Pro Gun MAGA 2nd Amendment Guns Rights - Ebay sale I believe in liberal democracy (as opposed to fascism, illiberal democracy, or autocracy), which is the only way I know to keep hope alive. First, because a country guided by all its citizens will be more economically and socially successful, I hope the U.S. will remain a liberal democracy. Second, democracy has institutions that protect its people from corporations and others with more power. And eventually, in most societies, those without power will need to be protected from those with power. Illiberal or autocratic countries reward loyalty to autocrats rather than achievement and merit.
Those who believe in illiberal democracy or fascism do so because they think they will benefit, even if others do not. And in fact, those favored by the autocrats may benefit. But the advantage of liberal democracies over illiberal democracies is that fair treatment should not depend on being in a selected group. Of course, that has not been and still is not the case in the U.S. There is rampant discrimination. Are autocrats or democratic institutions more likely to address discrimination? A clue to the correct answer is that we know how democratic institutions are supposed to function. Who are the autocrats, and why should they continue to favor the groups they say they prefer now?
Consider how the groups' that autocrats favor can change. Before and after the Civil War, the autocrats who ruled the South did not treat poor whites well. Poor whites did not have plentiful economic opportunities or receive first-class public education and health care. Many Southern autocrats claim they do not have the funds to provide for poor whites because they must provide for "unfavored groups." Poor whites may feel better, but they do not do better. Democracy is our best hope.
Some MAGA Republicans now show a preference for illiberal democracy or authoritarianism. An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which the ruling elite allows their citizens to vote but denies them the information or rights needed to exercise the right to vote effectively. Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, who describes Hungary as an illiberal democracy, won his last election by about 18 percentage points, giving his party a two-thirds majority. Orban's opponent partly attributed his loss to his inability to access media. Unsurprisingly, many MAGA Republicans who prefer an illiberal democracy also admire Orban. Those MAGA Republicans who want the U.S. to become an illiberal democracy are silent about what aspects of fascism they favor. They favor a white Christian nation with no homosexuality, although they do not say how they intend to make that happen. But they do not say what other aspects of an illiberal democracy they favor or are willing to accept.
We can only speculate what an illiberal U.S. democracy would look like. Fascist Italy or Germany in the thirties, Eastern Europe today, including Hungary, or the authoritarian U.S. South in the twenties or thirties do not provide a realistic picture of an illiberal U.S. The U.S. is too different. But we do have the policies that libertarians like the Kochs and their far-right donor networks have advocated and actions Trump either implemented, tried to implement, or said he favored.
The areas in which we can expect are as follow:
Many MAGA Republicans support and would dispute the elimination or curtailment of many of these rights. For example, MAGA Republicans certainly support gun rights. But if Trump and his clan should become leaders of a perpetual ruling party, would that party support all citizens' access to guns? Similarly, MAGA Republicans now favor free speech, but in an illiberal democracy run by MAGA Republicans, I suspect their view of this and many other rights would change.
Fascism is not the same as Nazism; it will be different in the U.S. than in Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy. What is common to all forms of fascism in all places is its emphasis on group ethnicity and rule by one leader and his small group of sycophants. A white oligarchy in the South excluded African Americans from political power in the U.S. South for most of the 20th century. As a result, their economic and educational progress was severely limited, although a few African Americans could make some gains relative to other African Americans. In addition, the white oligarchy also reduced most whites' economic and academic progress in the South. Only a small number of whites benefited from a political system in which they held power.
A distressingly large percentage of Americans, perhaps 30 percent, want the U.S. to become a fascist country. Nearly the same percentage of Americans are willing to vote with those who wish to be a fascist country. The history of fascism in Germany, Italy, and parts of the U.S. shows that it limits the opportunities of all people. In fascist countries, the consequences of restricting the access of groups to political power can be rapid because it leads to war. In other countries, the adverse economic and educational effects of fascism take longer to appear. Despite this history of fascism, some people favor fascism over an all-inclusive democracy. These people seem to believe that even though most people will lose in a fascist country, they will be among the winners.
Their hope for a better future is based on dislike or fear of some people on the one hand and their trust in a small group of people with whom they share ethnicity on the other. I wonder why they place so much confidence in ethnicity. The nobility often shared ethnicity with their serfs.
I am confounded by two related blunders in Democratic messaging this cycle. First, Democratic politicians praise democracy and declare that we must fight to maintain it. But they never say why democracy is essential. It is almost as if they believe democracy is important because we have had it for over 200 years. Second, Democratic politicians and strategists claim that they must speak to the issues of uppermost concern to voters. These issues include the economy, abortion, inflation, education and schools, immigration, climate change, and crime. These have in common that democracy underlies our ability to address them. Without democracy, a ruling elite will decide the country's path to each issue. Our choices will be limited.
Why Democratic politicians cannot make a robust case for democracy as the foundation on which a strong economy, the right to reproductive health care, education, and other freedoms depend remains a mystery to me. Republican politicians do not support democracy. Republicans now support illiberal democracy.
Those who believe in illiberal democracy or fascism do so because they think they will benefit, even if others do not. And in fact, those favored by the autocrats may benefit. But the advantage of liberal democracies over illiberal democracies is that fair treatment should not depend on being in a selected group. Of course, that has not been and still is not the case in the U.S. There is rampant discrimination. Are autocrats or democratic institutions more likely to address discrimination? A clue to the correct answer is that we know how democratic institutions are supposed to function. Who are the autocrats, and why should they continue to favor the groups they say they prefer now?
Consider how the groups' that autocrats favor can change. Before and after the Civil War, the autocrats who ruled the South did not treat poor whites well. Poor whites did not have plentiful economic opportunities or receive first-class public education and health care. Many Southern autocrats claim they do not have the funds to provide for poor whites because they must provide for "unfavored groups." Poor whites may feel better, but they do not do better. Democracy is our best hope.
Some MAGA Republicans now show a preference for illiberal democracy or authoritarianism. An illiberal democracy is a governing system in which the ruling elite allows their citizens to vote but denies them the information or rights needed to exercise the right to vote effectively. Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary, who describes Hungary as an illiberal democracy, won his last election by about 18 percentage points, giving his party a two-thirds majority. Orban's opponent partly attributed his loss to his inability to access media. Unsurprisingly, many MAGA Republicans who prefer an illiberal democracy also admire Orban. Those MAGA Republicans who want the U.S. to become an illiberal democracy are silent about what aspects of fascism they favor. They favor a white Christian nation with no homosexuality, although they do not say how they intend to make that happen. But they do not say what other aspects of an illiberal democracy they favor or are willing to accept.
We can only speculate what an illiberal U.S. democracy would look like. Fascist Italy or Germany in the thirties, Eastern Europe today, including Hungary, or the authoritarian U.S. South in the twenties or thirties do not provide a realistic picture of an illiberal U.S. The U.S. is too different. But we do have the policies that libertarians like the Kochs and their far-right donor networks have advocated and actions Trump either implemented, tried to implement, or said he favored.
The areas in which we can expect are as follow:
- Privatization of the commons, such as public schools, transportation, and some of the protections afforded by government agencies such as the Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Drug Administration;
- Elimination of federal government protections from both other government entities and private corporations, such as pollution, workplace dangers, financial dangers, and drugs;
- Elimination of privacy rights, such as the right to an abortion, contraceptives, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage;
- Elimination or curtailment of freedoms of the press, speech, and assembly;
- Elimination or curtail gun rights;
- Elimination of safety net protections, such as Medicare, Social Security, right to unionize, and minimize wages;
- Creation of obstacles for opposition parties and candidates, such as politicization of media regulation and sale of media outlets; and
- Removal of the fair and equal protection of government such as judicial appointments, career bureaucrats, armed forces leadership, law enforcement including DOJ, court orders, and pardons.
Many MAGA Republicans support and would dispute the elimination or curtailment of many of these rights. For example, MAGA Republicans certainly support gun rights. But if Trump and his clan should become leaders of a perpetual ruling party, would that party support all citizens' access to guns? Similarly, MAGA Republicans now favor free speech, but in an illiberal democracy run by MAGA Republicans, I suspect their view of this and many other rights would change.
Fascism is not the same as Nazism; it will be different in the U.S. than in Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy. What is common to all forms of fascism in all places is its emphasis on group ethnicity and rule by one leader and his small group of sycophants. A white oligarchy in the South excluded African Americans from political power in the U.S. South for most of the 20th century. As a result, their economic and educational progress was severely limited, although a few African Americans could make some gains relative to other African Americans. In addition, the white oligarchy also reduced most whites' economic and academic progress in the South. Only a small number of whites benefited from a political system in which they held power.
A distressingly large percentage of Americans, perhaps 30 percent, want the U.S. to become a fascist country. Nearly the same percentage of Americans are willing to vote with those who wish to be a fascist country. The history of fascism in Germany, Italy, and parts of the U.S. shows that it limits the opportunities of all people. In fascist countries, the consequences of restricting the access of groups to political power can be rapid because it leads to war. In other countries, the adverse economic and educational effects of fascism take longer to appear. Despite this history of fascism, some people favor fascism over an all-inclusive democracy. These people seem to believe that even though most people will lose in a fascist country, they will be among the winners.
Their hope for a better future is based on dislike or fear of some people on the one hand and their trust in a small group of people with whom they share ethnicity on the other. I wonder why they place so much confidence in ethnicity. The nobility often shared ethnicity with their serfs.
I am confounded by two related blunders in Democratic messaging this cycle. First, Democratic politicians praise democracy and declare that we must fight to maintain it. But they never say why democracy is essential. It is almost as if they believe democracy is important because we have had it for over 200 years. Second, Democratic politicians and strategists claim that they must speak to the issues of uppermost concern to voters. These issues include the economy, abortion, inflation, education and schools, immigration, climate change, and crime. These have in common that democracy underlies our ability to address them. Without democracy, a ruling elite will decide the country's path to each issue. Our choices will be limited.
Why Democratic politicians cannot make a robust case for democracy as the foundation on which a strong economy, the right to reproductive health care, education, and other freedoms depend remains a mystery to me. Republican politicians do not support democracy. Republicans now support illiberal democracy.