[late]

Fiona Hill said that in her new book. She meant that, if Republicans destroy democracy, which I think they will, we will be a shattered wreck run by psychopaths.

https://www.hmhbooks.com/shop/books/there-is-nothing-for-you-here/9780358574316

[Crantag]

Sounds like a pretty stupid quote to me.

Basically 2 cliches wrapped into one.

What does Russia or Christmas have to do America failing?

Very little.

Sounds like real shitlib nonesense to me.

[late]

Sounds like a pretty stupid quote to me.

Basically 2 cliches wrapped into one.

What does Russia or Christmas have to do America failing?

Very little.

Sounds like real shitlib nonesense to me.

Problem is, she knows what she's talking about. All sorts of academics and foreign affairs types that work with, or study, dictators and autocrats have come to similar conclusions.

Masha Gessen studies dictators, grew up in Russia, watched Putin come to power. She wrote an article in New York called 14 tips to surviving an autocracy, a few months after Putin was elected. It got turned into a book:

"Surviving Autocracy is about the Trump phenomenon and how it has transformed US society. It is about what he has learned from Vladimir Putin, among other autocrats he admires. It is also one of the few analytical books to suggest plausible ways he might be stopped."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/29/surviving-autocracy-by-masha-gessen-review-with-trump-there-is-no-shared-reality

[Potemkin]

Problem is, she knows what she's talking about. All sorts of academics and foreign affairs types that work with, or study, dictators and autocrats have come to similar conclusions.

Masha Gessen studies dictators, grew up in Russia, watched Putin come to power. She wrote an article in New York called 14 tips to surviving an autocracy, a few months after Putin was elected. It got turned into a book:

"Surviving Autocracy is about the Trump phenomenon and how it has transformed US society. It is about what he has learned from Vladimir Putin, among other autocrats he admires. It is also one of the few analytical books to suggest plausible ways he might be stopped."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/29/surviving-autocracy-by-masha-gessen-review-with-trump-there-is-no-shared-reality

As I said even before Trump was elected in 2016, he may turn out to have been America's Tiberius Gracchus. A line can be drawn from Tiberius Gracchus' populist, disruptive effect on the institutions of the late Roman Republic to the autocratic brutalities of the Caesars of the early Roman Empire. And just as it was decades after Tiberius Gracchus' death before the full effects of his legacy became clear, so it will take decades for Trump's poisonous legacy to play itself out....

[wat0n]

What would make Trump radically different from another American populist like Andrew Jackson, @Potemkin?

Jackson's legacy was also poisonous in many ways, but not to the point of undoing the republic itself.

[Potemkin]

What would make Trump radically different from another American populist like Andrew Jackson, @Potemkin?

Jackson's legacy was also poisonous in many ways, but not to the point of undoing the republic itself.

You answered your own question, @wat0n.

[wat0n]

You answered your own question, @wat0n.

Well, at least what happened after the irruption of the Gracchus brothers was in fact the undoing of the Roman republic.

Although even they can't be blamed for it, just like Trump wouldn't. Ultimately, both were symptoms of the actual problem...

[Potemkin]

Well, at least what happened after the irruption of the Gracchus brothers was in fact the undoing of the Roman republic.

Although even they can't be blamed for it, just like Trump wouldn't. Ultimately, both were symptoms of the actual problem...

Precisely.

[wat0n]

My point is why would you assume the US will stop having a "republican system of government" just because of these problems. I can imagine a change in the political elites if these problems aren't addressed (which may in fact be impossible to fully address, or doing so may actually be worse than not doing anything), but the end of the US Republic seems far fetched.

[late]

My point is why would you assume the US will stop having a "republican system of government" just because of these problems. I can imagine a change in the political elites if these problems aren't addressed (which may in fact be impossible to fully address, or doing so may actually be worse than not doing anything), but the end of the US Republic seems far fetched.

It would be the end of representative government, the return of apartheid, and the beginning of an era of violent repression.

[Crantag]

Problem is, she knows what she's talking about. All sorts of academics and foreign affairs types that work with, or study, dictators and autocrats have come to similar conclusions.

Masha Gessen studies dictators, grew up in Russia, watched Putin come to power. She wrote an article in New York called 14 tips to surviving an autocracy, a few months after Putin was elected. It got turned into a book:

"Surviving Autocracy is about the Trump phenomenon and how it has transformed US society. It is about what he has learned from Vladimir Putin, among other autocrats he admires. It is also one of the few analytical books to suggest plausible ways he might be stopped."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/29/surviving-autocracy-by-masha-gessen-review-with-trump-there-is-no-shared-reality

It's sounds cartoonish, and like scapegoating, at the same time. I'd call it one of the stupidest quotes I've read in a while.

It sounds like something AOC would say, kinda.

[Unthinking Majority]

If Trump was more broadly popular I could see more of a threat of him creating an autocracy. Imagine if 60-70% of people voted for him, and he won the 2nd term, and he was still popular when his 2nd term ended, so he got rid of the term limits in the constitution, and most people thought this was ok because they much preferred him over the others.

But Trump has only a large cult following, not majority support, not enough to win him the 2nd term.

[late]

It's sounds cartoonish, and like scapegoating, at the same time.

That's pretty much a repeat of what you've said before.

She is correct, and like I said, what she is saying is what others that understand how authoritarians come to power have said.

Masha Gessen saw it up close and personal.

[late]

If Trump was more broadly popular I could see more of a threat of him creating an autocracy. Imagine if 60-70% of people voted for him, and he won the 2nd term, and he was still popular when his 2nd term ended, so he got rid of the term limits in the constitution, and most people thought this was ok because they much preferred him over the others.

But Trump has only a large cult following, not majority support, not enough to win him the 2nd term.

You haven't been paying attention to how Republicans are going to cheat their way to a win.

[Igor Antunov]

Fiona Hill said that in her new book. She meant that, if Republicans destroy democracy, which I think they will, we will be a shattered wreck run by psychopaths.

https://www.hmhbooks.com/shop/books/there-is-nothing-for-you-here/9780358574316

-'If Republicans destroy democracy'
-Meanwhile Democrats: no no no NO you can't have border fences, border patrols, or voter ID! NO! Here press these virtual buttons on a virtual voting booth built by some billionaire in South America then hop on a bus and do it again at the next polling station.

Yeah...ok.

[Crantag]

That's pretty much a repeat of what you've said before.

She is correct, and like I said, what she is saying is what others that understand how authoritarians come to power have said.

Masha Gessen saw it up close and personal.

That's pretty much a repeat of what you said before.

A shitty quote is a shitty quote, and that is a pretty fucking shitty quote.

Russia has nothing to do with the political problems in the US, neither does Christmas.

It is just a very poor expression, which is basically meaningless, and that is all it is.

[late]

basically meaningless

You've never been in a country with an autocratic government. I've seen two.

[Rich]

Well, at least what happened after the irruption of the Gracchus brothers was in fact the undoing of the Roman republic.

Although even they can't be blamed for it, just like Trump wouldn't. Ultimately, both were symptoms of the actual problem...

(My Emphasis) Why should they be blamed for it not credited with it. Its weird because people are always accusing me of being a member of the far right, yet I seem to be the only one that questions why anyone but the most extreme right wing reactionary would grieve the demise of the Roman Republic. The Roman Republic had been a great success, no one can deny that. But that was before they ran into us the Germanics. it was the entry of the Cimbri and the Teutones on to the stage of history that brought the ten year spaced Consular system to an end.

I'm no expert on the Roman Republic, but although it seems to me the closest thing to an actual capitalist state, a state where the capitalists rule and the more capital they own, the bigger the capitalists share in state power, my guess would be the Roman Republic had served its poorer citizens well, giving them good opportunities for upward social mobility. But by the time of the Gracchi the social compact was starting to break down and inequality had risen to horrendous levels. The electoral system of Rome at that point was more reactionary than England before the 1832 reform act (Although I'm not so sure about Scotland which was very lucky to have had the liberalising influence of the 1707 Anschluss with England). The majority of Rome's citizens were right to welcome Caesar and Augustus's overthrow of the Republic.

[Rugoz]

Well, at least what happened after the irruption of the Gracchus brothers was in fact the undoing of the Roman republic.

Although even they can't be blamed for it, just like Trump wouldn't. Ultimately, both were symptoms of the actual problem...

The "actual problem" is rather unclear however. It could be economic, cultural or political. I don't think there's any consensus on that. There's a tendency to blame economic inequality, but of course that could be a symptom of the "culture war" (because economic issues are being pushed ot the background*) or of unresponsive political institutions.

*its generally easier to reach compromise on economic issues than on cultural/identity issues.

[Potemkin]

*its generally easier to reach compromise on economic issues than on cultural/identity issues.

No, it isn't. It really isn't. The West's social and economic elites are perfectly happy to concede every traditional cultural position to the progressives and the radicals, but the continued existence of capitalism and the neo-liberal paradigm is not up for negotiation.