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
Your question avoids the biggest issue with that sort of dictatorship - the fact that it replaces peaceful electoral competition for power with force, that can as easily result in chaos and civil war as a stable dictatorship.
With that off the table, the big issue is that kind of benevolent dictatorship has a tendency to start off strong and then decay as the original ruling clique who actually had some ideals die off and are replaced by their subordinates who got into working in an autocratic government for the power. Too bad Bernie is so old, we wouldn’t get that many years of him on top. Not worth it in the long run even if you do get some policy benefits in the short run. Unless you think the odds of Trump becoming a dictator instead are high enough that it’s better to take a chance on a better dictator, which is the kind of calculation that results in the civil wars and such I mentioned above.
Just calling out Bernie as a random example of someone with known policies. Trump by that same metric is also near death, probably more so than Bernie.
Not talking about what comes next. But what comes now. Of course human nature is to be greedy and start off nice and turn evil. But that’s not always true of dictatorships because generally a family has some checks and balances of their own, or there’s a coup and it swaps. But the question is really just do you want to live under authoritarianism of what you believe in, or democracy where half the people want the opposite of what you want.
I like democracy because it tends to produce more of the results that I like than authoritarianism. A dictatorship that sustainably produces better results than democracy would by definition be better, but from what I can tell that’s not possible.
But the question is really just do you want to live under authoritarianism of what you believe in, or democracy where half the people want the opposite of what you want.
Neither. I want to live under a democracy where there’s a real social safety net, and where there’s no financial interest in spreading misinformation and platforming rage, so that the breadth of opinions diffuses back into a more stable configuration (and away from the fringes) such that half the people (probably less) don’t want the opposite of what I want anymore, they just prefer slightly different paths of attaining the same goal.
But that has a basis in authoritarianism. You want a social safety net. Small government people, that make up half the US, do not. You want a cap on political spending, and maybe even censorship (disallowing misinformation media), and many do not.
You want a country made up of people almost all like you with small differences in day to day governance but no differences in the big ticket items. Is that achievable in a democratic Republic or parliamentary system in a modern global age? I don’t think it is.
Oh, please, tell me more about what I want. PLEASE do.
You want a social safety net. Small government people, that make up half the US,
[citation needed]
do not.
Actually they do, they’ve just been told a lie since the 1980s that “social safety net” = “socialism,” and that “socialism” = “totalitarianism.” But that was entirely invented to justify the Cold War, and has essentially no basis in reality. And in reality, it was bipartisan: Republicans Reagan and Nixon signed EITC, WIC, and SSI into law in the 1970s. Democrat LBJ pushed the “Great Society” programs of the 1960s. FDR’s “New Deal” was an unbelievably popular governmental program in the late 1930s, and it was a social safety net.
So a social safety net is incredibly popular, but you’re a rich guy who wants that money going to you instead. What do you do?
Associate that social safety net with the country’s greatest enemy. Come up with the idea of “trickle-down economics” and buy a news corporation to sell the idea to the masses.
Boom, easy-peasy, now the money is coming to you. But wait, there are people who don’t buy it and still want the “New Deal.” So what do you do? Get them all arguing about how to implement a social safety net. Blow legitimate concerns way out of proportion and make everyone scream at each other.
Works every time. Now it’s not popular anymore because all people can hear is the shouting.
You want a cap on political spending,
As of 2015, 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats favor overturning “Citizens United” constitutionally. Over 77% of Americans agree that there should be some sort of campaign finance reform limiting the amount of money individuals or groups can spend on campaigns. 83% of Americans agree that political contributions should be disclosed. Campaign finance reform is a remarkably unifying and bipartisan idea.
and maybe even censorship (disallowing misinformation media), and many do not.
Making an argument in bad faith? That’s a paddlin’. I didn’t say I wanted to “censor” misinformation (though I do think that more money should be spent on media literacy). I said I wanted to remove the financial interest in spreading it; and campaign finance would go a long way toward that.
You want a country made up of people almost all like you with small differences in day to day governance but no differences in the big ticket items.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? I never said that, and I never thought that. No! Stop arguing in bad faith.
Is that achievable in a democratic Republic or parliamentary system in a modern global age? I don’t think it is.
Is a monoculture of people exactly like me achievable? Good lord I hope not. That sounds awful. But is it possible to get money out of politics to the point where our country can recover and get away from the walls? Probably not entirely, but I think we can do a whole lot better than we currently are.
Your question avoids the biggest issue with that sort of dictatorship - the fact that it replaces peaceful electoral competition for power with force, that can as easily result in chaos and civil war as a stable dictatorship.
With that off the table, the big issue is that kind of benevolent dictatorship has a tendency to start off strong and then decay as the original ruling clique who actually had some ideals die off and are replaced by their subordinates who got into working in an autocratic government for the power. Too bad Bernie is so old, we wouldn’t get that many years of him on top. Not worth it in the long run even if you do get some policy benefits in the short run. Unless you think the odds of Trump becoming a dictator instead are high enough that it’s better to take a chance on a better dictator, which is the kind of calculation that results in the civil wars and such I mentioned above.
Just calling out Bernie as a random example of someone with known policies. Trump by that same metric is also near death, probably more so than Bernie.
Not talking about what comes next. But what comes now. Of course human nature is to be greedy and start off nice and turn evil. But that’s not always true of dictatorships because generally a family has some checks and balances of their own, or there’s a coup and it swaps. But the question is really just do you want to live under authoritarianism of what you believe in, or democracy where half the people want the opposite of what you want.
I like democracy because it tends to produce more of the results that I like than authoritarianism. A dictatorship that sustainably produces better results than democracy would by definition be better, but from what I can tell that’s not possible.
Neither. I want to live under a democracy where there’s a real social safety net, and where there’s no financial interest in spreading misinformation and platforming rage, so that the breadth of opinions diffuses back into a more stable configuration (and away from the fringes) such that half the people (probably less) don’t want the opposite of what I want anymore, they just prefer slightly different paths of attaining the same goal.
But that has a basis in authoritarianism. You want a social safety net. Small government people, that make up half the US, do not. You want a cap on political spending, and maybe even censorship (disallowing misinformation media), and many do not.
You want a country made up of people almost all like you with small differences in day to day governance but no differences in the big ticket items. Is that achievable in a democratic Republic or parliamentary system in a modern global age? I don’t think it is.
Oh, please, tell me more about what I want. PLEASE do.
[citation needed]
Actually they do, they’ve just been told a lie since the 1980s that “social safety net” = “socialism,” and that “socialism” = “totalitarianism.” But that was entirely invented to justify the Cold War, and has essentially no basis in reality. And in reality, it was bipartisan: Republicans Reagan and Nixon signed EITC, WIC, and SSI into law in the 1970s. Democrat LBJ pushed the “Great Society” programs of the 1960s. FDR’s “New Deal” was an unbelievably popular governmental program in the late 1930s, and it was a social safety net.
So a social safety net is incredibly popular, but you’re a rich guy who wants that money going to you instead. What do you do?
Associate that social safety net with the country’s greatest enemy. Come up with the idea of “trickle-down economics” and buy a news corporation to sell the idea to the masses.
Boom, easy-peasy, now the money is coming to you. But wait, there are people who don’t buy it and still want the “New Deal.” So what do you do? Get them all arguing about how to implement a social safety net. Blow legitimate concerns way out of proportion and make everyone scream at each other.
Works every time. Now it’s not popular anymore because all people can hear is the shouting.
As of 2015, 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats favor overturning “Citizens United” constitutionally. Over 77% of Americans agree that there should be some sort of campaign finance reform limiting the amount of money individuals or groups can spend on campaigns. 83% of Americans agree that political contributions should be disclosed. Campaign finance reform is a remarkably unifying and bipartisan idea.
Making an argument in bad faith? That’s a paddlin’. I didn’t say I wanted to “censor” misinformation (though I do think that more money should be spent on media literacy). I said I wanted to remove the financial interest in spreading it; and campaign finance would go a long way toward that.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? I never said that, and I never thought that. No! Stop arguing in bad faith.
Is a monoculture of people exactly like me achievable? Good lord I hope not. That sounds awful. But is it possible to get money out of politics to the point where our country can recover and get away from the walls? Probably not entirely, but I think we can do a whole lot better than we currently are.