How to Build an Autocracy is a frightening article from the March Atlantic Monthly. It starts with a preview of the possible state of the union in 2020; then compares Orbán’s Hungary with Trump’s America in the scenario; explains the “strange bedfellows” alliance that has emerged between our greedy Sociopath-in-Chief and right-wing cretins like Paul Ryan; shows how the Trump family is already peddling their influence; and so on.
Read the article. Here I offer some short excerpts (and hope I’ve not exceeded the SDMB copyright limit).
Democracy was as good as dead in the US the moment Trump and the Republicans took office; all that’s left is the formal transformation to a one party theocratic/plutocratic neofascist state.
I’d like to propose a different model. I think the US has been, for a long time, a kind of Holy Roman Empire of different interests operating at various levels of power and various ideologies. Have you even seen a map of the Holy Roman Empire? It’s insane:
The various interests in the US include:
• Governmental entities (federal, state, local)
• The military
• Political parties
• Corporations
• Not-for-profits
• Powerful individuals: politics and/or wealth
• Last and least, “the people”
All of these entities are trying to “get theirs.” Our nominal political structure is just that: nominal. We haven’t been a democracy for a long time, and the nominal structure is simply an overlay that serves as a common mythology.
Of course Trump is going to make things worse and try to “get his” for his cronies and whatnot.
Yes she was going to leave anyway, but it’s the use of the word “betrayed” that indicates that, my dear friends, you’re pretty much in the middle of a coup.
jjimm’s comment was somewhat unclear but, yes, a government’s chief can execute a coup against its constitutional controls. With the Administration already defying federal judges and decimating institutions like the State Department, such a coup might almost seem to be in progress. :eek:
This assumes the economy does better for working class people under Trump. I fail to see why that would happen.
Trump Just backed off his promise to make Medicare negotiate drug prices. He hasn’t proposed anything that’ll make life easier for working people. He already increased their mortgages. Paul Ryan wants to voucherize Medicare and kick people off aca and medicaid. His trade agenda will increase prices.
Other than racial and cultural resentment, what appeal does he have? It won’t be economic. If Trump made life better economically like authoritarian right wing leaders in Eastern Europe and Russia do, I could understand the appeal that would lead to reelection. But we are looking at an age of increased prices, lower wages, less health insurance, more expensive mortgages, etc under Trump. All the propaganda on the world won’t let people ignore that.
Since our government consists of three branches independent of each other, an existing branch of the government can undertake a coup against another, which is not “itself”… This is done every time the government as a body exercises an action in contradiction to a Supreme Court order, such as Jackson’s expulsion of the Cherokees from Georgia. (Worcester v Georgia)
The reference in this thread is a coup by the executive branch against the legislative or judicial.
Repealing environmental regulations will increase employment in the short term. Increased cancers and birth defects will manifest themselves very slowly, certainly not in time to be major issues in the 2020 campaign.
Tax cuts, along with increased stock market exuberance due to deregulation, will also increase the appearance of prosperity in the short term. The eventual financial repercussions will be blamed on China, liberals, Islam, etc.
More importantly, most Trump supporters are already doing well financially. When they speak of “Making America Great Again” they’re not motivated by their own financial situation so much as the sorry state that Obama has left America in. They want to see more discrimination against gays, blacks, Muslims and other minority groups. They want to see America’s military “kicking ass” on the world stage. Trump is already feeding these urges — many Trump supporters are delighted with his recent ban against certain Muslim immigrants.
Given these factors, and the increased suppression of black and other underclass voters now on the table with firm GOP control of Washington, do not expect the Democrats to regain the White House anytime soon.
It is precisely racial and cultural resentment that is Trump’s appeal. Do you think the man who accused Hillary of starting birthism* will fail to blame Obama for high drug prices, for the failures of ACA, for the more expensive mortgages? Everything bad will somehow be tied to Obama, just watch. The fools who thought that Trump was on their side against Wall Street will believe anything.
*Although one thing I have never forgiven Hillary for is that, nine years ago, she was asked if Obama was a Muslim. She answered, “No” but then gratuitously added, “As far as I know”.
Not really. You might use that term if the president disbanded the court, but it would make no sense to use it when the president simply disagrees with the court in a given instance.
But that doesn’t matter, because that’s not what happened here anyway. Yates was a member of Trump’s cabinet, and she was fired because she announced she would not defend Trump’s directive in court. And, she was on her way out regardless. If that is a “coup”, then we need another word for when the the government is taken over by “the military or other elites”.
So no, we’re not “pretty much in the middle of a coup”, per the claim, above.
I’m never a fan of having Congress and the Presidency controlled by one party. Especially when that part is the GOP. The Democrats have the filibuster (at least for awhile), so we should remember how important that is every time we think we should get rid of that “anachronism”.
Still, the president is constrained by existing law and the courts, so it’s a stretch to call the current situation an Autocracy. Does the current president have lots more leeway than Obama had during most of his term? Yep. Is that potentially harmful of the country? Yep. Is that an Autocracy? Nope.
You are making the mistake of thinking that economic appeal is necessarily tied to actual economic success. It’s not.
Example after example after example has been shown in more articles than I can count that Trumpists saying “the economy is a disaster” often come from towns or counties where median income and unemployment have been getting better. Facts don’t matter to Trumpists; he convinced them Obama was screwing them. Feelings matter, facts don’t. If he can convince them to feel they’re getting a good deal, they will vote and act accordingly, even if, in fact, they are not getting a good deal.
Is there something you find unlikely in the scenario envisioned in the Atlantic article? (Assuming you even read it — your use of present-tense here suggests you didn’t.) Let’s not focus pedantically on the word “autocracy” in isolation.
Oddly enough, as if it was foreordained that I’d be reading this, about a week ago a friend on Facebook was cheering on the “exploding” anti-George Soros demonstrations in Eastern Europe. According to Der Spiegel they’ve been largely whipped up by the governments of the countries involved; it’s not as if their populations are rising up spontaneously in righteous anger. But people were commenting on the FB post like they didn’t know or didn’t care.
This person was unaware, or didn’t care, that it was Viktor Orbán’s government in Hungary, and its counterparts elsewher in the region, that was driving these demonstrations. They weren’t just happening.