2 ms·

It's probably because President Obama and Angela Merkel don't/didn't generally do things we associate with regimes. President Obama on numerous occasions at the

It's probably because President Obama and Angela Merkel don't/didn't generally do things we associate with regimes. President Obama on numerous occasions at the start of his first term attempted to work cross party. I think it's generally used more when talking about a dictatorial style of government. President Trump, regardless of whether you like him or not, is not a consensus builder. His style is that of directions from the top, no compromises, everyone is either with him or they are potential enemies. I think this is why you would see it used more. I don't know that it demoted a bad or good government more than any other word, nor would I read into it that way. It's quite possible that it was intended to be read exactly the way you're describing.

playing_colours 7y ago
In Germany, I see “Merkel’s regime” used predominantly by the media that are associated with far-* ideas.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  It's definitely a possibility that the intention is there, but I don't know that it's always intentional. I see it far more used by the type of organization than the specific political leaving of that organization. For example in American politics Mitch McConnell is in charge of a portion of the same party at the President. He often agrees with the President and has defended on numerous occasions. Despite this his office isn't generally described as a regime. He governs by consensus. I think that most western cultures tend to view dictatorial, non consensus governments as bad, which means a word associated with these might get a bad rap. In some quick research it appears that your belief that the connotation had shifted appears to be fairly correct. Usage has become more common for heavy handed governments, the word itself doesn't have that as part of the established long running definition however.

playing_colours 7y ago

In Germany, I see “Merkel’s regime” used predominantly by the media that are associated with far-* ideas.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
It's definitely a possibility that the intention is there, but I don't know that it's always intentional. I see it far more used by the type of organization than the specific political leaving of that organization. For example in American politics Mitch McConnell is in charge of a portion of the same party at the President. He often agrees with the President and has defended on numerous occasions. Despite this his office isn't generally described as a regime. He governs by consensus. I think that most western cultures tend to view dictatorial, non consensus governments as bad, which means a word associated with these might get a bad rap. In some quick research it appears that your belief that the connotation had shifted appears to be fairly correct. Usage has become more common for heavy handed governments, the word itself doesn't have that as part of the established long running definition however.