shekels wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 9:47 am
Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 17, 2020 12:10 am
Once upon a time, the GOP stood on the three pillars of individual liberty, fiscal conservatism and a moral foreign policy. It was a party that claimed to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law. No Republican leader today abides by these tenets. Since Trump’s election, some GOP senators have become part and parcel of his movement, one that is as dangerous as it is chaotic.
It is not conservative to stand silently by and watch as the president of the United States deploys federal authorities into city streets. The act flies in the face of the rule of law and due process, and is an abusive government overreach. National Republicans now only cry states’ rights when it suits them. For them, if it’s a blue city in a blue state, prep the tear gas and load the rubber bullets. If it’s Trump supporters toting AR-15s and Confederate flags and calling for Michigan (and Democrat) Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s ouster? Crickets.
This!
Good point.
I have the thought in the back of my mind that Trump is not a Republican in the broader sense.
So that is why the people back him to the hilt.
When the masses have been screwed around by Government for a very long time,
Trump is/was the candidate to throw a wrench in the machinery.
When you perceive that you have nothing to lose, you look elsewhere.
It's an understandable sentiment.
The caution would be when you look back in history, you will find a pattern that most every autocratic, strongman fascist dictator came into power on the back of a "we're fed up with government" public mood. Bolshevik Lenin/Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe, Napoleon, certainly Hitler. Once the fed up masses handed the levers of power over to the hero that would upend the past and save them, he eventually turned the gun on the public until the saga played out to it's bitter end.
To be fair, there have been instances of extensive power being handed to a leader who used it benevolently. Good examples might be Lee Kuan Yew, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, maybe Simon Bolivar. In ancient history, Marcus Aurelius would have qualified. And there are a few outlier characters with a foot in both camps, like Pinochet or Tito.
The fascist autocrats have certain characteristics in common, most notably highly ideological, usually in a controversial, radical departure from the past, and also highly self absorbed personally.
The benevolent dictators were usually people of modest ego and unconcerned, almost oblivious to their self interest, personal gain.
Lee Kuan Yew lived in the same modest home most of his adult life, and asked in his will that it be demolished for fear it might be treated as some kind of museum or shrine to him which he thought was inappropriate. Upon his death, Ataturk willed all his personal assets to the Party and State Treasury for the benefit of the people of Turkey with the exception of an interest allocation for his 13 adopted children, most of whom I think were orphans.
Interesting that the number of evil, authoritarian dictators outweighs the list of benevolent ones. Perhaps this lends credibility to the adage that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
So which way would our present occupant of the White House take us (given the opportunity)? Who knows. You can be the judge.
My point in response to your comment is merely that an angry, fed up public has proven to be a high risk, combustible circumstance.