If you gerrymander a representative democracy well enough, you can have 46% tell 54% what they have to do.
Democratic fascism
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
If you gerrymander a representative democracy well enough, you can have 46% tell 54% what they have to do.
Two things, with this logic you could argue that the existence of government period is authoritarian, since governments jobs are to dictate things to at least some degrees. ALso, your statement only works if the country doesnt have some sort of constitution that protects rights and freedoms. But again, as long as you can vote the people out, it still isnt really authoritarianism.
We could maybe help to establish a successful democratic republic in a small country like Guatemala, but we'd have to oversee it for at least 50 years. Doing it on the other side of the globe isn't feasible for a lot of reasons, the cost of it being the biggest one.
There's no doubt in my mind that the right person as benevolent dictator outperforms any other system of government. But just as the highs would be much higher, the lows would be much lower when that system puts the wrong person on the throne.
So in the case of Franco, where people were happy, the economy boomed, and poverty disappeared, would you say that is a good example of how an authoritarian system can be a good thing?
But this is sort of a different conversation. Do I think we choose who we vote for in this country? Yes and no. We have certainly allowed for corporate money to infiltrate our system, as well as things like gerrymandering. But, ultimately the people have allowed for this. In a government "by the people, for the people", the people have to do their part, and we are the ones who have allowed for this to happen. But in saying that, we can also change it if we actually wanted to, so it still wouldnt qualify as authoritarian.
Didn't Franco kill countless political threats early in his reign? I think he got less violent over time but hard to consider that benevolence. Authoritarian regimes can be very well managed and succeed economically. But you're not going to find many that actually embrace diversity of thought, protect the freedom of the press, etc.
I appreciate your post and your thoughts.
Government partnership has worked and works best for emergencies or services where most people don’t see a constant demand but are crucial, such as the military. We’ve been at the forefront of most of the technological and industrial eras because of entrepreneurship and market incentives and not because of government. It can and should work both ways.
The issue that I have is when the government starts teaming up with activism and implements regulations and systems for the good of society and for fairness that have ambiguous or abstract value and put our industries and businesses and labor at a disadvantage. It is distressing that Biden talks about competing with China while pushing increased tax packages, discriminatory lending practices, artificial labor wage controls, and forced green energy initiatives while doing nothing about China’s unwillingness to address any of those things. The unsaid about China is that they demand their people conform through penalty of ruin or death and there are no labor, safety, or environmental concerns getting in the way of their path to success. That will never be accepted in the US.
Yes. Franco was also very corrupt and used his power to enrich himself more than anything. Any authoritarian has to have some level of support obviously, or they would easily be removed, but I think crazy is going a bit overboard pretending the Franco was a beloved figure during his reign.
It's hard to say actually. I've seen anywhere between 100,000 and 400,000 people died in the Spanish Civil War but Francos opposition kind of had a civil war of their own going on where they were killing each other.
At it's core, you're pointing out how democracy can be manipulated. That's absolutely 100% true. In fact, you could argue that our system is basically devolving into two propaganda machines battling each other for mindshare.
But that's still light years better than state controlled propaganda with alternative viewpoints suppressed by the state. But I think you're too pessimistic on voting. If people like MTG can win elections to congress, then the "elites" have limited control.
It is also a quote that is constantly used out of context and actually misquoted. The actualy quote is "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The quote comes from a letter he wrote to the Governor of PA and was actually talking about a tax dispute. IT wasnt a generic quote, it was about a specific tax disagreement between the gov of PA and the legislature.
Under democratic fascism, you can have both liberty and security. While it is definitely driven by the free market, you have the backstop of a government viewing the picture from 30,000 feet to recognize potential weaknesses. If they see that too much focus is being put into growing potatoes and not enough focus being put into the steel industry, they can step in and say "guys, it looks like we need more steel, so can some of your labor force move over to help out in mining and refining for a couple of years? Good job on the potatoes, but now we need your help over here"
All those things that make China terrible from a human rights / pro-liberty perspective make them potentially far more efficient as an economic engine. I generally wear my Red White and Blue glasses and believe that a unified America can out innovate an authoritarian China going forward. But can a deeply divided America do the same? I'm highly skeptical.
I agree with you and sk8 in regards to China and don’t mean to get off topic but... We will never be able to compete in regards to labor but we can always be on the forefront of technology. I mentioned it in another thread but regardless of your thoughts on climate change and green energy why should usa not be the leading county in developing those new technologies. If China truly doesn’t care about the environment as stated it seems like a good place for the USA to take the leading position in an area that will most certainly dominate future job markets. Again, regardless your stance on climate change, the world at large is moving that way and there is a lot of money to be made in that transition
It wont be easy for sure. The worst part about though I think, is that do we even really know why we are divided? It seems like the division is based on a cult of personality more so than actual policies, and I dont know how we recover from that.
Your random asides about an ideology that doesnt exist, dont tend to make much sense.
A staggering, multibillion dollar industry has been built over the past 30 years to take advantage of America's culture clash.
They tell folks the MSM lies and, contrary to what they might hear, the world is really great when a 'rock-solid, conservative' Republican in office and how the world is coming to an end when a "vile, Godless' Democrat is in charge.
Absolutely not true. Hitler was Democratically elected and he saved Germany from economic destruction. Had he not gone the genocide route, fascism would probably be a very popular system today thanks to the successes of him, Mussolini, Franco, and Peron. It's a history of unparalleled economic and societal success up until the point that their power went to far. That's why we need fascism with a democratic hedge.
Why would you want a vile, godless anyone in charge? I'd prefer a man of virtue who believes and espouses religious beliefs that have led to his virtue, and then uses his authority to encourage others to also follow the same path. Success breeds success, and that isnt limited to economics.
That is an intentionally misleading take that came out recently. Just because he used it in one letter in one context doesn’t by any means imply that he only thought of it in that one context. In fact, that was a driving principle that he then also used in that context. To represent it as anything but is very wrong.
This is precisely why our economic enemies like to see us divided internally. I think China knows that we win any technological arms race that our political system decides to embrace. The best way to defeat us in the near term is keep us from getting off the ground.
I agree with you completely on green energy. I'm fairly neutral on climate change in general and certainly not an alarmist. But it makes absolutely no sense to me why you don't fully embrace the challenge to be the world's technological leaders on the issue. The space-race was mostly an ego flex but plenty of technological benefits came as a result. If nothing else, let's lead the world on green energy as an ego flex and reap whatever technological rewards result.
I also think this is one of those things were people read into quotes what they want, regardless of context. Liberty does not exist in the absence of security. Your right to personal liberty is contingent upon the apparatus that secures those rights. If I live in a society that says I'm free, but does nothing to stop the bands of marauders that pillage neighborhoods without consequence, then that liberty does not exist in practice.
I'm mostly troubled when we sacrifice freedom for the appearance of security. Everything is a tradeoff.
Yeah, I get all of that, but it is still up to people to be able to wade through the bullshit. The scary part about what is going on now, is that we arent really divided over policy. Yes we disagree on things, but we have disagreed on things since even before the country was founded, so thats normal. So the only thing that is really dividing us, is this cult of personality from certain politicians and news outlets, but that still doesnt really explain why people are falling for it. Our day to day experiences should tell us more about society than what Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow say, yet it seems like people will ignore their own reality, and be drawn to people who sit in fancy studios and make millions of dollars who tell them what their reality is. I dont know how we move past this division, when the division really isnt based on anything real.
I think he was trying to be (especially with his actions after the election, I dont really think its debatable anymore), but our institutions held up and prevented it.
I would say social media is a huge reason why people are falling for it regardless of political affiliations. So much information and most folks don’t read past a headline. I work with a lot of smart people and in casual conversations a lot of them regurgitate ridiculous talking points from the media/social media....and if I had to guess they all probably think it’s their original thought.
Social media is certainly a huge part of it. It gives every dumb person a platform, and other dumb people will read or listen to them and believe every dumb word they say, as long as it is something they want to be true.
Which is why “the pursuit of happiness” includes the right to defend yourself and, up until recently, your property.
I don’t know man, I know a lot of people that could give a rats ass about personality but are strongly against a lot of the policies that the Biden administration is rolling out or reversing.
But that is normal, we are never all going to agree on policy. The difference now, is how we essentially act like the other side are our enemies simply because we dont agree with their policies.
I think your echo chamber certainly put forth that image for four years and it’s understandable that you would believe that is truth. So when people point out that he deferred to the federal district courts whenever some judge decided that his opinion formed policy where the judicial had no jurisdiction, that he worked through the organizations like the CDC and FDA to get things done rather than by executive order, that he asked companies to produce medical supplies rather than use the DPA as the first resort, when he directed the executive to play a supporting and coordinating role to states in so many matters rather than increase the federal power by directing and forcing, and on and on, it’s understandable that you don’t give them any credence.
Ah. I agree on that. But that’s far more than a cult of personality with Trump. Trump was a symptom of that already going on for years.
I am not talking about the courts, I am talking about the riot which he certainly instigated, but pretty sure you knew that.
Similar threads
