American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

You do realize there's no going back if that happens?

Darrell

All kinds of Latin American countries slide between cheap caudillos and back to ineffectual democracy without stopping. Since our wise and incredible elites have seen fit to give us the demographics of a Latin American country, it seems natural that we would also end up with a Latin American style of government to match.

[Mjmd]

"I'm blaming Latin immigrants for our very white government and my anti immigrant party specifically sliding into more corruption and more autocracy". An interesting take.

Also, its not like many of those countries are particularly successful. Its not a model we should want to emulate. Also, as bad as the US gov is, it has been working much better than most of them.

[Jaffa]

But it's totally worth giving up our rights and freedoms so long as we get rid of the completely real and not at all made up "deep state".

[Charr Babies]

Not long ago, the Green One expressed support for an autocratic government, pushing it as a better option than a failed state like the United States. While I agree with this perspective, it's not a topic I wish to discuss further with a group of deluded Democrats in this echo chamber. I just want to comment that this latest bout of exchanges has exposed why the US has failed. 

That said, autocracy carries significant risks, such as the potential for abuse of power and a lack of accountability. However, this is precisely what this so-called democracy is exhibiting—abuse of power and a lack of accountability. This isn't about Trump; it's been this way for decades.

Autocratic governance could center on its potential for stability and efficiency. In a system where decision making is centralized, there’s less room for partisan gridlock or sabotage between opposing factions. Policies can be implemented swiftly without the constant cycle of undoing previous administrations' work, which often stalls progress. Additionally, an autocratic government might avoid the blame game and focus on unified leadership. 
(*BOLD = exactly what's happening right here in the forum and the real world) 

Here, I see the pot calling the kettle black. Guess what? You’re both black. This isn’t about left versus right—it’s a systemic problem.

.

[Mjmd]

So again there are / were problems with US democracy (that have gotten worse). However, when people state that there are problems so why not go for the autocratic option that also has those problems, but also has "x" benefits! The flaw with that argument is of course scale. IE yes there is corruption currently, but its not to scale of the corruption of autocracies. There is abuse of power, but not anywhere near the scale of autocracies. They also tend to leave out other risks of autocracies. The biggest one and the one humanity has STRUGGLED with throughout its history is "how do you determine who is in charge". Autocracies tend to follow "whomever can get their hands on the power". Which of course is where a lot of the corruption issues stem from is because you need to pay the people who got you / maintain you in power. In democracies at least some of your effort has to go to the people voting for you. However, the darker side is of course a higher chance for splintering of power. This can take several forms to government losing power due to giving it away as part of deals to get the head honcho into main seat of power. Or there is always the chance for civil war. While autocratic governments do TRY for stability, they don't always succeed and its a very rare autocratic government that manages any kind of efficiency. I do admit that a consistent direction is an advantage. At least as long as that autocrat maintains power. But the "everything blows up when leader dies" happens quite often. There is also the extremely relevant "autocratic leader is an idiot or deluded and the direction they are going down is stupid but it can't be changed". Related there is also the very relevant weakness that because no one stands up to the autocratic leader no one challenges their ideas, which again causes an issue with the consistent direction. You also tend to lose out on capable subordinates both do to only taking "yes men" but not willing to be upstaged by anyone.

[greenline]

Also, its not like many of those countries are particularly successful. Its not a model we should want to emulate. Also, as bad as the US gov is, it has been working much better than most of them.

Correct, all of those countries suck. The reality is, though, if one is stuck with an America with the demographics of a shithole state, that annoying Caudilloism is preferable to whatever disease has afflicted Venezuela.

[Mjmd]

I would argue extensively it isn't the demographics that caused those countries to be shithole countries..... There is a lot of history there; some of which the US caused. Might want to take some inward looks because that was extremely racist sounding.

What has affected Venezuela is just on the spectrum of caudiloism.

[greenline]

I'm pretty sure we haven't touched Brazil, and that place is just as bad as a lot of the others. What they all have in common are similar demographics and a cultural background. Now the same process is being repeated in the US through mass immigration. Very fun.

I don't think Chavez would count as a Caudillo, he was big on socialism, and caudillo is usually the anti socialist / leftist side...

[Mjmd]

Most of history white Europe had the shithole countries. Central and south I would boil it down to the STRUGGLE to get to / maintain a democracy (which comes down to historical background). This has vastly affected their institutions which are a big contributing factor. The whole area is a walking historical example of the damage autocracies can cause (and power struggles to be at the top of them) and the struggle to get to and maintain democracies without devolving back to autocracies. My understanding of caudillo was just another name / type of strongman. Doesn't really matter if its left or right leaning, autocracies are mostly miss with an occasional hit.

[darrelljs]

Let's not exaggerate.  Granted, the middle class has shrunk alarmingly the last 30 years:



However, having rich people isn't a problem...having poor people is.  The percentage of lower income people has "only" gone up 4%.  It's still a huge problem and something needs to be done...but unfortunately neither party seems to have a credible plan.  I'd argue a bigger problem to address is the cost of living, and especially the cost of housing.

By comparison, the middle class in Latin America is still only 30% of the population.  Unsurprisingly EU countries, especially the Nordics, have a strong middle class (page 63).  The worst (Bulgaria) is 1% higher than the US, and the best (Sweden) is a whopping 25% higher.

Darrell