Why do people feel the government is tyrannical?

[Cat_Whisperer]

@msmith537

Our system is designed to be frustratingly inefficient on purpose. It’s called “checks and balances”. People will always be pissed off about something with the government because there will always be some element of opposition to everything to get in the way of getting stuff done.

You know who had a really efficient government? The Nazis.

I thought it was Mussolini who kept the trains running on time.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Here’s a quote from an article that I can’t link in full:

There is, however, something genuinely disturbing at work in the latest conservative tantrum. If the Democrats have failed to define the phenomenon properly, let me take a shot: Large swaths of the Republican Party simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of losing political outcomes.

And in another article:

Now, as in the 1860s and the 1960s, nullification and interposition are pseudo-constitutional notions taken up in the face of national defeat in democratic politics. Unable to prevail as a minority and frustrated to the point of despair, its militant advocates abandon the usual tools of democratic politics and redress, take refuge in a psychodrama of “liberty” versus “tyranny,” and declare that, on whatever issue they choose, they are not part of the United States or subject to its laws- that, whenever they say so, the Constitution in fact forms a league, and not a government.

So, why do people feel the government is tyrannical? Because they can’t accept political defeat.

[Steve_MB]

@Bricker

@Chronos

While you’re at it, you could also point out examples of serious candidates for high office, or invited speakers at organized political rallies, encouraging violence against Bush and his administration.

I don’t agree that Sarah Palin has encouraged violence against Obama and his administration.

(emphasis added)
Joke from the bad old days of Soviet Russia:
Dmitri was on trial for defaming the Soviet state. His defense was that his writings were actually a satire directed at the capitalist imperialist West.
The People’s prosecutor angrily cut him off: “Silence! Your writings clearly refer to ‘tyrants’, ‘oppressors’, and ‘murderers’! This Court knows exactly to whom you refer!”

[Desert_Nomad]

Perhaps it stems from…

1. Never having voted for a winning candidate other than Obama.
2. I left the country 8 years ago and am still paying about $50K in tax every year to the USA.
3. Starting wars that not only fuel the flames of anti-Americanism, but drive us deeper into debt.

I am sure there is lots more, but these are the main ones for me.

[lee]

When George H. W. Bush was president, I complained about his policies and his involvement with the Iran Contra scandal. I did not call for his impeachment. I think there was reason to impeach George W. Bush, Congressman Dennis Kucinich outlined the reasons pretty well in some articles of impeachment he read on the floor of congress.

Some of the reasons I worried about what George W Bush was doing, like spying on private citizens in bulk, I was worried that it would continue, that every expansion of power that he leveraged would be permanent. I am ticked that President Obama has chosen to continue in his footsteps in so many areas, realizing this fear. I don’t like that we are not either treating people whom we think have committed acts against us as either criminals, or prisoners of war. I don’t like that we are such cowards that we blanch from trying someone we think did criminal acts in a court of law. I don’t like that we are spying on people in the Unites States in bulk.

[Dangerosa]

@Cat_Whisperer

I thought it was Mussolini who kept the trains running on time.

China also has a very efficient government. Ban plastic grocery bags…gone. No debate, no discussion. Six quadillion Chinese marching in lockstep to the orders of their government.

(Obviously, exaggeration - on both the number of Chinese and the lack of dissent - but they are pretty efficient if they need to get something done).

[Blalron]

@Bricker

Because – until called on it – the discussion’s unstated implication was that this kind of behavior was disturbingly new. It’s a different argument to say, “Look at these unhinged folks that think the government is tyrannical!” than it is to say, “Look at these unhinged folks who think the current administration is tyrannical – don’t they realize it was just the last President, and not this one?”

I concede that nutjobs exist on both sides and we can each point to individual cases of violence encouraging rhetoric.

But here’s where I can point to an actual quantifiable difference: Death threats against Obama have risen 400% above what his predecessor in office (George W. Bush) got. This supports my thesis that the Right wing in this country harbors more violent sentiment within its ranks than the Left does.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@A.Selene

Gulags aside, I hear what you’re saying, but I think you’re still off base. I’m worried about trends, and in plenty of ways - the ways most criticized by the left two years ago - Obama has not changed the ongoing “assault on the constitution.” We’re still involved in two land wars in Asia and we’re still wiretapping without warrants. In addition, we’re now targeting Americans for assassination. I don’t see an imperfection of reversal there - I don’t see reversal.

Fundamentally I think you’re wrong to place your faith in the best intentions of a man. The trend that should worry you is one stretching back 80 years - the ever increasing power of the executive office. You didn’t like Bush, so you didn’t trust him to properly use the power he had; you like Obama so you seem to be willing to give him a pass for now, even though he’s continuing the very policies that Bush was slammed for. Rather than trust that those in power will use the power right - if we like them - shouldn’t we be distrustful regardless, seek to bolster checks and balances, and try to disperse power as much as possible?

Very nice post.

[Todderbob]

@Blalron

I concede that nutjobs exist on both sides and we can each point to individual cases of violence encouraging rhetoric.

But here’s where I can point to an actual quantifiable difference: Death threats against Obama have risen 400% above what his predecessor in office (George W. Bush) got. This supports my thesis that the Right wing in this country harbors more violent sentiment within its ranks than the Left does.

Or, it could be that there are other factors that increase him death threats. You know, ones that aren’t political. Some might be about his race, and that wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Even if the people threatening him based in his race are right wing, you can’t call it politically motivated.

I’m not saying that excuses anything, mind you.

[John_Mace]

@Blalron

I concede that nutjobs exist on both sides and we can each point to individual cases of violence encouraging rhetoric.

But here’s where I can point to an actual quantifiable difference: Death threats against Obama have risen 400% above what his predecessor in office (George W. Bush) got. This supports my thesis that the Right wing in this country harbors more violent sentiment within its ranks than the Left does.

Not quite-- you misread the article. Threats against Obama’s life are up 400% since his inauguration. The article says threats are higher than previous presidents, but it doesn’t quantify that increase.

A CNN source with very close to the U.S. Secret Service confirmed to me today that threats on the life of the president of the United States have now risen by as much as 400 percent since his inauguration, 400 percent death threats against Barack Obama…

[Blalron]

@John_Mace

Not quite-- you misread the article. Threats against Obama’s life are up 400% since his inauguration. The article says threats are higher than previous presidents, but it doesn’t quantify that increase.

Here’s another cite that spells it out more clearly:

@telegraph.co.uk

Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President’s Secret Service.

[Blalron]

@Todderbob

Or, it could be that there are other factors that increase him death threats. You know, ones that aren’t political. Some might be about his race, and that wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Even if the people threatening him based in his race are right wing, you can’t call it politically motivated.

I’m not saying that excuses anything, mind you.

Race definitely is a factor. Not just in terms of death threats, but also in terms of political opposition. The Ring Wing noise machine would have gone into hysterics over Hillary also, but I don’t believe the intensity would be quite as strong as with Obama.

Obama has done absolutely nothing to advance gun control legislation (The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence gave him an F for his nonefforts), and has shown zero interest in doing so, there was nonetheless a massive rush by gun owners to stockpile ammunition because they’re afraid Obama is going to pass gun control.

I don’t think it’s entirely race either. After all, Michael Steel is both Black and Chairman of the RNC. I think it’s the combination of being liberal and black that really boils their blood. I suspect, but obviously can’t prove, that if Colin Powell was elected President we wouldn’t be seeing the same kind of fearful reaction against him.

[Martini_Enfield]

@Blalron

Obama has done absolutely nothing to advance gun control legislation (The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence gave him an F for his nonefforts), and has shown zero interest in doing so, there was nonetheless a massive rush by gun owners to stockpile ammunition because they’re afraid Obama is going to pass gun control.

My private theory is that this is because entirely too many people are unable to see “Universal Health Care” as anything but a Communist/Socialist plot, and figure that anyone who is enough of a “Communist” or “Socialist” to implement that is probably sitting in their hollowed-out volcanic island White House Lair trying to work out how to get their guns next.

It’s complete bollocks, of course, but try telling them that.

[John_Mace]

@Blalron

Here’s another cite that spells it out more clearly:

Color me suspicious that this article comes up with exactly the same number as the previous article. Exactly 400%. I suspect they may have made the same mistake you did when you read the earlier article. Especially in light of how they worded it:

Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent

That’s the same thing as saying threats increased 400% since his inauguration.

[Blalron]

@John_Mace

Color me suspicious that this article comes up with exactly the same number as the previous article. Exactly 400%. I suspect they may have made the same mistake you did when you read the earlier article. Especially in light of how they worded it:

You’re suspicious because the cites agree with each other? It’s probable that they rounded down or up ever so slightly, but even if it was 391.567% instead of EXACTLY 400% I don’t see how it makes a difference. This is nitpicking in the extreme, and does nothing to disprove the larger point that Barack Obama, as an occupant of the White House, is getting quadruple the rate of death threats that George W. Bush got when he was occupying the White House.

That’s the same thing as saying threats increased 400% since his inauguration.

There seems to be some confusion, or at least I was confused about your interpretation. I thought you were reading the relevant metric as about threats to the person of Obama, when it was talking about threats against the President.

A threat made to Obama on January 19th, 2009 would not be counted as a threat made against the President, because George W. Bush’s ass was still on the chair in the Oval Office.

[John_Mace]

@Blalron

You’re suspicious because the cites agree with each other? It’s probable that they rounded down or up ever so slightly, but even if it was 391.567% instead of EXACTLY 400% I don’t see how it makes a difference. This is nitpicking in the extreme, and does nothing to disprove the larger point that Barack Obama, as an occupant of the White House, is getting quadruple the rate of death threats that George W. Bush got when he was occupying the White House.

There seems to be some confusion, or at least I was confused about your interpretation. I thought you were reading the relevant metric as about threats to the person of Obama, when it was talking about threats against the President.

Yes, threats to Obama, as president. But your second cite is not consistent in whether it is since the inauguration or comparing it to under Bush. The first article was clear that the 400% number was “since his [Obama’s] inauguration”.

A threat made to Obama on January 19th, 2009 would not be counted as a threat made against the President, because George W. Bush’s ass was still on the chair in the Oval Office.

No. “Since his inauguration” means he has already been inaugurated, and he is president. However, I’d be very surprised if they were talking about the specific day of the inauguration, rather than the time period around his inauguration. Talking about the number of threats on any one day, especially inauguration day, wouldn’t make much sense from a statistical standpoint.

[sqweels]

The point is that the Right maintained that “government is tyrannical” under Clinton, but forgot about that under Bush despite a lot of heavy-handed government action. Then they forgot about forgetting about it when Obama was elected and doubled down on anti-government rancor.

Meanwhile the Left has had a fairly nuanced view of government–never as pro- as they’re often made out to be, but anti-Bush not as a flip-flop, but in response to a lot of heavy-handed actions that were actually taken by that administration.

[foolsguinea]

@Todderbob

I do think, and this is often where the ideas of mine and others get confused, that federal governance is in general bad. Not because they enact bad policies (though they sometimes do), but because those policies shouldn’t necessarily be applied to everyone in the country. Drug laws are a perfect example of this.

You have far more voice in your state government than your federal one. And you have ever more in your local one, and it’s my opinion that whenever possible laws abd governance should be done on as small of a scale as possible, in order to best tailor those laws to the reality of the area their in.

Good in theory, but in practice, most Americans are Americans first, not Missourians or Floridians or what have you; & we’re mobile. If the pols in the several states think that voters in their states are fixated on how their state should be different from the rest of the nation, that’s only because the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t pay any attention at all to state politics, & only the few that somehow care about these archaic things called “states” are voting for state officeholders.

Most Americans only know one politician: The President of the United States of America. And it is the President of the United States of America who will be credited & blamed for everything, whether he was involved or not. Therefore, state offices are effectively unaccountable. Really, for the sake of responsible government, we should bite the bullet & abolish most superfluous levels of representation, as those people are utterly ignored & can damn near get away with murder under the present system. Keep the Presidency–perhaps only the Presidency, autocratic & absolute. But if you like, keep as well either the state governors or one house of Congress. Abolish the rest, it’s too many “representatives” for most of us to keep track of.

[Todderbob]

@foolsguinea

Good in theory, but in practice, most Americans are Americans first, not Missourians or Floridians or what have you; & we’re mobile. If the pols in the several states think that voters in their states are fixated on how their state should be different from the rest of the nation, that’s only because the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t pay any attention at all to state politics, & only the few that somehow care about these archaic things called “states” are voting for state officeholders.

Most Americans only know one politician: The President of the United States of America. And it is the President of the United States of America who will be credited & blamed for everything, whether he was involved or not. Therefore, state offices are effectively unaccountable. Really, for the sake of responsible government, we should bite the bullet & abolish most superfluous levels of representation, as those people are utterly ignored & can damn near get away with murder under the present system. Keep the Presidency–perhaps only the Presidency, autocratic & absolute. But if you like, keep as well either the state governors or one house of Congress. Abolish the rest, it’s too many “representatives” for most of us to keep track of.

Thats because most of the representatives don’t represent you.

You have 1 Representative, and 2 Senators that you need to worry about. Other than that – the rest of themy you simply don’t need to worry about, they represent other people.

Your idea of a country is one I don’t want to live in, it’s somewhere between an absolute dictatorship and my worst nightmare.

[jrodefeld]

Two things about this thread. First, we have a “supposedly” representative system and therefore the people at the end of the day are responsible for the type of government they get. But if both parties in the end support the same special interests and the same policies, we really don’t have a choice. As a libertarian who always votes third party I know that many people are frustrated that they vote for the lesser of two evils continually and policies don’t ever change. Our government is on auto pilot headed straight for the cliff and all we ever get is to perpetuate a failed system with more of the same. If a program is failing, simply increase funding. Health care sucks due to Insurance company and Pharmaceutical lobbying, give them more power through corporate subsidies. The war in Afghanistan is failing with no real objective for victory, send more troops. The deficit is out of control, do we think about cutting ANYTHING? Not a chance. And on and on and on. The will of the people really doesn’t matter anymore. Tyranny is a loaded word, but I think its crept up on us. We have been bought off with toys and gizmos and the illusion of wealth for so long, we have not seen the corporate banking takeover and police state measures that are being implemented. We’ve lost our right to privacy and habeas corpus. And a whole host of civil liberties have been eroded over the last couple of decades. But people didn’t care, because we were riding the Alan Greenspan assisted “prosperity” bubble of easy money and rampant consumerism that made people feel wealthy.

But now people are losing everything and the illusion of easy money is being shattered and people are seeing things for what they really are. Outrage at our government extends well beyond the Tea baggers. Whats happening is Wall Street banks and the privaledged class are saving themselves and throwing the rest of us under the bus. And Obama is a complete corporatist that is NOT on the side of Main Street. I agree that there is some partisan and racist people out there made that Obama is a liberal / black but I think it is a very small percentage of the anger expressed out there.

If you are like me you can see that both parties are the same you should be happy at the anger out there. The blind, non partisan throw all the incumbants out anger. There is an oportunity for a third party to take hold and establish real change for the first time in generations.

Don’t fight it, embrace it.