authoritarianism growing

[Mike Cl]

How democracies slide into authoritarianism

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/07/how-democracies-slide-into-authoritarianism/

"But this was not just a story of individuals: Milosz also explains why proud and formerly free nations gradually submitted to the compulsions of others. This process hardly ever occurred all at once. The changes happened slowly, almost imperceptibly, and began by a weakening of the will to resist."

"Around the world, authoritarian rulers are on the march, waging a sustained assault on facts, reason and democracy. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian states have worked to interfere with and suppress debate in other nations, just as they stifle dissent at home. While Milosz’s message holds special relevance for those living in autocracies, its resonance extends to both free and unfree nations today.

He reminds us that yes-men always accompany the rise of would-be authoritarians. Pointing to the roles that fear, greed, tribalism and ambition play, he underscores that while the motivations for accommodation can vary, the end result — obedience — remains constant."

For the past 2/3 decades I have noticed this, but refused to think it would have much of an impact on my country.  Trump saw and acted upon what I had seen and refused to accept.   People are sheeple, especially in this country when controlled by religions.  Now it seems the entire world is rejecting all forms of democracy or republics in favor of dictators.  I have tried to figure that out, but I just can't wrap my head around it. 

[Cassia]

When living in South Florida I knew many Cuban (and a few Russian) defectors. Most were staunch Republicans as they felt abandoned by JFK during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and were wary of any form of Socialism. My impression of them was they were sharp, hard workers. In conversations they mentioned that most of their fellow citizens they left behind were simply lazy. They wanted someone to think for them, to tell them what to and when to do it.

Watching the "Bald and Bankrupt" youtube blogger as he travels the old soviet block it seems many of the older people lament the fall of the Soviet Union and long for the old days. Most of the old block from Russia to Estonia and Ukraine makes the US infrastructure look good, LOL. For example...

[Mike Cl]

When living in South Florida I knew many Cuban (and a few Russian) defectors. Most were staunch Republicans as they felt abandoned by JFK during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and were wary of any form of Socialism. My impression of them was they were sharp, hard workers. In conversations they mentioned that most of their fellow citizens they left behind were simply lazy. They wanted someone to think for them, to tell them what to and when to do it.

Watching the "Bald and Bankrupt" youtube blogger as he travels the old soviet block it seems many of the older people lament the fall of the Soviet Union and long for the old days. Most of the old block from Russia to Estonia and Ukraine makes the US infrastructure look good, LOL. For example...


Interesting Russian saying--In my inner world.  My inner world is certainty changing.  It is not a change for the better.  The US is following in the footsteps of the video--we are slowly, ever so slowly crumbling.  Everything from being a coherent country to the infrastructure; one chip, one nick, at a time.  We did dodge a bullet on Jan. 6.  But that was not the end.  As a republic, we have a huge climb ahead and I am not at all sure we will stay a republic.

[Draconic Aiur]

How democracies slide into authoritarianism

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/12/07/how-democracies-slide-into-authoritarianism/

"But this was not just a story of individuals: Milosz also explains why proud and formerly free nations gradually submitted to the compulsions of others. This process hardly ever occurred all at once. The changes happened slowly, almost imperceptibly, and began by a weakening of the will to resist."

"Around the world, authoritarian rulers are on the march, waging a sustained assault on facts, reason and democracy. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian states have worked to interfere with and suppress debate in other nations, just as they stifle dissent at home. While Milosz’s message holds special relevance for those living in autocracies, its resonance extends to both free and unfree nations today.

He reminds us that yes-men always accompany the rise of would-be authoritarians. Pointing to the roles that fear, greed, tribalism and ambition play, he underscores that while the motivations for accommodation can vary, the end result — obedience — remains constant."

For the past 2/3 decades I have noticed this, but refused to think it would have much of an impact on my country.  Trump saw and acted upon what I had seen and refused to accept.   People are sheeple, especially in this country when controlled by religions.  Now it seems the entire world is rejecting all forms of democracy or republics in favor of dictators.  I have tried to figure that out, but I just can't wrap my head around it. 

 

Perhaps the bar is too lowered that democrats become authoritarianism or people of all political sides watch their media outlets religiously. Either way world wide decency is gone especially in America, and the only way to get it back is through command or war.

[Mike Cl]

 

Perhaps the bar is too lowered that democrats become authoritarianism or people of all political sides watch their media outlets religiously. Either way world wide decency is gone especially in America, and the only way to get it back is through command or war.

The eroding of 'truth' is a big red flag!  The extreme right has had the 'media' in its sight for decades and trumps nonstop lying has hastened the process.  People are caring less and less what the truth is, what the facts are; only what they deem the truth to be or what the facts are to them matters any more. Dictators love that type of of environment.

[aitm]

I’ve often wondered if my atheism was actually proceeded because of a loner-rebel state of mind or if by deciding to become an atheist led me to be more of a loner-rebel. I am not one for authority, however I have no issue with “obeying” civic rules that are fundamentally considerate, like waiting in line for anything, waving in a car waiting to enter my lane, following the rules for inclusion to any group, organization or business type forum. But as for blanket acceptance of authority...I kinda bow up a little bit. Perhaps this in one little fly in the ointment of religion. Being told that your actions, but only good ones that are approved will grant you a reward, while good actions not approved would render one unfit for such award. That just puts a “spur in my saddle”.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Orwellian much?

[aitm]

Orwellian much?

More or less so. I'll  take it as the props you intended.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

More or less so. I'll  take it as the props you intended.

And what was the props I intended? Asking for a friend.

[aitm]

No, no. No backsies, I appreciate the compliment.

[GSOgymrat]

Interesting discussion on historical public responses to pandemics in the US and how the current situation is fueling extremism. The pandemic has created multiple stressors which have made people feel weak and disempowered. Currently, there is little faith in institutions, including all three branches of government, news agencies, and medical experts. Authoritarian and extremist narratives identify an enemy, encourage polarization, and make people feel empowered and in control by giving them a focus for their anger. That is also what conspiracy theories do-- they give people a sense of control. Many people simply can't tolerate uncertainty and will follow authoritarian leaders who promise to restore order.

[GSOgymrat]

Mike, you might find this article of interest. The authors discuss why they predicted the increase of political upheaval and offer recommendations on how to end "The Age of Discord."

Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’

Almost three decades ago, one of us, Jack Goldstone, published a simple model to determine a country’s vulnerability to political crisis. The model was based on how population changes shifted state, elite and popular behavior. Goldstone argued that, according to this Demographic-Structural Theory, in the 21st century, America was likely to get a populist, America-first leader who would sow a whirlwind of conflict.

Then ten years ago, the other of us, Peter Turchin, applied Goldstone’s model to U.S. history, using current data. What emerged was alarming: The U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years. Even before Trump was elected, Turchin published his prediction that the U.S. was headed for the “Turbulent Twenties,” forecasting a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe.

Given the Black Lives Matter protests and cascading clashes between competing armed factions in cities across the United States, from Portland, Oregon to Kenosha, Wisconsin, we are already well on our way there. But worse likely lies ahead.

Our model is based on the fact that across history, what creates the risk of political instability is the behavior of elites, who all too often react to long-term increases in population by committing three cardinal sins. First, faced with a surge of labor that dampens growth in wages and productivity, elites seek to take a larger portion of economic gains for themselves, driving up inequality. Second, facing greater competition for elite wealth and status, they tighten up the path to mobility to favor themselves and their progeny. For example, in an increasingly meritocratic society, elites could keep places at top universities limited and raise the entry requirements and costs in ways that favor the children of those who had already succeeded.

Third, anxious to hold on to their rising fortunes, they do all they can to resist taxation of their wealth and profits, even if that means starving the government of needed revenues, leading to decaying infrastructure, declining public services and fast-rising government debts.

Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions. They create simmering conditions of greater inequality and declining effectiveness of, and respect for, government. But their actions alone are not sufficient. Urbanization and greater education are needed to create concentrations of aware and organized groups in the populace who can mobilize and act for change. ...

[Cassia]

Mike, you might find this article of interest. The authors discuss why they predicted the increase of political upheaval and offer recommendations on how to end "The Age of Discord."

Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’

Almost three decades ago, one of us, Jack Goldstone, published a simple model to determine a country’s vulnerability to political crisis. The model was based on how population changes shifted state, elite and popular behavior. Goldstone argued that, according to this Demographic-Structural Theory, in the 21st century, America was likely to get a populist, America-first leader who would sow a whirlwind of conflict.

Then ten years ago, the other of us, Peter Turchin, applied Goldstone’s model to U.S. history, using current data. What emerged was alarming: The U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years. Even before Trump was elected, Turchin published his prediction that the U.S. was headed for the “Turbulent Twenties,” forecasting a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe.

Given the Black Lives Matter protests and cascading clashes between competing armed factions in cities across the United States, from Portland, Oregon to Kenosha, Wisconsin, we are already well on our way there. But worse likely lies ahead.

Our model is based on the fact that across history, what creates the risk of political instability is the behavior of elites, who all too often react to long-term increases in population by committing three cardinal sins. First, faced with a surge of labor that dampens growth in wages and productivity, elites seek to take a larger portion of economic gains for themselves, driving up inequality. Second, facing greater competition for elite wealth and status, they tighten up the path to mobility to favor themselves and their progeny. For example, in an increasingly meritocratic society, elites could keep places at top universities limited and raise the entry requirements and costs in ways that favor the children of those who had already succeeded.

Third, anxious to hold on to their rising fortunes, they do all they can to resist taxation of their wealth and profits, even if that means starving the government of needed revenues, leading to decaying infrastructure, declining public services and fast-rising government debts.

Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions. They create simmering conditions of greater inequality and declining effectiveness of, and respect for, government. But their actions alone are not sufficient. Urbanization and greater education are needed to create concentrations of aware and organized groups in the populace who can mobilize and act for change. ...

Probably the most insightful article I have read in years!

[Mike Cl]

Mike, you might find this article of interest. The authors discuss why they predicted the increase of political upheaval and offer recommendations on how to end "The Age of Discord."

Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’

Almost three decades ago, one of us, Jack Goldstone, published a simple model to determine a country’s vulnerability to political crisis. The model was based on how population changes shifted state, elite and popular behavior. Goldstone argued that, according to this Demographic-Structural Theory, in the 21st century, America was likely to get a populist, America-first leader who would sow a whirlwind of conflict.

Then ten years ago, the other of us, Peter Turchin, applied Goldstone’s model to U.S. history, using current data. What emerged was alarming: The U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years. Even before Trump was elected, Turchin published his prediction that the U.S. was headed for the “Turbulent Twenties,” forecasting a period of growing instability in the United States and western Europe.

Given the Black Lives Matter protests and cascading clashes between competing armed factions in cities across the United States, from Portland, Oregon to Kenosha, Wisconsin, we are already well on our way there. But worse likely lies ahead.

Our model is based on the fact that across history, what creates the risk of political instability is the behavior of elites, who all too often react to long-term increases in population by committing three cardinal sins. First, faced with a surge of labor that dampens growth in wages and productivity, elites seek to take a larger portion of economic gains for themselves, driving up inequality. Second, facing greater competition for elite wealth and status, they tighten up the path to mobility to favor themselves and their progeny. For example, in an increasingly meritocratic society, elites could keep places at top universities limited and raise the entry requirements and costs in ways that favor the children of those who had already succeeded.

Third, anxious to hold on to their rising fortunes, they do all they can to resist taxation of their wealth and profits, even if that means starving the government of needed revenues, leading to decaying infrastructure, declining public services and fast-rising government debts.

Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions. They create simmering conditions of greater inequality and declining effectiveness of, and respect for, government. But their actions alone are not sufficient. Urbanization and greater education are needed to create concentrations of aware and organized groups in the populace who can mobilize and act for change. ...

Great article!  It gives voice to many of my concerns--it makes sense.  I guess I will not live to see the end, whatever that will be. 

[drunkenshoe]

I don't remember how I stumbled into it. I didn't dig it, but could be the bibliography and the footnotes of the previous book I was working on. Apparently, there have been pretty good research about 'the ruling elite in the US' starting from 50s in 'contemporary' sense. Considering there was this period when the academies (universities, research inst...) turned their back on the federal state during the Vietnam War, along with some kind of implicit 'awareness' of the manipulation of student movements, masses, even art movements...etc. there should be some more obvious roots lying back in there.