Who had thought authoritarianism would see such a renaissance in the early 21st century?

[BeBMan]

My current feeling--and admittedly, my feelings on the matter change rather frequently--is that Trump would very much like to be an authoritarian, but lacks the competence to pull it off. Apparently we just insulted Australia for some ****ing reason . . .

I'd hope that those checks and balances Dinner mentioned as well as ppl, businesses standing up against ..eh..certain things....plus at some point reality do their part. But time will tell....

[Kidlicious]

Authoritarian is not automatically the same as Totalitarian. So no, I did not make a Hitler/Nazi ref.

Why are you talking about the last century?

[BeBMan]

Eh....what? The 21st is the current century.

[Kidlicious]

I'd hope that those checks and balances Dinner mentioned as well as ppl, businesses standing up against ..eh..certain things....plus at some point reality do their part. But time will tell....

Since he is the president because of an election of the people who ever does that is authoritarian, not him. Do you know what it means to be authoritarian?

[BeBMan]

Yes.

[Kidlicious]

Yes.

So why aren't you creating threads about actual authoritarianism.

[BeBMan]

edit: if you think it's important feel free to start threads on your own. I do start the threads *I* like meanwhile

[Lorizael]

I'd hope that those checks and balances Dinner mentioned as well as ppl, businesses standing up against ..eh..certain things....plus at some point reality do their part. But time will tell....

Checks and balances don't just happen, though. There's not some constitutional thermostat that automatically kicks in when one branch gets a little too excited. Checks and balances are supposed to pit different branches of government--composed of people--against each other. If those actual people don't care enough to stop an autocrat because they feel it's the price they have to pay to get reelected/enact their agenda, then the system doesn't work.

[Bereta_Eder]

I think there is such a thermostate and it's the people with the largest meaning of the word. The everyday joes.

The institutional answer to checks and balances are the foundation of independent authorities. However they are manned by men/women so it's not an unbreakable system. Hence we again arrive at the beggining (the people)

[DirtyMartini]

I think there is such a thermostate and it's the people with the largest meaning of the word. The everyday joes.

In our current gerrymandered system most regular joes have no power. Gerrymandering is the reason that a nation that is majority Democrat is governed by Republicans.

Gerrymandering is the biggest threat to workable government -- it creates the extreme, intractable polarization that we have today where compromise a dirty word.

[rah]

In Illinois it's the Dems that hold power through Gerrymandering. It's a threat to both sides.

[DirtyMartini]

Absolutely it is a threat to both sides. Where are the blue dog Democrats these days? Un-electable -- too moderate.

However, given the urban concentration of democrat voters, it is generally a lot easier to squeeze blue voters into fewer districts. Also, the cases of the most egregious redistricting in recent years have been done to favor Republicans.

[rah]

It's done by whoever happens to be in power. Pointing out who if most effective is meaningless. we can agree to just end it.

[Kidlicious]

Checks and balances don't just happen, though. There's not some constitutional thermostat that automatically kicks in when one branch gets a little too excited. Checks and balances are supposed to pit different branches of government--composed of people--against each other. If those actual people don't care enough to stop an autocrat because they feel it's the price they have to pay to get reelected/enact their agenda, then the system doesn't work.

That doesn't negate checks and balances because Congress won't give up it's power. Either will SCOTUS

[kentonio]

I think there is such a thermostate and it's the people with the largest meaning of the word. The everyday joes.

That's why we're ****ed, because the 'ordinary Joes' have forgotten that really bad things can happen in any country and so are willing in large numbers to not only overlook politicians overstepping their boundaries but actively encouraging it. In the UK our courts heard a case on constitutional law and ruled against the government, and a major newspaper called them 'Enemies of the People' and were loudly cheered on by millions of people. In the US Trump ignores a federal court and sacks his Attorney General for supporting the law, and his supporters call her a partisan hack and cheer him on. We're living in bad days.