this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
582 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3062 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Meanwhile, 44 percent backed the American tradition of competing branches of government as a model, if sometimes “frustrating,” system.

Why would people want to live under an authoritarian’s thumb? It’s rooted, experts say, in a psychological need for security—real or perceived—and a desire for conformity, a goal that becomes even more acute as the country undergoes dramatic demographic and social changes. People also like to obey a strong leader who will protect the group—especially if it is the “right” group whose interests will be protected. Recall the Trump supporter who, during the 2019 government shutdown, complained, “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 27 points 4 months ago (5 children)

This coming from the "if you exchange freedom.for security you will enjoy neither freedom nor security" folks.

Just a quick question: give me one, ONE simple example of a successful military dictatorship that didn't take the country to hell and left damn near all its citizens poor, suppressed, and suffering?

[–] ours@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I hate a military dictatorship but to play devil's advocate: South Korea and Taiwan?

I'm not saying their transition to democracies was bloodless or clean but they managed. Those two are extreme examples and not models, one country built after a war that split the country in two, the other fleeing the mainland to create its own state. But I'm stretching to find a better example.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m not saying their transition to ~~democracies~~ liberal democracies

FTFY - so-called "liberal democracy" is about as democratic as "social darwinism" is Darwinist. And those are two terrible examples to use - they only went pretend-democratic after the fascist regimes murdered and tortured any elements in society that could be called democratic with a straight face.

If that's what you want for the US you might just as well start marching with the fascists.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Taiwan probably fared better than Korea in that regard.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] ours@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That was my point, these hand-picked examples didn't end up as hellholes. That said, it wasn't always smooth, lots of blood in SK's hand. I was playing devil's advocate.

In any case, the USA is not in the desperate situation these countries were in.

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Whoa, that last question would require historical knowledge, and education is Satan, didn't you know?

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

France under DeGaulle?

Edit to add: It's not an assertio, it's a question I don't know the answer to.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Not really. There certainly was a concentration of levers in the government, but while it certainly had authoritarian traits, it wasn't militaristic and was still quite free. There was a healthy opposition.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

That was not a military dictatorship, was it?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thailand regularly has military coups.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also.... Do you really want a military dictatorship run by right wing Christian extremists with an obsession with the end times with access to nukes? Just something to ponder about.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Would you accept a US military coup to remove bunch of right wing Christian extremists that have taken things too far?

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

It might actually get to that point. Not hoping for it but it wouldn't surprise me

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the citizens weren't suffering but their massive slave population definitely was. Heck, the reason they trained so hard was to put down slave revolts.

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but that wasn't the question.

There is no country, democratic or authoritarian, on this planet that currently doesn't rely to some extent on exploited, indentured, or enslaved non-citizens, either domestic or abroad.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

We need a robotic slave force.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Slavery? Really? That's your example?

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Well yeah, they asked for a simple example, I gave one. What's wrong with that? The discussion is already in the realm of "military dictatorship" which aren't exactly known for respecting human rights/freedoms of non-citizena. The question was about the sustainability of such systems for those deemed citizens.