We should already be talking about what it would be like, if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, to live under a developing autocracy. Beyond the publicized plans of those around him to gut the
The reason people are terrified of an authoritarian regime isn’t because a dictator Republican is going to force lower taxes on people. It’s because of the state and private violence. I may have hated Reagan and W because of their policies, but neither of them would have tried to overthrow the government of the US and replace it with a dictatorship. If either of them lost their election, they would have conceded. Neither of them promised while running for office that they would enact a dictatorship.
The problem with your question is that you’re assuming that what we have an issue with are republican policies. It’s true, we do. That’s not the biggest problem with Trump, though, and the linked article makes that quite clear.
To be honest, I wish Obama had been more successful in passing a national healthcare program. I hated that he had campaigned for Lieberman (because the default position is to support the incumbent) rather than his from-the-left challenger in the primaries, and that L went on to tank the public option. But I wish that Obama had used every ounce of political power to ram it through, or had thrown L to the dogs and went all in on getting a more liberal senate. I don’t wish Obama had dictatorial power.
I don’t even particularly favor having an executive branch that’s separate from the legislature. I think that parliamentary democracy is a better approach (although it has its issues too).
The policies are independent of the question. Insert your own policies to answer the question truthfully.
Current US democracy allowed for a (failed) armed insurrection of the government. And current US democracy is allowing that failed coup leader to run again just like Germany 100 years ago. It’s pretty obvious that democracy does not offer such protections. It requires the populous to not be idiots assuming everything else works properly.
I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t think it’s honest. I know you have to say that because you have to believe in all people having valid opinions and equality and so on. But deep down, I’m not sure you even believe it based on what you said.
If Obama had authoritarian abilities or was able to be a dictator for just one day like Trump wants to be, and he rammed healthcare out the system, I think you’d view that as a net positive.
In a world where 30% of your fellow countryman hate you (doesn’t matter which side, it’s about that) and another 10% strongly believe things polar opposite to what you believe, I fail to see how anyone that is honest with themselves would say they prefer a democracy (Republic or parliamentary or even absolute) unless they were absolutely sure that they would win the vote and could get their policies passed. And all that is, is authoritarianism with extra steps.
I ask the question because I’m curious what people think nowadays. The gut response is always democracy is sacred. That’s what you’re taught to believe.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not a new idea. What you’re proposing is (as far as I can see) the Platonic philosopher-king. They would rule fairly and wisely - since they agree with me and I am fair and wise.
But let’s make sure we are being fair here. It’s not “democracy” that allowed for an armed insurrection against the government. Armed insurrections against governments occur in totalitarian regimes all the time. I can recommend a 400 page biography of Che if you want a reference. British democracy allowed the IRA. Iranian dictatorship allowed for the Islamic revolution. There are multiple civil wars going on right now around the world under multiple systems of government.
I absolutely don’t believe that all people have equally valid opinions. I don’t even believe that people have free will. I agree with Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky that everything people do is predetermined. I’ve gotten very deep into that in other conversations on here so I don’t want to repeat all of that, but I can say that democracy allows for more dynamic adaptation. My position on free will makes these discussions more nuanced - human behavior is determined but not predictable - so I prefer to think of it in terms of information flows.
So let me do my thing as a theoretical biologist. Do ants have democracy? I’d argue that they do, in a very real sense. Emergent behaviors - where each ant’s activity influences others’ activities - is a coordinating action. The queen ant isn’t the brain of the colony. She’s the reproductive organ. The brain of the colony is the ants themselves, the ants whose genetically driven programs respond to their environment and peers in a way that is responsive.
Current US democracy allowed for a (failed) armed insurrection of the government. And current US democracy is allowing that failed coup leader to run again just like Germany 100 years ago. It’s pretty obvious that democracy does not offer such protections. It requires the populous to not be idiots assuming everything else works properly.
Sure, but Russian monarchy allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government in 1917. Chinese imperialism allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government in 1911-1912. French monarchy in 1789 allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government. And, lest we forget, British monarchy in 1776 allowed for a successful armed insurrection in the Americas. They all faced a problem of stability, in addition to the problems inherent in monarchies.
The reason people are terrified of an authoritarian regime isn’t because a dictator Republican is going to force lower taxes on people. It’s because of the state and private violence. I may have hated Reagan and W because of their policies, but neither of them would have tried to overthrow the government of the US and replace it with a dictatorship. If either of them lost their election, they would have conceded. Neither of them promised while running for office that they would enact a dictatorship.
The problem with your question is that you’re assuming that what we have an issue with are republican policies. It’s true, we do. That’s not the biggest problem with Trump, though, and the linked article makes that quite clear.
To be honest, I wish Obama had been more successful in passing a national healthcare program. I hated that he had campaigned for Lieberman (because the default position is to support the incumbent) rather than his from-the-left challenger in the primaries, and that L went on to tank the public option. But I wish that Obama had used every ounce of political power to ram it through, or had thrown L to the dogs and went all in on getting a more liberal senate. I don’t wish Obama had dictatorial power.
I don’t even particularly favor having an executive branch that’s separate from the legislature. I think that parliamentary democracy is a better approach (although it has its issues too).
The policies are independent of the question. Insert your own policies to answer the question truthfully.
Current US democracy allowed for a (failed) armed insurrection of the government. And current US democracy is allowing that failed coup leader to run again just like Germany 100 years ago. It’s pretty obvious that democracy does not offer such protections. It requires the populous to not be idiots assuming everything else works properly.
I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t think it’s honest. I know you have to say that because you have to believe in all people having valid opinions and equality and so on. But deep down, I’m not sure you even believe it based on what you said.
If Obama had authoritarian abilities or was able to be a dictator for just one day like Trump wants to be, and he rammed healthcare out the system, I think you’d view that as a net positive.
In a world where 30% of your fellow countryman hate you (doesn’t matter which side, it’s about that) and another 10% strongly believe things polar opposite to what you believe, I fail to see how anyone that is honest with themselves would say they prefer a democracy (Republic or parliamentary or even absolute) unless they were absolutely sure that they would win the vote and could get their policies passed. And all that is, is authoritarianism with extra steps.
I ask the question because I’m curious what people think nowadays. The gut response is always democracy is sacred. That’s what you’re taught to believe.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not a new idea. What you’re proposing is (as far as I can see) the Platonic philosopher-king. They would rule fairly and wisely - since they agree with me and I am fair and wise.
But let’s make sure we are being fair here. It’s not “democracy” that allowed for an armed insurrection against the government. Armed insurrections against governments occur in totalitarian regimes all the time. I can recommend a 400 page biography of Che if you want a reference. British democracy allowed the IRA. Iranian dictatorship allowed for the Islamic revolution. There are multiple civil wars going on right now around the world under multiple systems of government.
I absolutely don’t believe that all people have equally valid opinions. I don’t even believe that people have free will. I agree with Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky that everything people do is predetermined. I’ve gotten very deep into that in other conversations on here so I don’t want to repeat all of that, but I can say that democracy allows for more dynamic adaptation. My position on free will makes these discussions more nuanced - human behavior is determined but not predictable - so I prefer to think of it in terms of information flows.
So let me do my thing as a theoretical biologist. Do ants have democracy? I’d argue that they do, in a very real sense. Emergent behaviors - where each ant’s activity influences others’ activities - is a coordinating action. The queen ant isn’t the brain of the colony. She’s the reproductive organ. The brain of the colony is the ants themselves, the ants whose genetically driven programs respond to their environment and peers in a way that is responsive.
It comes down to information flows.
Sure, but Russian monarchy allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government in 1917. Chinese imperialism allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government in 1911-1912. French monarchy in 1789 allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government. And, lest we forget, British monarchy in 1776 allowed for a successful armed insurrection in the Americas. They all faced a problem of stability, in addition to the problems inherent in monarchies.