Meanwhile, 44 percent backed the American tradition of competing branches of government as a model, if sometimes “frustrating,” system.
Why would people want to live under an authoritarian’s thumb? It’s rooted, experts say, in a psychological need for security—real or perceived—and a desire for conformity, a goal that becomes even more acute as the country undergoes dramatic demographic and social changes. People also like to obey a strong leader who will protect the group—especially if it is the “right” group whose interests will be protected. Recall the Trump supporter who, during the 2019 government shutdown, complained, “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
This coming from the “if you exchange freedom.for security you will enjoy neither freedom nor security” folks.
Just a quick question: give me one, ONE simple example of a successful military dictatorship that didn’t take the country to hell and left damn near all its citizens poor, suppressed, and suffering?
I hate a military dictatorship but to play devil’s advocate: South Korea and Taiwan?
I’m not saying their transition to democracies was bloodless or clean but they managed. Those two are extreme examples and not models, one country built after a war that split the country in two, the other fleeing the mainland to create its own state. But I’m stretching to find a better example.
FTFY - so-called “liberal democracy” is about as democratic as “social darwinism” is Darwinist. And those are two terrible examples to use - they only went pretend-democratic after the fascist regimes murdered and tortured any elements in society that could be called democratic with a straight face.
If that’s what you want for the US you might just as well start marching with the fascists.
Taiwan probably fared better than Korea in that regard.
Arent both democracies now?
That was my point, these hand-picked examples didn’t end up as hellholes. That said, it wasn’t always smooth, lots of blood in SK’s hand. I was playing devil’s advocate.
In any case, the USA is not in the desperate situation these countries were in.
Whoa, that last question would require historical knowledge, and education is Satan, didn’t you know?
France under DeGaulle?
Edit to add: It’s not an assertio, it’s a question I don’t know the answer to.
That was not a military dictatorship, was it?
Not really. There certainly was a concentration of levers in the government, but while it certainly had authoritarian traits, it wasn’t militaristic and was still quite free. There was a healthy opposition.
Thailand regularly has military coups.
Also… Do you really want a military dictatorship run by right wing Christian extremists with an obsession with the end times with access to nukes? Just something to ponder about.
Would you accept a US military coup to remove bunch of right wing Christian extremists that have taken things too far?
It might actually get to that point. Not hoping for it but it wouldn’t surprise me
Sparta
Maybe the citizens weren’t suffering but their massive slave population definitely was. Heck, the reason they trained so hard was to put down slave revolts.
Sure, but that wasn’t the question.
There is no country, democratic or authoritarian, on this planet that currently doesn’t rely to some extent on exploited, indentured, or enslaved non-citizens, either domestic or abroad.
We need a robotic slave force.
Slavery? Really? That’s your example?
Well yeah, they asked for a simple example, I gave one. What’s wrong with that? The discussion is already in the realm of “military dictatorship” which aren’t exactly known for respecting human rights/freedoms of non-citizena. The question was about the sustainability of such systems for those deemed citizens.