While I generally agree, I think that is best accomplished through the democratic process vice a potentially very bloody and public coup by the military.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
That has not traditionally been the only policy position of the U.S. government.
Exhibit A: Iran 1953
Last edited:
Yeah, over 60 years ago. Needless to say a lot has changed since then.
And look how well THAT went. It's in the dictionary under "blowback."
That is a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it, in the end it didn't help much but it was by far the only factor in what happened later.
Exhibit B: Kingdom of Saud, present day, not a democracy
While I generally agree, democratic change of an elected government that goes authoritative and undemocratic is pretty hard. It begs a question, when does a democratically elected government become unworthy of the tag? Close a couple newspapers, fine , there are others. Purge the military and appoint cronies, no worries, they were dangerous. Jail journalists and opposition politicians, of course, just rabble rousers. Change the constitution so you get a banana republic president for life and reduced secularism, ah, maybe not so much.
All democracies trend toward authoritarianism over time. The question is, how does a country reverse the trend?
I'm not talking about Turkey anymore.
So the UK, the US and other long-standing democracies are trending towards authoritarianism?
Yes. In my opinion it certainly appears that way, from things such as voters trending toward authoritarian figures, bigger government, the US Congress abdicating an increasing amount of their responsibility, and executive powers and orders which appear to be increasingly prevalent with each passing cycle. That said "trending toward authoritarianism" is probably an oversimplification on my part.
Obviously I'm not saying we're as far down that road as Turkey (not even close), but how do a people (any people) realize that an authoritarian regime is generally worse for them? I would submit that as soon as a government is silencing free speech, that's crossing the line, and it's a trend which has become alarmingly widespread.
You could argue that the increasing power of the presidency, lately by questionable executive actions, and the abdication of power by congress to the regulatory state (executive branch) is a move toward authoritarianism. A true threat to democracy? No, not yet. The federal judiciary, constitutional rights of the states and it's legislatures ( frequently challenged) and the integrity of our electoral system all do their parts to check the trend. But clearly these trends remove power from the people and centralize it in the executive branch.
Waaaay oversimplification, I think claims like that (not necessarily from you) are a symptom of folks not realizing just how good we have it to include our government.
You keep harping on this but there really isn't an alternative in today's society with all the rules and regulations, many of them of them necessary for a functioning society. Congress would be so bogged down in minutiae that they would get less done they do even now. It is less authoritarian and more about simply getting things done, much better than the alternative of letting things go the way of no regulation whatsoever. Ironically one of the few things that Congress has passed this year to wide support in both parties and to praise from industry to consumer groups was much greater regulation of chemicals.
CONGRESS passed that law. I am OK with that. That is the people's representatives representing them, apparently well since it was widely praised. I am not against regulations under executive branch authority for the very reasons you state. I am against the imperial nature of many of the agencies, encouraged by the presidency. You don't have to look far. Start with the EPA's moves. They have been stymied by the Federal courts. The court said it was beyond the power of a regulatory agency. That has happened before. Most times the case never goes far or gets the press because there isn't money for the little guy to appeal all the way. The EPA over reaching got ample funding from the energy companies to fight it.
But not all. Many of them are not!!
You obviously disagree with me on this. That is quite alight. It is hardly a crisis yet. I am just wondering what it would take before you got uncomfortable with a regulatory agency's power and reach (hypothetically, of course). I am sure there is a limit for you. At some point it would cease to be a representative democracy. Executive branch agencies could ignore congress and the judiciary. Neither congress nor the federal courts have police forces to enforce their will.
There certainly is a limit but we are far from it. I am heartened by the fact that the judiciary has been pretty vigilant about limiting overreach and have faith they will continue to do so.
Some of the newer democracies are showing authoritarians trends: Hungary, Poland, Turkey, South Korea.
In case anyone missed it, Austria is having a re-vote of last month's cliffhanger Presidential election due to voting irregularities. After what happened in Nice and just today in Germany (ax and knife attack by an Afghan refugee on a train), who knows how it will turn out the 2nd time around.