How democracies slide into authoritarianism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/07/how-democracies-slide-into-authoritarianism/
"But this was not just a story of individuals: Milosz also explains why proud and formerly free nations gradually submitted to the compulsions of others. This process hardly ever occurred all at once. The changes happened slowly, almost imperceptibly, and began by a weakening of the will to resist."
"Around the world, authoritarian rulers are on the march, waging a sustained assault on facts, reason and democracy. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian states have worked to interfere with and suppress debate in other nations, just as they stifle dissent at home. While Milosz’s message holds special relevance for those living in autocracies, its resonance extends to both free and unfree nations today.
He reminds us that yes-men always accompany the rise of would-be authoritarians. Pointing to the roles that fear, greed, tribalism and ambition play, he underscores that while the motivations for accommodation can vary, the end result â€" obedience â€" remains constant."
For the past 2/3 decades I have noticed this, but refused to think it would have much of an impact on my country. Trump saw and acted upon what I had seen and refused to accept. People are sheeple, especially in this country when controlled by religions. Now it seems the entire world is rejecting all forms of democracy or republics in favor of dictators. I have tried to figure that out, but I just can't wrap my head around it.
When living in South Florida I knew many Cuban (and a few Russian) defectors. Most were staunch Republicans as they felt abandoned by JFK during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and were wary of any form of Socialism. My impression of them was they were sharp, hard workers. In conversations they mentioned that most of their fellow citizens they left behind were simply lazy. They wanted someone to think for them, to tell them what to and when to do it.
Watching the "Bald and Bankrupt" youtube blogger as he travels the old soviet block it seems many of the older people lament the fall of the Soviet Union and long for the old days. Most of the old block from Russia to Estonia and Ukraine makes the US infrastructure look good, LOL. For example...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ7-sGmNrDw
Quote from: Cassia on March 05, 2021, 11:34:42 AM
When living in South Florida I knew many Cuban (and a few Russian) defectors. Most were staunch Republicans as they felt abandoned by JFK during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and were wary of any form of Socialism. My impression of them was they were sharp, hard workers. In conversations they mentioned that most of their fellow citizens they left behind were simply lazy. They wanted someone to think for them, to tell them what to and when to do it.
Watching the "Bald and Bankrupt" youtube blogger as he travels the old soviet block it seems many of the older people lament the fall of the Soviet Union and long for the old days. Most of the old block from Russia to Estonia and Ukraine makes the US infrastructure look good, LOL. For example...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ7-sGmNrDw
Interesting Russian saying--In my inner world. My inner world is certainty changing. It is not a change for the better. The US is following in the footsteps of the video--we are slowly, ever so slowly crumbling. Everything from being a coherent country to the infrastructure; one chip, one nick, at a time. We did dodge a bullet on Jan. 6. But that was not the end. As a republic, we have a huge climb ahead and I am not at all sure we will stay a republic.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 05, 2021, 10:48:38 AM
How democracies slide into authoritarianism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/07/how-democracies-slide-into-authoritarianism/
"But this was not just a story of individuals: Milosz also explains why proud and formerly free nations gradually submitted to the compulsions of others. This process hardly ever occurred all at once. The changes happened slowly, almost imperceptibly, and began by a weakening of the will to resist."
"Around the world, authoritarian rulers are on the march, waging a sustained assault on facts, reason and democracy. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian states have worked to interfere with and suppress debate in other nations, just as they stifle dissent at home. While Milosz’s message holds special relevance for those living in autocracies, its resonance extends to both free and unfree nations today.
He reminds us that yes-men always accompany the rise of would-be authoritarians. Pointing to the roles that fear, greed, tribalism and ambition play, he underscores that while the motivations for accommodation can vary, the end result â€" obedience â€" remains constant."
For the past 2/3 decades I have noticed this, but refused to think it would have much of an impact on my country. Trump saw and acted upon what I had seen and refused to accept. People are sheeple, especially in this country when controlled by religions. Now it seems the entire world is rejecting all forms of democracy or republics in favor of dictators. I have tried to figure that out, but I just can't wrap my head around it.
Perhaps the bar is too lowered that democrats become authoritarianism or people of all political sides watch their media outlets religiously. Either way world wide decency is gone especially in America, and the only way to get it back is through command or war.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on March 05, 2021, 03:24:30 PM
Perhaps the bar is too lowered that democrats become authoritarianism or people of all political sides watch their media outlets religiously. Either way world wide decency is gone especially in America, and the only way to get it back is through command or war.
The eroding of 'truth' is a big red flag! The extreme right has had the 'media' in its sight for decades and trumps nonstop lying has hastened the process. People are caring less and less what the truth is, what the facts are; only what they deem the truth to be or what the facts are to them matters any more. Dictators love that type of of environment.
I’ve often wondered if my atheism was actually proceeded because of a loner-rebel state of mind or if by deciding to become an atheist led me to be more of a loner-rebel. I am not one for authority, however I have no issue with “obeying†civic rules that are fundamentally considerate, like waiting in line for anything, waving in a car waiting to enter my lane, following the rules for inclusion to any group, organization or business type forum. But as for blanket acceptance of authority...I kinda bow up a little bit. Perhaps this in one little fly in the ointment of religion. Being told that your actions, but only good ones that are approved will grant you a reward, while good actions not approved would render one unfit for such award. That just puts a “spur in my saddleâ€.
Orwellian much?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2021, 02:10:45 PM
Orwellian much?
More or less so. I'll take it as the props you intended.
Quote from: aitm on March 07, 2021, 06:12:03 PM
More or less so. I'll take it as the props you intended.
And what was the props I intended? Asking for a friend.
No, no. No backsies, I appreciate the compliment.
Interesting discussion on historical public responses to pandemics in the US and how the current situation is fueling extremism. The pandemic has created multiple stressors which have made people feel weak and disempowered. Currently, there is little faith in institutions, including all three branches of government, news agencies, and medical experts. Authoritarian and extremist narratives identify an enemy, encourage polarization, and make people feel empowered and in control by giving them a focus for their anger. That is also what conspiracy theories do-- they give people a sense of control. Many people simply can't tolerate uncertainty and will follow authoritarian leaders who promise to restore order.
https://youtu.be/HcgWP8wSk7g
Mike, you might find this article of interest. The authors discuss why they predicted the increase of political upheaval and offer recommendations on how to end "The Age of Discord."
Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’ (https://www.noemamag.com/welcome-to-the-turbulent-twenties/)
Almost three decades ago, one of us, Jack Goldstone, published a simple model to determine a country’s vulnerability to political crisis. The model was based on how population changes shifted state, elite and popular behavior. Goldstone argued that, according to this Demographic-Structural Theory, in the 21st century, America was likely to get a populist, America-first leader who would sow a whirlwind of conflict.
Then ten years ago, the other of us, Peter Turchin, applied Goldstone’s model to U.S. history, using current data. What emerged was alarming: The U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years. Even before Trump was elected, Turchin published his prediction that the U.S. was headed for the “Turbulent Twenties,†forecasting a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe.
Given the Black Lives Matter protests and cascading clashes between competing armed factions in cities across the United States, from Portland, Oregon to Kenosha, Wisconsin, we are already well on our way there. But worse likely lies ahead.
Our model is based on the fact that across history, what creates the risk of political instability is the behavior of elites, who all too often react to long-term increases in population by committing three cardinal sins. First, faced with a surge of labor that dampens growth in wages and productivity, elites seek to take a larger portion of economic gains for themselves, driving up inequality. Second, facing greater competition for elite wealth and status, they tighten up the path to mobility to favor themselves and their progeny. For example, in an increasingly meritocratic society, elites could keep places at top universities limited and raise the entry requirements and costs in ways that favor the children of those who had already succeeded.
Third, anxious to hold on to their rising fortunes, they do all they can to resist taxation of their wealth and profits, even if that means starving the government of needed revenues, leading to decaying infrastructure, declining public services and fast-rising government debts.
Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions. They create simmering conditions of greater inequality and declining effectiveness of, and respect for, government. But their actions alone are not sufficient. Urbanization and greater education are needed to create concentrations of aware and organized groups in the populace who can mobilize and act for change. ...
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 10, 2021, 02:35:32 PM
Mike, you might find this article of interest. The authors discuss why they predicted the increase of political upheaval and offer recommendations on how to end "The Age of Discord."
Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’ (https://www.noemamag.com/welcome-to-the-turbulent-twenties/)
Almost three decades ago, one of us, Jack Goldstone, published a simple model to determine a country’s vulnerability to political crisis. The model was based on how population changes shifted state, elite and popular behavior. Goldstone argued that, according to this Demographic-Structural Theory, in the 21st century, America was likely to get a populist, America-first leader who would sow a whirlwind of conflict.
Then ten years ago, the other of us, Peter Turchin, applied Goldstone’s model to U.S. history, using current data. What emerged was alarming: The U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years. Even before Trump was elected, Turchin published his prediction that the U.S. was headed for the “Turbulent Twenties,†forecasting a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe.
Given the Black Lives Matter protests and cascading clashes between competing armed factions in cities across the United States, from Portland, Oregon to Kenosha, Wisconsin, we are already well on our way there. But worse likely lies ahead.
Our model is based on the fact that across history, what creates the risk of political instability is the behavior of elites, who all too often react to long-term increases in population by committing three cardinal sins. First, faced with a surge of labor that dampens growth in wages and productivity, elites seek to take a larger portion of economic gains for themselves, driving up inequality. Second, facing greater competition for elite wealth and status, they tighten up the path to mobility to favor themselves and their progeny. For example, in an increasingly meritocratic society, elites could keep places at top universities limited and raise the entry requirements and costs in ways that favor the children of those who had already succeeded.
Third, anxious to hold on to their rising fortunes, they do all they can to resist taxation of their wealth and profits, even if that means starving the government of needed revenues, leading to decaying infrastructure, declining public services and fast-rising government debts.
Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions. They create simmering conditions of greater inequality and declining effectiveness of, and respect for, government. But their actions alone are not sufficient. Urbanization and greater education are needed to create concentrations of aware and organized groups in the populace who can mobilize and act for change. ...
Probably the most insightful article I have read in years!
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 10, 2021, 02:35:32 PM
Mike, you might find this article of interest. The authors discuss why they predicted the increase of political upheaval and offer recommendations on how to end "The Age of Discord."
Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’ (https://www.noemamag.com/welcome-to-the-turbulent-twenties/)
Almost three decades ago, one of us, Jack Goldstone, published a simple model to determine a country’s vulnerability to political crisis. The model was based on how population changes shifted state, elite and popular behavior. Goldstone argued that, according to this Demographic-Structural Theory, in the 21st century, America was likely to get a populist, America-first leader who would sow a whirlwind of conflict.
Then ten years ago, the other of us, Peter Turchin, applied Goldstone’s model to U.S. history, using current data. What emerged was alarming: The U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years. Even before Trump was elected, Turchin published his prediction that the U.S. was headed for the “Turbulent Twenties,†forecasting a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe.
Given the Black Lives Matter protests and cascading clashes between competing armed factions in cities across the United States, from Portland, Oregon to Kenosha, Wisconsin, we are already well on our way there. But worse likely lies ahead.
Our model is based on the fact that across history, what creates the risk of political instability is the behavior of elites, who all too often react to long-term increases in population by committing three cardinal sins. First, faced with a surge of labor that dampens growth in wages and productivity, elites seek to take a larger portion of economic gains for themselves, driving up inequality. Second, facing greater competition for elite wealth and status, they tighten up the path to mobility to favor themselves and their progeny. For example, in an increasingly meritocratic society, elites could keep places at top universities limited and raise the entry requirements and costs in ways that favor the children of those who had already succeeded.
Third, anxious to hold on to their rising fortunes, they do all they can to resist taxation of their wealth and profits, even if that means starving the government of needed revenues, leading to decaying infrastructure, declining public services and fast-rising government debts.
Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions. They create simmering conditions of greater inequality and declining effectiveness of, and respect for, government. But their actions alone are not sufficient. Urbanization and greater education are needed to create concentrations of aware and organized groups in the populace who can mobilize and act for change. ...
Great article! It gives voice to many of my concerns--it makes sense. I guess I will not live to see the end, whatever that will be.
I don't remember how I stumbled into it. I didn't dig it, but could be the bibliography and the footnotes of the previous book I was working on. Apparently, there have been pretty good research about 'the ruling elite in the US' starting from 50s in 'contemporary' sense. Considering there was this period when the academies (universities, research inst...) turned their back on the federal state during the Vietnam War, along with some kind of implicit 'awareness' of the manipulation of student movements, masses, even art movements...etc. there should be some more obvious roots lying back in there.
OK. I don't understand something. Why is the word 'selfish' used in that article in this context? To avoid political, so provocative vocabulary? This happens with the most of the articles posted here lately. I get the general ideas, but the reasoning, the way they are expressed is weird, almost sounds like an essay from high school vision.
'Selfish elites'? What aspects of capitalism include some sort of selflessness, altruism, generosity to begin with? Capitalism means individual wealth. Individuals commanding capital. Severe competition. Capitalism runs on inequality. It's about winning under any circumstances, getting the most resources, money and power so to be able to thwart the others' chance, opportunities to do the same thing.
E: How is that the word Capitalism is absent in that article? Anything refering to the general economic system in the counrtry, its development, and its nature. It's a ridiculous level of self-censorship. It's like hitting the the corner of the coffee table to make the toddler feel good for bumping into it.
What is the idea behind it? Yeah, the rich people have made so much money and they should have thought about the others, because you know it's the natural thing to do (?), but they haven't, so we are not talking to them?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 11, 2021, 04:05:56 AM
OK. I don't understand something. Why is the word 'selfish' used in that article in this context? To avoid political, so provocative vocabulary?
Even when capitalism leads to inequality, some wealthy people are more selfish than others and considerably more selfish than the average American. Many ultra-wealthy Americans throughout history have been dedicated to philanthropy, which was a sign of being elite. They gave to the community or at least made their money from industries that employed a lot of working-class people. Many billionaires today make money through investment or technology, neither of which employ many working-class Americans, and they are comparatively not philanthropic. Bill Gates ($138 billion) and Warren Buffet ($100 billion) have publically committed to giving all their money to charity during their lifetimes and after their death. They have encouraged other billionaires to do the same but from what I have read haven't make a lot of progress. Warren Buffet found that while he paid a total tax rate of 17.7%, the average tax rate for people in his office was 32.9%, which means working-class people are contributing more to the community. Middle and lower-income people give a higher percentage of their income to charity-- also consider a billionaire giving $100 million to charity sounds nice but is actually less generous than someone with $50,000 giving $5,000 because the billionaire is left with $900 million. That is why I would describe some contemporary ultra-wealthy individuals as selfish.
They probably have followed the tradition of giving something back to the community, charities in the past because it's returned back as more power and so more money. Noble classes and monarchies had churches, orphanges, abbeys, hospitals built, and had fed the poor. It doesn't change what they were. The assumption that those things were done by the ruling class as some 'duty' to give something back because those peple weren't 'selfish' is pretty naive.
The word 'selfish' is something we would use in an individual scale. Not in social, community scale, certainly not in a global sacle. That's what I mean. Do the filthy rich even know what's happening in their giant companies all around the world related to the workers and their working environments?
They threaten, start civil wars in other countries. I'm sure you know the Mynmar-Facebook case. Mark Zukerberg is not 'selfish', he is a fucking criminal who should be in prison for many different crimes. Or what the cigarette companies have done around the world? Nestle drained California's water out. Though Nestle might be putting human meat in their products all we know. Tons of stuff we don't know is happening because of the unbelievable power, lawyer armies... Nobody can fight back. Nobody has the resources or the power to fight back...Tons of other stuff I don't know or remember. I really don't want to think about oil companies. Toxic waste...
Wha's it that any of those giant companies, their senior partners can give back to balance any of that?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 11, 2021, 10:18:35 AM
Do the filthy rich even know what's happening in their giant companies all around the world related to the workers and their working environments?
Of course they do, but we know too. Billions of people use Facebook knowing the consequences. We know the evils of factory farming for both the animals and the environment yet we still enjoy our hamburgers. People
beg Amazon to build facilities in their communities, they literally throw money at the megacorp, knowing the company treats its employees poorly, destroys small business, is a pipeline for products from countries with poor labor conditions, refuses to allow its ebooks in public libraries and a plethora of other very bad things. We are part of the problem,
I am part of the problem. I fully admit I eat meat, buy products from Amazon, and do other things that are bad for the planet even though I shouldn't and have other options.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on March 11, 2021, 11:17:12 AM
Of course they do, but we know too. Billions of people use Facebook knowing the consequences. We know the evils of factory farming for both the animals and the environment yet we still enjoy our hamburgers. People beg Amazon to build facilities in their communities, they literally throw money at the megacorp, knowing the company treats its employees poorly, destroys small business, is a pipeline for products from countries with poor labor conditions, refuses to allow its ebooks in public libraries and a plethora of other very bad things. We are part of the problem, I am part of the problem. I fully admit I eat meat, buy products from Amazon, and do other things that are bad for the planet even though I shouldn't and have other options.
Good point, we both agree on this. It's exactly the same reflexive forms of behaviour go with the rich, and 'the giving back' is something made up. It doesn't exist. It's never existed. It's one of those cultural bullshit things...and not American either. This is what I mean, lol.
Why am I lost? I don't know if it is the cultural barrier or something else, but the language of the article(s) -generally posted around, not just something about yours, it's been happening to me for some time- are so played down to my ears, it is like they are specifically designed that way with a certain censorship. It's like the word selfish...the usage of theism in the other one... It's dumbed down.
It completely shifts the picture. It's not 'selfishness' of not giving back, it is them getting that filthy rich. The only possible giving back would be those people stopping at somewhere and after earning a 100 million dollars, saying: "OK that's enough, my grandchildren's grandchildren wouldn't need to go to work with this". They don't. And everyone goes 'human nature!'. Yeah.
Besides the human nature of this,
this is the system itself. But when you look at the article(s), there is nothing about this, but through some sort of a weirdly 'personalised', everyday vocabulary, there is this childish style of addressing of these rich people -as if talking to the individuals themselves (selfish elites)- as if these people have done something out of the system, against the law or if they were required by law or any other means to do something plus about it in the first place. They don't. They never have. It's the best beer in the world thing again.
Honestly, I have started to think the reason behind American millenials were so bent on creating certain words/terms in specific contexts and movements attached to them might be related to this. Well, as much as with what they can... Of course there is no way out...Only right.
It feels like people willingly do not use certain words because they sound political, against the system they live in because they are condition not to. Also most importantly, probably because nobody would read this texts otherwise.
There is a huge wall built. People cannot go forward because of that wall. But people look at it and describe what kind of men are the brickmakers who made the bricks used making that wall. Nobody is saying, 'That's a fucking wall. Look, there is a wall there.' Or people are not actually, really affected by the wall. I have really no idea at this point.
All I can think of that if this is a result of society/cultural building in the US, it is an ingenious way of control. Can you imagine that? People don't even write or say the name of the economic system which everything knots up into. Because it is radical to say the C word. How are they going to alienate themselves, think and talk about; criticse it? It's impossible. Seriously, it is not doable.
What's the difference between not being able to criticise a system somewhere because you could get arrested AND not being able to criticise a system somewhere because you are conditioned not to address the system itself in the first place? Well, in the first one, people are aware they don't have freedom of speech.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 11, 2021, 12:34:34 PM
Good point, we both agree on this. It's exactly the same reflexive forms of behaviour go with the rich, and 'the giving back' is something made up. It doesn't exist. It's never existed. It's one of those cultural bullshit things...and not American either. This is what I mean, lol.
Why am I lost? I don't know if it is the cultural barrier or something else, but the language of the article(s) -generally posted around, not just something about yours, it's been happening to me for some time- are so played down to my ears, it is like they are specifically designed that way with a certain censorship. It's like the word selfish...the usage of theism in the other one... It's dumbed down.
It completely shifts the picture. It's not 'selfishness' of not giving back, it is them getting that filthy rich. The only possible giving back would be those people stopping at somewhere and after earning a 100 million dollars, saying: "OK that's enough, my grandchildren's grandchildren wouldn't need to go to work with this". They don't. And everyone goes 'human nature!'. Yeah.
Besides the human nature of this, this is the system itself. But when you look at the article(s), there is nothing about this, but through some sort of a weirdly 'personalised', everyday vocabulary, there is this childish style of addressing of these rich people -as if talking to the individuals themselves (selfish elites)- as if these people have done something out of the system, against the law or if they were required by law or any other means to do something plus about it in the first place. They don't. They never have. It's the best beer in the world thing again.
Honestly, I have started to think the reason behind American millenials were so bent on creating certain words/terms in specific contexts and movements attached to them might be related to this. Well, as much as with what they can... Of course there is no way out...Only right.
It feels like people willingly do not use certain words because they sound political, against the system they live in because they are condition not to. Also most importantly, probably because nobody would read this texts otherwise.
There is a huge wall built. People cannot go forward because of that wall. But people look at it and describe what kind of men are the brickmakers who made the bricks used making that wall. Nobody is saying, 'That's a fucking wall. Look, there is a wall there.' Or people are not actually, really affected by the wall. I have really no idea at this point.
All I can think of that if this is a result of society/cultural building in the US, it is an ingenious way of control. Can you imagine that? People don't even write or say the name of the economic system which everything knots up into. Because it is radical to say the C word. How are they going to alienate themselves, think and talk about; criticse it? It's impossible. Seriously, it is not doable.
What's the difference between not being able to criticise a system somewhere because you could get arrested AND not being able to criticise a system somewhere because you are conditioned not to address the system itself in the first place? Well, in the first one, people are aware they don't have freedom of speech.
I know what you are talking about. I think there are several reasons Americans avoid talking about capitalism. Capitalism, like a lot of "-isms", has a lot of iterations, so it tends to lead to a conversation of defining terms. As you pointed out, capitalism also is interpreted by many as "human nature", not an economic system, so then one sounds like they are criticizing something immutable. Also criticizing capitalism can immediately put some Americans on the defensive because of binary thinking: if you criticize capitalism you're an evil socialist. Another issue is capitalism is systemic, it is huge, complex, and almost invisible to some because it is so pervasive. Often people are more easily persuaded by personal stories-- People understand "selfish" on an emotional level, they understand fairness, compared to a discussion of the inevitable accumulation of wealth by a few in an unregulated free-market economy. One can see this as "dumbed down" but it can also be seen pragmatically as an effective way to communicate a concern most people will respond to.
OK. That makes sense. Not sure about its effectiveness on discussions, free thought and critique but it must be pragmatic.
I have just seen the series...and this reminds me the last episode of Philip K. Dick's Electric Dreams. 'K.A.O.'
USA is now a corporatocracy. It stopped being democracy... maybe in the days of Reagan
How did we get here? The wealthy studied how Himmler deceived Germany. and then they improved his method. Now they will study Trump and make it better
Capitalism is human nature, but it is supposed to have limits in the US. The US was made for the people not the wealthy. In theory the people make the laws to control capitalism, but only the wealthy have been in Congress for a long time.
and the people... well a lot of people in USA are trying to be the star of stupid people at walmart videos and getting signs from Bill Ingvall
This is an interesting article on how democracy in America is threatened by political sectarianism, where two hostile identity groups not only clash over policy and ideology but see the other side as alien and immoral, and the antagonistic feelings between the groups, more than differences over ideas, that drive the conflict. The article is also correct about the creation of "mega-identities", where being a member of a political party is associated with a cultural identity. Even if political sectarianism doesn't result in outright authoritarianism, it is slowing down our democratic process. If the Democrats support legislation, the Republicans feel an obligation to oppose it, and vice versa.
Why Political Sectarianism Is a Growing Threat to American Democracy (https://news.yahoo.com/why-political-sectarianism-growing-threat-184457069.html)
... Any casual observer of American politics would agree that there is plenty of hostility between Democrats and Republicans. Many do not just disagree, they dislike each other. They hold discriminatory attitudes in job hiring as they do on the Implicit Association Test. They tell pollsters they would not want their child to marry an opposing partisan. In a paper published in Science in October by 16 prominent political scientists, the authors argue that by some measures the hatred between the two parties “exceeds long-standing antipathies around race and religion.â€
More than half of Republicans and more than 40% of Democrats tend to think of the other party as “enemies,†rather than “political opponents,†according to a CBS News poll conducted in January. A majority of Americans said that other Americans were the greatest threat to America. ...
But the two parties have not only become more ideologically polarized â€" they have simultaneously sorted along racial, religious, educational, generational and geographic lines. Partisanship has become a “mega-identity,†in the words of political scientist Lilliana Mason, representing both a division over policy and a broader clash between white, Christian conservatives and a liberal, multiracial, secular elite. ...
Sectarianism has been so powerful among Republicans in part because they believe they are at risk of being consigned to minority status. The party has lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections, and conservatives fear that demographic changes promise to further erode their support. And while defeat is part of the game in democracy, it is a lot harder to accept in a sectarian society.
It is not easy to accept being ruled by a hostile, alien rival. It can make “political losses feel like existential threats,†as the authors of the study published in Science put it. ...
One-third of Americans believe that violence could be justified to achieve political objectives. In a survey conducted in January, a majority of Republican voters agreed with the statement that the “traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.†The violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 suggests that the risks of sustained political violence or even insurgency cannot be discounted. ...
QuoteThe US was made for the people not the wealthy.
Hard disagree; the Founding Fathers set it up so only rich landowners had power, and established the Senate specifically (and I mean specifically, with several FFs remarking that it was established to protect the wealthy minority power from the commoners in the House) to cement their power. The power for the people has had to be earned with blood, sweat, and tears and we still aren't close to being a nation of the people, by the people, for the people 245 years later.
John Adam's actually remarked on this as well, saying he disliked the Senate because it established an aristocratic-like system and thought the president should have more power to help alleviate that.
The United States has never been about the people, that was just really good branding on their part... and at this point I think they knew damn well what they were doing as well. I don't think they were idealist, I think they were opportunists who knew the value of propaganda.
Also have hard disagreement on capitalism, but that's a whole different argument.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 26, 2021, 03:18:50 PM
Hard disagree; the Founding Fathers set it up so only rich landowners had power, and established the Senate specifically (and I mean specifically, with several FFs remarking that it was established to protect the wealthy minority power from the commoners in the House) to cement their power. The power for the people has had to be earned with blood, sweat, and tears and we still aren't close to being a nation of the people, by the people, for the people 245 years later.
John Adam's actually remarked on this as well, saying he disliked the Senate because it established an aristocratic-like system and thought the president should have more power to help alleviate that.
The United States has never been about the people, that was just really good branding on their part... and at this point I think they knew damn well what they were doing as well. I don't think they were idealist, I think they were opportunists who knew the value of propaganda.
Also have hard disagreement on capitalism, but that's a whole different argument.
Absolutely!!
Quote from: Shiranu on April 26, 2021, 03:18:50 PM
John Adam's actually remarked on this as well, saying he disliked the Senate because it established an aristocratic-like system and thought the president should have more power to help alleviate that.
Even moreso then -- Senators weren't elected, they were chosen by the individual state legislatures, which meant they represented the various state houses and not the electorate. It wasn't until the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 that it was
required to hold elections for Senators. Oregon was the first to directly elect its Senators, in 1908 -- that late. The Constitutional justification prior to the 17th Amendment was that since the state legislature was responsible for choosing Senators, they could choose to delegate that authority to the voters and require themselves to appoint the voters' choice.
This seems the best thread to post this, so...
Former national security advisor and brother to Lt. General Charles Flynn believes that a military coup needs, and should, happen here in the U.S. as it happened in Myanmar at a speech in a state where many of the insurrectionists are based and who has multiple politicians who were involved in the attempted over-throw of the democratic system.
I live right next to Military City USA, and if you don't believe that a large percentage of the servicemen wouldn't try to overthrow the government... I hate to break it to you, but they absolutely would without a second thought, especially if it meant they get to shoot those liberal fucks who are ruining their country.
QuoteFormer National Security Adviser Michael Flynn spoke this weekend at a conference organized by supporters of the QAnon conspiracy in Dallas, Texas, and multiple attendees captured video of him endorsing the idea of a military coup like the one that happened in Myanmar...
The unknown man in the audience introduced himself as “a simple Marine,†and said that he “wanted to know why what happened in Myanmar can’t happen here.â€
As the audience cheered, Flynn responded favorably to the man’s question. There’s “no reason†a coup like Myanmar’s can’t happen here, Flynn replied, to the clear approval of the crowd. “I mean, it should happen â€" that’s right.â€
https://www.mediaite.com/online/ex-national-security-advisor-mike-flynn-tells-qanon-conference-that-a-coup-like-the-one-in-myanmar-should-happen-in-the-us/
This is what I'm deeply worried about.
Will Biden Ever Get Off His Ass to Save Democracy?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/will-biden-ever-get-off-his-ass-to-save-democracy?ref=wrap
I am very afraid that the Dems are ready, willing and able to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. This time, the stakes are the the country. We are dangerously close to becoming totally mafia run.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 30, 2021, 11:06:09 PMFormer national security advisor and brother to Lt. General Charles Flynn believes that a military coup needs, and should, happen here in the U.S. as it happened in Myanmar
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am genuinely in favor of a two-state solution to see once and for all which system of government works better. I have no doubt that Union America would outperform that backwards, wannabe-dictatorship America in every conceivable metric and I'm willing to bet everything on it.