Is this how the USA becomes totalitarian?

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Everyone here plays Civ, and so I can take assurances that everyone has a good understanding of history. So when I ask, can the Trump administration transform the USA into a totalitarian state, with himself as dictator, many should understand the historical parallels. Trump is entering office with a great deal of power. He not only has popular support among the people who elected him, but he will control all three branches of government. The Republicans will control the legislature (albeit only narrowly in the Senate), and the Judicial branch has one vacant seat, in the Supreme Court, which is easily Trump's to appoint, since the Senate will not oppose him like it did Obama. Trump has already make plain and explicit his craven plans for the nation, and there is no reason to believe he won't do them, nor any reason to believe he can't do them. So I ask you, why isn't this the beginnings of an overthrow of the republic into a police state?

 

[Leonel]

I remember hearing such rumblings when Bush 2 was elected and re-elected and while he was a disaster, he didn't become a dictator. While I certainly don't approve of a Trump presidency (not that I have a choice) and the Republican's controlling all branches of government is troubling, most of it I've seen before to some degree.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The parts of the nation that make the money are all basically opposed, and the US economy isn't something that can be sustained by impressed labor. That would make it very difficult to establish a totalitarian Trump. The backlash against him could be a problem though. Disenfranchising the clown population that elected him to prevent further such stupidity would be a pretty easy sell, and those people could be easily converted to impressed labor without any significant economic loss.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I have genuine worries. It's not because I think Trump has a plan to become a dictator. I actually think he ran mostly for the ego-boost, and that he'll actually very rapidly get bored with being president; he just wanted to get the "likes" that would win him that next marker of his total awesomeness: billionaire, player, TV star, president.

But he has two qualities that I can see working in a weird kind of vicious cycle to amp up his tyrannical pretensions beyond even his own conscious intent. First, he has a very authoritarian turn of mind. He's used to being a CEO, where he can just say what he wants done and expect people will do it. Second, he has a powerful drive to utterly dominate opposition.

So what I worry about is him actually going after some one of his initiatives, the Wall, let's say. And the Constitutional checks and balances come into play; the Congress thinks it would be a waste of money, refuses to vote for it. Now he gets mad; not so much that he doesn't get the wall, per se, but that he his will was blocked. He cannot brook opposition. So he finds some number of Congresspeople who, if their votes were turned, would have given him his law and he pulls out all stops to intimidate those Congresspeople. (Including holding Trump rallies in their districts as a sign of strength; I want to get this registered as a political prediction: that he will use rallies post-election to get his way). So he cows the requisite number of Congresspeople, who then vote for his wall.

Each one of these initiatives that we fail to resist makes the next one easier for him. Most people haven't shown a particularly strong backbone, or managed to organize opposition to him, or even fully size up the threat he poses until after it's too late. Where along the path of steady erosion of one constitutional principle after another we should have mounted our ultimate challenge? that will be a question for us in the gulags.

Spoiler :

Correct answer: the very first one, of course. But just as the Republicans weren't prepared to fight against their highest-polling nominee (who would prepare for that?) and just as the media couldn't figure out how to stop themselves from giving him so much free publicity, so too will the republic at large not have a way of imagining, sufficiently early, a President as the chief threat to the republic.

I hope I prove to be wrong. I hope he's just bored of being president and doesn't do more than neglect the country for four years.

 

[BvBPL]

I remember hearing such rumblings when Bush 2 was elected and re-elected and while he was a disaster, he didn't become a dictator. While I certainly don't approve of a Trump presidency (not that I have a choice) and the Republican's controlling all branches of government is troubling, most of it I've seen before to some degree.

We also heard the same rumbling, albeit from the other side, under the Obama administration.
Which is not to unjustly validate the fears of totalitarianism from either side of the aisle (nor to be dismissive of the just fears of totalitarianism from either side). Rather, it demonstrates that Americans are, as a rule, extremely apprehensive of our governmental systems and the rule of law. We instantly presume, largely but not entirely without justification, that anyone who has a different political ideology must be our antagonist. What’s more, there’s been a decided trend towards seeing anyone who is critical of a person’s ideology must be supporting the other side. Dislike Clinton? You must support Trump. Cautious about Trump? Obviously, you support Clinton. This presumption of enmity stymies honest discussion both between the aisles and within the parties.
If we define totalitarianism as a unitary system of governance then these trends towards fractiousness suggest we are heading in quite another direction altogether.

 

[uppi]

We also heard the same rumbling, albeit from the other side, under the Obama administration.
Which is not to unjustly validate the fears of totalitarianism from either side of the aisle (nor to be dismissive of the just fears of totalitarianism from either side). Rather, it demonstrates that Americans are, as a rule, extremely apprehensive of our governmental systems and the rule of law. We instantly presume, largely but not entirely without justification, that anyone who has a different political ideology must be our antagonist. What’s more, there’s been a decided trend towards seeing anyone who is critical of a person’s ideology must be supporting the other side. Dislike Clinton? You must support Trump. Cautious about Trump? Obviously, you support Clinton. This presumption of enmity stymies honest discussion both between the aisles and within the parties.
If we define totalitarianism as a unitary system of governance then these trends towards fractiousness suggest we are heading in quite another direction altogether.

If you look at historical and recent transformations from liberal democracies to totalitarian states, situations like the one you describe were the precursors to these transformations: A dissatisfied population and an increase in political polarization, followed by political deadlock and an escalation of measures deemed justified against a political opponent. Increasingly bitter political fights until one side got enough control over the institutions (often triggered by a violent event that gives the government the necessary support) to actively suppress its opponents and ensure its victory.

Fortunately, the USA is quite resilient against such a transformation and I do not believe that Trump could achieve totalitarianism on his own in 4 years. But he could do lasting damage to the political system that might lead to totalitarianism down the road. George W. Bush did not leave behind a totalitarian government, but his administration did lasting damage to the freedom of Americans with the justification of fighting terrorism. Obama did nothing but a token effort to reverse this, and now Trump would be able to restrict freedom even further.

 

[Lexicus]

Fortunately, the USA is quite resilient against such a transformation and I do not believe that Trump could achieve totalitarianism on his own in 4 years. But he could do lasting damage to the political system that might lead to totalitarianism down the road. George W. Bush did not leave behind a totalitarian government, but his administration did lasting damage to the freedom of Americans with the justification of fighting terrorism. Obama did nothing but a token effort to reverse this, and now Trump would be able to restrict freedom even further.

I think Trump may well be able to demolish the institutional safeguards against totalitarianism. At this point it largely depends on two things: the course of his whims and the willingness of the people with guns to follow his orders.

Meanwhile historically the key ingredient for the transformation to totalitarianism is the loss of faith in the population in their existing institutions, which leads to a sort of societal "well how can anything be worse" atmosphere in which literally almost anything can happen. I will say that the most profound damage done by Trump is likely to be the culmination of a process that arguably began with Nixon, whose corruption caused a profound loss of public faith in the public institutions.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

It has been noted that to go totalitarian you need to control the totality of the government. Which means to execute laws, to make them and also to break them if you please to do so.
So far this thread lacks an argument how Trump could ever accomplish this. And hardly by accident, since there is no reasonable argument to be had about it. To get a favorable supreme court judge does not mean to control the courts by a long long stretch. To be able to pressure the legislative with popular support to do your bidding does, neither. All which this can at best mean is a very authoritarian style of being President - which as has already been noted does matter and can have a big effects - but all while still fully moving within the constraints of the American republic and democracy.
You can not abolish a political system as long as the rule of law and the fundamental ruies of that system are in tact. Simple as that. And in historic examples this is exactly what was disrupted. Having an authoritarian style does by far not suffice.

And America really really sucks to do that unless things are really really in the gutter for the people and they are absolutely desperate. Because the principles of your government enjoy religious-like zeal through-out the population. Because your nationalism is deeply inter-twined with them. That was not the case in nations that did actually go totalitarian.

 

[Cutlass]

Thing is, I don't think Trump can become dictator. But he will definitely make America a poorer, weaker, and less free country. And in doing so will make liberty and democracy in the US harder to sustain in the future.

Argument
American Democracy Is Dying, and This Election Isn’t Enough to Fix It
The foundation of our political system is broken. And repairing it will take more than just your vote.

• By Daron Acemoglu
• November 7, 2016

S. prosperity and stability over the last two centuries has been built on the country’s unique brand of inclusive institutions. The United States has laws that protect private property, encourage innovation, and facilitate the functioning of the market while preventing it from being monopolized by a few. It has a political system which prevents the domination of one group over the rest of society, provides the people with a voice on how they should be governed, and enables most Americans to access education and share in the process of wealth creation. These institutions don’t function just because they are written on parchment paper. Our much-revered Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all of the protections for freedom of religion and speech and assembly and more that emanate from them only mean something because we have all agreed to respect them. The Supreme Court is a powerful body only because we have developed political norms that make it well-nigh impossible for presidents to cast its opinions aside when they please, as heads of government have done in so many other countries.

Two norms, in particular, combine to hold the whole system together: respect for the law, and an openness to the right of the people to organize, get engaged in politics, and demand from their representatives good governance and societal change when necessary. Our institutions are not, and have never been, perfect. They can create gridlock. They can also be captured: The vast American bureaucracy, the Congress, and even the Supreme Court are always vulnerable to undue influence by well-organized actors in society. But consensus on the norms undergirding them — a combination of respect and resilience — has ultimately given these institutions the flexibility necessary to endure despite periods of popular discontent. It was this consensus that allowed the United States to abolish slavery and enfranchise former slaves, shake off the dominance of the robber barons, limit monopoly, and later build the beginnings of a social safety net.

Today, our institutions and the underlying political norms are facing some of the most challenging times they have encountered in the modern era. American politics is in an iconoclastic phase, and the icons being targeted are the moral foundations of our democracy.

It is a recipe for political disaster that our system has largely brought on itself. First came the failures of omission. Our institutions and political system stood by during the last three decades as the economy made huge gains but most Americans benefited only a little or not at all. Both the bewildering array of new technologies and the rapid rise in international trade made us much richer than our parents’ generation, but also created massive dislocations, as millions of workers saw their jobs automated by machines or taken away by cheap imports or offshoring. The inaction of those with the power to make the gains shared more equally started chipping away at the foundations of a political system based on the belief that a rising tide should lift all boats.

Rest of article here. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/07/american-democracy-is-dying-and-this-election-wont-fix-it/

Now this is by someone who is considered the leading development economist of his generation. He's one of the top working economists in the world today. And what he's telling us is that the US is killing the goose that laid the golden egg. By killing our liberty and our democracy, we are killing our prosperity.

It's not just a Trump which is pushing the US towards the ash heap of history. All the Republicans are doing it. And the Democrats have been following where the Republicans have been leading for decades now.

 

[REDY]

If there would start purges in republican party, I will be first to afraid. Until then Trump =/= republicans=no control over 3 brenches=no totalitarism

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I would be inclined to say 100s of years of slavery is way more totalitarian than anything Trump can drum up, as much as I dislike him.

 

[schlaufuchs]

If our nation can survive the likes of Jackson and Wilson without descending into full-blown authoritarian dictatorship, I think we can survive Trump.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I would be inclined to say 100s of years of slavery is way more totalitarian than anything Trump can drum up, as much as I dislike him.

When did the United States have "100s of years of slavery". Last I checked, 1783 to 1863 is 80 years. Maybe you're counting back to 1775 when the revolutionary war began... nope, still not over 100.

 

[warpus]

So when I ask, can the Trump administration transform the USA into a totalitarian state, with himself as dictator, many should understand the historical parallels. Trump is entering office with a great deal of power.

For that to happen Trump would have to give himself emergency powers somehow. So first you would need an "emergency". Fair enough, that sort of thing can be staged. But I mean, then he would have to somehow convince everyone that he needs emergency powers forever, and there seem to be precautions in the system against that sort of thing happening. Aren't a lot of Republicans a bit suspicious of him overall, too? He isn't one of them. They might all be under the same banner right now, but if he starts doing shady stuff and trying to take over as a dictator, you'd think that the Republicans wouldn't go along with it, unless there was honestly an unexpectedly crazy set of circumstances underway making something like that palatable (such as a world war or whatever)

And how do you get around the whole "Can only hold 2 4-year terms" thing? Even if he figures out how to get those emergency powers, he would have to act fast and take over the main branches governing this country as well as the military, before the next election. Otherwise he risks the prospect of being voted out of office.

So how does he do that, assuming all the other unlikely things he has to do have happened? He would need some sort of a paramilitary organization on the ground, running around, helping him out, suppressing dissent, making sure he has full control, preventing any coup d'etat happening, which I'm sure many American generals would be thinking about if a fascist dictator was on the rise in their country. Could a paramilitary group even stand up to the American military? Or parts of it? Say Trump convinces a couple generals to side with him - would this lead to civil war? And where do you train a large paramilitary organization secretly? In some hollowed out mountain you've spent your own money creating for this purpose, in the unlikely event that you might one day be president?

And what do you do with all the people now rioting in the streets while all of this is happening? You think Hilary and BLM protesters are angry now, wait until the internet and media are locked down and heavily censored and there's an actual dictator on the rise. A lot more people would come out and F S up

And the economy? The markets don't respond well to uncertainty, a take-over of the United States by a totalitarian dictator is not something investors are going to be happy about. The markets are going to tank, all over the planet. That is only going to make the American people even more upset.

So much chaos and still such an extremely unlikely path towards success. No way is Trump considering any of this. All he wants is to make money and be remembered as a president. You know, in history books. He wants people to remember him as a great man. Dictatorship doesn't figure into that

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

When did the United States have "100s of years of slavery". Last I checked, 1783 to 1863 is 80 years. Maybe you're counting back to 1775 when the revolutionary war began... nope, still not over 100.

No, I was counting colonial years. We became a nation with 150+ years of a cultural expectation of slavery.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

No, I was counting colonial years. We became a nation with 150+ years of a cultural expectation of slavery.

The North American, east coast colonies were primarily English, so it was part of England in that period. People who lived here were primarily "English". You mean to say England, as well as France, Spain and other European countries had slavery for 100s of years, as well as much of the rest of the world. Yet most of these countries were not "totalitarian", but by and large "monarchies".

Would you care to start over without your invented parameters?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

[country’s unique brand of inclusive institutions. The United States has laws that protect private property, encourage innovation, and facilitate the functioning of the market while preventing it from being monopolized by a few. It has a political system which prevents the domination of one group over the rest of society, provides the people with a voice on how they should be governed, and enables most Americans to access education and share in the process of wealth creation.

American Exceptionalism may motivate Americans to read on, but as a Non-American, it does for me an excellent job to the opposite. And it never raised the level of a discussion, either.

 

[Arwon]

It won't be business as usual but there's plenty of room for autocracy, increased authoritarianism, expansion of state violence, politicisation of civil institutions, suppression of individual liberties and the like without substantially changing the structure of the system. Especially with one party controlling everything.

So, no, probably not. The inertia of power, Trump's nasty personality and fascist advisors, and some Republican intent in terms of their general agenda will make America substantially crueller and less free within the current system rather than replace it.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The North American, east coast colonies were primarily English, so it was part of England in that period. People who lived here were primarily "English". You mean to say England, as well as France, Spain and other European countries had slavery for 100s of years, as well as much of the rest of the world. Yet most of these countries were not "totalitarian", but by and large "monarchies".

Would you care to start over without your invented parameters?

What are you even talking about? I have said nothing about European countries in this entire thread. You're so defensive about an institution that is indefensible. My entire point was that slavery here existed a long time, and it was worse than whatever Trump brings. Unless you want to propose he is worse?

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

What are you even talking about? I have said nothing about European countries in this entire thread.

Why, yes, yes you did. Right here.

No, I was counting colonial years. We became a nation with 150+ years of a cultural expectation of slavery.

You may not realize what you're saying, in your angst. That's ok. If you care enough about what you're saying, you'll get it right eventually. The biggest point of contention is your statement of the USA having "hundreds of years of slavery" which is preposterous, both literally and technically, regardless of the way you're trying to backpedal and make yourself "seem" right.

Want to know who else had, and still in places has, abject chattel slavery? Africa.