I’m not sure what your intended contribution here is. But I live in Thailand and, FWIW the most competent governments in the past decades have been those appointed by a military junta after a coup! For example, I think you will find that Anand Panyarachun, who was never elected but was appointed by junta, is widely considered the best Prime Minister ever.
Recently there were rumors of another coup. I rooted for it.
Perhaps at least part of the problem is that far too often people see what they expect to see. Are you aware that foolsguinea and fumster are different people?
The latter’s point is completely clear. Rightwingers wouldn’t really want to live in the world of their rhetoric but aren’t forced to confront that contradiction because our institutions insulate them from their dysfunction. Thus their stupid ideas live on, to the detriment of us all. It’s a solid point. Without consequences people are free to act irresponsibly. Since I tend to think in terms of governmental forms I see it in our checks and balances. Since we check and balance stupid ideas we don’t have to face up to them and their proponents are no longer shamed into silence or reduced to irrelevance. A better system, IMO, would be one where the winning political party got to control the government and enact their full agenda so the public could judge it, and them, on the outcome. I think foolsguinea has it backwards. Democracy isn’t the problem, it’s the lack thereof here in the world’s most powerful nation.
That’s all well and good. I’m sure Panyarachun was better for Thailand than Stalin or Mussolini would have been.
But, pointing out that every dictatorship isn’t murderously evil, is not much support for turning the United States (the subject of the OP, I presume, since it only mentioned U.S. media and political figures) into a dictatorship. We have a functioning democracy, which is a superior form of government. Changing to a dictatorship would be a massive step backward in justice, freedom, equality, and all the other metrics by which Americans measure their society’s value.
What makes you so sure that right-wing people wouldn’t want to live in the world they advocate for?
As to your suggestion, I find compromise governance to be the best method. It weeds out the radicals and extremeists, and it prevents the winning party from making measures to keep themselves in power part of their “full agenda”. The PRI in Mexico is a perfect example of a party that won democratic electon, then set about protecting themselves from competition for 71 years.
They cash their social security checks.
I suspect you overestimate how many people are opposed to Social Security as a concept, versus the other issues raised in your post (social acceptance of homosexuals, abortion, school funding, the role of religion in schools, Obamacare).
There is the perfect example: they oppose Obamacare because they don’t want the government involved in healthcare, but they rely on Medicare.
I don’t see a dichotomy here. You can oppose a specific aspect or implementation of something without opposing the concept.
I want the government involved in national defense, but I opposed the Iraq War.
The spittle laden rhetoric aimed at a proposal that was very similar to one proposed by the Republicans themselves a few years before was not a reasoned objection to the specifics of the bill. You don’t put up posters of Obama as a Nazi because you support the concept but disagree with the details.
I hope I live long enough to see conservatives live with the consequences of their ideology.
That suggests that the unreasonable part of the objection was rooted in the legislation being associated with Obama, rather than any intervention into health care by the government. That’s a valid criticism, but it’s not the same as “they don’t want government in health care but use Medicare anyway”.
I’m fine with the consequences of some parts of the ideology, though not others.
Because people generally don’t want to live lives that are nasty, brutal, and short. But this is beside the point. Look at it from another perspective if you wish where silly liberals are protected from their own folly.
Mexico doesn’t have a tradition of generations of stable democracy. So far as I’m aware no such society has ever devolved into dictatorship. Take Great Britain, for instance. It has had exactly the sort of ruling party control for far longer than 71 years but not only continues to function as a democracy but actually evolved that system from a monarchy.
Oh, please, not this tired old fallacy again. If I’m opposed to SS but am forced to pay into it, you’re damn right I’m going to cash the check when it comes my way. It is, in effect, my money. I only wish I had been able to invest it in something with a better return, thank-you-very-much!
Oh not that tired fallacy again. Imagine if we could take the money for defense or building roads and invest it. Why don’t we do that? Because we use the money now. Same with Social Security: current revenue pays for current expenses. It ran a small surplus for years and now runs a small deficit, but like very other single government program it’s not an investment.
But cashing Social Security checks is just short hand for widespread support of the program despite all the misinformation that conservatives like to spread.
ETA: We have had politicians run on getting rid of Social Security and Medicare, they tend to lose.
Oh, not that tired old bad analogy again!
Who said there wasn’t widespread support for it? It’s simply a fallacy that cashing your check is a sign of support. Those are two completely separate things.
While you’re at it, can you remind me what the price of butter in Denmark is?
Regular or un-leaded?
Unsalted, organic.
The “invest Soc Sec privately” meme is quite flawed. Start a thread if you don’t understand why.
This is correct except that many who identify it as fallacy yatter oppositely that Warren Buffett should pay higher taxes voluntarily if he thinks his taxes aren’t high enough. :smack: (But if consistency were a requirement most right-wing yatterings would go away. 
)
I don’t put much stock in that either, I think the same policies can create a world that’s ideal for one person and unbearable for another.
Few nations have such a tradition, so it’s a small sample size. And of those, how many embarked on a radical reordering two centuries in?
Since you think in terms of governmental forms, are you willing to lay out a reform of our federal system that would allow one party to enact its full agenda, unfettered by opposition parties? I’m curious as to how it’d be designed.
No. That does not “sum it up.”
Libertarianism and authoritarianism are competing visions of authority: distributed authority versus concentrated authority. Both are at least slightly wrongheaded as core political ideals, because we should be concerned about consequences of decisions more than the bragging rights of who gets to make those decisions. So ideological libertarianism is as absurd as an unblinking devotion to the Divine Right of Kings.
In contrast, a practical system of examining the value of policies–that is to say, considering their effects–is eminently to be desired.
As a practical matter, a good way to do that is probably an “elected dictatorship” a little like the Westminster system. More pragmatically, trying to build such a system has pitfalls, and we may end up with a fractious and chaotic populism–where 40% of the country is too dumb to come in out of the rain, and another 40% is too solicitous of “deep-seated” “minority feeling” to forcibly drag them into shelter.
But yes, global warning is a problem, it is (contrary to the whining about rising sea levels a decade ago) a particular problem for my interior region, and we have to stop humoring nitwits and solve it, even if we have to trample their democratic rights. I don’t think that’s leftist so much as a savage pragmatism for a desperate age.
And?
That there are few apples doesn’t make a reference to an orange more relevant.
I’m willing to stipulate for the sake of argument that there are none. And?
There are democratic parliamentary systems that get the job done. How we could get from here to there is perhaps an exercise best left for another thread.