7 ms·

There are plenty of interesting things to be said about the United States and its similarities (and differences) to totalitarian regimes of the past. I don't th

by marvin 13y ago

There are plenty of interesting things to be said about the United States and its similarities (and differences) to totalitarian regimes of the past. I don't think we should point to Wikipedia as the authority on this matter, but it is perfectly okay to go to the primary sources for insight in this. These are recent historical developments, and the questions are covered in so much controversy that it is difficult to find unbiased commentary. As I have said before, there are plenty of really worrying developments in the theory and execution of power in the United States. When I say worrying, I mean worrying in the sense that they remind closely of things that totalitarian regimes have done in the past. We shouldn't be distracted too much by history when analyzing contemporary events - "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." The list, which you can compile by simply reading the news, is quite long: Warrantless dragnet surveillance, world record incarceration rate, selective enforcement and prosecution of unclear and conflicting criminal law, lifetime incarceration for non-violent crimes, utilization of paramilitary forces (SWAT teams) against non-violent offenders, plea bargains as a tool for simplifying prosecution under the threat of lifetime sentencing, indefinite detainment and incarceration with no judicial oversight (Guantanamo), extrajudicial execution of citizens (drone strikes), limitations on free speech during peaceful protests, systematic prosecution of whistleblowers. These are just some issues which are interesting to discuss. I am an outsider, and I believe the things I have quoted are facts which have very small political bias in the interpretation. The United States' deadlocked political system and prosecutors' role in the execution of power is also worthy of discussion, although it is harder to discuss this without taking a particular political view.

bananacurve 13y ago
>There are plenty of interesting things to be said about the United States and its similarities (and differences) to totalitarian regimes of the past. While implying that the US is a totalitaian state will get you lots of up votes from insecure europeans, the word has no meaning if it encompasses the current state of affairs in America. Could that change? Sure. Pretending it is already the case is fine as long as you realize you are just pretending.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  It certainly is for some. For example, the folks still indefinitely detained at Guantanamo would probably agree that it's a totalitarian state.
  - jrs235 13y ago
    I agree with you but due to the state of (teachings, or lack there of) our primary and secondary public school systems many probably think: "But if a majority think they should be locked up forever without trial then that's democracy and the goal we're striving for right?! We win!" EDIT: It seems the emphasis is a bit heavy on democracy and too little on liberty. The minority that needs the most protection is the individual.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The emphasis is heavy on democracy because that's the basis of our society. Rule by the majority. Rights are narrow exceptions to that general rule. That's why the bulk of the constitution talks about implementing the democracy, not rights.
      - dak1 13y ago
        Your comment is actually a rather good example of the grandparent's complaint. The 9th Amendment (which is essentially redundant in that it would be true even if it didn't exist), states that 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' The point is, Rights are not exceptions. It is the removal of a right that is the exception. In other words, you have the right to do anything unless it is made illegal, not the other way around.
        rayiner 13y ago
        That's not at all what the 9th amendment means. The 9th amendment says that the enumeration of rights in the constitution is not exhaustive. That is to say, it acknowledges that there are sources of rights besides the Constitution. These rights are those that exist from long standing practice in the English tradition. It does not mean that all rights exist unless specifically limited. You have to trace the right to some other source--you cannot simply assume the fact of its existence. Moreover, while it's true you can do what you want unless it's made illegal, the interesting question is instead: what can the majority make illegal? That's is the situation where majority consensus is the rule, and rights are the exception. In a democracy, the majority can legislate however it wants, limited only by certain acknowledged individual rights. In our democracy, we have two layers of legislatures, state and federal. The state legislatures inherited the sovereignty of the English King, and the constitution did not disturb that arrangement except in that the states delegated certain of that sovereignty to the federal government. But at the time of the founding, the power of the state legislatures was almost unbounded. They were not even limited by the rights in the Bill of Rights, which weren't applied to the states consistently until the 20th century (incorporated via the civil war amendments). Even now, the state governments are emphatically not ones of enumerated powers. The majority can do whatever it wants, limited only by federal law, or state or federal rights. At the federal level, within the broad enumerated powers of the government, the majority can do what it wants, limited only by federal rights. Again, the rule is majoritarian control. Rights are a limited backstop to that general rule. If anything, American education focuses too much on rights and not enough on democracy. K-12 curriculums tend not to cover any state constitutional law. They focus on enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights. But in doing so they paint a misleading picture of the Constitutional scheme. A scheme in which, as originally conceived, nothing would've prevented states from making it illegal to have sex with the lights on or outside of marriage or to use birth control or any of the other "moral" legislation that was very widespread at the time of the founding. I don't think expansion of rights of individuals has been a bad trend away from the original constitutional scheme, but it's misleading to paint the trend as pointing in the other direction. That characterization is simply a libertarian rewriting of history.
jessaustin 13y ago
As I have said before... Surely if anyone can change things in the USA for the better, it's you, Mr. President.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Surely if anyone can change things in the USA for the better, it's you, Mr. President. The US system of government is engineered to assure, more than anything else that a single actor cannot unilaterally effect major change.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    That may be the main ingredient, but that's not what it says on the tin. EDIT: More to your point, of course, if BHO (or GWB, or WJC, or c.) were the sort of person who could conceive of major changes, he wouldn't have been allowed within a mile of the presidency.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    > The US system of government is engineered to assure, more than anything else that a single actor cannot unilaterally effect major change. The executive branch tells us this out of one side of it's mouth, and out of the other side it says it must have broad latitude to act on matters of national security (a term it defines for it's own convenience) without review from the judicial branch and minimal oversight by legislators, who have no idea what questions to ask, never mind any recourse if they get undesirable answers. It's not wrong to label that a totalitarian tendency.
    - j_baker 13y ago
      According to wikipedia: """ Totalitarianism or totalitarian state is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. """ Sure, there are some really threatening things happening in the name of national security, but labeling these things "totalitarian" is hyperbole.
j_baker 13y ago
The US has really always been "practical" when it comes to Civil Liberties during times of war or disaster, going back to the Alien and Sedition Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts It's easy to be cynical about the way the US government is heading, but I believe that Americans care too much about their rights to let this type of thing continue. I mean, sure we have our fair share of threats to our democracy, but we also have a lot of rights in terms of fighting those threats. For example, I feel we have stronger protections for freedom of speech than most industrialized countries. As I understand it, in the UK you have nothing to prevent prior restraint on the part of the government. That is, the government can censor you before you publish something. In the US, this is illegal (Of course, the government can still punish you for publishing something illegal. They can only do it after it's been published.) Also, we've gone to great lengths to protect the rights of even the worst groups (the KKK, Fred Phelps and company), while some countries have provisions against this sort of thing. Long story short, I'm disappointed with the state of American democracy, but I'm hopeful. I think when more people learn about what's going on behind the scenes, things will change for the better. EDIT: Here's a fun fact. Part of the Alien and Sedition acts are still the law in the US: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21
- cdash 13y ago
  When is the US not at war though? Almost never as far as I know.
- jkrems 13y ago
  The UK is maybe the worst example for freedom (just because they have a tradition of security being more important - it's the country of 1984 and "Brave New World" after all). Comparing America with France and Germany you get a different picture of freedom of speech imho. I did not hear about people in those countries being held at airports for indefinite time because they were suspected of being in contact with journalists who published the wrong thing.
  - maratd 13y ago
    > Comparing America with France and Germany you get a different picture of freedom of speech imho. Germany is a terrible example of free speech. So is France. The parent is right, US is still way ahead on this specific point. Remember, free speech is the ability to voice extremely unpopular views without persecution by the state. Saying something everybody agrees with is not representative.

by marvin 13y ago

bananacurve 13y ago

>There are plenty of interesting things to be said about the United States and its similarities (and differences) to totalitarian regimes of the past. While implying that the US is a totalitaian state will get you lots of up votes from insecure europeans, the word has no meaning if it encompasses the current state of affairs in America. Could that change? Sure. Pretending it is already the case is fine as long as you realize you are just pretending.

redblacktree 13y ago
It certainly is for some. For example, the folks still indefinitely detained at Guantanamo would probably agree that it's a totalitarian state.
- jrs235 13y ago
  I agree with you but due to the state of (teachings, or lack there of) our primary and secondary public school systems many probably think: "But if a majority think they should be locked up forever without trial then that's democracy and the goal we're striving for right?! We win!" EDIT: It seems the emphasis is a bit heavy on democracy and too little on liberty. The minority that needs the most protection is the individual.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The emphasis is heavy on democracy because that's the basis of our society. Rule by the majority. Rights are narrow exceptions to that general rule. That's why the bulk of the constitution talks about implementing the democracy, not rights.
    - dak1 13y ago
      Your comment is actually a rather good example of the grandparent's complaint. The 9th Amendment (which is essentially redundant in that it would be true even if it didn't exist), states that 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' The point is, Rights are not exceptions. It is the removal of a right that is the exception. In other words, you have the right to do anything unless it is made illegal, not the other way around.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        That's not at all what the 9th amendment means. The 9th amendment says that the enumeration of rights in the constitution is not exhaustive. That is to say, it acknowledges that there are sources of rights besides the Constitution. These rights are those that exist from long standing practice in the English tradition. It does not mean that all rights exist unless specifically limited. You have to trace the right to some other source--you cannot simply assume the fact of its existence. Moreover, while it's true you can do what you want unless it's made illegal, the interesting question is instead: what can the majority make illegal? That's is the situation where majority consensus is the rule, and rights are the exception. In a democracy, the majority can legislate however it wants, limited only by certain acknowledged individual rights. In our democracy, we have two layers of legislatures, state and federal. The state legislatures inherited the sovereignty of the English King, and the constitution did not disturb that arrangement except in that the states delegated certain of that sovereignty to the federal government. But at the time of the founding, the power of the state legislatures was almost unbounded. They were not even limited by the rights in the Bill of Rights, which weren't applied to the states consistently until the 20th century (incorporated via the civil war amendments). Even now, the state governments are emphatically not ones of enumerated powers. The majority can do whatever it wants, limited only by federal law, or state or federal rights. At the federal level, within the broad enumerated powers of the government, the majority can do what it wants, limited only by federal rights. Again, the rule is majoritarian control. Rights are a limited backstop to that general rule. If anything, American education focuses too much on rights and not enough on democracy. K-12 curriculums tend not to cover any state constitutional law. They focus on enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights. But in doing so they paint a misleading picture of the Constitutional scheme. A scheme in which, as originally conceived, nothing would've prevented states from making it illegal to have sex with the lights on or outside of marriage or to use birth control or any of the other "moral" legislation that was very widespread at the time of the founding. I don't think expansion of rights of individuals has been a bad trend away from the original constitutional scheme, but it's misleading to paint the trend as pointing in the other direction. That characterization is simply a libertarian rewriting of history.

jessaustin 13y ago

As I have said before... Surely if anyone can change things in the USA for the better, it's you, Mr. President.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Surely if anyone can change things in the USA for the better, it's you, Mr. President. The US system of government is engineered to assure, more than anything else that a single actor cannot unilaterally effect major change.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 13y ago
  That may be the main ingredient, but that's not what it says on the tin. EDIT: More to your point, of course, if BHO (or GWB, or WJC, or c.) were the sort of person who could conceive of major changes, he wouldn't have been allowed within a mile of the presidency.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  > The US system of government is engineered to assure, more than anything else that a single actor cannot unilaterally effect major change. The executive branch tells us this out of one side of it's mouth, and out of the other side it says it must have broad latitude to act on matters of national security (a term it defines for it's own convenience) without review from the judicial branch and minimal oversight by legislators, who have no idea what questions to ask, never mind any recourse if they get undesirable answers. It's not wrong to label that a totalitarian tendency.
  - j_baker 13y ago
    According to wikipedia: """ Totalitarianism or totalitarian state is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. """ Sure, there are some really threatening things happening in the name of national security, but labeling these things "totalitarian" is hyperbole.

j_baker 13y ago

The US has really always been "practical" when it comes to Civil Liberties during times of war or disaster, going back to the Alien and Sedition Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts It's easy to be cynical about the way the US government is heading, but I believe that Americans care too much about their rights to let this type of thing continue. I mean, sure we have our fair share of threats to our democracy, but we also have a lot of rights in terms of fighting those threats. For example, I feel we have stronger protections for freedom of speech than most industrialized countries. As I understand it, in the UK you have nothing to prevent prior restraint on the part of the government. That is, the government can censor you before you publish something. In the US, this is illegal (Of course, the government can still punish you for publishing something illegal. They can only do it after it's been published.) Also, we've gone to great lengths to protect the rights of even the worst groups (the KKK, Fred Phelps and company), while some countries have provisions against this sort of thing. Long story short, I'm disappointed with the state of American democracy, but I'm hopeful. I think when more people learn about what's going on behind the scenes, things will change for the better. EDIT: Here's a fun fact. Part of the Alien and Sedition acts are still the law in the US: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21

cdash 13y ago
When is the US not at war though? Almost never as far as I know.
jkrems 13y ago
The UK is maybe the worst example for freedom (just because they have a tradition of security being more important - it's the country of 1984 and "Brave New World" after all). Comparing America with France and Germany you get a different picture of freedom of speech imho. I did not hear about people in those countries being held at airports for indefinite time because they were suspected of being in contact with journalists who published the wrong thing.
- maratd 13y ago
  > Comparing America with France and Germany you get a different picture of freedom of speech imho. Germany is a terrible example of free speech. So is France. The parent is right, US is still way ahead on this specific point. Remember, free speech is the ability to voice extremely unpopular views without persecution by the state. Saying something everybody agrees with is not representative.