5 ms·

I mean I live in the US and people are getting persecuted right now for being a minority, being politically active, or being in legal trouble. So not seeing a

I mean I live in the US and people are getting persecuted right now for being a minority, being politically active, or being in legal trouble. So not seeing a huge difference between liberal democracies and authoritarians.

freeone3000 1y ago
Perhaps the US is no longer a liberal democracy?
- decremental 1y ago
  [dead]
- Jensson 1y ago
  Was US ever a liberal democracy? People had much less liberties in the 1950s than today, with people getting arrested for their political views instead of just deported. not to mention segregation and such. They even put lawyers defending these politicians in prison for defending them... The constitution doesn't seem to matter since the government apparently don't have to care about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
  - watersb 1y ago
    > Was US ever a liberal democracy? People had much less liberties in the 1950s than today, Your question deserves an answer. The US was a liberal (post-Enlightenment) democracy. Senator McCarthy was eventually kicked out of Congress for his witch hunt. President Nixon was confronted by Republican members of Congress, and he resigned after this meeting rather than face impeachment. So when I was a kid, lawmakers largely upheld the norms, the rule of law. Many of those same lawmakers might have today been considered racist or misogynist or might have failed some other standard of 21st century society. As a liberal democracy, the United States has never been perfect, but it's always been worth improving.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      > So when I was a kid, lawmakers largely upheld the norms, the rule of law Only when McCarthy and those policies got unpopular, they let him do it as long as he was popular. So we will likely see the same with Trump, as long as he doesn't make as grave overreaches as they did back then likely nobody will do anything to him. That isn't rule of law, that is rule of personality.
      - SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
        Or popularity rather.
        Jensson 1y ago
        Yeah, so not exactly liberal democracy. It is a democracy, but doesn't seem very liberal if the checks and balances doesn't work against popular policies.
        inglor_cz 1y ago
        I would argue that in that case, liberal democracy is an oxymoron. Really popular policies have a wide support among the population, which means that they will became law, or even an amendment to the constitution. (Most countries have something like 3/5 supermajority requirements for changing constitutions, which is a lot more practical than the basically-as-of-now-impossible US procedure.) At this moment, if you want to keep "liberal" character of the country, your "checks and balances" institutions have to act in a fairly authoritarian ways and invalidate laws which attracted supermajority support. What is then stopping such institutions to just rule as they see fit? Even checks and balances need checks and balances. Nevertheless, I would say that "liberal democracy" isn't one that can always prevent illiberal policies from being enacted. I would say that it is one that can later correct them. Note that historically, most obvious executive encroachments of liberty (Guantanamo etc.) in the US were later overturned by new administrations.
        1y ago
hax0ron3 1y ago
I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference. Just imagine the difference in the level of fear that you would feel about 1) getting up in a public square in the US and yelling that Trump is a terrible person who should be removed from power, vs. 2) getting up in a public square in Russia and yelling that Putin is a terrible person who should be removed from power.
- pharrington 1y ago
  Have you heard of what ICE has been doing for the last six months? And that Trump has militarized Washington DC?
  - hax0ron3 1y ago
    Yes, but ICE is not deporting, denaturalizing, or imprisoning US citizens for their political opinions, and I would have very little to no fear about going to Washington DC right now, standing up on a podium, and yelling that Trump sucks while there are 100 National Guardsmen across the street from me. This is very different from what things are like in places like Russia.
    - treyd 1y ago
      See Mahmoud Khalil's case. They're trying to and would continue to have done so if they weren't blocked. What is there stopping them from changing the rules and doing it again?
      - hax0ron3 1y ago
        I disagree with what has been done in the Mahmoud Khalil matter. But it is a far distance between that on the one hand and what happens in places like Russia on the other. I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of Trump. My point is that there is a huge difference in the level of authoritarianism between today's US and what I consider to be actual authoritarian countries. Today's US is one of the freest countries on the entire planet. We should keep it that way. I don't see what good it does to act as if today's US is anywhere close to actual authoritarian countries.
mattnewton 1y ago
Yes, because we’re sliding into authoritarianism and we need to criticize and correct course
- pbhjpbhj 1y ago
  Sliding in? Your head of state declared themselves to be a dictator, declared the end of the rule of law, and ignores the constitution. They openly take bribes without consequences. They, or their handlers, unilaterally decide on the application of justice and the progress of investigations. They unilaterally control international relations (eg tariffs) without oversight. They put armed military on the streets. They have taken action to prevent ongoing democratic elections. At what point does it become authoritarian to you?
  - chasd00 1y ago
    if mid-term elections and the next presidential election are cancelled then i'll call it authoritarian. Until then you're just trolling.
    - pbhjpbhj 1y ago
      So Putin isn't authoritarian because he stages elections. And you require two _cancelled_ elections before declaring someone authoritarian? Reminder that Trump declared Zelensky a dictator for following his country's established democratic process. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      We might get a peak much sooner if the supreme court shoots down his tariffs.
    - 20after4 1y ago
      Trolling? They were stating facts.
gadders 1y ago
Yes, never happened under Biden. Completely new and unheard of.

freeone3000 1y ago

Perhaps the US is no longer a liberal democracy?

decremental 1y ago
[dead]
Jensson 1y ago
Was US ever a liberal democracy? People had much less liberties in the 1950s than today, with people getting arrested for their political views instead of just deported. not to mention segregation and such. They even put lawyers defending these politicians in prison for defending them... The constitution doesn't seem to matter since the government apparently don't have to care about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
- watersb 1y ago
  > Was US ever a liberal democracy? People had much less liberties in the 1950s than today, Your question deserves an answer. The US was a liberal (post-Enlightenment) democracy. Senator McCarthy was eventually kicked out of Congress for his witch hunt. President Nixon was confronted by Republican members of Congress, and he resigned after this meeting rather than face impeachment. So when I was a kid, lawmakers largely upheld the norms, the rule of law. Many of those same lawmakers might have today been considered racist or misogynist or might have failed some other standard of 21st century society. As a liberal democracy, the United States has never been perfect, but it's always been worth improving.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > So when I was a kid, lawmakers largely upheld the norms, the rule of law Only when McCarthy and those policies got unpopular, they let him do it as long as he was popular. So we will likely see the same with Trump, as long as he doesn't make as grave overreaches as they did back then likely nobody will do anything to him. That isn't rule of law, that is rule of personality.
    - SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
      Or popularity rather.
      - Jensson 1y ago
        Yeah, so not exactly liberal democracy. It is a democracy, but doesn't seem very liberal if the checks and balances doesn't work against popular policies.
        inglor_cz 1y ago
        I would argue that in that case, liberal democracy is an oxymoron. Really popular policies have a wide support among the population, which means that they will became law, or even an amendment to the constitution. (Most countries have something like 3/5 supermajority requirements for changing constitutions, which is a lot more practical than the basically-as-of-now-impossible US procedure.) At this moment, if you want to keep "liberal" character of the country, your "checks and balances" institutions have to act in a fairly authoritarian ways and invalidate laws which attracted supermajority support. What is then stopping such institutions to just rule as they see fit? Even checks and balances need checks and balances. Nevertheless, I would say that "liberal democracy" isn't one that can always prevent illiberal policies from being enacted. I would say that it is one that can later correct them. Note that historically, most obvious executive encroachments of liberty (Guantanamo etc.) in the US were later overturned by new administrations.
        1y ago

hax0ron3 1y ago

I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference. Just imagine the difference in the level of fear that you would feel about 1) getting up in a public square in the US and yelling that Trump is a terrible person who should be removed from power, vs. 2) getting up in a public square in Russia and yelling that Putin is a terrible person who should be removed from power.

pharrington 1y ago
Have you heard of what ICE has been doing for the last six months? And that Trump has militarized Washington DC?
- hax0ron3 1y ago
  Yes, but ICE is not deporting, denaturalizing, or imprisoning US citizens for their political opinions, and I would have very little to no fear about going to Washington DC right now, standing up on a podium, and yelling that Trump sucks while there are 100 National Guardsmen across the street from me. This is very different from what things are like in places like Russia.
  - treyd 1y ago
    See Mahmoud Khalil's case. They're trying to and would continue to have done so if they weren't blocked. What is there stopping them from changing the rules and doing it again?
    - hax0ron3 1y ago
      I disagree with what has been done in the Mahmoud Khalil matter. But it is a far distance between that on the one hand and what happens in places like Russia on the other. I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of Trump. My point is that there is a huge difference in the level of authoritarianism between today's US and what I consider to be actual authoritarian countries. Today's US is one of the freest countries on the entire planet. We should keep it that way. I don't see what good it does to act as if today's US is anywhere close to actual authoritarian countries.

mattnewton 1y ago

Yes, because we’re sliding into authoritarianism and we need to criticize and correct course

pbhjpbhj 1y ago
Sliding in? Your head of state declared themselves to be a dictator, declared the end of the rule of law, and ignores the constitution. They openly take bribes without consequences. They, or their handlers, unilaterally decide on the application of justice and the progress of investigations. They unilaterally control international relations (eg tariffs) without oversight. They put armed military on the streets. They have taken action to prevent ongoing democratic elections. At what point does it become authoritarian to you?
- chasd00 1y ago
  if mid-term elections and the next presidential election are cancelled then i'll call it authoritarian. Until then you're just trolling.
  - pbhjpbhj 1y ago
    So Putin isn't authoritarian because he stages elections. And you require two _cancelled_ elections before declaring someone authoritarian? Reminder that Trump declared Zelensky a dictator for following his country's established democratic process. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjev2j70v19o
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    We might get a peak much sooner if the supreme court shoots down his tariffs.
  - 20after4 1y ago
    Trolling? They were stating facts.

gadders 1y ago

Yes, never happened under Biden. Completely new and unheard of.