America could become a dictatorship in 2030

[pieter]

www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-american-polity-is-cracked-and-might-collapse-canada-must-prepare/

[pieter]

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-rightwing-dictatorship-2030-canada-b1985864.html%3Famp

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/03/us-rightwing-dictatorship-2030-trump-canada

[pieter]

[pieter]

[pieter]

Politics

Prepare for Right-Wing U.S. Dictatorship Before 2030, Scholar Urges Canada

By Darragh Roche On 1/1/22 at 11:28 AM EST


A Canadian political scientist has urged his country's government to prepare for the possibility of the United States becoming a right-wing dictatorship before 2030.

In an op-ed published in The Globe and Mail on Friday, Thomas Homer-Dixon, an executive director of the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University in British Columbia, warned his country had to prepare for the worst-case scenario.

"By 2025, American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence," Homer-Dixon wrote.

"By 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship. We mustn't dismiss these possibilities just because they seem ludicrous or too horrible to imagine.

"In 2014, the suggestion that Donald Trump would become president would also have struck nearly everyone as absurd. But today we live in a world where the absurd regularly becomes real and the horrible commonplace."

The scholar added: "The [U.S.] is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war."

Last month, three retired U.S. Army generals warned of the possibility of civil war if the 2024 presidential election results are not accepted by sections of the military.

In November, more than 150 U.S. academics wrote a public letter in support of the Freedom to Vote Act, which deals with voter registration and access and has not yet been passed. Those scholars warned that "Defenders of democracy in America still have a slim window of opportunity to act. But time is ticking away, and midnight is approaching."

In the op-ed, Homer-Dixon detailed his reasons for what he called the "unfolding crisis" in the U.S., writing that there had been multiple "warning signals" and reasons behind a changing political landscape.

Among them, he cited "stagnating middle-class incomes, chronic economic insecurity, and rising inequality," and broadcaster such as the late Rush Limbaugh who he said had "hammered away" at the "moral authority of U.S. political institutions."

He also highlighted "right-wing ideologues" stoking fears of white "replacement," the unwillingness of the wealthy and powerful "to pay the taxes, invest in the public services, or create the avenues for vertical mobility."

The op-ed referred to ex-President Trump, his administration and "Trumpism" 28 times.

At one point, Homer-Dixon wrote that, "If Mr. Trump is re-elected, even under the more-optimistic scenarios the economic and political risks to our country will be innumerable."

Newsweek has contacted Trump's representative's for comment.

[pieter]

www.huffpost.com/entry/right-wing-dictatorship-by-2030-warning_n_61d40c28e4b0c7d8b8a75cad
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/06/canadian-intellectuals-worry-about-us-becoming-dictatorship-maybe-they-should-worry-about-canada/
www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/opinion/america-civil-war.html (For those who have access to the New York Times)
www.thestatesman.com/world/us-right-wing-dictator-2030-canadian-prof-1503035931.html

www.npr.org/2022/01/03/1069764164/american-democracy-poll-jan-6?t=1643652232190
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/06/us-democracy-capitol-attack-january-6
www.americanprogress.org/article/how-to-save-american-democracy/

A partisan article of USA Today but interesting: eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/23/republicans-could-kill-democracy-if-democrats-lose-house-majority/5191699001/

A discussion about the subject:
www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-America-will-become-a-right-wing-dictatorship-by-2030-as-reported-by-Newsweek-The-Guardian-and-other-Western-press-As-an-American-will-you-support-that-dictatorship

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/opinion/american-democracy-2024.html (For those who have access to the New York Times)

Elective dictatorship

The phrase "elective dictatorship" (also called executive dominance in political science) describes the state in which Parliament is dominated by the government of the day. It refers to the fact that the legislative programme of Parliament is determined by the government, and government bills virtually always pass the House of Commons because of the nature of the majoritarian first-past-the-post electoral system, which almost always produces strong government, in combination with the imposition of party discipline on the governing party's majority, which almost always ensures loyalty. In the absence of a codified constitution, this tendency toward executive dominance is compounded by the Parliament Acts and Salisbury Convention which circumscribe the House of Lords and their ability to block government initiatives.

The phrase was popularised by the former Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, Lord Hailsham, in a Richard Dimbleby Lecture at the BBC in 1976. The phrase is found a century earlier, in describing Giuseppe Garibaldi's doctrines, and was used by Hailsham (then known as Quintin Hogg) in lectures in 1968 and 1969.

Comment Pieter:

Folks I hope that the American Democracy, Constitution, Bill of Rights, the American elections, the heritage of the America's Founding Fathers, the United States Electoral College system, and then tradition of Democratic and Republican administrations and presidents is to important for the Americans to lose and that thus the USA will neither have a new Nero, Napoleon, Juan Perón, Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, Vladimir Putin, nor a Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping or Alexander Lukashenko.

The American Democracy has a great value for the USA itself, Canada, Mexico, the NAFTA and United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), the European Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden), Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South-Africa (the moderate, democratic, liberal and conservative Black, Coloured, Khoisan -the indigenous peoples of Southern Africa-, Hindu Indians, Cape Malayans and White Afrikaners & Anglo-Africans), Israel, the democratic Arabs states, the democratic Asian countries (South-Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines and Singapore) and other US-allies and trade partners in the world.

For the unity of the America's and for the sake of good multilateral and bilateral relations with latin- and Southern-American countries an American dictatorship and probably connected to that either American expansionism & Imperialism or extreme isolationalism and maybe Autarky ( www.britannica.com/topic/autarky ) would be extremely bad for Americans and the Global economy. If this would be the case the image of a 'primitive' America in Europe would be proven right and the progress of a pioneer society of 'aggressive colonizers and settlers' of Native American land to a sophisticated 20th century and 21th century North American USA civilization not true. I believe in the latter, that despite the past the American whites with their European roots (and pan-European mixes), the American Blacks, the Native Americans, Asian Americans and Latin Americans (Latino's from Southern-America, Latin America and Mexico) together build a new civilization, sophisticated democratic society and a new culture, political system, technology and progress which is different than the West-European, Southern-European, Northern-European (Scandinavian), Central-European, Eastern-European, Eurasian, Asian, Middle Eastern, African and Polynesian (Pacific) civilizations, political systems, financial-economical systems, cultures, sciences, peoples and progress.

The American Democracy, society and Nation and people was, is and will be a great process. If the USA will develop into a dictatorship and therefor side with China, the despots of the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe (Alexander Lukashenko & Vladimir Putin), the American Democracy, American civilization, American culture and spirit of liberty will not have been gone. American dissidents will live and work in EU countries, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Southern-America, South-Africa and other places. Inside the USA you will have a Underground Resistance Front of people who opposed each other in the past. Democrats, Republicans and Independent voters will join forces against the new authoritarian, Oligarchic, Totalitarian regime of the New Despot. People say that will be Donald Trump, but it could be someone else who uses Trumps charisma & ideology and merges it with older authoritarian ideas, rules and restrictions.

An American dictator certainly will use McCarthyism ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism ), the practice of making accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to communism and socialism. In the Modern form that will be directed against the Conservative-, Libertarian-, Moderate-, Modern liberal-, Progressive-, the Democratic socialist- (of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) wings of the Democratic party, just because these wings belong to the Democratic party. The American dictator will direct it's partisan judiciary, police state forces and intelligence agencies against the Anti-Trumpist-, the Libertarian conservative- (of Mike Lee, senator Rand Paul and Representative Thomas Massie), certainly against the Neoconservative- (George W. Bush good relation with Bill & Hilary Clinton and the Obama's doesn't speak in his favor), the Moderate- (Charlie Baker, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) fractions of the Republican party, against the the Libertarian Party (United States) and it's Anarcho-capitalist, Minarchist-, Libertarian socialist- and Paleolibertarian wings. Ofcourse also the Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA), Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP), followers, party members, activists and politicians of the Green Party of the United States (GPUS), people of the Reform Party, and people of the Constitution Party will be targeted as well. Because the new authoritarian regime will either have a one party system or a state system without a party system and thus without a parliamentary democracy and without a parliamentary republic. A New Despotic regime might look like the authoritarian Sanation (Polish: Sanacja) regime of Józef Piłsudski which was supported by the Nonpartisan Bloc for Cooperation with the Government (BBWR). In the course of pursuing "sanation", Piłsudski mixed democratic and authoritarian elements. Sanation, which advocated authoritarian rule, rested on a circle of Piłsudski's close associates. An American dictator will use authoritarian European ideas, he will look at Russia, China, Belarus, Turkey and will probably admire the Brazillian president Jair Bolsonaro, a polarizing and controversial politician, his views and comments, which have been described as far-right and populist, have drawn both praise and criticism in Brazil.



And the New American dictator and his regime of henchmen, opportunists, bureaucrats, Federal nomenklatura & apparatchiks and dictatorial intelligence agencies, CIA officers, and politicized FBI agents and state police forces will direct it's power, might, aggression, violence and oppression to anyone who opposes the direction of the New Regime. Whatever the ideology, course and policies of that new regime will be. Such a dictator and regime will tolerate no dissent, no other opinions and will enforce obedience of all American citizens. This will be the ideal America of Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Richard B. Spencer, Paul Gosar, Michele Bachmann, the ultra-conservative Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin.

This new dictator could become powerful and construct a majority if he binds the forces of the Dixiecrats, the Conservative wing within the Centrist fraction of the Democrats, the Trumpist faction in the Republican party, Conservative Republicans, the Christian right faction, the American Evangelicals, Protestant Christian Fundamentalist Puritanical people, people of the Tea Party movement, Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan, Ultra-conservative Roman-Catholic Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans and Polish-Americans, Technocrats and people from the Federal government, the Intelligence community, the Pentagon, the FBI, CIA, NSA, National Guard and US-army who will benefit from an authoritarian, totalitarian state with an American dictator as the head of the state.

I know that on this Forum like in the American and European societies people have different opinions, different political affiliations, different professions and different back grounds.

It would be nice of fellow Forum members give their opinion on this subject. Do you think it is impossible to abolish the American Democracy, do you think the USA is moving towards an illiberal democracy, Democraship (a merger of Democracy & Dictatorship)/Démocrature ( fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9mocrature ), an oligarchy, Kleptocracy, Autocracy or a full dictatorship? What is the Countervailing power of the American Federal administration?

According to the principle of checks and balances, each of the branch of the state should have the power to limit or check the other two, creating a balance between the three separate powers of the state. Each branch's efforts to prevent either of the other branches becoming supreme form part of an eternal conflict, which leaves the people free from government abuses. Immanuel Kant was an advocate of this, noting that "the problem of setting up a state can be solved even by a nation of devils" so long as they possess an appropriate constitution to pit opposing factions against each other.[26] Checks and balances are designed to maintain the system of separation of powers keeping each branch in its place. The idea is that it is not enough to separate the powers and guarantee their independence but the branches need to have the constitutional means to defend their own legitimate powers from the encroachments of the other branches. They guarantee that the branches have the same level of power (co-equal), that is, are balanced, so that they can limit each other, avoiding the abuse of power. The origin of checks and balances, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu in the Enlightenment (in The Spirit of the Laws, 1748). Under this influence it was implemented in 1787 in the Constitution of the United States. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, citing Montesquieu, redefined the judiciary as a separate branch of government coequal with the legislative and the executive branches. Before Hamilton, many colonists in the American colonies had adhered to British political ideas and conceived of government as divided into executive and legislative branches (with judges operating as appendages of the executive branch).

The following example of the separation of powers and their mutual checks and balances from the experience of the United States Constitution (specifically, Federalist No. 51) is presented as illustrative of the general principles applied in similar forms of government as well:

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

What mechanism, tools, instruments, checks & balances, countervailing powers are there in the USA (America) to prevent a dictatorship and thus an authoritarian regime and totalitarian system with an American dictator to establish and maintain itself?

Cheers,
Pieter

[pieter]

Important for the maintainance and the defence and thus protection of American Democracy is the American ideology which backs the American Democratic system:


The Statue of Liberty, a symbol of American freedom and openness to immigration

Republicanism, along with a form of classical liberalism remains the dominant ideology within American Democratic politics. Central documents include the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Constitution (1787), the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (1787-1790s), the Bill of Rights (1791), and Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" (1863), among others. Among the core tenets of this ideology are the following:

- Civic duty: citizens have the responsibility to understand and support the government, participate in elections, pay taxes, and perform military service.

- Opposition to Political corruption.

- Democracy: The government is answerable to citizens, who may change the representatives through elections.

- Equality before the law: The laws should attach no special privilege to any citizen. Government officials are subject to the law just as others are.

- Freedom of religion: The government can neither support nor suppress any or all religion.

- Freedom of speech: The government cannot restrict through law or action the personal, non-violent speech of a citizen; a marketplace of ideas.

[Jaga]

that is why we need this committee to investigate the January 6th of last year. People don't support Trump as much as they used to, even this 33%. He is not getting out of the mess of civil suits in NYC also.

[JustJohn or JJ]

A very interesting point that has come out of this subject is it is one sided.

John,

Today I analyse that in a large part of the West and in the world there are despotic, authoritarian, totalitarian regimes. A great deal of them are ultra-conservative, rightwing, nationalist despotic regimes or illiberal democracies. I mention the Russian Federation (a Russian nationalistic authoritarian form of government), Turkey with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, India with the Hindu Nationalist prime minister Narendra Modi and Hindu Nationalist president Ram Nath Kovind, prime minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister of Poland Mateusz Morawiecki and Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law & Justice party) leader Jarosław Kaczyński, and Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro.

Next to these more rightwing leaning dictatorships you have many leftwing, military and theocratic dictatorships. Iran & Saoudi Arabia are theocracies, China, North-Korea and Burma leftwing dictatorships, and Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba as well.

Are you all saying that a dictatorship is conservative in nature only? Appears to be.

Like I have mentioned in my previous reply there are a lot of dictatorships are rightwing and nationalist in nature, but certainly not all of them. You have communist, socialist, leftwing Populist, leftwing military dictatorships and you have theocracies, one party states and ideological or tribal regimes. I wouldn't call these authoritarian and totalitarian regimes conservative.

Is there no dictatorship that was socialist/communist in this world? Appears to be some.

There are a lot of communist/socialist and former socialist/communist dictatorships in the world John. To name a few; China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Burma (leftwing authoritarian & totalitarian military dictatorship), Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Angola, South-Africa (the ANC regime and then dangerof Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters), Namibia, Mozambique, Syria (Ba'ath regime of Hafez al-Assad), Belaya Rus, a Belarusian public association founded on 17 November 2007 to support President Alexander Lukashenko, Eritrea and Ethiopia. Terrible regimes John.

So why the sudden danger of conservatism vs socialism/communism?

I didn't speak of Conservatism vs Socialism/Communism, but about the threat of an American authoritarian regime, an American Dictatorship which would direct itself against Conservative Republicans, Liberal Democrats, and conservative, liberal, Green, Reform, Constitutional or Socialist voting Independent Americans if the American Democracy collapses and totalitarianism replaces American Democracy.

The mid term elections could become quite prophetic.

I am curious how these mid term elections will go John.

Very one sided presentation.


The thread is not one sided and subjective anymore, due to your and Jaga's replies John. Hope that Ron and Karl and Jeanne would react too. But that is your opinion and that is valid John. I asked for your opinion and you gave it. Very good and very well received and my thanks John.

Do you understand the key differences between a Republic and a Democracy? The Bill of Rights Institute has created a short, engaging video for Constitution Day on the constitutional principle of representative government. Exciting visuals from current events, an engaging historical narrative, brief scholar interviews, familiar music, and memorable quotes will make this 5-minute video perfect for use on Constitution Day, and every day!

[/div]

Thanks for the video, which I watched as an European layman in American politics, American society and American history. Learn from every post, every reply and opinions of fellow forum menbers from the USA or people like Karl with US experience as an expat.

Cheers,
Pieter

[pieter]

John,

In todays world, the danger of Totalitarianism comes from various sides. Democracy, Freedom, the Separation of Powers, checks & Balances, Democratic and Republican institutions, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights comes into danger when 'one group of people' infiltrates the Political institutions, the intelligence agencies, the military and the judiciary. Then danger can be leftwing, rightwing, but also centrist, sectarian religious, ethnic (one particular ethnic group of people grabing the power and oppressing others).

In the USA the danger of a dictatorship comes from right and left and from sectarian groups. Also to much power in the hands of a small group of super rich Oligarchs (Billionaires) is dangerous. I wonder if the American democracy is hindered by the influence of superrich influencers, sponsors of political parties, lobby & interests groups and dominant advocates of certain interests.

The Koch brothers, Charles and David Koch, mega-donors to ultra-conservative causes. But the very top titans – Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates – have all taken left-of-center stands on various issues, and Buffett and Gates are paragons of philanthropy. The former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is known for his advocacy of gun control, gay rights, and environmental protection. George Soros (protector of human rights around the world) and Tom Steyer (focused on young people and environmental issues) have been major donors to the Democrats.

Most of the wealthiest US billionaires – who are much less visible and less reported on – more closely resemble Charles Koch. They are extremely conservative on economic issues. Obsessed with cutting taxes, especially estate taxes – which apply only to the wealthiest Americans. Opposed to government regulation of the environment or big banks. Unenthusiastic about government programs to help with jobs, incomes, healthcare, or retirement pensions – programs supported by large majorities of Americans. Tempted to cut deficits and shrink government by cutting or privatizing guaranteed social security benefits.

billionaires who favor unpopular, ultraconservative economic policies, and work actively to advance them (that is, most politically active billionaires) stay almost entirely silent about those issues in public. This is a deliberate choice. Billionaires have plenty of media access, but most of them choose not to say anything at all about the policy issues of the day. They deliberately pursue a strategy of what we call “stealth politics”.

We have come to this conclusion based on an exhaustive, web-based study of everything that the 100 wealthiest US billionaires have said or done, over a 10-year period, concerning several major issues of public policy. For each billionaire we used several dozen carefully selected keywords to find all publicly available information about their specific talk or actions related to any aspect of social security, any type of taxation, or anything related to abortion, same-sex marriage, or immigration policy.

How can voters know that most billionaires are working to cut their social security benefits?

Consider social security, the largest and most popular domestic program in the United States. Social security has been the subject of spirited debates for decades. Is it going “bankrupt”? (No.) Should its benefits be expanded, to keep all retirees’ incomes well above the poverty line? Or – as advocated by the billionaire Pete Peterson (co-founder of the Blackstone private equity firm) and wealthy allies who fear that high government spending and deficits would erode bond values – should guaranteed benefits be cut, perhaps through less generous cost-of-living adjustments, or by ending guaranteed benefits entirely and leaving retirees with private accounts subject to stock-market fluctuations?

Most of the wealthiest US billionaires have made substantial financial contributions – amounting to hundreds of thousands of reported dollars annually, in addition to any undisclosed “dark money” contributions – to conservative Republican candidates and officials who favor the very unpopular step of cutting rather than expanding social security benefits. Yet, over the 10-year period we have studied, 97% of the wealthiest billionaires have said nothing at all about social security policy. Nothing about benefit levels, cost-of-living adjustments, or privatization. (Also nothing about the popular idea of shoring up social security finances by removing the low “cap” on income subject to payroll taxes and making the wealthy pay more.) How can voters know that most billionaires are working to cut their social security benefits?

Source: www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/30/billionaire-stealth-politics-america-100-richest-what-they-want

Constitutional dictatorship

A constitutional dictatorship is a form of government in which dictatorial powers are exercised during an emergency. The dictator is not absolute and the dictator's authority remains limited by the constitution.

The Roman Republic made provision for a dictator who could govern unchecked for a stipulated period of time. Unlike other magistrates, a dictator was not subject to review of his actions at the conclusion of his term.

The United States Constitution has a similar dictator clause stating that the President "may adjourn [congress] to such Time as he shall think proper" if the two houses disagree on when to adjourn. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States during the American Civil War, exercised extraordinary powers to preserve the Union. Lincoln's dictatorial actions included directly ordering the arrest and detention of dissenters and the suspension of the right to writs of habeas corpus. However, Lincoln remained subject to Congressional oversight, judicial review, and periodic elections.

The Weimar Republic, which succeeded Imperial Germany after the First World War, adopted a constitutional provision that expressly enabled the president to rule by decree, without consultation with the legislative branch. That provision was used by Chancellor Hitler to consolidate his powers upon his selection by President Hindenburg.

US President Franklin D. Roosevelt also exercised extraordinary powers in response to the Great Depression and the Second World War. Roosevelt's actions included violating the US Constitution's Contract Clause, the closing of banks, and a moratorium on foreclosures. Later, meeting a perceived threat by Japanese nationals and Japanese-Americans, Roosevelt ordered their relocation to internment camps.

In the 21st century, John Yoo, attorney and legal theorist, has offered a theory of the unitary executive for massive authority of the US President, in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Yoo provided the intellectual foundation for many of the actions undertaken by the George W. Bush administration in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Constitutional dictatorship, far from being a contradiction in terms, has been an important feature of republican governments since Roman times. This essay describes the basic idea of a constitutional dictatorship, and discusses those elements of constitutional dictatorship that already exist in the American constitutional system, particularly in the modern presidency. A constitutional dictatorship is a system (or subsystem) of constitutional government that bestows on a certain individual or institution the right to make binding rules, directives, and decisions and apply them to concrete circumstances unhindered by timely legal checks to their authority. The Roman dictatorship limited the time of the dictatorship and separated the institution that declared the emergency from the person who exercised power. The American pattern has been quite different. Generally speaking, the President announces the existence of a crisis or emergency, and, at the President's request, the Congress generally bestows new statutory grants of power. These new powers are usually never repealed and are banked away for future use, sometimes in very different contexts. The American pattern of constitutional dictatorship does not involve the executive claiming the right to transcend the law; instead Congress grants ever more practically unreviewable discretion to the executive. In addition, a significant feature of American constitutionalism is the rise of "distributed dictatorships," in which executive power is spread among a number of de facto dictators, each with its own special expertise. The modern administrative state increasingly spreads unreviewable power among a variety of different agencies, czars, and bureaucrats. The Federal Reserve's response to the recent economic crisis and the Centers for Disease Control's powers to impose quarantines are examples.

constitutionnet.org/news/taking-dictatorship-de-facto-de-jure-egypts-constitutional-amendments

[pieter]

[pieter]

WGBH-TV, virtual channel 2 (VHF digital channel 5), branded on-air as GBH or GBH 2 since 2020,[1] is the primary Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) member television station licensed to Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

[pieter]

[pieter]

John,

My hope, sincere belief, trust and desire is that the great American Democracy survives difficult times and the attempt op domestic and foreign powers to turn America in an illiberal democracy, démocrature (mix of dictatorship and guided demococracy) or a Constitutional Dictatorship.

64% of Americans believe that the U.S. democracy is "in crisis and at risk of failing." That sentiment is felt most acutely by Republicans: Two-thirds of GOP respondents agree with the claim that "voter fraud helped Joe Biden win the 2020 election". These Republicans believe that the election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.

Fewer than half of Republicans say they are willing to accept the results of the 2020 election — a number that has remained virtually unchanged since we asked the same question last January.

"There is really a sort of dual reality through which partisans are approaching not only what happened a year ago on Jan. 6, but also generally with the American presidential election and the American democracy.".

"It is Republicans that are driving this belief that there was major fraudulent voting and it changed the results in the election".

Nearly two-thirds of poll respondents agree that U.S. democracy is "more at risk" now than it was a year ago. Among Republicans, that number climbs to 4 in 5.

Overall, 70% of poll respondents agree that the country is in crisis and at risk of failing.

Two-thirds of Democrats agreed that "Trump and his allies broke the law trying to overturn the election," while most Republicans believe they were "exercising their correct legal right to contest the election," or that they "did not go far enough."

A majority of Republicans and Democrats alike reject political violence John.

It is reassuring to see that the system hasn't totally broken down, John. Most Americans on both sides of the aisle are still not willing to engage in violence. That is a proof of the sensible, pragmatic, Democratic, Republican and Independent and reasonable mindset of Most Americans. Almost everyone has Democrat, Republican and Independent friends, colleagues and family members. Even though you find them irritating, annoying, difficult to handle, having the wrong kind of opinion (not your own), they still are you compatriots, colleagues, neighbours and friends.

If I remember it correctly John, you voted once for Bernie Sanders and once for Donald Trump. Since I believe in democracy, I do respect your vote and you as a Trump supporter, even though I vehemently oppose your Trumpist views, from a democratic and republican point of view. Hopefully we agree to disagree. Many Americans will consider my political opinions and views coloured by my North-West-European social capitalist Rhineland and Polder models of economy, social liberal, social democratic, classical (European) liberal, libertarian and progressive Christian Democratic ideas. In general in my point of view the USA is more to the right, slightly more conservative, definitely more confessional (religious) and definitely more (tough) Capitalist than Europe.

Like Europe the USA changed during 2 centuries of Democratic politics of the various political parties. Both in Europe and the USA you have the leftwing-rightwing political divide in the United States House of Representatives and in the United States Senate. Having said that there is a sort of American political balance between American Liberalism and American Conservatism in a sort of 50-50 mode, which shifts from election to election. You have conservatives in the Democratic party (the Conservative wing of the Democratic Party, Blue Dog Democrats, Southern Democrats -Dixiecrats-) and liberals in the Republican Party (the Moderate faction).

The modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system dominated by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States Congress since at least 1856. From time to time, several other third parties have achieved relatively minor representation at the national and state levels.

Among the two major parties, the Democratic Party generally positions itself as center-left in American politics and supports an American liberalism platform, while the Republican Party generally positions itself as center-right and supports an American conservatism platform.

The American political culture is deeply rooted in the colonial experience and the American Revolution. The colonies were unique within the European world for their vibrant political culture, which attracted ambitious young men into politics.

Political spectrum of the two major parties

During the 20th century, the overall political philosophy of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party underwent a dramatic shift from their earlier philosophies. From the 1860s to the 1950s, the Republican Party was considered to be the more classically liberal of the two major parties and the Democratic Party the more classically conservative/populist of the two.

This changed a great deal with the presidency of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal included the founding of Social Security as well as a variety of other federal services and public works projects. Roosevelt's performance in the twin crises of the Depression and World War II led to a sort of polarization in national politics, centered around him; this combined with his increasingly liberal policies to turn FDR's Democrats to the left and the Republican Party further to the right.

During the 1950s and the early 1960s, both parties essentially expressed a more centrist approach to politics on the national level and had their liberal, moderate, and conservative wings influential within both parties.

From the early 1960s, the conservative wing became more dominant in the Republican Party, and the liberal wing became more dominant in the Democratic Party. The 1964 presidential election heralded the rise of the conservative wing among Republicans. The liberal and conservative wings within the Democratic Party were competitive until 1972, when George McGovern's candidacy marked the triumph of the liberal wing. This similarly happened in the Republican Party with the candidacy and later landslide election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, which marked the triumph of the conservative wing.

By the 1980 election, each major party had largely become identified by its dominant political orientation. Strong showings in the 1990s by reformist independent Ross Perot pushed the major parties to put forth more centrist presidential candidates, like Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. Polarization in Congress was said by some to have been cemented by the Republican takeover of 1994. Others say that this polarization had existed since the late 1980s when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

Liberals within the Republican Party and conservatives within the Democratic Party and the Democratic Leadership Council neoliberals have typically fulfilled the roles of so-called political mavericks, radical centrists, or brokers of compromise between the two major parties. They have also helped their respective parties gain in certain regions that might not ordinarily elect a member of that party; the Republican Party has used this approach with centrist Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Richard Riordan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The 2006 elections sent many centrist or conservative Democrats to state and federal legislatures including several, notably in Kansas and Montana, who switched parties.

Concerns about oligarchy



Some views suggest that the political structure of the United States is in many respects an oligarchy, where a small economic elite overwhelmingly dominate policy and law. Some academic researchers suggest a drift toward oligarchy has been occurring by way of the influence of corporations, wealthy, and other special interest groups, leaving individual citizens with less impact than economic elites and organized interest groups in the political process.



A study by political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern University) released in April 2014, concluded that the U.S. government doesn't represent the interests of the majority of its citizens but instead is "ruled by those of the rich and powerful". The researchers after analysing nearly 1,800 U.S. policies between 1981 and 2002, stated that government policies tend to favour special interests and lobbying organizations, and that whenever a majority of citizens disagrees with the economic elites, the elites tend to prevail in getting their way. While not characterizing the United States as an "oligarchy" or "plutocracy" outright, Gilens and Page give weight to the idea of a "civil oligarchy" as used by Jeffrey A. Winters, saying, "Winters has posited a comparative theory of 'Oligarchy,' in which the wealthiest citizens – even in a 'civil oligarchy' like the United States – dominate policy concerning crucial issues of wealth- and income-protection." In their study, Gilens and Page reached these conclusions:

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. ... [T]he preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.



E.J. Dionne Jr. described what he considers the effects of ideological and oligarchical interests on the judiciary. The journalist, columnist, and scholar interprets recent Supreme Court decisions as ones that allow wealthy elites to use economic power to influence political outcomes in their favor. In speaking about the Supreme Court's McCutcheon v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC decisions, Dionne wrote: "Thus has this court conferred on wealthy people the right to give vast sums of money to politicians while undercutting the rights of millions of citizens to cast a ballot."

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote:

The stark reality is that we have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people. This threatens to make us a democracy in name only.



American ideology



Republicanism, along with a form of classical liberalism remains the dominant ideology. Central documents include the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Constitution (1787), the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (1787-1790s), the Bill of Rights (1791), and Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" (1863), among others. Among the core tenets of this ideology are the following:

- Civic duty: citizens have the responsibility to understand and support the government, participate in elections, pay taxes, and perform military service.

- Opposition to Political corruption.

- Democracy: The government is answerable to citizens, who may change the representatives through elections.

- Equality before the law: The laws should attach no special privilege to any citizen. Government officials are subject to the law just as others are.

- Freedom of religion: The government can neither support nor suppress any or all religion.

- Freedom of speech: The government cannot restrict through law or action the personal, non-violent speech of a citizen; a marketplace of ideas.

At the time of the United States' founding, the economy was predominantly one of agriculture and small private businesses, and state governments left welfare issues to private or local initiative. As in the UK and other industrialized countries, laissez-faire ideology was largely discredited during the Great Depression. Between the 1930s and 1970s, fiscal policy was characterized by the Keynesian consensus, a time during which modern American liberalism dominated economic policy virtually unchallenged. Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, laissez-faire ideology has once more become a powerful force in American politics. While the American welfare state expanded more than threefold after WWII, it has been at 20% of GDP since the late 1970s. Today, modern American liberalism, and modern American conservatism are engaged in a continuous political battle, characterized by what the Economist describes as "greater divisiveness [and] close, but bitterly fought elections."

Before World War II, the United States pursued a noninterventionist policy of in foreign affairs by not taking sides in conflicts between foreign powers. The country abandoned this policy when it became a superpower, and the country mostly supports internationalism.

Researchers have looked at authoritarian values. The main argument of this paper is that long-run economic changes from globalization have a negative impact on the social identity of historically dominant groups. This leads to an increase in authoritarian values because of an increased incentive to force minority groups to conform to social norms.

Alexis de Tocqueville


The French aristocrat, diplomat, political scientist, political philosopher and historian Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859)

The French aristocrat, diplomat, political scientist, political philosopher and historian Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859) decided to study the large-scale American 19th century democracy firsthand, and the result was a classic account of early 19th-century American civilization. “We cannot,” he wrote, “prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal, but it depends upon ourselves whether the principle of equality will lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism, to prosperity or wretchedness.” He feared the possible abuse of power by centralized government, unrestrained by the old privileged classes, and thought it essential to “educate democracy” so that, although it would never have the “wild virtues” of the old regimes, it would have its own dignity, good sense, and even benevolence. Tocqueville greatly admired American representative institutions and made a penetrating analysis of the new power of the press. He realized, as few people then did, that the United States and Russia would become world powers, and he contrasted the freedom of the one and the despotism of the other. He also foresaw that under democracy education would be respected more as a ladder to success than for its intrinsic content and might thus become mediocre. He was alive to the dangers of uniform mediocrity but believed, like Mill, that democracy could be permeated by creative ideas.

Tocqueville was an ardent supporter of liberty. "I have a passionate love for liberty, law, and respect for rights", he wrote. "I am neither of the revolutionary party nor of the conservative. [...] Liberty is my foremost passion". He wrote of "Political Consequences of the Social State of the Anglo-Americans" by saying: "But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom".

Tocqueville warned that modern democracy may be adept at inventing new forms of tyranny because radical equality could lead to the materialism of an expanding bourgeoisie and to the selfishness of individualism. "In such conditions, we might become so enamored with 'a relaxed love of present enjoyments' that we lose interest in the future of our descendants...and meekly allow ourselves to be led in ignorance by a despotic force all the more powerful because it does not resemble one", wrote The New Yorker's James Wood. Tocqueville worried that if despotism were to take root in a modern democracy, it would be a much more dangerous version than the oppression under the Roman emperors or tyrants of the past who could only exert a pernicious influence on a small group of people at a time.

In contrast, a despotism under a democracy could see "a multitude of men", uniformly alike, equal, "constantly circling for petty pleasures", unaware of fellow citizens and subject to the will of a powerful state which exerted an "immense protective power". Tocqueville compared a potentially despotic democratic government to a protective parent who wants to keep its citizens (children) as "perpetual children" and which does not break men's wills, but rather guides it and presides over people in the same way as a shepherd looking after a "flock of timid animals".

On American social contract



Tocqueville's penetrating analysis sought to understand the peculiar nature of American political life. In describing the American, he agreed with thinkers such as Aristotle and Montesquieu that the balance of property determined the balance of political power, but his conclusions after that differed radically from those of his predecessors. Tocqueville tried to understand why the United States was so different from Europe in the last throes of aristocracy. In contrast to the aristocratic ethic, the United States was a society where hard work and money-making was the dominant ethic, where the common man enjoyed a level of dignity which was unprecedented, where commoners never deferred to elites and where what he described as crass individualism and market capitalism had taken root to an extraordinary degree.

Tocqueville writes: "Among a democratic people, where there is no hereditary wealth, every man works to earn a living. [...] Labor is held in honor; the prejudice is not against but in its favor". Tocqueville asserted that the values that had triumphed in the North and were present in the South had begun to suffocate old-world ethics and social arrangements. Legislatures abolished primogeniture and entails, resulting in more widely distributed land holdings. This was a contrast to the general aristocratic pattern in which only the eldest child, usually a man, inherited the estate, which had the effect of keeping large estates intact from generation to generation.

In contrast, landed elites in the United States were less likely to pass on fortunes to a single child by the action of primogeniture, which meant that as time went by large estates became broken up within a few generations which in turn made the children more equal overall. According to Joshua Kaplan's Tocqueville, it was not always a negative development since bonds of affection and shared experience between children often replaced the more formal relation between the eldest child and the siblings, characteristic of the previous aristocratic pattern. Overall, hereditary fortunes in the new democracies became exceedingly difficult to secure and more people were forced to struggle for their own living.


Alexis Charles Henri Clérel, comte de Tocqueville (29 July 1805 – 16 April 1859), colloquially known as Tocqueville (/ˈtɒkvɪl, ˈtoʊk-/),[11] was a French aristocrat, diplomat, political scientist, political philosopher and historian. He is best known for his works Democracy in America (appearing in two volumes, 1835 and 1840) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856). In both, he analysed the improved living standards and social conditions of individuals as well as their relationship to the market and state in Western societies. Democracy in America was published after Tocqueville's travels in the United States and is today considered an early work of sociology and political science.

As Tocqueville understood it, this rapidly democratizing society had a population devoted to "middling" values which wanted to amass through hard work vast fortunes. In Tocqueville's mind, this explained why the United States was so different from Europe. In Europe, he claimed, nobody cared about making money. The lower classes had no hope of gaining more than minimal wealth while the upper classes found it crass, vulgar and unbecoming of their sort to care about something as unseemly as money and many were virtually guaranteed wealth and took it for granted. At the same time in the United States, workers would see people fashioned in exquisite attire and merely proclaim that through hard work they too would soon possess the fortune necessary to enjoy such luxuries.

Despite maintaining that the balance of property determined the balance of power, Tocqueville argued that as the United States showed, equitable property holdings did not ensure the rule of the best men. In fact, it did quite the opposite as the widespread, relatively equitable property ownership which distinguished the United States and determined its mores and values also explained why the United States masses held elites in such contempt.

On majority rule and mediocrity

Beyond the eradication of old-world aristocracy, ordinary Americans also refused to defer to those possessing, as Tocqueville put it, superior talent and intelligence and these natural elites could not enjoy much share in political power as a result. Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power and claimed too great a voice in the public sphere to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality, Tocqueville argued, but the same mores and opinions that ensured such equality also promoted mediocrity. Those who possessed true virtue and talent were left with limited choices.

Tocqueville said that those with the most education and intelligence were left with two choices. They could join limited intellectual circles to explore the weighty and complex problems facing society, or they could use their superior talents to amass vast fortunes in the private sector. He wrote that he did not know of any country where there was "less independence of mind, and true freedom of discussion, than in America".

Tocqueville blamed the omnipotence of majority rule as a chief factor in stifling thinking: "The majority has enclosed thought within a formidable fence. A writer is free inside that area, but woe to the man who goes beyond it, not that he stands in fear of an inquisition, but he must face all kinds of unpleasantness in every day persecution. A career in politics is closed to him for he has offended the only power that holds the keys". According to Kaplan's interpretation of Tocqueville, he argued in contrast to previous political thinkers that a serious problem in political life was not that people were too strong, but that people were "too weak" and felt powerless as the danger is that people felt "swept up in something that they could not control".

Overall America, the USA has a lot of Freedom loving, Democracy respecting, Constitution defending (Constitutionalism), Bill of Rights defending and American citizens with respect for Civil liberties (the freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment under the law and due process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life). Being an American Patriot for them is defending the Federal United States of America, the American Democracy, Freedom and equality in the sense of the right to vote and being equal for the law. I sincerely hope John, Ron, Jaga, Jeanne, Ludvik and Eric that most Americans stand behind the American Democracy and defend it as American Patriots, Democratic Patriots, Republican Patriots and Independent Patriots.

Cheers,
Pieter