People don’t trust the establishment because it doesn’t take care of them. Trump is simply a symptom, whether you agree with him or not.

If Democracy is simply Oligarchy with voting as a decoration and sometime even that was gamed, then to the hell with this democracy.

▲

JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent [-]

This is the Hillbilly Elegy hypothesis. I used to buy it. I’m now less convinced. There is a hateful streak in America driven, in part, by reduced attention spans, literacy and ad-powered algorithms. When those folks get better off, they don’t become less hateful. (I’d love to see evidence to the contrary.)

> If Democracy is simply Oligarchy with voting as a decoration and sometime even that was gamed, then to the hell with this democracy

Do you really think you’ll be treated better in a quasi-monarchy?

▲

ryandrake 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> There is a hateful streak in America driven, in part, by reduced attention spans, literacy and ad-powered algorithms.

I’m sure those things are not helping, but America’s had a hateful streak for longer than they existed. It’s always been here but mostly hidden under shame and a veneer of basic politeness. Recent political rhetoric has encouraged this hate to go “mask off” and open up with it. Now it’s ok and totally normalized to openly and loudly hate, and broadcast that hate through tech.

▲

markus_zhang 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I guess it depends on who the Monarchy is. It was like asking, do you really think you will be treated better under Augustus or the Senate? I bet back then a lot of people would want the Monarchy — after all Augustus won and the Roman Empire was born.

In general we consider democracy > monarchy because good monarchies are rare and far between, so democracy is the least bad option.

And no, I don’t think Trump could be Augustus. Augustus and Caesar beat their enemies and cut them down like chicken. We are more civilized now, but I don’t think Trump is willing and can do enough sweeping. It is only by sweeping away the old aristocratic that the new ones can building a new Empire.

▲

JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> depends on who the Monarchy is

We have a pretty good hint!

> do you really think you will be treated better under Augustus or the Senate?

Augustus’s rein started with him engineering a peninsula-wide famine and economic collapse. He grew up after the civil war. But promptly after him you got Trajan.

> we consider democracy > monarchy because good monarchies are rare and far between, so democracy is the least bad option

Sort of. There is also the whole part about being able to fire the leaders once in a while.

> We are more civilized now, but I don’t think Trump is willing and can do enough sweeping

Trump would absolutely mow down Americans if his life depended on it, most leaders would, this is what makes dictatorships and other systems without a peaceful transition of power so dangerous.

> only by sweeping away the old aristocratic that the new ones can building a new Empire

Octavianus was a Claudian, one of Rome’s most prestigious patrician families. Most of the Emperors were also patricians. (Rome collapsed shortly after the aristocracy actually lost control. It’s literally referred to as the fall of Rome.)

If America goes monarchy, it would be in a way that ensconced our current elites into a generational aristocracy far more powerful than what Americans think is social immobility today.

▲

markus_zhang 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah you definitely have to be a patrician to be the Emperor. But you gotta remove many other patricians too.

My thought is, the US reached the peak of all Empires. It is Pax Americana, and every empire imploded whenever it stopped expanding. We had some pretty good time in the late 1800s and better time back in 1945 and 1990. There were struggles but we always managed to plow through because there were spaces to expand, and the elites back then, TBF, were better than this batch (I was reading Baltzell's books a while ago). But the good time was over, and there is not much space to expand, so the "safer" way is to reform -- but we rarely saw this happen, e.g. both Brother Gracchus were killed by the Senate -- and eventually Caesar came up and swept the floor, and I have no faith in this batch of elites.

▲

JumpCrisscross 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> you gotta remove many other patricians too

What are you basing this on? The patrician families continued to rein under the Empire. Which side do you think backed Sulla’s dictatorship? Which side do you think felt (and feels) constrained by elections and democratic norms?

> It is Pax Americana, and every empire imploded whenever it stopped expanding

One, source? Because plenty of great civilisations across history reached stable states for hundreds if not thousands of years.

And two, America is still expanding. The economy is growing. Post industrialisation, there are more routes to goodies than conquering territory. (I can’t think of a single war of conquest since China annexed Tibet that has gone well for the invader since WWII.)

	▲	markus_zhang 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> One, source? Because plenty of great civilisations across history reached stable states for hundreds if not thousands of years. Be that as it may. Expansionist empires usually shrinks dramatically once they reached their peak. Both Roman and the British are examples, as well as many Chinese dynasties. The East Roman Empire did survive for much longer so it is also possible for the US to go on for a lot longer. I think the Inca was also kinda stable before the Spanish came. > And two, America is still expanding. The economy is growing. Post industrialisation, there are more routes to goodies than conquering territory. (I can’t think of a single war of conquest since China annexed Tibet that has gone well for the invader since WWII.) I do hope that we can drag through this period and make some reformation happen. But I don't have high hope for the current batch of elites. Sure the number is growing.