives you a higher chance of getting reelected.
In theory, maybe that’s true. But that’s not the intention, design or historical reality of the situation.
Maybe but you definitely don’t want a heavily Federalized government. Federalization always diminishes the power of a central government.
What do you mean by this?
In general I prefer decentralized power. The fewer people with power leads to bad outcomes. People become expendable.
deleted by creator