This sounds like you have a fascinating backstory. Care to share?
Born under a dictatorship in Uruguay, it came about as a consequence to leftist guerrillas running amok, enough people accepted that public safety was preferable to an elected government.
People I’ve met who approved of the various dictatorships throughout South America invariably expressed an opinion along the lines of “at least you could walk safely on the streets under X”.
Then I moved to Thailand and I’m counting two coups so far, both preceded by political violence in which the main political actors shared various degrees of responsibility. Again most people tacitly accepted the situation because they were fed up with waking up every morning to be informed of the deaths in last night’s shootings and bombings.
The thing that really gets me is that those that cry the loudest about the loss of Democracy are often the ones who condone the political violence that preceded that loss; so when I see attitudes like this:
But we also have to be aware that the tactic of nonviolence is probably the most fetishized tactic in US liberalism, because it enters into movement-building as a brake on struggles.
I recognize them as precursor to the loss of Democracy.
One night several people were killed just a few hundred meters from my home in Bangkok, the fetishization of non-violence doesn’t seems so bad when you hear explosions, shots and see and smell the fires burning just down your street and wonder if the riot is going to move up the street.
I think you’d need three things:
- A major crisis that would scare people into feeling immediate government action was needed.
- Both major political parties being seen as unable to deal with the crisis.
- A charismatic leader offering supposed solutions to the crisis.
Thanks for sharing. I appreciate reading your perspective. I heard sentiments similar to “at least you could walk safely on the streets” too when I was in Chile (long after the coup).
A civil war. We already saw what happens in that case.
One thing your hypothetical dictator will have to do is to get the military and police forces largely on board as an enforcement arm. Being a dictator is largely pointless if the population as a whole generally ignores your edicts. As mentioned earlier, probably the only way to do this will be a concerted attack from some group of outsiders resulting in widespread declaration of martial law and curfews and the like. The attackers would have to keep up their assault in the face of these crackdowns forcing their extension and expansion.
First few steps…
Get the press out of the room, ban cameras, ban recording devices too.
Then hire total dipsticks to speak for you in circles and “dumb ass blonde speak.”
Then lie, get really good at lying.
Then get your big chested bimbo of a wife to help you tweet stupid incoherent shit at 3 AM.
Convince Republicans that it’s the media that’s wrong, not the Washington Yam.
Democrats will hate him regardless. Like syphilis, dems don’t need to experience it to know that a dribbling dick in the oval office is a bad thing.
But don’t worry, Americans are too smart to allow any of this to happen.
We’re well on the way.
-
A Leader willing to publicly demonize “others” and use them as scapegoats for national problems, real and imagined.
-
A critical mass of citizens who cannot tolerate any criticism of this Leader and regard themselves as the only true citizens. This does not have to be a majority, just a large enough of a minority to dictate the policies of a political party by threatening to primary them out of office and replace them with true believers should they stop toeing the Leader’s line.
-
The Leader’s party behaves without any scruples whatsoever, meeting behind closed doors to draft legislation and ramming it through without debate- then accuse the other party of doing the same thing earlier when in fact they hadn’t.
-
Demonize the news media and restrict their access to the halls of Congress and the White House. Either refuse to answer reporters’ questions or simply lie.
-
Pack the judiciary with party loyalists, where vacancies occur simply by refusing to confirm nominees of the Leader’s predecessor.
-
Fill the cabinet with people dedicated to the destruction of the agencies they will be in charge of.
-
Concentrate the wealth into a few people at the top and make it more difficult for working class citizens to go to college.
-
Brazenly use nepotism to fill key advisory roles in the executive branch.
-
Constantly accuse others of corruption and unlawfulness.
Now all that is lacking is:
- Orchestrate an act of violence (to blame on one of the demonized “others”) to convince the people that their lives are in danger and that it is the democratic process that allows these things to happen and it must be abandoned “temporarily” for the sake of public safety.
Define a dictatorship. For black people living in the deep south in 1930, the US was a dictatorship despite having the trappings of democracy. No civil rights, brutal police, the rule of law didn’t apply when it went against the powerful, no rights to address grievances, kangaroo courts, etc. Pretty much the entire bill of rights didn’t apply to blacks in the deep south under Jim crow.
What would it take today for a dictatorship? For a massive economic collapse to happen most likely. That or a nuclear war or nuclear terror attack.
Generally there are two prerequisites for dictatorship. Poverty and desperation. Poor nations are much more likely to be dictatorships, and during times of stress people want a strong government. Economic collapse, security threats, etc.
We almost are, we are corporate America where corporations actually rule the roost so long as the transactions of money fall into the right hands while still keeping citizens in their place. Our delicate economy has been completely built up around it.
Interesting choice of phrasing. Did the Democrats just come to this conclusion sometime in the last 20 years?
[record scratch sound effect]
How many recruitable/deployable sleeper agents do you think ISIS has, and if they have that many why aren’t they using them now? What, they don’t hate America enough, but if we really get them mad then they’re going to get off their ass and start trying to attack us?
The lone wolf terrorists we’ve been seeing are literally the exact same phenomenon as the Columbine shooters. The only reason the Columbine guys didn’t make a video pledging allegiance to ISIS is that ISIS didn’t exist yet. It’s just the ultimate way to express your hatred for your fellow man, like getting into Nazism.
There are not hundreds or thousands of muslims in America who would gladly commit murder-suicide in the name of Islam, only nobody from ISIS has asked them yet. Doesn’t exist.
The guys who are ready willing and able to carry out a murder-suicide attack have already done it. It’s not hard, you just grab a rifle, get in your car, drive to where there’s a bunch of people and start shooting at them. Takes no planning, no preparation, no funds, no communication. You just need to be murderously crazy and not care if you live or die.
And it turns out there are not that many of such people out there. And of those people, the FBI arrests a lot of them before anything really happens.
But of course the FBI relies a lot on tips from normal people. “My buddy started talking about how he wanted to grab a rifle and head to the mall and start shooting everyone. Should I talk to the FBI about it?” Yeah, maybe you should.
Of course the best thing is not to call the FBI when your buddy is asking for help getting a rifle, but when your buddy just starts spouting radical rhetoric. But what if you’re convinced that people in your group will never get a fair treatment by the FBI, and calling them about your crazy but not that crazy buddy will get them and you in trouble for no reason.
Did you read my note at the bottom? It says, “It’s probably well beyond the organizational capabilities of a group like Al Qaeda or ISIS”. Does that answer your questions here, or do you need additional clarification?
I agree. Again, see my note at the bottom of that post.
Do you understand the meaning of “hypothetical”?
For the third time, if you’re going to bring oligarchy into this, at least tell me why I’m wrong that it and fascism and dictatorship are substantially different in result, feel, and connotation.
I think the key missing ingredient in your list here is a strong majority - in votes, in public opinion, in the media.
Right now Trump’s approval rating is around 37%, most of the media is against him, and Democrats still outnumber Republicans.
If Trump’s approval rating were 70%, most of the media was like Fox News, and Republicans significantly outnumbered Democrats in the voting demographic, I’d agree with you. As it is, his very hold on power itself is tenuous, the GOP looks set to lose in 2020, and most importantly, Trump doesn’t even have the savvy to be a dictator.
You’re experiencing the former now; how does that feel.
I’m curious if you copied this list from somewhere or if you made up your own Trump-is-only-one-step-away-from-dictatorship 10-point-plan that conveniently fits your views of Trump’s actions. If it was the former, where did you get it from?
Universal healthcare controlled by the government with the wrong people in power could be dangerous.
The world is trending more towards e-cash.
The right to bear arms remains a head against tyranny.
If you were in say Cuba or North Korea, you could not defend your family.
This is hypothetical what if type of thread, so I gave a what if type of answer.
37%? What is your source. I’ll list a few from real clear politics, and keep in mind the polls on Trump were in almost all cases wrong. If the media would do their job and report on facts, Trump’s approval rating would be higher.
President Trump Job Approval NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Approve 40, Disapprove 55
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 46, Disapprove 54
President Trump Job Approval Pew Research Approve 42, Disapprove 54
From land sharks, right? Your guns are for protecting yourself from land sharks. That’s got to be it.