FWIW, I've believed we've had an authoritarian in power for quite a while now. Obama, Trump, Biden, and Bush have all tried and succeeded in expanding executive power. They've all engaged in extrajudicial killings overseas.

Nothing sets me off like seeing people think this behavior from Trump doesn't have shared roots across both parties.

Biden kept kids in cages. Obama bombed weddings. Yes, the current admin is accelerating hard but like, prior admins were accelerating.

People should really try to stop thinking about politics like it's a two party game where you have to pick a side. Figure out your principles, and start finding candidates who match those principles.

▲

rootusrootus a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, it has been accelerating a long time. But I worry a bit about toning it down too much by both-sides-ing it. The Dems were no angels, but they most assuredly did not ever try to overturn the counting of the vote for president. They did not relentlessly claim the whole game was rigged. They never openly mocked the citizens who did not vote for them, made policy specifically to spite red states, etc. Or created government web sites like https://www.whitehouse.gov/mysafespace

By both-sides-ing this, it plays into hands of the people who support the current abhorrent behavior by claiming they're not doing anything different than their opponents have done. That is patently false, and we should not accept it.

▲

whoooboyy a day ago | parent [-]

I'm sorry, I refuse to just simply not acknowledge the role liberalism has in the rise of fascism. Whether it's in the past or today, fascism don't just materialize because one guy talks good. It's neither incorrect nor inappropriate to say (neo)liberalism and austerity are direct antecedents to fascist rhetoric.

It's not both sidesing to identify and critique the role democrats had to play here, especially when I say the gop is clearly worse. A critical assessment of how the Dems failed to protect us is not only not helping the GOP, it's exactly the sort of root cause analysis that helps ensure the mid terms go OK.

Saying now's not the time to criticize Dems is the same sentiment that gets us "vote blue no matter who" when Biden runs but "I think we have to consider our options" when Mamdani runs. It's sticking your head in the sand rather than having to face the fact that the party has a losing platform.

	▲	amrocha a day ago \| parent [-]
		I didn’t agree with your first comment, but reading this one I think we actually have very similar opinions. I think your first comment sounded a bit too much like the libertarian nut jobs that comment on here all the time claiming drivers licenses are fascism. There’s this quote I read recently: “When a political system collapses, the replacement is chosen from the choices available at the time ”. I think it’s pretty clear to anyone with a brain that neoliberalism has failed the majority of people. Trump provided an alternative, and democrats ran on “nothing will fundamentally change”. The results are what we see today.

▲

potato3732842 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>FWIW, I've believed we've had an authoritarian in power for quite a while now.

Relevant:

https://img.ifunny.co/images/d85bf67967cdc2fd0616343ed6c1004...

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

thrance a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

whoooboyy a day ago | parent [-]

Did you read my post, where I clearly said the GOP is worse?

Better is not the same as good. The Dems are better. They are still bad. Stop pretending "not the worst" is an acceptable bar.

	▲	LadyCailin a day ago \| parent [-]
		Step 1 is to get people to stop readily voting for the worst option. Step 2 is to get people to vote for the right option. When you confuse the order of these two steps, you short yourself and others in the foot.

▲

epolanski a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Authoritarianism by definition is about controlling all the forms of power, not about expanding one.

Nor it has anything to do with what countries do around the world. You can be democratically elected, law abiding, not overreach and bomb weddings abroad, those are not related.

US has the same constitutional weakness of the countries that went authoritarian in the last decades: a presidential republic.

There's one thing that Russia, Belarus, Philippines, Tunisia, Turkey, Nicaragua made constitutionally simpler to allow authoritarianism to happen, they gave the country a president elected by the government.

Thus enabling: - personality cult - hard to remove individuals - claiming popular mandate despite anything - deadlocks

All those situations are breeding grounds for chaos.

Say what you want about slow Europe, but it's hard, very hard to pull this stuff here where most countries don't have popular elections for presidents.

In parliamentary republics those shifts are very difficult and are generally centred on party-ism, so identification between state and party.

This is the Indian and Hungarian playbook, as the constitutions don't allow individuals to power grab with ease, it's a very tougher game to succeed.

You don't win an election and start firing executive orders and stretching their limits while courts get to decide what the limits are.

	▲	ta20240528 a day ago \| parent [-]
		"You can be … law abiding … and bomb weddings abroad" No you can't. International law (e.g. UN charters, Geneva conventions, etc.) once ratified become actual US domestic law.